‘Madame Web’ bombed at the box office, there will not be any sequels

This past weekend, my social media was full of people who went to see Madame Web and love-hated every minute of it. The film is apparently completely terrible, poorly written, poorly acted, weird and likely another nail in the coffin for superhero films. On the other hand, it might become a camp classic, because it’s so stupid and terrible that people can’t even believe it was made. Anyway, after Madame Web bombed in its opening weekend (it only made $15.4 million domestically), the mood at Sony is quite glum.

The trailer buzz was worrisome, advance ticket sales anemic. Then last week, the critic reviews for Madame Web were posted, and they stung deepest of all — Sony’s Spider-Man spinoff received the lowest average Rotten Tomatoes score (13 percent) of any major superhero film in nearly a decade. “On Wednesday night, you could actually watch advance purchase sales declining in real time as buyers were refunding their tickets,” marvels a major theatrical chain insider. “It really says something when you’d rather have Shazam! 2 numbers.”

It marked one of the lowest starts in Hollywood history for a film based on a Marvel character. Domestic box office for the first six days in North America was just $26.2 million after opening midweek on Valentine’s Day. International tallied $25.7 million from 61 markets. Even the fan-friendly CinemaScore grade was poor (C+ — extremely low for a superhero title).

Like DC and the once-unstoppable Marvel, Sony is now finding itself in under the gun to reevaluate how it makes comic book movies. Sony’s previous Spider-Man universe movie — 2022’s Morbius — was a critical bust and much-maligned by fanboys online, but at least it managed to earn $170 million worldwide. There’s no such hope for Madame Web. Plus, the feature’s collapse doesn’t just impact this film, but a new potential franchise led by star Dakota Johnson that Sony had hoped to spin out (spoiler alert: her character is connected to Peter Parker, whose birth is documented in the movie).

The film introduced a trio of supporting characters (played by Isabela Merced, Celeste O’Connor and Sydney Sweeney — now one of the top stars her age). It set up a future in which the three could have become a team of Spider-Women under the guiding eye of Johnson’s Cassie Webb. Now that’s not going to happen. “We’re not going to see another Madame Web movie for another decade-plus,” quipped one industry veteran. “It failed. Sony tried to make a movie that was a different type of superhero movie.”

“I don’t know if women are enough to carry the box office here,” one veteran studio source outside of Sony says. Indeed, males make up 65 percent to 70 percent of the superhero audience in North America. In the case of Madame Web, the percentage of female viewers was still only 46 percent.

“We are in transition when it comes to superhero movies,” notes the insider. “I don’t know how big that transition is or what the other side looks like. It may be fewer movies, but bigger brands. Sony is willing to take some risk but also wants home runs — that’s good. And if [Sony’s upcoming Spider-Man Universe title] Kraven is a gigantic hit, the narrative could be completely different. So it’s too early to know the outcome.”

[From THR]

The “women didn’t carry the box office” stuff is a pointed reference to Sony’s attempts to shake up the marketing and really sell Madame Web to women and girls. It wasn’t enough because, from the looks of it, Madame Web is simply a bad movie. One of the most pointed criticisms I saw (and it was backed up by Dakota Johnson’s interviews) was that the script had the feel of something half-written by AI and half-written by committee. Anyway, there would have never been a second Madame Web movie anyway because Dakota f–king hated this experience and she really does not want to do it again.

In case you’re wondering about the money, THR says that Sony spent “in the low $100 million range” on Madame Web. Do you see it on screen? I’m really asking. From what I’ve seen and heard, the film looks cheap as hell.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images. Posters courtesy of Sony.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

87 Responses to “‘Madame Web’ bombed at the box office, there will not be any sequels”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Barbara says:

    Dakota Johnson isn’t a movie star.

    • JustBitchy says:

      Dakota is the ultimate nepo baby.

      • Barbiem says:

        The actual movie theater experience is dying. Aldo. Dakota is top 10 most bland actress. But she keep getting lead roles.

      • RRN says:

        I am an Indian (although I don’t live there). But i do keep up with my film industry – Bollywood. And trust me when I tell you how nepotism is the second worst thing to impact Bollywood.

        Its absolutely okay to be interested in and do something in the field your parents were involved in. But what if a nepo baby isn’t capable of it? Most of the nepo babies are incapable but keep getting lead roles in movies and are shoved down our throat constantly.

