-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Morbius - Official Teaser Trailer
- Thread starter Star-Lord
- Start date
Considering this trailer has an explicit MCU character in it (one that people really enjoyed!) and people are more "WTF' than 'hell yes'....
To simply represent Spider-Man. It wasn't a real life shot of Spider-Man on the wall.
It's kind of hilarious seeing the reactions that this somehow damages or is inferior to the masterpieces that are the MCU. Even though they're formulaic as hell.
Venom was a terrible movie but enjoyable nevertheless. This will probably be the same. I don't know why people get upset that there are marvel movies out there that aren't from Feige, if you want to watch the formula of Michael Bay levels of excess in action followed by a pause, quip then repeat, then there are 3 movies a year coming from that pipeline.
Venom was a terrible movie but enjoyable nevertheless. This will probably be the same. I don't know why people get upset that there are marvel movies out there that aren't from Feige, if you want to watch the formula of Michael Bay levels of excess in action followed by a pause, quip then repeat, then there are 3 movies a year coming from that pipeline.
Nah, it's more of passing references that will amount to nothing. Nothing here, or Venom, will be referenced ever in the MCU proper.
Disney wouldn't compromise their biggest franchise for some movies that will be rebooted in no time, once they bomb or Tom Hardy or Leto jump the ship.
Guess we will see but having Keaton showing up too, seems to suggest a connection. Which is totally fine, doesn't mean it can't be a self contained story, set in the MCU.
Also Batman was in Suicide Squad.
Yeah, that's exactly why I understand the tone for the trailer. I saw people in this thread complaning that it was dark/etc. That's the character. This isn't supposed to be Mysterio or Vulture.
Honestly I'm surprised they're going for Morbius "so soon" when Kraven would have been (to me) a better option. But what A/B-listers are left from Spiderman that haven't been done in other somewhat recent movies? Not rhetorical, maybe I'm missing someone?
I'm not saying I think the movie is going to be great, but I really didn't think the trailer was as horrible as people in this thread are finding it to be. Maybe I just have shitty taste. :(
Ok then, after Morbius title appears this happens
Adrian Toomes: I guess we can say you are off omelets and are on the all blood diet, doc.
MCU fans would pee themselves and be thrilled at the banter, "This is what we want!!!"
You know what? Fuck it. Despite how bland Black Widow looks it will be 10x better than this Dracula Untold sequel with terrible CGI. I wouldnt even go see this shit for free. It's a literal stain on the legacy that is the MCU and if I was Feige, I would go tell Sony to bite a big one and enjoy rolling in wet trash that is their movies.
lmao
that looked pretty bad
might be the first MCU movie i've skipped in a long time. Thanks Leto
that looked pretty bad
might be the first MCU movie i've skipped in a long time. Thanks Leto
I mean, 30 seconds to Mars fans have been saying that they are since 2002, and they play it up. I don't pay attention to that shit lol I know it's been getting increasingly weird tho
And where did Stark tower go?
More likely I suspect that their recent negotiation with Marvel to extend the deal had terms that include "cannot use the MCU Spider-Man suit(s)" etc.
So they have found as many ways to suggest connection to the MCU as possible whilst meeting the terms of the contract.
Where the booty dancers represent Sony's Marvelverse and Smithers represents MCU fans.
We don't have to see, lol. Marvel literally publishes their phases so everyone knows what movies are coming and when. If these movies were going to be a part of the larger MCU, then we'd know it. Keaton showing up is meaningless because Marvel / Disney doesn't control that IP or the appearance of that character, Sony does. Now, if it were say, Doctor Strange showing up in this trailer, that's entirely different. Don't read too much into this. It's just a clever move by Sony to drum up more excitement for this movie and tie together their villains for a larger movie that may or may not be Spider-Man, but for sure won't tie into the bigger MCU picture.
I mean, outside of Iron Man in Homecoming, or Happy / End Game fallout in Far from Home, the Spidey movies also largely stand on their own w/out any MCU interaction.
I don't think so. I think it's meant to loosely connect to the MCU, but exists in its own Sony bubble like a side-universe haphazardly stitched to the MCU's neck.
It might be some really weird legal mess where they're now entitled to make references to the MCU but don't have access to some MCU visual assets as outlined in some lawyer's 150 page document.
Their new deal with marvel could have been very finicky with extremely specific concessions and allowances for either side itemized out.
Like for example maybe both agreed to allow the MCU Vulture character in this but only outside the suit as long as he ends up the same place he started, and can vaguely reference MCU events but not directly depict/participate in them. And perhaps chose to depict generic spiderman imagery during production and not literally MCU spiderman because negotiations were still ongoing while filming. Or maybe in their mutual agreement they're not even allowed to literally depict MCU Holland Spider-man in their sony side-universe and have to stick with non-MCU spider-man imagery.
The whole shared custody thing probably got more complicated when they renegotiated, and uncertain futures may have motivated them to depict a version of spider-man that has nothing to do with the marvel deal.
