Man. At first, it was kind of morbidly interesting how the people behind this disaster just kept pressing forward, but now it's just getting sad.
Spider-Man Musical's Cast Dropping Like Flies
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Every time I see news about that glorious monstrosity of a musical, I'm struck by the following observation: There is a person out there responsible for unleashing that rich source of comedic fodder (part of a balanced breakfast for snarky internet pundits) on the world (to the collective laughter, bafflement, and ire of the world), and they did so because they thought it was a good idea.
What I'd really like to know though is who would actually give that person money so that they could make that absurdly bad idea reality, as the mind that produced the Spider-Man musical is clearly not playing with a full deck of cards. The internet has been collectively either laughing its ass off, nerd-raging, or expressing simple bafflement that it actually exists. Nobody expects it to make money (not after blowing an almost comically large wad of cash just getting it to this point). Everyone expects it to flop miserably, as there really isn't an audience for a musical about Spider-Man (the people who actually like Spider-Man are the ones most likely to find the entire exercise insulting, and the overlap between comic-book nerds and musical theater wasn't that large to begin with).
It is genuinely hard to believe that the doom and gloom that surrounds the whole ill-fated affair could come as a surprise to anyone, so it really puzzles me that there exist out there individuals who had a reaction other than "laugh at the person asking you to throw your damn money away on one of the worst ideas in history until such time as they go away" when they were asked for money to make this... thing; if ever a situation called for the derisive laughter approach, fund-raising for the Spider-Man musical was it.
What I'd really like to know though is who would actually give that person money so that they could make that absurdly bad idea reality, as the mind that produced the Spider-Man musical is clearly not playing with a full deck of cards. The internet has been collectively either laughing its ass off, nerd-raging, or expressing simple bafflement that it actually exists. Nobody expects it to make money (not after blowing an almost comically large wad of cash just getting it to this point). Everyone expects it to flop miserably, as there really isn't an audience for a musical about Spider-Man (the people who actually like Spider-Man are the ones most likely to find the entire exercise insulting, and the overlap between comic-book nerds and musical theater wasn't that large to begin with).
It is genuinely hard to believe that the doom and gloom that surrounds the whole ill-fated affair could come as a surprise to anyone, so it really puzzles me that there exist out there individuals who had a reaction other than "laugh at the person asking you to throw your damn money away on one of the worst ideas in history until such time as they go away" when they were asked for money to make this... thing; if ever a situation called for the derisive laughter approach, fund-raising for the Spider-Man musical was it.
Too late...we've been jinxed. We've already had Super Mario Brothers on Ice...this will probably happen too.The Rogue Wolf said:
To make things worse...Iceman, Frostman, and Blizzardman won't even appear as villians.
I feel mixed on this. I am all for a comic book musicals as the characters are larger than life and the premise itself is requires so much suspension of disbelief that the characters breaking out into song is only a marginal step further. This is coming from a novice fan of musical theater and long time fan of comic books.
Spider-man is a great character for a musical. He is a everyman, working his day job, and trying to be good nephew to his Aunt May, and then he is also one of the coolest superheroes around. His story can one moment be poignant (as with flashbacks with Uncle Ben) and the next be fantastic as web swings through Manhattan. These traits worked well for film and would work in a stage production as well.
However, the more I learn about THIS musical the more bothered I am. Everything from the gaudy costumes to the silly title, just screams of someone that has lost themselves to their own ego. Someone who failed to edit their own work, or be edited by anyone else. Acrobatic performance are done on adaily basis by Cirque De Sole but they practice like hell, and perfect their craft before they put a show on. None of that professionalism is apparent here.
So I fear we have a train wreck on our hands, but I want argue the point that it is not a train wreck because a: it was a musical b: it was based on a comic book c: a combination there of, but rather, d: it was handled by the wrong person
For those who are not fans of musicals and have no idea what oddities have come about in modern history here is some particular odd successes:
Spring Awakening: A rock-musical adaptation of a 1891 German play set in the same period and European location.
Sweeney Todd: A murderous barber who gets rid of the bodies by having them baked in pies.
The Lion King: the Disney musical played by a cast in what is a cross of puppets and anthropomorphic costumes with an African ascetic.
Bat Boy: mutant bat child (like the one in the Weekly World News) who was found in a cave.
and
Urinetown which is set in a dystopian future where people get the death penatly for peeing in public.
So if these can work, its not that big of a stretch that a musical about a man with spider powers who fights crime.
Spider-man is a great character for a musical. He is a everyman, working his day job, and trying to be good nephew to his Aunt May, and then he is also one of the coolest superheroes around. His story can one moment be poignant (as with flashbacks with Uncle Ben) and the next be fantastic as web swings through Manhattan. These traits worked well for film and would work in a stage production as well.
However, the more I learn about THIS musical the more bothered I am. Everything from the gaudy costumes to the silly title, just screams of someone that has lost themselves to their own ego. Someone who failed to edit their own work, or be edited by anyone else. Acrobatic performance are done on adaily basis by Cirque De Sole but they practice like hell, and perfect their craft before they put a show on. None of that professionalism is apparent here.