    • Rainbow Kitty says:

      She is beyond bland.

    • Kitten says:

      She doesn’t have the charisma or screen presence to carry a superhero film and she simply doesn’t have a name that puts people in seats. She can probably sustain a career as a supporting actress or *maybe* a lead in smaller indie films (B films, not A films) but she was always an awful choice for this role. And TBH I’ve heard the entire a movie was a mess even without her being cast but her presence did nothing to mitigate that.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        Exactly. Imagine this role done by Angelina Jolie. Instant star power. Dakota Johnson has put me to sleep and made me cringe in everything I’ve seen her in so far, though tbf I never watched the Grey movies.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        Adding that I mentioned AJ because she is also a nepo baby. But she brought it from the beginning.

        So, it can be done.

      • Becks1 says:

        I rewatched the Persuasion with her in it a few weeks ago, and I just always regret watching that version, lol. But I do love the supporting cast – the father and the two sisters are really pretty great casting. In the BAFTA posts about Prince William I couldn’t place the actress that he made the inappropriate comment to (mia mckenna-bruce) and then I realized she played Mary in that version of Persuasion and she may be my favorite character in it.

      • Lionlover says:

        Totally agree with the Angelina comments.

      • JustBitchy says:

        And she looks just like her dad.

    • Laura says:

      From what I’ve seen Sydney isn’t either. She’s incredibly beautiful but I find her acting to be atrocious and her interviews uncaptivating.

      • Bobbie says:

        I was coming on here to say the same thing. Dakota Fanning is just not someone who is fun to watch. And honestly from the little I’ve seen of her she seems like an entitled brat. I love how you say above that she hated the experience. Girl, you’re getting to star in a major movie because you’re a nepo baby. Be grateful. I remember her in 50 shades of grey. Just terrible. Agree Sydney is pretty, but just a terrible actress, like really bad. I’ll give her that at least Sydney is fun to watch.

      • Sass says:

        Wrong Dakota, Bobbi.

        But I do wonder where DF got off to…

      • Normades says:

        I totally forgot Sydney was even in this. Her career will be fine, Dakota not as much.

    • Lauri says:

      I didn’t realize she was promoting until she was 2 weeks in. I can’t believe they tried to make her the “reason for going”. Maybe it’s not a bad movie. I’m an old school comic book fan. I don’t like the marvel universe. I’m the demographic for this movie. I haven’t sent any ads or summaries. They tried to keep this as cheap as possible. I haven’t seen a clip of this movie.

      The studio and director seemed to have given up on it early. They didn’t explain what type of movie or plot. I assume they realized giving the movie to Dakota Johnson was a bad idea.

    • Grant says:

      Dakota apologist here for a moment — I’m not a stan by any stretch, but I do think she has her moments in certain roles. I thought she was really great in Suspiria in a creepier, more supporting role. Same in Hard Times at the el Royale, where she was also very good.

      • Anita says:

        I’ve never watched any of her movies – because I don’t watch TV/go to the movies anymore – but I liked her in that Ellen interview. She was funny (well, she gave back as good as she got and more), relaxed and I wish she’d find a job where that side of her comes out more.

    • Colleen says:

      She isn’t even a passable actress. She cannot act. Not at all.

    • khaveman says:

      Dakota is so… bland, no intensity, not a good actor. In interviews she is bland and seems kind of snippy and arrogant. That’s what I’ve seen.

    • Booboochile says:

      She’s as bland as whatever Victoria Beckham eats for whichever meal.

    • Cait says:

      Exactly ! She lacks presence and charisma on screen. Her and Zoe Kravitz keep getting roles . Two Nepo babies that lack the talent of their parents

  2. Oswin says:

    Dakota is a wretched actress and dull as dirt in interviews, so I 100% expected this would be a massive flop. She just seems to hate everything about her job except the paycheck, doesn’t even TRY to be interested or interesting, and is just a walking embodiment of a sentient yawn. How she keeps getting work, I have no idea.

  3. Jeanie says:

    The previews were so bad, I knew the movie would be terrible. I can’t wait to see it.

    Dakota is maybe a lovely person, but she is a truly terrible actress that is so monotone and wooden in everything. She also always trashes her movies and says it was a terrible experience so when will she stop doing movies???

