Sony's Marvel Universe (Venom, Morbius, etc)

[Giftheck 916]

How many Madame Webillion dollars will this one make?

[mstrox 6,647]

This is the first of the non-MCU Spider-Man (live action) movies that actually looks watchable.

[Edmilson 7,398]

Quote

It’s not the best time in Hollywood to be a cinematic universe. DC just finished flattening its own franchise so studio chief James Gunn can begin a new timeline with “Superman: Legacy.” Marvel Studios is licking its wounds after a series of streaming duds and box office disappointments. It’s a fallow, somewhat existential period for both banners: Between Marvel and DC, only two theatrical features — Disney’s “Deadpool 3” and Warner Bros.’ “Joker: Folie à Deux,” both with only tenuous connections to franchise canon — are slated for 2024.

 

Sony Pictures, however, has three lined up, emerging as this year’s leader in the superhero space after some post-strike release date shuffling. But unlike Disney and Warner Bros., the studio isn’t presenting its films as installments in a years-spanning narrative architecture.

 

“There may be some hesitation to emphasize the interconnectedness of these movies,” says Jeff Gomez, an executive transmedia producer at Starlight Runner. Gomez worked with Sony as a story consultant when the studio rebooted “Spider-Man” in 2017, casting Tom Holland and reaching an agreement to co-produce with Disney to place the hero in the rival studio’s cinematic universe. “They’ve talked about it before, and it didn’t work out.” So far, post-credits teasers bridging Sony’s spin-offs to Disney’s own continuity via interdimensional travel have been seen as half-hearted and, ultimately, unsuccessful.

https://variety.com/2024/film/features/sony-marvel-universe-kraven-madame-web-venom-1235884120/

[Jay 37,323]

Huh I hadn't realized there was only one MCU film this entire calendar year.

 

Kind of strange really, since there were three last year and four scheduled for next year

[JNHFan2000 2,944]

Yeah, they decided to delay all the other films by one or two years to make sure they were the best they can be.

 

I do think that last year with DC & Marvel all releases 3 or more films it was bit much. Should be good to have a year with a bit less.

 

Sony is releasing three though which kinda ballances it out. And Marvel has plenty of series planned

[Jay 37,323]

 

[Jay 37,323]

AVClub gives Madame Webb a D

 

https://www.avclub.com/tv-most-swoonworthy-romantic-gestures-1851227967

 

Madame Web is a laughable affair. Intentionally so, at times. But for much of its two-hour runtime, the laughs come at the expense of the arguably capable work being put in by its charming lead, and the ridiculous dialogue she’s reduced to uttering with the best semblance of a straight face. To Dakota Johnson’s credit, she emerges if not unscathed, at least having had a fun enough time playing the film’s titular character. Alas, that’s not enough to save Sony’s ill-conceived attempt at broadening its Spidey-verse.

[JNHFan2000 2,944]

Yeah, reviews are bad

[Dr. Rick 1,155]

After watching the trailer / featurette / etc, is anyone surprised?    Bad writing strikes again apparently.

[Giftheck 916]

 

[JNHFan2000 2,944]

Woow!

 

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Ah, well done. Every Marvel loss right now is a victory on the field of battle for art, humanity & civilization itself.

[A. A. Ron 1,741]

Certainly true of Sony’s Spin-off Spider-shit.

[Luke Skywalker 1,793]

Sony...just sell Spideman universe back to Marvel...

[Edmilson 7,398]

14 minutes ago, Luke Skywalker said:

Sony...just sell Spideman universe back to Marvel...

Sony will literally throw away millions of dollars with these Spiderman-less movies to maintain the rights because Spiderman brings them billions in royalties.

Fox did the same thing to their Marvel characters for decades.

 

Now we're stuck with this kind of crap.

[Yavar Moradi 2,593]

Yeah the only hope at this point is Disney somehow also buying Sony itself, lol...

 

Yavar

[Edmilson 7,398]

Sony made a shit movie but still thought they were building a huge franchise:

 

Inside Sony’s ‘Madame Web’ Collapse: Forget About a New Franchise

The flop is wiping out an entire plan for a new movie series, as the studio becomes the latest superhero studio in need of a pivot.

