Talk:Madame Web (film)

Home media

Madame web also has to be included in the Disney+ and Netflix deal in the USA not just the Canada crave deal 2605:B100:533:D477:6802:7CD7:93F5:ED0F (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

We need a source identifying Madame Web as part of that deal and for its inclusion on those services. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

But that Sony and Disney+ source includes all of Sonys library titles like kraven, Madame web, from 2022-2026 theatrical releases 2605:B100:521:B079:B9FC:5E15:352E:B928 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s got a Netflix USA streaming release date revealed 2605:B100:528:B58D:553:B563:71D9:B3F9 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Per my reverts on this, the information on its Netflix release comes from What's on Netflix, which is an WP:Unreliable source and thus, can't be used. Any sources reporting on this information from an unreliable source also cannot be used, per WP:FRUIT. We don't know that the Netflix deal automatically applies to this film, and assuming it does to justify this unreliable source is WP:Original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please be patient, as there is WP:NORUSH for a reliable, independent source to confirm this information, or for it to actually release, at which point sources not citing the unreliable one could be available. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes it literally just says that every time a Sony marvel movie heads to Netflix USA that fucking crave tv Canada deal thing is already a scam 2605:B100:528:B58D:553:B563:71D9:B3F9 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That holds no constructive relevance to this discussion. We can't use the source you added, as while it itself is reliable, its information comes from an unreliable source, which is What's on Netflix, and as such, we can't use it. That is per WP:FRUIT. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources for Netflix and Disney's deals also make no mention of this film, which is why they are not included. Unless it is directly stated, we cannot include the information stemming from our own determination of which films could apply to that deal's timeframe. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

And now that Netflix confirmed the release, a source basing off of that information and not from the other source has been added to the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Press release problem

"...the film was produced by Columbia Pictures and Di Bonaventura Pictures in association with Marvel Entertainment and TSG Entertainment." ‎Trailblazer101, this whole sentence violates WP:PROMO in sounding like it comes from a press release. These companies are not written organically into the lead section, much less the production-focused paragraph. It is instead shoehorned in to tout corporate credentials. It is false to claim that this sentence is part of summarizing the article. For example, Columbia and TSG are not mentioned as part of the "Production" section. (If anything, Sony is the main company to mention because it is the studio behind the film, not just distributing it, and reliable sources will likely reiterate "Sony" many more times than the other companies.) Please recognize that the group of editors who work on comic book and superhero film articles have done a horrible job of presenting topics in the lead section (including prioritizing such companies over even mentioning specific superheroes and starring actors in these roles). It doesn't matter what an editor's intent with including it is, it's about the appearance of impropriety. Restoring it to a later point is marginally better, but it is still utterly inorganic in its incorporation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Batman (film) is a good example. 6th & Idaho and Dylan Clark Productions are more prominently placed than even the director and the starring actor. They're not even mentioned in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I recognize that many of these articles do not handle the lead properly, although removing all of the studios involved is not the way to go about this, given there may still be some confusion over which studio produced this film (as evident by prior talk page discussions). Based on those discussions, the most relevant studios ought to remain somewhere in the lead. I do not believe that a mention of Sony as part of the franchise's name is enough to make this clear, though directly linking to Sony in the second lead para should suffice. Regarding The Batman, I am currently involved in a c/e-ing of that one, so I will take that into account. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention studios in general because reliable sources will talk about them often, especially for blockbuster films. The issue is the prominent placement all the companies under these studios, which is WP:UNDUE. My takeaway from WP:LEAD and other policies/guidelines is outlined in my essay at WP:FILM1STSENTENCE (apologies if you've already seen it) to prioritize the elements that the reliable sources are discussing. While it's focused on the first sentence, I think the principle extends to the first few sentences to establish to the reader the relevant contexts of the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I understand. While I am one who likes these different technical facts, I understand not everyone does and that it can sometimes be overused or overlooked because of my familiarity with the other articles that employ it this way. It was admittedly silly placing di Bonaventura's company and TSG so prominently here. Thanks for the refresher! Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Spider-Man 2 scene?

