Soultastic
El Dandy
Only an idiot can be completely happy.
Posts: 8,836
|
Post by Soultastic on Mar 6, 2024 12:20:39 GMT -5
Pretty much already is. uk.yahoo.com/news/dakota-johnson-candid-ever-comes-095625966.htmlObviously it sounds like the script changed up a lot, and Sony are definitely a studio prone to death by committee and interference. But it's also sounding like the MCU theory is true. That Johnson thought, or her talent agency thought, she was signing up to do a proper MCU film, not Sony's odd Spidey-only corner of Marvel. Hence why the agency got ditched. Might seem a little far-fetched no-one did due diligence on all this, but it seems increasingly plausible, and that Johnson wasn't the only one roped into this production in the same way. Hell, I think the Bill Murray thing around Garfield and the Coen Brothers some twenty years ago now was the point where I realised even smart and well-connected actors and creators can make really dumb moves at times. When your name is on that dotted line, it's on there. It's entirely likely that the script she anfd the agent got presented the story as being very clearly inside the MCU, so I guess it's possible they read it, thought "oh shit Sony did it" and then got f***ed.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Mar 6, 2024 13:44:42 GMT -5
It's entirely likely that the script she anfd the agent got presented the story as being very clearly inside the MCU, so I guess it's possible they read it, thought "oh shit Sony did it" and then got f***ed. Given Sony have tried several times already to insert their movies into the MCU proper – including that embarrassing occasion when Amy Pascal talked about their side-movies being part of the MCU, to Kevin Feige's visible annoyance – I'm 100% convinced the script Dakota Johnson's agent was given had explicit ties to the MCU that subsequently were removed when the ink was dry on her contract.
|
|
|
Post by darbus alan on Mar 6, 2024 13:51:32 GMT -5
It's entirely likely that the script she anfd the agent got presented the story as being very clearly inside the MCU, so I guess it's possible they read it, thought "oh shit Sony did it" and then got f***ed. Given Sony have tried several times already to insert their movies into the MCU proper – including that embarrassing occasion when Amy Pascal talked about their side-movies being part of the MCU, to Kevin Feige's visible annoyance – I'm 100% convinced the script Dakota Johnson's agent was given had explicit ties to the MCU that subsequently were removed when the ink was dry on her contract. The year this movie is set in and with Mary Parker being pregnant, it does line up nicely with the timeline for Tom Holland's Spidey.
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Mar 6, 2024 15:27:23 GMT -5
The year this movie is set in and with Mary Parker being pregnant, it does line up nicely with the timeline for Tom Holland's Spidey. And, as I said before, there really is no other reason for it to be set in 2003. It's not like post-9/11 terrorist paranoia played a role in the narrative or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Mar 6, 2024 16:47:45 GMT -5
The year this movie is set in and with Mary Parker being pregnant, it does line up nicely with the timeline for Tom Holland's Spidey. And, as I said before, there really is no other reason for it to be set in 2003. It's not like post-9/11 terrorist paranoia played a role in the narrative or anything. Hell, this being New York 2 years after 9/11 actively harms the movie. Because I wanna know how the hell she got through the airport twice considering half or what she does in the first 2/3rds of the movie is incredibly noticeable crimes in a very identifiable vehicle and the villain himself tracks them with the same kind of ridiculously good spy software that the police would also be putting a call out for them on.
|
|
|
Post by The Heartbreak TWERK on Mar 6, 2024 17:11:47 GMT -5
Obviously it sounds like the script changed up a lot, and Sony are definitely a studio prone to death by committee and interference. But it's also sounding like the MCU theory is true. That Johnson thought, or her talent agency thought, she was signing up to do a proper MCU film, not Sony's odd Spidey-only corner of Marvel. Hence why the agency got ditched.Quite frankly, there should be some sort of malpractice suit, because a four year old with a smart phone could've done the due dilligence the second the role was pitched. Johnson should sue everyone at that agency into super bankruptcy. That's the bankruptcy where they shoot you into space for being a dumb sack of flesh and unintelligence.
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Mar 6, 2024 20:49:24 GMT -5
And, as I said before, there really is no other reason for it to be set in 2003. It's not like post-9/11 terrorist paranoia played a role in the narrative or anything. Hell, this being New York 2 years after 9/11 actively harms the movie. Because I wanna know how the hell she got through the airport twice considering half or what she does in the first 2/3rds of the movie is incredibly noticeable crimes in a very identifiable vehicle and the villain himself tracks them with the same kind of ridiculously good spy software that the police would also be putting a call out for them on. At one point the evil tech girl said she was monitoring cameras on the tunnels and bridges for the four girls and was having no luck finding them with her fancy facial recognition software yet was having no luck find them. I'd love to know how they could travel between Grand Central, Queens and rural New Jersey in a stolen and noticeably damaged yellow taxi (which at one point had its licenses removed) without either crossing a bridge or tunnel or getting spotted on a camera. That's just not how NYC works.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Mario Mario on Mar 17, 2024 17:51:52 GMT -5
Watching it tonight whilst doing the ironing (I like to watch films that either I’ve watched before or where I’m not fussed if it’s bad because at least it distracts me whilst ironing)
Love the fact that the few images I had seen ahead of time had them in costumes and the three spider women don’t even get their powers lol
When I saw Adam Scott was in it, I felt bad for him but at least I knew he’d played Bens before in better things
I didn’t look up much on film beforehand and I misheard Parker as Reilly lol. I thought it was just an attempt at a joke using the name Ben Reilly what with it being a Spider-Man less movie. It wasn’t till the end I realised the mistake I had made and realised it was way worse
That great responsibility and great power line hurt my soul too lol
But hey, got the ironing done
|
|
|
Post by thechase on Apr 4, 2024 5:35:29 GMT -5
Oh hey, look who was in one of the original drafts and reached the concept art stage...only the thing that would have probably salvaged the movie www.sebmeyerart.com/#/madame-web/
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on May 2, 2024 4:53:06 GMT -5
Madame Web headed to Netflix May 14, three months to the day it came out in theaters.
Which sounds bad, but remember, Black Adam still has them beat by a month, with a theater to streaming turnaround time of less than two months.
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Jul 1, 2024 13:55:45 GMT -5
|
|