Jump to content

Talk:Morbius (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Name change?

Should this have it's name changed to Morbius (2020 film)? ARZ100 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No, use that extra disambiguation only if there are two films of the same name, so they will not be confused. See WP:PRIMARYFILM for more information. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The GWW and HNEntertainment

@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)

@Favre1fan93: as well. I thought I pinged above but spelled your name wrong. Sorry. Rusted AutoParts 15:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I’d say weakly reliable at best. Yes, they have editorial oversight but nothing in their bios really stands out. Find a better source, if possible.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I am happy to consider them and generally find them a decent indication of what is to come, but a better source is preferred and there are a lot of situations where we can be pretty certain such a source will show up. I wouldn't stop looking at them, but I wouldn't get too comfortable actually using them in Wikipedia articles either. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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)

Plot leak and MCU connections

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)

Cineplex The info comes from some user on Reddit, so it isn't reliable. El Millo (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

No More MCU Talk!

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)

But it is connected to Sony's spider-man films. Sony says so itself, and we have cited sources confirming this, and Sony plans to have Tom Holland's Spider-Man appear in future Sony's MU films. ARZ100 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 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)

The current wording was agreed upon to be the most accurate representation of the available sources. Feel free to explore Talk:Venom (2018 film)/Archive 1 for more information on this decision. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
can we move it down to somewhere like production or something? not in the introduction paragraph. Faromics (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
See my previous comment. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 30 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)

Not necessarily. It is possible for the same actors to portray the same characters in two separate continuities (see Doom Patrol (Titans episode) and Doom Patrol (TV series)). I acknowledge that this is a fairly convoluted way of handling the situation that is not likely to be understood by the majority of the cinema-going audiences, but it seems the most apt description of the situation. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Jasca. Being in the movie doesn't mean he's playing the same character - and even if it's the same character, it is not necessarily the same iteration/continuity. So, unless confirmed by Sony or Marvel Studios that he's reprising the MCU version of the Vulture, please don't make assumptions. Starforce13 17:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
He is however wearing the same cloths as he was wearing in the Homecoming after credits scenes (his prison uniform with grey t-shirt below it) and Spider-Man is pictured on the wall as a "murderer", an obvious reference to Far From Home. What happened in HC and FFA is, as of the trailer, part of this movies continuity. The MCU is obviously part of Morbius' past, it's just unlikely that Morbius will be part of the MCU's future. Regardless, Sony has stated in the past that they would like to pay attention to the MCU as to not contradict it for their own universe. Pascal has said in the past that "it will still all be in the same world" (2017). So as far as Sony is concerned, the MCU is canon to its movies (it just cannot make references outside of the Spider-Man movies because of property rights). Marvel doesn't have to acknowledge it, but Sony is pretty clear on it. Also, there is nothing stopping Sony from having Kaeton play the MCU iteration of Vulture. It is Sony's character. They can do with it as they which, and apparently, they are. And consider the alternative: Sony and Disney's deal can be blown up at any time and Sony clearly has (frozen) plans for Tom's Spider-Man, do you really think they'd break their own continuity by having Kaeton play 2 different characters in the same franchise 4 movies apart all the while wearing the same cloths? That would be a horrible decision on Sony's part.
Also, Tom Holland's version of Spider-Man appearing (including his backstory from the MCU) in Sony's Marvel Universe is not a "pipe dream". They have the rights to do that. We already know that by now for a fact.--84.194.198.206 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Just because Spider-Man is wanted as a murderer doesn't mean it's because of the events in Far From Home. There could be some other similar backstory where he still ends up being accused of murder. Spider-Man has been accused of murder before in the comics. So, it's not like it's a new MCU-only thing. Besides, in the wanted poster, they're using Sam Raimi's spiderman suit. That and the Keaton thing seems to me like it's more of a marketing tactic to mislead MCU fans. If they were really continuing the storylines from MCU, they would have made it clear to get fans excited. It might turn out that Keaton is a glorified cameo who won't even show up in the poster. That's why we need that clear confirmation from Sony or Marvel. Starforce13 22:41, 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)

That's fine. Now that we have a reliable source unambiguously citing Keaton as playing Toomes, it can be included in the article. Properly sourced, of course. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The Deadline article is simply interpreting the trailer like anyone else. That's not the same as a confirmation from Marvel or Sony. Starforce13 12:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Either way - it's looking to me like this back and forth will require the article being pending changes protected if it continues. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I've requested for Extended Confirmed Protection which I'm hoping will slow down the IPs and new accounts who don't seem to even bother argue their points in talk.Starforce13 15:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
To put it bluntly, it would be extremely like Sony to cast him as someone else or even as a different Vulture for their films. Toa Nidhiki05 14:18, 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)

