Sony's Madame Web movie

[Bahamut810]

Originally Posted by Autbot_Benz

No surprise early reviews are coming out and shocker its another Sony Stinker

https://i.imgur.com/YQfYXZ9.png
https://i.imgur.com/9eaRBpD.png

Apparently its been getting the 'empty theatre' treatment. I cant wait for the next Deadpool (who is crapping on these movies apparently) to blow everything out of the water.

[Andrew NDB]

Everything Sony does on their own with Spider-verse stuff is truly baffling. Hopefully this wakes them up, but I doubt it.

[Autbot_Benz]

16% on Rotten Tomatoes Damn

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/madame_web

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Everything Sony does on their own with Spider-verse stuff is truly baffling. Hopefully this wakes them up, but I doubt it.

It's because they are grasping at straws over how well they handled Spider-Man back in the early 2000s. Basically to Sony it's a license in their portfolio to exploit and their evidence is "Raimi's Spider-Man". They are making exploitive decision to retain the license. Simple fact is that it would be hard enough to build a real "Universe" solely from Spider-Man family I.P.s, let alone build a universe that doesn't involve actual Spider-Man.

If they were smart they'd have churned out another Garfield flick immediately after No Way Home and put some supporting characters in it where if one of those gained traction then give them a movie. Instead they crap out these movies with awful end credits scene. The whole thing has become a parody of itself.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by IMJ

If they were smart they'd have churned out another Garfield flick immediately after No Way Home and put some supporting characters in it where if one of those gained traction then give them a movie. Instead they crap out these movies with awful end credits scene. The whole thing has become a parody of itself.

Yeah, they could've easily revealed Garfield as the Venom/Morbius universe Spider-Man. It wouldn't have been much, but it would've been relatively exciting and would've utilized No Way Home as a suitable springboard. By now there'd already be posters with Garfield and Tom Hardy for Venom 3 or Amazing Spider-Man 3, and people would be going gaga.

There's got to be some super restrictive rights issue within whatever deal there is for Marvel Studios to be allowed to use Spider-Man. Like, as long as that deal is active, Sony can't do anything with any Spider-Man in a live action movie. It has to be.

[TheCanadiandrome]

planning on seeing this Friday, i hope it's good

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TheCanadiandrome

i hope it's good

What are you, high?

[IMJ]

Well it sounds like Earth's enormous misogyny population showed up for this one to buy the anti-tickets for it.

Where are the typical forum $#!(bags to go on about those misogynists? Because I'm sure they went and paid for this one, right?

[robertfiduciary]

Have you possibly looked for "typical forum $#!(bags" in a mirror?

I'd be willing to wager you'd find at least one there.

Imagine being butthurt about a claim someone made about a movie (2023's Little Mermaid) in 2024.

Couldn't be me.

Originally Posted by IMJ

Where are the typical forum $#!(bags to go on about those misogynists?

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by robertfiduciary

Have you possibly looked for "typical forum $#!(bags" in a mirror?

I'd be willing to wager you'd find at least one there.

Imagine being butthurt about a claim someone made about a movie (2023's Little Mermaid) in 2024.

Couldn't be me.

Oh the typical irony of a sociopath leftist. Clearly that mirror you speak of fell on you, because you were compelled to respond with clear cope over realizing that you must be one of the forum $#!(bags rather than not being one.

Imagine being so deep in your losing cause that you have to go down kicking and screaming; and with increased anger each time because the loss is culturally-wide and coming on so badly. That's robert fiduciary - Dromer. Virtue-Signaler. Life-Angry. Champion-in-his-own-mind. Clown.

And yet I oppose you fairly openly. Because I'm right. But you? You're a coward hiding behind another forum alias as tightly as you can. What have you got if you were out in the open?

Robert Fiduciary - buggin' up that the "misogyny" manipulation doesn't work anymore, so he kicks up his tantrum a new notch.

[robertfiduciary]

So you're super "witty" comeback was that you're rubber, and I'm glue? And that everything I say bounces off of you, and sticks back to me?

Got it. Sure wish I was as clever as... a kindergartener.

And full disclosure: I don't even know what "forum alias" is.

But you sure put me in my place!

Back to the circus with me, I guess.

Originally Posted by IMJ

Oh the typical irony of a sociopath leftist. Clearly that mirror you speak of fell on you, because you were compelled to respond with clear cope over realizing that you must be one of the forum $#!(bags rather than not being one.

