ComicMix Six: Things That Must Happen Before I See ‘Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark’

You may also like...

116 Responses

  1. Kathleen David says:

    Actually I think the word you’re looking for is the one Marc Guggenheim coined: Showdenfreude. Actively rooting for a show (TV, movie and, now Broadway show) to fail.It is not a concept I understand. PAD

  2. Kathleen David says:

    Actually I think the word you’re looking for is the one Marc Guggenheim coined: Showdenfreude. Actively rooting for a show (TV, movie and, now Broadway show) to fail.

    It is not a concept I understand.

    PAD

  3. Jeff Alan Polier says:

    Don’t hold back, Wayne. Tell us how you REALLY feel. I have a hard time caring about the play simply because I’ll never see it. There’s no way on Earth that it will ever be performed in Portland and the odds of me traveling to where the play is showing are about six billion to one against.Peter David seemed to think it was worth seeing despite the flaws. For what they charge for tickets, though, I’d want something a lot better than what I’ve read about.

  4. Jeff Alan Polier says:

    Don’t hold back, Wayne. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

    I have a hard time caring about the play simply because I’ll never see it. There’s no way on Earth that it will ever be performed in Portland and the odds of me traveling to where the play is showing are about six billion to one against.

    Peter David seemed to think it was worth seeing despite the flaws. For what they charge for tickets, though, I’d want something a lot better than what I’ve read about.

  5. Wayne D. Chang says:

    This is like a Ronco TV ad of FAIL. Just when you think things couldn’t get worse, “but wait – there’s more!” The people I feel sorry for the most are the people who’s lives and careers depend upon this being a hit instead of mangling itself with accidents. Even if this does close before it really starts, I doubt that Taymor, Bono, and The Edge will be hurting for much. What I hate the most about this is it is contrary to a lot of what Spider-Man fans love.

    • Kathleen David says:

      See, whereas I also feel sorry for people who root for the failure of others. Again, I don’t understand the mindset. So Taymor felt that Spider-Man was a character of such mythic proportions that he could be linked to tales going back a thousand years. So say nothing of the fact that she thought the character was worthy of being the subject of a Broadway show. Why is it that she and her co-creators have so much higher an opinion of Spider-Man than the so-called fans, who exult in every mishap and dismiss the notion that he’s Broadway material? Strange are the ways of Showdenfreude. Then again, why do I know? I just, y’know, SAW the damned thing, so I was actually able to form my opinion based upon first hand observation rather than having it filtered through others.PAD

  6. Wayne D. Chang says:

    This is like a Ronco TV ad of FAIL. Just when you think things couldn’t get worse, “but wait – there’s more!” The people I feel sorry for the most are the people who’s lives and careers depend upon this being a hit instead of mangling itself with accidents. Even if this does close before it really starts, I doubt that Taymor, Bono, and The Edge will be hurting for much. What I hate the most about this is it is contrary to a lot of what Spider-Man fans love.

    • Kathleen David says:

      See, whereas I also feel sorry for people who root for the failure of others. Again, I don’t understand the mindset. So Taymor felt that Spider-Man was a character of such mythic proportions that he could be linked to tales going back a thousand years. So say nothing of the fact that she thought the character was worthy of being the subject of a Broadway show. Why is it that she and her co-creators have so much higher an opinion of Spider-Man than the so-called fans, who exult in every mishap and dismiss the notion that he’s Broadway material? Strange are the ways of Showdenfreude. Then again, why do I know? I just, y’know, SAW the damned thing, so I was actually able to form my opinion based upon first hand observation rather than having it filtered through others.

      PAD

  7. mike weber says:

    In other Broadway news, the musical based on Almodovar’s “omen on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown” will close early.

  8. mike weber says:

    In other Broadway news, the musical based on Almodovar’s “omen on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown” will close early.

  9. Wayne D. Chang says:

    Mike, I think I’d pay good money to see Damien Thorne on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

    • mike weber says:

      hsss.

    • mike weber says:

      BTW – if you’re going to insult my typing, at least spell my name correctly – it’s mike weber…

      • Kathleen David says:

        Actually, I think “Omen on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown” would be a great name for a tongue-in-cheek horror story. I might swipe that.PAD

        • mike weber says:

          I want an acknowledgement if you do!I never got any acknowledgement when a somewhat-butchered version of my “Yna” pun from Dragonslayer (Mrs David may recall it) hit one of the national feature wires…

  10. Jason M. Bryant says:

    This sounds like way too detailed and demanding a list for someone who hasn’t seen the play. It sounds like you’re just copying the opinions of the reviews you’ve read. I’d rather just have a link to those reviews, opinions like this are better from people who judged something *after* they saw it.

  11. Jason M. Bryant says:

    This sounds like way too detailed and demanding a list for someone who hasn’t seen the play. It sounds like you’re just copying the opinions of the reviews you’ve read. I’d rather just have a link to those reviews, opinions like this are better from people who judged something *after* they saw it.

  12. Alan Kistler says:

    I’ve been deliberately not following any news about the plot or the play’s songs, but you’ve intrigued/terrified me. What is this about Spidey being connected to Arachne and Uncle Ben being altered? I knew a character named Arachne was involved and that the actress just bowed out, but I had no idea of the story element involving the ACTUAL Arachne.

    • Kathleen David says:

      Yes. It draws a connection to the actual Arachne. Fans are up in arms about this notion. And I just sit there and say, “Right…because Marvel Comics have NEVER done a story involving characters from Greek myth.” I mean, this is irony in its purest sense. On the one hand they yell, “Greek myth! That’s so stupid!” and on the other hand they’ll be lining up next year for the Thor movie because Norse mythology has the ring of reality to it.

      And the fact is that, as anyone who has actually SEEN the show and isn’t simply talking about what they’ve read elsewhere, the sequences with Arachne are some of the most hauntingly beautiful ever staged on Broadway. Ever.

      As for the Geek chorus, the hysterical thing is that many of the people complaining about them on line sound just like them. My problem with the Geek chorus wasn’t the concept; it was that it was badly executed. Hell, I put a Geek Chorus into a fan production I wrote called “Bye Bye Buffy” that was performed at a Maryland Trek convention and the fans loved it.

      Seriously: if people don’t want to see the show because of stuff they’ve heard, I get that. If they think the ticket prices are too steep, okay. But this repeated display of Showdenfreude and excoriating the show based upon things that ACTUALLY WORK in context…I can’t fathom it.

      PAD

  13. Alan Kistler says:

    I’ve been deliberately not following any news about the plot or the play’s songs, but you’ve intrigued/terrified me. What is this about Spidey being connected to Arachne and Uncle Ben being altered? I knew a character named Arachne was involved and that the actress just bowed out, but I had no idea of the story element involving the ACTUAL Arachne.

  14. Kathleen David says:

    Actually I think the word you're looking for is the one Marc Guggenheim coined: Showdenfreude. Actively rooting for a show (TV, movie and, now Broadway show) to fail.It is not a concept I understand. PAD

  15. Jeff Alan Polier says:

    Don't hold back, Wayne. Tell us how you REALLY feel. I have a hard time caring about the play simply because I'll never see it. There's no way on Earth that it will ever be performed in Portland and the odds of me traveling to where the play is showing are about six billion to one against.Peter David seemed to think it was worth seeing despite the flaws. For what they charge for tickets, though, I'd want something a lot better than what I've read about.

