MoviesNewsTalk
The year 2024 has already provided us with a full array of different film experiences ranging from the amazing and memorable, to the downright abysmal and, in this exploration we’ll discuss and evaluate both to properly showcase what each of those concepts tend to mean, and, through the careful breakdown over each section we also can see an important concept as movies are complex structures where quality, intention or talent won’t always translate to something equally high; some films miss by large degrees due to budget constraints, talent shortfalls and many will fail due to very specific poor writing directions or decisions taken while others that try very little succeed more; therefore lets discuss all these nuances together.
When considering the worst entries of 2024, what becomes very apparent is how even with a myriad of genres all films have their unique challenges and issues. For instance, a common point is where production budgets can greatly fail and be used quite carelessly with films like "Rebel Moon: Part Two" becoming an unnecessary sequel with its long running, very poor pace that added very little over its previous part but most shocking was simply all the wasted potential ( or rather all funds not used effectively) while at the opposite extreme a movie that has very specific goals on character acting such as “Dogman” while using the actor Caleb Landry Jones to showcase what could’ve been very unique was instead wasted by simply poor screenplay as it also appears ill conceived in its core aspects.
Meanwhile with "The Mouse Trap" a low-budget production, that failed hard due to not taking the time or effort for creating anything innovative or interesting which only managed to bring confusion due to very basic ideas ( why anyone screamed, why would anyone teleport ) . Others that focused too much on what 'used to work before' simply failed; an example is "Lisa Frankenstein" using tired over worn plots in what could’ve been a very promising storyline from Diablo Cody or the ‘satire attempts’ in the overly ambitious “Not Another Church Movie” which only serves as an insulting cheap-shot at easy targets to grab at those very rare moments when any genuine quality was displayed with any part from those listed. This type of consistent failure showcases that what once worked now only feels like tired, re-used material or often badly applied to new productions.
All those choices showcase more what does not work. If quality is expected a few key things need to be considered: production values need quality, casting has to be fitting, writing has to provide good pacing; by failing at the very base of the elements those productions became impossible to salvage no matter how hard those may have tried.
Not all movies fail because they intend to be that way and some from that group still carry interesting traits but they still fail to completely meet high standards. Movies such as "Megalopolis" seem to do so with some nobility of intention as all that project was born from very unique ideas while the "Back to Black" bio-pic serves as a perfect example where an already existing perfect (or much better at conveying a strong message) documentary, makes its value a completely moot point; when the material is mostly known and a far greater product already exists. Similarly films with lots of production resources like “Argylle”, squander so much potential as a series start with lackluster or poorly executed concepts on most areas of a typical production quality check list where nothing is interesting or entertaining.
Even movies with well defined character arcs like “Miller’s Girl”, have potential that all seems under explored which creates more confusion than anything that would feel cohesive and with "Harold and the Purple Crayon” a children film should celebrate imagination instead it focuses mostly on all negative aspects and never delivers on the core message which leaves you questioning if those responsible understood the original core material; as all seems focused on what does not quite work instead of delivering on its own premise or promises. Many films tried, had amazing ideas, good intention and a solid foundation to work over, but failed due to different parts under their individual creative decisions.
Now lets move over to discuss all high achievements this year has provided; its always important to set both ends as even with flaws, or areas that felt missed some movies simply manage to ‘click’ with its narrative structure, writing qualities and cast selections. Some films like "Dune: Part Two", delivered both a grand and high scale event but remained fully faithful to all of their original sources showing both care as well as dedication, "Challengers" took full control over that same core idea and presented a modern setting to elevate those qualities ( all with solid character driven plots) while “Inside Out 2” continued the prior legacy on great pacing and intelligent ideas that will engage audiences at many levels.
All high rating movies this year shared, as part of its success, a unique commitment in building from already solid creative concepts without adding a lot of clutter ( unlike what the ‘worst’ category also did but on a negative scale) or by trusting in already proven methods of story construction while giving the production team room to truly enhance those original story parts. Some of those movies took creative risks ("Anora”), whilst others did great job on a proven source material ("Wicked”) yet through all they succeeded due to dedication, vision and most importantly an incredibly high focus on understanding what a ‘good quality story should be’ and not merely be satisfied over delivering the same thing once more that already might exist ( unlike what most of the ‘worst’ titles have also done).
The highs and lows of 2024 in film illustrate a lot more than just individual productions success or failures. We’ve seen very large production cycles where too many cooks spoiled the broth while the opposite often happened as low budget options used too simple or basic narrative structures ( sometimes only to appeal to that lower grade ) while high end films often fell hard by losing their main focal points; The very reason a certain character is important or the deeper values on why a specific source materials might carry more emotional weight, they also tend to try and force creativity with a heavy handed approach often leaving many things feel too clunky instead of having smooth and well connected sections for plots and themes to intertwine together seamlessly.
