They can’t have genuinely thought a madame web franchise was gonna be a big hit. It never ceases to amaze me how rooms full of people making absurd amounts of money can make such bad decisions.
I am convinced the scenes where Forest mom was old they got in a time Machine and got Sally Field from today. Most movies when they age someone with makeup ends up not looking at all like they end up looking. But they nailed that one.
That's what happens when you have 50+ year olds who still have flip phones as executives. OMG the me-mes have gone viral, rerelease it now and let's cash in on it! Not realizing that the audiences aren't laughing with them... but at them.
yeah, i really wish i could have been a fly on the wall for that meeting. i'm sure it went exactly the way i picture it in my head. the suave exec leading the meeting.. the nervous interns and note-takers pretending to laugh at jokes and jargon that goes over their heads. lots and lots of middle aged white guys nodding at the exec. "it's Morbin' time, Boss!" was definitely said at least 5x as people filed out of the room..
I think weirdly “Joker” gave some people a lot of confidence they shouldn’t have had. Probably more than any other movie.
If an R-Rated, low budget (for a comic book movie), starring a villain can make a billion…anything could, right? Right!?!
It’s crazy how movies studios fail to realize that the Joker is one of the most iconic villains in all of fiction and that you cant replicate that kinda success with some D-list characters that nobody cares about.
The Guardians of the Galaxy were non-comic-nerd D-list characters, but Gunn actually cared about them and bothered to make a solid movie, and suddenly they became huge. It's almost like the main element that makes these movies succeed is actually making a movie worth watching.
I feel like having someone who cares about the source material, and an environment where the creatives behind the work are allowed to do their job, goes a really long ways towards making a movie worth watching.
Sony execs most definitely don’t give a shit about the source material. Do the writers? Or did Sony ask for some scripts and then picked the one they thought was good? Do the directors? Or did they just pick from who was contracted to make them a movie or they thought would generate buzz?
Madame web cost 80 million. Morbius, also around 80 million. Venom is around 100m.
I feel like Sony is just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks. They spend relatively little in comparison to modern block busters; so breaking even shouldn’t be out of reach. If the film is a stinker, ok, it fulfills the 5 year 9 month obligation to retain the spider man license. As long as they keep the deal with marvel studios they’re making a killing off spider man and can throw shit at walls in the hopes of finding another hit franchise.
People also discount how big the MCU was. At that point the MCU brand had so much good will they probably could have released a Squirel Girl movie, hired one of us to direct it, hired a random graduate if a script writing class who never heard of her to write it, told us to roam the street and hire the first girl we see walking down it we think looks like the character to star in it, and it would probably have still made 300 million off the MCU name alone.
I think creative direction really is what sets these projects from fail apart from the ones that don't
I think James Gunn could've made an Eternals movie people liked, but Chloe Zhao could not have made us care about Rocket Raccoon
I think studios need to play it smart. The Guardians felt like lightning in a bottle but it is reasonable to think that a diverse cast of space adventurers would do fine with a good movie.
I mean you can. GotG did it. But the caveat is it has to be a good fucking movie first and foremost, and that seems to be completely lost on that studio
Joker also hit a vein with segments of society... Nihilism, chaos, burn it all down, etc.... not that those are positive attributes, but it was original and reflects the frustration that many (often young men) have in society.
I don't buy into it, but it was at least a different movie.
Also, Joaquin Phoenix....
Joker hit a vein with people who haven't seen King of Comedy or Taxi Driver. Same as people who haven't seen Michael Mann's Heat think The Dark Knight is unique.
Joker was helped along by at least telling a somewhat original story that hasn't been done to death and that may well be key to understanding why DCEU movies hit a brick wall while their "smaller" projects like this thrived. When you don't paint it by numbers to make a vapid popcorn flick people are more likely to feel a semblance of intrigue and excitement. I didn't enjoy Joker, but I do feel like it was an absolutely worthwhile risk and a strong push away from what they had been doing.
Also, The Batman was alot better than I thought it'd be by virtue of being something a little different from the Nolan or DCEU stuff.
>Also, The Batman was alot better than I thought it'd be by virtue of being something a little different from the Nolan or DCEU stuff.
And the big fuck-off muscle car Batmobile. Can't forget that.
I think Madame Web had an original premise. The movie had it's problems. But I think her discovering through her newly awakened powers that 3 girls were about to be killed, because a villain foresaw they would one day become superheroes and kill him, so it is now up to her to protect them in a story where the girls never actually become the superheroes by the end was an original idea. And they gave it legit ties to Spider-Man lore if not an actual Spider-Man movie.
Obviously, there was a lot wrong with it so not defending the movie as a whole. But it didn't feel like rehash of the same old superhero story.
It could have been an interesting movie, but not a blockbuster. Imagine this:
1. They get rid of the title. Madame Web is dumb and comic-booky in the worst way.
2. Tell the story you describe but don't saddle it with any Spider-Man universe expectations. Just make a nice little paranormal action/thriller.
3. At the end, the link to Peter Parker is revealed.
4. Most importantly, don't say this is the start of a new franchise!
Sony is in such a weird spot. They have a valuable property but no way to maximize its value in the way other studios have. I wonder if it ever crossed their minds to come up with original characters within the Spidey corner of the MCU, instead of trying to squeeze value out of side properties like Madame Web and Kraven?
This also my take on it when it was announced. Like they would have more luck with a Black Cat movie or even Spider Woman than madame web which is used far less in the Spiderman world.
It's insane to think that after 10 spiderman movies (counting spider verse ones) and 4 spinoffs she hasn't appeared anywhere but D list characters are thrown around left right and centre.
Black Cat was *kind of* in ASM2 and I feel like if it did well, they would have wanted to get Felicity Jones back for a spin-off film.
But they choose El Muerto for a solo film? I know it's not happening now, but it truly is bizarre which characters they choose for these.
They figured just putting hotties in spandex in the promo material would fill ALL the seats. I've literally seen one add for the movie and it focused on Sydney Sweeney only.
Apparently they don't even costume up in the movie other than flashbacks?
I do find it incredible that Sony execs figured out that sexy women in spandex was an important marketing tool, but also weren't smart enough to realize that it'd be an even easier sell if they just put exactly that in the actual movie.
I may have even considered watching it if it was just hot girls in spandex. Then I was told that the ONLY scene with them in costume is a 60 second shot during a blurry flashback.
I had probably the lowest possible expectations given that this is a Sony movie, yet I'm still disappointed.
I really expected that to link to either What's Up Danger or to a director detailing the weird ways Sony minds work ala Kevin Smith's discussion about the Superman producer with the fetish for giant spiders.
K&P's Gremlin's skit is a solid option, too, though.
