Spiderman 2.0- Page 4

[tazber]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 8:12am

K.

Updated On: 5/13/11 at 08:12 AM

Posted: 5/13/11 at 8:12am

Gum-

if the music popped. If the songs had an ounce of 'catchy' to it...
If the text had any life.....

it would be more of a seller for me.

but it was a bore...and just bland.
I'd rather watch the first film on Netflix.

and it is not needed to have to pay X amount of money to see something like this.
There is really nothing breathtaking about this production except fearing a poor actor is going to fall out of a cord. That is not theatre...it's watching a youtube clip waiting for an accident to happen.

We saw flying in Tarzan and people fly over our heads in De La Guarda and Fuerza Bruta.....which by the way---had better music hands down. De la Guarda...NOT Tarzan.

When you sell a musical- and the 2 main problems are music and story/book and text-----

the flash and spectacle dies real fast alongside it.

I understand it is all revolutionary----and very expensive...

but not worth the expense--for both sides of the coin.

at least for me.

Updated On: 5/13/11 at 08:12 AM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 8:22am

I swear i must be the only person who likes many of the songs in the show. I love Bouncing Off The Walls, Rise Above, If The World Should End, Turn Off The Dark etc.

I think the feel of the score (having a rock score) is the perfect way to go for the show if you like the score of not. Trying to make it more like the Superman Score would be insane. It would not appeal to a younger audience and would make the whole thing very campy, something the movies managed to move away from (as did Batman as will the new Superman).

The soundtracks for the Spiderman films are filled with Rock music and they are a perfect match

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 8:34am

^ you're not alone sonanddanceman. I love the music as well!

[gum]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 8:35am

taboo : that's your opinion and I certainly respect it, I'm not saying everyone should love this show. I'm just saying that the opinion of SOME people (one specifically on this board but I'm sure we could add many to that list especially in the press) can't be taken seriously about it. You can feel free no to consider mine trustworthy too of course when I say that I think the score is fantastic, plain and simple. But at least if anything I haven't shown the same irrational obsession than those people to try to make everyone follow my own opinion at all costs.
Updated On: 5/13/11 at 08:35 AM

Posted: 5/13/11 at 8:59am

GUM

got it.

For me,..
I just don't find this to be musical theatre or Broadway.

I see it more of a Vegas show mixed with a Six Flags Stunt show.

Actually....Six Flags in NJ had a Batman stunt show years ago...
It was great. And although I don;t remember the music in it now years later...
I remember enjoying it at the time...it was catchy.

And I think that this show caters to that Roman Colisseum concept/crowd. Let's watch people get fed to the lions.

I really wanted to love it.
I had great seats.
i was truly hopeful.

But as a theatre/music fan---it left me very flat.

i kinda wished that maybe they just inserted U2's catalog stuff which is somewhat more melodical and catchy and at least fun.

The best parts musically was listening to 'Beautiful Day' come out of Goblin's cellphone---or riff off of I will Follow(I think) piping out of the car stereo. Those 3 second blips had more fun and spiked interest and laughs from the crowd.
Even the use of the song title 'Sunday Bloody SUnday' was cutre and the diehard U2 fans in the house got it.

Unfortunately...eveyone else seemed left out.

[tazber]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:11am

But at least if anything I haven't shown the same irrational obsession than those people to try to make everyone follow my own opinion at all costs.

Do you not realize that is exactly what you're doing in this thread?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:17am

Hey, Cum - Suck it. Who the hell do you think you are, joining today to tell me that my opinion is invalid? My friends and I went in last night genuinely excited to see this show again. The first incarnation of the show was trash. It was one of the most incomprehensible pieces of garbage I'd ever had to sit through in all my years of attending theater and the majority of that had to do with Julie Taymor and her inability to direct. SO, after a hiatus to fix the show I wanted to know if it was at all possible to fix something that was so unfixable, in my opinion. You may not believe this but I want every show to succeed and be great. I'm like a casting director who hopes everyone who comes in that door will blow me away, but as we all know, they can't all be great.

The cast and creative team are to be commended for taking out SO much of what made the show a joke before and turning it into something new in only three weeks. My opinion is that even with all those changes, it's still just not very good. I'm glad they fleshed out scenes between Peter and MJ, they were desperately needed before. Some of the songs (especially MJ's) are very pretty and what didn't stand out to me before did now, thanks to putting them in a different context. However, the show is still a cheap looking, poorly written theme park "spectacle" aimed at an audience who (like the gentleman next to me) likes to take off their shoes and eat cracker jack. Not that there's anything wrong with that when it comes to this type of show, but when it was over, even he said it was "stupid".

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:23am

taboo-

While I agree with many of your points about the flaws of the show, I take issue with your pronouncement that you "don't find this to be musical theatre or Broadway."