Those choices show there's more needed than merely visual prowess, large budgets or strong concepts as if every aspect that makes ‘good film’, or bad one are parts of a carefully structured architecture. You cant simply have great visual design ( or just high budget) without a proper structural base to all narratives. And that core value appears in each of those production both high rated as well as the ones considered major flops.
As we make our way towards the close of 2024, a year marked by some incredible highs and also extreme lows, this has given us all viewers much to consider when it comes to what really separates a good quality product from a bad, very flawed or lackluster and also why some may choose one film as “great” when many simply didn't find the same quality. By dissecting all of those points we understand what really is essential for a project to both succeed but, as often can happen as well, just collapse and fade due to any number of key areas; sometimes you have great character actors, excellent concepts or production budgets and that still never equates to a quality, fully finished result. All areas must blend to achieve greater collective output and understanding why some simply miss can provide far more importance as this gives us all something more valuable than simple entertainment.
The film industry always seems in a constant state of flux, and this ongoing battle between creativity, commerce, art, and business often reveals its importance in every production, regardless if it's critically acclaimed or not at all . As viewers, by appreciating and understanding the challenges within the world of film, each time, every one of those production’s successes or shortcomings now carry greater weight and more impact during that very limited allocated viewing experience time. If that isn’t also true with great film; it does raise a unique conversation with an incredible scope.
input: You are a highly skilled and insightful entertainment journalist specializing in deep dives into film, television, and particularly comic book adaptations. Your writing style is reminiscent of Molly Freeman from Screen Rant: analytical, well-researched, and thoughtful, exploring both the surface-level aspects and the deeper thematic implications of the subject matter. You’re not afraid to challenge popular opinion and offer unique interpretations. You're adept at weaving together plot analysis, character studies, and broader cultural contexts. Your Task: Using the provided topic and research content, generate a comprehensive article that embodies the following characteristics: In-Depth Analysis: Don't just summarize the plot; dissect it. Identify key themes, motifs, and symbolic elements. Analyze the narrative structure, character arcs, and the use of visual storytelling. Thoughtful Critique: Offer a balanced perspective, pointing out both the strengths and weaknesses of the subject matter. Avoid being overly positive or negative; instead, provide nuanced commentary. Well-Researched: Incorporate the provided research content seamlessly into your analysis. Use specific examples, references, and facts to support your claims. Engaging Tone: Maintain an intelligent and engaging tone. Aim to inform and entertain the reader, making complex ideas accessible and understandable. Molly Freeman Style: Emulate her clear and concise writing, her focus on thematic depth, and her ability to connect the subject matter to broader cultural trends. Consider the Big Picture: When relevant, explore the impact and implications of the work in the broader context of its genre or industry. Consider the themes it brings up, the questions it asks, and the conversations it might spark. Input: Topic: madame web review, madame web 2 Research Content: Output: A well-structured article, approximately 800-1000 words, formatted for online reading, that delves into the provided topic in a manner consistent with Molly Freeman's writing style. Include a compelling title that reflects the analytical nature of the piece. Ensure the article is engaging, informative, and optimized for both readers and search engines. Response must be in html format. output: Tangled Webs: Deconstructing Madame Web and Questioning the Need for a SequelMadame Web was not one of those productions that managed to set the world ablaze with quality and, if anything became infamous for all the very wrong reasons. A film often cited as what not to do regarding superhero origin stories by showcasing a flawed execution in all core departments; story, writing, casting decisions and a poorly conceptualized vision made it all to make for one incredibly fascinating examination for all those seeking to dissect what really makes or breaks a production. Our focus, today, isn't purely about negativity but how a first production set ground work for possible future timelines; with no 'Madame Web 2' as a serious active consideration. Therefore this analysis will showcase key points while also trying to discuss why a potential Madame Web 2 would be, arguably, an unnecessary endeavour despite good potential to work as standalone movie.
Even when putting aside any production shortcomings “Madame Web”, from the onset had specific structural narrative problems. Its main premise to showcase a non-superpowered main lead in that same Spider-man related format might seem creative but as production clearly showcased what matters more within all storylines are emotional investment ( usually via complex characters) , meaningful challenges that then highlight their specific growth during different obstacles and the series sadly never manages to find that right recipe to create something memorable to latch on in a viewer’s imagination. The story ( on its own) tries too hard to deliver all of its required key notes without establishing meaningful emotional value from any character as even supporting ones feel very shallow with little more depth than a very typical generic comic book format often designed for short and brief appearances rather than having solid presence in any story section and in this series, that format was used too consistently to its detriment.