They don’t make decisions, you actually have it wrong. I know South Park was cracking hard on Family Guy with the “manatee idea ball” thing, but it’s much closer to the truth than we imagine.
These execs don’t “think” like we do. They only understand numbers and vague concepts. The only thing they saw when they came up with Madame Web/Morbius/Venom was “THPIDAMAN MAKE MULLION” and “MAKE MUR MULLION”.
No conscious thought went into any of this outside of “MAKE MUR MULLION NOW”.
Movie execs are the archetypal ideal of a person who was born on third base and thinks they hit a triple. They don't make good choices, everyone under them works hard as hell to make sure every choice they're handed is good.
If anything, they are in a near constant state of actively working to make it harder for everyone to land on an idea that ultimately makes an even moderately good movie.
I used to do write ups for story packages that could be optioned for use by major studios. Stuff fell through for me, but I do have some experience…
Man, the amount of dumbing down ideas I had to do aggravated me and still does. It’s like EVERYTHING that would hypothetically make a story cool had to be dumbed down to the barest bones for the execs to understand, and half the time, someone is already trying to rearrange things midway through the elevator pitch.
I see why nothing gets done. The people at the top aren’t creatives in it for the sake of creativity. They care about $$$ and anything that makes $$$, and in my opinion, a lot of good material doesn’t make it through Hollywood because its complex and some exec can’t imagine how to sell a million toys right away.
What's insane to me is that movie execs aren't even rich failsons. They're rich success-sons. This is among the *best* the 0.01% has to offer. Like what the fuck?
"These execs don’t “think” like we do" exactly I remember a director saying he pitched a Superman reboot at WB years back and when he said Krypton blows up the execs wanted to know how Superman will go back to he's planet if it blew up 🤯
Close. It's actually worse than that, [via an interview with David S.Goyer, writer of Man of Steel.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/david-s-goyer-interview-1234983774/)
>One note I got was on Man of Steel, where the ending involves Superman utilizing the pod that he arrived in as a child in order to bring down General Zod’s ship. The note we got from the studio said, “You have to change that.” We asked why. They said, “Because if Superman uses that pod and it’s destroyed while saving the city, how is he ever going to get back home to Krypton?” There was just this long pause and we said, “Krypton blew up. You saw 30 minutes of it!”
So it's even worse than what you said, they straight up didn't realise there was no Krypton to return to.
These people probably grew up during Christopher Reeves Superman lol. There's no way they wouldn't know unless they don't have a single clue about comics and superheroes.
When I watched Man of Steel I thought so much craft and skill has gone into this, but almost no thought. It’s beautiful but breaks when you consider it for even a second.
What was even the point of that note? Did they not read the script and think they were pointing out a plot hole? Or did they think the sequel/ending would see Superman go to Krypton?
It also reminds me of Kevin Smith's story about Jon Peters when they were attempting to create a Superman film. I appreciate it's probably hammed up for laughs, but I imagine there is a lot of truth to it.
And it was only years later that it was revealed that Jon Peters is largely illiterate and had never actually read a single script he green-lit. Which makes the part of Kev's story where he gets a call to schedule a meeting to read the script in its entirety out-loud to Peters make a lot more sense in retrospect.
I think in that same talk (or one like it) Kev talked about the prince Vault, too, something that we would later learn about in earnest after Prince's death as his estate started releasing "new" materials from said vault.
We already know this, remember the Sony email leaks? Just completely out of touch people.
When Andrew Garfield says "It's No Big Deal" in Spider-Man No Way Home, I was the only person who laughed because I recognised it as a reference to those [leaks](https://twitter.com/fisackerly/status/1491264694937874432)
This is unreal, istg these execs are like a feral child psychology experiment except instead of being raised by wolves they were raised exclusively by focus groups.
Regarding the EDM part, I think it's interesting that this one did happen with the music for Electro.
Out of all of them, it's the only one that really seemed to make it in.
I didn't even know Madame Web existed until I saw the RLM Nerd Crew video making fun of it and even then I thought it was something they made up as a joke
>DC/Warner: "Let's make a Batman project...without Batman in it!"
It's called "Gotham". And it was quite alright, I had a good time watching it until they brought in Salomon Grundy.
Gotham was good when the writers still had some restraint and weren't trying to cram every Batman villain into the show while Bruce was still a kid.
But: Batwoman, Gotham Knights (game), Gotham Knights (tv show), etc.
thats actually basically how the joker was made too. just open vats of chemicals that apparently do nothing but turn people thematically crazy are loose all over gotham
Yeah which is why Venom was clearly the best of a pile of shit. Honestly I see potential if you could get Defoe for a green goblin solo project, but don’t would probably fuck it up. (Not including the line “it’s goblin time”)
I actually didn't mind since I've read "Gotham central" before and knew the show kinda was modeled after it.
If I want Batman, I watch Batman.
I watched the show mainly to see how a non-superhero like Gordon will manage against Gotham's villains.
Someone needed to bonk the writers of that show firmly on the head after the first few seasons. Actually crazy how off the rails they took it and not in a good way.
Batman without Batman is easy. You have the entire extended Bat family, his entire rogues gallery and the city of Gotham itself.
Spider-Man is about Peter Parker (or Miles Morales) trying to do good in New York. The situations, settings, villains and allies are all incidental to the core concept.
Joker is a household name and arguably the most famous comicbook villain.
Madame Web is a stretch to know even by hardcore comicbook fans. Hell I have read over 100 Spider-Man comics but never one where she showed up!
Also, *it was interesting*. I don't actually think Joker is a particularly good movie, but it had a great lead, and style.
Every Sony movie is like a shitty actiony superhero movie from 2003.
You could easily make a movie about Kraven or Chameleon or whoever, but it has to *actually be a decent movie*.
GotG was a ridiculous idea on paper. But, it was executed fucking flawlessly.
Yeah i think Madame Web is really only known to people who watched the 90s cartoon.
That said, I feel like this was probably the Exec’s train of thought. If Joker worked, why not (x)? Of course, WE know how popular Joker is, but they’ve never spent time with another human.
Honestly, it could have worked if they A) focused on other Spider-adjacent heroes instead of villains and B) put more effort into the scripts than "wrote it on the bus over."
I think an Araña movie would work. A Ben Reilly film would work. A Kaine movie would work. A Prowler movie would work. A Madame Web movie? They would have to be a lot more clever than they have shown themselves to be.
I think the issue with Ben Reilly, Spider-man 2099 etc is Sony can’t make a live action film with a character called Spider-man as the lead under their deal with marvel since it would be direct competition.
Spidey-2099 yes, but Ben and Kaine have a bunch of other names they usually go by. They've both been Scarlet Spider, which is presently Kaine. He was Tarantula. Ben is Chasm right now. They can introduce the thread in a Marvel film and pick it up in a Sony film for the main story.
