This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Should this have it's name changed to Morbius (2020 film)? ARZ100 ( talk) 19:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: @ TriiipleThreat: I am wondering in regards to the websites The GWW and HNEntertainment’s reliability status amongst other editors. I’ve personally generally found them fairly consistently reliable, even being the breakers of some news. Rusted AutoParts 15:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
https://geektyrant.com/news/new-spoiler-details-on-how-mcus-spider-man-fits-into-morbius and https://www.reddit.com/r/MarvelStudiosSpoilers/comments/f21jlx/morbius_full_plot_leak/
What does anyone here make of the MORBIUS plot leak? You think it's legit? Cineplex ( talk) 00:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
It's one thing to say that this, Venom, and Sony's Marvel Universe as a whole to be adjunct to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but saying this new universe started with Spider-Man: Homecoming is a LIE! Venom kicked off Sony's MU, so please, no more undoing my edits and adding crap saying it's connected to Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home. Thank You! - Cineplex ( talk) 07:37 PM - March 28, 2019 (UTC)
It’s not OFFICIALLY confirmed that the MCU and Sony’s MU are connected to each other as Kevin Feige continues to deny these rumors. Also, Sony is somewhat hoping for Tom Holland’s Spider-Man to appear in future SMU films, but that doesn’t mean that it’ll actually happen. It’s just a confusing pipe dream of theirs. If the Spider-Man used in the SMU is confirmed to NOT be Tom Holland, then this MCU connection should disappear. Am I right? Cineplex ( talk) 04:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Considering that Micheal Keaton appears in the latest trailer, we might want to revisit this. - Richiekim ( talk) 17:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I am bringing this to the conversation. Deadline, who is one of the very most reliable sources has stated that Keaton is reprising his role as Adrian Toomes/Vulture. They aren't speculating, nor saying anything along the lines of 'this appears to be'.... they state the fact. This should be reason enough to include the fact that he is playing Toomes, and to state the fact that he is reprising his role from Spider-Man: Homecoming. Those are the two facts that we have, and they need to be stated. The article I refer to, can be read here.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 04:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe the most likely scenario here is that this film is not connected to the MCU from Feige's perspective, but it can make references to Sony's Spider-Man films and they are going to do that to make it appear connected. I think the Deadline source is fine to use as confirmation that he is reprising his role, but we shouldn't be calling this an MCU film. - adamstom97 ( talk) 19:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Deadline's casting news articles are usually from industry sources. Trailer reaction articles are using the same primary source we rejected as not good enough. When they first make the Vulture claim, they're literally reacting to the surprising moments in the trailer. They say The most intriguing and unexpected element of the teaser: Michael Keaton pops up in the preview reprising...
. And the first IGN article says the very end of the trailer also reveals that Michael Keaton is part of the Morbius cast, presumably reprising his role...
. After that, it becomes the case where something starts as speculation and gets repeated long enough until even those who started it start treating it as a fact, without any indication of new independent confirmation.
