Dakota Johnson’s Madame Web press tour is one for the books
Johnson seems to be less than thrilled with Madame Web, and we love it
Aux News Dakota Johnson
The SAG-AFTRA strike this summer was huge and important and powerful, but there was one thing we kind of missed during those long, quiet months: deeply unhinged press tours. Luckily, the actors have really delivered on this front in the time they’ve been back. Hugh Grant compared his oompa-loompa mocap suit for Wonka to a “crown of thorns.” Reneé Rapp cussed out a random, misogynist bus company owner! It’s been awesome. But no one has fed the people quite like Dakota Johnson while promoting her upcoming Madame Web, a movie she seems to simply despise. Please, join us on this journey.
Yesterday, a clip emerged from an interview Johnson did with Huffington Post, in which the poor interviewer tries (and fails) to go toe to toe with the woman who ended Ellen’s career. He never stood a chance. In a stark reminder that there’s a whole world of difference between posters and the people they post about, the interviewer asks Johnson about the Madame Web trailer’s most memed line: “He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died.” Johnson, blank-faced, responds, “Why did that go viral? Isn’t any sentence out of context, out of context?” The two go back and forth a little while longer, with Johnson ultimately dubbing the whole thing “silly.” It’s like she’d rather be getting a root canal than talking about people engaging with this movie. It’s hard to look away.
Out of context, the above interaction could be read as Johnson simply not understanding meme culture, which is totally fair. She doesn’t have to! But her past appearances have implied that she doesn’t really understand Madame Web either.
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Johnson shared that this was her first time working with a blue screen, an experience she called “absolutely psychotic.” (“There’s fake explosions going off, and someone’s going, ‘Explosion!’ and you act like there’s an explosion.”) “I was like, ‘I don’t know if this is going to be good at all! I hope that I did an okay job!’” she continued. In her Saturday Night Live monologue a few days later, she also called the film “kind of like if AI generated your boyfriend’s perfect movie.” Not an indictment in the context of the monologue, but not exactly a ringing endorsement, either.
Then again, it seems like Johnson is just really fed up with Hollywood in general, whether that feeling stemmed from this experience or not. “I am discovering that it’s really fucking bleak in this industry. It is majorly disheartening,” she said in a recent interview with L’Officiel (via IndieWire). “People are just so afraid, and I’m like, why? What’s going to happen if you do something brave? It just feels like nobody knows what to do and everyone’s afraid. That’s what it feels like. Everyone who makes decisions is afraid. They want to do the safe thing, and the safe thing is really boring.”
It’s unclear whether Madame Web is the specific “safe thing” Johnson is alluding to here or if she’s just experiencing a sense of general malaise, but someone really jazzed about their upcoming big, great movie probably wouldn’t be this bitter while trying to get people to actually see it. Unfortunately for Dakota, her frustration is just so damn entertaining. You can see for yourself whether Madame Web lives up to the hype (or lack thereof) when it hits theaters February 14.
254 Comments
Morbius cameo in Madame Web or we riot!
What a dumb fucking article.
::reads article::
Yeah, this seems relevant:
Love me some Cody Showdys.
Fair and Balanced! 😀
Warmbo would fit right in at modern AV Club, sadly.
“Having a wild, stupid opinion everyone gets to dunk on might be your only selling point”-The AV Club
Ahhh. Remember the days of Sean O’Neal? He could really take down some celebrity hubris/ridiculousness. Or, at least tie it together to make a coherent point. This is an article in which the actor complains about taking quotes out of context and then proceeds to take every quote out of context to make a poorly supported argument. None of these really show that this is “one for the books” or that this is “a movie she seems to simply despise.” (I mean, quoting a joke from an SNL monologue counts as not liking her own movie?) But, the article could help explain why she’s fed up with Hollywood (or at least the coverage she receives from her Hollywood movies).
“Remember Sean O’Neal?”God I miss that man. Wish I could read more of him doing shit like twisting every story featuring Steve Carrell into a riff in Dan In Real Life or his Entourage saga.
Sometimes I type Sean O’Neal 3 times in the hope that he’ll come back.
I’m ready to hear his pitch for Dan In Real Life 3. https://www.avclub.com/and-now-the-inevitable-anticlimactic-conclusion-of-dan-1827668556
Ahhh. Remember the days of Sean O’Neal? He could really take down some celebrity hubris/ridiculousness. Or, at least tie it together to make a coherent point. This is an article in which the actor complains about taking quotes out of context and then proceeds to take every quote out of context to make a poorly supported argument. Or, at the very, very least post a picture of Peter Dinklage hula hooping.
When I discovered The AV Club it was all down to Sean O’Neill’s writing, and I don’t think I ever realised how good we had it until everything went wrong. But he really did an incredible job making some very mundane stories enjoyable to read, day after day after day, and it was via his writing that I discovered that he was surrounded by a group of other extremely talented writers which made the site essential daily reading.
The way the web’s going I can’t ever imagine something like this happening again either which is such a shame, there’s some brilliant pop culture writing out there but a lot of it is on Patreon or Substack, and I just can’t afford to pay to read everyone I admire, however much I wish I could.
I have said it hundreds of times. This website peaked with the Contract to Kill review. There were other great highlights like History of Violence, Popcorn Champs and When Romance Met Comedy, but Contract to Kill was the mountain peak. Its been downhill since.
Bingo. After reading this I thought “at what point did she indicate she despises this film?” Just stupid journalism.
Agreed. There is so much hilarity to be mined from Dakota’s tour and this article gives zero contextI’ve started listening to the Weekly Planet pretty regularly, where they went in depth about the Madame Web fiasco (the stars thought that they were going to be in an MCU movie and thought she’d be a super hero star, then found out it was a Sony pic, Dakota fired her agent likely because of this). Anyways she doesn’t give a shit about the movie anymore (or as the boys put it, she is pissed because she got tricked into making Morbius again).Really the whole story is fascinating, but the author put in zero effort into explaining what happened other than reposting some video clips.
This comment is so much more informative than the article. Thank you. This is the information I thought I’d get when I clicked the link.
There’s that and because of the SNL sketch she’s getting a lot of nepo baby questions regarding how her family connections get her cast in this garbage fire of a movie.