I have added the Deadline source, as well as the official trailer drop through IGN (that has an interview with Leto) which also confirms him as Vulture. Still doesn't mean this film is part of the MCU though. Potentially could be a John Constantine situation where the same actor reprises the role, and for all intents and purposes it is the same character, but the two projects aren't officially set in the same universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, has Sony or Marvel confirmed this? Toa Nidhiki05 22:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Sony and Marvel never confirmed this. Both the Deadline and IGN article are literally the authors interpretation of the trailer. There's nothing there that implies they got any confirmation from Disney/Sony. If they claimed to have additional source besides the trailer that we all saw, it would make sense. But so far, nothing. The IGN article even tries to imply that saying "from that studio that brough you that move"... implies that the two movies are connected - which couldn't be farther from the truth. Starforce13 23:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
We don't need official confirmation from the studios, Wikipedia does not rely on primary sources in fact it is strongly encouraged that we look to secondary sources. These are two very reliable sources that make pretty clear statements about who he is playing, and the argument you have made against it is your own original research deciding not to trust those articles. We will get an answer from the studio eventually, but for now we have reliable sources telling us what the situation is and there is no good reason to ignore them. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Deadline is usually a reliable source but that doesn't mean taking everything they say without putting it into context. Secondary sources are useful because the information originated from independent sources. But if they're just referring to the same source that has already been considered like the trailer, it becomes just circular referencing. When someone is analyzing a trailer or doing an episode recap, we have the same source material as they do regardless of whether they're unreliable sites like wegotthiscovered or from reliable sources like Deadline, THR... unless they claim to have inside or independent info that we don't. So, if they make a claim based on an assumption, that shouldn't be given more weight simply because Deadline said so. Deadline is usually very good at explaining how they got their information. So, it's not difficult to tell when it's factual info, rumors, or their own opinion. Starforce13 02:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Starforce13 is entirely correct here. There is no indication Deadline received this information from an internal source; this is instead them jumping the gun to say "he's Vulture", which is analysis, not industry sourcing. The same is true for IGN. We must wait for confirmation from Sony or Marvel before making a major claim like this. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I have questioned Deadline before, but only because it was a dubious report which is not the case here. When common sense and reliable sources are on our side, acting as you two are is just Wikipedian pedantry and overkill. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
But if we didn't accept the trailer as enough evidence, should we accept it when Deadline says it based on nothing more than the trailer? El Millo (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The trailer isn't enough because it doesn't say the character's name. It also doesn't say the actor's name which is why we get a secondary source who has seen the trailer to write those two details down for us. If there was a genuine chance that he was playing a different character then IGN had the chance to clarify that in their interview with Leto. When Deadline has reported on previous situations like this, they have clearly stated when there was a chance the role could be different and they haven't been able to confirm it. But instead both of them made direct statements and in that case we almost always trust that they have done their due diligence and are reporting the truth. And this is all ignoring the fact that Keaton is wearing the same costume, giving the same performance, from the same studio, who has said these connections will happen, and the appearance is used in the trailer as a post credits scene equivalent which strongly indicates it is a connection to another movie. So, for all those reasons I am confident enough to fight for my changes here. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:58, 18 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)

I like the current version by Adamstom.97: 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)
Agree. El Millo (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I still think there is a good argument to be made for my previous version, but since there was such strong opposition to it I am happy to wait until further confirmation. But if we aren't going to confirm he, we absolutely need to provide all the details and not try hiding them as a way to suggest one side of this discussion. That is why I made the small update that led to the current version. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 25 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)

The talk page is for discussion about the article itself, not the subject of the article, and it's certainly not for campaigning to have people reach out to Industry Execs. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 17:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I was actually wondering if 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 should be in the article? Like "Marketing"? - Cineplex (talk) 1:55 PM - February 20, 2020 (UTC)
We do not include Reddit "leaks" or fan art on Wikipedia. If you want to contribute content to the article, please provide a WP:Reliable source. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
But the fan art Sony used in their Flash Thompson Instagram account for viral marketing and Tyrese has been using the hashtags mentioned in his Instagram posts when teasing the arrival of the trailer. - Cineplex (talk) 9:58 AM - February 21, 2020 (UTC)

Keaton Jan 2021

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)

We need actual confirmation from MK, Sony, and Jared Leto. - Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) 01:35 PM - March 25, 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove Blade from article

