Monday, November 28, 2011
‘Spider-Man,’ a Year After First Preview, Is on Solid Ground
NYTimes.com: One year after naysayers were predicting a quick death, the musical “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark” is doubling down on Broadway, forgoing potentially lucrative overseas tours in the near term to try to refine the New York production and burnish the long-term value of the show.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I know that they say that they are finalizing and getting the show solidified before expanding the production to tours and foreign productions, but I don't know if I believe it. Book of Mormon put on a tour because of the demand. I might just be out of the loop, but I cannot see the demand for Spider-man being that immense.
And still, that 5 year mark is still there. Spiderman may be doing well now, but can it really hold that up for 5 years? I'm skeptical.
Even if this is only temporary, I'm heartened to see that Spider-Man (for the most part) overcame it's biggest hurdles. Spider-Man became the source of many jokes, but really the show has some really innovative elements that are quite impressive to watch. I hope that this show becomes a model for other shows that plan to go big and introduce some new technology and concepts. Mostly this show will probably display a good "what not to do" type of case, but ultimately I think there's a lot to be learned from the journey of the show. I hope it continues to be stable.
It is nice to hear that it at last it seems like Spider-Man has moved on from burning train wreck to at least a somewhat profitable train wreck. I was beginning to worry if Spider-Man's unique marketing plan of brutal injuries, stop and go shows, and sperattic closings was ever going to pay off for it. While I am sure that the show has evolved and improved since it's original opening, part of me still really wonders if part of it's draw is to the the freak show rather then the show itself.
I'm glad that this show is finally above water now and beginning to head towards financial profitability. I like how there are plans to release a new number or add different things each year to maintain an audience that would return to see a second (or more) show(s). These kind of twists keep things interesting. It's promising to know that the presale tickets for the upcoming weeks are looking good too. The bit about it being a good musical for foreign audiences is a good observation, since so many people know about Spider Man internationally and would pay to see the show live.
At this point I kind of want the production to succeed, it has hit so many road blocks but they have overcome the obstacles and the end is almost in sight. I still think that they will need to rely on overseas franchises to actually do this because I don't think the show will ever be as successful as Wicked. Julie Taymor's lawsuit is blocking these international productions. She just need to shut up and get away from this production once and for all. Even if the show runs for 5 years if they lose 10% of their weekly income that puts them at netting zero profit or a loss.
It's great that Spider Man is doing better, but I disagree with the producers plan for the show. In the article it says they intend to add a new musical number every year, imitating the comic book, to get repeat views from people. I just don't see that working out. If I want to see a musical again, I'll see it again (I've seen Wicked 4 times), but the prospect of a new song wouldn't factor into that decision at all. I don't think they would increase their numbers by doing that, and might end up removing really good parts of the show to fit the new songs in. In addition, they would be spending money to make this happen. I think a better strategy is just to perfect the show, make it as strong as possible, and then keep it that way.
I honestly had just started to forget about Spiderman... but after this article I remain somewhat annoyed at their presence on Broadway because they still set a somewhat skewed example for what's next in the Broadway world. One quote that stuck out was, “As we were putting that last round of money in, it was kind of like, ‘Oh God, we’re just out of our minds here,’ ” he said." If a producer says that in a New York Times article, how is it going to help encourage others to try their hand at producing? The whole situation still irks me, because I would rather see more original and innovative shows (this is certainly innovative design-wise, but the material from what I hear isn't all that strong) making it to Broadway and making that kind of bank. But that's just my opinion. And I'm happy at least to see a large cast of AEA actors and stage managers getting paid on a weekly basis.
It seems that they were really able to turn this show around from its terrible start to now, but I am surprised that it is doing so well. I personally have not seen a huge demand for it. I remember when they first announced Shrek the musical came out my teacher in high school said “what are they going to do next Spiderman.” Imagine how surprised I was when that was exactly what they happened. I am curious to find out if this show will have lasting power.
Do to a generous CMU alumni, I receive Variety magazine which sits in my bathroom.
Every week, the first thing I do is turn to the legit box office to see how Spiderman did this week. The big players: Book of Mormon, Wicked, Lion King, War Horse are always 99%-100% capacity. Spiderman is running a solid 85%. I am not a Broadway futurist forecaster but Spiderman is not packing them in like the article would suggest.
Next major issue is how on earth could this thing tour. They could build other resident stages like Wicked did in Chicago or Phantom in Toronto but I do not really see a way that this show could tour anything close to what its technological capacity is right now.
I wonder if Spider-Man has really moved on from it's train wreck or if this is just another PR put out there to make it look good. Also how will this show tour? I just can't see it. I feel like the second they begin to tour more problems will arise. If they do end up touring I really hope they get a good team together so nobody gets hurt. I just feel like more bad things will continue to follow this show. It's not that I want it to, it's just a feeling. Like a sixth sense.
I never thought I would say this but I am thoroughly impressed. I would assume that after 50 million dollars the producers would have had second thoughts, but nay! They put their money where their mouths were and look at the results. Now Spiderman is actually safe AND attracting audiences. It's the best of both worlds! I have to say though, I am a bit disappointed that I would be paying several hundred bucks for a ticket with little chance of seeing someone fall to their doom but progress is progress. Bully for them!
Im not sure this even matters. the fact that it took a year and millions of waisted dollars to get the shoe off the ground leaves any success of this production into question. i strongly believe the success of any show is in the safety and efficiency of its production and when those lines are so grossly overboard, the success after is that of spectacle rather than any merit. The outlook for this show may be good, but it will take a historically long run to actually make up for all the losses this show has and some damages are permnant.
For a show of this scale, mounting tours and alternate productions likely wouldn't be as easy a way to increase the net income ratio as it is for other shows; while the time spent ironing out the script was a major cost in tech, the scenery and automation that another production of this would require far exceed the needs of a typical tour because nobody would want to see a watered-down Spiderman at this point. If they tried to mount a tour, the load-in and load-out costs would be ridiculous because of the flying needs.
Their talk of how to keep audiences coming back is an unusual one for a show still in its infancy, but an important one nonetheless. This is an area where the European rotating rep model has a big leg up on Broadway.
It is nice to finally hear some uncharacteristic good news about Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark. Though the investment may not be made worthwhile for another 5 years run, I see this show running longer than that. Also, they said 5 years until it becomes a "financial success"- not break even, right? Regardless, the kinks of the show, largely technically, will be worked out in time. And with this time, they can improve upon what I think is the weakest part of the show- the acting and music(and to be honest, the acting is greatly upstaged by the impressive set, hydrolics, and intricate technologies at hand). I got to give Christopher Tierney credit for returning to the show. After falling 20 feet and nearly becoming paralyzed, that takes a whole lot of confidence in a production to return to the show after all that.
I'm really glad this show has settled down after its tumultuous beginnings. I guess I didn't notice the absence of articles on actors getting stuck in the air and such problems. I think it is a momentous feat to be able to pull off this show in this way and get it to a place where it will run safely and well for every performance. But I am very skeptical of how long the show will last. I could be wrong, but I doubt it will last long enough to recoup their costs or turn a profit. I hope they consider themselves lucky they even opened. I do.
When Spider-Man first previewed I did not think it would still be here a year later. And whether or not you like the show, you've got to hand it to them--they're doing something right.
I think their new ploys for advertising could work really well. At least they're trying to do something to help the show stay afloat. And it seems like the producing team is trying to come up with as much as they can to help the show. I'm excited to see if their advertisement strategies work. Hopefully they'll still be here next year.
Post a Comment