Spider-Man 2.0 discussion...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The answer to the 'Why Spiderman?' question is easy: $$$$$$$$$$

Who though it was a good idea? People who were only thinking in $$$$$$$$
 
i'm still irked about all the U2 puns that stayed in the show... i mean, Mary Jane in a play called "The Fly", really :rolleyes:

what's with all the self-referencing? it is so uncreative for a start! and just plain corny!! really, that alone would ruin the play for me if ever i were to see it! lmfao
 
U2 (or Bono and Edge) on Broadway at all...that was already a bad decision...and then: Spiderman?

I mean, the whole movie project 'Million Dollar Hotel' already proved that Bono should stay with his core-business..this seems to become another prove.

The whole thing of a rock band doing a musical is already very dull...Then it also appears to be a very bad musical and I did not hear very positive reviews on the music either..at least the music from the movie was great!

Then it also delayed U2 projects...

I don't see anything positive regarding this whole project...STOP, go back to the studio and produce some god damn soulful rock music!!!
 
and for the first time, i shall defend Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark.

it's not exactly supposed to be shakespeare. it is, after all, spider-man.

it should be fun, funny, action packed, with a nice little moral to the story at the end. that wasn't what the first one was, thanks to the galactic genius. if that's what this one is now? then it is what it should be.


if you want something clever, intelligent and insightful, go see something else.
 
Been looking at a rundown of all the reviews over at the Broadwayword.com. It looks like about 40% negative, 40% mixed, 20% positive, which apparently—according to the vibe on the board—is not a terrible showing at all (who knew?), and better than everyone there thought it would do.

By and large, though, audiences seem to really enjoy it. If that continues and the score gets any attention at all (I heard Rise Above 1 on the radio yesterday), this could run for a while.

And for those who think that Bono and Edge doing Broadway is distasteful, I'll only quote one of my favorite writers: "taste is the enemy of art." :)
 
Yeah apparently a lot of the most successful shows get raked over the coals by reviewers, and shows that actually get positive reviews close quickly often. I'm not saying it's a great show, just saying that the reviews aren't unexpected, particularly when the knives were out for this show all along.

That said, I have to agree, why was this a singing musical instead of just a spectacle play. Bono & Edge's music would have played better as instrumental and I'm sure it would have been easier to make the story coherent without stopping to sing. Bono and Edge write from their heart, even in the case of songs like NLOTH or COL where they are in a role, the perspective is still theirs, this is part of the reason why I love them so much and clearly part of the reason why the lyrics to this show are so weak, fan or not they don't relate to what Peter Parker, et al are going through. And obviously that combines with the showtune inexperience to give them songs that simply do not move the show forward. Also, most comic book nerds aren't musical theater people and vis versa, a play w/ music from B&E could have worked.

Guys I think you should rethink the whole wait another year to release an album plan to prove you still know how to write.
 
Some people would have given it a negative review just for the fact Bono and Edge wrote the music for it,
 
I listened to the CD on my way in this morning. There were a few songs I liked, the rest was just kind of unmemorable.

I do like the lead actress' voice quite a bit, and I thought that "End of the World" song sounded better on the album than it did while I was watching the Tonys, where I thought it seemed so dull.

I think the cast version of Rise Above is gorgeous, and I prefer it to the single version with Bono and Edge. (I'm still irked that it sounds so loud and distorted.)
 
U2 (or Bono and Edge) on Broadway at all...that was already a bad decision...and then: Spiderman?

I mean, the whole movie project 'Million Dollar Hotel' already proved that Bono should stay with his core-business..this seems to become another prove.

The whole thing of a rock band doing a musical is already very dull...Then it also appears to be a very bad musical and I did not hear very positive reviews on the music either..at least the music from the movie was great!

Then it also delayed U2 projects...

I don't see anything positive regarding this whole project...STOP, go back to the studio and produce some god damn soulful rock music!!!

:down:

I'm not sure what reviews you are reading, but the reviews I've read state the score is fantastic. In fact, those that maybe gave the play an overall so-so review still state the score is fantastic.