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 already said it many times, in the edit summaries reverting your edits: this isn't just some impossible wish of his, there's precedent for collaboration between Sony and Marvel Studios. Sony still holds the rights for Spider-Man. Sony distributed Spider-Man: Homecoming , Spider-Man: Far From Home and the upcoming Spider-Man: No Way Home, which are part of the MCU. If Leto had said he wished to have a crossover with Superman, then it would be ridiculous to add it, but a crossover with Blade this isn't outside the realm of possibility. —El Millo (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe the word "could" should be in consideration because Justin Lin and Michelle Rodriguez recently said that a crossover between Jurassic Park and Fast & Furious "could happen" (though I hope it doesn't) yet that isn't mentioned in their Wikipedia pages. So, if that story isn't on these Wiki articles, why should Jared Leto saying a crossover with Blade "could happen" have to be on here? - Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) 12:14 PM - April 16, 2021 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, perhaps that should be included in Jurassic Parks and Fast & Furious, I don't know. But as I said already, there's a precedent in this case of collaboration between Sony and Marvel with Spider-Man that makes it much more likely and notable. —El Millo (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a difference between saying a crossover could happen between two random properties and a crossover could happen between two connected properties with precedent for such a crossover happening. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Doctor

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)

Now it has been added. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Omicron

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)

"amid" does not mean "because of", sounds like it is just an assumption because the surge is happening at the moment. Deadline says "one factor motivating the push" is No Way Home's success so that was kept. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Early reactions

@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)

Once we have actual full reviews, the initial reactions seem to be rendered irrelevant. —El Millo (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I see your point, but the "actual" reviews have different criticisms than those of the early reactions (CGI and post-credits scenes). I also think it is notable that early reactions to a film were negative across the board. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I've read some reviews, and those two are among all the aspects they criticize. I see no need to talk about the initial reactions when it's perfectly in line with the actual critical response, much like we do not keep the info on box office projections if the actual box office gross isn't notably above or below them. —El Millo (talk) 04:37, 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

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)

 Done InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Vein" shouldn't have [sic]

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)

I thought that as well. —El Millo (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2022 (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. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 12:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary 'the' in the Critical reception

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)

 Done Indagate (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

75-83

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)

Deadline is one of our most reliable sources, and it says the budget could be up to $83M. Reliable sources don't need to cite other reliable sources for their claims. —El Millo (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Internet meme connections on Morbius receptions

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)

Not unless it's covered in a reliable source Indagate (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Some sites (including Buzzfeed) are reporting about this, but that Buzzfeed article is a compilation of these tweets. (src: https://www.buzzfeed.com/feynman12/morbius-funny-tweets-jokes) Please let me know if this is a reliable source.
Gotta ask something here: if this is an ongoing meme on social media sites, is that appropriate to link the original Twitter tweet or Reddit post as a reliable source? Weareblahs (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't think those can be used, citing those would be just stating the original post exists, would need something that says it's notable. It's rare for something like this to be encyclopedic. Indagate (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
What about know your meme lol Genabab (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

"Leto and Smith's performances were praised"

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)

As I’ve mentioned, including Leto in the lede for praise is simply not reflective of what the sources describe. While Smith’s performance did get a fair amount of praise, Leto’s received a large amount of derision as well - it hasn’t been unequivocally positive. Including this in the lede creates the misleading perception that his performance was generally regarded by critics as good, which simply isn’t the case. Toa Nidhiki05 17:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
From User talk:Toa Nidhiki05, as the user ignored my invitation to use talk page before removing reliably sourced content: Let's discuss this instead of edit warring. The fact that Leto's and Smith's performances received some praise is determined by reliable sources rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. They are not mentioned as praiseworthy, as you said, but just as better received in relation to the overall critical response to the film, and this is reflected in the reviews included in the article. The sourced material you removed has had a consensus through editing, so please discuss on the talk page and seek a new consensus if you disagree.--Earthh (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
You're really pushing it and I'm tempted to revert again because it's so patently inaccurate. You are adding unequivocally positive praise that makes it appear critics liked his performance broadly when if anything it received a broadly negative response, with some positive reviews. Unless you're going to acknowledge the greater part of sources, this is pretty blatant violation of WP:UNDUE and is frankly indefensible to include. The one review cited by your source that says Leto received praise is from Entertainment Weekly - the definition of an outlier review as the most positive review on Metacritic by far. That's by no means representative of critical opinion.
I'm also curious as to why you think it's just me contesting this when you've reverted multiple other users who object to including it. You specifically added this wording yourself, revert anyone who removes it, and have the gall to claim it's consensus? Stop. Toa Nidhiki05 17:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Sources with negative reception (Metacritic)

