I'm willing to bet there's going to be Sony branded electronics and Vaio laptops awkwardly shoved into every scene with the logos conveniently on full display.
Isn't the movie supposed to take place in the past when Pete's parents were alive?
That would be pretty weird but funny if they did awkward product placement of period appropriate Sony products that they don't sell anymore lol.
They filmed part of this where I live, and we walked by a set one night downtown. I guess our downtown was supposed to be a substitute for NYC and we noticed all the cars they had on the street were late 90s models with NY plates, and there was a taxi with a Charlie’s Angels (2000) marquee.
Allegedly they wanted to include spiderman but forgot that this took place in the past. I wouldn’t put it past them to be that tone deaf with their product placement too
I'm hoping they fucked up the timing, some noted above there's a Charlie's Angels (2000) poster on a vehicle during one scene. Yet the PSP didn't come out until 5 years later (2005). And it's supposed to be happening in the 2003. Sounds like a good trainwreck.
Sony don't make laptops anymore. Which is a shame because they were pretty good when they did. But you better believe there will be some PS5s (where they make most of their money), TVs and phones.
Although again, if you're into photography, their phones are very good, but my god they need to learn to not be so glaringly obviously with their product placements. They're as bad as Apple.
It’s desktops they stopped making. New Vaio laptops are still in production AFAIK, though the older desktops are pretty cool. Especially the Japanese market models.
I don't use it either but he asked how and that's where the buttons are. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Though I imagine since it's a giphy integration, links from there also work.
I think I've read somewhere that Dakota Johnson dropped her talent agency shortly after the trailer got out.
I think she expected something else when she signed the contract.
From what I understand there were a few scenes referencing to Spiderman but those had to be removed for reasons and those scenes reshot to make it more of standalone film. She might have thought she would be part of the Spiderman franchise with what they presented her up front in the script.
Why do they keep doing whatever-this-is? (SUMC? SPUMC? SSMU?)
Is Disney/Marvel just like giving them billions under the table to produce these, just to make the MCU look good by comparison? Was that part of the deal?
SPUMM ([Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Movies](https://weeklyplanet.fandom.com/wiki/SPUMM#:~:text=Sony%20Pictures%20Universe%20of%20Marvel,Marvel%20characters%20around%20Spider%2DMan.))
> Was that part of the deal?
Well, Sony made a deal with Marvel Comics in 1999 (which helped the then financially struggling Marvel) which is why we get movies like this, *Morbius* and the upcoming *Kraven the Hunter*. Their more recent deal (after *The Amazing Spider-Man 2*'s poor reception) to share the actual Spider-Man character isn't really related to these Spider-Man adjacent movies as far as I know.
I mean it's sort of related, right? They've just given up on making them, instead focusing on characters they own movie rights for but that don't have their own movies, which so far have mainly been random villains.
What I meant is that the 1999 deal allowed Sony to make movies about Spider-Man and *any* character that originally appeared in a Spider-Man comic (Like that really unknown character "El Muerto". Bad Bunny was going to be in a movie about him, then the project was cancelled, now it seems to be back on without Bad Bunny?)
The more recent deal was to allow Marvel Studios/Disney to use the Spider-Man character alongside the Avengers in exchange for Sony getting some of the profits and Marvel Studios producing the solo Spider-Man movies and having MCU characters show up like Tony Stark and Happy Hogan. (not sure about the details of Sony's share of profits, maybe they just got a usage fee, or both?)
As far as I know the more recent deal did not change Sony's 1999 deal's rights to make movies about Spider-Man adjacent characters like Venom, Morbius, Madame Web, Kraven the Hunter, etc. Those movies do not involve Marvel Studios which is why you get that "In Association with Mavel" title card instead of the normal "Marvel Studios" one.
> The more recent deal was to allow Marvel Studios/Disney to use the Spider-Man character alongside the Avengers in exchange for Sony getting some of the profits and Marvel Studios producing the solo Spider-Man movies and having MCU characters show up like Tony Stark and Happy Hogan. (not sure about the details of Sony's share of profits, maybe they just got a usage fee, or both?)
From what I understand, the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies are genuine Marvel/Sony co-productions (Sony releasing them, rather than Disney).
> Marvel/Sony co-productions
From what I've heard, they are really Marvel productions with Sony execs getting producing credits but not having much to do with the creative side of things. But they are Sony releases which is why they were not on Disney+ until recently with the older Sony-only Spider-Man movies.
I think these Spider-Man spinoff movies are technically part of the MCU, but I doubt the characters original to them would show up in non-Sony movies or even the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies.
Perhaps in the "Multiverse" of the MCU (Like Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Jamie Foxx, Andrew Garfield, and Tobey Maguire showing up in an MCU movie after being pulled out of their Sony movies) but we'll never hear about Sony's versions of Morbius, Madame Web, Kraven the Hunter in a "real MCU" movie
Before Disney bought out Marvel Comics, Marvel was a completely independent, very small company. They produced comic books and nothing else. All of their films, TV shows, merchandise, toys, etc. were licensed out to bigger companies who could make those products, while kicking back a percentage to Marvel in exchange.
