Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters

(*tugs his shirt collar nervously*)

I mean, when you put it like that, it kinda makes MCU loyalists look like the bad guys...

I just don't like how Sony is exploiting how some people are not as informed as others that Marvel movies by Sony aren't sanctioned by Marvel Studios or Kevin Feige.

Plus, there was that whole scare about losing Spider-Man in the MCU. Yeah, it only lasted a month. Yeah, both sides had a point. Yeah, everyone agrees that Sony would be crazy/stupid to pull that stunt again.

But what if they try it again now that they have two SUMC movies coming this year? Especially now that Venom 2 is looking to have a Spidey cameo?

(Really though, Sony probably won't do it again, I just need someone to reassure me that they won't.)

Yes, this we can all agree on.

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Aug 2nd 2021 at 11:24:22 AM

Like it or not, Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man. They have every right to make Spider-Man movies.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

I'm just salty because characters like Nightwatch (a no name character who was part of the Spawn fad), Madame Web (never had a ongoing series), or Jackpot (less than 12 appearances in comics) somehow are getting movies when Anya Corazon is like right there.

I find Anya Corazon extremely odd. Not as a character. As a character I think she's great. It's just that her original story, in spite of taking place in New York City, having a spider-society and ending with her having spider-powers, it doesn't mention Spider-Man once. Which I just found odd. You'd think a spider-society would be interested in Spider-man.

Edited by jjjj2 on Jan 9th 2020 at 8:47:13 AM

You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the mid

Is the fact that her origin never mentions Spider-Man that she's perfect for her own film franchise in the Spider-Man-less Spider-Man Cinematic Universe.

As for why Spider-Man wants nothing to do with the Spider Socierty, Ezekiel was their former head, and he and Peter, um, didn't get along, let's just leave it like that. That said, Spider-Man does participate in the final battle against the Sisterhood of the Wasps when Anya was hesitant of going.

As a whole, the Spider Society was always a shady organization. Peter didn't trust them and Anya leaves them because of that too.

Wait a minute. A Madame Web movie! How would that movie work?

Edited by Bullman on Jan 9th 2020 at 8:30:26 AM

Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread

I assume they'll be using the Julia Carpenter version of Madame Web.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

The trailer for Morbius is coming Monday January 13, 2020 at 6am PST / 9am EST.

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Jan 10th 2020 at 2:27:46 PM

Hate to bump, but we got a leak of Jared Leto as the Living Vampire himself.

That does look pretty comics-accurate but frankly it's a film I'm really not that hyped about.

"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."

I'm not hyped about it either.

Again, because I can sort of look beyond the looking glass and see that this is Sony trying to mooch off of the MCU with a faithful appearance but a lacking execution.

With Venom, it worked because EVERYONE knew him as one of Spider-Man's biggest enemies and they wanted a proper Venom movie after Spider-Man 3 left much to be desired. An iconic character equals buzz.

Say what you will about Guardians of the Galaxy having a no-name status before the movie, but Marvel Studios was already going pretty strong that people were willing to give it a shot, ergo, buzz.

With Morbius however, there's no buzz. At all. Only hardcore comic nerds knew who he really is and how he was at odds with Spidey, but not much beyond that. Sony didn't really do much in the way of giving buzz for him beyond letting the lead actor post some cryptic junk on social media. And even then, the lead actor is already notorious for being a real-life creep.

How much of a creep?

He has a freaking cult.

That alone should raise red flags.

EDIT: In case tweet gets deleted, go here.

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Jan 11th 2020 at 10:45:04 AM

I’m glad he’s a grotesque vampire. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen one of those.

It's been 3000 years…

See, spiteful doom-saying like that is why I was going to see the movie, even when I didn’t know about who Morbius was.

Edited by fredhot16 on Jan 11th 2020 at 9:22:55 AM

Trans rights are human rights. TV Tropes is not a place for bigotry, cruelty, or dickishness, no matter who or their position.

Whelp! My instincts were proven right because the tweet I shared five posts ago got deleted. Fortunately, I was smart enough to save it and post the screenshot elsewhere.

I kinda thought Sony allowed the leak to happen to drum up attention, but it probably wasn't the case.

Anyway, after a lot of mulling, I guess I treat execution as if it's the only thing that matters and if Morbius really is what bridges the SUMC with the MCU, then I just hope they execute it well And the audience likes it for what it is. Sorry for jumping the gun yet again. What will be will be.

Fred, I really hope you enjoy the science vampire movie. (And yeah, "science vampire" admittedly sounds cool to say.)