Second, U2 are artists. It is natural for artists to want to expand beyond their one area.

Numerous artists have recorded music, produced, directed, acted, etc. These include Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Jr., Peter Lawford, and Joey Bishop (the "Rat Pack") who sang, performed in movies and appeared on stage in comedy bits, not to mention TV shows. The Beatles were on TV and in movies. The Monkees may have been a made up group, but they still wrote, sang, acted, etc. Madonna has been in movies as has Michael Jackson. Debbie Gibson. Mark Wahlberg. And many actors perform in plays when not doing movies. These include Matt Damon and Julia Roberts. Many actors want to sing in movies and some want to direct. So for you to limit U2 to something that only YOU want them to do comes across as very "limiting".
 
Forgive me, this is a peeve of mine, but I think Bono leaves his ego on the stage.
He has a totally different persona when he is not performing wouldn't you say?
Like he says, " I pretend to be a rock star".
Plus, being proud of your work is not an ego trip necessarily IMO. There's bragging and then there's being quietly proud and confident without boasting. I don't think he is in the least bit obnoxious. But what do I know. :shrug::D

Bono most likely is very humble in daily life. The thing is, we don't see him around his kids, his wife, his friends. We see the "rock star". And the rock star has always spoken loudly, with passion. His confidence, though, can come across as egotistical. He gained this reputation during his JT days and has played off of it since.

However, Bono is also humble and gracious - and that's also presented in the public. I've rarely heard him say a negative word in the press about any fellow artist. At most, he might state someone's music isn't quite his preference, but he appreciates what they are doing (he said this once about Madonna). But Bono's also said in print how everyone in U2 argues, then they ultimately do it his way. :lol: Sorry, but that is ego - and that's not a bad thing.

Lastly, you missed the point of my post. Bono can be egotistical if he wants because he has backed up his actions. U2 are successful. They have been for three decades. But Taymor has one big play, most of which was under control by others. So her ego and stance that items must be done her way hurt the process tremendously. Had she shown flexibility, the play may have never suffered as it did. Bono's ego still allows him flexibility and he takes the advice of others. Rare is the creation done without any input from others.
 
So for you to limit U2 to something that only YOU want them to do comes across as very "limiting".



but this is interference. it's not like anyone on here thinks that only they truly understand U2's music and what it should be and know better than anyone what makes U2 the best and how they should go back to doing exactly that to make them happy, which is U2's only real job, to make you happy.
 
... and they get ripped a new one here:



With any luck, this will be the last time you'll run across Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark in this space. I can't say I'm sad to be through with it. The thrill is gone. So is the insanity and the walleyed, aneurysm-in-progress fun of it all. I'm sorry to report that the eight-legged, nine-lived megalomusical — which finally opened tonight, in its newly tamed, scared-straight and heavily Zolofted post-Taymor state — has deteriorated from mindblowingly misbegotten carnival-of-the-damned to merely embarrassing dud. Awash in a garbage-gyre of expository dialogue pumped in by script doctor/comic-book vet Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, its lavish stage pictures turned to colloidal mush by director Philip William McKinley and choreographer Chase Brock, Spidey 2.0 is indeed leaner and more linear, and its story has been brutally clarified: It's now all too clear how very, very little was there in the first place. Spider-Man violates the first rule of pop fantasy: Never lose the distinction between beautiful simplicity and rank simplemindedness.

On the plus side: The flying rigs work now. No hitches, no potential manslaughter charges. Hooray. But don't worry, thrill-seekers: Every airborne actor still provides a fresh opportunity for you to fear for their lives, as well as your own. Spidey's best trick — his habit of arresting an overhead swing at its apex and suddenly thunking down into the orchestra seats — remains intact.