So I fear we have a train wreck on our hands, but I want argue the point that it is not a train wreck because a: it was a musical b: it was based on a comic book c: a combination there of, but rather, d: it was handled by the wrong person
For those who are not fans of musicals and have no idea what oddities have come about in modern history here is some particular odd successes:
Spring Awakening: A rock-musical adaptation of a 1891 German play set in the same period and European location.
Sweeney Todd: A murderous barber who gets rid of the bodies by having them baked in pies.
The Lion King: the Disney musical played by a cast in what is a cross of puppets and anthropomorphic costumes with an African ascetic.
Bat Boy: mutant bat child (like the one in the Weekly World News) who was found in a cave.
and
Urinetown which is set in a dystopian future where people get the death penatly for peeing in public.
So if these can work, its not that big of a stretch that a musical about a man with spider powers who fights crime.
Tyriless, I have to respectfully disagree (I'm not verbally attacking or trolling you, I just disagree with any action based series becoming a musical and using this opportunity to share my opinion and read yours and anyone else's response).
I see the point that you're trying to make. Musicals portray fantastical stories and the amazing story of Spiderman is fantastical so why not put the two together? The reason for that is presentation. Spiderman is at its core a story of action that has kept fans with its deep, constantly evolving plot. However, at the end of the day when Peter has learned his lesson, hugged Aunt May and kissed MJ we want to see him punch someone, in the air, on a line of web, while flipping unnaturally upside down.
Yes there have been some musicals, even some decent ones, that have had a sense of action. However the action is very little since the whole point is to portray the plot and characterization through songs. Sweeney Todd and The Lion King were used as examples. The Lion King was already a musical and the characters spent most of the time walking and talking so turninig it into a broadway number was not a stretch. Sweeney Todd is a story of mystery and suspense, and yes he kills people but that isn't the main event of Sweeney Todd, just results after he sings about his emotions, motivations and insanity.
Sure, there have been those musicals and plays with people on wires but there is only so much that you can do with suspended wires before you hurt or kill someone. Movies are suspect to the same dangers yet they can also implement greater measures of safety than stage productions.
Another point I want to touch on is the story itself. I get the feeling that this isn't a SpiderMan story but instead the director telling his own story through the use of SpiderMan elements. For example, why does the spider that bites Peter Parker need to have a vocal role? That defeats the purpose of the spider bite scene. It was quick and any viewer who was new to Spiderman would quickly dismiss the bite because nothing happened at that moment.
However, here is where the story starts its magic: when Peter starts to feel weird and becomes sick, the viewer starts thinking back and wondering, "wait a minute, is this from that spider bite? What kind of spider was that and what is it going to do to him?" The spider bite is supposed to be quick and thoughtless especially since the viewer is purposely distracted by Peter being bullied while he's trying to figure out what to do about his MJ crush.
So now that the spider sings along with other director inspired changes...well I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the director's vision of "Turn Off the Dark" twists the spideman story.
I see the point that you're trying to make. Musicals portray fantastical stories and the amazing story of Spiderman is fantastical so why not put the two together? The reason for that is presentation. Spiderman is at its core a story of action that has kept fans with its deep, constantly evolving plot. However, at the end of the day when Peter has learned his lesson, hugged Aunt May and kissed MJ we want to see him punch someone, in the air, on a line of web, while flipping unnaturally upside down.
Yes there have been some musicals, even some decent ones, that have had a sense of action. However the action is very little since the whole point is to portray the plot and characterization through songs. Sweeney Todd and The Lion King were used as examples. The Lion King was already a musical and the characters spent most of the time walking and talking so turninig it into a broadway number was not a stretch. Sweeney Todd is a story of mystery and suspense, and yes he kills people but that isn't the main event of Sweeney Todd, just results after he sings about his emotions, motivations and insanity.
Sure, there have been those musicals and plays with people on wires but there is only so much that you can do with suspended wires before you hurt or kill someone. Movies are suspect to the same dangers yet they can also implement greater measures of safety than stage productions.
Another point I want to touch on is the story itself. I get the feeling that this isn't a SpiderMan story but instead the director telling his own story through the use of SpiderMan elements. For example, why does the spider that bites Peter Parker need to have a vocal role? That defeats the purpose of the spider bite scene. It was quick and any viewer who was new to Spiderman would quickly dismiss the bite because nothing happened at that moment.
However, here is where the story starts its magic: when Peter starts to feel weird and becomes sick, the viewer starts thinking back and wondering, "wait a minute, is this from that spider bite? What kind of spider was that and what is it going to do to him?" The spider bite is supposed to be quick and thoughtless especially since the viewer is purposely distracted by Peter being bullied while he's trying to figure out what to do about his MJ crush.
So now that the spider sings along with other director inspired changes...well I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the director's vision of "Turn Off the Dark" twists the spideman story.