I was wondering just this. Why is she angry? What is this movie? This article doesn’t explore any of that and I’m dumber for having read it.
Haha James and Maso have brought so much joy into my life.Aways glad to see more Weekly Planet wacka-dos out in public!
I mean, AV club doesn’t really do much in the news department these days, and they definitely don’t have red hot comic book movie news to shoot up your butthole, so I’ve somewhat moved on from AV Club.And hello fellow wacka-do!
You have provided more context and interesting tidbits than the entire article you’re commenting on.
Do actors not at least do a Google search on roles they’re offered ? I mean Bill Murray I understand , but her?
That’s literally their agent’s job tbh.
That’s too bad, she might have made a good Jean Grey. Although, I’m still holding out hope for Britt Lower.
user enjoyed the movie argylle and loves to post about marvel ^^^^
FUCKING hell I could go my entire fucking life if I never saw an article that uses the word “we” when the author clearly means “I, here, in my bedroom, lacking equitable remuneration and health insurance” or the headline locution “Science says” ever the fuck again.
THANK YOu for saying it! The presumptuous and brainless overuse use of “we” rather than “I” on this site lately drives me bananas. I’ve taken to amusing myself by taking it at face value that that “we think” “we remember” “we can’t wait”, et al. means that the writer of the article is in fact, The Collective Emma Keats or The Unity of Sam Barsanti.
Out of context, isn’t any dumb article a dumb article?
DON’T TAKE ME DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE!
she’s not a nepo baby. she’s a legacy artist.
Nepo Truce
This is the fourth of these movies, the first three were bad, and all of them have been made for the sole reason of Sony holding onto some rights over a character that can’t appear in them, but makes them money when someone else makes movies with him.That’s not really a recipe for success and everybody involved probably knows it. That attitude probably filters down to the set.
The sort of movie that has no blooper reel because all the mistakes are in the final cut and no one gave a shit.
Or, the bloopers would have made the movie more fun or interesting so they are being hid out of embarrassment.
Holy crap – I think you just nailed how I feel about these movies! Thank you! Also – there is no /s tag – because I am dead serious – this really does hit home, and answers the vague – “kinda not sure what is wrong, and I don’t like them but don’t know why” feeling I have about these movies…
where every blooper might also just be improv and they’ll put it in or not because why have a script
I have friends that are excited for Kraven’s movie. So…there’s that. Personally, I like to think it’s just a bunch of people expertly trolling Sony into wasting money, making a movie out of everything related to Spider-Man.
They don’t even need to be trolled. They are begging people to make them so they can keep cashing checks from Marvel. It’s like buying things you don’t want because you get frequent flier miles for them.
Its nice that you are still friends with them after that freak accident removed 3/4 of their brain**The only reason someone would be looking forward to seeing the Kraven movie
I also like to randomly pass judgment on movies that I know literally nothing whatsoever about so i can seem cool on the internet….
There was a trailer. I saw it. I stand by my comment
See, I would’ve thought you liked to get all huffy defending the honor of disposable studio crap. I stand corrected, thank you.
There’s one other reason: Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s going to be shirtless a lot. That’ll do.
Every time I see “Aaron Taylor-Johnson” I think “Jonathon Taylor Thomas” and get confused and then I get mad at myself for getting confused and not remembering that no one talks about Jonathon Taylor Thomas anymore.Sorry for wasting your time.
Hey, everyone’s got their faves 🙂
jc chandor has at least done some interesting stuff in the past. i wouldn’t say i’m ‘excited’ but i’ll watch that crap.
To be fair, the trailer for Kraven did make me excited… …for a non-existent movie where Russell Crowe play Kraven with the same silly “Russian” accent.
“That’s not really a recipe for success”
Venom’s eight hundred million dollar box office would like a word with you. And when Venom is done, Venom 2’s five hundred million dollar box office will take the sloppy seconds.
While I agree about the quality of the movies being low, financially Sony’s move to “do the best with what we’ve got” had made them BANK.They made 3 movies so far that had a COMBINED budget of 301M but took a combined 1.51B.Even Morbius didnt loose that much money (75M budget and took 162M) and possibly broke even or made a small profit.Now it also made them a laughingstock, and as you say none of themare actually GOOD movies, but overall this decision to make the Spiderman adjacent characters own films has really paid off for them.
i was like ‘what fourth one could he possibly be talking about?’ and then i remembered it’s morbin time.
I still don’t know what he’s talking about, and I don’t even know what to google to find out.
I know my IP history and if anything, they’re trying too hard with these films for that strategy.
Apparently, that was a decent FF movie, better than some that were actually released, even if, like you say, the point was solely to keep the IP.
At least we got one good thing out of it:
What’s weird is that Spider-Man-without-Spider-Man still gives them a big stable of good characters that they could do a standalone story with. But Morbius and Madame Webb are 100% not it. Venom is also a weird choice.
Kraven is an idea that might work, if they go with the standard set-up of him hunting superheroes for the challenge. But they probably won’t.
Even if this is all being done for a deeply cynical reason, surely they can find a Sony exec who genuinely likes Spider-Man comics and can come up with some better ideas than “Morbius, I guess.”
True story I have probably told before: In developing Amazing Spider-Man 2, Sony was leaning hard on the idea of making it a Twilight-like love triangle film involving Peter, Gwen, and a teenage Morbius. There was also talk of bringing Man-Wolf in to REALLY make the Twilight ripoff obvious. At some point an exec, I don’t know which, said that it was a stupid and very obviously pandering idea.
I want the movie where Aunt May goes all vigilante over the murder of her beloved Ben. They have rights to her, right?
they almost made a movie/show where aunt may was a spy.
Additionally, if studios stopped making the boring decision, Dakota Johnson wouldn’t have a career
I liked the Venoms , they’re at the least fun buddy comedies/ rom coms.
‘”“People are just so afraid, and I’m like, why? What’s going to happen if you do something brave? It just feels like nobody knows what to do and everyone’s afraid. That’s what it feels like. Everyone who makes decisions is afraid. They want to do the safe thing, and the safe thing is really boring.””’Some one get this lady’s people in contact with Tom Cruise’s people!
billion dollars domestic at least. madame web-sweep incoming.