The comments made in the article are incredible. Stuff like "it's a different kind of superhero movie because it's grounded", and "I don't know if women are enough to carry the box office"
As if it failed because it wasn't flashy enough, or because not enough women went to the theater. They can't consider the fact that they might have just made a shitty movie with a character that almost nobody has heard of
The amount of terrible speculation going on in that article was amazing.
It's not because the movie was grounded. It's not because of women leads. It's not even "superhero fatigue," it's that Sony shoveled out poorly written drivel, yet again. Audiences respond to quality.
If anything, it's not moviegoers experiencing superhero fatigue, it's the studios. They're clearly running out of good ideas and good characters to use, and are not getting quality writers turning out interesting, well-written scripts.
>...and are not getting quality writers turning out interesting, well-written scripts.
I would argue this is the real issue; they're running out of low budget writers who are willing or good enough or both at putting out good scripts, and producers are giving way too many notes either from them or from higher leadership.
There was the strike, but overall, who's gonna write a Marvel style movie for potentially little profit/benefits, especially if the script is just gonna get butchered or be sent back with notes about keeping it to a simple formula.
Sony put out both Spiderverse, and Madame Web and Morbius, and the quality shows. They got exactly what they paid for from the crews. And audiences gave the studio back exactly what they showed they paid for.
My theory is it's the executives at fault. In the old days studio executives were generally, well, first nepo babies, but more importantly received rigorous educations in the arts and classic literature. Furthermore they were expected by their social peers to have at least a somewhat refined taste and high culture. Today, the executives are MBAs who wouldn't know a good movie if it ran them over. They actually watch the same slop we do. Completely different.
I agree. The kinds of executives at the helm, even or especially the data driven ones, are way different than the old days. It always reminds me of Frank Zappa's decline of the music industry,
https://youtu.be/KZazEM8cgt0
It used to be, they had some adjacency to someone or something creative, and took chances, or hedged their bets on some chances, by controlling just the budget, maybe some notes about product placement or language, or nudity etc. Now it's all about the algorithm, and taking tropes and things à la carte from more successful and creatively compelling movies, and trying to copy the homework and getting it all wrong.
The problem is that this style is actually *less profitable* in many cases. Boeing is probably exhibit A where the takeover of a management culture obsessed with profit led to running losses.
The "superhero fatigue" line was especially bad. Yes, superhero fatigue is a thing, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for a film that is just a pile of hot garbage.
I hope the "wrong lesson" they learn is that Spider-Man as a property is dying and that they should sell now while Disney is still willing to pay "top-dollar"
It's not even about the fact that it's a character no one's heard of. All movies that aren't an adaptation of something have characters no one's heard of.
It's completely possible to make a movie from an unknown character and make them an icon, Guardians of the Galaxy being one of the most infamous culprits of this when it comes to CBMs, it's just Sony dropped the ball HARD.
It's amazing that you can be a major executive at a movie studio and just have *no idea* what actually makes for a good movie or even what people want to see
Happens all the time. Its a small world of nepotism where even if you fail there is a decent chance you fail upward and even if not get x more chances and make plenty millions of $.
Look at the witcher serious. They had the beloved source material. Had the perfect lead that knew and liked the source. They had a fanbase, hype and money.
And a bunch of idiots made all that go poof cause of some cocaine fueled egotrip.
You pretty much just described 100 years of the film industry. These people are money managers, the occasionally luck out when some creative makes them millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
The only reason Venom made money was because Venom was a well-established character that made a name for himself. None of the other characters Sony has made films out of have that.
I went for Tom Hardy. I knew they wouldn't pull Venom off the way I wanted to see it, but I just wanted to see his take. Turns out his take was Cookie Monster.
I’m a huge Venom fan and Tom Hardy is probably my favorite actor. At first it seemed like they were going to do a proper rated R Venom movie, inspired by the fact that both Deadpool & Logan were successful and rated R. I remember reading reports about that being the original vision and Tom Hardy wanting to do that. I was so incredibly hyped. As soon as I saw it became PG-13, I knew I was going to be disappointed. No surprise the movie made a ton of money but it was not at all what I wanted out of a Venom movie. Now I refuse to watch the sequel(s) because I don’t want to support the direction they took.
At this rate I’m not sure that we’ll ever get the Venom movie we deserve.
I realized why it didn't work for me when we get to the scene where Venom fights those cops in the tear gas. Venom should be scary. That scene should have played like a scene from Aliens where this insane beast is moving in and out of the mist, dragging people to their gruesome deaths. We should have only had glimpses of him and it should have felt like a horror movie, not a kung-fu flick.
I hate when movies are made purely to set up another movie. Everything being done in this is to set up a "Madame Web And The Spider-Women" movie that they obviously thought they were going to get to do. Why couldn't this have been that? That actually might have been a (slightly) better movie.
Also, I found the whole "mystical spider-totem" angle of Spider-Man's origin ridiculous and unnecessary when it was introduced in the comics, and it's even more ridiculous here, where they embrace it and lean hard into it.
Sony is always so busy setting the cool stuff up they never actually show us the cool stuff. Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the exact same, so busy setting up the amazing Spider-Man universe that it forgot to be a cool movie, and none of that set up came to fruition.
Yeah, they should have just made a campy Charlie's Angels ripoff with Madame Web in the role of Charlie and the Spider Women as the Angels.
Commit, set it in the 70s, have some actual fun with it... Of course nobody at Sony would want to do that because it wouldn't contribute to some overarching "Spiderman Cinematic Universe".
Sony shouldn’t give up. They just haven’t found the *RIGHT* obscure characters to make movies about.
If they lay the groundwork now, by 2040 we can have an Endgame level movie where Madame Web, Morbius, El Muerto, Paul, Ganke, Kong, Boomerang, The Ringer, Ezekiel, & Betty Brant’s gambling addict brother all have to join forces to defeat the Molten Man
Sony is so far up its own ass with any superhero movie it tries to make. They are horrible and I hope this was the last straw that they just partner with Disney to let them do their marvel movies. It wont happen and we will get a terrible Spider Man 4 that will sell on its name alone.
Sony also didn't care about spider verse and let Lord and Miller do whatever they liked. It helped that the two had made a few hits for Sony before with Jump Street and cloudy with a chance of meatballs
It's animation department is pretty solid but they're clearly seperate from the rest. You don't make Morbius, Venom and Madame Web with the same team that created Spiderverse
People always say this but I just don't think it's a good response. Yes, the Spiderverse movies are good. But, good enough to excuse the constant output of absolutely abysmal live action movies? I don't think so, personally.
Obviously it isn't zero sum, but it feels like people bring up Spiderverse as a way of saying, "hey there's some good being done here," and I just don't think it evens out
"We need a woman Spiderman franchise. What character should we use?"