Starforce13
19:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, Michael Keaton will appear in the film. He previously portrayed Adrian Toomes / Vulture in Sony's Marvel film Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), but has not been confirmed to be reprising that role.It points out Keaton's previous role as Vulture in MCU which is notable enough but without directly stating that he's reprising the role, until confirmed. So, unless otherwise, I think that's a consensus we can go with. So, let's keep it that way until we have real confirmation, one way or the other. Starforce13 22:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the trailer, the things that bother me the most when it comes to whether or not that this, Venom, and Sony's Marvel Universe are part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe include Tyrese Gibson adding #MCU and #Crossover to his MORBIUS trailer Instagram posts, the alleged plot leak posted by a Reddit user supposedly from a credible source who went to a MORBIUS test screening, and the fan art on Sony's fake Instagram account for the MCU's Flash Thompson. Plus, entertainment websites like Collider, IGN, Cinema Blend, MovieWeb, etc. keep assuming that Sony's Marvel movies are part of the MCU. Shouldn't people like Tom Rothman or Amy Pascal or even Kevin Feige from Marvel Studios be interviewed by now and comment directly? I sent Tom Rothman an e-mail last night about my predicament and I think you all should too to see where this goes! - Cineplex ( talk) 12:06 PM - February 20, 2020 (UTC)
A new piece from THR reiterates that Keaton will be reprising his role from Homecoming. My feeling is that this is not a new announcement and so is not necessarily a change from the existing information that the previous consensus was based on, but I thought I would bring it here to get other thoughts. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Blade is part of the MCU while Morbius is part of the SPUMC. Two very different universes. Just because Jared said there's "potential" to fight each other, doesn't mean it'll ever happen. If we keep nonsense like that on here, then it's like mind as well have Hugh Jackman's comments on "potential" of his Wolverine fighting The Hulk as a "Future" content in his last Wolverine movie. - Cody Fearless-Lee ( talk) 01:43 PM - March 25, 2021 (UTC)
I noticed an error here. Doctor is not mentioned here which is a little strange considering the fact that Morbius is a doctor. For MCU, Stephen Strange is written as 'Dr. Stephen Strange' but not here. Can you please clear it up? Seaweed Brain1993 ( talk) 10:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
THR clearly says, "The movie, starring Jared Leto, has set a new release date of April 1 amid the omicron surge", which Deadline for some strange reason does not mention. Yet why is THR's claim removed altogether? Is it factually incorrect? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@ TropicAces: Why do you think we should not include early reactions to the film? Do you not think they are noteworthy enough to be mentioned? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn’t use early review summaries when actual reviews are out. Early reactions are usually still held back by some restrictions/guidelines, plus one of the articles cited is fan reactions from the screening, so it’s irrelevant to critical response. TropicAces ( talk) 11:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's April 2. Change this sentence "and is scheduled to be released in the United States on April 1" in the lead into past tense, as above. 182.1.103.181 ( talk) 02:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure RT was making an intentional pun on Morbius's vampire/blood powers. Assuming it is intentional, it shouldn't have a [sic]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.236.160 ( talk) 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There may be an unnecessary 'the' in the Critical reception of the article. Specifically the sentence 'It ranks as the one of the worst-reviewed superhero movies on the site' should not have the first 'the'. This should bet changed by an established, registered editor. 90.139.88.55 ( talk) 14:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The source about the budget only says “some have even told me $83M”. The article doesn’t list a source to support the 83M remark, and the main budget websites have been listing is 75. I don’t know why 83 keeps getting put back. Zvig47 ( talk) 22:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There is an internet meme parodying about the Morbius reviews, which is called "#MorbiusSweep". Of course, the internet meme is satirical, and users keep editing the scores to a score over 100%, and examples of this meme including someone "inspect element-ing" the List of highest-grossing films article to let Morbius becoming the first place.
Examples linked: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/340/789/da5.png, https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/340/804/f87, https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/340/549/0c0. See https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/morbius-sweep for more information about this internet meme.
Is that appropriate to put this section into the article? Weareblahs ( talk) 10:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Opening this up to allow discussion between @ Toa Nidhiki05: and @ Earthh: on this sentence within the lead, with Toa objecting on including Leto considering sources sourced in the body. – SirDot ( talk) 17:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This took me like five minutes to find, and I can find more. Toa Nidhiki05 18:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Because this part of the lead section is so contentious, it seems like we have no choice but to be crystal-clear who said what. Rotten Tomatoes reports the critics' consensus as finding the film had "uninspired effects, rote performances, and a borderline nonsensical story". I don't know where "narrative" and "inconsistent tone" come from since neither seem paraphrased from "a borderline nonsensical story". As for mentioning Leto's and Smith's performances, we need to mention that it was these two news outlets that mentioned that some reviews liked their performances in context of their saying that the reviews were negative. If we need to go further and specifically name each news outlet and quote their words exactly in the lead section, we should. And everything should have inline citations supporting the text. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Draft:Highest grossing movie of all time and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 23#Draft:Highest grossing movie of all time until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 19:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The third par: “The film received negative reviews from critics who criticized it’s writing, visual effects, and especially it’s mid-credits scenes, although Leto and Smith's performances were commended.” Has the wrong use of ‘its’ twice. 92.24.240.140 ( talk) 10:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Is whole Morbius Sweep meme relevant enough to include in this article or anywhere else, it's gotten a ton of coverage. It could sit in the end of the reception area, adding to the negative portrayal since the meme was ironic. June Parker ( talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewer Jack Skyblue released a video elaborating and rebuttling the plot hole and continuity error criticism the mid-credits scene of Morbius has received. Here's the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlp4cC0whQk I suggest that his review should be added to the mid-credits of the "Critical Reception" section with his video being used as a reference. He brings up objective arguments making it worthy being added to this very section that discusses the mid-credits scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.117.16 ( talk) 06:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While checking on a hospitalized Bancroft, Morbius finds a dead nurse, drained of her blood.