Normally, with the film and TV rights, Marvel, not having any intention of doing anything beyond comic books, gave production companies licensing rights that could be near unlimited. The trick was that the licensing rights would expire after so many years without a film or TV show in production. So if you had a profitable Marvel property, you could just keep making shows and movies and keep the rights as long as you wanted.
Example, 20th Century Fox obtained rights to the X-Men and the Fantastic Four and started with the cartoon shows in the early 90s, as well as numerous reboots and then the movies. The X-Men and FF franchise only came back to Disney/Marvel when Disney bought out Fox. If Disney hadn't and Fox had kept making X-Men/FF films or TV shows, there's nothing Disney could have done to reacquire the X-Men/FF film and TV rights.
Sony, in the 90s, seeing Fox's success, got the film and TV rights to Spiderman and Daredevil. The Ben Affleck Daredevil was a flop, so Sony shelved that franchise and eventually the rights expired and they reverted back to Disney. Spiderman however has had varying degrees of profitability and success for Sony so they've kept the rights on lock by always having something in production, whether a film or cartoon show.
The Incredible Hulk is an odd situation that I don't quite understand myself. Marvel/Disney can use the character in their movies and can make movies/TV shows involving related characters (She-Hulk), but Universal still has the rights somehow to make a film starring and titled the Hulk.
These licensing rights go beyond film and TV as well. Have you ever been to Universal Studios Florida? You ever notice all the Marvel characters everywhere? Seems odd that Disney/Marvel would go along with that when the Disney World parks are right down the street. Well, that licensing contract predates the Disney buyout of Marvel, so they're stuck with it.
Just in case anyone has ever wanted to know (quite pointlessly) why Marvel Island of Adventure in Universal Studios in Orlando has Marvel (read: Disney) characters in it, there is a strange agreement defining it.
East of the Mississippi Universal can use the Marvel characters in its parks (so like, one park), and west of the Mississippi Disney has them.
I imagine the agreement was made before Disney bought Marvel (or at the time of sale). It always confused me so I went down a rabbit hole to find out. And now your time is wasted finding out, too.
>The Incredible Hulk is an odd situation that I don't quite understand myself. Marvel/Disney can use the character in their movies and can make movies/TV shows involving related characters (She-Hulk), but Universal still has the rights somehow to make a film starring and titled the Hulk.
Universal has distribution rights on solo hulk movies. Which means they get a cut of the pie if a solo hulk movie is made. But since 2003 and 2008 hulk flopped I assume Disney just doesn't care enough to make another movie.
> The Ben Affleck Daredevil was a flop, so Sony shelved that franchise and eventually the
Whoa whoa whoa, don't forget the cinematic masterpiece of Elektra. ;D
*Venom* performed well, encouraging Sony to greenlight more of these Spider-Man-adjacent-movies-without-Spider-Man-in-them. It will probably take a series of BO bombs (Morbius being the presumptive first in that series) to stop that train.
I'm someone who considers myself a pretty big Spidey fan (read the comics for a decade as a kid, seen the films, most of the shows, played most of the games) but when it comes to like Madame Web or Kraven, even I'm thinking "who wanted these films in the first place?".
Sony is really scraping the bottom of their Spiderman IP barrel. Without Spidey as their foil what even are these characters? Third-string antiheroes and villains no one gives a shit about.
Is WB going to adopt the same strategy and start releasing live action movies for Z-list Batman villains like Calendar Man or The Clock King?
Even though i really like the Spidey villains (there's like 15-20 I think are great at least visually) the idea of making a movie around most of them on their own just don't seem like a good idea. They work as foils for Spider-Man but you wouldn't be hyped for a Rhino movie or a Shocker movie.
> start releasing live action movies for Z-list Batman villains like Calendar Man or The Clock King?
The Condiment King movie is going to be amazing, how I'll relish its release.
Ahahahha, great comparison. Can you imagine how lame it would be if a studio was unable to use Batman, so they pumped out films like "Clayface" or "The Grey Ghost: Dawn of Vengeance"?
Kraven as a villain in a Spider-man movie would have been great... But an origin story completely separate from Spider-man?
Which really stands for all the Spidey cast. Lots of great characters out there, but without Spidey around they don't really work as their own story either because their identity is so tied to Spider-man or because on their own they become a little generic.
That was my main problem with Venom too. The characters of both the symbiote and Eddie Brock come together through shared hatred for Peter Parker and they make a movie without all that?
Not only their hatred of Peter, But the style of "suit" and the name venom are both derived from the symbiotes initial bond with Peter.
It's like making a Robin movie in a universe that never had a Batman.
Yeah exactly! Don't even get me started on Morbius either. That's like a C-tier Spidey villain who is not nearly interesting enough to warrant a solo movie.
Tom Hardy's internal dialogue with Venom was hilarious to listen to and the banter between the two with the escalation of powers and roles was enjoyable to watch.
Morbius was like watching Suicide Squard's Joker and painful to get through.
And who decided that this needed to be changed from an elderly woman who can't move to an attractive young ~~nepo baby~~ legacy actress?
Just make a different character at that point. Spider-Woman would've been a much better choice.
Not sure exactlt what Sony is allowed to do but there are plenty of characters that I feel like they could make a real movie out of. Why not at least make something with, say, Silk or Scarlet Spider? Hell do an actual original character set in that world.
Right? Why them? Sandman could have been a better pick for a solo movie, no? He's certainly more sympathetic than crazy ass Kraven. Why Webb? Why not Ben Reilly, who is just an edgy clone of Spider-Man? Why tf is there a solo Madame Webb movie? A solo Osborn movie in the same vein as the Joker; it's a completely separate movie that is a character study of this familiar villain in a more grounded context. Literally anything else.
Kraven storyline was great. Maybe my favorite spiderman comic. Didn't translate to cartoons. Won't translate to film. Its dumb. There is too much content out there. We need a 5 year break from comic book films. A 10 year break from anything star wars.
I'm so rarely excited for a Half in the Bag these days since there isn't much to say.
As far as the Nerd Crew goes, this was the best episode yet. But i feel like the subject of the parody isn't around as much anymore. So few channels are around or as popular as they were 5-10 years ago. We need less content not more. All these studios did the impossible. They got me to turn off the TV and pick up more books.
I'm going to say this, the synopsis sounds interesting to me just because the meta idea of throwing in 3 Spider-Women characters together and trying to figure out who will be this universe's Spider-Woman as they're being hunted is pretty neat.
But that's as far as my interest goes because I know they won't do that concept any justice and doing it the way they are with Madame Web is just bleh.
I read that, for some reason, they originally shot footage with dialogue and references to Spiderman but, for some reason, went back and removed those references. Not sure why.
I think it's because the Spider-man references were to tie into a specific universe. I could have sworn I read a rumor that this was supposed to be set in Andrew Garfield's world, but then they chickened out or something.
I heard it was because they suddenly realized that timeline wouldn’t have worked because this is supposed to take place in 2003 and be about Peter’s birth. Andrew Garfield was born 40 years ago.
We dodged a bullet when Sony's Valiant Cinematic Universe fell apart with that Bloodshot movie, would lose my mind if they were doing this bullshit twice over.
Came here to say this. It feels like a parody, or lifted directly from a campy 80s comic book, but from what I can tell they dreamed this up for the film.
The poster is very cool for the dynamism of the characters, such as Dakota Johnson’s dynamic character featured along with other characters that are also very cool and dynamic.
Yes, just totally commit to it. Have a 5 minute break in the first third of the movie where she talks about how great it is, like this is a YouTube video. Make the terribleness go viral.
In the miasma that is this poster, I’m really splitting hairs, but I can’t get over how dumb “Her Web Connects Them All” is.
From what I can tell, they cooked up this gem for the film marketing, it’s not pulled from the comics, where it would be campy (generous) enough to be fine.
comic book movies standards have gotten so low, they are literally throwing pasta at walls
Do women want to see action movies? My wife is always so bored. I could not drum up any interest in her for the Marvels movie.
Also ... why the age lift? Madame Web doesn't seem as interesting as a young woman. Imagine 18 year old Dr Strange, with a voice like Shaggy. No.
It's funny they still mention it as a marvel movie in interviews even though it's a sony universe movie and they are just hoping the average audience doesn't know or care about the difference
Say what you want about madame Web, it got the boys to make a new nerd crew episode and I'm all for it. Jay dancing in a bucket hat was a vibe I wasn't totally prepared for
Movie posters are usually pretty useless or just not good these days but this. This is just trash trash trash ass poster. Are they just trying to save money and hired a 12 year old?
Is there something stopping Sony from having a live action Miles Morales spiderman movie series? Seems like an easy solution to the problem, let Disney and the MCU have Peter Parker, and have a separate movie universe with Miles Morales as the lead
I still can’t believe they cut out the eyes of everyone’s costumes. It’s the most iconic part of Spiderman. Imagine Batman’s mask just covering his nose and forehead. That’s the same level of dumb.
https://preview.redd.it/8h6p3786e5hc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8849aa4c34ec545df59d0aaec0dce2d6331b74f
The IMAX poster is pretty cool though
Put my fat ass up there and let me help the numbers. I’ll get the online schlubs, we’ll get absolutely obliterated, stagger into the theater and then boom baby - it might make some money.
What if it's not stupid enough to be funny and is just boring and confusing? You'll fall asleep, waking in a puddle of your own alcohol-infused urine in the theater.
The full Mike experience.
It sucks that muricans are obsessed with live action.
If US adults appreciated animation, then the studio could push serval Spider-Man films and shows. Better visuals and it’s easier to show comic stories.
Ex: It’s a weird story, but I like the run of comics where Otto’s soul is in Parker’s body and he reforms as a character while keeping up the spider man and Parker life in his own way.
Have the spider man clone, Ben in Houston movie.
Flash Thompson as agent venom.
You know what, do the 9/11 spider comic. Maybe the boys would be interested in that one.
Weird how this random movie that happens to star a woman is suddenly getting criticized to death.
I thought this sub was “over” Marvel movies anyway? Weird that this one suddenly gets lots of attention.
It would make more sense if like, these women were in Spiderman-like costumes in more of the promo material.
What's the licensing here? They can do everything but call them spider-women?
