Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 7:13 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
What did everyone else watch?
Aside from the last games of the group stage of the World Cup? I watched >>>> two movies, an ep of DOOL and GH, and the penultimate episode of season >>>> #3 of "The Gilded Age".
[snip]
Madame Web (Disney+) -
"Undertone" with something completely different! And also to "celebrate" >>>> the utter box office bomb that is "Supergirl" (2026), with the previous >>>> superhero "box office bomb", "Madame Webb"!
The good news? I thought Dakota Johnson was quite decent in this,
and this wasn't the "worst acting in the world" (though, now that I
think about it, when I read this kind of thing on Reddit, it's about
Johnson's acting *generally*, not necessarily her acting in "Madame Web" >>>> specifically).
And this flick was entertaining enough I guess.
The bad news?... Well, I can see why people had lots of problems
with this film.
The first issue is that this film probably would have worked better
if they hadn't loaded Johnson, as Cassandra Webb (see? the name is
clever!! Prophet+Spider Property!!), down with the three younger
supporting leads (Sydney Sweeney, Celeste O'Connor, and Isabela Merced >>>> (aka. Isabela Moner - who, to the best of my recollection, is one of the >>>> few actresses who has appeared in both the MCU and the DCEU!)) -
thought Johnson's character was vaguely interesting with a decent
backstory, but the three teens just distract and detract from that.
Warning!
Spoilers
Be
Below!
The second issue is that this particular origin story is a huge
ginormous downer. The three teens don't even get their powers by the end >>>> of the film. (So, this entire film is basically just "set up"?!?!!) But >>>> worse is what happens to Cassandra Webb - Her "reward" for saving the
three sullen teens from the film's homicidal 'Big Bad' is... to be made >>>> blind and paralyzed?!!
So, the film ends up a huge downer because Cassandra is basically
punished for trying to be a hero.
Yeah, no one is going to want to see a sequel to this! Not even me!!
It's clear that both Marvel and DC (specifically, Sony, in this
case) have to abandon the idea of basing superhero flicks around obscure >>>> superheros from their catalogues and expecting them to do well at the
box office - no one is clamoring to see a "Madame Web" (or a
"Supergirl") film.
that superhero flicks are ever going to draw in female audiences, so
they should probably forget about basing superhero flicks around any
other female superhero aside from Wonder Woman.)
Anyway, "Madame Web" wasn't nearly as terrible as I have been led to
believe. But it is definitely flawed, and they should almost certainly >>>> have not based a film around this particular superhero character,
especially with her "origin story" being such a downer.
On 6/29/2026 10:28 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 7:13 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
What did everyone else watch?
Aside from the last games of the group stage of the World Cup? I watched >>>>> two movies, an ep of DOOL and GH, and the penultimate episode of season >>>>> #3 of "The Gilded Age".
[snip]
Madame Web (Disney+) -
I've been saving this to read after I watch Madame Web myself.
I decided to "cleanse my palate" after
"Undertone" with something completely different! And also to "celebrate" >>>>> the utter box office bomb that is "Supergirl" (2026), with the previous >>>>> superhero "box office bomb", "Madame Webb"!
The good news? I thought Dakota Johnson was quite decent in this,
and this wasn't the "worst acting in the world" (though, now that I
think about it, when I read this kind of thing on Reddit, it's about >>>>> Johnson's acting *generally*, not necessarily her acting in "Madame Web" >>>>> specifically).
And this flick was entertaining enough I guess.
The bad news?... Well, I can see why people had lots of problems
with this film.
The first issue is that this film probably would have worked better
if they hadn't loaded Johnson, as Cassandra Webb (see? the name is
clever!! Prophet+Spider Property!!), down with the three younger
supporting leads (Sydney Sweeney, Celeste O'Connor, and Isabela Merced >>>>> (aka. Isabela Moner - who, to the best of my recollection, is one of the >>>>> few actresses who has appeared in both the MCU and the DCEU!)) -
She is much better as Hawkgirl.
I
thought Johnson's character was vaguely interesting with a decent
backstory, but the three teens just distract and detract from that.
Warning!
Spoilers
Be
Below!
The second issue is that this particular origin story is a huge
ginormous downer. The three teens don't even get their powers by the end >>>>> of the film. (So, this entire film is basically just "set up"?!?!!) But >>>>> worse is what happens to Cassandra Webb - Her "reward" for saving the >>>>> three sullen teens from the film's homicidal 'Big Bad' is... to be made >>>>> blind and paralyzed?!!
So, the film ends up a huge downer because Cassandra is basically
punished for trying to be a hero.
Yeah, no one is going to want to see a sequel to this! Not even me!! >>>>> It's clear that both Marvel and DC (specifically, Sony, in this
case) have to abandon the idea of basing superhero flicks around obscure >>>>> superheros from their catalogues and expecting them to do well at the >>>>> box office - no one is clamoring to see a "Madame Web" (or a
"Supergirl") film.