Maybe you can explain, but it sounds like you have a narrow idea about what "musical theatre" and "Broadway" have to be. Don't you think there is room for different types of musicals on Broadway? Shouldn't we always welcome and foster shows that expand the perimeters of the art form, even if they fail?

Do Company and Hair not have enough of a book to be considered musical theater? Was Passing Strange too much of a rock concert? Were [title of show] and Avenue Q too "off-Broadway" for the main stage? Do Candide and Sweeney Todd only belong in the opera house?

I guess I just don't like when people want to discount the show because they think it's in the wrong venue. If the show was in Vegas would it make it a good show?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:30am

No. There's still not enough spectacle for a Vegas style show. There's nothing "special" looking about it.
Updated On: 5/13/11 at 09:30 AM

[egghumor]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:45am

all this rabid protective psychodrama played out on this thread by jordan and dramamama611 is really ridiculous. Anytime someone takes issue with Jordan, here comes dramamama to the rescue. You guys should just rent a room so HE can "suck it," and get it over with!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:47am

I can't even pretend to understand what that means.

[egghumor]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:49am

figures.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:49am

Jordan, as far as I'm concerned, your opinions and wry sense of humor are always welcome here.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:50am

I agree Dottie! Jordan is one of the funniest and sharpest posters on this board, and I can't figure out what he said in this thread that got a few people so upset.

[egghumor]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:51am

I guess Dottie will be allowed to suck it now, too!

[tazber]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:01am

Jordan is much loved and always hilarious.

This thread is nowhere near the level of "psychodrama" seen in other threads. In fact it's downright cordial.

Here are my questions:

What was that poster's name who always defended Spidey when actors were being hospitalized daily, and which one of the two bitches in this thread is he posting as now?

[tazber]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:06am

EW breaks down the changes:

More action: The new show includes a number of new “flying” sequences, plus more web-slinging and more scenes of Spidey bagging bad guys.

More exposition: The critically maligned Geek Chorus is indeed gone, so dialogue has been added to clarify major plot points and character motivation.

More Goblin, less Arachne: Arachne, a major character in the original show, has been reduced to a small supporting role. She’s now a guardian angel figure who appears only a handful of times. Her Furies, the minions who performed the infamous “Deeply Furious” number, have been removed entirely. Taking Arachne’s place as the show’s main evildoer is the Green Goblin, whose climactic fight with Spider-Man — which used to conclude the first act — is now the show’s finale.

New jokes: The new script takes plenty of tongue-in-cheek jabs at the media — inspired, no doubt, by the show’s spiky relationship with news outlets that have covered its troubles. J. Jonah Jameson, the fiery Daily Bugle editor, denounces bloggers and defends his newspaper by saying it’s “not the [New York] Post.” Later, the Goblin winkingly refers to himself as a “65 million dollar circus tragedy.”

Expanded characters: With Arachne out of the picture, supporting characters like Emily Osborn (the Green Goblin’s wife) and Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben and Aunt May have been beefed up.

A new song: While most of the musical numbers have been reworked, the only brand new song is “Freak Like Me,” a hard-edged anthem sung by the Green Goblin.

Still, not everything in the show was different. Most of Taymor’s set pieces remain intact, and the first act — which shows Peter Parker’s transformation into Spider-Man — follows a trajectory similar to its initial version. Also back: the show’s infamous onstage malfunctions. Stage hands were frequently visible in the wings, and Patrick Page, who plays the Goblin, appeared to improvise an extended version of his ballad “I’ll Take Manhattan” at one point when Spider-Man failed to appear on cue.
Link

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:19am

I find the comments about how it's just a tourist show sort of perplexing and almost humorous. Of course it is! A musical about Spider-Man on Broadway SHOULD be for tourists. It would be pretty stupid to create such a thing without excessive spectacle with the tourist family market in mind. It's a shame that the written material doesn't seem to be at the same level of the visual and I can understand the criticism for that. There are shows created with tourists in mind and there are shows created for art, emotion and form. I don't recall Spider-Man being created for anything other than spectacle and if the tourists like it, then maybe they will keep it going like they do for every show on Broadway that recoups. The locals sure don't keep a show afloat. The money's been spent and now we'll see where the chips fall. But if attaching the word "tourist" is supposed to be some kind of insult, then all shows should be so insulted.

[willheim2]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:21am

Jordan, I have always found your comments wry and insightful and free from any real malice.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:23am

Mister Matt, I totally understand what you mean by that. What I personally meant by that was (and maybe it's wrong in my thinking) the show seemed slapped together for no reason other than to get money from the tourists who want a spectacle. I've said many times before, there's nothing wrong with that but they're pretending to make great art here which they, clearly, are not doing.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:24am

And thank you, Willheim2. I'm actually a pretty nice guy!

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:38am

Whizzer-
I do believe Broadway should welcome all types.