 

This part made me lol:

 

Quote

Rothman is known for keeping a close watch over budgets and it has been widely reported that Madame Web cost $80 million, but the actual number is in the low $100 million range, according to several sources.

These guys spent over $100 million, way more than either Venom or Morbius, for a less popular character than both of them, but forgot to keep track of the movie's quality.

 

I'm pretty sure the moronic executives thought "it's Marvel, people like that shit, they'll pay to watch anything if you slap the Marvel logo in it!". Now they have a massive flop

[Luke Skywalker 1,793]

Seriously i hope somehow they are in need of money in the future and sell all the spiderman assets.

[Jay 37,323]

Oh man, this review of Madame Web is brutal!

 

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/reviews/1550632-madame-web-review-an-irredeemable-garbage-fire

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,429]

Well as someone who've seen the movie I can confirm that this movie is really terrible. The dialogues are almost all awfull, the characters have strictly no personnality or emotions but that's just some of the writing problems, not exactly things that I expect to be great when watching a super-heroe movie.

Now the real problem with this movie is the technical aspect of it. There is tons of shots where the focus is missed, the dialogues are not always synched to picture (especially the generic bad guy lines which are 50% of the time not synched), the sound mix is terrible making the movie look like a first low budget student film (I mean that just on a technical point of view), the special effects are most of the time not convicing when not hideous.

 

Now that being said, in terms of writing and even on the technical part (sound appart), Madame Web is not much worse than last year's Shazam! 2, Quantumania, The Flash or The Marvels which all had the same awful writting and character developpement and awful look

[Jay 37,323]

And SJ Clarkson was at one point hired to make a fourth Kelvinverse Star Trek movie!

 

Funny you mention the same thing that review I posted does about the bad guy's lines being 100% ADRed and not matching his lip movements... pretty sad

[Edmilson 7,398]

I don't think it's entirely her fault. The movie seems to have been re-written and re-edited over and over again, with idiotic Sony executives pressuring her to deliver a franchise-worthy movie that is at the same time different from the MCU. Then again, this is the reality of working for a major comic book movie these days, and some directors fare better within these conditions and others don't. The director of the first Venom seemed to have had an awful experience too.

 

I hope she can find more satisfying work in other movies or shows after this debacle.

[Jay 37,323]

Agreed

[Yavar Moradi 2,593]

I had to walk out of Madame Web after only half an hour it was so bad. Clarkson did a lot of very good directing work on TV before this (multiple very cinematic shows like TURN, Jessica Jones, and Succession) so yeah I totally believe she was largely fucked over by meddling incompetent Sony executives on this.

 

Yavar

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,429]

Well there was some nice ideas of shots that went down thanks to that awful editing but I think that with a proper production she could have done a fine job. I mean even without reshooting anything but simply re-editing the whole film in a director's cut you might just have an acceptable movie with poor dialogues or character developpement but a least a nice entertainement

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

I think the “studio interference” excuse is getting a little played. The studio interferes on all these films. As far as I know WB is the only studio that leaves their directors alone in superhero movies…and only well established directors at that.
 

So yeah, if you’re a director signing up for a franchise film, particularly one involving Disney or Sony, you know what you’re signing up for. Every director of these films has to deal with studio interference. If your vision and gravitas isn’t strong enough to overcome that, that’s on you. And let’s remember one of the reasons these inexperienced directors are chosen in the first place is because the studio wants someone they can control. What, Disney or Sony is supposed to give the keys to the kingdom to someone who directed a few episodes of Gilmore Girls and say “have at it”?
 

The MCU wouldn’t be what it’s been if not for studio interference. Sometimes having inexperienced (or TV) directors works out (e.g. the Russos), sometimes it doesn’t (e.g. Taylor, Clarkson, DaCosta). But the studio interferes in most cases either way. However when a film from a franchise we love is great, it's the director who is praised, but when it fails, the old “studio interference” excuse is trotted out. 

 

I’m not saying meddling executives can’t ruin a movie. They certainly can and have. But sorry, there’s no good version of Madame Web in there. And I’m not defending the studio system and this approach. However for good and bad, it is what it is. The MCU films work together in the way they do for a reason. If you like their consistency, understand it's a product of a system.