I wouldn't mind more Supergirl movies.
(Marvel and DC also need to dispense with the idea
that superhero flicks are ever going to draw in female audiences, so >>>>> they should probably forget about basing superhero flicks around any >>>>> other female superhero aside from Wonder Woman.)
As long as they keep making bad movies based around male superheroes
they can also make bad movies based around female superheroes.
Anyway, "Madame Web" wasn't nearly as terrible as I have been led to >>>>> believe. But it is definitely flawed, and they should almost certainly >>>>> have not based a film around this particular superhero character,
especially with her "origin story" being such a downer.
I don't know much about the character, but I'm sure there was a way they >could have told a far more interesting origin story. Or don't do an
origin. Just tell an interesting story with the character already >established.
Did you notice half the movie was ADR? Whatever the original story was
when they filmed it, we didn't get to see *that* movie. We got
something totally different.
I was hoping for a commentary track on the disc, but so far none of the >Sonyverse movies have commentary tracks.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 07:27:08 -0700, Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
On 6/29/2026 10:28 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 7:13 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
What did everyone else watch?
Aside from the last games of the group stage of the World Cup? I watched >>>>>> two movies, an ep of DOOL and GH, and the penultimate episode of season >>>>>> #3 of "The Gilded Age".
[snip]
Madame Web (Disney+) -
I've been saving this to read after I watch Madame Web myself.
I don't.. I don't mean to not read this but to not watch MADAME WEB.
It's not MORBIUS level bad but it's definitely one of the poorer Marvel/SpiderVerse movies.
I decided to "cleanse my palate" after
"Undertone" with something completely different! And also to "celebrate" >>>>>> the utter box office bomb that is "Supergirl" (2026), with the previous >>>>>> superhero "box office bomb", "Madame Webb"!
The good news? I thought Dakota Johnson was quite decent in this,
and this wasn't the "worst acting in the world" (though, now that I >>>>>> think about it, when I read this kind of thing on Reddit, it's about >>>>>> Johnson's acting *generally*, not necessarily her acting in "Madame Web" >>>>>> specifically).
And this flick was entertaining enough I guess.
The bad news?... Well, I can see why people had lots of problems
with this film.
The first issue is that this film probably would have worked better >>>>>> if they hadn't loaded Johnson, as Cassandra Webb (see? the name is >>>>>> clever!! Prophet+Spider Property!!), down with the three younger
supporting leads (Sydney Sweeney, Celeste O'Connor, and Isabela Merced >>>>>> (aka. Isabela Moner - who, to the best of my recollection, is one of the >>>>>> few actresses who has appeared in both the MCU and the DCEU!)) -
She is much better as Hawkgirl.
I
thought Johnson's character was vaguely interesting with a decent
backstory, but the three teens just distract and detract from that. >>>>>> Warning!
Spoilers
Be
Below!
The second issue is that this particular origin story is a huge
ginormous downer. The three teens don't even get their powers by the end >>>>>> of the film. (So, this entire film is basically just "set up"?!?!!) But >>>>>> worse is what happens to Cassandra Webb - Her "reward" for saving the >>>>>> three sullen teens from the film's homicidal 'Big Bad' is... to be made >>>>>> blind and paralyzed?!!
So, the film ends up a huge downer because Cassandra is basically
punished for trying to be a hero.
Yeah, no one is going to want to see a sequel to this! Not even me!! >>>>>> It's clear that both Marvel and DC (specifically, Sony, in this
case) have to abandon the idea of basing superhero flicks around obscure >>>>>> superheros from their catalogues and expecting them to do well at the >>>>>> box office - no one is clamoring to see a "Madame Web" (or a
"Supergirl") film.
I wouldn't mind more Supergirl movies.
(Marvel and DC also need to dispense with the idea
that superhero flicks are ever going to draw in female audiences, so >>>>>> they should probably forget about basing superhero flicks around any >>>>>> other female superhero aside from Wonder Woman.)
As long as they keep making bad movies based around male superheroes
they can also make bad movies based around female superheroes.
Anyway, "Madame Web" wasn't nearly as terrible as I have been led to >>>>>> believe. But it is definitely flawed, and they should almost certainly >>>>>> have not based a film around this particular superhero character,
especially with her "origin story" being such a downer.
I don't know much about the character, but I'm sure there was a way they
could have told a far more interesting origin story. Or don't do an
origin. Just tell an interesting story with the character already
established.
Did you notice half the movie was ADR? Whatever the original story was
when they filmed it, we didn't get to see *that* movie. We got
something totally different.
I was hoping for a commentary track on the disc, but so far none of the
Sonyverse movies have commentary tracks.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 07:27:08 -0700, Arthur Lipscomb
<arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
On 6/29/2026 10:28 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 7:13 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
What did everyone else watch?
Aside from the last games of the group stage of the World Cup? I watched
two movies, an ep of DOOL and GH, and the penultimate episode of season >>>>>>> #3 of "The Gilded Age".
