Dakota Johnson Just TORCHED Hollywood! 🔥

Madame Web star says Tinseltown’s a “mess.”
Studios addicted to remakes?
Executives clueless about movies?

What’s got her so fired up?
Click to uncover the drama! 👇

On June 12, 2025, Dakota Johnson, star of the ill-fated Madame Web, unleashed a scathing critique of Hollywood’s creative decline during an appearance on Hot Ones. “I guess it’s all just a bit of a mess right now, isn’t it?” she told host Sean Evans, blaming studios for prioritizing remakes and sequels over original stories and decrying decision-making by “people who don’t even really watch movies.” Her comments, amplified by X posts like @Variety’s “Dakota Johnson blasts Hollywood as a ‘mess,’” come on the heels of Madame Web’s catastrophic 2024 performance, which grossed just $43 million domestically against a $100 million budget and earned an 11% Rotten Tomatoes score. This article explores Johnson’s critique, the context of her Madame Web experience, and the broader industry trends fueling Hollywood’s “mess,” drawing on reports and critical analysis.

The Madame Web Flop: A Catalyst for Critique

Johnson’s remarks are deeply tied to her experience with Madame Web, Sony’s Spider-Man spinoff released in February 2024. She played Cassandra Webb, a paramedic who gains clairvoyant powers, alongside Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced, and Celeste O’Connor. The film was a commercial and critical disaster, grossing $100.3 million globally and winning three Razzie Awards, including Worst Picture and Worst Actress for Johnson. Reviews slammed its disjointed script, lackluster action, and meme-worthy dialogue, like “He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders.” Johnson distanced herself from the project, telling the Los Angeles Times on June 4, 2025, “It wasn’t my fault,” and blaming “people who don’t have a creative bone in their body” for derailing the film’s vision.

In Hot Ones, Johnson elaborated, saying Madame Web “started out as something and turned into something else,” with her role reduced to “along for the ride.” Her press tour was equally candid, with quips about bluescreen acting being “psychotic” and admitting she hadn’t seen the film, per The Hollywood Reporter. While some fans lauded her “unhinged” honesty, others, per Fox News, saw it as unprofessional, potentially worsening the film’s reception. Emma Roberts, a co-star, attributed the flop to “internet culture” amplifying negativity, while Merced embraced its campy charm, per Collider. The failure, Johnson argued, exemplifies Hollywood’s systemic issues: committee-driven decisions and a lack of creative vision.

Johnson’s Critique: What’s Wrong with Hollywood?

Johnson’s Hot Ones comments pinpoint two core problems: an over-reliance on remakes and uncreative leadership. “When something does well, studios want to keep that going, so they remake the same things, but humans don’t want that,” she said. “They want fresh, they want to feel new things, experience new things, see new things.” She also slammed executives who “don’t even really watch movies or know anything about them,” arguing that corporate groupthink stifles art. These sentiments echo her earlier remarks to Bustle in March 2024: “You cannot make art based on numbers and algorithms. Audiences will always be able to sniff out bullshit.”

Her critique aligns with industry trends. In 2024, remakes and sequels dominated the box office, with Inside Out 2 ($652 million) and Deadpool & Wolverine ($636 million) leading domestically, per Box Office Mojo. Original films like Oppenheimer (2023) or A24’s Civil War (2024) are exceptions, as studios favor “safe” IP-driven projects. Johnson’s point about audiences craving novelty is supported by successes like Everything Everywhere All At Once ($143 million globally) and Past Lives ($25 million), which thrived on originality.

The “committee-driven” model reflects corporate consolidation. Disney, Warner Bros., and Universal, owned by conglomerates, prioritize shareholder value, using algorithms to greenlight films, per a 2023 Variety report. This sidelines filmmakers, leading to homogenized blockbusters like Argylle ($96 million against $200 million) or The Marvels ($206 million against $270 million). Johnson’s frustration is shared by peers: Scarlett Johansson criticized MCU films’ excessive plot, and Nia DaCosta noted studio interference on The Marvels, per GamesRadar.

Hollywood’s Risk-Averse Culture: A Deeper Look

Johnson’s comments build on her February 2024 L’Officiel interview, where she called Hollywood “f***ing bleak” and criticized executives’ fear of bold choices. “Everyone who makes decisions is afraid,” she said, contrasting her indie projects like Daddio with Madame Web’s formulaic approach. The industry’s risk-aversion is evident in its IP obsession: 2024 saw How to Train Your Dragon and Lilo & Stitch remakes dominate, while original mid-budget films struggle for funding, per Hot Ones.