That is incorrect, he was visiting the child Anna, NOT Bancroft. Ninja2020 ( talk) 17:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In prison, he is visited by Milo, who offers to use his wealth to free him.
Milo didn't offer to use his wealth to free him. He purposely left the blood bag and cane so Morbius would escape. Ninja2020 ( talk) 17:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to suggest a "see also" section, with links to the Morbius comic, for example. Erbeilas ( talk) 17:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"On other sites, such as Tumblr and Discord, the entire film was compressed into a tiny GIF file and widely spread" Remove the "and Discord" from this line as Discord is not mentioned in the reference as a platform on which the GIF file has been spread, nor in any other references that I can see. IcePage ( talk) 04:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The song Have Sex should be mentioned in the article as it was popularised by this film. 175.39.86.19 ( talk) 08:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Their adoptive father and hospital director Nicholas arranges for Morbius to attend medical school in New York while he focuses on caring for Milo." to "Hospital director Nicholas arranges for Morbius to attend medical school in New York while he focuses on caring for Milo." Nicholas is not Michael or Milo/Lucien's adoptive parent. While there is one line in which Milo/Lucien refers to Nicholas as "daddy" in the film, it is used in a mocking context and there is no other reference in the film to Nicholas adopting either Milo/Lucien or Michael. A search of existing articles about Morbius (2021) has also turned up no outside sources such as interviews or press releases that imply adoption, but if any have been overlooked and they do exist it might be best practice to cite one here. Greyscalewonder ( talk) 16:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change -> Morbius is a 2022 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, produced by Columbia Pictures in association with Marvel. to -> "it's morbin time" (enter) Morbius is a 2022 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, produced by Columbia Pictures in association with Marvel." Fellowmorbhead ( talk) 03:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Morbius in its re-release generated only 85,000$ on the opening night over 1,000 theaters; one of the lowest per theater revenue generated by a movie Jdoe2008 ( talk) 03:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
> Due to its lackluster box office performance and dour critical reception,
Should be "sour" instead of "dour".
This is the first sentence of the "Internet Memes" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1600:1EC0:1C8E:B994:D383:5A25 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
When the film was re-released on Friday, the film bombed AGAIN - grossing only $85K in 1000 theaters (here's my source for that: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2022/06/04/box-office-jared-leto-morbius-bombs-again-with-85000-friday/ ). I feel like this should be included in the article. Also, this may be the first film in history to bomb in cinemas twice lmao? I'm not sure if that's true and I'm not saying it is - but I cannot think of an instance where that's happened before. If someone can find sources verifying whether that's the case - and it is - then I think that should be included in the article as that seems historically significant to me lol. 92.10.13.209 ( talk) 21:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I landed on
an edit that corrected the "spelling mistake" of vein => vain. I then switched it around (
see this edit) with Rotten Tomatoes' original consensus. The comment is there to tell users not to "correct for spelling".