LMAO
This movie is going to be utterly bonkers, as the two or three people who see it will report to us.
Agreed! Which is exactly why I am watching this the first day it opens!I missed the Morbius train (both times it was in the theaters) and i refuse to miss this one.
You have an obligation to come back here and tell us about it, if you survive the ordeal.
It’s not IF I survive, but WHEN I survive!
i’ll get back to you next Thurs! (what, you think my girlfriend is gonna go w/ me on Valentines Day?)
I think this is the wrong strategy. Madame Web is the ultimate Valentine’s Day movie. Think about it. If you take your girlfriend to a well-made, engrossing movie, your girlfriend is gonna wanna watch it. She’s never going to say, ““Let’s get out of here and have sex.” But buy a ticket to Madame Web, and you sir have a ticket on the express train to Coitus City.
I can’t say that I’ve ever seen a Dakota Johnson movie because she was in it and based on her filmography I can only remember watching 21 Jump Street but have no idea who she was in it, but are we really going to sit her and say being the daughter of Sonny Crockett is going to open as many doors as they think it is?
Her mom is melanie griffith, who is the daughter of tippi hedren, one of hitchcock’s go-to leading ladies
I forgot about that part of the equation. But then again Melanie Griffith hasn’t really been blowing up the box office since the mid 90s.
To be fair, Don Johnson has seen a rather significant career resurgence in the last 10-15 years.
He was absolutely hilarious in Django Unchained, was good in Knives Out, and I personally liked him a lot in Dragged Across Concrete.
He’s working a hell of a lot more than he did in the early post-Miami Vice and Nash Bridges, and compared to Melanie Griffith. So, that certainly opens a few doors, gets phone calls answered, and e-mails replied to.
That being said, I haven’t seen anything that makes me think that Dakota is a good actress, but I’m not gonna begrudge someone for taking silly amounts of money to do something they treat (and can afford to treat) as a hobby. They’re playing the game by the rules made by those signing the checks; I begrudge the corporate decision-makers, not the performers.
I don’t know why but I get happy every time I see Don Johnson in something.
I always thought he would make an excellent Joker.
To be fair, Don Johnson has seen a rather significant career resurgence in the last 10-15 years.
He was absolutely hilarious in Django Unchained, was good in Knives Out, and I personally liked him a lot in Dragged Across Concrete.
He’s working a hell of a lot more than he did in the early post-Miami Vice and Nash Bridges, and compared to Melanie Griffith. So, that certainly opens a few doors, gets phone calls answered, and e-mails replied to.
That being said, I haven’t seen anything that makes me think that Dakota is a good actress, but I’m not gonna begrudge someone for taking silly amounts of money to do something they treat (and can afford to treat) as a hobby. They’re playing the game by the rules made by those signing the checks; I begrudge the corporate decision-makers, not the performers.
This kind of Hollywood nepo baby stuff doesn’t require the parent(s) to be uber famous. Just having family that has been in the business forever means insane amounts of connections. Honestly people who have well known working actors instead of mega stars are probably more inclined to be nepo babies because working actors like Don Johnson have even more connections because of how many more projects they do.
It’s not about blowing up the box office. An absolutely huge part of the equation is just being able to get in the damn room. Just in LA, there are thousands of pretty brunettes that could play the same roles as Dakota Johnson, and a fair percentage of them are probably pretty good actors too. But having someone that already has connections in the business is a huge, huge help. Mom and Dad don’t have to be on billboards anymore to be able to pick up a phone and get their kid into auditions or signed up with an agent. It takes what can easily be 5-10 years of grinding before you start getting into rooms down to weeks or months.
She’s not a bad actress. I mainly know her from Ben and Kate.
She was pretty great in The Five Year Engagement with Jason Segel and Emily Blunt.
Did she play Ben or Kate?
She played Millicent. That title was weird.
Does Dakota Johnson enjoy being in movies? Why is she an actor? Nothing says nepo baby like “I’m an actor because I HAVE to be, but I hate it here.”
Nothing more endearing than a rich girl acting like she’s somehow above the profession she chose and can walk away from at anytime.
“Not an indictment in the context of the monologue, but not exactly a ringing endorsement, either.”
It’s also a FUCKING JOKE.
Here’s the hint: it was part of a SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE MONOLOGUE.
What you’re displaying is that she hates shitty internet journalists, and with this garbage article, who can fucking blame her?
I guess she and the interviewer don’t realize that movie trailers are entirely made up of lines out of context and they’re supposed to use lines that don’t *need* context
I just hope Madame Web is fun-bad, like Venom, and not bad-bad, like Morbius.
Or Venom 2
It’s Madame-ing Time!
Ok ill bite, I dont understand that meme either.
Same.
it’s just a funny combination of words to take seriously. there’s nothing more to get. it’s a dumb line that stood out.
And it’s why Dakota Johnson’s “any line sounds weird out of context” reply doesn’t really hold up, because people can’t imagine any context in which that combination of words wouldn’t sound bizarre.
The issue was the interviewer kind of expected her to know about it and have a sense of humour about it. His mistake was that she didn’t have either of those things, and he found himself trying to dance around the reason why it went viral: it was a hilariously clunky line which was either performed badly, edited badly, or both.It was pretty shortsighted of the interviewer and a little mean, too.
When I saw it later it def seemed ridiculkous, but for whatever reason, the way the interviewer and the actress verbalize it in that clip sounded reasonable to me.
There’s just way too many prepositions in it. All good memes mock preposition oversaturation.Seriously, the concept is ludicrous, and to boot it’s horribly and awkwardly written and to try to wedge that into a trailer just so you can say the word SPIDER is hilarious.
Plus her completely monotone delivery of the whole thing.
That’s just her ‘acting’
If you find Dakota Johnson saying things in a monotone way amusing, I’ve got really good news for you.
“Plus her completely monotone delivery of the whole thing.”
As opposed to what? She should be singing it and doing jazz hands?
He was with MY MOTHER!!!!!! In the JUNGLE, when she was researching spiiiiiiiiiiderrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs!!!!!!
How much exposition can we jam into one sentence?
> All good memes mock preposition oversaturation.