Superhero fatigue exacerbates the issue. Madame Web’s failure, alongside Morbius ($167 million) and The Marvels, reflects waning interest in non-MCU superhero fare, per CBR. Yet, franchises like Avengers: Doomsday (2026) remain bankable, showing audiences aren’t anti-IP but demand quality. Johnson’s pivot to A24’s Materialists, a rom-com with Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans, aligns with her call for “fresh” stories, earning positive early reviews for its grounded take on love, per Moneycontrol.

Fan and Industry Reactions: Polarized but Resonant

Johnson’s critique sparked a divided response. On X, @THR and @IGN praised her as a truth-teller, with fans applauding her for exposing “soulless” studio practices. Reddit’s r/movies, with 359 upvotes, saw users like u/lurker_bee agree Hollywood’s remake obsession is a “systemic problem,” though some called Johnson a “nepo baby” who benefits from the system, citing her parents, Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson. Critics argued her Madame Web press tour, marked by sarcasm, contributed to its failure, with one X user, @screentime, suggesting she’s deflecting blame.

Supporters, per The Independent, view her as “refreshingly honest,” likening her to Ryan Gosling’s playful Barbie press. Her Razzie win drew a supportive voice note from Sandra Bullock, per The Express Tribune, highlighting her industry allies. Industry voices, like A24’s promotion of Materialists, signal alignment with her push for originality, while studio silence from Sony or Disney suggests her comments hit a nerve.

The Broader Context: Can Hollywood Change?

Johnson’s critique arrives at a pivotal moment. The 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes exposed tensions over streaming residuals and AI, with creatives demanding more control. Her warning about AI-generated films—“humans aren’t going to f***ing want to see those”—echoes Disney’s recent Midjourney lawsuit, reflecting fears of technology supplanting artists. The industry’s reliance on IP, per Geo.tv, prioritizes familiarity over innovation, but successes like Wicked ($623 million) show bold adaptations can work when executed well.

Hollywood’s response is mixed. A24 and Neon champion original stories, while Universal’s Oppenheimer bet on prestige paid off ($975 million). Yet, Disney’s Mufasa: The Lion King (2024) faced criticism for retreading old ground, validating Johnson’s remake fatigue claim. Her role as a producer at TeaTime Pictures, where she seeks “creative input,” positions her to drive change, per The Blast.

Critical Perspective: Hypocrisy or Honesty?

Johnson’s detractors, per r/movies, argue her “nepo baby” status undermines her critique, as her career benefited from family connections. Her Madame Web press tour, while honest, may have alienated audiences, contributing to its $43 million domestic haul. Yet, her pivot to Materialists and Verity (2026) with Anne Hathaway shows commitment to original projects, backing her words with action. Hollywood’s selective AI embrace—using it for VFX while suing competitors like Midjourney—lends credence to her charge of inconsistent priorities.

The “massive failure” of Madame Web is less about Johnson’s performance and more about systemic issues: studio meddling, superhero fatigue, and a disjointed vision. Her critique, while sharp, isn’t novel—filmmakers like Martin Scorsese have long decried IP dominance—but its timing, post-strikes and amid box office volatility, amplifies its impact.

Conclusion: A Call to Action or a Moment of Frustration?

Dakota Johnson’s “mess” diagnosis of Hollywood is a potent mix of personal reflection and industry critique. Madame Web’s failure, with its $100 million loss and 11% Rotten Tomatoes score, exposed the pitfalls of committee-driven blockbusters, fueling her call for change. Her push for original stories and artist-led decisions resonates with audiences tired of remakes, as seen in A24’s success and Wicked’s triumph. Yet, the industry’s entrenched IP addiction and corporate structure pose formidable barriers.

Johnson’s honesty, while divisive, sparks a necessary conversation. Her shift to producing and starring in films like Materialists suggests she’s not just critiquing but acting on her beliefs. Hollywood isn’t collapsing, but it’s at a crossroads. If studios heed Johnson’s call—prioritizing creativity over algorithms—the “mess” could give way to a new era of bold storytelling. For now, her words are a rallying cry for artists and audiences alike, demanding a Tinseltown that dares to be fresh.