green@grenier ~$ sign --now
05:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The current percentage on 17 is in correct. It is currently sitting at a 16. I know it's not much of a difference in score but 16% is the correct score. TrevorP86 ( talk) 20:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
green@grenier ~$ sign --now
05:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Should the most recent edit about a change.org petition be kept? I personally think this article is far too in depth on memes that don't belong on Wikipedia Benjaminaventi ( talk) 10:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
green@grenier ~$ sign --now
23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Paul Tassi is a contributor at Forbes, where he writes about movies among other things [8]. He is currently quoted in this article in the critical response section. A user has attempted to remove the source per WP:FORBESCON which states more or less that Forbes "contributors" are to be treated as self-published sources unless they are subject-matter experts. I've undone this twice now, because 1) There is no indication Tassi is not a subject-matter expert on films and other media (he's cited in other articles across Wikipedia) and 2) Even if he were not a subject-matter expert, he's giving an opinion, which is allowed per WP:RSOPINION. -- Vaulter 21:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
some sourcesrefers to, but it doesn't, so this is up for interpretation. The only type of source mentioned is
opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers, but WP:NEWSBLOG states:
For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see § Self-published sources below.WP:FORBESCON says Forbes contributor pieces should be treated as self-published sources, which means they are not governed by WP:NEWSBLOG. By extension, WP:RSOPINION does not apply here. Notice that WP:RSPS mentions WP:RSOPINION multiple times, but not for Forbes contributors. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no indication Tassi is not a subject-matter expert on films and other media, the onus is on you to prove he is a subject-matter expert, not on the other party to prove that he isn't. — El Millo ( talk) 22:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Paul Tassi of Forbes said that Adrian Toomes' motivation made little sense and opined that "[a]ll of this seems... pretty poorly mapped out at the moment... It's more like [Sony] stole Toomes from the MCU rather than added Morbius to the MCU, which was more the original implication."With that in mind, I think focusing on reliability is approaching this from the wrong angle. Paul Tassi is self-evidently a WP:Reliable source for the opinions of Paul Tassi. In terms of reliability, it doesn't really matter where Tassi published their opinion—Twitter would be just as good as a top-tier source. The question to ask is whether this content is WP:DUE. Is Tassi's opinion representative of the majority opinion in the field? In that case, it may be appropriate to include it—but better sources expressing the same opinion would likely exist (there may however be other reasons to prefer using Tassi, such as brevity or clarity of phrasing). Is Tassi so central a figure in this field that their opinion is due even if it is not shared by the majority? In that case it would be appropriate to include it (but then Tassi would presumably also be a subject-matter expert). If the answer to both those questions is "no", there is one final question to ask: Does this content improve the article to such an extent that it would be warranted to make an exception per WP:IAR? TompaDompa ( talk) 00:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There should be no issue using any sources written by Tassi for Forbes. Per
WP:FORBESCON, contributor articles on Forbes are considered self-published and unreliable unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert
. Tassi qualifies because he is a Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic verified critic who has been writing for Forbes for more than 10 years. Even if we did consider his articles to be self-published, they would still be reliable sources because of who he is. Note that this is the same for Tassi's social media, it is self-published but can be used as a reliable source because he is verified (for example, see @PaulTassi on Twitter which has the verified tick next to his name). I haven't looked into the specific text at issue yet so can't comment on whether this specific source is actually needed, but discussion should be focused on the content and whether it needs to be in the article rather than whether the source is reliable. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
02:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.(bolding my own). This is not the case for Tassi as far as I know; a Google News search for his name while excluding Forbes.com failed to yield a large number of reliable sources citing his film reviews/analyses. An argument can be made that he is an SPS in video games, though. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Morbius (Film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Morbius (Film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The film has grossed $163,865,530 and not $164 million. [1] 2804:7F2:5A5:2BCE:39AA:D59C:68B8:D3B ( talk) 01:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
References
The quoted Rotten Tomatoes consensus currently uses a [sic] for the phrase "a vein attempt to make Morbius happen." Because the Morbius character is a vampire that bites into veins to consume blood, this is likely an intentional pun by the website's editors, so a [sic] is inappropriate. 24.29.199.34 ( talk) 14:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
[sic] makes no judgement on whether the use of the word "vein" is intentional or not. It's there to inform readers that it's inclusion on Wikipedia is intentional, and not a typo committed by a user. It should remain.by Jasca Ducato. — El Millo ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Should this have it's name changed to Morbius (2020 film)? ARZ100 ( talk) 19:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: @ TriiipleThreat: I am wondering in regards to the websites The GWW and HNEntertainment’s reliability status amongst other editors. I’ve personally generally found them fairly consistently reliable, even being the breakers of some news. Rusted AutoParts 15:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
https://geektyrant.com/news/new-spoiler-details-on-how-mcus-spider-man-fits-into-morbius and https://www.reddit.com/r/MarvelStudiosSpoilers/comments/f21jlx/morbius_full_plot_leak/
What does anyone here make of the MORBIUS plot leak? You think it's legit? Cineplex ( talk) 00:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
It's one thing to say that this, Venom, and Sony's Marvel Universe as a whole to be adjunct to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but saying this new universe started with Spider-Man: Homecoming is a LIE! Venom kicked off Sony's MU, so please, no more undoing my edits and adding crap saying it's connected to Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home. Thank You! - Cineplex ( talk) 07:37 PM - March 28, 2019 (UTC)
It’s not OFFICIALLY confirmed that the MCU and Sony’s MU are connected to each other as Kevin Feige continues to deny these rumors. Also, Sony is somewhat hoping for Tom Holland’s Spider-Man to appear in future SMU films, but that doesn’t mean that it’ll actually happen. It’s just a confusing pipe dream of theirs. If the Spider-Man used in the SMU is confirmed to NOT be Tom Holland, then this MCU connection should disappear. Am I right? Cineplex ( talk) 04:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Considering that Micheal Keaton appears in the latest trailer, we might want to revisit this. - Richiekim ( talk) 17:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I am bringing this to the conversation. Deadline, who is one of the very most reliable sources has stated that Keaton is reprising his role as Adrian Toomes/Vulture. They aren't speculating, nor saying anything along the lines of 'this appears to be'.... they state the fact. This should be reason enough to include the fact that he is playing Toomes, and to state the fact that he is reprising his role from Spider-Man: Homecoming. Those are the two facts that we have, and they need to be stated. The article I refer to, can be read here.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 04:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe the most likely scenario here is that this film is not connected to the MCU from Feige's perspective, but it can make references to Sony's Spider-Man films and they are going to do that to make it appear connected. I think the Deadline source is fine to use as confirmation that he is reprising his role, but we shouldn't be calling this an MCU film. - adamstom97 ( talk) 19:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Deadline's casting news articles are usually from industry sources. Trailer reaction articles are using the same primary source we rejected as not good enough. When they first make the Vulture claim, they're literally reacting to the surprising moments in the trailer. They say The most intriguing and unexpected element of the teaser: Michael Keaton pops up in the preview reprising...
. And the first IGN article says the very end of the trailer also reveals that Michael Keaton is part of the Morbius cast, presumably reprising his role...
. After that, it becomes the case where something starts as speculation and gets repeated long enough until even those who started it start treating it as a fact, without any indication of new independent confirmation.
