Ars gratia pecuniae!

Look, I don't want to tell Sony Pictures CEO Tony Vinciquerra how to CEO, but I'm not sure the problem with studio's comic book movies is critics. 

Above: Vinciquerra seen here, doing what ever CEO's do.

Not all heroes wear capes. Some review
customer service experiances on Yelp.

In the interest of full disclosure here, I should mention that I'm not a film industry expert. Like, at all. In fact, I don't think I've seen any of the movies he's referring to. In anno domini 2024, this is absolutely no barrier to having an opinion. In fact, many see chiming in on any and all topics, regardless of one's qualifications, as a moral duty and far be it from me to shirk such a heavy responsibility. I should also mention that my goal isn't to defend the critics he's blaming. The old saying "everyone's a critic" has never been more true, and what it means to be a critic has never been more meaningless.

Pictured: hyperbole.

Any idiot with internet access can be a critic, but I suspect he's referring to those associated with  news outlets and respected websites when he says:

"Madame Web underperformed in the theatre because the press just crucified it."

-Vinciquerra comparing the film's

 reviews to being tied to a cross and 

left to die of exposure and starvation

Really? There're no other reasons you can
think of to explain Venom's disappointing
box office performance? None at all?

He goes on to say: 

"It's was not a bad film, and it did great on Netflix. For some reason, the press decided that they didn't want us making these films out of 'Kraven' and 'Madam Web,' and the critics just destroyed them...They were just destroyed by the critics in the press, for some reason."

-Vincinquerra spinning conspiracy theories

to explain the explainable

Although it's been my experience that 

movies are rarely so bad they actually 

wrap around to being good and are just bad.

Which, first of all, I did a quick scan of the critic reviews for Madame Web, and it's not for some reason that they're so negative. It's for specific reasons. Many of them site it's dull plot, thin characters, and a bloated story. In fact, I was surprised by how many times critics said they enjoyed some or all of the film despite its short comings. It sounds like it's an "it's so bad it's good situation," but whatever, the numerical reviews are indeed quite low and Vinciquerra nevertheless blames this for the movie's poor box office return.

Also, just because something does well on Netflix, doesn't preclude it being a bad film. People watch all kinds of terrible things in the comfort of their own homes, far from public scrutiny. In fact, I think Netflix is famous for just that.

This is a Christmas movie about a snow many who comes to life and is also hot.
Will it be good? Almost certainly not. Will people watch it? 100%

I mean, they have access to J. Jonah
Jameson. Where's that origin story?

And lastly, I think it's giving the press far too much credit to suggest that they collectively have some kind of anti-Spider-man spin-off agenda. I like Spider-man as much as the next nerd, but personally have no interest in Spider-man adjacent solo movies. I realize that Sony doesn't have the stable of popular characters that Disney has access to, but that doesn't change the fact that Kraven, Madam Web, and Venom (another Sony Spider-film) are C-tier. With rare exceptions, I think audiences just aren't into characters who know, but aren't Spider-man.

I mean this with all due respect and
admiration, but these guys got out just in time.

But I'm getting off track. His contention is that by reviewing the film poorly, the critics cost the studio money. And his evidence is the idea that streaming numbers suggest that people watched them anyway. Ok, cool, but nowhere is he defending the artistic merit of the movies beyond the idea that they're not terrible. Which, I mean, if the aim is mediocrity, it sounds like he nailed it. But he shouldn't expect people to line up for it. Not when it's competing with all the other mediocrity out there.

The idea that they're good enough and should have made more at the box office is a very CEO way of looking at them. It's ars gratia pecuniae. And I can't help but feel that that the answer here isn't to blame movie reviews, but instead to make better movies, you know?

"Make better movi-that's a good one. I mean, we're CEO's, not superheroes..."

-CEO's creating value for shareholders?

I think? I'm unclear on this point...