I did not know that, but I love it and I’m going to say it every chance I get.
It’s just the epitome of “wedge in as much exposition as possible no matter how clunky,” dialogue.
Because it reads like someone translated Japanese into English via drunk ChatGPT
I’m starting to understand that GenZ (maybe older too) have embraced a form of humor that doesn’t make sense. They just toss random stuff out there, without context, and that’s the joke. It doesn’t have to be related to anything or reference anything. I see it as form of protest. It’s interesting but I can’t imagine where this will go.
oh yeah tom green wasn’t doing that 20 years ago.
Speaking as a father to a 15 year-old zoomer, you are not wrong.
It’s a string of words that no one ever would or indeed could say impromptu, but not in a cool way.
“What’s going to happen if you do something brave?”This is the perspective of someone who has always had a financial safety net. Which is fine—I’m not doing the nepo baby thing—I’m just pointing out that what happens to a lot of people when they do something “brave” is that they fall on their asses and become homeless.Anyway I don’t care about the rest of this article. None of her comments sound particularly “unhinged.” You’re just used to seeing people play along and laugh and smile and she doesn’t feel like doing that and who cares.
If you’re talking about the actors and regular working people yes. However, I believe she is referring to Sony and the major studios. They are concerned about shareholders and investors.
I mean even then, the answer is still that they’re afraid they’ll lose money. The question comes from a POV of someone who has never been afraid of not having money and hasn’t ever had to live with consequences of having less money. I’m not saying we need to cry for the poor studio execs, but just noting the privileged perspective of asking the question at all. Like, “well what could happen, Dakota, is that I could be fired from my job and I have bills to pay. Have you heard of bills?”
Right, and I do not entirely disagree with you, but you make it sound like she said that as general life advice. She was specifically referring to production companies and studios with lots of money. It’s the business playing it safe. Yeah, they might lose some money, or they might have the next Everything Everywhere All At Once. Having said that she may still be out of touch and more clueless than Gwyneth Paltrow.
I would think that except she specifically called out “everyone who makes decisions,” which is people, not businesses, and those people are making decisions based on keeping their jobs.It’s really not a big deal. lol I wasn’t trying to start an argument. It’s just something I noticed. I do think Gwyneth wins the cluelessness Olympics, though, but she has a good 20 years or so on Dakota so Dakota might catch up in time!
This is a common sentiment among pop culture commentators and as someone who worked with executives and their assistants, particularly at Sony, I’m always a little annoyed at that. Because yes, these ARE people. And although many of them grew up well off, many also DIDN’T. I’m friends with a handful of executives who started off just like I did in internships or as assistants, scraping by on barely more than minimum wage. Job security is a MUCH bigger deal than anyone seems to give a shit about when raging online about whatever bullshit subject they want to complain about. That’s not an excuse for cowardly artistic decisions, but it is a reason. And a defensible one.
Because yes, these ARE people. And although many of them grew up well off, many also DIDN’T.OK but now they are execs. So now they’re well-off. They’re not scraping by on minimum wage anymore. So what is the worst that will happen to an executive who takes a risk? They get fired from Sony and hired by HBO the next week? Once you’re in the club, you’re in.
Not at all true. There is often a stigma attached to failure in that “club”. Long time execs? Yeah, you probably have a point. Michael De Luca will never have to worry about a decision. But an exec at Sony who came up from working an assistant desk at Sony after an internship at Sony? Much more vulnerable.
an exec at Sony who came up from working an assistant desk at Sony after an internship at SonySure, we can talk about mythical creatures if you want. But Hollywood is notorious for the way people fail upward. I think even that guy would be fine.
Look, you can take my word as someone who actually fucking worked with these people or not. Clearly you’re determined to shit on them regardless.
Yeah it really seems pretty often that we see a news story about the head of this or that studio being let go. Anyone can tell it’s a fickle industry and I get as annoyed as anyone with the number of cookie cutter films and TV shows we get, but at the end of the day these people are, yes, trying to make more money for the shareholders but it’s because if they don’t make them money they’ll be fired. And nobody likes to be fired! I too would love to see more risk-taking (though it’s there if you look for it), but it’s crazy to act like she doesn’t know what’s driving the safe decisions.
I don’t know, I think Paltrow may be the Michael Jordan of Cluelessness. Sure, she’s got the experience, but she’s also got that raw natural talent that most of us can only dream of.
No doubt. lol
This is a really weird thing to fixate on. She doesn’t mean literally every single person in Hollywood who makes any decision of any kind. She means the people who make decisions about what movies get made. It’s pretty clear from the context.
In what way have I “fixated” on it? I made literally one throwaway comment, and then just responded to people who wanted to talk about it. You’ve now made three comments about it–are you officially fixated now also?“She doesn’t mean literally every single person in Hollywood who makes any decision of any kind.”I literally never said she did.“She means the people who make decisions about what movies get made.”Yes, obviously. “It’s pretty clear from the context.”lol The controversy was never about which people she was talking about.
Making decisions driven by fear is no way to be successful. These aren’t people who will be homeless or food insecure if they lose their jobs. No one who would be is making the decisions she is concerned about. These people make and have at the very least high 6 figure salaries and many have 7 or more. People who aren’t making that much have very little authority.
I didn’t say it was the best business strategy. I’m not in the movie business so I wouldn’t know one way or the other. But I do know what it’s like to like being employed so that I can pay my bills and provide for my family. That’s not “making decisions driven by fear.” That’s “doing the job you’re asked to do so that you can keep your job.” I know what it’s like to need to be employed to provide for myself. If you don’t, that’s truly great for you but it’s not everybody’s experience. Also, you don’t have to be only making a little bit of money to care about keeping your job.
Actually, If you’re making seveal hundred thousand a year and your severance is 6 months or more of salary (I would be surprised if an executive had less than that). it isn’t the same. Thinkin that that executives are employees just like you and me is exactly what they want anyone not at that level to think.
I mean you can “actually” me all you want. I never said executives are employees “just like you and me,” and I do know that even if I were making millions of dollars I’d still want to be able to keep my job if it was a job that I liked (and if a job makes me millions of dollars, it’s a job that I like). You think rich people don’t mind getting fired, and that’s fine. We aren’t going to agree.