But much of the show's acromegalic Herman Munster charm, its faith in its own grotesque incoherence, its devotion to delusion, has been crudely lobotomized out of it, in order to make way for what studio executives often refer to as (barf) relationships. This means a lot of empty, brow-furrowed cliché-spouting, as couples come together and fall apart. Turn Off the Dark has trimmed its running time, but you'd never guess it, listening to Reeve Carney's Peter Parker and Jennifer Damiano's Mary Jane Watson prattle through their insipid pas de dumb. Carney, free of Taymor's clutches and costume designs, now styles himself the Axe-scented club stud he resembles in "candid" photos. He's got a strong, shreddy tenor and stage presence to spare, but newly empowered nerd he most certainly ain't. There's no wonder in him, no thrill-of-first-flight, just a cock-rock entitlement amplified by his new choreography, which most amounts to strutting and posing. Meanwhile, Taymor's pet spider-goddess, Arachne (T.V. Carpio), has been reduced to some sort of vague, astral cheerleader figure.

In this absence of, well, everything that might constitute drama, Patrick Page's Norman Osborn/Green Goblin has been handed the whole show. Pre-rehab, Page was the best thing about the musical; even the technical glitches, which could sometimes take upwards of ten minutes to repair, were made more than palatable by his natural showmanship, easy patter, and sly self-mockery. Now he's been given scene after scene in which to cut up: The Goblin calls the Daily Bugle... and gets annoyed by one of those irritating voice-mail menus! You know the ones I mean? With the "press one for English," "if you are satisfied with your message," etc., etc.? What's that? You do know them? You've known them since 1990? You don't say! It's the kind of stuff that wouldn't make the cut on the Blue Collar Comedy Tour, but Spidey's new handlers spread this soothing poop liberally, over everything, usually to cover the now-choppy set changes and splatter-pattern production numbers. (With no new money to spend, McKinley and Brock usually just clear the enormous stage and let cast members run amok in the void. The high-school musical rule of "everybody run this way! Okay, now, everybody run that way!" is very much in effect.)

No amount of mulch or manure can cover up the music, which is, by far, the show's greatest weakness. (Which is saying something.) With Taymor in charge, Spider-Man essentially ignored its score, and invited us to ignore it, too. We happily obliged. Now, the inert echoplay of the Edge's music and the dippy teen-poet vacuousness of Bono's lyrics cannot and will not be denied. (From "And you say rise above / Into the skies above" to "All the weirdos in the world / are here right now in New York City," there's perhaps not a single defensible line — and Edge, in his wisdom, spaces those lines at arid rock distances, making you wait whole seconds for unimaginative rhymes most of us could Mad-Lib in an instant.) "Bullying by Numbers," "DIY World," "A Freak Like Me Needs Company," and the narcotizing ballad "If the World Should End" (the undisputed nadir of last weekend's Tony awards ceremony) demonstrate, beyond a doubt, that the boys from Dublin never had a damned clue what a musical was or how to dramatize action and emotion in song. Spider-Man was a bad Julie Taymor musical; it is now, wholeheartedly, a terrible U2 musical, with a governing dramaturgy that owes more to Pop than Achtung Baby.


Spider-Man — to beat my running metaphor into the ground and then leave it for dead — is like that good-and-crazy friend with a highly entertaining substance-abuse problem, the one who went off and got clean, and came back a different and diminished person. With his manias and overmuchness, you realized, after he returned, how very little you ever had to offer one another. With Taymor gone, and the ruins of her monstrous Lovecraftian vision overrun by Lilliputians, there's simply nothing to see here, other than the sort of "stunt spectacular" that wouldn't look out of place amid a backdrop of roller coasters and toddler vomit. It's a vast emptiness, void even of its animating madness. It shuffles and smiles and subsides, like a good inmate, its hummingbird heartbeat slowed to a crawl. Put your head to Spidey's chest, and all you'll hear is the dull smack of a damp wad of cash hitting the boards.

Theater Review: A Critic’s Final Word on Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark -- Vulture
 
I'm glad this thing finally opened. Spending eight or nine years working on this and dealing with all of its problems must have been exhausting and I can't imagine the stress it must have caused. I'm happy for B&E that it's over now. They must be so relieved! :crazy:
 
I kept hearing the line in Freak as "all the widows in the world" when I listened to it this morning. Weirdos, naturally, makes far more sense.