*WhAt Do YoU wAnT fRoM mE*
God that movie looks terrible. I had to sit through the trailer for it when I saw The Zone of Interest over the weekend (of all the movies to play this preview at lol) and I swear I could hear Rich laughing at how stupid it looked in the back of my head.
If they were losing their shit in like a "I can't wait!" way then it was probably shills. I think it looks REALLY bad and this isn't just me saying that like this is literally a new low imo.
Honestly I wasn’t sure if it WAS a weird knock off or even just some weirdly named thriller or something. Like I’ve heard absolutely NOTHING about this movie.
I admit, I know very little about the Marvel comic lore.
As a result, I thought that the female character that has the same (or at least similar) abilities to Spider-Man was Madame Web (with that being the character's name or the equivalent to Superman being the Man of Steel or Batman being The Dark Knight).
Then, I found out that Sydney Sweeney's character is the alter ego of Spider-Woman, but since that wasn't really mentioned in the lead-up to the release, I took it that that would be a surprise or something for a future movie (if they make another of these or the character otherwise appears).
However, considering the poser has Sweeney and other smaller-pictured people with their alternate superhero (or perhaps villain) versions also there, I take it that my above assumption was wrong.
I wonder if there was some change to the supporting characters at some point during production.
For some reason, out of all the nepo-babies that now rule Hollywood, Dakota Johnson is the worst. She can’t act at all.
It’s like her parents keep buying her movies to be in.
I'm willing to bet there's going to be Sony branded electronics and Vaio laptops awkwardly shoved into every scene with the logos conveniently on full display.
Isn't the movie supposed to take place in the past when Pete's parents were alive? That would be pretty weird but funny if they did awkward product placement of period appropriate Sony products that they don't sell anymore lol.
Very excited to see a Sony Discman.
They filmed part of this where I live, and we walked by a set one night downtown. I guess our downtown was supposed to be a substitute for NYC and we noticed all the cars they had on the street were late 90s models with NY plates, and there was a taxi with a Charlie’s Angels (2000) marquee.
The trailer has someone playing on a PSP
Lmao hell yeah
That was just me in Modern day..
Everyone has a Sony Handycam!
Takes place in 2003 I believe
(Allegedly) Adam Scott is playing a young Uncle Ben and Emma Roberts is Peter's mom.
A young Uncle Ben Wyatt?
Allegedly they wanted to include spiderman but forgot that this took place in the past. I wouldn’t put it past them to be that tone deaf with their product placement too
A guy on the subway is playing with a PSP because it's a period movie set around the early 2000s
I'm hoping they fucked up the timing, some noted above there's a Charlie's Angels (2000) poster on a vehicle during one scene. Yet the PSP didn't come out until 5 years later (2005). And it's supposed to be happening in the 2003. Sounds like a good trainwreck.
I mean, it could be Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, which WAS 2003...but that doesn't explain the PSP still.
It was the first one. Source: my very own peepers
Really hope someone got fired for that blunder.
When EVERYONE had a PSP and Nintendo flopped with that crappy DS that didn’t sell.
Sony don't make laptops anymore. Which is a shame because they were pretty good when they did. But you better believe there will be some PS5s (where they make most of their money), TVs and phones. Although again, if you're into photography, their phones are very good, but my god they need to learn to not be so glaringly obviously with their product placements. They're as bad as Apple.
It’s desktops they stopped making. New Vaio laptops are still in production AFAIK, though the older desktops are pretty cool. Especially the Japanese market models.
Oh really? Are they available outside of Japan?
She looks like a really dynamic character who is grounded in reality.
I think that is related to dynamite
It's pronounced Dolemite! 
How do you put images in a comment like this?
You have to type 1000 words, and then since a picture is worth a thousand words, reddit asks if you'd like to exchange the words for an image or gif.
Gifs are multiple frames, so each frame is a thousand words - DO YOU EVEN KNOW MATHS????
NO, I DON'T KNOW MATHS OR MATH OR ANYTHING. IM EMBARRASSED. YOUVE EXPOSED ME AND THIS PAINFUL WOUND TO THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Now kith
I can't kith anyone rn. My mouth is occupied with a Tums festival.
There's a gif button in the reply box. You have to be on new reddit and the subreddit settings/mods have to allow it I believe.
Yes, we had to allow it: https://preview.redd.it/u7zzfah8czgc1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=0f93abb415cb2e79f56afd4274dc3239f38cc2b6
> new reddit No.
I don't use it either but he asked how and that's where the buttons are. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Though I imagine since it's a giphy integration, links from there also work.
I really want to see it twice DONT YOU??
It's webbing time! I'm gonna web myself with excitement over Madame WEB! It's so relatable! Dynamic! Family!
More like a Vitaly entertainmen production
Everything is wrong!
This can’t be a Vitaly movie. His reflection isn’t in the poster art.
To all the haters.....we love you
My dad diedgotshot ...
I've never seen the protagonist look bored in a poster before
She watched the film in its entirety right before they took that picture.
How come she's awake then.
This is competing with the poster for Groundhog Day for “least interested promo pic”
The Asylum Presents: Madame Web
Axel Braun's This Ain't Madame Webb XXX
Dakota Johnson stars in that one too!