    • Robert Phillips says:

      I haven’t even seen any previews for it. Or really anything for it. Did Sony get rid of the advertising budget? All I’ve gotten are articles like this saying how horrible it is.

      • Dutch says:

        Sony pushed this flaming garbage pile pretty hard. Johnson did a full worldwide promo junket that included an SNL hosting spot. Sweeney was on Hot Ones. And they ran a lot of trailers during the NFL playoffs. They may have cut their losses some as they inched closer to the release date and figured out it would land with a thud, but they did make a genuine effort to promote it in January/early February.

      • Fabiola says:

        I haven’t really seen any promotion for the movie. Also, who is the target audience for the movie?

      • Bromptonviewer says:

        Agreed. I’m the EXACT demographic for this film and would have been excited to see it but never heard anything about it until these articles panning it.

  4. AlpineWitch says:

    The usual “women cannot carry superhero films” instead of “Morbius bombed, and we thought it was a good idea to re-hire the same screenwriter for Madame Web”.

    The issue audiences are having with films, not just superhero ones, is that those films lack any well-developed plot. When there’s one (Barbie), if the cast is 90% female nobody really cares and the film makes millions/billions at the box office.

    • Jais says:


      • caitlinsmom says:

        Perhaps if they made a GOOD movie with a female superhero lead, the outcome would have been different. But you can’t make a trash film, and then be upset because your target audience isn’t interested.

        Just because we are women doesn’t mean we’ll settle for garbage. Not to mention that Superhero fatigue is REAL.

    • Erin says:

      There’s no reason to pretend that for movies to make money they have to be well written. If anything that usually hurts a movie’s bottom line. Look at what the highest grossing movies were prior to last year, chances are you aren’t going to see a tight screenplay. Barbie is something of an anomaly where its quality was matched by its box office returns.

      Hopefully moviegoers will continue to reward better films in the future but for now I’d exercise caution when it comes to drawing a parralel between a well developed plot and the money a movie can make.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      Yeah, for these clowns to keep saying this garbage after Barbie it’s just pathetic. Always blaming women.

    • Lightpurple says:

      And this was different than what happened to The Marvels. That poor film was attacked and trashed by a union of the anti-woke, anti-Disney MAGA coalition and the incels who despise Brie Larson. Now that’ it’s available on streaming, people are realizing it’s a fun romp, with a nice family message, like comic book movies should be, that was treated unfairly and should have done better at the box office.

      This thing just looks bad all around

    • Fabiola says:

      Most women were brought up loving Barbie so it being a hit was not a surprise but I don’t know who would watch this type of film since I don’t think men or women would be interested in it

  5. Sara says:

    Don Johnson charismatic attractive good actor
    Melanie Griffith charismatic attractive good actor
    Dakota Johnson attractive
    Maybe Dakota should move behind the camera?

    • Torttu says:

      You work harder behind the camera so no.

    • Normades says:

      Melanie is also a nepo baby (daughter of Tipi Hedron) grew up in the industry and started dating Don when she was 14 and he mid-twenties. She was a drugged out mess. She had the hardest time getting through the filming of Working Girl and slurred during the whole thing.
      I never thought she was a great actress and seemed really ditzy as Tess. Miscast imo though her chemistry with Harrison Ford was hot.

  6. Becks1 says:

    It is not women’s fault that this movie bombed. This just sounds like a disaster of a movie. Dakota, in interview clips, sounded bored and over it. the marketing was lackluster. etc.

    Women will show up for movies, but we’re not stupid. Barbie didnt make a billion dollars because it was bright and pink. It made a billion dollars because it was enjoyable. Reasonable minds can and do differ (as we see here regularly) on how objectively good it was, but overall the reason for its long term success was that most at least found it an enjoyable, summer escape movie.

    Don’t blame women bc you made a crap movie and we passed on it.

    • ML says:

      While this review cracked me up, it in no way was a ringing endorsement to go see Madame Web: https://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/madame-web-is-a-burning-dumpster-dropped-into-a-volcano-filled-with-moldy-fish.php In fact, I have no desire to spend my well earned money on an expensive film experience.