Her co star was recently (and rightly) raked over the coals for complaining “I have to work, work, work, I can’t just take weeks off whenever I want to.”
The studios are run by people, most of whom are not the execs. The execs can afford to lose big, but their assistants can’t. And that’s who actually brings in the ideas, the execs just say yes or no. And if that yes turns out to be a big bomb, they don’t get the blame for it. The lower level staffers get fired.
You’re simply describing the concept of risk. People take financial risks all the time. Risk aversion isn’t inherently good.
Are you responding to the right person? Because I didn’t say that risk aversion was “inherently good,” or any other kind of good. So you might have clicked “reply” on the wrong comment.
But she isn’t asking you. She’s asking Hollywood execs.
… I…I know? I didn’t say she was asking me?
I have a partial answer to the question: Not put Dakota Johnson’s name on the list of the top 20 performers I would call to star in said brave artistic choice.
lol Also fair enough. I liked her okay in Bad Times At the El Royale? But admittedly it didn’t require a ton of range.
Given how much undue shit it ate from idiotic horror fans, I would call her turn in Suspiria pretty brave.And although it’s a terrible movie, I give her credit for taking on the thankless job of starring as Anastasia Steele in 50 Shades of Blech. That took some balls.
Did the Supsiria remake get a lot of hate? Maybe from the Jason Voorhees crowd, I suppose, but the horror fans I know were warm-to-ecstatic about it. Personally, I didn’t care for it much, but I haven’t really seen anyone “shitting” on it. And honestly, if you’re taking a film that’s… “beloved” might not be the right word, but it’s at the very least a cult classic… famous for being pretty over the top and turning it into a 2.5 hour slow burn, I’d be much more surprised if there wasn’t at least a little bit of push back.
This is the perspective of someone who has always had a financial safety net.But that’s her point, I think. The people making decisions in Hollywood do have a safety net. They have some of the most robust safety nets in the history of human life. And they still won’t take any risks! You’re just used to seeing people play along and laugh and smile and she doesn’t feel like doing that and who cares.I think some people like that sort of thing (and I’m sometimes one of those people) because it’s heartening to see someone able to succeed in a high-profile position without becoming a robot. It’s easier to believe that a Dakota Johnson or a James Cameron or a Harrison Ford is a normal human being with blood pumping in their veins instead of some kind of futuristic polymer that Peter Thiel makes in his underground dungeon out of the flayed bodies of kidnapped children. And it’s nice to think that a normal human being can win sometimes!
“The people making decisions in Hollywood do have a safety net.”I guess I’ll allow this. I don’t think it’s clear from the quotes in this article, but to quote the woman herself, isn’t a line taken out of context…out of context? There could have been context I was missing. As for my saying “who cares,” yeah I didn’t mean that as a bad thing. I meant “who cares” as in that’s a normal way for a normal person to behave. It’s the fake smilers and laughers who are being weird.
On the other hand, if no one ever did anything brave, we’d still be living in trees. Which maybe doesn’t sound so bad, I don’t know
I say, I wouldn’t like to be living in a tree, that’s for sure.
I read another article where she badmouthed her two episode stint on The Office. She said some people on the cast weren’t speaking to others, and there was this weird vibe and they were not nice to her. That is counter to everything you hear from every other guest star. That it’s a family that welcomes people, that Carell always made sure people were okay during their time on set. Dakota, when you say every experience you have is awful, it’s getting apparent that you are the problem. I’m not saying Hollywood can’t be a toxic environment, but JFC, if you hate it this much, maybe you should find a new line of work. I can guarantee you will not be missed.
“I’m just pointing out that what happens to a lot of people when they do something “brave” is that they fall on their asses and become homeless.”
Sure.
That was my exact same thought reading that. “Wow, must be nice to not realize that others in the industry have to work to feed and home themselves and their families, and can lose everything they’ve worked hard for in one move that may be “brave” but results in not getting work again”.
One of their better / funnier take downs, if you haven’t seen it.
Wow those guys are annoying.
99% of YouTube is guys with autism cosplaying as guys with ADHD.
Hey I resemble that comment!
I am breathlessly awaiting the Turner D. Century film.
I will watch whatever dogshit movie/show they put out with that character in it.
It would be something.
Samuel J. Jackson post-Secret War Nick Fury: “We need to get him off the streets before he does something he thinks is folksy, but is actually profoundly racist.”
Tell me he has a jet powered jalopy and constantly flips dimes into the hands of baffled bystanders (he thinks they’re stunned at what a big tipper he is)
You are pretty close. The thing just writes itself.
I mean, “A man on a flying bicycle?!!!” would be my first thought. But immediately followed by “Built for two with a mannequin on back with its hand on its ass? What the fuck?!” But I agree, if you’re making a Turner D. Century property you really need to show, not tell. I hope the bicycle is called H.G. Wheels and it’s allowed him to catapult into the future for his ingenious plot to steal Carnegie Hall. If not, I have a few notes.
Squinting hard at this panel, I guess she is maybe supposed to be holding onto the bottom of his seat, since it’s a tandem bicycle with a rare lack of rear handlebars.She’s kinda freeloading on the helping-to-pedal aspect too—though in a dress of that length, maybe riding sidesaddle with your legs on the side opposite the chain is for the best.
As much as I want to look up Turner D. Century’s whole deal, I don’t want to spoil the mystique. So either it’s an automaton mannequin to help with his heists or just an actual store mannequin he stuck on the back of his flying bicycle because he’s a real sick ticket.
How much money and/or cocaine do you need to make this movie happen?
Charlie Day has a lot of making up to do after Fool’s Paradise, so if we can get him on board he’ll cover most of the funding. So just the usual amount of cocaine.
Maybe the mannequin with its hands on the pilot’s ass is the secret component that makes it work. Tell me something, smart guy — have you ever seen a working flying bicycle that doesn’t have a mannequin on the back with its hands on the pilot’s ass?Check and mate.
Hey, all I’m saying is that would definitely be the second thing I’d notice. The important question is: who is going to voice his automaton wife/partner in crime he built out of a window dressing mannequin? My first pick would be Gwyneth Paltrow voicing F.A.N.N.Y.Best part: she won’t even remember being in it!