But for my personal taste..
I feel this is just an overproduced stunt show you see at Six Flags.
Because of it's stale music and book...I can't consider it musical theatre. Just a visual stunt-show tourist trap.

Which I whole heartedly welcome if it is going to keep jobs alive and pump money in NYC's economy.

By all means, buy a t-shirt, buy popcorn...do what you need to do.

just because it resides in a theatre-doesn't mean it's musical theatre.

I think of it as Wintuk- in Madison Square Garden Theatre --- a special event, if you will.

But not musical theatre.
When floppy sets, costumes and "spectacle" swallow up the performers, inlcuding watching more than 1 spiderman fly at the same time from left to right..or seeing stage crew aid performers throughout the whole show-that feeling of enjoying it is gone. Plus the weak music and the book---and eats them alive on stage.....


It doesn't really fit into musical theatre for me.
Sorry. it just doesn't.

I want to leave humming tunes, remembering melodies, i want to run and buy the soundtrack, i want to connect with characters, I want solid memorable performances, I want the actors to reach their notes intended as written..i want to feel for any of the characters,...i want to hope, fear, believe and be moved by the piece..or laugh...or see/hear a story develop.

for all i cared, the performers could've lip-synched and it wouldn't have mattered becuase the audience just wanted to see spectacle because the writing and music wasn't interesting enough to want to experience on its own.

I want to see memorable dance and be inspired by the dancing,
I just think this project fell into the wrong hands..that's all.

again...this is just a preview.
I still hope they make radical changes before opening.
and wish them the best.


Listen, it's gonna sell.
It's gonna make millions.
Millions more than we will ever see in our lives.
Everyone is fine at the end of the day.

just the fact that in less than 24 hours, this thread has received almost 12,000 hits...

means it well sell. people are interested. good or not.

I just think it wouldn't have received so much attention or rage if it hadn't been in a braodway theatre.
If this was at MSG or Randall's Island as an event-
the way cirque du Soleil does their thing-no one would have thought twice about it and all this hoopla would have been avoided.

at the end of the day..
good for NYC economy.

Updated On: 5/13/11 at 10:38 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 11:08am

Taboo-

Ha, you start by saying Broadway should welcome all types, but I guess just not this type, right?

You say because of the stale music and book you can't consider it musical theater. Well there are plenty of shows that had "stale music and books," but they are still musical theater. Several of my friends thought "A Catered Affair" was deathly "stale" (I liked it, but what do I know?).

You can buy a t-shirt at a lot of Broadway shows (you could even buy one at "A Doll's Life!" I hope that doesn't discount it as musical theater.). Mary Poppins and Addams Family could be considered "popcorn" shows- does that disqualify them from being musical theater?

The stage crew was visible because this was a preview. If you didn't want to possibly see them you should have waited until June 14th to go to Spiderman. As you seem well aware of the history with this show you should have known better.

Many shows on Broadway have had large spectacle that you could argue swallowed up the performers.

How do you define "musical theater?"

Is it just humming tunes when you leave the building? If so I bet many would have to discount shows like Marie Christine and Juno. Same goes for buying the cast recordings.

I want to connect with characters when I go to the theater too. I didn't connect with a single character in Bengal Tiger recently, but that doesn't mean it wasn't theater. I didn't hope, fear, believe or be moved by the piece, and it certainly didn't make me laugh. It's still theater.

I want to see memorable dance too. Good Vibrations had laughable dancing, but I don't think that stopped it from being theater.

Basically I'm not trying to convince you to like Spiderman. I just don't see why it doesn't qualify to be "musical theater."

[trentsketch]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 11:11am

I'm not going to lie about it: I am going to miss all the bizarre Greek theatrical conventions Julie Taymor put in the show. I love that she had the nerve to go there even though those moments were hit or miss at best. I will not, however, miss Deeply Furious and a spider demon trying to screw a superhero in a supposed family friendly show.

That said, I'm excited that people can now clearly identify a plot and realize that U2 was just as responsible for the failure of the original version as Julie Taymor was. Now that her contribution is limited to sets, costumes, and Arachne, you can really focus on how--maybe Rise Above, Boy Falls From The Sky, and If The World Should End aside--the score all blends together into a mishmash of boring almost-rock that doesn't service the story at all.

And gum, Jordan's not the only person to criticize Julie Taymor on this website. This website isn't the only place to criticize Julie Taymor. For goodness sake, there were professional theater critics who were publishing nasty comments about her on an almost-weekly basis and passing it off as theatrical criticism. Your account creation date of today and your constant barrage of attacks against Jordan makes me think A)you're a sock puppet and B)you got hurt by one of Jordan's more sarcastic moments and want revenge. I'm sorry he hurt you, but a thread reviewing the new version of Spider-Man is not the place to express your grievances with another user. Do you have anything productive to add to a discussion of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark?