Is Spider-Man Dead?

I'm going to try to avoid the spider metaphors here, but the Interwebs (oops...) have been all atwitter this week about the alleged demise of the highly anticipated Spider-Man musical. We've been hearing for months about how director Julie Taymor was being rather profligate with the investors' money. The show's capitalization has been rumored to be as high as $45 million, which is more than twice as expensive as any other show in Broadway history.

Last week, Variety reported that the massive production had ground to a standstill because the investors have simply run out of cash. Earlier this week, the gadflies on All That Chat were buzzing about how the actors in the show had been released from their contracts, and were free to pursue other work. Then today, Michael Riedel, The New York Post's gadfly extraordinaire, gleefully announced that, although the show's investors have been frantically trying to line up additional financing, no one is biting, and the show may well be dead in the water.

But even if Spider-Man does proceed, the prospects for the show turning a profit would likely be grim. According to Riedel's sources and/or calculations, with a $45-million capitalization, Spider-Man would need to run at capacity for 5 years to break even. Compare that to Wicked, which despite a capitalization north of $10 million, reportedly recouped in about 14 months. One of the factors driving up the Spider-Man production costs was that the Hilton Theater reportedly needed to be gutted and rebuilt to accommodate Taymor's design concept. Well, the Hilton has indeed been gutted, but now that Spider-Man is apparently moribund, that leaves Broadway with a big ole empty cavern on 42nd Street.

Potentially lost in the shuffle is a score by Bono and The Edge, which Riedel refers to as "moody and melodic, if not all that theatrical." Could the score possibly resurface, say as a concept album, or individual tracks on a future U2 release? Or perhaps Spider-Man the show could find a berth in, say, Las Vegas, where a $45-million price tag would be more in line with the other resident shows ensconced on the strip? Whatever, it's looking increasingly likely, if not downright certain, that Spider-Man won't be flying on Broadway any time soon.

Comments

[Keith G]

I'm making a trip to NYC next year and was hoping this would be on my agenda - simply for the spectacle. Oh, well, I'll just have to finally see Taymor's other show - The Lion King - which I missed on its run in Melbourne.

I'm appalled that group tickets are still on sale, though.

[Esther]

I can't believe they spent all that money and have nothing to show for it, there's nothing salvageable. (Well like you said, maybe a U2 concept album.) So sad. I was looking forward to it.

[Geoff]

I read this story with a mixture of fascination and horror. A 45 million dollar pricetag? Who's producing this show, Bill Gates? We've all read stories of producing ineptitude before, but this one's a real whopper. Did anyone actually think the show would make money, even if there was a stampede at the box-office?

In a way, I'm kind of relieved this show seems dead in the water. Can you imagine what kind of record this show would set for ticket prices (not to mention premium seats)? I remember when "Jerome Robbin's Broadway" came to town and set a new record high for an orchestra seat at $60. That's right, $60! (ah, good times). We grudgingly paid the exorbitant price, but the show failed anyway and was gone by the end of the season. All we had left to remember Mr. Robbins by was the $60 ducat (and before you knew it, all the other musicals in town were charging that -- and how!).

[Colista Swartz]

"Michael Riedel, The New York Post's gadfly extraordinaire, gleefully announced..."
Serious question: Why does it make critics so happy to say that a show is closing or has died in the process of trying to get to Broadway? It seems that people like Mike Riedel absolutely live for the moment they can say someone has failed. I have never understood it and can't fathom why you would obtain glee from someone else's faliure. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of crap out there and I wasn't all that thrilled about Spider-Man myself, but it seems people like Riedel just get a kick out of bringing a show down or never letting it get up in the first place. I'm hoping you can shed some light! Thanks!

[Rogue Zentradi]

Colista is making a key mistake:

Riedel is not a critic. Riedel is a gossip columnist. As such, it's his job to be, rather crassly, a shit stirrer who winds people up on a quest to sell papers and get people talking. And a big negative story does just that.

As far as being a critic and loving to take shows apart, watch the last five minutes of Ratatouille. Every word they say is absolutely true (speaking as a critic who does indeed enjoy writing particularly nasty reviews - they're fun to write/read and really do function as some form of revenge for suffering something insipid.)

[ccaggiano]

Thanks, RZ. Yeah, that would pretty much be my take on it.

But I think Colista's larger question is a good one: why do critics take so much pleasure in writing bad reviews? Well, as RZ says, it's a bit of revenge for sitting through something dreadful. There's something cathartic about venting in written form. Plus, I think most if not all critics understand that there's a certain percentage of their readership that enjoys reading a particularly bad review as much as -- if not more than -- reading a good one.

[Rogue Zentradi]

Chris is, as usual, dead on.

I'll also add that writing bad reviews is EASY. A bad show gives you lots to talk about, multiple opportunities for wit and wordplay, and allows the writer to engage in the beloved sport of moaning.

Writing out and out raves? A lot harder than you'd think. Gushes aren't usually very interesting to read after the first paragraph so it requires a great deal of effort to find both a useful starting place AND a variation in the content.

The hardest reviews to write, though, and the most boring to read are mediocrities. The blander and more middle of the road the show, the harder it is to write anything of interest about it.

[Monica]

It is very sad that they've spent all that money and there's nothing. At first I was actually curious to see how it would have turned out because I thought maybe it would have been not so much of a spectacle. Although the price tag made me think otherwise.

I want to know how the producers can let the actors free from their contracts and tell Evan Rachel Wood that that she can pursue other projects but then the producers say that the show will open on schedule. I don't think that it will, at least not at this point.