Tan Djarka
Sr Member
Maybe it's because I'm not familiar with the source material, but there's nothing about the trailer that makes me want to see the movie. Based on box office returns, I'm not the only one.
MADAME WEB
- Thread starter Usagi Pilgrim
- Start date
This thing has tanked already. HARD. Only $56 million worldwide. And the average theater going person doesn't realize this is not a direct Avengers et. al film. It takes place in the SONY Spiderman Universe (and is a prequel to those recent films). So there is brand dilution, which may hurt future Marvel films.
Wow. Only $56 million worldwide?
Combined with the brand damage argument . . . . Sony should have scrapped this thing unreleased and taken the tax write-off.
Wakeem
Sr Member
I think the suits behind this movie might still end up on the profit side sadly. I read the budget on wiki as 80 million but saw anther story that it might be close to 100 million. Who knows if marketing is included or not. Some double the given budget so 160 to 200 million but that sounds like too much. As I didn't see that many commercials. And flying the cast around shouldn't get up to those numbers. Right now, Madame Web is around 91 million. Plus, on Box Office Mojo I don't see Box Office numbers from China. Add in physical sales. Plus, all the upcoming cable, TV, and streaming distribution and I wouldn't be surprised if they scrape by a small profit.
But the question is how much will this damage the possible Spider-Woman film? I think I mentioned here how bad I thought Don't Worry Darling was. And the people behind that were linked to the upcoming Spider-Woman. Don't Worry Darling is another movie that managed to be profitable. Part of me wouldn't be surprised if they continue with their plans.
But the question is how much will this damage the possible Spider-Woman film? I think I mentioned here how bad I thought Don't Worry Darling was. And the people behind that were linked to the upcoming Spider-Woman. Don't Worry Darling is another movie that managed to be profitable. Part of me wouldn't be surprised if they continue with their plans.
The studios don't get 100% of the box office sales money. The rule-of-thumb is they get around half of it. (Depends on several factors.)
I can't see 'Madame Webb" making a profit by any stretch. I doubt the total earnings will ever climb much over $100m even with video/streaming revenue.
The only silver lining for Sony is that they didn't have too much money in it. They might lose $80m or something. By the standards of big tentpoles losing money lately, that's minor. Disney is probably gonna have $500m in their new Captain America reboot by the time it opens. The rumors/leaks suggest that it will be another big Disney disaster.
Last edited:
Riceball
Master Member
I don't think that there's that much confusion that this is not an MCU movie. Sony has been releasing these Spider-Man less movies for a while now starting with Venom. So I think that most movie goers realize going into the movie that this movie has 0 ties to the MCU and won't feature Spider-Man.
Cephus
Master Member
Tell that to the stars of the film, who tried to link in the MCU when they announced they had been cast. People are just dumb.
I gave it a shot. It is a horrible movie. Nothing woke or any kind of sjw agenda type of horrible, just a bad movie. I was hoping it would be good bad so I could have fun making fun of it, but it doesn't even give you that.
The trailer is very deceptive...
The trailer is very deceptive...
None of the girls get their costumes or powers, what you saw in the trailer is basically what you get in the movie as a flash forward segment.
I listened to a youtuber who was speculating (citing bits of specific circumstantial evidence) that the Madame Web script was an AI job.
That's an oversimplification, of course. (Saying "the movie was written with AI" is like saying "The special effects were done with CGI".) But the writers were in over their heads and facing a fast deadline. It looks like they turned in a script with too much cut-n-pasted AI content and not enough human editing/reworking.
That's an oversimplification, of course. (Saying "the movie was written with AI" is like saying "The special effects were done with CGI".) But the writers were in over their heads and facing a fast deadline. It looks like they turned in a script with too much cut-n-pasted AI content and not enough human editing/reworking.
CB2001
Master Member
They’d be hypocrites, if that’s true. XD
AI-assisted writing is here to stay. That genie is not getting put back in the bottle.
Cephus
Master Member
Dakota Johnson says the script they showed her was not what they filmed. I have no idea how true that is, but apparently, they didn't have a complete, finalized script when they were casting.
It's what they used to call a B movie. We all know there are good B movies and bad B movies. Revenge of the Ninja is a good B movie, this is a bad B movie.
Which is usually a pretty bad idea; just ask JJ Abrams' and his "sequel trilogy".
Future people will look back on today's Hollywood and be mystified about why scripting was at bottom of the priority list. It makes no sense with these giga-tentpole budgets.
Any new CEO of a studio like Warner Bros or Disney . . . IMO all they have to is demand that every movie have a finished script before the cameras roll. I think that rule alone would cause a real measurable drop in production costs & higher quality outcomes.
They would miss a few release dates because of that policy. So what? They already miss release dates when movies have disasterous test screenings and get pushed back a year & re-shot. Pro tip: It's cheaper to film a movie fewer times.
Any new CEO of a studio like Warner Bros or Disney . . . IMO all they have to is demand that every movie have a finished script before the cameras roll. I think that rule alone would cause a real measurable drop in production costs & higher quality outcomes.
They would miss a few release dates because of that policy. So what? They already miss release dates when movies have disasterous test screenings and get pushed back a year & re-shot. Pro tip: It's cheaper to film a movie fewer times.
Last edited:
Similar threads