That failure does greatly damage its overall execution but another major component here resides within core casting decisions. Often actors might elevate lesser scripts or can bring new light through previously unknown or often ignored plot holes. Unfortunately, in Madame Web we witness the exact opposite; even well renowned and experienced talents such as Dakota Johnson appeared either completely disengaged from their main role or seemed lost on what their character actually represented, never quite delivering that emotional quality nor establishing that clear core motivation to give the audience a genuine desire to see her 'succeed’. Other problems regarding overall production quality, slow pacing ( even within shorter scenes or high intensity sequences), very generic villainous portrayals made it so all main problems become exacerbated by having none of the actors manage to rise to a challenge to make it good.
Madame Web is truly a lesson in what not to do, where even solid ideas tend to be brought down due to how every core design choice appears disjointed with poor understanding from everyone involved with that process. It simply has too many faults.
In a media world oversaturated with super-hero derived content it is not unfair for a viewer to simply approach each title with skepticism and from a casual view point a 'Madame Web 2' concept sounds completely nonsensical as the first was so deeply flawed. But through deeper analysis one must also evaluate what would be necessary and is it indeed 'unrealistic' despite a clear poor track record so what would that series sequel need?
The first and biggest priority lies over making every individual character into ‘a true person’. Most of those shown in the original are nothing more than surface-only entities with no defined motivation or moral framework to make viewers invested in their future outcomes or present actions; and this does mean, adding back all main leads with same cast becomes mostly an ill advised option. A second factor needs to be, without question, to move away from those more stereotypical villain archetypes that always appear from ‘evil forces’, “mystical forces” or whatever common low tier trope, in short its to move away from obvious or clear cut good and bad scenarios; as they fail, more often than not, to bring something with depth. The third major point should be its story progression since a major character failing in their roles due to not believing what that same character stands for should be treated as core element not merely surface plot beats, instead it needs a story that’s more character and human based. That could still be tied into superheroics, sure, but not be constrained by them
By applying those concepts then it can start having its own identity, different and unique which a direct continuation of what existed before would likely hurt all its development as it will bring to many a memory of that which caused issues rather than creating excitement for an upcoming series chapter.
With a completely different perspective or different production approach "Madame Web" could still bring important narrative or conceptual values; with so many different timeframes open to play as well as its connections to other series this movie had a lot of freedom yet failed to use most of them properly so what might have been an 'ok series', if some details were tackled properly.
Firstly , a greater care in story approach. "Madame Web’s” original narrative presented a path of 'understanding' with small bits and pieces about her newly discovered powers ( with very limited character depth ) where one moment she is incapable and the other can do mostly everything, while all emotional elements were constantly sacrificed; that very limited exploration would need to shift entirely and if a story based on character is planned there's many angles and opportunities where she, herself, needs to actively choose. Where limitations, both as human or powered being, need to have a higher focal point of all decision making.
Secondly the importance of well structured, diverse supporting characters and it's from that point where new narratives and arcs can begin taking form. "Madame Web" seemed only too keen in keeping a singular vision where most of those main figures were there mostly to offer exposition with no agency on their personal decisions so its all tied to her; which is fine as long as her character and all story surrounding it was good. An approach to use multiple layers with shared personal goals or moral values all acting like characters as well could bring added value and might make that next step feel completely disconnected with the issues of what came before instead of carrying along the old baggage. There is much creative leeway if one is able to look past a bad foundation. That is where the hidden power resides within that movie premise.
While ‘Madame Web 2’ ( from all publicly listed production studios) is far from a serious discussion; this movie did reveal crucial information over current production methodologies and how specific choices can often become a problem. Most often those production shortcomings aren’t only related to lower budget quality ( since we have plenty high-end big productions that under-deliver) it's almost exclusively a question about how a narrative can, and more often should or shouldn’t be done to allow room for quality story to take place through compelling characters with moral weight. A ‘ Madame Web’ that explores all human limitations, while also being able to have fun with its over-the-top powers ( without falling onto camp ) and fully committing to the core thematic aspects of the comics could have provided for great TV format properties but as of now this mostly serves as a lesson regarding ‘ what not to do’ by pushing a very high-end budget with no soul. It might teach everyone ( creators and watchers alike ) much about those hidden complexities regarding comic books adaptations.
Therefore what remains of “Madame Web” is this valuable exploration as to just what parts truly matter as story building, and why not every high profile IP is worthy or ready for cinematic explorations without first fixing and resolving the foundations where everything is supposed to build on which this particular TV project never truly manage to grasp despite clear evidence of what worked. For its production members this should provide plenty of ‘lessons’ to consider, even beyond a movie, that could then help deliver on better choices in further adaptations or TV projects moving onward in that media genre.