This took me like five minutes to find, and I can find more. Toa Nidhiki05 18:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

To look at individual reviews and to personally assess an overall trend in the reviews is a violation of WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." This is why MOS:FILM#Critical reception says this: "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources." That means right now, the only thing in the article body that is an explicitly-stated conclusion of what critics collectively thought is the Rotten Tomatoes critics' consensus. We should not be looking at individual reviews ourselves. I recommend searching "morbius" "critics"|"reviews" to find sources that summarize what critics thought. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This is an example of what can be referenced: "Critics were not impressed with the film’s script or its special effects. Many reviews noted that the film did not live up to the promises made in the trailer for a horror/thriller superhero film with ties to other Spider-Man films," and, "To be sure, some critics saw virtues in the movie... Beyond that, though, there aren't many voices speaking up for 'Morbius.'" Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Leaving Toa Nidhiki05's pointless synthesis behind, edits by the user and fellows were reverted as the critical response section currently states that Leto and Smith's performances were better received, with sources coming from Jonathon Crump, who says that reviews for the film "have been, at best, mixed - and that's being very, very charitable" adding that some of them "praise the acting in the film, including Leto's performance", and Elisa Shafer, who describes the overall reaction as negative but says that Smith "did receive some praise for his performance". @Erik: I feel like both sources met what MOS:FILM#Critical reception says and the previous wording specifically reflected that, as the performances were not described as praiseworthy but just as better received in relation to the overall critical response to the film. One thing is for sure, the lead section currently contradicts what is said in the body, as it first states that critics lamented the performances, but then says that Leto and Smith were better received.--Earthh (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I wrote something else before but realized that I misunderstood what you were saying. When sources differ in how they assess the film, these statements can be put in the same space with in-text attribution. We can indicate that Rotten Tomatoes said that critics disliked the performances but that two other sources said while the critics disliked the film, some had liked Leto's and Smith's performances. I've tried to revise the "Critical reception" section and the lead section accordingly, and the latter with inline citations per WP:LEADCITE. Let me know what you think. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Earthh, read your sources before citing them. Only one of your sources says Lego’s performance received praise.
Erik - Could I use my sources I listed above to say something to the effect of “11 sources criticized Leto’s performance” for balance? Singling out specific and unequivocal praise for Leto off of one source seems like a WP:DUE violation to me. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not a WP:DUE violation. The one source is not expressing their opinion about Leto's performance. They are assessing multiple opinions and highlighting trends in what they see. It does not mean that they will do a perfect or even a good job, but we need to report that assessment. We cannot assess collectively ourselves, and us editors grouping 11 individual opinions (out of however many opinions) is still synthesis because each of the opinions are standalone. Hate to say it, but it's not our job to identify the trends ourselves. We need to find the sources that identify the trends. That's the distinction. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: your offensive and dismissive behavior is extremely un-called for and violates Wikipedia's code of conduct. Remember that a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable and could result in a block. Your ill-considered accusations of impropriety, like this one, are a very subtle mystification considering that the content you contested was added by Erik as a result of this discussion. As mentioned above, Crump refers to Leto's performance and Shafer to Smith's, no one said that both sources were referring to Leto. With your last edit, you removed from the lead the source supporting critical reaction to Smith without any acceptable reason. @Erik: because the lead repeats information that is in the body, editors should avoid redundancy as MOS:LEAD says. For the sake of conciseness and clarity, adding a wording like "the film received negative reviews from critics who criticized the story and visual effects, though some commended Leto's and Smith's performances" appropriately reflects what sources are saying about the film. Earthh (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
MOS:LEAD only talks about redundancy in regard to the first sentence or using redundant citations (covered in MOS:LEADCITE). The latter says, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." I find this to be "challengeable material", so the inline citations are warranted. As for the text itself, the MOS does not take any issue with the content repeating in some form. I had summarized the lead-section text a little more than the article-body text but still wanted to have in-text attribution. However, the recent edit took the Shafer citation out where it was the one that mentioned some reviews recognizing Smith's performance (the Cromp citation does not have that). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Right now the lead is unambiguously praising Leto's performance off of literally a single source (one that incorrectly claims reviews were "mixed", at that) despite a wealth of sources that say his performance was negative. We are giving WP:UNDUE weight by providing this unambiguous praise despite the fact that, broadly speaking, his performance was not praised. The current wording misleads readers into thinking a performance that was criticized more than it was praised was actually received positively.
And in response to you, Earthh, read up on policy before templating regulars, adding warnings back to talk pages against policy, and engaging in a long-scale revert war against multiple editors who object to changes you demand be included. Toa Nidhiki05 17:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you make a good point in regard to the lack of context. We need to be clear that the sources said that reviews overall panned the film, and with that established, some did like the performances by Leto and Smith. Since there is no MOS:LEAD argument about redundancy, I think we can be more extensive with our wording and ensure in-text attribution for this challengeable material. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: you keep reverting multiple other users who object to your edits ([1][2][3][4]) and in spite of what sources say. You clearly have no consensus on this, so please stop removing reliably sourced content and keep on discussing to find a consensus. --Earthh (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not reliably sourced, and there was never any consensus to include it to begin with. Toa Nidhiki05 23:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
It is reliably sourced by Manchester Evening News and Variety, which you removed without any reason and eventually claiming that there are no sources. Other participants in this discussion (me and Erik) told you not to remove reliably sourced content, and multiple other users object to your edits. You still have to provide a valid reason to not include that information and its sources, explain it here and seek a consensus before reverting again.--Earthh (talk) 16:24, 21 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)