[snip]
Madame Web (Disney+) -
I've been saving this to read after I watch Madame Web myself.
I don't.. I don't mean to not read this but to not watch MADAME WEB.
It's not MORBIUS level bad but it's definitely one of the poorer
Marvel/SpiderVerse movies.
I blame the source material
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:38:21 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 07:27:08 -0700, Arthur Lipscomb
<arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
On 6/29/2026 10:28 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 7:13 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
What did everyone else watch?
Aside from the last games of the group stage of the World Cup? I watched
two movies, an ep of DOOL and GH, and the penultimate episode of season
#3 of "The Gilded Age".
[snip]
Madame Web (Disney+) -
I've been saving this to read after I watch Madame Web myself.
I don't.. I don't mean to not read this but to not watch MADAME WEB.
It's not MORBIUS level bad but it's definitely one of the poorer
Marvel/SpiderVerse movies.
I blame the source material
That's no excuse. Never read the MADAME WEB comic but I know it wasn't
an extensive series so it clearly wasn't that well liked.
I guess the writers weren't capable of rising above the base material.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:38:21 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 07:27:08 -0700, Arthur Lipscomb
<arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
On 6/29/2026 10:28 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 7:13 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
What did everyone else watch?
Aside from the last games of the group stage of the World Cup? I watched
two movies, an ep of DOOL and GH, and the penultimate episode of season
#3 of "The Gilded Age".
[snip]
Madame Web (Disney+) -
I've been saving this to read after I watch Madame Web myself.
I don't.. I don't mean to not read this but to not watch MADAME WEB.
It's not MORBIUS level bad but it's definitely one of the poorer
Marvel/SpiderVerse movies.
I blame the source material
That's no excuse. Never read the MADAME WEB comic but I know it wasn't
an extensive series so it clearly wasn't that well liked.
I guess the writers weren't capable of rising above the base material.
It shouldn?t exist at all. Spider-Man should be a freak science accident
not the most recent in a long series of mystical people and spider totems.
On Jul 27, 2026 at 2:34:18 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:38:21 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
I blame the source material
That's no excuse. Never read the MADAME WEB comic but I know it wasn't
an extensive series so it clearly wasn't that well liked.
I guess the writers weren't capable of rising above the base material.
It shouldn?t exist at all. Spider-Man should be a freak science accident not the most recent in a long series of mystical people and spider totems.
+1
Verily, in article <1148uo2$3kgsu$6@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com >deliver unto us this message:
On Jul 27, 2026 at 2:34:18 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:+1
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:38:21 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>It shouldn?t exist at all. Spider-Man should be a freak science accident >> > not the most recent in a long series of mystical people and spider totems. >>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
I blame the source material
That's no excuse. Never read the MADAME WEB comic but I know it wasn't >> >> an extensive series so it clearly wasn't that well liked.
I guess the writers weren't capable of rising above the base material. >> >
They messed with Spidey's origin story? That was surely a mistake.
Everyone knows he was bitten by a radioactive spider.
Supposedly it was part of plan to have a Spideyverse with all the
super powered Spidey people connected together. I think Madame Web was supposed to be at the center of it. At least that's where I think the
comics were going.
The movie had a different idea but still with multiple super powered
people and a spider at the center but it's some special spider and not
the result of radioactive exposure. Instead it has that supernatural component.
Verily, in article <1148uo2$3kgsu$6@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com deliver unto us this message:
On Jul 27, 2026 at 2:34:18 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:+1
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:38:21 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
I blame the source material
That's no excuse. Never read the MADAME WEB comic but I know it wasn't >>>> an extensive series so it clearly wasn't that well liked.
I guess the writers weren't capable of rising above the base material.
It shouldn?t exist at all. Spider-Man should be a freak science accident >>> not the most recent in a long series of mystical people and spider totems. >>
They messed with Spidey's origin story? That was surely a mistake.
Everyone knows he was bitten by a radioactive spider.
Verily, in article <mtdh6l5vro7l6q2el03i0cgciujahd5sra@4ax.com>, did nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com deliver unto us this message:
Supposedly it was part of plan to have a Spideyverse with all the
super powered Spidey people connected together. I think Madame Web was
supposed to be at the center of it. At least that's where I think the
comics were going.
Hmm. I wonder if they wanted to copy DC's "Speed Force" thing.
The movie had a different idea but still with multiple super powered
people and a spider at the center but it's some special spider and not
the result of radioactive exposure. Instead it has that supernatural
component.
If I'd wanted to do that, I would probably have used the existing Spidey
as the grandpa. Maybe he donates blood, not realizing that the
recipients will all spider out.
Maybe dozens of new spider-people appear within a few weeks, none
knowing how to use their powers, and Peter Parker is baffled until he finally puts it together. Some of the new spideys will die and at least
one will run off to become a new villain, but at least one will become Peter's apprentice.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 496009:17:36 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 605 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (18,741K bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,152 |