  16. Alan Kistler says:

    I’m pretty much in agreement with everything except #2. Eventually, this team has to get SOMETHING right again. :-)My main question is, why does this play focus so much on Spidey’s origin? Between comic books, newspaper strips, three films, and several years of cartoons, most people know the basics. Why not really jump into the story? “So this guy Peter was bitten by a biologically mutated spider, got strange powers, and after his actions indirectly led to the death of his Uncle Ben, he decided to become a superhero. Now let’s see what he’s up to.” BOOM. A minute of exposition and you can just dive right in. I’d rather see something like that so we can finally get a story with a more experienced Spidey, someone who’s not the ultimate superhero but he’s not fumbling just to learn how to web-sling either.

    • Jason M. Bryant says:

      Many of the people who are likely to see the play probably haven’t seen the origin told as often as you or I. Plus, the reason for telling the origin is that it is apparently a significant part of this story and she’s put a different spin on it. I can’t say whether the new spin works or not, but I respect that Spider-Man’s story is one of the better ones in comics, especially if a writer can cast it in a new and different light.

      • Kathleen David says:

        It’s actually one of the points of the entire musical: that Spider-Man is a mythic archetype, and what makes characters mythic is that succeeding generations put their own spin (no pun intended) on them. The concept is that the Geek chorus is arguing amongst itself, with one saying, “This is how I heard Spider-Man’s origin,” and another is saying, “No, that’s not right, this is what I heard.” And the details vary as different storytellers endeavor to make a mythic character their own. Which actually isn’t a bad idea. In fact, it’s a damned good idea. I mean, we actually SEE it in the comics ALL THE TIME. You’ve got the original origin, and Stan retold it several times, and then John Byrne did his version, and then Bendis did his and then the movie did its own. And yet the fans suddenly declare that here, on the Broadway stage, is where the line must be drawn? Bullcrap, says I. The show essentially elevates Spider-Man to the mythic stature of a King Arthur or a Hercules, and the fans decry that because…what? They think he doesn’t deserve it? Again, why does Julie Taymor and company have a much higher opinion of Spider-Man than the so-called fans? I just…I don’t get it.PAD

        • mike weber says:

          More than one superhero film has been trashed by fans who would have, at most, had the same story appeared in the comic, simply said “Oh, well, not quite up to the usual standards.”

  17. Alan Kistler says:

    I’m pretty much in agreement with everything except #2. Eventually, this team has to get SOMETHING right again. :-)

    My main question is, why does this play focus so much on Spidey’s origin? Between comic books, newspaper strips, three films, and several years of cartoons, most people know the basics. Why not really jump into the story? “So this guy Peter was bitten by a biologically mutated spider, got strange powers, and after his actions indirectly led to the death of his Uncle Ben, he decided to become a superhero. Now let’s see what he’s up to.” BOOM. A minute of exposition and you can just dive right in. I’d rather see something like that so we can finally get a story with a more experienced Spidey, someone who’s not the ultimate superhero but he’s not fumbling just to learn how to web-sling either.

  18. Wayne D. Chang says:

    This is like a Ronco TV ad of FAIL. Just when you think things couldn't get worse, "but wait – there's more!" The people I feel sorry for the most are the people who's lives and careers depend upon this being a hit instead of mangling itself with accidents. Even if this does close before it really starts, I doubt that Taymor, Bono, and The Edge will be hurting for much. What I hate the most about this is it is contrary to a lot of what Spider-Man fans love.

    • Kathleen David says:

      See, whereas I also feel sorry for people who root for the failure of others. Again, I don't understand the mindset. So Taymor felt that Spider-Man was a character of such mythic proportions that he could be linked to tales going back a thousand years. So say nothing of the fact that she thought the character was worthy of being the subject of a Broadway show. Why is it that she and her co-creators have so much higher an opinion of Spider-Man than the so-called fans, who exult in every mishap and dismiss the notion that he's Broadway material? Strange are the ways of Showdenfreude. Then again, why do I know? I just, y'know, SAW the damned thing, so I was actually able to form my opinion based upon first hand observation rather than having it filtered through others.PAD

  19. mike weber says:

    In other Broadway news, the musical based on Almodovar's "omen on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown" will close early.

  20. Wayne D. Chang says:

    @Alan: By that same logic, theoretically Warner Bros. should trust Joel Schumacher with another Batman movie after Chris Nolan ends with The Dark Knight Rises.

    • Kathleen David says:

      As horrific as that film was–and you’re talking to the guy who novelized “Batman Forever”–a lot of what was wrong with it was, from my understanding, Warners insisting on stuffing the films with as many characters to merchandise as possible. It was the reason Warners freaked out over “Batman Returns” when they were trying to sell Penguin toys to kids and in the film he was biting the noses off people. The third and fourth Batman films weren’t about film making; they were about peddling Happy Meals. It’s entirely possible that, left to his own devices, Schumacher might have turned out something equally crappy. On the other hand, he might not have. But he didn’t betray Warners’ trust; they share culpability.

      PAD

      • Miles Vorkosigan says:

        Peter, Schumacher’s not a bad director, he just caved in to pressure from the producers, most notably Jon Peters, who’s a big fan of the campy tv series. A lot of directors and writers do that; they don’t stick to their guns like Howard Hawks or Jon Favreau. Some goombah tells them that if they don’t add a giant spider for the good guy to fight, they’ll be out if a job permanently, and they knuckle under. If it sounds like I’m agreeing with you, I am, in a roundabout manner. And we both know it happens far too often that a movie is used to shill this or that product; been going on for years. I love to play the Product Placement game; hey, look, Tom Cruise the dockwalloper is wearing an Omega watch! Are those Air France tickets on James Bond’s desk? Wow, they have Windows in Arabic! Remember, JMS said that the Phantom Menace was a two-and-a-half-hour toy commercial.
        .
        The Spider-Man musical can overcome all the obstacles facing it, but the rep it’s developed for being snakebit, with injuries, Natalie Mendoza quitting, etc., is going to stick with it until the next over-hyped, over-priced, overblown Broadway fiasco rolls along. And those things are like streetcars, another one will come along in a minute.

        • Kathleen David says:

          The problem, Miles, is that the rep stems from the coverage. A big-budget Broadway musical, plagued with injuries so severe that they had to cancel performances. “Spider-Man?” Nope. I was referring to “Fela!” The choreography was pushed to such extreme limits that at one point three of its lead dancers were down and the show went dark so they could heal.

          But there was no Showdenfreude attached to it. People weren’t actively pulling for “Fela!” to collapse. The coverage those setbacks received was minimal to non-existent. God knows you didn’t see it on the front page of two major NY newspapers. Nor do you typically see budget setbacks receive in-depth coverage, as if “Spider-Man” were the first musical ever to run low on funds. The last time I saw the media pouncing this much on a musical, it was “Taboo,” which Rosie O’Donnell felt so strongly about that she put a ton of her own money into it. I find it kind of interesting that the media focused its laser-like attention on shows that had high-profile women attached. Could be coincidence, of course, but like I said: interesting.

          Not to mention HOW it’s been covered. The presentation could easily be that a spunky and determined group of creative individuals believe in their project so much that they spend eight years of their lives scrambling and clawing and fighting to get it in front of audiences. People could be collectively pulling for them. Instead every story about it–EVERY story–contains the word “troubled” in front of the word “musical” and features the words, “Most expensive musical in history.” Because, as Peter Parker would tell you, it’s ALWAYS about money. When “The Producers” went up, all the stories focused on the ticket prices, which were a then-unheard of $100+ for orchestra. When “Terminator 2” was in the works, all the articles were about Cameron’s spending an unprecedented $100 million.