      It sort of pisses me off that an executive then summarizes this as “I don’t know if women are enough to carry the box off in “ crap. No plot? Changing the entire story the actors signed up for? No costumes? Blatant product placement? Giving a failed male writer another chance to fail? And then saying it’s the female audience that is the problem? Wow.

      • Becks1 says:

        omg, that review is incredible – ” It’s a thing that should not be. I am less for having seen it. Save yourselves.” WOW. tell us how you really feel!!!

        And yes, its enraging that the studios’ takeaway here is “huh, women can’t carry superhero movies” (although Marvel might disagree). Not – “huh, maybe we should make better movies.”

      • Keke Swan says:

        That caught my eye, too. Women just carried Barbie into a stratosphere no other film has risen to. That was a good movie—this is not. If women are a key audience, y’all need to give us a reason to show up.

      • Sass says:

        Same here. Women Can’t make superhero movies? Did they forget about Wonder Woman? Also I’m pretty sure the one who really can’t make superhero movies is a bunch of dude writers.

        I don’t even like Dakota but that line was INCORRECT. Write something worth watching and market it correctly, yes hire more charismatic actors, but this isn’t about women superheroes not being what people want.

  7. TarteAuCitron says:

    If Madame Webb halts the march of nepo-babies leading films when they don’t have the acting chops to do it, then I’m ok with it. I wish this wasn’t being messaged negatively so that actresses can’t lead a film.

    I’m not into these kind of movies anyway, but I appreciate that plenty of women and girls are. Either way, nobody rushes out to see a Dakota Johnson movie.

  8. ClaireB says:

    They hired a charisma-less cardboard cutout for the lead, apparently got the script from Tumblr, but the takeaway is that women-led movies don’t sell? Okay, sure. Sounds like the whole thing was a tax write-off and a way to avoid having to target women as an audience at all.

  9. MaryContrary says:

    Combo of superhero fatigue, poorly written mess, and lackluster casting (Dakota Johnson & Sydney Sweeney-who has the worst monotone?) but sure, blame the female audience.

  10. Kate says:

    Dakota Johnson and Sydney Sweeney should fire their agents.

  11. Cheshire Sass says:

    I know a lot of actors will do a movie just for the paycheck (talking about you Nic Cage). However; if your job requires you to do promotion work etc.. perhaps you should be a little versed in the franchise you’re representing. Going out to do interviews without any prep, or interest in what you’re representing just makes Dakota look inept and truly not a team player. The movie may be terrible, I personally haven’t seen any of the Marvel movies – but there are others relying on it to make a living, and she torpedoed all of it. Even if a movie is terrible but the actors engaging, there are those who will want to see it, and it lives on in campy glory. Halle Berry comes to mind, accepting her Catwoman razzie award. People loved her for it.

    • Shai says:

      I can agree, I also feel like she just didn’t care anymore once she realized this wasn’t exactly a Marvel film.

  12. Mia4s says:

    I’m getting a bit sick of the Hollywood marketing line of “see all movies starring women or you’re a bad feminist” or whatever. I’m not spending my money on a piece of garbage for…what? Good movies starring women make money (someone already pointed out Barbie, and I will add Gerwig’s Little Women for good measure).

    They do it to POC too (see this movie or the racists win! 🙄). Just make good movies FFS!!!

  13. Shai says:

    Madame Web failing is 100% on Sony for thinking it was fine to use Morbius’s writers knowing that people didn’t care for it either. I’m up for pretty much any superhero movie, but this one didn’t look remotely interesting to me not to mention Dakota Johnson isn’t a draw for me. I can forgive a bad plot with good acting & some stuff being fun. Sony also reportedly made it seem like this was a MCU film, which it obviously isn’t. Being in the MCU is often a goal for some actors so Sony pretending like this was part of that wasn’t good.

  14. OriginalLeigh says:

    I think people are just over the Marvel movies for the time being. They released way too many in a short period of time and the recent ones have not been very good. People need a really compelling reason to go to the movies. Otherwise, many of us are happy to wait to stream movies at home.

    • Raven says:

      This is not a Marvel movie it’s Sony .

      • Lau says:

        @Raven, it’s not Marvel but Sony are always trying to get some of Marvel’s shine on their own movies. Look at Venom teasing Spider-Man and managing to be included in the last SM movie (even for a brief cameo).