I’m holding out for a Painter of a Thousand Perils appearance!
They had to fill a lot of books.
Wasn’t he in Season 2 of Loki? I don’t know, I was looking at my phone.
It’s still bizarre as hell to make a giant expensive movie about comic book characters that no one has ever given the tiniest shit about.Fox might have been able to continue milking the mutant IP for ages, but there’s a reason why, except for Venom, second- and third-string Spider-Man characters don’t even get their own books. I’m pretty sure Madame Web (who isn’t this character anyway) has never even had a limited series.In the same way that a character like the Punisher feels boring and derivative in his own universe not interacting with Spider-Man, Cap, Wolverine, Kingpin, etc., Spidey characters with no Spidey are like those Garfield without Garfield comics.
hopefully this follows the punisher’s trajectory and we get 2 more reboots and a series in the next 20 years.
The series was great, way better than any of the movies.
Not that I think this movie will be anything other than horrible, but…Guardians of the Galaxy. Any time someone asks why a studio thinks a comic character no one cares about might catch on, that’s the answer.
i also think we maybe need to come to terms with the fact that’s the exception that proves the rule.
The rule is that, other than Spider-Man and the Hulk, Marvel Comics had no IP that was familiar to the general public before “Iron Man” came out and that comic book fans have an extremely inflated idea of how much movie audiences care about comic book readers’ opinions. It’s about the movie being entertaining, that’s all. That’s the rule. If “Madame Web” is entertaining and well-made, it deserves to have been made, otherwise, it was retrospectively a poor decision to make.
This is the take that causes people to lose hundreds of millions at the box office.“Let’s adapt this property but pay zero attention to the historical audience responses to the property because like we’re pretty sure we understand how to do this thing we don’t understand.”It’s fucking stupid.
Guardians is THE answer but theoretically “nobody” cared about Iron Man, Thor, and Cap. But, anyway, the wrong lesson about Guardians was definitely learned. It wasn’t James Gunn expertly crafting the film into something likable, it was *checks notes* an eclectic playlist and zany characters, the end. How’d that work out for you, The First Suicide Squad?
The Avengers in general, really. There’s a reason that Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor weren’t sold off to Fox and Sony in the first place–they were strictly B-tier.
“It worked one time a decade ago, so why not now?” is the governing logic with most superhero adjacent stuff.
I would argue that GotG only worked because of the director being good with character interaction and the cast nailing it. The actual story to all GotG movies (and even The Suicide Squad) was pretty meh. Using that formula even with A-list heroes would’ve worked. Using D-list heroes just ensured that most people didn’t have any expectations for the characters.
And honestly, the only time Gamora was even close to being portrayed accurately was during the end of her fight with Nebula in GotG 2
Disagree. Guardians had had multiple comic book series, and while they were really only read by hardcore comic geeks, there was a fanbase. Madame Web has neither had a series, nor does she have a fanbase.
I am a fan of Madame Web, but mostly from her appearances in the 90s Spider-Man animates series. I’ll admit, I like the idea of the character more than the character herself. I don’t think she can carry a movie, but I’ll be happy to be proved wrong.
Yeah, but that’s not the same. The Guardians were a relatively new team and not widely known outside of readers, but they were absolutely loved ever since Annhiliation Conquest, and they had a popular, critically acclaimed title for a few years.Literally no one ever gave one shit about any of the non-Jessica Drew Spider Women. Never.
Honestly, before the MCU, most of the public who weren’t comic book nerds had no idea who even Iron Man was. Pretty much the only famous Marvel character before then was Spidey.
we need to stop propagating this lie. he wasn’t cool or anyone’s favorite but the majority of the public knew who and what iron man was. ghostface killah called himself tony starks/iron man constantly! he’d been animated multiple times! they’d been trying to make a version with tom cruise for like a decade!
There’s that rather famous heavy metal song about him that’s been in the public consciousness for 50+ years as well…
Not sure if serious, but for the record there was originally no connection between the two other than the title.
“Any time someone asks why a studio thinks a comic character no one cares about might catch on, that’s the answer.”
Also, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America.And Black Panther.And Captain Marvel.And Ant-Man.
These movies *wish* they were Garfield Without Garfield comics. I don’t think that comparison works!
Yeah, exactly. The whole appeal of Garfield Minus Garfield is that removing the titular character makes it it more entertaining. Sony’s “Spider-Man Minus Spider-Man” universe is…not that.
I didn’t suggest they were as fun as that, just that they are really, really defined by what isn’t there.
Garfield Without Garfield is objectively superior to Garfield.
Sure, because Garfield is terrible. But Spider-Man isn’t.
The game changed on Sony. When they got the rights to Spider-Man, superhero movies were about the solo hero so having a huge stable of villains was preferred. When team ups became a thing, having heroes with essentially the same powers and a bunch of foes was suddenly not a formula for success. And the live action, non-Spidey movies with those characters proved that is still the case.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s true in any sense at all. At no point could you create a multi-film shared universe around one hero and a whole bunch of villains and second-string supporting characters, at any time in the past, present, or future. Making Spider-Man movies where he fights Spider-Man rogues is still a thing.
In the same way that a character like the Punisher feels boring and derivative in his own universe not interacting with Spider-Man, Cap, Wolverine, Kingpin, etc.Wrong. Garth Ennis’ Punisher MAX is incredible. Spidey characters with no Spidey are like those Garfield without Garfield comics.You keep picking terrible examples to illustrate a correct point. Garfield Minus Garfield is a trillion times better than Garfield ever was.
How is that a terrible example if you get the point? I didn’t say that it was as good as that comic strip, just that the most important thing is the thing that is missing.
You seem to have become confused: I’m saying Garfield Minus Garfield is better. Punisher MAX is better.
Punisher MAX isn’t a movie, b. And, like all Ennis, it’s profoundly overrated.Watching a Punisher movie is exactly like watching Deathwish or something similarly hoary. Really reminds you how unoriginal the character is when he’s not in a comic book universe.