Starforce13
19:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, Michael Keaton will appear in the film. He previously portrayed Adrian Toomes / Vulture in Sony's Marvel film Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), but has not been confirmed to be reprising that role.It points out Keaton's previous role as Vulture in MCU which is notable enough but without directly stating that he's reprising the role, until confirmed. So, unless otherwise, I think that's a consensus we can go with. So, let's keep it that way until we have real confirmation, one way or the other. Starforce13 22:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the trailer, the things that bother me the most when it comes to whether or not that this, Venom, and Sony's Marvel Universe are part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe include Tyrese Gibson adding #MCU and #Crossover to his MORBIUS trailer Instagram posts, the alleged plot leak posted by a Reddit user supposedly from a credible source who went to a MORBIUS test screening, and the fan art on Sony's fake Instagram account for the MCU's Flash Thompson. Plus, entertainment websites like Collider, IGN, Cinema Blend, MovieWeb, etc. keep assuming that Sony's Marvel movies are part of the MCU. Shouldn't people like Tom Rothman or Amy Pascal or even Kevin Feige from Marvel Studios be interviewed by now and comment directly? I sent Tom Rothman an e-mail last night about my predicament and I think you all should too to see where this goes! - Cineplex ( talk) 12:06 PM - February 20, 2020 (UTC)
A new piece from THR reiterates that Keaton will be reprising his role from Homecoming. My feeling is that this is not a new announcement and so is not necessarily a change from the existing information that the previous consensus was based on, but I thought I would bring it here to get other thoughts. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Blade is part of the MCU while Morbius is part of the SPUMC. Two very different universes. Just because Jared said there's "potential" to fight each other, doesn't mean it'll ever happen. If we keep nonsense like that on here, then it's like mind as well have Hugh Jackman's comments on "potential" of his Wolverine fighting The Hulk as a "Future" content in his last Wolverine movie. - Cody Fearless-Lee ( talk) 01:43 PM - March 25, 2021 (UTC)
I noticed an error here. Doctor is not mentioned here which is a little strange considering the fact that Morbius is a doctor. For MCU, Stephen Strange is written as 'Dr. Stephen Strange' but not here. Can you please clear it up? Seaweed Brain1993 ( talk) 10:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
THR clearly says, "The movie, starring Jared Leto, has set a new release date of April 1 amid the omicron surge", which Deadline for some strange reason does not mention. Yet why is THR's claim removed altogether? Is it factually incorrect? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@ TropicAces: Why do you think we should not include early reactions to the film? Do you not think they are noteworthy enough to be mentioned? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn’t use early review summaries when actual reviews are out. Early reactions are usually still held back by some restrictions/guidelines, plus one of the articles cited is fan reactions from the screening, so it’s irrelevant to critical response. TropicAces ( talk) 11:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's April 2. Change this sentence "and is scheduled to be released in the United States on April 1" in the lead into past tense, as above. 182.1.103.181 ( talk) 02:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure RT was making an intentional pun on Morbius's vampire/blood powers. Assuming it is intentional, it shouldn't have a [sic]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.236.160 ( talk) 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There may be an unnecessary 'the' in the Critical reception of the article. Specifically the sentence 'It ranks as the one of the worst-reviewed superhero movies on the site' should not have the first 'the'. This should bet changed by an established, registered editor. 90.139.88.55 ( talk) 14:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The source about the budget only says “some have even told me $83M”. The article doesn’t list a source to support the 83M remark, and the main budget websites have been listing is 75. I don’t know why 83 keeps getting put back. Zvig47 ( talk) 22:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There is an internet meme parodying about the Morbius reviews, which is called "#MorbiusSweep". Of course, the internet meme is satirical, and users keep editing the scores to a score over 100%, and examples of this meme including someone "inspect element-ing" the List of highest-grossing films article to let Morbius becoming the first place.
Examples linked: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/340/789/da5.png, https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/340/804/f87, https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/340/549/0c0. See https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/morbius-sweep for more information about this internet meme.
Is that appropriate to put this section into the article? Weareblahs ( talk) 10:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Opening this up to allow discussion between @ Toa Nidhiki05: and @ Earthh: on this sentence within the lead, with Toa objecting on including Leto considering sources sourced in the body. – SirDot ( talk) 17:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This took me like five minutes to find, and I can find more. Toa Nidhiki05 18:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Because this part of the lead section is so contentious, it seems like we have no choice but to be crystal-clear who said what. Rotten Tomatoes reports the critics' consensus as finding the film had "uninspired effects, rote performances, and a borderline nonsensical story". I don't know where "narrative" and "inconsistent tone" come from since neither seem paraphrased from "a borderline nonsensical story". As for mentioning Leto's and Smith's performances, we need to mention that it was these two news outlets that mentioned that some reviews liked their performances in context of their saying that the reviews were negative. If we need to go further and specifically name each news outlet and quote their words exactly in the lead section, we should. And everything should have inline citations supporting the text. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Draft:Highest grossing movie of all time and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 23#Draft:Highest grossing movie of all time until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 19:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The third par: “The film received negative reviews from critics who criticized it’s writing, visual effects, and especially it’s mid-credits scenes, although Leto and Smith's performances were commended.” Has the wrong use of ‘its’ twice. 92.24.240.140 ( talk) 10:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Is whole Morbius Sweep meme relevant enough to include in this article or anywhere else, it's gotten a ton of coverage. It could sit in the end of the reception area, adding to the negative portrayal since the meme was ironic. June Parker ( talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Reviewer Jack Skyblue released a video elaborating and rebuttling the plot hole and continuity error criticism the mid-credits scene of Morbius has received. Here's the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlp4cC0whQk I suggest that his review should be added to the mid-credits of the "Critical Reception" section with his video being used as a reference. He brings up objective arguments making it worthy being added to this very section that discusses the mid-credits scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.117.16 ( talk) 06:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While checking on a hospitalized Bancroft, Morbius finds a dead nurse, drained of her blood.
