Spider-Man The Musical

[ramdram]

Ref #29

 

Sorry old man, don't understand your banter, (old quote) ** laughs out loud **.

 

The 65 million dollars was invested (some might say) in an industry which has a lot of mouths to feed ie. giving employment to a lot of folk who may have been concerned about their income stream. Most of us think about that constantly, so, if 65million dollars gets injected into a purely entertainment project then we should not question the motives too closely if only on the gift horse principle. The investors are hoping/expecting to get back rather more than they put in. (Unless it's a tax thing.)

 

It should never be forgotten either that unless there were a constant stream of investors then the industry would not exist today in anything like the variety it does.

 

The new technical innovation(s) from the R&D dept, so to speak, will be deployed in other following productions...possibly, as mentioned earlier, "down" to cash strapped amdrams in the years to come.

 

You can't, at the moment (afaik), simply stroll into Flints and ask for a Spiderman flying rig...to be met by the response, "Yuss mate, what size would that be? Dress left or right?". (Tho' you can get a Mary Poppins, but only in "small". Sorry, couldn't resist).

 

But one day you might, who knows? This option is the legacy of the original investor. Ref technology, how many of us would have dreamed, even a few years ago, of having a 3D genie flying around in panto?

 

I'm saying this cash injection is a good thing. The money went through people's pockets and put food on the plate, shoes on the feet etc, etc, as well as developing the new kit.

 

Money has to circulate because that's the way the world works. Investors put money in and hopefully take a profit in their lifetime...but nobody puts a gun to their head...they would have done some research before signing the cheque.

 

In the meantime the money works and everyone's happy...even the taxman.

 

Possibly, and I speculate here, it might be that 65 million dollars is too large a sum to write off so yet more cash will be injected to polish up the "product". This can only be an even better thing for the industry.

 

The audiences may come eventually...if only to see how bad, allegedly, the production is. But, if there is an income from the production then some technician folk will get their just rewards too.

[andy_s]

"opening" ** night postponed again? The phrase "good money after bad" springs to mind ....

 

and I understand about the fact that some of that money ends up in the pockets of our esteemed colleagues, but frankly, if I was working on the show and the production kept missing deadlines, I'd be getting a bit depressed despite the regular paypacket....

 

 

** reason for inverted commas: in my (somewhat old-fashioned) view, if an audience has paid to see a performance, (even at cut-price preview rates) then the show is "open" already....

[ramdram]

Depressed, despite getting regular paypacket? I suspect you might get a quite different view from some folk looking for work.

 

Frankly, lots of shows are not worth the electricity to fire up the kit, despite all sorts of excellent technical stuff, yet it gives employment to a lot of folk, and consequently keeps the skills in the industry.

 

To quote Peter Pan (finale) "there's always tomorrow".

[andy_s]

Fair point, I certainly don't mean to belittle the efforts of people aiming to pay their mortgages, raise their families, buy their next ... what ever their priorities may be, but well to quote from another thread (admittedly when they were trying to justify an outrageous request for a blue freebie) "money isn't everything"

 

the satisfaction of a "job well done" is also not without importance, and it doesn't yet seem to me that anyone can claim this in respect of this particular production. This would leave me personally (if I was involved) in a somewhat depressed state. I am perfectly aware of the value of money-making shows in the industry, having made my living (but sadly not my fortune) in it since graduating in the early eighties, but you will just have to allow me a slightly romantic approach to the "art" of the theatre, which I've luckily retained since my idealistic student days. I'm not really suggesting that the paypacket is unimportant... of course it's vital that people have as many opportunities as possible to earn a crust.

 

as you say, some shows are more worthy than others, perhaps not the right thread to debate this at length ... but my personal view of the worth of this production is that I'd rather watch "Spiderman the Movie" in a cinema where the wires have been got rid of in post-production (possibly even by my ex who now works in CGI because she couldn't achieve the effects she was interested in in a theatrical medium, which would at least give me a vicarious sense of connection and pride) rather than in a theatre where the wires are going to be all too obvious, and frankly prevent me from any real suspension (pun intentional) of disbelief, and most likely leave me questioning the point of trying to mount such a show on a stage when it can be done so much better on film. I remember the tag line to Superman - "you'll believe a man can fly", and what do you know, I watched the movie and I did believe (at least for the duration of the movie). Somwhow "You'll believe we can hang some people up on wires and wave them around the stage a bit" doesn't have the same ring to it as a tagline. Especially when they apparently can't yet do it consistently or safely enough to allow them to "open" the show. perhaps this gives me a slightly jaundiced view of "why bother" ..... but that's a personal opinion, and I appreciate others will differ and may well be prepared to spend their money on tickets for this show.