          But the attitude I keep seeing is, “$65 million on SPIDER-MAN? What a waste of money!” As if it’s ridiculously unworthy subject matter for such an endeavor. It’s been the attitude since before the very first rehearsal. Were there injuries? Yes, there were. And Mary Martin broke her elbow rehearsing the flying effects for “Peter Pan” when she was swung into a wall, and Idina Menzel fell through a trapdoor wrong and broke a rib and Kristen Chenowith sprained her neck during “Wicked.” It’s tragic and unfortunate and you try to minimize the risk, but risk remains.

          And I suppose I get why the general media keeps saying it; it’s their job to try and piss on the parade. But the fans keep saying it as well, as if–should the show succeed–it’s a personal affront to their sensibilities.

          And that’s what I find kind of sad.

          PAD

          • mike weber says:

            Not being NY based nor particularly following Broadway (i know about shows when they make the national news for some reason) i had never even heard of “Fela!” till i just looked it up on Wikipedia.

            But i’ve been hearing almost non-stop about the Spider-Man show for months.

          • Jason M. Bryant says:

            A lot of that is just that recognizability makes a good story. It goes both ways. When I tell people that I used to make video games they ask me what games I made. Since these people often aren’t gamers, I can list half my resumé and get blank stares or I can tell them about the Spider-Man games. That gets their attention even when they’ve never heard of the particular game.So yeah, a Spider-Man musical gets more attention than another musical. A $63 million musical also gets more attention than other musicals because there’s more at stake. That’s just the basic rules of drama, nothing surprising or unfair about that.

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            I think the main problem with what I call “civilians” to any genre is that while they may outnumber the avid fans, they are attracted to one or two things that have been grossly over-exposed or worse – things that have only brought infamy and notoriety to a field. For a while, all the mainstream press could think of when video games came up was “Grand Theft Auto,” especially “San Andreas.”

          • Kathleen David says:

            But it’s the civilians who are supporting the musical. The reason I’m fairly sure of this is that namechecks of Joe Quesada and Joe Straczynski in the course of the show received no response from the audience other than from Kathleen and myself. The show wasn’t being attended by hardcore Spidey fans or readers of the the comics, or at least by people who are familiar with the current crop of creators. The fans are busy picking apart the show from a distance while the civilians are supporting it in a big way.

            PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            I think that the better part of civilians seeing “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark” are seeing it for the odd combination of Julie Taymor with Bono and The Edge. These are powerhouses, especially with people citing what a great job she did on “The Lion King” or with another Shakespeare-based movie in theaters at the same time. It wouldn’t surprise me that a civilian wouldn’t know who Joe Quesada or JMS are. Criminy, I’d be surprised if civilians could draw the connection between JMS and “Babylon 5.”

          • Kathleen David says:

            Okay, Wayne, but now you’re contradicting yourself. You previously ascribed less-than-admirable traits to “civilians,” asserting that they were attracted to things that were overexposed or of notoriety, i.e., known for negative accomplishments. Yet now you’re saying they’re showing up at “Spider-Man” because they’re fans of Julie Taymor, who is justly lauded for previous works, or they like Bono and The Edge. So you’ve somewhat muddled your point; in fact, if anything, you’ve made mine for me. On the one hand you’ve got the Taymor/U2 fans who will plunk down large amounts of money to support their latest creative endeavor. And on the other hand you’ve got the hard-core Spidey fans who proclaim that a Spider-Man musical is a dumb idea and snark from a distance. Fortunately, the show doesn’t depend on the hardcore, i.e., comic buying fans, any more than the movies did. We’ve seen what happens when only the hard-core fans turn out for a comic book related movie: It tanks. The on-line community that wasted countless hours arguing about organic webshooters versus mechanical weren’t the ones who caused the first Spider-Man movie to set box office records. The fact is that Spider-Man has millions of fans who have never read the comic and have never set a cyber foot in a comics chatroom. They know him from cartoons and video games and limitless merchandising. (The Spidey souvenir store was packed at the theater when I was there, and none of it had the names of Bono, The Edge or Julie Taymor on it. It was all Spidey swag.) They know him because he has transcended his comic book origins and become a popular folk hero of mythic proportions, which is what the whole show is really about.And the audiences don’t give a crap if Uncle Ben died in a hit and run or was shot by a burglar, or whether Spidey’s origins are tied to an ancient Greek character. They just want to be entertained. And although there unquestionably parts where the show fails to do that, when it does accomplish it, it does so spectacularly.Which you would know.If you saw it.PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly, Peter. Overall, civilians are attracted to negativity and perhaps some of the worst examples that can be dredged up. When the California-sponsored measure against video game violence went before the Supreme Court, it was riding a populist sentiment of outcry and shock that games like “Postal” were allowed to corrupt the young. Interestng, when “Postal” hasn’t been relevant for over a decade.By the same token, other selling points can and should be used to bring people into theater seats. Taymor, Bono, and The Edge all have brand-name value, especially Taymor as I said with hits from across the street as well as a new critically-acclaimed movie in the theaters. I don’t see how these two points are mutually exclusive. They could have worked on a musical about Michael Collins and it would have sold well.Peter, without blowing too much smoke up your skirt, you have been one of the best things for me in both comics & “Star Trek.” I’d follow whatever you wrote (and took some delight in your puns). I am one of those hardcore fans, and while I may have engaged in my fair share of online discussions, I am also one of those fans who can understand why certain changes were made. They made sense in the context of a movie. The examples of the “Akira” manga and anime movie are a great example of this. Yes, I would have liked to see a movie series that was more faithful to the manga, but the anime movie was still pretty good.You may be right – the musical may have an interesting twist on the central story that you and I both love, but there have been lots of different iterations of comic book heroes that do not interest me. Based upon what I have read about the musical, I have no desire whatsoever to see it as is.

          • Kathleen David says:

            I suppose what it comes down to, Wayne, is that civilians seem to be finding reasons to go see the show–whether it’s that they’re drawn by morbid curiosity, or positive word of mouth, or interest in Spider-Man, or interest in the creators–while comics fans seem to be finding reasons to skip the show.

            No one’s putting a gun to your head and saying you have to see the show, Wayne. What I am saying is that much of the coverage–the coverage upon which you’ve based your opinion–has chosen to focus almost exclusively on the show’s budget (no matter how irrelevant) or on the injuries that cast members sustained (while ignoring mishaps on other shows). Which is more than enough to cause the hardcore fans to not only ignore it, but comment negatively on it (sometimes at length) without any first hand information.

            I’ve read a handful of articles that were written by people who actually saw it, but most are simply recycling material reported in other publications, stressing “troubled” and “most expensive.” (Some have managed to fit both in the lead graf.)

            Honestly, Wayne, it doesn’t matter to me whether you see it or not. And if your article had been “Six reasons why I have no intention of seeing this show,” there’d really be nothing to discuss, or at least far less. But the bottom line is that you presented six things that needed to be addressed before you would go see the show. Okay, well…John addressed the apology aspect far more eloquently than I did, and I handled the rest, explaining why they were almost entirely non-issues. So your fallback is to say that, based on what you’ve read, you have no desire whatsoever to see it. Fine. But if your seeing it was a non-starter, why did you write the piece the way you did?

            See what I’m saying?

            PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            I see exactly what you’re saying Peter. I have no problem with any production’s budget unless it’s patently clear that not enough money was spent intelligently, or the budget was not nearly enough. I’ve heard troubling rumors about how small the budget will be for “The Avengers” movie, but those are at best rumors. I’ve seen movies when it was patently clear that all parties concerned (including the scriptwriter) were grossly overpaid for the steaming loaves of poo that were the end result.Out of the stuff I’ve read about this production, the thing I’ve been concerned with the most has been worker safety. I fully realize that this is a work in progress, and I have no aversion to seeing this. I like theater and while I prefer classical opera to musicals, I would like to see what happens in relation to my original list of concerns.

          • Kathleen David says:

            Your concerns about worker safety are perfectly understandable, Wayne, and the producers and director have made it clear in repeated public statements that they are likewise concerned. The fact is that since the show opened, no one has been injured as a result of the flying effects. I’m still unclear on the nature of the falling rope that injured Mendoza, but obviously there hasn’t been a repeat. And it was frankly astounding that the gag which failed to support the stunt double failed because it’s a very simple trick that has been used for well over a century; the safeguards that were in use for it were the same ones that have worked all that time. My perception is that the producers have done the same as any other producer: to make the show as safe as possible. Unfortunately, as with any other show, sometimes things go wrong. Unlike any other show, the injuries get in-depth reporting and front page news coverage. Why? I couldn’t say for sure. I’m not sure why “Spider-Man” is attracting Showdenfreude on a national scale. I’ve speculated that it’s probably the budget, which is scrupulously reported even though it’s of no relevance to injuries. The three injuries in “Fela!” that caused them to miss performances two weeks after the show opened (and I stress opened since you’d think they’d have worked out the problems in previews) received, as near as I can tell, coverage in two places: a single “In brief” mention in the NY Times and a mention in Playbill.com. Neither referenced the budget. Neither resulted in storms of protest or lengthy diatribes or or assertions that the producers should be apologizing for pushing the performers to such a degree.For that matter, before you go to a movie, do you do research to see how many stunt men or crew members or cast members were injured in the making of it? Because I’ll guarantee you, it’s more than you think.I submit, Wayne, that the main reason worker safety is such an issue for you in this show is because the incessant and slanted coverage (“troubled,” “cursed,” “snake-bit,” “most expensive show in history”) has made it an issue for you. Which is a little odd considering that, based on their public statements, it’s not an issue for the male leads.PAD

          • George Haberberger says:

            Why are comic fans critical and civilians supportive? Is there a lot of overlap among comic fans and Broadway fans? I tend to think not, Peter David and Mark Evanier not withstanding. But then those guys are more than comic fans, they are professional writers.

            Broadway plays have a reputation of heavy drama, love and romance and comedy. Comic fans tend to like adolescent power fantasies. There may be an attitude among comic fans to not have to care about an art form that heretofore held no interest for them.

            At the risk of placing myself in elite company. I am a fan of comic books and Broadway shows. My wife and I have been subscribers to the Repertory Theatre in St. Louis. A few years ago we went to New York for 4 days and saw The Drowsy Chaperone, Spamalot and Chicago. And we had already seen Chicago at the Fox Theatre a couple of years before. We’ve seen Phantom of the Opera, Wicked, Jersey Boys, Contact, (the Girl in the Yellow Dress, WOW), Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita and Angels in America.

            But nevertheless, I think I am an anomaly. Most comic fans I know don’t go to the theatre so a Spider-Man Broadway show is a concept many are not ready to accept. Maybe they’re afraid if they see Spider-Man they’ll find themselves following Phantom of the Opera around the country.

        • Kathleen David says:

          Just to see if I was overstating it, I did a quick google search on news articles and, sure enough, they all say “troubled” and “most expensive” (even though the budget of the show is of no relevance to articles about injuries.) The only article I found that didn’t feature those two phrases was this one:

          http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/12/29/spider-man-on-broadw

          And, lo and behold, it paints a more positive picture as it happens to report what the other articles don’t: The show’s selling tickets by the carload and may well be getting better word of mouth than such bastions of accuracy, the NY Post, are letting on.

          PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            Well if you’re citing the New York Post as a source of information instead of something to line your bird cage with, then y’alls have problems.

          • Kathleen David says:

            I agree, but my source of information about the musical has been my first-hand experiencing of it. You, on the other hand, have based your assertions on various second and third-hand sources. (Wikipedia? Really?) But it’s entirely possible that those sources based their reports on things reported by the Post. I’ve certainly read enough news items that said, “as reported in the NY Post…” But not everyone is scrupulous about citing whence their facts came. Long story short, Wayne, it’s entirely possible that you based your article on Post-provided information and aren’t even aware of it. That should give you some pause.PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            It does, Peter. It does immensely. I checked the Wikipedia article, and only 2 out of the 55 sources cited were from the NY Post. As you suggest, it’s entirely possible that some of the other 53 sources were affected by the slam job the Post seems to have against this musical. I regard anything the NY Post says with about the same gravity as a noisy monkey. Both are full of crap, both are incoherent, and usually it’s best to ignore them.

      • Wayne D. Chang says:

        Oh I remember, Peter. In fact I remember telling you about the “holey rusted metal, Batman” line that everyone was going to think YOU put in the novelization. I loved the extra bits you put into the novelization, Peter.

        • Kathleen David says:

          Thanks, Wayne. And yeah, when a lousy pun is involved, people do tend to think it was all me. Over on io9, they’re discussing the movie “Oblivion,” the REAL first movie about Cowboys and Aliens, which I wrote for Full Moon many years ago, and which featured George Takei. And they were bemoaning the lousy “Star Trek” puns that George utters in that film. (ex: Looking wearily at an emptied bottle of booze and moaning, “Jim, Beam me up.) Now understand that George is a dear friend, but when he ad libbed those puns and the director kept them in, I just KNEW that I would get the blame for them. Fifteen years later, it’s still happening.

          The tone of both “Batman Forever” and “Batman and Robin” was the Powers That Be pushing back against the extreme darkness of “Batman Returns.” Did they ask for nipples on the costumes? Dunno. (Although why were there no nipples on Batgirl’s costume? Bet the fanboys wouldn’t have complained about THAT.) But they got the films they wanted: campy fare that was stuffed with marketing opportunities.

          PAD

          • Miles Vorkosigan says:

            I loved Oblivion, and I knew George stuck the awful puns in because I remember you mentioning it somewhere. It’s a great piece of work, and worth seeing multiple times just for George. Add Julie Newmar and Musetta Vander, and damn!
            .
            Tell me io9 ain’t badmouthing it. If they are, Boo may hafta smackabitch. I mean, c’mon, it’s meant to be fun, it ain’t Lawrence of Arabia!

          • Kathleen David says:

            Some people are being snarky, but for the most part either it’s being remembered fondly or people who never heard of it are saying they need to check it out.PAD

          • mike weber says:

            Yeah – but “Oblivion” is cowboys-in-space, not cowboys-facing-alien-invasion-on-Earth.

            You wanna compare it to something more recent … “Firefly”.

  21. Wayne D. Chang says:

    Mike, I think I'd pay good money to see Damien Thorne on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

    • mike weber says:

      hsss.