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Jan 11th 2020 at 1:33:10 PM

But see, then you are seeing it out of spite, rather than not seeing it out of spite. You are still doing something out of spite, rather than, you know, seeing it because it looks good or something.

Edited by alliterator on Jan 11th 2020 at 10:48:14 AM

I did say “was”.

Edit: How do I put this? Going against a thing because everybody likes it is less acceptable because it cuts you off from a new experience that you might have enjoyed otherwise. Plus, there's no good way to go "I don't like it because people that like it are annoying". In apropos of nothing, anybody like Undertale?

Going for a thing because people are trying to say that it won't be good opens you up to a new experience that you might not have gone for initially. It's a sort of "O.K, it can't be that bad" reaction. Got to see it for yourself.

Not a justification, mind you.

Edited by fredhot16 on Jan 11th 2020 at 12:22:22 PM

Trans rights are human rights. TV Tropes is not a place for bigotry, cruelty, or dickishness, no matter who or their position.

I'm not going to see it because even though I had actually heard of the character I don't find him at all interesting, nor do I find anything I've heard thus far convincing me that will change. I wasn't going to see Venom but friends who have similar tastes to me sold it to me as campy sort of fun, so I did. That might happen again.

The allegations and talk about the main actor is just noise as far as I'm concerned, Leto does sound pretty skeevy but it's pretty much irrelevant to me in a film I don't care about anyway.

"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."

I'll most likely just wait until it hits home release and I can find a low-cost method of watching it.

Self-serious autistic metalhead who goes by any pronouns. (avvie template source)

I understand, but TargetmasterJoe wasn't asking people not to see the film because they thought it was bad; they wrote how they were not very hyped for the film because they distrust Sony and dislike Jared Leto. And this is valid, too; there are films that I won't see because they are made by filmmakers that I dislike (I refuse to watch any more Roman Polanski or Woody Allen films) even though they get good reviews. They aren't saying "don't watch this, it's bad," they are saying "I'm not going to watch this and these are my reasons."

I'm not particularly interested in Morbius because Venom at best sounds like it was a So Bad, It's Good movie, which doesn't bode well when I didn't have a lot of confidence in Sony's direction to begin with.

In regards to the whole Marvel studios thing it's a double edged sword for me. On one hand Marvel films are rarely actively bad or at least have some elements that make them fun and watchable even if it's one of the weaker entries, but on the other hand I find it rare that they outright blow me away either. So I get why people would want Marvel to have control of these characters and the direction (even if wanting the films to fail might be a bit much), but I wouldn't mind Sony making films if they managed to offer something appreciably good, different and worthwhile. However I don't think they will do that.

And beyond that while Jared Leto has proven that he can be a good actor, I do find him to be a creep and that alone kinda shoots a lot of the enthusiasm by itself.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Jan 11th 2020 at 9:47:52 AM

Called JJJ being used in the marketing! It was obvious, though :p

And yep, completely expected some Spider-Man references too.

At this point, if it’s good, it’s good. If not, no big loss. I’m for anything that gives JK Simmons work though.

Yeah, in a way is the big con and prop of marvel: they are reliable but at the same time bland.

On the other hand I dont know if marvel will or want to use "dark" and edgy chararter like venom or morbius.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Wait. Back up. So, it's basically what was going on with the MCU and the Netflix shows? Namely, the MCU will affect the SUMC movies, but the bigger MCU won't necessarily be inclined to reference the SUMC movies outside of the Spider-Man movies?

...

Okay, I am actually super torn about this.

Part of me REALLY likes this (or at least wants to like it), but at the same time, I REALLY don't know if Sony can pull this off without some approval or verification from Marvel Studios...

I mean, what if Marvel wants to use Spidey characters like Norman Osborn? Is it still too early to think about that kind of scenario?

(I ask because there's some rumor that an MCU character hinted at since Ant-Man & The Wasp known as "The Benefactor" could be a toss-up between Osborn or Doctor Doom.)

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Jan 11th 2020 at 12:26:08 PM

Using JJJ as the Nick Fury of the SUMC is a pretty good idea, actually. You can connect the things through the appearances of JJJ — because he doesn't actually have to physically be there to make an appearance, he can make one through TV, radio, or internet.

I wonder if Sony wants to make an actual plan like Marvel had with their phases. JJJ connects the films with Far From Home (and thus the MCU), but there is a villain that can do it better: Norman Osborn. Having Norman scheming in the background of several films (and perhaps even showing up in non-Sony MCU films) and then have him as the main villain of a Spider-Man film? Or really just leave him as the Bigger Bad of the entire SUMC.