 

 

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,429]

I'm not saying there is a good version of Madame Web, I'm saying there is an acceptable one and by that I mean a film that doesn't have any less than amateurish technical errors.

 

I'm sure that even though Clarkson (or any super-heroes movies directors for that matter) is not the best director around there is no world in which she would accept an editing with out of synch dialogues. She's clearly not doing some an experimental or Goddard like picture, and synched dialogues is basically step two in editing (after the ingest of rushes), so you can't think that she would have approved this cut. Damn I'm sure even the editor(s) who had to do it, could not find that cut decent. Same thing goes for out of focus shots, either they were errors to be thrown away, but through poor organization they managed to find their way into the final edit or the studio were so short on schedule that they pushed the crew not to remake what was a poorly executed shot.

 

Now about producers' interferences, I'm not blaming them, they have to happen for a movie to exist otherwise we would only get movies that please the egos of directors or no movie at all when you think about artists that are never satisfied with their works. The real issue here is that the producers interferences allowed a movie to be technically dysfonctionnement. So I think it's safer to blame them rather than the crew who rarely come up with technical errors like this.

 

We can see the same thing with the VFX getting messier and messier along the year. Is it because VFX artists are worst than before or because suits asked them to do something in a rush? I tend to think it's the second option.

[Yavar Moradi 2,593]

Exactly, @Raiders of the SoundtrArk. I think @Nick1Ø66 if you were to see the film, and then watch some of the TV episodes Clarkson directed, you would be dumbfounded at the difference. No way in hell did she approve this sloppy, technically incompetent, work. I'm not saying she's some amazing director and there was a great film to be found in this, but she's been directing TV for a couple decades now and the half hour I saw of this film is far more amateurish than any TV show I've watched.

 

Yavar

[HunterTech 987]

If Bob Iger can fully admit they've probably made too many sequels while still deciding to push them anyway (while also hastily repurposing a TV show into a theatrical film without even having much of the original talent involved out the gate), I really doubt the rest of Hollywood is that much better about creative control if that's how the top dog is currently doing things.

 

Also, for two fairly different creatives (Ruben Fleischer and Andy Serkis) to make the stylistically similar mush that are the Venom movies tells me that their vision probably didn't survive the final cuts much for those either.

 

Plus I do think Dakota Johnson has said that the original script she read got thrown out, so who knows how much the story has gotten changed during production.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

2 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

if you were to see the film, and then watch some of the TV episodes Clarkson directed, you would be dumbfounded at the difference. No way in hell did she approve this sloppy, technically incompetent, work. No way in hell did she approve this sloppy, technically incompetent, work.

 

Oh, I don't necessarily think she's to blame for whatever technical failures plagued the film. At the same time, let's not give her too much credit for how technically proficient the TV episodes she directed were either. It's recognized that once you get to post, especially on a film like this (and certainly on TV shows), such things are typically out of the director's hands, especially one with little clout like Clarkson. I don't doubt that she's a competent director. 

 

That said, even if the film had no technical problems, it still wouldn't have been good film. Let's put it this way...there are plenty of movies that are technically superior but suck. Conversely, if a film is otherwise great, it's easy to overlook technical issues. Madame Web failed on all levels and there's plenty of blame to go around, and that includes the director. I just think it's lazy to throw the blame on "studio interference".

[Edmilson 7,398]

I think that even though the "the movie's bad because the studio execs kept messing with it" excuse might be overplayed, I think it is correct in the case of Madame Web. All the (hilariously honest) interviews given by Dakota Johnson seem to indicate that this was a messy production.

 

Sure, I doubt that this movie could've turned out great even in the best of conditions, it was flawed from the start.

 

Still, the awful experiences by directors like Clarkson and Reuben Fleischer point that, even though Sony executives and shareholders may dream with their own MCU populated by Spiderman characters, they are too incompetent on how to achieve that.

