Critics Knock the Web Fluid Out of Spider-Man Musical

Brad Shepard

New member
Sep 9, 2009
4,393
0
0
So, is this bad like "Transformers" bad, or bad as in "The Room" bad? Because if its the later, i might see it just for laughs.
 

TehIrishSoap

New member
Aug 18, 2010
382
0
0
Read about this in "Empire" magazine last month, it needs to play to packed houses for 2 years just to break even o_o
 

BstrdChris

New member
Feb 10, 2011
31
0
0
i may just have to sell tickets whoever wants to see my crap go swirling down the toilet. the only difference would be that my show has no delays, i'm always right on schedule. DANCE, TURDS, DANNNNNNCE!!!!
 

laststandman

New member
Jun 27, 2009
594
0
0
Fronzel said:
I imagine bad reviews always do a particular show more harm than good, but that's hardly going to cause the downfall of theater (the critics' subject matter).

Why should anyone care how difficult it was to get this show running except those who have a stake in it? All that effort doesn't have to mean the show is worth watching.
It wont be, but it will just hurt all of the people involved in the show. The actors, the musicians, and especially the theater crew. And that's why you and I wont really be able to see eye-to-eye on this, because I do have a stake in it. I see my dad for about 45 minutes a day because he's working on this show from 8am until midnight. The theater has been completely gutted and transformed since the show got new life last winter, with my dad there every day. I want this show to last as long as it can because I know that when it goes, the theater is going to have to go through that work-intensive process again, and neither my dad nor any of his guys are going to be able to have a more normal working schedule again, and they deserve that.

I really would not expect you or anyone here to understand the way I feel about it, because it seems so distant from the heart to most people. But this is something I care about and would love to see continue to run because I do understand what went into it on multiple levels. To me, it's not just an amount in dollars, it's sacrifice. It's my having to work on other shows while the theater seemed dead so he could keep working, and about having reporters who don't know what their talking about bash the show before it was even in the load-in process because they're "having too much fun" bashing it. This show, if it does well, will put me through college. A critic doesn't understand any of that.

I liked the show, but I understand why people would not like it. I understand people not wanting it to succeed for a lack of understanding as to what went into it, and I understand people not caring. But to me its artistic merit or quality takes a backseat to the imperativeness of its continuance, for my dad, his crew, and all of the other people who have worked harder than you can imagine to put this together. I hope people find it worth watching, and I hope they do come see it. My dad says that if the show does well, it will be the last show he does before he retires. I hope he's right.
 

laststandman

New member
Jun 27, 2009
594
0
0
Fronzel said:
You don't seem that understanding of critics who are interested in artistic merit and don't know and/or don't care about its complicated stagecraft. You dismiss them by saying the show's "not for them".
I wouldn't say that either. I would say that when it comes down to caring about what a critic has to say, and caring for a show that I do have a stake in to stay open, it becomes a real easy choice. And if you were in my position, where bad press threatens the quality of life of people around you, I've got a strong feeling you would think in a rather similar manner.

And furthermore I would like to readdress the idea of something being "for" critics. Nothing is made for critics. It is made for consumers. Critics thrive off of the existence of things to critique. Without something to critique, critics would not exist, whereas without critics, products would still be produced. In fact, critics are "made" for products, not the other way around.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
laststandman said:
Fronzel said:
You don't seem that understanding of critics who are interested in artistic merit and don't know and/or don't care about its complicated stagecraft. You dismiss them by saying the show's "not for them".
I wouldn't say that either. I would say that when it comes down to caring about what a critic has to say, and caring for a show that I do have a stake in to stay open, it becomes a real easy choice. And if you were in my position, where bad press threatens the quality of life of people around you, I've got a strong feeling you would think in a rather similar manner.

And furthermore I would like to readdress the idea of something being "for" critics. Nothing is made for critics. It is made for consumers. Critics thrive off of the existence of things to critique. Without something to critique, critics would not exist, whereas without critics, products would still be produced. In fact, critics are "made" for products, not the other way around.
Bad press is threatening their quality of life? Give me a break. This is how all arts industries function, in an extremely competitive and harsh environment. If you want to do well, you have to produce quality artwork. Why should this musical get a free ride just because you happen to know people working on it?
 

Dfskelleton

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,851
0
0
I'm so shocked and surprised! I thought this was going to be the most amazing peice of artwork extracted from the purity of the human soul that has ever been displayed to mortal eyes!
 

Dfskelleton

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,851
0
0
UltimatheChosen said:
BonsaiK said:
Lies - audiences didn't like Transformers.
I did.

Granted, it wasn't the best movie ever, but it was still fairly entertaining and enjoyable.
I agree. It wasn't particularly great, but the special effects were sleek and seeing giant robots impale each other is very entertaining.