Follow TV Tropes
Morbius has superhuman strength, speed, and durability, an accelerated healing factor, as well as the ability to fly and hypnotize people.
So the Daily Bugle logo they're using in Morbius reshoots is the one from the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy instead of the one used in the MCU....
I hemmed and hawed about sharing that with you guys last night, but backed out for fear I'd get in trouble for shaming Sony for the umpteenth time.
But now that it's brought up, yes, apparently Morbius is doing some extra filming and there's Daily Bugle ads asking where's Spider-Man. But the strange thing is, the ads use the Bugle logo from the Sam Raimi trilogy, not the one seen in FFH.
If I had to go out on a limb, I would assume Sony is refraining from using visual assets it has to share with Disney/Marvel because...I don't know. But if they really want to be MCU-adjacent, don't they kinda need to be consistent with what the MCU established beyond Spidey getting framed for murder/terrorism?
It just feels unprofessional...
Maybe those logos are owned by Marvel?
Or Sony just likes their logo better. Artistic pride is a thing.
I hope that I don't come off as trying to push you out of the forum but, Targetmaster Joe, are you genuinely interested in the subject of this forum?
I'm not trying to be pushy but considering your attitude ever since the initial split happened (and you just admitting that you constantly try to "shame" Sony), it's hard to escape the idea that you don't like Sony.
Now, you are well within your right to not like Sony. You are, also, well within your right to come forth with legitimate criticisms. However, your comments can sometimes come off as tinged with a shade of vindictiveness.
And, well, it's that seeming vindictiveness that gets me to ask: are you interested in the subject of this forum?
Edited by fredhot16 on Feb 9th 2020 at 6:10:56 AM
After much consideration, I guess, ultimately, I don't have anything against Sony. And I understand that financial performance is important.
I just wish Sony doesn't forsake the critical ingredients to a good movie: that being a strong script and strong characters.
It seems Sony prioritizes the financial outcome to the point that it may diminish the artistic aspect of filmmaking.
How, exactly, have they done so?
Example: Amazing Spider-Man 2. That was basically "We want an entire Cinematic Universe, but we don't want to go through all of the work" (before even DC did it).
Nowadays, they are at least trying to set up a more natural Cinematic Universe of soley Spider-Man characters, starting with Venom and then Morbius, but a lot of that will depend on whether or not they get good writers, directors, and actors. Venom worked, I think, primarily because Tom Hardy can make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but Jared Leto...eh, we'll see.
If they get back Drew Goddard to do Sinister Six, that would be amazing.
Edited by alliterator on Feb 9th 2020 at 7:13:12 AM
Another example- the Original Sam Raimi Trilogy, Sony was pushing the actors and the crew HARD, the first one made a billion at the box office and they wanted to crank out Spiderman movies like penny candy for that sweet, sweet box office gold.
They lost the original team BECAUSE of the breakneck schedule, Sam and Co were promised a multi year break after Spiderman 3, but then almost as soon as they wrapped and started post Sony started trying to get everybody to sign on for the 4th and start pre-production within 6 months!
Its now believed that is why the 2nd Spiderman trilogy fell apart again they wanted a breakneck schedule and started putting even MORE films on the schedule before clearing it with the actors.
Sony wants the cake and to eat it too, it wants its own little corner of the Marvel Universe to do whatever they want in...yet they ALSO want to be 'connected' to the broader MCU and all the sweet box office gold that will also bring in. They want there own verse yet also be able to say "We are part of the MCU!" without...you know actually paying the Mouse more than they have to.
IIRC, part of the reason Sony's cranking out Spider-Man movies is because if they stop for a certain amount of time, the film rights will revert back to Marvel. And Spider-Man is one of their best-selling properties, so there's incentive to keep making those films.
Of course there are problems when you view franchises like that, but that is a factor in a lot of the creative decisions Sony's taken with their Marvel properties. They can't afford to take a break, or else they'll lose the license.
Edited by chasemaddigan on Feb 10th 2020 at 11:55:29 AM
The rights revert if they fail to release a movie every 5 years and 9 months, there is no reason why they need to rush out a new film every 18 months to two years. All THAT does is exhaust the production team to the point of burn out and flooding the market with poorly made content.
They could have easily taken a year or so off between Spiderman 3 before starting Spiderman 4. 5 years is PLENTLY of time to release a movie to retain the rights.
Sony has an untitled Marvel movie coming in the fall of next year that isn't MCU!Spider-Man 3.
Any guesses on what it could be?
Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Feb 11th 2020 at 11:15:14 AM
Spitballing here but maybe a Doc Ock film, since they want that Sinister Six movie so bad.
Could probably do something by making Ock, like, the victim of sabotage or negligence or something. Maybe pit him against the Roxxon Corporation.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 11th 2020 at 9:23:19 AM
There were rumors of a Kraven film, so it might be that. But I guess it all depends on who the villain is for the next film.
Doc Ock is Spider-Man's most recognizable villain, but you know what would be interesting? A Green Goblin movie. Just have a Villain Protagonist.
Or, eh, it's a Sinister Six movie.
Actually, now it looks like they might be making a Spider-Woman film with Jessica Drew.
Now that is exciting, because it's a film that actually doesn't need Peter Parker in it. But I'm wondering how much they can reference from the comics — because she has worked for Hydra in the comics — or if they are going to try and do a completely original origin. After all, Spider-Woman's origin in the comics is super complicated and most people don't know it either.
Except the deal arranged it so that only Disney/Marvel can use the Jessica Drew name and the HYDRA backstory while Sony can use the Spider-Woman name and costume...
Not being able to use the Jessica Drew name is like not being able to use Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne as the names of Superman and Batman.
Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Feb 11th 2020 at 11:31:45 AM
Man, that copyright mess really screwed her over. Pity. It would have been nice to see her in a Cap Marvel movie.
This is sourced to some dude's Patreon post. And the basis for it is that Sony hasn't said they're not making a Spider-Woman movie.
This is rumor-mongering. Nothing more.
The Spider-Woman stuff? Yeah, probably.
But Sony is arranging to have a Marvel movie on October 2021. That's not a rumor.
Anyone thinking Sony is pushing too much, too soon?
Okay, I think you got me there.
Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Feb 11th 2020 at 11:47:33 AM
Yep. Sony can use Jessica's costume, hero alias, and Spider-themed powers.
Marvel can use Jessica's backstory and role as an Avenger and x-tuple S.H.I.E.L.D./Hydra agent.
What's not entirely clear is who gets Jessica's ability to fly, shoot Dragon Ball ki blasts, and mesmerize people with pheromones, none of which are Spider-Man powers.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 11th 2020 at 10:10:45 AM
...since when could she use Dragon Ball ki blasts?!
They are called "venom blasts," but are more like electrical bursts. Miles has them, too.
Edited by alliterator on Feb 11th 2020 at 9:19:23 AM
It could also be that Spider-Women animated spin-off they originally announced. It doesn't specify wether it's live action or animated.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?