 

I've read on the internet that at some point this Madame Web movie was supposed to be about the birth of Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker, but then someone decided to change that to Tom Holland's version of the character so the movie, which was planned to be set in the 90s (Garfield's Parker became Spider-Man in 2012, so he was probably born on the mid to late 90s), changed its setting to 2003 and removed all the 90s references to better align with Holland's character.

 

Then, someone decided that it would be better to not have any references to Spider-Man at all and now the movie is "completely standalone, with no connections to other franchises", so it isn't set neither at the MCU nor the Venom universe (which might be the same as Morbius? who knows) nor Garfield's or even Maguire's universe.

 

In other words: a lesson on how not to produce a big budget superhero movie.

 

By the way @Raiders of the SoundtrArk which one of the spoilers below are not true? 

 

Spoiler

 

[Faleel 5,342]

5 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

.

 

By the way @Raiders of the SoundtrArk which one of these spoilers below are true? 

You mean which one is NOT true.

[Edmilson 7,398]

Yea, I fixed it.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

56 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Still, the awful experiences by directors like Clarkson and Reuben Fleischer point that, even though Sony executives and shareholders may dream with their own MCU populated by Spiderman characters, they are too incompetent on how to achieve that.

 

Right. The MCU is a well-oiled machine. Their "studio system" for churning out these films (mostly) worked through Endgame.  Sony really hasn't been able to replicate that with Spider-Man. Nor has LucasFilm with Star Wars or WB with either their DCU or the so-called (and aborted) Monsterverse. I guess we can chalk to the "it's not as easy as it looks" department. 

 

That said, I don't even know if Clarkson had a "vision" for the film to be ruined by the studio in the first place? I dunno. You either need a great director or a studio head that knows what they're doing. Something tells me there was never a good Madame Web to begin with.

 

[Edmilson 7,398]

29 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Right. The MCU is a well-oiled machine. Their "studio system" for churning out these films (mostly) worked through Endgame.  Sony really hasn't been able to replicate that with Spider-Man. Nor has LucasFilm with Star Wars or WB with either their DCU or the so-called (and aborted) Monsterverse. I guess we can chalk to the "it's not as easy as it looks" department. 

 

Writer Scott Mendelson (who used to work for Forbes and now has a blog on Substack and is always entertaining to read even when I disagree with him) likes to say that The Conjuring Universe is the only successful "cinematic universe" aside from the MCU 

 

I'd add that the Legendary Monsterverse is also, well, not a huge splash but it did manage to last ten years without much drama or huge disasters. Only one of its movies is an official flop (Godzilla KOTM), while 2014 Godzilla and Kong: Skull Island were reasonably successful and GvK earned some decent money considering Covid and simultaneous HBO Max release. The Apple show seems to have been decently received as well.

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,429]

9 hours ago, Edmilson said:

I think that even though the "the movie's bad because the studio execs kept messing with it" excuse might be overplayed, I think it is correct in the case of Madame Web. All the (hilariously honest) interviews given by Dakota Johnson seem to indicate that this was a messy production.

 

Sure, I doubt that this movie could've turned out great even in the best of conditions, it was flawed from the start.

 

Still, the awful experiences by directors like Clarkson and Reuben Fleischer point that, even though Sony executives and shareholders may dream with their own MCU populated by Spiderman characters, they are too incompetent on how to achieve that.

 

I've read on the internet that at some point this Madame Web movie was supposed to be about the birth of Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker, but then someone decided to change that to Tom Holland's version of the character so the movie, which was planned to be set in the 90s (Garfield's Parker became Spider-Man in 2012, so he was probably born on the mid to late 90s), changed its setting to 2003 and removed all the 90s references to better align with Holland's character.

 

Then, someone decided that it would be better to not have any references to Spider-Man at all and now the movie is "completely standalone, with no connections to other franchises", so it isn't set neither at the MCU nor the Venom universe (which might be the same as Morbius? who knows) nor Garfield's or even Maguire's universe.

 

In other words: a lesson on how not to produce a big budget superhero movie.

 

By the way @Raiders of the SoundtrArk which one of the spoilers below are not true? 

 

  Hide contents

 

That's all happening

Actually there is a mistake, Madame Web runs down Evil Spider-Man in a stolen car, twice

[Jay 37,323]

Why is this movie set in 2003 instead of present day?