Imagine being so deep in your losing cause that you have to go down kicking and screaming; and with increased anger each time because the loss is culturally-wide and coming on so badly. That's robert fiduciary - Dromer. Virtue-Signaler. Life-Angry. Champion-in-his-own-mind. Clown.

And yet I oppose you fairly openly. Because I'm right. But you? You're a coward hiding behind another forum alias as tightly as you can. What have you got if you were out in the open?

Robert Fiduciary - buggin' up that the "misogyny" manipulation doesn't work anymore, so he kicks up his tantrum a new notch.

[ZariusTwo]

Youtube reviewer Chris Stuckmann is taking heat for putting out a non-review video centred around Madame Web and trying to blame the studios exclisively for it's failings. Here's a vid talking about it.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Youtube reviewer Chris Stuckmann is taking heat for putting out a non-review video centred around Madame Web and trying to blame the studios exclisively for it's failings. Here's a vid talking about it.

Well, ultimately it IS the studio's fault. From the movie's inception.

[neatoman]

Well, I've seen the movie... I know the minimum budget Sony were allowed to set for a Spider-Man movie was 75 million in 2011, no idea what it is now but this thing made me seriously wonder if it had been lowered since then...

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by neatoman

Well, I've seen the movie... I know the minimum budget Sony were allowed to set for a Spider-Man movie was 75 million in 2011, no idea what it is now but this thing made me seriously wonder if it had been lowered since then...

Apparently it was 100 million.

Here is a really infuriating fake takeaway from the movie:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/sony-sc...ame-web-plans/

“More appealing movies are a great way to jump the political issues. But more and more, our audience (or the segment of the audience that has been politicized) equates the perceived messaging in a film as a quality issue.

They won’t say they find female empowerment distasteful in The Marvels or Star Wars, but they will say they don’t like those movies because they are ‘bad.’ So ‘make better movies’ becomes code for ‘make movies that conform to regressive gender stereotypes or put men front and center in the narrative.’ Which is what you’re seeing now and what Bob [Iger]’s pivot is about right now.”

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by neatoman

Well, I've seen the movie... I know the minimum budget Sony were allowed to set for a Spider-Man movie was 75 million in 2011, no idea what it is now but this thing made me seriously wonder if it had been lowered since then...

I haven't seen it but my understanding is that it's basically a "chase thriller". Those cost nothing to make - you and I could each get a business loan and get a street-level chase thriller made.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

What are you, high?

maybe, because i enjoyed it, as did the person i went with. for what it was, an origin story, i don't get people being pissed off about how the characters were portrayed, it's a f'n origin movie, wtf did ya'll expect, that they'd all have their powers and abilites and be established right off the bat?

Originally Posted by IMJ

I haven't seen it but my understanding is that it's basically a "chase thriller". Those cost nothing to make - you and I could each get a business loan and get a street-level chase thriller made.

well there was a lot of chases yes

[MikeandRaph87]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...174345152.html

I found this article interesting. Johnson has decided to avoid taking roles in blockbuster due to studio interference changing what was presented before signing on and while not using the term Woke, emphasizes how audiences are frustrated and not wanting to be preached to by a cooperation, the audience considers a child that needs direction and molding, but the audience is smart and sees through the BS something the studios are going to have to understand or the Summer of Bombs will persist.

[DarkFell]

** From The Spider-Man Ultimate Guide Book **

Jessica Drew (Spider-Woman #1) was exposed to radiation and eventually kidnapped by Hydra. She broke loose and took another path in life.

Julia Carpenter (Spider-Woman #2) participated in a government program that made people into super-heroes.

Martha "Mattie" Franklin (Spider-Woman #3) got her powers from some artifact and from participating in various ceremonies held by The Gathering Of Five.

** It's way too soon to mention Mayday Parker.

Since I'm not in any hurry to go see this movie, I still wonder if the events that brought the powers of the original three women were ever mentioned within the movie.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by DarkFell

Martha "Mattie" Franklin (Spider-Woman #3) got her powers from some artifact and from participating in various ceremonies held by The Gathering Of Five.

Mattie is also presently dead in the comics, she was killed in 2010 and briefly made a comeback as a clone in 2017 before dying again. She's not very popular.