You don’t get extra cool points for not liking stuff that basically everyone agrees is really good, but anyway you’re moving the goalposts. You said Punisher doesn’t work unless he’s interacting with Spider-Man et. al. The critical consensus, as well as the reader consensus, disagree with you on that.
The box office on the three Punisher films doesn’t support your thesis. They are Deathwish knockoffs, and are lousy. In any Punisher comic, he’s still positioned in a Universe that contains Spider-Man and Captain America, which was my point. The Netflix show was the best live-action adaptation, and it was a spinoff from fucking Daredevil.How fucking desperate are you to join the mob that you imagine no one could possibly disagree unless they are deliberately being a contrarian for points? Get a fucking grip.
Recap of this exchange:You said Punisher doesn’t work in his own universe.I said Punisher MAX by Garth Ennis, which is the Punisher in his own universe, is very good.You said everything Garth Ennis writes is overrated.I said you don’t get extra cool points for not liking stuff everyone agrees is good.You freaked out about the Punisher films (which I didn’t say were good) and the mainline Marvel universe Punisher comics (which I also didn’t say were good), and declared that I was desperate to join a mob because I agree with the critical and reader consensus that Garth Ennis wrote a really good run on Punisher MAX, which is the Punisher in his own universe.
I feel pretty good about my position. How do you feel about yours?
This was you trying to fight about a quaternary point I made a month ago. Get the fuck over it, nerd.
You’re on The AV Club, nerd.
Two fucking months later?Sir, are you okay?
You seem upset.
How fucking lonely are you that you keep returning to this boring comment section every few weeks for months on end? Is this the last time anyone participated in a conversation with you?This is bumming me out.
It was good, but incredible? Nothing Garth Ennis has done has been incredible except maybe Preacher. And that also had his very boring tropes.
I liked his Punisher MAX specifically because it shied away from some of his more juvenile tropes and tendencies. (Obviously his Marvel Knights Punisher did not do that.)
“It’s still bizarre as hell to make a giant expensive movie about comic book characters that no one has ever given the tiniest shit about.”
Disney did pretty fucking well with characters nobody gave a fuck about.
People make this argument every time whenever something involving comic book IP is a failure, but it is an amazing piece of revisionist history and amnesia that has resulted from the massive success of the MCU right out of the gate. “Iron Man” and “Thor” were not massive successes because they were popular characters—the general, non-Marvel Comics reading audience had no idea who Iron Man and Thor were. Your grandfather may have rememebred the name Captain America before they made a movie with him but no one in the world *cared* about him. These characters became well-known ton non-comics audiences *after* their movies were hits.
On the other hand, the only major character other than Spider-Man the general public was very familiar with was the Hulk, and both Hulk movies underperformed.
Even *Batman* was a risk before 1989, which is why Michael Uslan, who owns perpetual rights to the property, spends his days rolling around in a vat full of money and you and I are sharing opinions on the AV Club.
What’s especially ironic is that the people who say, “Why would you make a movie about an unknown character” are, often as not, the same people saying, “Why don’t studios ever take risks rather than exploiting the same IP over and over again?”
My friend, there is a massive fucking difference between “prominent character beloved by the comic reading audience for 60+ years (with an ongoing eponymous title since always) who hasn’t yet had a non-comics vehicle that has broken them into mainstream consciousness” and “fourth-string supporting character that even the niche audience never embraced and literally never carried a single comic book issue under their name.”Don’t dumbsplain to me because you didn’t understand my argument or the larger context.
I understood your argument fine. It’s just an incorrect, bad argument, proven by the fact that you’re another person who somehow thinks these movies became blockbusters because they were “beloved by the comic reading audiences”—an audience that has not been large enough to make the two biggest comics companies anything more than loss-leaders for their corporate owners since the 1990s. Nerd-solipsism is the best solipsism of all—but you really aren’t all that important on the scale of movie profits.For example, in 2008, the year “Iron Man” came out, the Iron Man comic book sold fewer than 50,000 issues. Not one issue that year, but the entire year’s run. The entire revenue generated by the Iron Man comic book that year was less than $1.5M. If the success of the movie were due to being “beloved by comic reading audiences” those comic book readers would each have had to buy hundreds of movie tickets. Your argument is absolutely absurd.
This is, in all sincerity, one of the absolute dumbest f**king articles that I have ever read. It’s either amazingly disingenuous, or you are alarmingly dense.Literally nothing that you mentioned even remotely implies that she doesn’t like the movie.“kind of like if AI generated your boyfriend’s perfect movie,” which you took out of context in an article where you attempt to make fun of another journalist for taking a quote out of context, was very obviously a joke about the fact that it is a comic book movie starring multiple attractive women. Like, blatantly obvious. You would have to be legitimately stupid to hear that joke and think that it was an indictment of the movie. The movie that she was there explicitly to promote.The interaction in the embedded video is very obviously her criticizing how stupid the memes are and how asinine it is to criticize a quote that is taken completely out of context (again, like you yourself have done multiple times in this article).
So… are you an amazingly disingenuous hack, or are you actually this dense?
Not only that but the interviewer is pulling a major dick move – he’s clearly trying to insinuate that the line is bad, which by extension means the whole movie is bad, and get her to admit it. He’s doing his best to say it without really saying it, and I think she knows what he’s doing and is directly challenging him to say it, which he is ultimately too cowardly to do.
Dakota Johnson, who has beautiful, white girl privilege, bad mouths/doesn’t speak glowingly of her current project. Public: “Aw hell yes, what a fucking QUEEN!”Jenna Ortega, Latino actress who is still “proving herself”, discusses problems she had with the first season of her current series and how she worked to better things. Public: “What an ungrateful little bitch! If she doesn’t like it she should just go back to Mexico!”
Remind me again; which one of them was the one who put multiple peoples’ health (and potentially lives) at risk by exposing them to COVID?
The one who didn’t know that they were infected with COVID?
Wow, that is so germane to the conversation and TOTALLY excuses racism!I don’t know what I was thinking!!!!
You’d have to identify actual racism before anyone would have to excuse it.
Remind me again; which one decided to rewrite the script and not tell the writers about it.
Literally no one is “yas queen”ing Dakota Johnson.
The article and comments are full of people saying how much they love it and how funny she is for “telling it like it is.”Learn to fucking read.