    • mike weber says:

      BTW – if you're going to insult my typing, at least spell my name correctly – it's mike weber…

      • Kathleen David says:

        Actually, I think "Omen on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown" would be a great name for a tongue-in-cheek horror story. I might swipe that.PAD

        • mike weber says:

          I want an acknowledgement if you do!I never got any acknowledgement when a somewhat-butchered version of my "Yna" pun from Dragonslayer (Mrs David may recall it) hit one of the national feature wires…

  22. Jason M. Bryant says:

    This sounds like way too detailed and demanding a list for someone who hasn't seen the play. It sounds like you're just copying the opinions of the reviews you've read. I'd rather just have a link to those reviews, opinions like this are better from people who judged something *after* they saw it.

  23. Alan Kistler says:

    I've been deliberately not following any news about the plot or the play's songs, but you've intrigued/terrified me. What is this about Spidey being connected to Arachne and Uncle Ben being altered? I knew a character named Arachne was involved and that the actress just bowed out, but I had no idea of the story element involving the ACTUAL Arachne.

    • Kathleen David says:

      Yes. It draws a connection to the actual Arachne. Fans are up in arms about this notion. And I just sit there and say, "Right…because Marvel Comics have NEVER done a story involving characters from Greek myth." I mean, this is irony in its purest sense. On the one hand they yell, "Greek myth! That's so stupid!" and on the other hand they'll be lining up next year for the Thor movie because Norse mythology has the ring of reality to it.And the fact is that, as anyone who has actually SEEN the show and isn't simply talking about what they've read elsewhere, the sequences with Arachne are some of the most hauntingly beautiful ever staged on Broadway. Ever. As for the Geek chorus, the hysterical thing is that many of the people complaining about them on line sound just like them. My problem with the Geek chorus wasn't the concept; it was that it was badly executed. Hell, I put a Geek Chorus into a fan production I wrote called "Bye Bye Buffy" that was performed at a Maryland Trek convention and the fans loved it. Seriously: if people don't want to see the show because of stuff they've heard, I get that. If they think the ticket prices are too steep, okay. But this repeated display of Showdenfreude and excoriating the show based upon things that ACTUALLY WORK in context…I can't fathom it.PAD

  24. Alan Kistler says:

    I'm pretty much in agreement with everything except #2. Eventually, this team has to get SOMETHING right again. :-)My main question is, why does this play focus so much on Spidey's origin? Between comic books, newspaper strips, three films, and several years of cartoons, most people know the basics. Why not really jump into the story? "So this guy Peter was bitten by a biologically mutated spider, got strange powers, and after his actions indirectly led to the death of his Uncle Ben, he decided to become a superhero. Now let's see what he's up to." BOOM. A minute of exposition and you can just dive right in. I'd rather see something like that so we can finally get a story with a more experienced Spidey, someone who's not the ultimate superhero but he's not fumbling just to learn how to web-sling either.

    • Jason M. Bryant says:

      Many of the people who are likely to see the play probably haven't seen the origin told as often as you or I. Plus, the reason for telling the origin is that it is apparently a significant part of this story and she's put a different spin on it. I can't say whether the new spin works or not, but I respect that Spider-Man's story is one of the better ones in comics, especially if a writer can cast it in a new and different light.

      • Kathleen David says:

        It's actually one of the points of the entire musical: that Spider-Man is a mythic archetype, and what makes characters mythic is that succeeding generations put their own spin (no pun intended) on them. The concept is that the Geek chorus is arguing amongst itself, with one saying, "This is how I heard Spider-Man's origin," and another is saying, "No, that's not right, this is what I heard." And the details vary as different storytellers endeavor to make a mythic character their own. Which actually isn't a bad idea. In fact, it's a damned good idea. I mean, we actually SEE it in the comics ALL THE TIME. You've got the original origin, and Stan retold it several times, and then John Byrne did his version, and then Bendis did his and then the movie did its own. And yet the fans suddenly declare that here, on the Broadway stage, is where the line must be drawn? Bullcrap, says I. The show essentially elevates Spider-Man to the mythic stature of a King Arthur or a Hercules, and the fans decry that because…what? They think he doesn't deserve it? Again, why does Julie Taymor and company have a much higher opinion of Spider-Man than the so-called fans? I just…I don't get it.PAD

        • mike weber says:

          More than one superhero film has been trashed by fans who would have, at most, had the same story appeared in the comic, simply said "Oh, well, not quite up to the usual standards."

  25. Wayne D. Chang says:

    @Alan: By that same logic, theoretically Warner Bros. should trust Joel Schumacher with another Batman movie after Chris Nolan ends with The Dark Knight Rises.

    • Kathleen David says:

      As horrific as that film was–and you're talking to the guy who novelized "Batman Forever"–a lot of what was wrong with it was, from my understanding, Warners insisting on stuffing the films with as many characters to merchandise as possible. It was the reason Warners freaked out over "Batman Returns" when they were trying to sell Penguin toys to kids and in the film he was biting the noses off people. The third and fourth Batman films weren't about film making; they were about peddling Happy Meals. It's entirely possible that, left to his own devices, Schumacher might have turned out something equally crappy. On the other hand, he might not have. But he didn't betray Warners' trust; they share culpability.PAD

      • Miles Vorkosigan says:

        Peter, Schumacher's not a bad director, he just caved in to pressure from the producers, most notably Jon Peters, who's a big fan of the campy tv series. A lot of directors and writers do that; they don't stick to their guns like Howard Hawks or Jon Favreau. Some goombah tells them that if they don't add a giant spider for the good guy to fight, they'll be out if a job permanently, and they knuckle under. If it sounds like I'm agreeing with you, I am, in a roundabout manner. And we both know it happens far too often that a movie is used to shill this or that product; been going on for years. I love to play the Product Placement game; hey, look, Tom Cruise the dockwalloper is wearing an Omega watch! Are those Air France tickets on James Bond's desk? Wow, they have Windows in Arabic! Remember, JMS said that the Phantom Menace was a two-and-a-half-hour toy commercial. .The Spider-Man musical can overcome all the obstacles facing it, but the rep it's developed for being snakebit, with injuries, Natalie Mendoza quitting, etc., is going to stick with it until the next over-hyped, over-priced, overblown Broadway fiasco rolls along. And those things are like streetcars, another one will come along in a minute.

        • Kathleen David says:

          The problem, Miles, is that the rep stems from the coverage. A big-budget Broadway musical, plagued with injuries so severe that they had to cancel performances. "Spider-Man?" Nope. I was referring to "Fela!" The choreography was pushed to such extreme limits that at one point three of its lead dancers were down and the show went dark so they could heal. But there was no Showdenfreude attached to it. People weren't actively pulling for "Fela!" to collapse. The coverage those setbacks received was minimal to non-existent. God knows you didn't see it on the front page of two major NY newspapers. Nor do you typically see budget setbacks receive in-depth coverage, as if "Spider-Man" were the first musical ever to run low on funds. The last time I saw the media pouncing this much on a musical, it was "Taboo," which Rosie O'Donnell felt so strongly about that she put a ton of her own money into it. I find it kind of interesting that the media focused its laser-like attention on shows that had high-profile women attached. Could be coincidence, of course, but like I said: interesting.Not to mention HOW it's been covered. The presentation could easily be that a spunky and determined group of creative individuals believe in their project so much that they spend eight years of their lives scrambling and clawing and fighting to get it in front of audiences. People could be collectively pulling for them. Instead every story about it–EVERY story–contains the word "troubled" in front of the word "musical" and features the words, "Most expensive musical in history." Because, as Peter Parker would tell you, it's ALWAYS about money. When "The Producers" went up, all the stories focused on the ticket prices, which were a then-unheard of $100+ for orchestra. When "Terminator 2" was in the works, all the articles were about Cameron's spending an unprecedented $100 million. But the attitude I keep seeing is, "$65 million on SPIDER-MAN? What a waste of money!" As if it's ridiculously unworthy subject matter for such an endeavor. It's been the attitude since before the very first rehearsal. Were there injuries? Yes, there were. And Mary Martin broke her elbow rehearsing the flying effects for "Peter Pan" when she was swung into a wall, and Idina Menzel fell through a trapdoor wrong and broke a rib and Kristen Chenowith sprained her neck during "Wicked." It's tragic and unfortunate and you try to minimize the risk, but risk remains.And I suppose I get why the general media keeps saying it; it's their job to try and piss on the parade. But the fans keep saying it as well, as if–should the show succeed–it's a personal affront to their sensibilities. And that's what I find kind of sad.PAD