Or Sony is just Sony and makes weird choices.
Or a little bit of both.
Last edited:
The only actual good part.
Jared Harris talking, that man can talk.
True. Unlike Venom, Morbius has no mainstream appeal as a character to bank off of.
Black Cat and Silver Sable, both of whom have movies (or a movie together for some reason) that have been in development hell for ages because Sony has no idea what they're doing.
Prowler is another easy gimme.
Spider-Man 2099 is another easy one that avoids any continuity problems entirely.
All of those are the lowest hanging fruit, but the fact that their next lined up character is probably Kraven the Hunter, a villain who has never headlined his own book, tells us all we really need to know about how Sony is approaching this. i.e. they have no plan and are just throwing anything they can at the wall. Their current strategy is to be the remora that attaches itself to the MCU shark in hopes of confusing audiences and eating their ticket sales in the MCU's wake.
I believe Matt Smith is the villain.
Because they show the New York skyline without the Stark tower in it.
For Spider-man adjacent characters Sony has their hands on, I'd have gone with a few others first, myself.
And I'm shocked Sony hasn't just outright done their own live-action Spider-man stories of several of the other non-Peter Spider-men outside of Into the Spider-verse.
... BUT the well isn't that deep. Outside of Spider-men & women (and Venom is definitely one), Morbius is arguably the most popular Spider-man spin-off character who carried his own book for awhile.
I heard from people on the set that there is a fight scene between Jared Leto and Matt Smith.
Its not like marvel has a movie titled Multiverse of Madness coming up where they can explain all that shit without fucking the continuity up or giving the sonyverse a way out to do whatever the fuck they want with their tom holland spiderman
And?
I am just saying that it would be right up these type of movies to have the fatherly figure turn bad as the twist.
Jessica Drew is a tricky one as she's a shared character like the Maximoff twins were but the details are more split: Sony can't reference her backstory at all and Marvel can't use the Spider-Woman identity. She's a character without a home, the only way I could see them using her is if they just base her on Ultimate Jessica Drew, who kind of requires Peter Parker.
I have bad experiences with producers so they are always the first I blame! Filmmaking is a collaborative artform, so 'too many cooks' is the main reason movies turn out bad or feel 'schizophrenic', everyone wants their idea in the movie. So knowing that, it's amazing when we get great movies too though.
That is no indication it is not in the MCU. There are many present indications it is, and you choose to go by absence as proof?
Which is fine, there can be mini arcs set in the MCU, without the need to connect to the bigger overall arc or impact what Marvel / Disney have planned. The Netflix MCU shows did that rather well.
It looks fine, nothing special. Hopefully it manages to be a decent time. You can definitely tell they know what they're playing with, due to all the spider-man references in it. That's going to get more people in the theater than the character himself.
From the studio that brough you . . . Venom. Wo hoo!
Anyway, not that interested in another origin story.
Anyway, not that interested in another origin story.
There are about as many signs it is as there are that it isn't.
Kevin Fiege announced the MCU slate here:
I don't see it on there.
Although to me it's less of a narrative question than it's a legal/contract question. Clearly it's in Sony's interests to present it like an MCU movie even though none of the creative team in charge of the MCU are involved in it's creation.
If it was a proper MCU movie, they would have the rights to Stark tower, the MCU suit, and probably even Tom Holland.
Note that Tom Holland very publicly said he didn't want to have to make Spider-man films for Sony without Marvel's involvement because he wants to stay in the MCU.
From this trailer you can see it's more quality-wise in line with Venom than any of the MCU movies.
True, but even then there are, like, a dozen other Spider-Girl/Woman characters they could have used.
Edit: I'm including Betty Brant just now because, holy cow, I just discovered there's a Betty Brant Spider-Girl and I'm howling.
No, Sony, no! Don't you dare try to trick people into thinking this is connected to the MCU!
Man, the trailer looks like Venom. Same lighting, same pacing, same shots. Siiiiiiiggggggggh.
Man, the trailer looks like Venom. Same lighting, same pacing, same shots. Siiiiiiiggggggggh.
This is silly. The film is clearly meant to be in the MCU. To argue that after the final scene of the trailer is nonsensical.
That doesn't mean it won't be ignored once the film bombs. But we have confirmation that this movie has Vulture -- after his appearance in Homecoming.
So are the Sam Raimi films MCU too?
Which other MCU films did not have Kevin Feige credited as a producer?
True, but even then there are, like, a dozen other Spider-Girl/Woman characters they could have used.
Edit: I'm including Betty Brant just now because, holy cow, I just discovered there's a Betty Brant Spider-Girl and I'm howling.
Silk, plz.
Top 5 Spider-Costume for me.
No, obviously not. Using that costume in the poster is hilariously stupid/lazy.
But that isn't a valid counter-argument against the fact that Vulture from the MCU is in the trailer and it's set after Homecoming.
You're pulling at straws to build a strange argument. This movie, as of now, is factually part of the MCU. They wouldn't have Vulture after he broke out of prison or whatever if it weren't.