Should we include the reusing of a Spider-Man 2 scene at the end of the movie in the reception section? It does seem like something that was criticized. HiGuys69420 (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports this being criticized in several reviews? If not, I do not think it is worth mentioning. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I have several sources noting it:

https://screencrush.com/madame-web-reuses-spider-man-shot/

https://www.screengeek.net/2024/02/18/madame-web-spider-man-2-footage/

https://comicbookmovie.com/spider_man/madame-web/madame-web-recycles-footage-from-spider-man-2-but-what-if-anything-does-it-mean---spoilers-a209412 HiGuys69420 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a very minor and arbitrary detail and all three of these unreliable sources cite the same random Twitter account. None of these are critical responses to this very brief scene, so I don't think this warrants any mention in this article, especially in "Reception". Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

okay thank you trailblazer HiGuys69420 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

37th highest gross for 2024 films

@Trailblazer101 et al.: This film ranks 37th highest among 2024 films for gross international revenue. While this might not be a high enough ranking to be worth highlighting in the lede, it calls into question the lede's characterization of the film as a box office flop. Possibly the film flopped initially. Possibly that the film's revenue barely exceeded its cost is notable. But without those qualifications, it is seemingly false that the film is a "box office flop" -- after all, it beat all but 36 other films.

I ask that you tolerate my inserting "initially" into the lede sentence describing the film as a flop. Or, we can brainstorm some other way to add a proper qualification to the "box office flop" sentence in the lede. Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Your assertions that its overall placement among the box office revenue could disprove this being a box-office bomb are WP:SYNTHESIS of sources, which is not allowed. Being cagey with wording by introducing "initially" is not supported by all the reliable sources that have called it a bomb upon release and after its release, and it is very well cited in the article as such. We cannot just look at its numerical placement among a single year and decide it is no longer a bomb. 2024 admittedly had a smaller amount of films being released and earning as much money compared to prior years, but comparing its performance to 36 other films that earned more is not really helpful because sources state this did not make enough money to be considered a success, and explicitly call it a bomb numerous times. I find it hard to believe the reliable sources saying this film bombed would be "false", as you have asserted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Fully agreed, and furthermore I would argue that a film's placement in an overall revenue ranking is virtually meaningless as a metric of success without more context, because the ranking doesn't address production and marketing expenses. A film can rank very low by revenue and still be considered massively profitable and successful if expenses were very low (e.g., too many horror and exploitation films to realistically list). Carguychris (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a difference between common parlance among ordinary people and common parlance among those who know the entertainment business well. Among the former ... I'd say that a person who claims that a film that ranked 37th worldwide is a flop is cuckoo. Perhaps you are telling me that showbiz people (or some other subset) would say that the "box office" in "box office flop" refers to more than just the value of the total receipts at the box office. Perhaps we could educate people in my category by changing the sentence in the lead to connect the reason to the label. I'll give it a try. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The box office is not that difficult to understand and the terms "box-office bomb" and "box-office flop" have become fairly common in understanding that a film did not earn enough money in theaters to become profitable. If you do not understand this concept fully, I would suggest reading articles on the break-even point and in general, break-even. That is a common practice among any profit-focused industry, not just show business. The article body already notes the reported marketing expenses in addition to the budget figures for why this did not turn a profit. It is not up to us to explain these basic concepts in each and every article where they are applicable. That is what articles on box-office bombs and break-even points are for. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I will also note that the use of the term "box-office bomb" in this article and the lead was agreed upon via prior consensus at this talk and, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, it is allowed to be used because multiple reliable sources support this distinction. As such, I have restored that wording in the lead, which should not be changed without new consensus. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand that profit equals revenue minus costs. I understand that profit will be bad if revenue is too small. I understand that profit will be bad if costs are too high. I'd talk about "bad profit" when that is my focus rather than singling out only one of the possible causes, "bad revenue" or "bad costs". Because the focus in the debated sentence is profit, I'd call it a "commercial flop" rather than a "box office flop" or a "production costs flop". I now get that the industry uses "box office flop" to mean "bad profit" despite that the plain and simple meaning is "bad revenue". Although I have failed, it is my hope that we can achieve consensus around a way to make the article accessible to people who know the plain and simple meaning but not the industry's meaning. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)