          • mike weber says:

            Not being NY based nor particularly following Broadway (i know about shows when they make the national news for some reason) i had never even heard of "Fela!" till i just looked it up on Wikipedia.But i've been hearing almost non-stop about the Spider-Man show for months.

          • Jason M. Bryant says:

            A lot of that is just that recognizability makes a good story. It goes both ways. When I tell people that I used to make video games they ask me what games I made. Since these people often aren't gamers, I can list half my resumé and get blank stares or I can tell them about the Spider-Man games. That gets their attention even when they've never heard of the particular game.So yeah, a Spider-Man musical gets more attention than another musical. A $63 million musical also gets more attention than other musicals because there's more at stake. That's just the basic rules of drama, nothing surprising or unfair about that.

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            I think the main problem with what I call "civilians" to any genre is that while they may outnumber the avid fans, they are attracted to one or two things that have been grossly over-exposed or worse – things that have only brought infamy and notoriety to a field. For a while, all the mainstream press could think of when video games came up was "Grand Theft Auto," especially "San Andreas."

          • Kathleen David says:

            But it's the civilians who are supporting the musical. The reason I'm fairly sure of this is that namechecks of Joe Quesada and Joe Straczynski in the course of the show received no response from the audience other than from Kathleen and myself. The show wasn't being attended by hardcore Spidey fans or readers of the the comics, or at least by people who are familiar with the current crop of creators. The fans are busy picking apart the show from a distance while the civilians are supporting it in a big way.PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            I think that the better part of civilians seeing "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" are seeing it for the odd combination of Julie Taymor with Bono and The Edge. These are powerhouses, especially with people citing what a great job she did on "The Lion King" or with another Shakespeare-based movie in theaters at the same time. It wouldn't surprise me that a civilian wouldn't know who Joe Quesada or JMS are. Criminy, I'd be surprised if civilians could draw the connection between JMS and "Babylon 5."

          • Kathleen David says:

            Okay, Wayne, but now you're contradicting yourself. You previously ascribed less-than-admirable traits to "civilians," asserting that they were attracted to things that were overexposed or of notoriety, i.e., known for negative accomplishments. Yet now you're saying they're showing up at "Spider-Man" because they're fans of Julie Taymor, who is justly lauded for previous works, or they like Bono and The Edge. So you've somewhat muddled your point; in fact, if anything, you've made mine for me. On the one hand you've got the Taymor/U2 fans who will plunk down large amounts of money to support their latest creative endeavor. And on the other hand you've got the hard-core Spidey fans who proclaim that a Spider-Man musical is a dumb idea and snark from a distance. Fortunately, the show doesn't depend on the hardcore, i.e., comic buying fans, any more than the movies did. We've seen what happens when only the hard-core fans turn out for a comic book related movie: It tanks. The on-line community that wasted countless hours arguing about organic webshooters versus mechanical weren't the ones who caused the first Spider-Man movie to set box office records. The fact is that Spider-Man has millions of fans who have never read the comic and have never set a cyber foot in a comics chatroom. They know him from cartoons and video games and limitless merchandising. (The Spidey souvenir store was packed at the theater when I was there, and none of it had the names of Bono, The Edge or Julie Taymor on it. It was all Spidey swag.) They know him because he has transcended his comic book origins and become a popular folk hero of mythic proportions, which is what the whole show is really about.And the audiences don't give a crap if Uncle Ben died in a hit and run or was shot by a burglar, or whether Spidey's origins are tied to an ancient Greek character. They just want to be entertained. And although there unquestionably parts where the show fails to do that, when it does accomplish it, it does so spectacularly.Which you would know.If you saw it.PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, Peter. Overall, civilians are attracted to negativity and perhaps some of the worst examples that can be dredged up. When the California-sponsored measure against video game violence went before the Supreme Court, it was riding a populist sentiment of outcry and shock that games like "Postal" were allowed to corrupt the young. Interestng, when "Postal" hasn't been relevant for over a decade.By the same token, other selling points can and should be used to bring people into theater seats. Taymor, Bono, and The Edge all have brand-name value, especially Taymor as I said with hits from across the street as well as a new critically-acclaimed movie in the theaters. I don't see how these two points are mutually exclusive. They could have worked on a musical about Michael Collins and it would have sold well.Peter, without blowing too much smoke up your skirt, you have been one of the best things for me in both comics & "Star Trek." I'd follow whatever you wrote (and took some delight in your puns). I am one of those hardcore fans, and while I may have engaged in my fair share of online discussions, I am also one of those fans who can understand why certain changes were made. They made sense in the context of a movie. The examples of the "Akira" manga and anime movie are a great example of this. Yes, I would have liked to see a movie series that was more faithful to the manga, but the anime movie was still pretty good.You may be right – the musical may have an interesting twist on the central story that you and I both love, but there have been lots of different iterations of comic book heroes that do not interest me. Based upon what I have read about the musical, I have no desire whatsoever to see it as is.

          • Kathleen David says:

            I suppose what it comes down to, Wayne, is that civilians seem to be finding reasons to go see the show–whether it's that they're drawn by morbid curiosity, or positive word of mouth, or interest in Spider-Man, or interest in the creators–while comics fans seem to be finding reasons to skip the show. No one's putting a gun to your head and saying you have to see the show, Wayne. What I am saying is that much of the coverage–the coverage upon which you've based your opinion–has chosen to focus almost exclusively on the show's budget (no matter how irrelevant) or on the injuries that cast members sustained (while ignoring mishaps on other shows). Which is more than enough to cause the hardcore fans to not only ignore it, but comment negatively on it (sometimes at length) without any first hand information. I've read a handful of articles that were written by people who actually saw it, but most are simply recycling material reported in other publications, stressing "troubled" and "most expensive." (Some have managed to fit both in the lead graf.)Honestly, Wayne, it doesn't matter to me whether you see it or not. And if your article had been "Six reasons why I have no intention of seeing this show," there'd really be nothing to discuss, or at least far less. But the bottom line is that you presented six things that needed to be addressed before you would go see the show. Okay, well…John addressed the apology aspect far more eloquently than I did, and I handled the rest, explaining why they were almost entirely non-issues. So your fallback is to say that, based on what you've read, you have no desire whatsoever to see it. Fine. But if your seeing it was a non-starter, why did you write the piece the way you did?See what I'm saying?PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            I see exactly what you're saying Peter. I have no problem with any production's budget unless it's patently clear that not enough money was spent intelligently, or the budget was not nearly enough. I've heard troubling rumors about how small the budget will be for "The Avengers" movie, but those are at best rumors. I've seen movies when it was patently clear that all parties concerned (including the scriptwriter) were grossly overpaid for the steaming loaves of poo that were the end result.Out of the stuff I've read about this production, the thing I've been concerned with the most has been worker safety. I fully realize that this is a work in progress, and I have no aversion to seeing this. I like theater and while I prefer classical opera to musicals, I would like to see what happens in relation to my original list of concerns.