    • Deering24 says:

      OriginalLeigh–yep. Nothing (temporarily) kills a genre faster than an overload of crappy/mediocre product. And too often it was practically a requirement of superhero movies that you had to see other films in that universe to really know what was going on.

  15. Cee says:

    I watched it last Sunday and this is my take: the story has potential but the script was terrible. I liked the whole 2003 vibe to it and certain Spider Man breadcrumbs like meeting a young Uncle Ben and actually witnessing Peter Parker’s birth and why and how he will get bit by the same spider that bit Uncle Ben’s paramedic partner Cassie Webb’s mother in the peruvian Amazon, thus curing Cassie and giving her the power of seeing the future.

    However, the villain’s arc was so freaking dumb. He has recurring dreams about 3 female Arañas coming for him so he hacks into baby-NSA to target teenagers and kill them before they get their powers but does not see Cassie Webb in his own web and he dies in a really stupid fashion.

    I also really believe Dakota Johnson has good moments but she is generally bland on screen and some of her deliveries lack emotion/feel. She should be grateful she’s a nepo baby because at most she would have been a print model.

    • Dutch says:

      Can you confirm the criticism that the amount you see the young women in hero costume in the trailers is pretty much the amount you see them in the movie?

    • Deering24 says:

      Cee–so this was a combination of Spider-Man and Shining Girls? 😉 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Girls

      Not the worst idea for the movie, but the execution sounds dire as all-get out. And Johnson does not have the horsepower to do this kind of lead.

  16. Lau says:

    Of course they’re using the “female-lead” excuse to explain the fact that the movie bombed. As if every other superhero movies led buy some guy have been masterpieces.

    • Deering24 says:

      Hey, this is a Hollywood tradtion. There is _always_ a reason not to do movies with different POV–and the “well, women movies don’t sell and are poorly made” canard is one of the most insidious. Along with “well, Barbie was an anomaly–a non-recurring phenomenon.” 🤮

  17. Kaaaaaz says:

    Women superhero films can fill theaters. If the story and acting is good. Captain Marvel, Black Widow, Wonder Woman 1 and Wanda Vision all did well. But they had competent actors and good scripts.

    • Dutch says:

      Agree on Captain Marvel and the first Wonder Woman. Box office backs that up. Black Widow was a casualty of the early pandemic and never got a theatrical release (ScarJo sued Disney over it) and WandaVision was a TV series released on Disney+

      • Sudie says:

        I saw Black Widow at the theaters but it was shortly released to streaming within a week or two of release. It was a terrible movie so it wasn’t going to be a big blockbuster anyway.
        I realize Angelina wasn’t playing a superhero but her Lara Croft movies had a RT score of 20 but ended up earning over 400 million dollars. Angelina had the charisma and acting chops that Dakota just does not have.

  18. Bumblebee says:

    Why are women to blame because you made a movie marketed for them and they didn’t like it? There are lots of things marketed for women that succeed. Stop relying on women to pull you up. Look in the mirror and next time you might do better.

  19. Concern Fae says:

    I think the trap that superhero movies fell into was thinking that because everyone said the scripts were bad on the early, successful films that they didn’t have to try to make good scripts. The truth is the scripts of the early Marvel films may not have been great – but they worked. The plot moved forward and the individual scenes were good. The main characters were well drawn and interacted together believably. Somehow they don’t seem to think that they need even this baseline anymore.

    And Madame Web did worse than Argylle.

    • Deering24 says:

      “And Madame Web did worse than Argylle”.

      Yipes. Argylle is another case study in how _not_ to make a movie with a female lead. Protagonists with no chemistry; a herione who unrealistically seems to have no survival instincts or common sense at all; plot twists for the sake of plot twists until you don’t care anymore; weak/unbelievable plot twists at that… The Movie Sins guys are gonna go to town on both these horrors–and rightly so.

  20. C says:

    I do believe that not only does this industry put female-led films on the backburner but also might even intentionally sabotage
    them (in terms of promo, writing) so it can continue to fit the narrative that “women can’t lead films and women don’t go to see women-led films”. So I don’t place the blame on Dakota.
    Unpopular opinion maybe but I am skeptical of the “they were tricked” rumor, which has not been confirmed by anything as far as I know? I know both stars tagged “Marvel” in their early posts promoting the film but everything Spiderman has always been Sony since the Maguire films in 2002, and whenever Spiderman makes an appearance in MCU it’s very clearly leased the rights for that character to appear.
    Not to mention the huge paper trail and actually being on a Sony set for a full year.
    It’s the kind of mixup I would expect a person who is not involved in the industry to make – not Dakota or Sydney.
    And if they were tricked, I have no doubt they have the lawyers possible to document that in opposition to being held to a fraudulent contract.
    That’s just me. (shrug).