That is incorrect, he was visiting the child Anna, NOT Bancroft. Ninja2020 ( talk) 17:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In prison, he is visited by Milo, who offers to use his wealth to free him.
Milo didn't offer to use his wealth to free him. He purposely left the blood bag and cane so Morbius would escape. Ninja2020 ( talk) 17:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to suggest a "see also" section, with links to the Morbius comic, for example. Erbeilas ( talk) 17:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"On other sites, such as Tumblr and Discord, the entire film was compressed into a tiny GIF file and widely spread" Remove the "and Discord" from this line as Discord is not mentioned in the reference as a platform on which the GIF file has been spread, nor in any other references that I can see. IcePage ( talk) 04:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The song Have Sex should be mentioned in the article as it was popularised by this film. 175.39.86.19 ( talk) 08:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Their adoptive father and hospital director Nicholas arranges for Morbius to attend medical school in New York while he focuses on caring for Milo." to "Hospital director Nicholas arranges for Morbius to attend medical school in New York while he focuses on caring for Milo." Nicholas is not Michael or Milo/Lucien's adoptive parent. While there is one line in which Milo/Lucien refers to Nicholas as "daddy" in the film, it is used in a mocking context and there is no other reference in the film to Nicholas adopting either Milo/Lucien or Michael. A search of existing articles about Morbius (2021) has also turned up no outside sources such as interviews or press releases that imply adoption, but if any have been overlooked and they do exist it might be best practice to cite one here. Greyscalewonder ( talk) 16:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change -> Morbius is a 2022 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, produced by Columbia Pictures in association with Marvel. to -> "it's morbin time" (enter) Morbius is a 2022 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, produced by Columbia Pictures in association with Marvel." Fellowmorbhead ( talk) 03:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Morbius in its re-release generated only 85,000$ on the opening night over 1,000 theaters; one of the lowest per theater revenue generated by a movie Jdoe2008 ( talk) 03:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
> Due to its lackluster box office performance and dour critical reception,
Should be "sour" instead of "dour".
This is the first sentence of the "Internet Memes" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1600:1EC0:1C8E:B994:D383:5A25 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
When the film was re-released on Friday, the film bombed AGAIN - grossing only $85K in 1000 theaters (here's my source for that: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2022/06/04/box-office-jared-leto-morbius-bombs-again-with-85000-friday/ ). I feel like this should be included in the article. Also, this may be the first film in history to bomb in cinemas twice lmao? I'm not sure if that's true and I'm not saying it is - but I cannot think of an instance where that's happened before. If someone can find sources verifying whether that's the case - and it is - then I think that should be included in the article as that seems historically significant to me lol. 92.10.13.209 ( talk) 21:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I landed on
an edit that corrected the "spelling mistake" of vein => vain. I then switched it around (
see this edit) with Rotten Tomatoes' original consensus. The comment is there to tell users not to "correct for spelling".