          • Kathleen David says:

            Your concerns about worker safety are perfectly understandable, Wayne, and the producers and director have made it clear in repeated public statements that they are likewise concerned. The fact is that since the show opened, no one has been injured as a result of the flying effects. I'm still unclear on the nature of the falling rope that injured Mendoza, but obviously there hasn't been a repeat. And it was frankly astounding that the gag which failed to support the stunt double failed because it's a very simple trick that has been used for well over a century; the safeguards that were in use for it were the same ones that have worked all that time. My perception is that the producers have done the same as any other producer: to make the show as safe as possible. Unfortunately, as with any other show, sometimes things go wrong. Unlike any other show, the injuries get in-depth reporting and front page news coverage. Why? I couldn't say for sure. I'm not sure why "Spider-Man" is attracting Showdenfreude on a national scale. I've speculated that it's probably the budget, which is scrupulously reported even though it's of no relevance to injuries. The three injuries in "Fela!" that caused them to miss performances two weeks after the show opened (and I stress opened since you'd think they'd have worked out the problems in previews) received, as near as I can tell, coverage in two places: a single "In brief" mention in the NY Times and a mention in Playbill.com. Neither referenced the budget. Neither resulted in storms of protest or lengthy diatribes or or assertions that the producers should be apologizing for pushing the performers to such a degree.For that matter, before you go to a movie, do you do research to see how many stunt men or crew members or cast members were injured in the making of it? Because I'll guarantee you, it's more than you think.I submit, Wayne, that the main reason worker safety is such an issue for you in this show is because the incessant and slanted coverage ("troubled," "cursed," "snake-bit," "most expensive show in history") has made it an issue for you. Which is a little odd considering that, based on their public statements, it's not an issue for the male leads.PAD

          • George Haberberger says:

            Why are comic fans critical and civilians supportive? Is there a lot of overlap among comic fans and Broadway fans? I tend to think not, Peter David and Mark Evanier not withstanding. But then those guys are more than comic fans, they are professional writers. Broadway plays have a reputation of heavy drama, love and romance and comedy. Comic fans tend to like adolescent power fantasies. There may be an attitude among comic fans to not have to care about an art form that heretofore held no interest for them.At the risk of placing myself in elite company. I am a fan of comic books and Broadway shows. My wife and I have been subscribers to the Repertory Theatre in St. Louis. A few years ago we went to New York for 4 days and saw The Drowsy Chaperone, Spamalot and Chicago. And we had already seen Chicago at the Fox Theatre a couple of years before. We've seen Phantom of the Opera, Wicked, Jersey Boys, Contact, (the Girl in the Yellow Dress, WOW), Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita and Angels in America.But nevertheless, I think I am an anomaly. Most comic fans I know don't go to the theatre so a Spider-Man Broadway show is a concept many are not ready to accept. Maybe they're afraid if they see Spider-Man they'll find themselves following Phantom of the Opera around the country.

        • Kathleen David says:

          Just to see if I was overstating it, I did a quick google search on news articles and, sure enough, they all say "troubled" and "most expensive" (even though the budget of the show is of no relevance to articles about injuries.) The only article I found that didn't feature those two phrases was this one:http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/12/29/spider-man-o…And, lo and behold, it paints a more positive picture as it happens to report what the other articles don't: The show's selling tickets by the carload and may well be getting better word of mouth than such bastions of accuracy, the NY Post, are letting on.PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            Well if you're citing the New York Post as a source of information instead of something to line your bird cage with, then y'alls have problems.

          • Kathleen David says:

            I agree, but my source of information about the musical has been my first-hand experiencing of it. You, on the other hand, have based your assertions on various second and third-hand sources. (Wikipedia? Really?) But it's entirely possible that those sources based their reports on things reported by the Post. I've certainly read enough news items that said, "as reported in the NY Post…" But not everyone is scrupulous about citing whence their facts came. Long story short, Wayne, it's entirely possible that you based your article on Post-provided information and aren't even aware of it. That should give you some pause.PAD

          • Wayne D. Chang says:

            It does, Peter. It does immensely. I checked the Wikipedia article, and only 2 out of the 55 sources cited were from the NY Post. As you suggest, it's entirely possible that some of the other 53 sources were affected by the slam job the Post seems to have against this musical. I regard anything the NY Post says with about the same gravity as a noisy monkey. Both are full of crap, both are incoherent, and usually it's best to ignore them.

      • Wayne D. Chang says:

        Oh I remember, Peter. In fact I remember telling you about the "holey rusted metal, Batman" line that everyone was going to think YOU put in the novelization. I loved the extra bits you put into the novelization, Peter.

        • Kathleen David says:

          Thanks, Wayne. And yeah, when a lousy pun is involved, people do tend to think it was all me. Over on io9, they're discussing the movie "Oblivion," the REAL first movie about Cowboys and Aliens, which I wrote for Full Moon many years ago, and which featured George Takei. And they were bemoaning the lousy "Star Trek" puns that George utters in that film. (ex: Looking wearily at an emptied bottle of booze and moaning, "Jim, Beam me up.) Now understand that George is a dear friend, but when he ad libbed those puns and the director kept them in, I just KNEW that I would get the blame for them. Fifteen years later, it's still happening.The tone of both "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" was the Powers That Be pushing back against the extreme darkness of "Batman Returns." Did they ask for nipples on the costumes? Dunno. (Although why were there no nipples on Batgirl's costume? Bet the fanboys wouldn't have complained about THAT.) But they got the films they wanted: campy fare that was stuffed with marketing opportunities.PAD

          • Miles Vorkosigan says:

            I loved Oblivion, and I knew George stuck the awful puns in because I remember you mentioning it somewhere. It's a great piece of work, and worth seeing multiple times just for George. Add Julie Newmar and Musetta Vander, and damn! .Tell me io9 ain't badmouthing it. If they are, Boo may hafta smackabitch. I mean, c'mon, it's meant to be fun, it ain't Lawrence of Arabia!

          • Kathleen David says:

            Some people are being snarky, but for the most part either it's being remembered fondly or people who never heard of it are saying they need to check it out.PAD

          • mike weber says:

            Yeah – but "Oblivion" is cowboys-in-space, not cowboys-facing-alien-invasion-on-Earth.You wanna compare it to something more recent … "Firefly".

  26. Wayne D. Chang says:

    While I was at Warner Books, I remember going to a Toy Fair event the year “Batman & Robin” came out. All the big Warner Bros. mucketymucks were there. Joel Schumacher was there, and he said that if he had his way, he’d put nipples on Alfred’s suit.

    • Kathleen David says:

      Well, if that’s the case, then Warners got exactly the guy they wanted for the films they wanted to see made: Non-threatening (to the kiddies) movies with a ’60…s sensibility (but minus the charm) that had plenty of potential toys.

      PAD

  27. John Ostrander says:

    One question I am not clear about — Wayne, did you actually SEE the show?

    • Wayne D. Chang says:

      Nope. I did not. I based this upon news reports about accidents, delays, etc as well as trusty ol’ wikipedia. In no way am I trying to say that this is a review.