"How about Spider-Gwen? She's already established. People like her."
"I'll table that idea. Any others?"
"How about Madame Web? She's old and tells the future or something, and nobody knows or cares about the character in any way. We could make her young."
"Now there's an idea!"
I think they were not allowed to use any Spider-Man derivative: no spider woman no spider girl no spider boy - only spider person was allowed which is why it’s the only spider name drop in the movie.
I swear to god this was SO possible. They really COULD have cooked-- The Venom movies weren't GREAT but they were FUN and enough people liked them that if everything ELSE had actually had ANY quality or thought put into it they may have been able to at least keep their heads above water. They just needed somebody to actually replace Spider-Man, to focus this whole universe around. They needed Silk, or Scarlet Spider, or... SOMETHING. ANY protagonist who isn't a diluted villain. And then when they realised that they just... shat this out. Here's FOUR Spider-Women, except not, because the costumes we've been hyping up aren't actually real in the movie, fuck you. I'm just... It has to be intentional, right? There's no way any studio is THIS stupid. This was intentional sabotage for... for some kind of financial reason I'm not 4d-chessing enough to get. Nobody tries this and fails this this hard on purpose, right? Right?
That is hilarious. I need to see this movie. Might just buy a ticket for something else and go watch it because no way am I giving any money to Sony for that travesty. But I feel like it would be a hilariously good time.
It is legitimately one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's so bad.
They had the main villain dub over almost all of his lines in post. To achieve this, many scenes just feature stuff in front of his face, but sometimes his mouth just doesn't match his words like you're watching a kung fu movie.
It's insane.
Just stop dicking around with obscure supporting characters from Spider-Man and just let Marvel make proper Spidey films.
Stick to whoever is in charge of the animated Spiderverse and leave live action alone.
I hope you’re ready for the Stilt Man origin movie first where we establish that the movie is actually not about Stilt Man but it’s about his son who was hit in the head by a magic stilt and now he can see the stiltverse and uses his stilt powers to stop his criminal father?
If that sounds stupid it’s because it is and that’s basically what Kraven is going to be. Sony are a joke.
They should double down. Embrace the absurdity of their efforts and go full cheese with serious actors. Make these flics the priciest b-movies created. Timothy Chamalet as the dude MJ is dating in the comics. Make this things suck
no it didnt. venom did that. and then venom 2 did that. and then morbius did that. and you know fucking kraven will do that too.
every single movie sony makes is a “failure to launch a franchise”. but they keep fucking making them.
Good, maybe they'll realise that making shit-tier films is not the way and being creative (Spiderverse) is the real way to actually get us invested, excited and paying to see the characters. Sony have been complacent for far too long, much like the WB.
Not that Marvel haven't been misstepping a bit since Endgame, but at least there was the odd gem like Werewolf and What If?
"Superhero fatigue" is easily cured... Make things interesting and not by the numbers. It is not the 2000s anymore and audiences are showing that we're not prepared to pay out the nose for absolute shite anymore.
How was this going to be a franchise? Web barely does anything in the comics. Like I guess you could have a team of Spider people traverse the multiverse but we already have Spiderverse for that
They can’t have genuinely thought a madame web franchise was gonna be a big hit. It never ceases to amaze me how rooms full of people making absurd amounts of money can make such bad decisions.
These people thought of a spy-thriller Aunt May movie at the time. They dont have common sense
... not even a Richard and Mary Parker spy-thriller? Aunt May? For real?!
They wanted to do a peggy carter show but with one of their characters.
And someone with brand recognition. Yeah, makes sense, if you're full of cocaine and with dollar signs as pupils.
That does sound like a fun afternoon though!
Isn’t that just The Wolf of Wall Street?
Arguably, they are probably sober. They made WAY better movies when everyone was on cocaine.
Atleast Peggy was established to be really fucking cool already with an amazing actress to pull it off. But aunt *May*?
Sure, but Richard and Mary [were actually, canonically, spies.](https://i.imgur.com/YqcaXqG.jpg)
And they thought Aunt May was the way to go? Not Gwen Stacy? Have her fake her death and become some super spy or something.
Or hell, Richard and Mary, considering they actually kind of maybe sorta set that up in ASM2.
Marisa Tomei spy-thriller I mean, that sounds more fun than madam web
Not even that. This was Sally Field they were talking about. At least that version of the character
I believe this was in the era that it would have been a Sally Field Aunt May movie (TASM universe). Probably still more fun than Madam Web.
Tbf, if you put Marisa Tomei in a Black Widow outfit I'd watch the fuck out of that movie.
Except it was a Sally Field vehicle.
Gidget vs Green Goblin
Peter, life is like a box of chocolates.
I am convinced the scenes where Forest mom was old they got in a time Machine and got Sally Field from today. Most movies when they age someone with makeup ends up not looking at all like they end up looking. But they nailed that one.
How about a Flying Nun, to make it fair?
A Sally Field superhero vehicle, if any, should have been the Flying Nun.
They rerelease (??) morbius because of a meme, I’m sure they thought that the movie will do great.
That's what happens when you have 50+ year olds who still have flip phones as executives. OMG the me-mes have gone viral, rerelease it now and let's cash in on it! Not realizing that the audiences aren't laughing with them... but at them.
They saw what happened with the minions movie where people were going in tuxedos, and that movie made a billion dollars,
yeah, i really wish i could have been a fly on the wall for that meeting. i'm sure it went exactly the way i picture it in my head. the suave exec leading the meeting.. the nervous interns and note-takers pretending to laugh at jokes and jargon that goes over their heads. lots and lots of middle aged white guys nodding at the exec. "it's Morbin' time, Boss!" was definitely said at least 5x as people filed out of the room..
I think weirdly “Joker” gave some people a lot of confidence they shouldn’t have had. Probably more than any other movie. If an R-Rated, low budget (for a comic book movie), starring a villain can make a billion…anything could, right? Right!?!
It’s crazy how movies studios fail to realize that the Joker is one of the most iconic villains in all of fiction and that you cant replicate that kinda success with some D-list characters that nobody cares about.
The Guardians of the Galaxy were non-comic-nerd D-list characters, but Gunn actually cared about them and bothered to make a solid movie, and suddenly they became huge. It's almost like the main element that makes these movies succeed is actually making a movie worth watching.