LOL @ "pas de dumb"

and LOL @ "... her monstrous Lovecraftian vision overrun by Lilliputians."

They always have to work in a jab at Bono's height, don't they? :tsk:
 
You know what would be funny? If the crowds really ended up loving this, i hate critics with their overblown opinions, the only people who matter are the ones paying their hard earned money to go and see this.
 
You know what would be funny? If the crowds really ended up loving this, i hate critics with their overblown opinions, the only people who matter are the ones paying their hard earned money to go and see this.

I'd say the chances of that are very, very good. Quality and critical acclaim rarely matter when it comes to stuff like this. The Transformers films are box office monsters. The Black Eyed Peas sell by the truckload. Spiderman: The Musical could easily be a hit. It's Spiderman, it's people flying around on ropes, it will mostly be targeted at and sell to people who have never read a Broadway review in their lives, but are in New York for a few days and think it 'looks cool' and that's that.
 
Bono most likely is very humble in daily life. The thing is, we don't see him around his kids, his wife, his friends. We see the "rock star". And the rock star has always spoken loudly, with passion. His confidence, though, can come across as egotistical. He gained this reputation during his JT days and has played off of it since.
I totally get what you are saying, I agree with you. But again it's split personality ,the rock star persona on the stage where he projects that cockiness and confidence, versus the real deal.
I admit, I follow his public person off stage as much as the rock God on the stage, and the 2 are strikingly different. No I'm not a stalker :D but I think I have read enough interviews and seen enough youtube clips of him interacting with fans on the street to know that the man leaves his rock star ego at the door and has a sense of grace :ohmy: about himself. Look at the Julie Taymor thing. He called her up and invited her to the opening last night. That's classy.

However, Bono is also humble and gracious - and that's also presented in the public. I've rarely heard him say a negative word in the press about any fellow artist. At most, he might state someone's music isn't quite his preference, but he appreciates what they are doing (he said this once about Madonna). But Bono's also said in print how everyone in U2 argues, then they ultimately do it his way. :lol: Sorry, but that is ego - and that's not a bad thing.
There's ego and then there's diplomacy and then power. Yes, they can be seperate traits.
I see his power of persuassion/charm/humor as the thing that makes people fall in line with his point of view. He is very charming, thus making his powers of persuassion very strong. It's all in the delivery.

Lastly, you missed the point of my post. Bono can be egotistical if he wants because he has backed up his actions. U2 are successful. They have been for three decades. But Taymor has one big play, most of which was under control by others. So her ego and stance that items must be done her way hurt the process tremendously. Had she shown flexibility, the play may have never suffered as it did. Bono's ego still allows him flexibility and he takes the advice of others. Rare is the creation done without any input from others.
The very fact that Bono is open minded and listens to others takes his ego out of the equation.
Yes, I see what you are saying. I think it semantics. I don't define egotistical the same way you do I guess. :D
 
About the ego thing… I read so many articles and reviews that mention Bono's huge ego, and I have to wonder where they come up with that. It's almost like they are assuming that Bono is really full of himself because he's a rock star or because of the way he acts on stage, but that could be said about any famous person.

What I think is different about Bono is that he is able to laugh and joke about himself. Truly egotistical and narcissistic people cannot laugh at themselves and they can't handle it when other people laugh at them. And, as Jeannieco said, if you read enough interviews with Bono, it's pretty obvious that he's not the egomaniacal rich rock star cliche that a lot of people assume he is.

