Talk:Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark

Show Closed

It's been closed for over 2 years. Going to share this at some point or do you have to wait 10 years to mention it either in the past-tense or say it's a closed show? http://www.npr.org/2014/01/03/256602469/broadways-spider-man-musical-turns-off-the-lights-at-last — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgabrys (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Projections

The videos of the musical show that the set is almost constantly awash in projections. This seems to be a major part of the setting. Can someone look at some recent descriptions of the show and try to add a sentence or two about that? Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Arachne

Not having seen the show but is this character an adaption of the mythological figure or the Spider-Man character?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the mythological figure.-5- (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Shoes

I saw one of the first previews, and there was a whole subplot about shoe thefts all over the city, culminating in a musical number with Arachne and her Furies, the latter each clad in designer shoes. It was stupid beyond belief. Has that number or that subplot / conceit been excised, or does it bear mentioning in the plot? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Review from a Comic Book Resources

CBR Source. As a leader in Comic Book Nerdom news it definitely should be included The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I think the article should be protected so that only registered users can edit it, as most (if not ALL) of the vandalism/bad edits have come from IPs. Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects" (WP:LEAD). I should think that the lead to this article errs in excluding the fact that it has been critically panned. I submit that paragraph 2 of the lead should be changed from "The most expensive Broadway production in history, as well as the one with the longest preview period,[1] the show includes highly technical stunts, such as actors swinging from 'webs' and several aerial combat scenes" to "The most expensive Broadway production in history, and has been panned by critics as one of the worst. The show includes highly technical stunts, such as actors swinging from 'webs' and several aerial combat scenes." Surely the dismal critical reception is more relevant (and a more significant aspect of the article) than the lengthy preview period? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, lots of shows are critically panned, but setting any kind of a record is by definition a singular achievement. Also, to avoid undue weight, the pans need to be in the context of the show having been reviewed before the producers felt it was ready to open. Even the previews record needs to be in the context that, normally, a music has out-of-town previews that don't count in the total number, but that because the theater needed to be specially fitted for complex technical reasons, it wasn't financially realistic to do specially fit both an out-of-town theater and a Broadway theater.

And I'm saying this as someone who saw and hated the show, so I say all that not for any other reason but to help us provide a full context. Being simplistic in this case will provide a misleading total picture, especially in a summary lead that many readers may not read past. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the possibility of readers failing to make it past the lede is an argument for including the hostile reception therein, not against it. The show's an expensive flop—endlessly delayed,pilloried by the critics, the toast of late night show monologue writers. To omit that from the lede seems like sanitization. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We're in agreement on that, actually. My point isn't to not include it in the lead. My point is that we need to include it within the context of the unprecedented circumstances (no out-of-town tryouts for unique technical reasons; reviews before opening date) and not to use conversational tone such as "panned by the critics as one of the worst." Let's each try to work something up here on the talk page to convey all this neutrally in as few words as possible. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Issues

I've had a look through this article and see a number of minor but important problems:

• too much of it sounds like clipped press releases (records broken etc)
• the lede has no mention of the troubles in production, which is one of the most reported aspects in the media
• much of the text and sources in the article as from press releases or quotes from people in the production. While some of this is to be expected (and good) it shouldn't dominate at the expense of reliable 3rd party commentary.
• The 'Description' section is very long, vague and again dominated by quotes from people involved in the production. I personally don't see the point of the section, 'rock musical with stunts' seems to nicely categorize the production.
• The plot summary section is far too long. A brief summary of the plot would suffice.
• The critical reception section has a number of 'pro' quotes and then one very long 'negative' quote. It would be better to reduce the size of the negative quote, but get a better cross section of reviews of the show (either positive or negative).

Ashmoo (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You bring up many good points. The lede does, though, make mention of production troubles: "At the first preview performance, these technical challenges caused several lengthy interruptions, and the opening has been postponed several times. Numerous cast members suffered injuries during rehearsals and preview performances."

The size of the plot summary is actually well within guidelines, though trimming the fat certainly wouldn't hurt. It's currently 1,012 words, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure states, "A two-act musical's synopsis should be between 800 and 1100 words, with leeway for an unusually complicated plot." --Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reception section isn't giving enough focus on its negative reviews

Striving for a neutral point of view isn't about never saying bad things. This musical is one of the worst-reviewed big-budget musicals in recent memory, with many reviewers specifically noting that they are taking the highly unusual step of publishing early because it is so terrible. The current review section notes that it is unusual for reviews to be published early, but neglects to mention that most reviewers said that the reason why they felt compelled to speak was because they had such a ghastly opinion of it. It quotes one bad review, and otherwise leaves the impression that the show hasn't gotten any criticism at all -- indeed, it cherry-picks out a few good things (like "visually stunning") when the overall tone has been among the most negative garnered by any major show in years. Reporting on opinion is always tricky to do in a neutral manner, but in this case any neutral discussion of the show's reception has to primarily focus on how shockingly it has been critically panned. --Aquillion (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Taymor leaving

I don't have time, so someone should update the article and it's creative team: [1] --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Numerous" injuries?

