-
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
What is your explanation for why Sony didn't include the scenes they shot with Tom Holland in Venom? Why were there no Spider-Man posters in Venom?
Of course the stuff that they have contractually agreed with marvel to not include in their films won't be present in the trailer. Because they have agreed to not include them in the film...
I dunno why they didn't use it. It wasn't because Marvel or Disney had any ability to stop them. Sony can use Spider-Man whenever they want. They don't need Marvel's permission.
They do need Marvel's permission if they signed a contract agreeing to ask Marvel's permission.
? They make plenty of good movies. They also make plenty of bad movies. I think they are best described as inconsistent. They do hit a home run from time to time.
"Marvel reportedly asked Sony to cut Tom Holland's Peter Parker/Spider-Man cameo from Venom "
I always thought asking was different than forcing. TIL.
Your forgetting the fact that the original deal between Sony and Marvel Studios was that the Spider-Man characters that were part of the MCU stayed in the MCU.
Yes, Sony owns the movie rights to them, yes, Sony owns distribution rights to Marvel Studios Spider-Man movies, but Sony couldn't just use Marvel Studios characters outside of their Universe even if they're part of the Spider-Man family.
Why do you think there was no mention of Spider-Man in Venom? Sony tried to jump that loophole by "hinting" at something Spider-Man related during marketing.
I dunno if you read beyond the headline so I'll quote the pertinent part:
Typically corporations use contracts to agree these kinds of multi-million dollar deals.
The Tom Holland spider-man isn't a marvel character. His character's been licensed to Marvel for use in their films. What makes you think Sony can't use property and IP they own in any movie they want? Marvel Studios doesn't own any of the Spider-Man ip, they can't force Sony to do anything.
I mean, the part I quoted wasn't the headline....
There might be some limitations though. Just like Marvel Comics isn't able to use Leopardon freely or Raimi's Spider-Man; those co-own stuff.
It seems to me the actual Holland's Spider-Man costume is in a grey area of co-ownership like Spider-Ham or Jessica Drew, since they couldn't depict it in the trailer.
Is Morbius a popular character?
I'm not a big comicbook guy, but I don't think I've ever heard of Morbius.
I'm not a big comicbook guy, but I don't think I've ever heard of Morbius.
"I'll tell you the truth: Tom Holland did film a scene for Venom… Marvel saw the movie and was like 'Take him out. Take this scene out.' Peter Parker was in Venom, not Spider-Man."
I always use "was like" when I'm directly quoting someone. I'm sure that's a word for word recreation of what Fiege said, before slamming the phone down.
Followup question: who's Jay Washington? I did a search, and the guy in IMDB doesn't seem to have had anything to do with Venom, so I'm not sure where he got his information.
Yeah, checked the venom credits, no Jay Washington. So why would he know?
He hosts a film podcast, and is connected with a bunch of movie people. He didn't reveal his source, presumably because he didn't want them to get fired.
Are you saying that if something is paraphrased it is a lie?
Um, well, unsourced claims are worthless. And I'm not saying it's a lie, just that I don't think I'd use a paraphrase to prove a point.
No, he's like Firestar. As in a character that is mainly known for a cartoon series, and it's written mainly for team-ups (In the case of Morbius, sometimes when they deal with monsters he's the token vampire, like in the Frankencastle storyline).
Elsa Bloodstone has been more relevant / popular than Morbius in the last decade, and that's saying something.
Occam's razor applies.
What is your theory for why Tom Holland or Spider-Man, or even Tom Holland Spider-Man did not appear in Venom?
My theory? Marvel asked, and Sony decided to play nice, and didn't include it. Not that Marvel forced them, and that now Sony's some how negotiated the rights away from Marvel to a character they already had the rights to. What's your theory about why Marvel has the rights to Spider-Man?
As far as popular vampires in Marvel, he's behind Blade. Proximity to Spider-Man sure helps.
But to justify his own movie? No.
Is this leads up to Spider-Man turning into a real Spider, Morbius being hunted by Kraven, Connor helping Spider-Man with his situation and add in Punisher in the mix.
I'm in.
I'm in.