 

when they do eventually manage to open the show, they will all be able to give themselves a pat on the back for a job well done, which will no doubt help to put a self-satisfied glow on the paypacket. Until then, I'm going to rather enjoy my feelings of schadenfreude ... comfortable in the knowledge that their share of the $65mil will insulate them very nicely from any scorn that I may attempt to pour on them, in, let's be honest, a pretty inconsequential internet thread ... undertaken for the pleasure and enjoyment of the participants rather than any sense that it will make a difference to the show ... (at least I make the assumption that that was at least in part the motivation of the OP...)

 

incidently, when I did my training, many years ago, we learnt that there was always tomorrow ... until the immutable deadline of opening night...

but times change, don't they? If you can't make the deadline without compromising the "vision", change the deadline ...

[erroneousblack]

This reminds me a little of the musical "Bernardette", at the Dominion 20 years ago. Everyone knew it was a sack of s**t, but freelancers took jobs on it, on the basis they had a few weeks to kill. Maybe it's the same spirit here!

[lightsource]

Well, I was going to quote hilights from of the last few posters, but decided not to, as you can read them above.

 

They sound more like wining staff on a Supermarket checkout till, arguing about the benefits of minimum wage, rather than Industry Professionals discussing the merits of a heavily invested show.

 

Do any of you think the investors give a damn about your money problems? You're hired to DO a job for an agreed fee, yet in this case it seems to have failed miserably.

 

Depressed, despite getting regular paypacket? I suspect you might get a quite different view from some folk looking for work

 

Ramdram,

 

Firstly, call me an old man again, and I will be seriously p155ed or simply annoyed, especially as you are retired, and I am still a Company owner working in the industry who has a vast financial overhead in what I do, as do the rest of us in a similar position. As someone (from your profile) who has always worked for an employer, then I assume that you have never had to deal with risky investments, or spend many thousands of pounds creating your company, or purchasing the 'latest industry toy'

 

Firstly, money costs, on a daily basis. $65M, anyone want to calculate the interest rates?

$65M Have you factored in the Investors percentage..rayalties and the like?

Secondly ROI possibly a new phrase for you? It means Return On Investment,

 

And that's the ONLY reason investors invest in shows. They want a financial reward for their investment.

 

And Just to show how hard earned money is spent.........

 

http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/open...again-1.2547451

 

So, it's been postponed, if I did that, I'd be out of business.

[obsoperator]

Well, for what it's worth, here's my first-hand review, not too long ago.

http://www.lightnetwork.com//?msg=31288.4

 

I think it has a chance, especially if you regard it as targeted at a "new" Broadway audience, male 20-something video gamers. (I don't mean that as a joke or an insult. I just read that 2/3 of Broadway ticket purchase decisions are made by females.)

 

And by the way, a recent (non-musical) flop I saw was an import, The Pitmen Painters. The first act was pretty good, because it wasn't about the British Class System. The second act was not so good, because it was. So a dud can be found anywhere, not just in open-cold new musicals in New York.

[ramdram]

Ref #36.

 

Employment: Not so lightsource, I was self employed for years, both during my time in the Beeb and afterwards. In fact a large proportion of BBC staff had their own businesses. And, I am not retired as such.

 

These other businesses ranged from painter/decorator, TV rentals, aerial erectors, mechanics, coded welders, limousine hire, sparks, gardeners, delivery drivers, removals men, property developers, guest houses, double glazing installers, bouncers, wedding "videographers", tech maints on the disco kit in the clubs in Soho...to name but a few. If you worked 4 days on and 4 days off then you had plenty of time to earn a bob or two. Some blokes earned more in their other jobs.

 

Most blokes in engineering, certainly when I started did a bit of metal bashing as a matter of course in their stint in maints; one of my stations was completely self contained: plumbers, sparks and chippies...believe when I say they did not waste their days off in the week sitting around in the pub...one of the house maints blokes even trained the volunteers in the Reading TA.

 

I did own a property repair company for the property rental industry; I am very aware of cash flow, and the ROI. (However, these days it is probably not a terribly "PC" thing to have more than one job with so much unemployment, but that's not an argument for this forum.)

 

The oldman bit was a quote (http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/rafbante.htm )...I did not understand the thrust of your argument. It is my view that ANY cash invested in the theatre was/is a good thing and even tho' a production may fail, at least some techs and actors earned a crust...until the next production they were employed on. By the sound of it with regards to Spiderman the boundaries of flying off stage are being extended (groan), which is a good thing because it adds to the pool of technical effects that can be accomplished.