      • John Ostrander says:

        See, that’s a problem for me. I’ve had stories (Star Wars Legacy, for example) that got negative criticism before it was published, before it was actually seen, based on PR releases and speculation. if you pay the money and see the show (as PAD did) then, sure, you have a right to your opinion. You, OTOH, have a list of demands BEFORE you’d see the show, right? These people owe no apologies; no creative artist owes anybody an apology so long as they’re out there really trying to do their best, IMO. I can’t conceive that they’re TRYING to fail. But — and this I learned from a really gifted teacher I had in college — you have to be WILLING to fail to achieve anything.

    • Kathleen David says:

      I, however, did, John. And while I fully acknowledged that there are some serious problems with the show–problems that I swear are fixable, if the show’s creators can only get their act together–there is also a lot right about the show and that, in my opinion, it is definitely worth seeing. My full write-up is over on my site.PAD

    • Kathleen David says:

      I mean, having actually SEEN the show, were I to do a point by point response to Wayne’s original piece:

      1) They’ve issued various statements addressing everything from the importance of safety to announcements that acknowledge the second act problems and their plans to try and fix it. Perhaps that doesn’t fit the criteria of apology, but the concern is clear.

      2) Any number of times you see people who have done great work before come together and produce something that’s substandard. How often have you seen a film and wondered, “How can a movie with this much talent suck so badly?” Past success does not assure future success, and if that’s the case, then–in the unfortunate event that SM does indeed fail–there’s nothing to say that a future collaboration might not produce better results.

      3) The Geek chorus doesn’t work as presented and could just as easily be excised. This was my judgment based upon seeing the show. But I can also say that the Geek chorus COULD work, just as the Greek chorus of singers in “Little Shop of Horrors” worked, if only they weren’t so badly written. There were glimmers of potential there. Had you actually seen the show instead of just making flat pronouncements based on hearsay, you might agree.

      4) Arachne is, in fact, one of the best things in the show. Mendoza was great in the role, and the visuals involving her almost uniformly the most staggeringly amazing things I’ve ever seen in a theater. So they interwove the character with Spider-Man’s origin. So freaking what? In concept, it’s no more radical than what JMS did with the totem. And, in fact, the Geek chorus then argues about the inclusion of Arachne into his origins just as fans did about Joe’s concepts. To someone in the know, it’s rather meta and pretty damned clever.

      5) Uncle Ben still dies because Peter Parker doesn’t take an action when he could have. That hasn’t changed. Only the nature of the circumstances have changed, as much for expediency as anything else. As others have said, most people already know the basics of Spidey’s origins, so why belabor it? Peter still could have used his powers to avert Ben’s death and chose not to do so because he didn’t think it was his problem. If anything, the changes made in the third Spider-Man film were far more egregious.

      6) They’re not superfluous. They’re there to convey that Spider-Man, over the course of his career, faced a number of different threats. As for Swiss Miss, who I myself slagged in advance, she actually looked damned good. Indeed, when she’s introduced, one of the Geeks–who are effectively the story tellers–says, “I never heard of her!” And another Geek says cheerfully, “I made her up!” Which again speaks to the way fans want to contribute to a mythos. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had young fans come up to me with drawings and concepts of villains they’ve come up with. And for the most part they’re rubbish, but the young fans love them because they came up with. That’s the spirit in which Swiss Miss was created. Which you’d know if you’d seen the show.

      PAD

  28. Wayne D. Chang says:

    While I was at Warner Books, I remember going to a Toy Fair event the year "Batman & Robin" came out. All the big Warner Bros. mucketymucks were there. Joel Schumacher was there, and he said that if he had his way, he'd put nipples on Alfred's suit.

    • Kathleen David says:

      Well, if that's the case, then Warners got exactly the guy they wanted for the films they wanted to see made: Non-threatening (to the kiddies) movies with a '60…s sensibility (but minus the charm) that had plenty of potential toys.PAD

  29. John Ostrander says:

    One question I am not clear about — Wayne, did you actually SEE the show?

    • Wayne D. Chang says:

      Nope. I did not. I based this upon news reports about accidents, delays, etc as well as trusty ol' wikipedia. In no way am I trying to say that this is a review.

      • John Ostrander says:

        See, that's a problem for me. I've had stories (Star Wars Legacy, for example) that got negative criticism before it was published, before it was actually seen, based on PR releases and speculation. if you pay the money and see the show (as PAD did) then, sure, you have a right to your opinion. You, OTOH, have a list of demands BEFORE you'd see the show, right? These people owe no apologies; no creative artist owes anybody an apology so long as they're out there really trying to do their best, IMO. I can't conceive that they're TRYING to fail. But — and this I learned from a really gifted teacher I had in college — you have to be WILLING to fail to achieve anything.

    • Kathleen David says:

      I, however, did, John. And while I fully acknowledged that there are some serious problems with the show–problems that I swear are fixable, if the show's creators can only get their act together–there is also a lot right about the show and that, in my opinion, it is definitely worth seeing. My full write-up is over on my site.PAD

    • Kathleen David says:

      I mean, having actually SEEN the show, were I to do a point by point response to Wayne's original piece:1) They've issued various statements addressing everything from the importance of safety to announcements that acknowledge the second act problems and their plans to try and fix it. Perhaps that doesn't fit the criteria of apology, but the concern is clear. 2) Any number of times you see people who have done great work before come together and produce something that's substandard. How often have you seen a film and wondered, "How can a movie with this much talent suck so badly?" Past success does not assure future success, and if that's the case, then–in the unfortunate event that SM does indeed fail–there's nothing to say that a future collaboration might not produce better results.3) The Geek chorus doesn't work as presented and could just as easily be excised. This was my judgment based upon seeing the show. But I can also say that the Geek chorus COULD work, just as the Greek chorus of singers in "Little Shop of Horrors" worked, if only they weren't so badly written. There were glimmers of potential there. Had you actually seen the show instead of just making flat pronouncements based on hearsay, you might agree.4) Arachne is, in fact, one of the best things in the show. Mendoza was great in the role, and the visuals involving her almost uniformly the most staggeringly amazing things I've ever seen in a theater. So they interwove the character with Spider-Man's origin. So freaking what? In concept, it's no more radical than what JMS did with the totem. And, in fact, the Geek chorus then argues about the inclusion of Arachne into his origins just as fans did about Joe's concepts. To someone in the know, it's rather meta and pretty damned clever. 5) Uncle Ben still dies because Peter Parker doesn't take an action when he could have. That hasn't changed. Only the nature of the circumstances have changed, as much for expediency as anything else. As others have said, most people already know the basics of Spidey's origins, so why belabor it? Peter still could have used his powers to avert Ben's death and chose not to do so because he didn't think it was his problem. If anything, the changes made in the third Spider-Man film were far more egregious.6) They're not superfluous. They're there to convey that Spider-Man, over the course of his career, faced a number of different threats. As for Swiss Miss, who I myself slagged in advance, she actually looked damned good. Indeed, when she's introduced, one of the Geeks–who are effectively the story tellers–says, "I never heard of her!" And another Geek says cheerfully, "I made her up!" Which again speaks to the way fans want to contribute to a mythos. I can't tell you the number of times I've had young fans come up to me with drawings and concepts of villains they've come up with. And for the most part they're rubbish, but the young fans love them because they came up with. That's the spirit in which Swiss Miss was created. Which you'd know if you'd seen the show.PAD