[Holko 9,499]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

Why is this movie set in 2003 instead of present day?

Because they wanted it to be a prequel to Garfield's Spider-Man and it was set in the 90s, before they changed their minds and made it a prequel to Holland's Spider-Man set in 2003 mid-production, before they changed their minds and removed the explicit reference to Peter Parker mid-production, or something.

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,429]

I think they wanted to link it to Tom Holland Spider-Man (which by the way wouldn't make much sense since Holland is more like 16 in Civil War and not 13 like this movie would suggest). Anyway in Madame Web you have Ben Parker who's friend with Cassie Web and his sister, Mary, is giving birth to a young boy while her husband, Richard Parker, is abroad. The only people not clearly mentionned by name are aunt May and Peter

[Jay 37,323]

1 hour ago, Holko said:

Because they wanted it to be a prequel to Garfield's Spider-Man and it was set in the 90s, before they changed their minds and made it a prequel to Holland's Spider-Man set in 2003 mid-production, before they changed their minds and removed the explicit reference to Peter Parker mid-production, or something.

 

Wait is that for real?

 

1 hour ago, Raiders of the SoundtrArk said:

I think they wanted to link it to Tom Holland Spider-Man (which by the way wouldn't make much sense since Holland is more like 16 in Civil War and not 13 like this movie would suggest).

 

Yeah the MCU Peter Park was born in 2000 and was 16 years old when Civil War and Homecoming take place (2016).  So if they set this in 2003 instead of 2000 they fucked up.

 

1 hour ago, Raiders of the SoundtrArk said:

Anyway in Madame Web you have Ben Parker who's friend with Cassie Web and his sister, Mary, is giving birth to a young boy while her husband, Richard Parker, is abroad. The only people not clearly mentionned by name are aunt May and Peter

 

Wait what?  If Mary is a Parker because she married a Richard Parker, why would her brother also be named Parker?

[Holko 9,499]

7 minutes ago, Jay said:

Wait is that for real?

In January 2024, journalist Jeff Sneider reported that Sony had performed reshoots for Madame Web to remove references to the originally planned 1990s setting of the film, which was intended to have Andrew Garfield's version of Peter Parker / Spider-Man from The Amazing Spider-Man films exist within the film's continuity but not appear, before the studio decided to instead have this be Tom Holland's version of the character from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Spider-Man films. This resulted in the timeline needing to be adjusted to align with that character's age,^[78] with the film ultimately set in 2003.^[12][78]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Web_(film)#Post-production

[Jay 37,323]

Wow crazy.  They SHOULD have made it a prequel to the Garfield movies, since after No Way Home came out, his portrayal was popular again.  They could have tied this, amd their Venom/Morbius/Kraven movies all together with the Garfield 'verse and had him fight some of them to complete his trilogy.  So stupid to try to tie to MCUverse instead.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

38 minutes ago, Jay said:

They SHOULD have made it a prequel to the Garfield movies

 

[A. A. Ron 1,741]

Seems pretty obvious to me that the people at Sony have at least a few competing visions of what their universe should be.

[Jay 37,323]

Yep

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,429]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

Wait what?  If Mary is a Parker because she married a Richard Parker, why would her brother also be named Parker?

I never understood that either but even in the comics it's uncle Ben Parker and Richard Parker so that one ain't on them.

[Jay 37,323]

LOL

[Edmilson 7,398]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

Wow crazy.  They SHOULD have made it a prequel to the Garfield movies, since after No Way Home came out, his portrayal was popular again.  They could have tied this, amd their Venom/Morbius/Kraven movies all together with the Garfield 'verse and had him fight some of them to complete his trilogy.  So stupid to try to tie to MCUverse instead.

Exactly. Garfield is the ideal candidate to be "their" Spider-Man. He is well liked, has a built-in fanbase. Maguire is too old and Holland belongs to the MCU, but with Garfield they'd have no problem linking his movies to Venom and Madame Web. 

 

But then some moronic executive decided that they should use Holland no matter what. Maybe they thought they could steal him away from Feige's hands, I dunno.