Near the beignning of the article is the following sentence: "Numerous cast members suffered injuries during rehearsals and preview performances."

The actual number of injured actors (to date) is four - and in fact these four injuries are specifically discussed later on in the article. Whether or not we consider four to be "numerous" (obviously it could and should be argued that four injuries are already way too many), not only is "numerous" not specific, but it could clearly connote a negative bias. Can I suggest we change the word "numerous" to "four"? Thanks! (BTW - though I am a theatre professional, I have no affiliation with the show whatsoever.) 65.96.125.48 (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a good point. By the time I got around to reading this idea, it was fixed in the article, but now we have a new problem.

"The show includes highly technical stunts, such as actors swinging from "webs" and several aerial combat scenes. At the first preview performance, these technical challenges caused several lengthy

interruptions. Several actors were injured during rehearsals and previews.

Spider Man is the most expensive Broadway production, and had the longest preview period (182 preview performances), in history. Although the musical began performances in November 2010, the official opening was

postponed several times."

I know it's an encyclopedia, but it's ugly, even for an encyclopedia. Doctorwhovian (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Early production history

This NYT article has a lot of good information about the show's early performance history and also the recent changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis suggestion

Because of the unprecedented nature of this show, shutting down for weeks and revamping with a new creative team, I would propose that both the new version and the old version each have a synopsis. I think it's important for the historical record to know what existed that was then changed.

Secondarily, this would also add insight into the show's creative progress. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If no one is showing much interest in this topic, I will go ahead and add the original synopsis and songs lower in the article. Given the unprecedented nature of this musical, this information about the original production is important to document for the sake of theater history. If anyone feels this information is not historically important, please comment here. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw your comment. The early features of the plot should be (and they already are) treated briefly, particularly the earlier emphasis on Arachne and the role of the "geek chorus". That plot only existed in previews, so it should not get its own section, just a sentence or two in the history section. So, I disagree that you should add much more about it, and certainly not a new section about it. More important is to fix the present plot summary which is still not right. We need a more accurate plot summary of what we ended up with. In a note at the bottom of the musical number section, we could note which songs were cut and added. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad somebody's responding! Question: In a normal show, changes from preview are, indeed, as you say, of little note. Is there any precedent for a show being completely overhauled this way with a new director, new choreographer and new writer? If this is unprecedented, would not the much-covered and even reviewed original version be worth documenting for posterity — particularly since mainstream critics nationwide reviewed it, something never done to a show in previews before. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually came here to wonder why the entire plot of the old version of the musical is missing from the article. The show has been completely changed from the second act on in the final version - mainly that Arachne was originally a major character and villain but now only exists as a minor character and Spider-Man's muse. The way the article is currently written, it seems to expect the reader to know that and even quotes reviews that bring it up, but provides no context to understand that the show currently on Broadway is not the same show in most of the reviews linked in the article itself. I know I read the article before the massive revisions and was rather surprised when the show popped up on That Guy With The Glasses and had a completely different plot from what I read here...but there's nothing in this article highlighting it. One or two sentences doesn't cover it. The article spent more time talking about the cast's injuries. Rebochan (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

American Idol

Should the performance on the American Idol (season 10) finale be mentioned somewhere in the article? [2][3]--StryoFome (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since no one's responded I've taken the liberty to add it to the article myself, with a "promotional events" heading like Avenue Q.--StryoFome (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Can anyone put in the revised plot, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I know a few people who have seen the new version, so I'll try to get as much out of them as I can.--Mamma Rose (Sing out, Louise!) 21:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made some changes based on what I could glean in the reviews, but I can tell there are more changes that need to be made. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Look like someone else beat me to it! I removed the "outdated" tag now.--Mamma Rose (Sing out, Louise!) 18:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Song list

There are many discrepancies between the song list in the article and the IBDB one. Does anyone know which is up to date? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The song list here now matches th IBDB one.--Mamma Rose (Sing out, Louise!) 18:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. IBDB says that different people sing some of the songs. Can we reconcile this? Which is correct? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would go with IBDB, because most of the song list was added by IP's, which (excuse my bias) tend to not be so reliable. --Mamma Rose (Sing out, Louise!) 21:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make the changes right now, then. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. I saw a scan of a May 20 program here (scroll down most of the way) and compared it with the IBDB listing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good source to incorporate

See here I'm not confident enough to add this source, but it's a great one for behind-the-scenes politics and re-writing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100718135603/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVj_QCVeacY to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVj_QCVeacY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)