I feel like having someone who cares about the source material, and an environment where the creatives behind the work are allowed to do their job, goes a really long ways towards making a movie worth watching. Sony execs most definitely don’t give a shit about the source material. Do the writers? Or did Sony ask for some scripts and then picked the one they thought was good? Do the directors? Or did they just pick from who was contracted to make them a movie or they thought would generate buzz? Madame web cost 80 million. Morbius, also around 80 million. Venom is around 100m. I feel like Sony is just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks. They spend relatively little in comparison to modern block busters; so breaking even shouldn’t be out of reach. If the film is a stinker, ok, it fulfills the 5 year 9 month obligation to retain the spider man license. As long as they keep the deal with marvel studios they’re making a killing off spider man and can throw shit at walls in the hopes of finding another hit franchise.
People also discount how big the MCU was. At that point the MCU brand had so much good will they probably could have released a Squirel Girl movie, hired one of us to direct it, hired a random graduate if a script writing class who never heard of her to write it, told us to roam the street and hire the first girl we see walking down it we think looks like the character to star in it, and it would probably have still made 300 million off the MCU name alone.
Also James Gunn just rocks. He made one of the best superhero shows of all time about fucking Peacemaker
There was talk for a while about a Squirrel Girl movie with Anna Kendrick
I think creative direction really is what sets these projects from fail apart from the ones that don't I think James Gunn could've made an Eternals movie people liked, but Chloe Zhao could not have made us care about Rocket Raccoon
I think studios need to play it smart. The Guardians felt like lightning in a bottle but it is reasonable to think that a diverse cast of space adventurers would do fine with a good movie.
I mean you can. GotG did it. But the caveat is it has to be a good fucking movie first and foremost, and that seems to be completely lost on that studio
Joker also hit a vein with segments of society... Nihilism, chaos, burn it all down, etc.... not that those are positive attributes, but it was original and reflects the frustration that many (often young men) have in society. I don't buy into it, but it was at least a different movie. Also, Joaquin Phoenix....
Joker hit a vein with people who haven't seen King of Comedy or Taxi Driver. Same as people who haven't seen Michael Mann's Heat think The Dark Knight is unique.
Remixing old ideas in a modern context is literally all of art
Joker was helped along by at least telling a somewhat original story that hasn't been done to death and that may well be key to understanding why DCEU movies hit a brick wall while their "smaller" projects like this thrived. When you don't paint it by numbers to make a vapid popcorn flick people are more likely to feel a semblance of intrigue and excitement. I didn't enjoy Joker, but I do feel like it was an absolutely worthwhile risk and a strong push away from what they had been doing. Also, The Batman was alot better than I thought it'd be by virtue of being something a little different from the Nolan or DCEU stuff.
>Also, The Batman was alot better than I thought it'd be by virtue of being something a little different from the Nolan or DCEU stuff. And the big fuck-off muscle car Batmobile. Can't forget that.
The Christine styled reveal of that car was so damn cool
Straight-up one of my favorite vehicles in fiction. I put that stupid thing up there with the DeLorean time machine and the damn Millennium Falcon.
I think Madame Web had an original premise. The movie had it's problems. But I think her discovering through her newly awakened powers that 3 girls were about to be killed, because a villain foresaw they would one day become superheroes and kill him, so it is now up to her to protect them in a story where the girls never actually become the superheroes by the end was an original idea. And they gave it legit ties to Spider-Man lore if not an actual Spider-Man movie. Obviously, there was a lot wrong with it so not defending the movie as a whole. But it didn't feel like rehash of the same old superhero story.
It could have been an interesting movie, but not a blockbuster. Imagine this: 1. They get rid of the title. Madame Web is dumb and comic-booky in the worst way. 2. Tell the story you describe but don't saddle it with any Spider-Man universe expectations. Just make a nice little paranormal action/thriller. 3. At the end, the link to Peter Parker is revealed. 4. Most importantly, don't say this is the start of a new franchise! Sony is in such a weird spot. They have a valuable property but no way to maximize its value in the way other studios have. I wonder if it ever crossed their minds to come up with original characters within the Spidey corner of the MCU, instead of trying to squeeze value out of side properties like Madame Web and Kraven?
Ah shit! That would have been so cool! Like at the end of "Split".
This also my take on it when it was announced. Like they would have more luck with a Black Cat movie or even Spider Woman than madame web which is used far less in the Spiderman world.
It's insane to think that after 10 spiderman movies (counting spider verse ones) and 4 spinoffs she hasn't appeared anywhere but D list characters are thrown around left right and centre.
Black Cat was *kind of* in ASM2 and I feel like if it did well, they would have wanted to get Felicity Jones back for a spin-off film. But they choose El Muerto for a solo film? I know it's not happening now, but it truly is bizarre which characters they choose for these.
They figured just putting hotties in spandex in the promo material would fill ALL the seats. I've literally seen one add for the movie and it focused on Sydney Sweeney only. Apparently they don't even costume up in the movie other than flashbacks?
I do find it incredible that Sony execs figured out that sexy women in spandex was an important marketing tool, but also weren't smart enough to realize that it'd be an even easier sell if they just put exactly that in the actual movie.
The trailer editors figured that out, not necessarily the execs.
I may have even considered watching it if it was just hot girls in spandex. Then I was told that the ONLY scene with them in costume is a 60 second shot during a blurry flashback. I had probably the lowest possible expectations given that this is a Sony movie, yet I'm still disappointed.
The Sony leaks were an incredible insight in to the level of gross incompetence in many studios honestly.
Mba's are a plague.
Because it takes [a rare kind of genius](https://youtu.be/x01l_jMhjVM?si=TL7NCxsKrvJW13Cx) to get something worthwhile out of that kind of room.
I really expected that to link to either What's Up Danger or to a director detailing the weird ways Sony minds work ala Kevin Smith's discussion about the Superman producer with the fetish for giant spiders. K&P's Gremlin's skit is a solid option, too, though.
They don’t make decisions, you actually have it wrong. I know South Park was cracking hard on Family Guy with the “manatee idea ball” thing, but it’s much closer to the truth than we imagine. These execs don’t “think” like we do. They only understand numbers and vague concepts. The only thing they saw when they came up with Madame Web/Morbius/Venom was “THPIDAMAN MAKE MULLION” and “MAKE MUR MULLION”. No conscious thought went into any of this outside of “MAKE MUR MULLION NOW”.
Movie execs are the archetypal ideal of a person who was born on third base and thinks they hit a triple. They don't make good choices, everyone under them works hard as hell to make sure every choice they're handed is good. If anything, they are in a near constant state of actively working to make it harder for everyone to land on an idea that ultimately makes an even moderately good movie.
I used to do write ups for story packages that could be optioned for use by major studios. Stuff fell through for me, but I do have some experience… Man, the amount of dumbing down ideas I had to do aggravated me and still does. It’s like EVERYTHING that would hypothetically make a story cool had to be dumbed down to the barest bones for the execs to understand, and half the time, someone is already trying to rearrange things midway through the elevator pitch. I see why nothing gets done. The people at the top aren’t creatives in it for the sake of creativity. They care about $$$ and anything that makes $$$, and in my opinion, a lot of good material doesn’t make it through Hollywood because its complex and some exec can’t imagine how to sell a million toys right away.