green@grenier ~$ sign --now
05:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The current percentage on 17 is in correct. It is currently sitting at a 16. I know it's not much of a difference in score but 16% is the correct score. TrevorP86 ( talk) 20:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
green@grenier ~$ sign --now
05:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Should the most recent edit about a change.org petition be kept? I personally think this article is far too in depth on memes that don't belong on Wikipedia Benjaminaventi ( talk) 10:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
green@grenier ~$ sign --now
23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Paul Tassi is a contributor at Forbes, where he writes about movies among other things [8]. He is currently quoted in this article in the critical response section. A user has attempted to remove the source per WP:FORBESCON which states more or less that Forbes "contributors" are to be treated as self-published sources unless they are subject-matter experts. I've undone this twice now, because 1) There is no indication Tassi is not a subject-matter expert on films and other media (he's cited in other articles across Wikipedia) and 2) Even if he were not a subject-matter expert, he's giving an opinion, which is allowed per WP:RSOPINION. -- Vaulter 21:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
some sourcesrefers to, but it doesn't, so this is up for interpretation. The only type of source mentioned is
opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers, but WP:NEWSBLOG states:
For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see § Self-published sources below.WP:FORBESCON says Forbes contributor pieces should be treated as self-published sources, which means they are not governed by WP:NEWSBLOG. By extension, WP:RSOPINION does not apply here. Notice that WP:RSPS mentions WP:RSOPINION multiple times, but not for Forbes contributors. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no indication Tassi is not a subject-matter expert on films and other media, the onus is on you to prove he is a subject-matter expert, not on the other party to prove that he isn't. — El Millo ( talk) 22:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Paul Tassi of Forbes said that Adrian Toomes' motivation made little sense and opined that "[a]ll of this seems... pretty poorly mapped out at the moment... It's more like [Sony] stole Toomes from the MCU rather than added Morbius to the MCU, which was more the original implication."With that in mind, I think focusing on reliability is approaching this from the wrong angle. Paul Tassi is self-evidently a WP:Reliable source for the opinions of Paul Tassi. In terms of reliability, it doesn't really matter where Tassi published their opinion—Twitter would be just as good as a top-tier source. The question to ask is whether this content is WP:DUE. Is Tassi's opinion representative of the majority opinion in the field? In that case, it may be appropriate to include it—but better sources expressing the same opinion would likely exist (there may however be other reasons to prefer using Tassi, such as brevity or clarity of phrasing). Is Tassi so central a figure in this field that their opinion is due even if it is not shared by the majority? In that case it would be appropriate to include it (but then Tassi would presumably also be a subject-matter expert). If the answer to both those questions is "no", there is one final question to ask: Does this content improve the article to such an extent that it would be warranted to make an exception per WP:IAR? TompaDompa ( talk) 00:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There should be no issue using any sources written by Tassi for Forbes. Per
WP:FORBESCON, contributor articles on Forbes are considered self-published and unreliable unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert
. Tassi qualifies because he is a Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic verified critic who has been writing for Forbes for more than 10 years. Even if we did consider his articles to be self-published, they would still be reliable sources because of who he is. Note that this is the same for Tassi's social media, it is self-published but can be used as a reliable source because he is verified (for example, see @PaulTassi on Twitter which has the verified tick next to his name). I haven't looked into the specific text at issue yet so can't comment on whether this specific source is actually needed, but discussion should be focused on the content and whether it needs to be in the article rather than whether the source is reliable. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
02:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.(bolding my own). This is not the case for Tassi as far as I know; a Google News search for his name while excluding Forbes.com failed to yield a large number of reliable sources citing his film reviews/analyses. An argument can be made that he is an SPS in video games, though. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Morbius (Film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Morbius (Film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Morbius (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The film has grossed $163,865,530 and not $164 million. [1] 2804:7F2:5A5:2BCE:39AA:D59C:68B8:D3B ( talk) 01:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
References
The quoted Rotten Tomatoes consensus currently uses a [sic] for the phrase "a vein attempt to make Morbius happen." Because the Morbius character is a vampire that bites into veins to consume blood, this is likely an intentional pun by the website's editors, so a [sic] is inappropriate. 24.29.199.34 ( talk) 14:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
[sic] makes no judgement on whether the use of the word "vein" is intentional or not. It's there to inform readers that it's inclusion on Wikipedia is intentional, and not a typo committed by a user. It should remain.by Jasca Ducato. — El Millo ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)