This Oscar Season Don’t Forget About ‘Kiss of the Spider Woman’- Page 2

[MagicalMusical]

Posted: 12/26/25 at 12:29am

I am embarrassed to say just because the leads didn't get recognition that's probably why I didn't think they were good enough. They were great, just like I thought the whole movie was (minus wishing the music was more memorable and that Jlo could sing better).

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/26/25 at 9:02am

I think it was a mistake to not make this movie available for free on a pre-paid streaming service. If it had been available, perhaps there would have been more public support for the 2 male leads (...possibly the opposite  reaction, though).

I still haven't seen it yet because Amazon wants me to rent it, and they are ONLY offering an UHD version for $5.99 (which they've been deliberate in showing has been marked down from $14.99).

...as if I'd ever pay $14.99 to rent a movie from a service I already pay > $100/yr for. New Years resolution for 2026: unsubscribe Amazon.

For me, this movie is already "forgotten".

Updated On: 12/26/25 at 09:02 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 12/26/25 at 9:13am

Surprised it’s not available somewhere for streaming.

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/26/25 at 10:24am

RippedMan said: "Surprised it’s not available somewhere for streaming."

It's currently available to stream on Amazon, AppleTV, and YouTube, but all are rentals @ $5.99 or higher.

Even Wicked was available for free streaming on Peacock in less time  (and "...For Good" will be available in March of 2026). Wicked was available for premium (rental) streaming 39 days after its theatrical release, and was free (w/Peacock subscription) by March 21 of '25, roughly 4 months later.

KotSW had its theatrical release on Oct 10. Although it's available now, to rent or buy, there is no current date set for free streaming via subscription. The expected route will be via STARZ, then later on Amazon.

Updated On: 12/26/25 at 10:24 AM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/26/25 at 1:23pm

John Adams said: "I think it was a mistake to not make this movie available for free on a pre-paid streaming service. If it had been available, perhaps there would have been more public support for the 2 male leads (...possibly the opposite reaction, though).

I still haven't seen it yet because Amazon wants me to rent it, and they are ONLY offering an UHD version for $5.99 (which they've been deliberate in showing has been marked down from $14.99).

...as if I'd ever pay $14.99 to rent a movie from a service I already pay > $100/yr for. New Years resolution for 2026: unsubscribe Amazon.

For me, this movie is already "forgotten"."

Just because you have a streaming service doesn't mean that service has the rights to stream everything. Amazon originals stream immediately with your prime membership because Amazon has the rights. If you're annoyed they're charging, you should be annoyed with the producers who are still requiring that kind of licensing - not the service simply offering you the ability to rent it on their platform.

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/26/25 at 4:28pm

iluvtheatertrash said: "Just because you have a streaming service doesn't mean that service has the rights to stream everything. [...] you should be annoyed with the producers who are still requiring that kind of licensing - not the service simply offering you the ability to rent it on their platform."

Yes. I should be grateful that the majority of my Amazon Prime subscription dollars privilege me with option to pay additional $ directly to Amazon to buy or rent what has become the largest majority of content available to paid subscribers. 

...and that the "Free to Me" filter button "has been removed and Prime content can be found under Prime node in the 'My Subscription' row for simplifying the customer experience and remove cluttering due to badges."

...and also, I should be mindful that Amazon is probably donating their platform to "the producers who are still requiring that kind of licensing" for free. Amazon's charity has always been boundless.

Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

Updated On: 12/26/25 at 04:28 PM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/27/25 at 4:31am

John Adams said: "iluvtheatertrash said: "Just because you have a streaming service doesn't mean that service has the rights to stream everything. [...] you should be annoyed with the producers who are still requiring that kind of licensing - not the service simply offering you the ability to rent it on their platform."

Yes. I should be grateful that the majority of my Amazon Prime subscription dollars privilege me with option to pay additional $ directly to Amazon to buy or rent what has become the largest majority of content available to paid subscribers.

...and that the "Free to Me" filter button "has been removed and Prime content can be found under Prime node in the 'My Subscription' row for simplifying the customer experience and remove cluttering due to badges."

...and also, I should be mindful that Amazon is probably donating their platform to "the producers who are still requiring that kind of licensing" for free. Amazon's charity has always been boundless.

Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa."

No one said Amazon is being charitable. This is just how licensing works. I'm sorry that you're too stubborn to learn something today and would prefer to stay ignorant and ridiculous.

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/27/25 at 6:35am

iluvtheatertrash said: "This is just how licensing works."

You poor thing.

You lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish between "how licensing works", and "how Amazon's model of Prime Video membership has devolved".

Updated On: 12/27/25 at 06:35 AM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/27/25 at 3:27pm

Oh, you really are making a fool of yourself now.

Amazon didn't produce the film. That means they don't have the rights to stream the film to Prime members as part of their Prime membership. They don't get to decide that they do, the studio that produced it does.

You're blaming Prime and carrying on about it. But Prime doesn't have the rights to stream it to members just because some guy on the internet complains that they should.

Go touch some grass, dear.

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/27/25 at 6:26pm

iluvtheatertrash said: "Oh, [...] dear."

Updated On: 12/27/25 at 06:26 PM

[Observation]

Posted: 12/27/25 at 6:38pm

If Amazon wanted to pay for the rights so users can stream for free, they would and they could. There is $. It’s not unreasonable to be upset that they require a growing subscription fee only for them to ask for more money once you’re a paying customer. 