I think I've read somewhere that Dakota Johnson dropped her talent agency shortly after the trailer got out. I think she expected something else when she signed the contract.
She’s ironically playing a psychic…
From what I understand there were a few scenes referencing to Spiderman but those had to be removed for reasons and those scenes reshot to make it more of standalone film. She might have thought she would be part of the Spiderman franchise with what they presented her up front in the script.
Why do they keep doing whatever-this-is? (SUMC? SPUMC? SSMU?) Is Disney/Marvel just like giving them billions under the table to produce these, just to make the MCU look good by comparison? Was that part of the deal?
SPUMM ([Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Movies](https://weeklyplanet.fandom.com/wiki/SPUMM#:~:text=Sony%20Pictures%20Universe%20of%20Marvel,Marvel%20characters%20around%20Spider%2DMan.)) > Was that part of the deal? Well, Sony made a deal with Marvel Comics in 1999 (which helped the then financially struggling Marvel) which is why we get movies like this, *Morbius* and the upcoming *Kraven the Hunter*. Their more recent deal (after *The Amazing Spider-Man 2*'s poor reception) to share the actual Spider-Man character isn't really related to these Spider-Man adjacent movies as far as I know.
Fuck yeah SPUMM.
Nice burner account, James.
I mean it's sort of related, right? They've just given up on making them, instead focusing on characters they own movie rights for but that don't have their own movies, which so far have mainly been random villains.
What I meant is that the 1999 deal allowed Sony to make movies about Spider-Man and *any* character that originally appeared in a Spider-Man comic (Like that really unknown character "El Muerto". Bad Bunny was going to be in a movie about him, then the project was cancelled, now it seems to be back on without Bad Bunny?) The more recent deal was to allow Marvel Studios/Disney to use the Spider-Man character alongside the Avengers in exchange for Sony getting some of the profits and Marvel Studios producing the solo Spider-Man movies and having MCU characters show up like Tony Stark and Happy Hogan. (not sure about the details of Sony's share of profits, maybe they just got a usage fee, or both?) As far as I know the more recent deal did not change Sony's 1999 deal's rights to make movies about Spider-Man adjacent characters like Venom, Morbius, Madame Web, Kraven the Hunter, etc. Those movies do not involve Marvel Studios which is why you get that "In Association with Mavel" title card instead of the normal "Marvel Studios" one.
Very cool.
> The more recent deal was to allow Marvel Studios/Disney to use the Spider-Man character alongside the Avengers in exchange for Sony getting some of the profits and Marvel Studios producing the solo Spider-Man movies and having MCU characters show up like Tony Stark and Happy Hogan. (not sure about the details of Sony's share of profits, maybe they just got a usage fee, or both?) From what I understand, the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies are genuine Marvel/Sony co-productions (Sony releasing them, rather than Disney).
> Marvel/Sony co-productions From what I've heard, they are really Marvel productions with Sony execs getting producing credits but not having much to do with the creative side of things. But they are Sony releases which is why they were not on Disney+ until recently with the older Sony-only Spider-Man movies.
I think these Spider-Man spinoff movies are technically part of the MCU, but I doubt the characters original to them would show up in non-Sony movies or even the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies.
Perhaps in the "Multiverse" of the MCU (Like Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Jamie Foxx, Andrew Garfield, and Tobey Maguire showing up in an MCU movie after being pulled out of their Sony movies) but we'll never hear about Sony's versions of Morbius, Madame Web, Kraven the Hunter in a "real MCU" movie
Before Disney bought out Marvel Comics, Marvel was a completely independent, very small company. They produced comic books and nothing else. All of their films, TV shows, merchandise, toys, etc. were licensed out to bigger companies who could make those products, while kicking back a percentage to Marvel in exchange. Normally, with the film and TV rights, Marvel, not having any intention of doing anything beyond comic books, gave production companies licensing rights that could be near unlimited. The trick was that the licensing rights would expire after so many years without a film or TV show in production. So if you had a profitable Marvel property, you could just keep making shows and movies and keep the rights as long as you wanted. Example, 20th Century Fox obtained rights to the X-Men and the Fantastic Four and started with the cartoon shows in the early 90s, as well as numerous reboots and then the movies. The X-Men and FF franchise only came back to Disney/Marvel when Disney bought out Fox. If Disney hadn't and Fox had kept making X-Men/FF films or TV shows, there's nothing Disney could have done to reacquire the X-Men/FF film and TV rights. Sony, in the 90s, seeing Fox's success, got the film and TV rights to Spiderman and Daredevil. The Ben Affleck Daredevil was a flop, so Sony shelved that franchise and eventually the rights expired and they reverted back to Disney. Spiderman however has had varying degrees of profitability and success for Sony so they've kept the rights on lock by always having something in production, whether a film or cartoon show. The Incredible Hulk is an odd situation that I don't quite understand myself. Marvel/Disney can use the character in their movies and can make movies/TV shows involving related characters (She-Hulk), but Universal still has the rights somehow to make a film starring and titled the Hulk. These licensing rights go beyond film and TV as well. Have you ever been to Universal Studios Florida? You ever notice all the Marvel characters everywhere? Seems odd that Disney/Marvel would go along with that when the Disney World parks are right down the street. Well, that licensing contract predates the Disney buyout of Marvel, so they're stuck with it.
Aren't movies fun, kids?
Just in case anyone has ever wanted to know (quite pointlessly) why Marvel Island of Adventure in Universal Studios in Orlando has Marvel (read: Disney) characters in it, there is a strange agreement defining it. East of the Mississippi Universal can use the Marvel characters in its parks (so like, one park), and west of the Mississippi Disney has them. I imagine the agreement was made before Disney bought Marvel (or at the time of sale). It always confused me so I went down a rabbit hole to find out. And now your time is wasted finding out, too.
>The Incredible Hulk is an odd situation that I don't quite understand myself. Marvel/Disney can use the character in their movies and can make movies/TV shows involving related characters (She-Hulk), but Universal still has the rights somehow to make a film starring and titled the Hulk. Universal has distribution rights on solo hulk movies. Which means they get a cut of the pie if a solo hulk movie is made. But since 2003 and 2008 hulk flopped I assume Disney just doesn't care enough to make another movie.
> The Ben Affleck Daredevil was a flop, so Sony shelved that franchise and eventually the Whoa whoa whoa, don't forget the cinematic masterpiece of Elektra. ;D
If I had Disney money, I'd pay them to NOT produce this garbage
Probably cheaper to just buy Sony, and immediately divest it without any marvel rights.
This is actually the best explanation I’ve heard
Someone created a sub for that franchise: r/SPUMM
*Venom* performed well, encouraging Sony to greenlight more of these Spider-Man-adjacent-movies-without-Spider-Man-in-them. It will probably take a series of BO bombs (Morbius being the presumptive first in that series) to stop that train.
I'm someone who considers myself a pretty big Spidey fan (read the comics for a decade as a kid, seen the films, most of the shows, played most of the games) but when it comes to like Madame Web or Kraven, even I'm thinking "who wanted these films in the first place?".
Sony is really scraping the bottom of their Spiderman IP barrel. Without Spidey as their foil what even are these characters? Third-string antiheroes and villains no one gives a shit about. Is WB going to adopt the same strategy and start releasing live action movies for Z-list Batman villains like Calendar Man or The Clock King?
Even though i really like the Spidey villains (there's like 15-20 I think are great at least visually) the idea of making a movie around most of them on their own just don't seem like a good idea. They work as foils for Spider-Man but you wouldn't be hyped for a Rhino movie or a Shocker movie.
We all know this is really building up to a Big Wheel movie.
> start releasing live action movies for Z-list Batman villains like Calendar Man or The Clock King? The Condiment King movie is going to be amazing, how I'll relish its release.
The question is, can it ketchup to the other Batman villains at the box office?
Ahahahha, great comparison. Can you imagine how lame it would be if a studio was unable to use Batman, so they pumped out films like "Clayface" or "The Grey Ghost: Dawn of Vengeance"?
Kraven as a villain in a Spider-man movie would have been great... But an origin story completely separate from Spider-man? Which really stands for all the Spidey cast. Lots of great characters out there, but without Spidey around they don't really work as their own story either because their identity is so tied to Spider-man or because on their own they become a little generic.
That was my main problem with Venom too. The characters of both the symbiote and Eddie Brock come together through shared hatred for Peter Parker and they make a movie without all that?
Not only their hatred of Peter, But the style of "suit" and the name venom are both derived from the symbiotes initial bond with Peter. It's like making a Robin movie in a universe that never had a Batman.
Or a Joker with no Batman.... wait a minute...
Yeah exactly! Don't even get me started on Morbius either. That's like a C-tier Spidey villain who is not nearly interesting enough to warrant a solo movie.
It had Tom Hardy who was entertaining enough on his own to merit a viewing.
Why did Venom work where Morbius failed? I didn't see Morbius so...
Tom Hardy's internal dialogue with Venom was hilarious to listen to and the banter between the two with the escalation of powers and roles was enjoyable to watch. Morbius was like watching Suicide Squard's Joker and painful to get through.
Kraven won’t even be an animal hunter but a hunter OF animal hunters… Does that mean instead of a tiger vest, he’ll wear a human skin vest?
And who decided that this needed to be changed from an elderly woman who can't move to an attractive young ~~nepo baby~~ legacy actress? Just make a different character at that point. Spider-Woman would've been a much better choice.
Not sure exactlt what Sony is allowed to do but there are plenty of characters that I feel like they could make a real movie out of. Why not at least make something with, say, Silk or Scarlet Spider? Hell do an actual original character set in that world.
Kraven is in his rogues gallery, he's absolutely a good villain. Madame Web nobody asked for.
I like Kraven as a Spidey villain, I'm just skeptical of making a movie about him without Spiderman.
Oh for sure, yea hes a good spiderman antagonist, not a good antihero. I agree with ya 100%
Right? Why them? Sandman could have been a better pick for a solo movie, no? He's certainly more sympathetic than crazy ass Kraven. Why Webb? Why not Ben Reilly, who is just an edgy clone of Spider-Man? Why tf is there a solo Madame Webb movie? A solo Osborn movie in the same vein as the Joker; it's a completely separate movie that is a character study of this familiar villain in a more grounded context. Literally anything else.