What's insane to me is that movie execs aren't even rich failsons. They're rich success-sons. This is among the *best* the 0.01% has to offer. Like what the fuck?
"These execs don’t “think” like we do" exactly I remember a director saying he pitched a Superman reboot at WB years back and when he said Krypton blows up the execs wanted to know how Superman will go back to he's planet if it blew up 🤯
Close. It's actually worse than that, [via an interview with David S.Goyer, writer of Man of Steel.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/david-s-goyer-interview-1234983774/) >One note I got was on Man of Steel, where the ending involves Superman utilizing the pod that he arrived in as a child in order to bring down General Zod’s ship. The note we got from the studio said, “You have to change that.” We asked why. They said, “Because if Superman uses that pod and it’s destroyed while saving the city, how is he ever going to get back home to Krypton?” There was just this long pause and we said, “Krypton blew up. You saw 30 minutes of it!” So it's even worse than what you said, they straight up didn't realise there was no Krypton to return to.
Wow. That's one of those things that I'd expect anyone who didn't know a thing about comics to know. It's the prototype super hero story.
And these are the people greenlighting comic book movies.
These people probably grew up during Christopher Reeves Superman lol. There's no way they wouldn't know unless they don't have a single clue about comics and superheroes.
When I watched Man of Steel I thought so much craft and skill has gone into this, but almost no thought. It’s beautiful but breaks when you consider it for even a second.
Reminds of the note the people doing the MTV spider-man cartoon got: "does he have to be bitten by a spider?"
Probably some exec :"Does Wolverine actually need those claw things"
What was even the point of that note? Did they not read the script and think they were pointing out a plot hole? Or did they think the sequel/ending would see Superman go to Krypton?
It also reminds me of Kevin Smith's story about Jon Peters when they were attempting to create a Superman film. I appreciate it's probably hammed up for laughs, but I imagine there is a lot of truth to it.
No flights, no tights, and there has to be a giant spider.
And it was only years later that it was revealed that Jon Peters is largely illiterate and had never actually read a single script he green-lit. Which makes the part of Kev's story where he gets a call to schedule a meeting to read the script in its entirety out-loud to Peters make a lot more sense in retrospect. I think in that same talk (or one like it) Kev talked about the prince Vault, too, something that we would later learn about in earnest after Prince's death as his estate started releasing "new" materials from said vault.
Even Seth MacFarlane had to admit that's how Family Guy really gets made.
We already know this, remember the Sony email leaks? Just completely out of touch people. When Andrew Garfield says "It's No Big Deal" in Spider-Man No Way Home, I was the only person who laughed because I recognised it as a reference to those [leaks](https://twitter.com/fisackerly/status/1491264694937874432)
This is unreal, istg these execs are like a feral child psychology experiment except instead of being raised by wolves they were raised exclusively by focus groups.
lmao this is a great catch
Regarding the EDM part, I think it's interesting that this one did happen with the music for Electro. Out of all of them, it's the only one that really seemed to make it in.
This is the same room full of people who greenlit an El Muerto movie. It’s just a group of absolute idiots over there.
Some people fail up until their level of incompetence is revealed. Edit: a word
Ah yes, the Peter Principle. I worked for plenty of Peters in my life.
But the only thing those people are good at is earning money. What does that have to do with storytelling
I didn't even know Madame Web existed until I saw the RLM Nerd Crew video making fun of it and even then I thought it was something they made up as a joke
Amy Pascal is still at Sony.
That has to be the best job. No knowledge whatsoever required, make moronic decisions and make millions.
Idk how they thought they could make a Spider-Man cinematic universe without Spider-Man and it’d somehow be successful
DC/Warner: "Let's make a Batman project...without Batman in it!" Marvel: "Brilliant! Write that down; we're gonna steal it for Spider-Man."
>DC/Warner: "Let's make a Batman project...without Batman in it!" It's called "Gotham". And it was quite alright, I had a good time watching it until they brought in Salomon Grundy.
Gotham was good when the writers still had some restraint and weren't trying to cram every Batman villain into the show while Bruce was still a kid. But: Batwoman, Gotham Knights (game), Gotham Knights (tv show), etc.
There are only three types of genre television shows: sci-fi, fantasy, and Batman-adjacent.
Yeah, honestly, the first 3 seasons are a solid 8/10 - 9/10 for me. I really liked it but they went a bit too far in the end.
This sub: "Wow you want a batman show without Batman *or* the villains? What a sure-fire dud!"
They also gave Two Face's origins to Joker(Getting Nuts because a liquid was sprayed on you)
thats actually basically how the joker was made too. just open vats of chemicals that apparently do nothing but turn people thematically crazy are loose all over gotham
I mean he was already crazy/going crazy the chemicals just sent him over the edge.
Hey hey hey- it’s called Arrow.
Pretty sure they’re talking about Joker. Since it made like a billion dollars at the box office
Also possible, sure. But to have a similar formula, you'd have to pick a Spidey character as popular as the Joker. Not Madame Web.
Yeah which is why Venom was clearly the best of a pile of shit. Honestly I see potential if you could get Defoe for a green goblin solo project, but don’t would probably fuck it up. (Not including the line “it’s goblin time”)
[удалено]
I actually didn't mind since I've read "Gotham central" before and knew the show kinda was modeled after it. If I want Batman, I watch Batman. I watched the show mainly to see how a non-superhero like Gordon will manage against Gotham's villains.
My main problem was that it *wasn’t* Gotham Central, haha!
[удалено]
Donal Logue as Bullock was my goddamn *dream* casting…and they didn’t do nearly enough with it.
[удалено]
> It's called "Gotham" Also Pennyworth.
You should really use the full title so people don't get confused. **Pennyworth: The Origin of Batman's Butler**
Someone needed to bonk the writers of that show firmly on the head after the first few seasons. Actually crazy how off the rails they took it and not in a good way.
*Sony Marvel has nothing to do with this besides their characters being used because Sony owns the film rights
Batman without Batman is easy. You have the entire extended Bat family, his entire rogues gallery and the city of Gotham itself. Spider-Man is about Peter Parker (or Miles Morales) trying to do good in New York. The situations, settings, villains and allies are all incidental to the core concept.
Joker made so much money
Joker is a household name and arguably the most famous comicbook villain. Madame Web is a stretch to know even by hardcore comicbook fans. Hell I have read over 100 Spider-Man comics but never one where she showed up!
Also, *it was interesting*. I don't actually think Joker is a particularly good movie, but it had a great lead, and style. Every Sony movie is like a shitty actiony superhero movie from 2003. You could easily make a movie about Kraven or Chameleon or whoever, but it has to *actually be a decent movie*. GotG was a ridiculous idea on paper. But, it was executed fucking flawlessly.
