I am not particularly excited about the upcoming Spider-Man musical because…well, though I like Spider-Man and I like musicals, they don't seem to go together. I like clam chowder too, and if someone decided to make a musical about clam chowder, it would not automatically command my attention, either. Maybe Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark will surprise me. It's supposed to open soon on Broadway with previews commencing this weekend. That is, assuming they don't postpone it all for the hundred-and-ninth time. (You may not be able to read it but the above ad announces an opening date of February 18, 2010.) I know little about it except that the budget has swelled to the point where a lot of theater observers are shaking their heads, thinking what a spectacular success or disaster it could be and what either outcome will mean to the business. And I suppose there are those schadenfreude folks out there rooting for disaster. The theatrical community is full of loving, passionate people but there's a seamy flank that lives to trash the efforts of others.
Jesse Green has written a long article about the current status of the show and we also have one by Patrick Healy in the New York Times. Being me, I can't help note that neither article contains any mention whatsoever of Stan Lee, Steve Ditko or anyone who was ever important to the success of the property. Both focus mainly on the money and the technical wizardry, not on the characters or story. If that's how the show works, that may be a problem right there. Then again, if the plot and songs aren't wonderful, they may still sell a lot of tickets to folks who just want to see the money.
One thing I wonder about a show like this: A lot of Broadway hits don't make huge sums of cash in New York. They break even there or show a modest profit…and then the real bucks come from all the touring companies and regional theater productions that ensue. The original Fiddler on the Roof ran on Broadway for over 3200 performances and made a lot of people rich just with that…but that's nothing compared to the money that comes in from the revivals and the umpteen-zillion productions of it done of it around the country each year. Most of those are possible because the show is not expensive to stage. You and I could get a small theater and couple thousand bucks and put it on, assuming we could find some Jews somewhere. Or at least, people who can pass for Jews. The point is the cost does not provide a disincentive. It doesn't require much capital to mount A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum or Guys & Dolls or Company or Damn Yankees or any of those. You can even stick one in (and I have seen all of those in) a 99-seat theater. I once saw You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown in a theater with a capacity of 30 and I doubt they spent more than $300 on sets and costumes and tuning the one piano that comprised the entire orchestra.
Assuming the Spider-Man musical is a smash, what else can happen to it? Where will it be seen apart from that one house near Times Square and maybe one touring company that will probably have to simplify the effects and sets? There has recently been a trend in local theater towards "minimalist" productions…people staging Camelot, for instance, with a cast of eight and a small orchestra. You can sometimes do that with a show where the "stars" are the story and the songs. I've also seen a couple of versions of It's A Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman done for eleven dollars but those were all spoofs where they made fun of the cheap sets and lack of, for example, money to fly their star around onstage. Somehow, Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark is feeling like a show that isn't going to go either route. It's feeling like theater as one-time spectacular event as opposed to theater for the ages. Some folks are probably worried that if it succeeds on that level, what's the next step?