I don’t think you know what “full” means.
Were any of those same people critical of Ortega? Because it’s not hypocrisy that some people were critical of Ortega, and some different people were positive about Johnson.Lots of people online have criticized Johnson, and lots have praised Ortega online as well. In fact, if I were to guess, I’d guess that overall, the percentage of online commentary about Johnson that’s negative is greater than the percentage of online commentary about Ortega that’s negative. But that’s hard to speculate about because, again, internet commentary is not one person, so you can’t just point at random stuff different people said and claim some sort of conflict.
Learn to fucking read. Right back atcha, dipshit
we’re reaching previously unseen levels of inventing a guy to get mad at on the internet.
Are you ok?
Remind me: When did Dakota Johnson improvise her dialogue without her director or screenwriter’s permission in an obvious hissy fit that she then fully admitted was unprofessional?
Maybe you should just follow different people on Twitter
It’s almost like the internet is not a single person, but a huge number of people with different views, saying many different positive things and many critical things about famous people, all the time.
Oh no, another person inventing racism where it didn’t exist to try and get internet likes. Wow what laughably bad life you must have.
I don’t find this one in particular quite as entertaining as the article, but I am a big fan of celebrities just dropping the act and talking shit, whether it’s about their own movies or other celebs. Let every actor be as fucking done with shit as Harrison Ford talking about Star Wars or burn all their bridges like Katt Williams, I’m fucking here for it.
Robert Pattinson bit the Twilight hand that fed so hard it bled, and later got case as Batman. I’m here for it.
Yeah, suck it Henry Cavill. Dakota Johnson dug her nude scenes in 50 Shades of Gray. Go play with your action figures (one of which could shortly be Madam Web in a whole We’re Through the Looking Glass People moment).
Most of the bad acting you see in movies is usually down to bad direction or bad writing. But there’s a rare third category: the kind of acting that says, “I don’t want to be here.” The contractual obligation flick.
Didn’t Dakota Johnson change agencies recently? That doesn’t surprise me, given her attitude while promoting this turd. It just has an air of “Heads are gonna roll for putting me in this stupid piece of crap…”
“Most of the bad acting you see in movies is usually down to bad direction or bad writing.’It’s a shame more people don’t realize this. Production values shoule be so good that you don’t even notice them, but they can ruin a movie if they’re awful. Meryl Streep was nominated for best actress in French Lieutenant’s Women but she had very few lines. Spent most of the movie staring into space. But it worked.
“It’s a shame more people don’t realize this. Production values shoule be so good that you don’t even notice them, but they can ruin a movie if they’re awful.”
The said writing and direction, and you agreed, saying it’s most production values.
Did you have a stroke or are you a monumental moron?
“Most of the bad acting you see in movies is usually down to bad direction or bad writing.”
Care to cite any kind of source?
“The SAG-AFTRA strike this summer was huge and important and powerful…”What a weird way to describe a strike. ETA: These are like the adjectives you use to describe something that you know is/was a big deal but you have zero personal knowledge of so you just kind of vamp.“So what did you think of Gravity’s Rainbow? Huge! Important! Powerful! I couldn’t put it down! You couldn’t believe how much I read and personally enjoyed this book! Tremendous! Favorite quote! All of it! So important and powerful. The author, whom I know of, should be very proud!”
Why is anyone hyping her up? She’s … blah.
I would love to interview her to understand if she’s actually liked anything she’s done. I mean, she doesn’t have to work. Still time to take up curling.
Johnson shared that this was her first time working with a blue screen, an experience she called “absolutely psychotic.” (“There’s fake explosions going off, and someone’s going, ‘Explosion!’ and you act like there’s an explosion.”) “I was like, ‘I don’t know if this is going to be good at all! I hope that I did an okay job!’” lol I can picture that via the super old video where a guy is yelling lightning bolt and people have to take it seriously.
The campaign seems to be working. Now I really want to see this!
I mean, sure, the line is clunky and expositional, but it’s not THAT clunky and expositional. And the line at least makes sense. It’s not garbled syntax or unclear or anything.There are literally hundreds of worse lines just in the past five years of big budget blockbuster film making that would make far better targets.“Somehow….”
Ehhh… I don’t know that her attitude is aimed at the movie as much as it is aimed at press junkets to promote movies. She has never seemed fond of them. A lot of actors aren’t.
Go girl give us nothing? Mother of Sighs is a fitting title after all.
I really like Dakota Johnson, I find her to a breath of fresh air.I find modern day AV Club and this article to be…well, not that.
Hmm, maybe, talentless hack makes shit movie. I’m talking about everyone involved. Dakota Johnson has no room to talk about crap movies. The movie that made her famous was, apparently nauseating. Plus, the nepoist of nepo babies.
if the film fails, then Avi Arad, Amy Paschal and company still hold on to the rights, for years to come, unless Sony corporate refuses to bankroll one.
And if it succeeds they lose the rights?
and they deserve them. if you’re stupid enough to sell the rights to spider-man in perpetuity for 10 million dollars you never deserve to get them back.
The thing is, before Marvel Studios and DC Studios were created, this was completely standard practice for the industry.
Ever notice the name “Michael Uslan” in the credits of any movie with Batman in it? Ever hear that name in any other context? That’s because he was smart enough to buy the movie rights for Batman on the “cheap.”
Practically every character whose movie rights Disney or Warner owns outright today is one they had to buy back from someone else.
To paraphrase Bill Murray from Ghostbusters, when Janine bitched about her job:Dakota, someone with your qualifications would have no trouble finding a top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries.
To be fair, no one but Janine could have done her job as it was that well, and Bill Murray’s character was an asshole (I could stop the sentence here) for not understanding or acknowledging that.
Interviewer: Have you seen this meme?
Dakota: No. What meme?
Interviewer: (describes meme)
Dakota: I don’t get it.
AVClub Staff: DAKOTA JOHNSON HATES HER MOVIE!!!
Wait she didn’t actually do anything this is just speculation. The fuuuck. Damn you guys need to work a bit harder over at AV Club.
I feel like I ask this every time I read an article about one of these Sony Spider man side projects, but why aren’t they making Tobey Maguire Spider man 4?