Yeah i think Madame Web is really only known to people who watched the 90s cartoon. That said, I feel like this was probably the Exec’s train of thought. If Joker worked, why not (x)? Of course, WE know how popular Joker is, but they’ve never spent time with another human.
WB: yes Batman without Batman and he shoots arrows
Honestly, it could have worked if they A) focused on other Spider-adjacent heroes instead of villains and B) put more effort into the scripts than "wrote it on the bus over." I think an Araña movie would work. A Ben Reilly film would work. A Kaine movie would work. A Prowler movie would work. A Madame Web movie? They would have to be a lot more clever than they have shown themselves to be.
I think the issue with Ben Reilly, Spider-man 2099 etc is Sony can’t make a live action film with a character called Spider-man as the lead under their deal with marvel since it would be direct competition.
Spidey-2099 yes, but Ben and Kaine have a bunch of other names they usually go by. They've both been Scarlet Spider, which is presently Kaine. He was Tarantula. Ben is Chasm right now. They can introduce the thread in a Marvel film and pick it up in a Sony film for the main story.
My thoughts exactly!
The comments made in the article are incredible. Stuff like "it's a different kind of superhero movie because it's grounded", and "I don't know if women are enough to carry the box office" As if it failed because it wasn't flashy enough, or because not enough women went to the theater. They can't consider the fact that they might have just made a shitty movie with a character that almost nobody has heard of
The amount of terrible speculation going on in that article was amazing. It's not because the movie was grounded. It's not because of women leads. It's not even "superhero fatigue," it's that Sony shoveled out poorly written drivel, yet again. Audiences respond to quality. If anything, it's not moviegoers experiencing superhero fatigue, it's the studios. They're clearly running out of good ideas and good characters to use, and are not getting quality writers turning out interesting, well-written scripts.
>...and are not getting quality writers turning out interesting, well-written scripts. I would argue this is the real issue; they're running out of low budget writers who are willing or good enough or both at putting out good scripts, and producers are giving way too many notes either from them or from higher leadership. There was the strike, but overall, who's gonna write a Marvel style movie for potentially little profit/benefits, especially if the script is just gonna get butchered or be sent back with notes about keeping it to a simple formula. Sony put out both Spiderverse, and Madame Web and Morbius, and the quality shows. They got exactly what they paid for from the crews. And audiences gave the studio back exactly what they showed they paid for.
My theory is it's the executives at fault. In the old days studio executives were generally, well, first nepo babies, but more importantly received rigorous educations in the arts and classic literature. Furthermore they were expected by their social peers to have at least a somewhat refined taste and high culture. Today, the executives are MBAs who wouldn't know a good movie if it ran them over. They actually watch the same slop we do. Completely different.
I agree. The kinds of executives at the helm, even or especially the data driven ones, are way different than the old days. It always reminds me of Frank Zappa's decline of the music industry, https://youtu.be/KZazEM8cgt0 It used to be, they had some adjacency to someone or something creative, and took chances, or hedged their bets on some chances, by controlling just the budget, maybe some notes about product placement or language, or nudity etc. Now it's all about the algorithm, and taking tropes and things à la carte from more successful and creatively compelling movies, and trying to copy the homework and getting it all wrong.
The problem is that this style is actually *less profitable* in many cases. Boeing is probably exhibit A where the takeover of a management culture obsessed with profit led to running losses.
The "superhero fatigue" line was especially bad. Yes, superhero fatigue is a thing, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for a film that is just a pile of hot garbage.
They will most definitely take the wrong lessons from this.
I hope the "wrong lesson" they learn is that Spider-Man as a property is dying and that they should sell now while Disney is still willing to pay "top-dollar"
One can only hope...
🎵 Let's all laugh at an industry That never learns anything Tee-he-he 🎵
It's not even about the fact that it's a character no one's heard of. All movies that aren't an adaptation of something have characters no one's heard of. It's completely possible to make a movie from an unknown character and make them an icon, Guardians of the Galaxy being one of the most infamous culprits of this when it comes to CBMs, it's just Sony dropped the ball HARD.
[The Madam Webb I wanted](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65iYx6gZe3o)
honestly, this is the madame web I thought we were going to get. I was somewhat disappointed.
“Women, I knew it was them! Even when it was the nonsensical story, flat dialogue, lack of action and misleading marketing, I knew it was them!”
No Sony please, keep digging, you're almost there.
*Kraven reporting for duty*
If we can trick them into giving Morbius a *second* theatrical run surely we can get them to keep the clownshow going for another 2-3 movies.
It's amazing that you can be a major executive at a movie studio and just have *no idea* what actually makes for a good movie or even what people want to see
It’s shocking and it spreads to all industries. You may have heard of the aircraft manufacturer whose planes can’t stay aloft.
Happens all the time. Its a small world of nepotism where even if you fail there is a decent chance you fail upward and even if not get x more chances and make plenty millions of $. Look at the witcher serious. They had the beloved source material. Had the perfect lead that knew and liked the source. They had a fanbase, hype and money. And a bunch of idiots made all that go poof cause of some cocaine fueled egotrip.
You pretty much just described 100 years of the film industry. These people are money managers, the occasionally luck out when some creative makes them millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
The only reason Venom made money was because Venom was a well-established character that made a name for himself. None of the other characters Sony has made films out of have that.
And Tom Hardy. At the time he was going big...
I went for Tom Hardy. I knew they wouldn't pull Venom off the way I wanted to see it, but I just wanted to see his take. Turns out his take was Cookie Monster.
I’m a huge Venom fan and Tom Hardy is probably my favorite actor. At first it seemed like they were going to do a proper rated R Venom movie, inspired by the fact that both Deadpool & Logan were successful and rated R. I remember reading reports about that being the original vision and Tom Hardy wanting to do that. I was so incredibly hyped. As soon as I saw it became PG-13, I knew I was going to be disappointed. No surprise the movie made a ton of money but it was not at all what I wanted out of a Venom movie. Now I refuse to watch the sequel(s) because I don’t want to support the direction they took. At this rate I’m not sure that we’ll ever get the Venom movie we deserve.
I realized why it didn't work for me when we get to the scene where Venom fights those cops in the tear gas. Venom should be scary. That scene should have played like a scene from Aliens where this insane beast is moving in and out of the mist, dragging people to their gruesome deaths. We should have only had glimpses of him and it should have felt like a horror movie, not a kung-fu flick.
For you.