I think this whole Spiderman thing is not evidence of a huge ego, but it does show that Bono is determined and ambitious. If he was mostly concerned about his image, he probably would have bailed when the trouble started so as not to tarnish his reputation. The fact that he and Edge stuck with it and have taken so much crap for it is not only amazing, but is a credit to their character, I would say.
 
it's people flying around on ropes


i am a reasonably educated Broadway consumer. i grew up listening to the soundtracks to musicals and my parents brought me to shows when i was still in elementary school. i participated in summer theater as a kid and sang along to old school Broadway stuff. i generally keep abreast of what's going on and see probably 2-3 shows a year either in NYC or DC. i care what reviews say, and would never consider spending money on something that was supposed to be awful because i usually feel insulted afterward.

and, yet, i still want to see Spiderman if for no other reason than to watch him swing over an audience.
 
re: Bono's ego.

i think it's less to do with Bono walking around saying how great he is, and more that Bono has always had an air of self-importance about himself, that what he says and does (and, by extension, U2 as well) is automatically important as well.

so it's less about him being a cocky asshole that no one can stand and more about him being so convinced of his self-importance (to us, to art, to culture, to now) that created the myth of his own ego.

and, to be honest, looking at some interviews with Bono from the mid-80s, he does seem a bit burdened by ... what, exactly? had i been a more cynical adult back than, i might not have jumped on board the Bono bandwagon like i did because i was a teen of the 90s when they actually were as important as they always thought they were.
 
I think he’s very good with fans. I think he’s very good with politicians. I think he’s very good with crowds at a gig. I think he is very much the born salesman he claims to be. And underneath that, there's an ego the size of a small country.

That's not to say he's really an arsehole, I think the truth is quite the opposite.

Why have you?

I have, yes. And he (all of them) do sound like very genuinely nice people, but he also sounds like he knows exactly who he is, and thinks very, very highly of that person too. And all that ambition and striving for perfection - his and the bands - certainly sounds like it has an (absolutely necessary) savage bite behind it's bark as well. But any assessment of him as, despite all that, basically a pretty nice guy sound right. All their public persona caricatures sound like they're fairly bang on.

I think there are a few small things that have probably worked well in his/their favour in terms of keeping that balance between monster egos and down to earth niceness. The band dynamic, sticking mostly in Dublin, and consistency of partners/friends etc that came before the fame - little things like that have probably done him/them huge favours in that regard.
 
That sounds like a fair assessment.

I don't know that I've ever heard a story of him being a jerk to a fan or anything like that, which is awesome. But I figure he has his moments of being a butthead to friends, family, or whomever when he's doing his everyday life.

Because he's human, and we all have Our Moments.
 
i am a reasonably educated Broadway consumer. i grew up listening to the soundtracks to musicals and my parents brought me to shows when i was still in elementary school. i participated in summer theater as a kid and sang along to old school Broadway stuff. i generally keep abreast of what's going on and see probably 2-3 shows a year either in NYC or DC. i care what reviews say, and would never consider spending money on something that was supposed to be awful because i usually feel insulted afterward.

and, yet, i still want to see Spiderman if for no other reason than to watch him swing over an audience.

Well, I can't stand musicals (in general.) The list of things I would rather do than have to sit through, say, Wicked, would be very, very long and some of them would be pretty dark and horrific.

But if I were visiting New York, I would definitely consider this. Partly because I feel like I've really got to see this for myself now, but partly just because the swinging stuff does look very cool.
 
All the most intimate interviews with Bono I've read highlight the fact that he's insecure and the rock star on stage and in the press is something he does to make up for that. He said you have to be missing something to be able to go out and act like that on stage. For someone that's so sincere about helping the world, and in his spirituality that's evident in his music and any serious interview with him, I highly doubt his real personality would fit in with this image that the U2 haters have of him. Now, he could have dealt with insecurity by avoiding as much attention that he gets and just going out and singing his heart out instead of projecting this image at a distance, but then he (and U2 as a band) wouldn't have had anywhere near the impact they've had.

That's not to say he doesn't have an ego, you can't be a creator or a performer without one, but I do not think he is arrogant, that's a big distinction.
 
That sounds like a fair assessment.

I don't know that I've ever heard a story of him being a jerk to a fan or anything like that, which is awesome. But I figure he has his moments of being a butthead to friends, family, or whomever when he's doing his everyday life.

Because he's human, and we all have Our Moments.

This, :up:.
 
Back
Top Bottom