I think it’s weird to defend the gigantic corporation worth billions instead of demanding that they quit nickel and diming everything from their users. 

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 12:29pm

Observation said: "If Amazon wanted to pay for the rights so users can stream for free, they would and they could. There is $. It’s not unreasonable to be upset that they require a growing subscription feeonly for them to ask for more money once you’re a paying customer.

I think it’s weird to defend the gigantic corporation worth billions instead of demanding that they quit nickel and diming everything from their users."

I'm not defending the corporation. I'm simply saying that that's not how it works. Just like Apple could put it on there if they wanted to pay the money to do so. But this is how all new movies work. They get released first for rental or purchase and then eventually, they wind up on a streaming platform with a membership. This isn't anything new and to act like Amazon is the big bad guy when they're just doing what Hollywood has done for years is a little ridiculous. There's a lot to criticize Amazon for but holding them responsible for the same thing that every Hollywood film has done the last few years is ridiculous.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 1:21pm

John Adams said: "iluvtheatertrash said: "This is just how licensing works."

You poor thing.

You lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish between "how licensing works", and "how Amazon's model of Prime Video membership has devolved"."

Amazon is store that has a streaming service. They are not Netflix, they are Apple. They have content They own/produce and they films they license to be part of that streaming service. EVERYTHING ELSE that has a price tag attached to it is not on their streaming service. You are buying (or renting based on the price) a Video on Demand (VOD). This is available on multiple digital store fronts. In 3-6 months you will see it come up for licensing to streaming services as part of their packages but right now, the producers of the film are preferring to collect money on individual movie sales versus a licensing deal to streaming services.

This is what critical thinking is, and you are an old man yelling at clouds over an issue that has nothing to do with this movie. You think Prime's Streaming selection sucks? That's great. Cancel it until it improves. You are not indebted to continue paying for something that does not please you.

Observation said: "If Amazon wanted to pay for the rights so users can stream for free, they would and they could. There is $. It’s not unreasonable to be upset that they require a growing subscription feeonly for them to ask for more money once you’re a paying customer.

 

I think it’s weird to defend the gigantic corporation worth billions instead of demanding that they quit nickel and diming everything from their users."

Amazon cannot buy what the film producers are not selling. Hope this clears things up. 

Updated On: 12/29/25 at 01:21 PM

[pablitonizer]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 3:12pm

This movie is expected to hit HULU in early 2026. And honestly up to this point the whole cast and crew forgot this movie ever existed

[Observation]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 4:22pm

TheatreFan4 said: "John Adams said: "iluvtheatertrash said: "This is just how licensing works."

You poor thing.

You lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish between "how licensing works", and "how Amazon's model of Prime Video membership has devolved"."

Amazon is store that has a streaming service. They are not Netflix, they are Apple. They have content They own/produce and they films they license to be part of that streaming service. EVERYTHING ELSE that has a price tag attached to it is not on their streaming service. You are buying (or renting based on the price) a Video on Demand (VOD). This is available on multiple digital store fronts. In 3-6 months you will see it come up for licensing to streaming services as part of their packages but right now, the producers of the film are preferring to collect money on individual movie sales versus a licensing deal to streaming services.

This is what critical thinking is, and you are an old man yelling at clouds over an issue that has nothing to do with this movie. You think Prime's Streaming selection sucks? That's great. Cancel it until it improves. You are not indebted to continue paying for something that does not please you.

Observation said: "If Amazon wanted to pay for the rights so users can stream for free, they would and they could. There is $. It’s not unreasonable to be upset that they require a growing subscription feeonly for them to ask for more money once you’re a paying customer.



I think it’s weird to defend the gigantic corporation worth billions instead of demanding that they quit nickel and diming everything from their users."

Amazon cannot buy what the film producers are not selling. Hope this clears things up."

Spare me with the condescending “hope this clears things up” 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 5:00pm

Observation said: "Spare me with the condescending “hope this clears things up”"

But did it clear things up tho? Or are you still confused as to why the film producers would like to first get a bigger slice of pie selling/renting the film instead of dumping it directly to a streamer? 

[Observation]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 5:04pm

TheatreFan4 said: "Observation said: "Spare me with the condescending “hope this clears things up”"

But did it clear things up tho? Or are you still confused as to why the film producers would like to first get a bigger slice of pie selling/renting the film instead of dumping it directly to a streamer?"

Sure.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 5:06pm

Observation said: "TheatreFan4 said: "Observation said: "Spare me with the condescending “hope this clears things up”"

But did it clear things up tho? Or are you still confused as to why the film producers would like to first get a bigger slice of pie selling/renting the film instead of dumping it directly to a streamer?"

Sure."

I'm Glad. ☺️

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 6:13pm

TheatreFan4 said: "You think Prime's Streaming selection sucks? That's great. Cancel it until it improves. You are not indebted to continue paying for something that does not please you."

Scroll up. (post #26) 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 6:22pm

John Adams said: "I think it was a mistake to not make this movie available for free on a pre-paid streaming service. If it had been available, perhaps there would have been more public support for the 2 male leads (...possibly the opposite reaction, though).

For me, this movie is already "forgotten"."

I've made my case for this movie here already--despite the issues I have with it, I still am happy it got made and really do like an awful lot of it.  But I do think the ONLY *slight* chance it might have had to pick up some buzz or, well, anything really after its disastrous theatrical run would have been to release it "free" to a major streamer right away.  (It does sound like it will show up on Hulu/Disney+ internationally, in... February which won't do much at all.