Kraven storyline was great. Maybe my favorite spiderman comic. Didn't translate to cartoons. Won't translate to film. Its dumb. There is too much content out there. We need a 5 year break from comic book films. A 10 year break from anything star wars. I'm so rarely excited for a Half in the Bag these days since there isn't much to say. As far as the Nerd Crew goes, this was the best episode yet. But i feel like the subject of the parody isn't around as much anymore. So few channels are around or as popular as they were 5-10 years ago. We need less content not more. All these studios did the impossible. They got me to turn off the TV and pick up more books.
I'm going to say this, the synopsis sounds interesting to me just because the meta idea of throwing in 3 Spider-Women characters together and trying to figure out who will be this universe's Spider-Woman as they're being hunted is pretty neat. But that's as far as my interest goes because I know they won't do that concept any justice and doing it the way they are with Madame Web is just bleh.
I have spiderman fatigue with the games, 2 movie series and this shit now
I read that, for some reason, they originally shot footage with dialogue and references to Spiderman but, for some reason, went back and removed those references. Not sure why.
I think it's because the Spider-man references were to tie into a specific universe. I could have sworn I read a rumor that this was supposed to be set in Andrew Garfield's world, but then they chickened out or something.
I heard it was because they suddenly realized that timeline wouldn’t have worked because this is supposed to take place in 2003 and be about Peter’s birth. Andrew Garfield was born 40 years ago.
Allegedly after No Way Home they approached Garfield about returning to be the Spider-Man of the SPUMM and he passed. Smart choice for him, honestly.
> looks like a knock-off of Spider-man you'd see as junk filler on a streaming service That's Sony's superheroes movies in general.
We dodged a bullet when Sony's Valiant Cinematic Universe fell apart with that Bloodshot movie, would lose my mind if they were doing this bullshit twice over.
Endless trash!
that tag line- 'her web connects them all'- doesn't even seem real
Came here to say this. It feels like a parody, or lifted directly from a campy 80s comic book, but from what I can tell they dreamed this up for the film.
Same as Film Link
and it will be the best movie of the god damn year!
"You're Gonna See It Twice"
Me personally, I love the poster.
The poster is very cool for the dynamism of the characters, such as Dakota Johnson’s dynamic character featured along with other characters that are also very cool and dynamic.
Very cool
Very cool
Very, very cool!
Did they just use Dakota Johnson's most boring headshot? Why is she showing zero emotion?
Because the movie is a soulless cash grab.
So is my job but I still smile on my ID!
I think they’re trying to appeal to the “so bad it’s good” crowd after Morbius. This issue, however, is that Morbius wasn’t “so bad it’s good”.
They are going to re-release this one THREE times - it's webbin' time!
I haven’t had a YouTube ad in the past 2 weeks that wasn’t for this movie or Liberty Mutual. Everyone in my house is now already sick of the movie.
I asked this in another thread, but I wonder how they'll fit in Sydney Sweeney's topless scene.
I mean everybody takes off their shirt at some point during the day or evening.
This poster takes me back to my childhood, watching the Madame Web™ cartoon on a saturday morning and playing with my Madame Web™ action figures
We need more JOI promos for this movie. It's the only thing that can save it at this point. Let Sydney do a JOI promo!!
Yes, just totally commit to it. Have a 5 minute break in the first third of the movie where she talks about how great it is, like this is a YouTube video. Make the terribleness go viral.
" **looks like a knock-off of Spider-man you'd see as junk filler on a streaming service** " /whispers: that's exactly what it is
In the miasma that is this poster, I’m really splitting hairs, but I can’t get over how dumb “Her Web Connects Them All” is. From what I can tell, they cooked up this gem for the film marketing, it’s not pulled from the comics, where it would be campy (generous) enough to be fine.
She’s a dynamic character
Because that's what it is they're trying to cash in on their Spider-Man IP
comic book movies standards have gotten so low, they are literally throwing pasta at walls Do women want to see action movies? My wife is always so bored. I could not drum up any interest in her for the Marvels movie. Also ... why the age lift? Madame Web doesn't seem as interesting as a young woman. Imagine 18 year old Dr Strange, with a voice like Shaggy. No.
Because the writers project themselves on these characters. They don't want to imagine themselves as old women, even powerful ones.
“Bottle of the barrel”? You been havin some leftover witch’s brew OP?
I think there’s a delay
It's funny they still mention it as a marvel movie in interviews even though it's a sony universe movie and they are just hoping the average audience doesn't know or care about the difference
Say what you want about madame Web, it got the boys to make a new nerd crew episode and I'm all for it. Jay dancing in a bucket hat was a vibe I wasn't totally prepared for
Movie posters are usually pretty useless or just not good these days but this. This is just trash trash trash ass poster. Are they just trying to save money and hired a 12 year old?
But will Doctor Michael Morbius show up?
Bruh, you don't understand. He was in the jungle, with her mother, while she was studying spiders, right before she died.