 

Theatre Royal Plymouth staged Mary Poppins a year or so ago and flew MP off the stage into the gods, brilliant stuff...and, judging by the number of outside contractors milling around the stage in the pre production tech engineering run up, gave a lot of blokes employment, enhanced their CVs sort of thing and made them perhaps more employable because of their new skills and experience...so where is the waste of money in that?

 

I would strongly dispute your contention that theatre investors ONLY want to see a return on their cash. If it were not for the angels involved in our venue, myself included, then we would have closed years ago. There is an article on theatre angels from the Times:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/inv...icle2109951.ece

 

Third para suggests the chances of a return are only about 30%...that was from three years ago and no doubt the chances are even less today.

 

In short I gather you have invested in certain ventures and are concerned by the small return, or any. That is the nature of the industry. As mentioned earlier that decision was yours to make and if a venture comes off then you are rewarded. If it fails...

[GridGirl]

And another accident....surely this is now at the point where so many people have been injured that they seriously have to take a long, hard look at it to see whether this is even safe to continue with, let alone if it's going to make its money back. Although I'm a little unsure as to how being hit in the head with a rope will give you a concussion - think there's more to that than they've said!

[pshughes]

Another opinion of the above accident here

[JazzAV]

well, the show is all over the news, 2 minutes on BBC news..not sure you can buy that publicity. So maybe all the press attention will help. I do wonder if the insurance company might just insist on the stunts being changed....or might this show become uninsurable? It's one thing for a couple of actors to get injured but looking at the stunts, the insurers must wonder what would happen if spidey fell 30 ft onto a few audience members....

 

Its a real shame as they seem to want to push some boundaries and have been given a budget to do it, but where we can all forgive some teething problems during the first few shows....actors falling in this way can never be considered acceptable and surely the show should have been built from the safety aspect outwards. I forget the singer who recently tried to fly at a concert and just got dragged along the stage onto the audience....I do wonder what is going on.

[ImagineerTom]

For theatre (where a dramatic action typically involves a brisk walk across the stage) this is a high injury rate, but this show ISN'T theatre, it's basically circus / stunt / acrobatics show and for that genre (especially considering the cast size) it's been a very low injury rate so far moreso for a completely new work. Of the 4 incidents so far, 3 have been to stunt performers (unfortunate but completely and totally an expected part of the job) only one has been to a non-stunt performer and from the reports so far it sounds like that was a fairly typical backstage collision which has been slightly over-reacted to.

 

I think it's rather significant that all this coverage has drowned out the reports that the story and show itself is a stinker whilst it's a proven fact that audiances will flock to shows where there's a good chance they're going to see something go wrong...

[andy_s]

according to the report in the Evening Standard, advance ticket sales are "disappointing" and it's been "panned by the critics". (although not officially, of course, because it hasn't opened yet).

 

strangely enough, the review of the show at my old place of work in the same edition of the paper makes no mention of the Beast's first entrance swinging from a chandelier, from 10-plus metres above the auditorium.

 

 

seems to go down quite well with the average 8yr old in the audience, luckily.

[lightsource]

The oldman bit was a quote (http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/rafbante.htm )...I did not understand the thrust of your argument.

 

Apologies Ramdram, was not aware of that B-)

 

Theatre Royal Plymouth staged Mary Poppins a year or so ago and flew MP off the stage into the gods, brilliant stuff...and, judging by the number of outside contractors milling around the stage in the pre production tech engineering run up, gave a lot of blokes employment, enhanced their CVs sort of thing and made them perhaps more employable because of their new skills and experience...so where is the waste of money in that?

 

That would depend on how much it cost.

 

I would strongly dispute your contention that theatre investors ONLY want to see a return on their cash. If it were not for the angels involved in our venue, myself included, then we would have closed years ago. There is an article on theatre angels from the Times:

Third para suggests the chances of a return are only about 30%...that was from three years ago and no doubt the chances are even less today.

 

I must admit I'm totall amazed by this, I assumed most (if not all) investors would be 'leaving the sinking ship' if they thought they were going to make a loss. I must admit though, I have seen investment in the gutter low budget film industry, where there seems to be little return for an investor.

 

In short I gather you have invested in certain ventures and are concerned by the small return, or any. That is the nature of the industry. As mentioned earlier that decision was yours to make and if a venture comes off then you are rewarded. If it fails...

 

Not at all, I was a computer reseller in the 90's, and purchased property with the profits. I'll leave you to work out my bank balance ( considering the fact I've now sold all properties).

 

I'm just purely amazed at how much this is costing. Major feature films have been made for much less.

[DrummerJonny]

Video of the accident here for those who want to watch it.

 

 

Although it's just occured to me... What kind of person videos a show from the audience like that? Grrr... Rude people...