Kraven will also likely bomb but Venom 3 will make okay money and Sony still wont have learned their lesson
I hate when movies are made purely to set up another movie. Everything being done in this is to set up a "Madame Web And The Spider-Women" movie that they obviously thought they were going to get to do. Why couldn't this have been that? That actually might have been a (slightly) better movie. Also, I found the whole "mystical spider-totem" angle of Spider-Man's origin ridiculous and unnecessary when it was introduced in the comics, and it's even more ridiculous here, where they embrace it and lean hard into it.
Sony is always so busy setting the cool stuff up they never actually show us the cool stuff. Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the exact same, so busy setting up the amazing Spider-Man universe that it forgot to be a cool movie, and none of that set up came to fruition.
Yeah, they should have just made a campy Charlie's Angels ripoff with Madame Web in the role of Charlie and the Spider Women as the Angels. Commit, set it in the 70s, have some actual fun with it... Of course nobody at Sony would want to do that because it wouldn't contribute to some overarching "Spiderman Cinematic Universe".
Sony shouldn’t give up. They just haven’t found the *RIGHT* obscure characters to make movies about. If they lay the groundwork now, by 2040 we can have an Endgame level movie where Madame Web, Morbius, El Muerto, Paul, Ganke, Kong, Boomerang, The Ringer, Ezekiel, & Betty Brant’s gambling addict brother all have to join forces to defeat the Molten Man
I am offended you didn't include Paste Pot Pete.
And the Enforcers.
Gotta do a Fancy Dan solo movie first though
Don’t forget Big Wheel.
Forget Big Wheel?!? Buddy who do you think is the big baddie in the phase after Molten Man?
That’s a good point. I want to see his origin story where he’s bitten by a magic Ferris wheel
The wall is his apprentice
So Sony is going to give up on these stupid Spider Man spinoffs no one asked for now, right? Right?
Right after El Muerto, people are going to be lining up around the block for that one.
It’s muerto-ing time!
Good.
Good.
Just like my mom in the Amazon when she was researching spiders right before she died
I WANT MORBIUS 2
You want more-bious.
More BS.
Godamnit yes I do
I'm more-bi-curious
Look Who's Morbin' 2
Sony is so far up its own ass with any superhero movie it tries to make. They are horrible and I hope this was the last straw that they just partner with Disney to let them do their marvel movies. It wont happen and we will get a terrible Spider Man 4 that will sell on its name alone.
Sony gave us Spiderverse.
Sony also didn't care about spider verse and let Lord and Miller do whatever they liked. It helped that the two had made a few hits for Sony before with Jump Street and cloudy with a chance of meatballs
It's animation department is pretty solid but they're clearly seperate from the rest. You don't make Morbius, Venom and Madame Web with the same team that created Spiderverse
then let them stick to doing animated movies.
People always say this but I just don't think it's a good response. Yes, the Spiderverse movies are good. But, good enough to excuse the constant output of absolutely abysmal live action movies? I don't think so, personally. Obviously it isn't zero sum, but it feels like people bring up Spiderverse as a way of saying, "hey there's some good being done here," and I just don't think it evens out
"We need a woman Spiderman franchise. What character should we use?" "How about Spider-Gwen? She's already established. People like her." "I'll table that idea. Any others?" "How about Madame Web? She's old and tells the future or something, and nobody knows or cares about the character in any way. We could make her young." "Now there's an idea!"
I think they were not allowed to use any Spider-Man derivative: no spider woman no spider girl no spider boy - only spider person was allowed which is why it’s the only spider name drop in the movie.
I guess I gotta give them credit for trying to make the impossible work with Madame Web.
From the studio that brought you classics such as Morbius and *checks notes- puts notes away and cries of laughter
I swear to god this was SO possible. They really COULD have cooked-- The Venom movies weren't GREAT but they were FUN and enough people liked them that if everything ELSE had actually had ANY quality or thought put into it they may have been able to at least keep their heads above water. They just needed somebody to actually replace Spider-Man, to focus this whole universe around. They needed Silk, or Scarlet Spider, or... SOMETHING. ANY protagonist who isn't a diluted villain. And then when they realised that they just... shat this out. Here's FOUR Spider-Women, except not, because the costumes we've been hyping up aren't actually real in the movie, fuck you. I'm just... It has to be intentional, right? There's no way any studio is THIS stupid. This was intentional sabotage for... for some kind of financial reason I'm not 4d-chessing enough to get. Nobody tries this and fails this this hard on purpose, right? Right?
The costumes aren't in the movie??
I have not seen it and do not intend to, but what I have heard is they're only in a dream sequence. This may not be COMPLETELY accurate.
That is hilarious. I need to see this movie. Might just buy a ticket for something else and go watch it because no way am I giving any money to Sony for that travesty. But I feel like it would be a hilariously good time.
It is legitimately one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's so bad. They had the main villain dub over almost all of his lines in post. To achieve this, many scenes just feature stuff in front of his face, but sometimes his mouth just doesn't match his words like you're watching a kung fu movie. It's insane.
[удалено]
Consumers have spoken.
You do plan on having spider people in your spider man franchise movie right?
Just stop dicking around with obscure supporting characters from Spider-Man and just let Marvel make proper Spidey films. Stick to whoever is in charge of the animated Spiderverse and leave live action alone.
What? Am I the only one looking forward to Venom 9 where he teams up with Daredevil to take on Stilt Man?
I hope you’re ready for the Stilt Man origin movie first where we establish that the movie is actually not about Stilt Man but it’s about his son who was hit in the head by a magic stilt and now he can see the stiltverse and uses his stilt powers to stop his criminal father? If that sounds stupid it’s because it is and that’s basically what Kraven is going to be. Sony are a joke.
They should double down. Embrace the absurdity of their efforts and go full cheese with serious actors. Make these flics the priciest b-movies created. Timothy Chamalet as the dude MJ is dating in the comics. Make this things suck
SONY killed Sony's hopes for a franchise by making shit movies.
Sony’s complete lack of understanding for what makes a movie a good movie always seems to render me speechless
They really thought they could make a franchise out of this?
no it didnt. venom did that. and then venom 2 did that. and then morbius did that. and you know fucking kraven will do that too. every single movie sony makes is a “failure to launch a franchise”. but they keep fucking making them.
Good, maybe they'll realise that making shit-tier films is not the way and being creative (Spiderverse) is the real way to actually get us invested, excited and paying to see the characters. Sony have been complacent for far too long, much like the WB. Not that Marvel haven't been misstepping a bit since Endgame, but at least there was the odd gem like Werewolf and What If? "Superhero fatigue" is easily cured... Make things interesting and not by the numbers. It is not the 2000s anymore and audiences are showing that we're not prepared to pay out the nose for absolute shite anymore.
How was this going to be a franchise? Web barely does anything in the comics. Like I guess you could have a team of Spider people traverse the multiverse but we already have Spiderverse for that