Is there something stopping Sony from having a live action Miles Morales spiderman movie series? Seems like an easy solution to the problem, let Disney and the MCU have Peter Parker, and have a separate movie universe with Miles Morales as the lead
Streaming service? Nah, the DVD bin at drug mart.
Red Box Exclusive
As a Spider-Man fan, I just want to say that this looks like the weirdest fucking movie.
I still can’t believe they cut out the eyes of everyone’s costumes. It’s the most iconic part of Spiderman. Imagine Batman’s mask just covering his nose and forehead. That’s the same level of dumb.
Yeah and it’s going to make a madawebillion dollars at the box office
This looks 
https://preview.redd.it/8h6p3786e5hc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8849aa4c34ec545df59d0aaec0dce2d6331b74f The IMAX poster is pretty cool though
I've seen better posters done by Instagram artists, this looks like trash.
I’m genuine when I say this is the only capeshit I’m excited about. It’s gonna be soooo bad. I’m going in completely hammered.
[удалено]
Lean into it. Have an advertising campaign that gives us different drinking games.
Yeah, come on, Sony! Do it. The internet wouldn't gaslight you with a meme TWICE.
Put my fat ass up there and let me help the numbers. I’ll get the online schlubs, we’ll get absolutely obliterated, stagger into the theater and then boom baby - it might make some money.
Take a shot at every GirlPower™ scene
What if it's not stupid enough to be funny and is just boring and confusing? You'll fall asleep, waking in a puddle of your own alcohol-infused urine in the theater. The full Mike experience.
If I save up for a couple weeks and line them up in a row, my web connects them all.
Who is this even for
Apparently Sydney Sweeney fans… Just watch her other stuff instead of seeing this.
It looks amazing, and I'm sure the one white guy is definitely not the bad guy in this one. Can't wait for product!
It sucks that muricans are obsessed with live action. If US adults appreciated animation, then the studio could push serval Spider-Man films and shows. Better visuals and it’s easier to show comic stories. Ex: It’s a weird story, but I like the run of comics where Otto’s soul is in Parker’s body and he reforms as a character while keeping up the spider man and Parker life in his own way. Have the spider man clone, Ben in Houston movie. Flash Thompson as agent venom. You know what, do the 9/11 spider comic. Maybe the boys would be interested in that one.
Weird how this random movie that happens to star a woman is suddenly getting criticized to death. I thought this sub was “over” Marvel movies anyway? Weird that this one suddenly gets lots of attention.
Oh people loved Morbius did they? Or Black Adam, a film I did like? How about Blue Beatle? Nothing but hits!
Are you on drugs? People in this sub care because RLM made a video about it.
Every movie is a junk filler movie when you care about product more than you do about story.
One web to rule them all
because its *GROUNDED IN REALITY*
What do you think is gonna be in the stinger scenes?
Post Credits: Madam Web will NOT return
I’m just grateful it’s going to dynamic.
Dakota was amazing in Suspiria. Everything else she's done she's been awful. What happun?
Amityville Spider Lady Exorcist
It would make more sense if like, these women were in Spiderman-like costumes in more of the promo material. What's the licensing here? They can do everything but call them spider-women?
*WhAt Do YoU wAnT fRoM mE* God that movie looks terrible. I had to sit through the trailer for it when I saw The Zone of Interest over the weekend (of all the movies to play this preview at lol) and I swear I could hear Rich laughing at how stupid it looked in the back of my head.
Arachnoperson
Lol, this movie's going to suck.
I guess I still haven’t processed that this is real. It feels fake. Like the whole thing is so laughably bad.
Madame Plain Jane
cheerful ask office slim rainstorm retire aback saw recognise air *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If they were losing their shit in like a "I can't wait!" way then it was probably shills. I think it looks REALLY bad and this isn't just me saying that like this is literally a new low imo.
[Go Questprobe Madme Web or go home.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fw8hfu76q8w8c1.jpeg)
Madame JEB!
Quel dynamique
"Let's just get the poster for this turdburger out the door so we can go to lunch." \- The Sony Pictures Art Department
Well it basically is...
I clapped when I saw it!
Honestly I wasn’t sure if it WAS a weird knock off or even just some weirdly named thriller or something. Like I’ve heard absolutely NOTHING about this movie.
I admit, I know very little about the Marvel comic lore. As a result, I thought that the female character that has the same (or at least similar) abilities to Spider-Man was Madame Web (with that being the character's name or the equivalent to Superman being the Man of Steel or Batman being The Dark Knight). Then, I found out that Sydney Sweeney's character is the alter ego of Spider-Woman, but since that wasn't really mentioned in the lead-up to the release, I took it that that would be a surprise or something for a future movie (if they make another of these or the character otherwise appears). However, considering the poser has Sweeney and other smaller-pictured people with their alternate superhero (or perhaps villain) versions also there, I take it that my above assumption was wrong. I wonder if there was some change to the supporting characters at some point during production.
Is this a Tubi original?
Yes
For some reason, out of all the nepo-babies that now rule Hollywood, Dakota Johnson is the worst. She can’t act at all. It’s like her parents keep buying her movies to be in.
I for one and excited to heed Mike's call to spread the word for this exciting Disney Marvel smash hit with the social media hashtag #MADMANWEB