My theory is that multimillion dollar agreements between corporations are governed by contracts, and when those contracts are renegotiated those terms can change. As is evidenced by the change in outcome since the renegotiation.
Could someone please splice this and the Venom trailers together? I feel like they would mesh well.
I'm more distracted by the Raimi costume in that poster. The implications of that has me a bit hyped but I won't get crazy with theories.
So, you think Sony negotiated the rights of Spider-Man to Marvel, and then used Venom to get them back?
Marvel and Sony agreed a contract regarding use of ip and financial stuff.
This contract was renegotiated recently.
The renegotiation is likely why the spider-man poster is in Morbius.
Because prior to the renegotiation Sony had contractually agreed to not do things along those lines. Hence no Spider-Man in Venom.
Depends on the definition of popular. I would say he's likely most recognizable to Spider-Man fans, and even then that's probably because of the cartoon. He's had his own comic several times and is one of the more famous "monster" characters in Marvel, but that's not a famous pool in general.
He's not solo movie famous.
Don't get excited over any implications.
That was used for one of the following reasons:
- Incompetence.
- Somehow not being able to use the MCU Spider-Man costume but they still want this to be in the MCU.
- Placeholder.
Vulture at the end makes it clear that this is meant to be in the MCU.
If they were contractually obligated not to use Spider-Man, why would they go to the expense of filming a scene using him in Venom?
Because the contract likely said something like "can use Spider-Man/Peter Parker/Tom Holland, pending final approval from Marvel". Then Marvel saw the film and did not give final approval.
This is the simplest explaination for how things played out.
Oh,we can just make stuff up now? I guess the discussion's done if we're just going to include fanfiction. Thanks for the chat.
Yeah your theory that Sony didn't use the incredibly valuable Spider-Man ip (outside of Venom etc) in Venom was just to be nice to Marvel rather than out of a contractual obligation.
And the contract between Sony and Marvel didn't have any terms explicitly spelled out, because I'm sure neither of those massive corporations have lawyers to oversee multi-million dollar partnerships, and just do things on handshake agreements.
And the tense, public, renegotiation concluded with "lets just renew the deal and not change anything".
And it is just a coincidence that Sony are doing different things with the highly valuable Spider-Man ip after the renegotiations concluded...
I didn't forget anything.
I don't understand why this is happening. Disney doesn't need this anymore than they need Spider-Man. If this was required to keep using him, they should've told Sony good luck and godspeed.
A lot of people are confused so I made a Venn diagram.
What this essentially means is that the Spider-Man movies (Homecoming, Far From Home) are canonical to both Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Sony Spider-Verse. This includes all characters involved. This was also confirmed in a joint statement from Sony and Marvel when they confirmed the third Spider-Man film.
Aside from the Spider-Man movies, what happens in the Spider-Verse films should not affect the MCU movies and vice versa.
What this essentially means is that the Spider-Man movies (Homecoming, Far From Home) are canonical to both Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Sony Spider-Verse. This includes all characters involved. This was also confirmed in a joint statement from Sony and Marvel when they confirmed the third Spider-Man film.
Kevin Feige said:
Aside from the Spider-Man movies, what happens in the Spider-Verse films should not affect the MCU movies and vice versa.
I bet Blade's vampires will be the kind of Marvel vampires, as in descendants of Vernae and all the Chton scrolls stuff
Morbius probably will feature regular vampires. (Or some kind of experiment gone wrong / science-made vampires)
A lot of people are confused so I made a Venn diagram.
What this essentially means is that the Spider-Man movies (Homecoming, Far From Home) are canonical to both Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Sony Spider-Verse. This includes all characters involved. This was also confirmed in a joint statement from Sony and Marvel when they confirmed the third Spider-Man film.
Aside from the Spider-Man movies, what happens in the Spider-Verse films should not affect the MCU movies and vice versa.
That helped a lot, actually.
I definitely knew of Morbius when I was a kid, although then again I was a huge spider-man fan. He wasn't my favorite villain but he wasn't that bad either. I disagree with the poster saying that he's on the same level of firestar but he's not exactly A list either. Although neither was Iron Man before that movie came out so who knows.