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      Yeah that is flat out b.s. actors don’t just blindly agree to be in films. She has a manager, too. And got the script. And did table reads. I mean, come on.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I wanted to say something similar. It’s like studios intentionally sabotage female-led movies so they can say the experiment failed, having an excuse to go back to marginalizing women.

  21. Angel says:

    I actually saw the. movie (seemingly unlike most of these commenters) and take exception to the fact that a bunch of feminists are actually buying the conventional take on this, driven by a bunch of MEN. You bought into it without ever seeing it. DH wanted to see it so we did on V Day and I was shocked at how good it is. Go look at the audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and look for WOMEN reviews. Superhero junkies wanted more action, chases and violence. This movie had enough requisite fights and car chases and action. But it also had a much deeper story about mother daughter healing, a cynical wounded flawed character (Dakota Johnson was perfectly cast for a wide cracking sarcastic woman who softens on the course of the movie) and female bonding. My husband and I both loved it and are sad we won’t get to see the characters evolve into full blown superhero’s. Thank God we ignored the heavily male skewed rotten tomatoes. Just a tip – I use audience reviews as a better gage of what I might like. Because rotten tomatoes has never predicted what I like and IMDB is worse. Do not prejudge a movie you haven’t seen. In this case, it was extra fun to see a movie w lots of budget poured into it that a woman can relate to. As for examples of female superhero’s that did well there’s Womder Woman and sad to see how that died in a way thar male oriented superhero movies did not.

    • C says:

      I’m glad you enjoyed it.
      The fact that the main star cannot be bothered to say the same unfortunately has an impact in this conversation though.

      • Ameerah M says:

        She can’t be bothered because she was flat out lied to by both the studio and the her agents which she fired a couple of week ago.

      • C says:

        Please see my comment above regarding that.
        And my comment about Dakota not liking the film is not about her herself; it’s in response to Angel saying the film is better than everyone is saying and that denying that is part of the problem with vehicles like this in the industry.

  22. Grant says:

    I said this above but I don’t think we can blame Dakota for this. I think she has her moments and is capable of being good-to-great on-screen. She was great in Suspiria and in Bad Times at the El Royale. Haven’t seen much else of her though, so it sounds like she really responds well to a skilled director.

    • VoominVava says:

      I haven’t seen Dakota in anything but interviews, so I can’t speak to her talent but I agree we shouldn’t lump all the blame on her or the other actors. When do the writers get called out BY NAME when this stuff happens . Where are the good writers anyway? Seems few and far between lately.

    • Dutch says:

      She shouldn’t shoulder the blame for this movie bombing alone, when her biggest mistake was saying yes to the project in the first place, and those Sony execs aren’t going to blame themselves for deciding to make a movie of a Z-list Spider-Man character (without Spider-Man mind you) in hopes it will launch a franchise.

  23. LaurenAPMT says:

    Dakota Johnson can’t act her way out of a paper bag, and she has a terrible attitude whenever she’s interviewed. No way will I see this in the theatre, because I don’t want to support her career in any way.

  24. Cel2495 says:

    Hm not surprised, let’s be honest, Dakota is a terrible actress. The script was also trash .

  25. Lionlover says:

    It’s not that women can’t carry tentpoles in the US. Look at Lucy, Barbie, etc. Focus on the movie and storyline. Personally I’m over superhero films and have been for a long time.

  26. Christine says:

    My son and I saw One Love yesterday, and we both loved it. I cried, he pretended he wasn’t crying, because apparently crying at 14 years old, when you are just with your mom who has seen you cry a whole fucking lot, is now embarrassing.

    I feel like the movie industry pitted a joyous movie with an (almost) entirely Black cast, against a movie with a female lead that was never going to go anywhere. Either way, the really old white men were going to claim they were right, for not believing in X, Y, or anything other than making them money.

    Joe Biden is the only vote.