This wording is still utterly unacceptable because it doesn't contain any criticism of Leto's performance, which can easily mislead readers into thinking that his performance was widely praised when it reality it wasn't. I'm not sure how to square this circle but the present wording is simply not backed up by sources. Reminder: the one source used here (not two - one) that praised Leto's performance also inaccurately described the film's reception as mixed, when it was in reality critically reviled. I would argue the Manchester Evening News source is not remotely credible to make that claim. Toa Nidhiki05' 17:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I've added an additional source from Yahoo! News with specific criticisms cited, including Leto's performance. Given we now have two sources with conflicting viewpoints on this, I've removed Leto's mention in the lede for now. Toa Nidhiki05 17:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Your source from Yahoo! News explicitly refers to what Rotten Tomatoes says, you can't consider them as two different sources. Your POV on the issue is starting to become clear.--Earthh (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
that’s a fun little trick right there - demand other sources, remove anything that disagrees with what you want, and then use the one source you have that says what you want and demand that be used instead. Getting tired of this WP:TEND editing style - enough is enough. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Comic Book Resources gives a detailed summary of the film's critical reception: the film "has almost universally panned with audiences, with several critics pointing to the "messy" and "confusing" plot as well as the film's outdated CGI. Another issue noted by reviewers is Morbius' post-credit scenes, which one critic called "some of the worst post credit scenes you've EVER seen." The few compliments for the movie are mainly reserved for Matt Smith's fun performance as the antagonist, Milo. However, the reactions weren't all bad, with other reviewers praising a "strong" performance from Leto and the film's treatment of the horror genre. I hope this will stop your disruptive editing and ill-considered accusations of impropriety.--Earthh (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It will not stop them, given your persistent habit of scrubbing any content from this article remotely critical of Leto. The source I added is not derivative of RT. The text there - "The film has been criticised for its poor special effects, uninspired writing and Leto's poor performance which was negatively compared to Tom Hardy's in Venom." - is radically different than RT. Unless you want to admit the "poor performances" bit in the RT review is referring to Leto? This summary from Den of Geek notes there is "Not too much praise for lead Jared Leto, but the response to Matt Smith’s over-the-top villain seems to be positive" Toa Nidhiki05 19:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It's funny that you keep accusing me of removing sources when past revisions of the page reveal that you removed them multiple times on different occasions [5][6][7]. No content critical of Leto has been removed from this article, as the critical reaction section demonstrates. Both CBR and MEN indicates that Leto's and Smith's performances received some praise (and not universal acclaim, as you keep saying) despite the overall negative reception of the film. I really can't see anyone in this page describing Leto or Smith as praiseworthy. Your POV appears to be so biased that you didn't even mention the whole text from the Yahoo News source you added: "Morbius has also received dire reviews and sits at only 16 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes. The film has been criticised for its poor special effects, uninspired writing and Leto's poor performance which was negatively compared to Tom Hardy's in Venom". Even your Dan of Geek source states that Leto received some positive reaction. Both Erik and I told you to keep what sources say with in-text attribution when they contradict themselves. Nevertheless, you keep restoring your edits despite the sources contradicting them and multiple users objecting them, which indicate that you clearly have no consensus on this.--Earthh (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
So much happening here... Toa, to reply to you directly, we can't determine ourselves if reliable sources that report on the critics' consensus are "wrong" or not. (In the case of the news outlet saying "mixed", they were saying that word with "at most", and it's not completely wrongheaded, with Metacritic showing 25 mixed reviews and 21 negative reviews.) Anyway, there is no one single truth to be had here, and commentators will summarize the consensus based on their own imperfect determinations. For example, it could be that Rotten Tomatoes wrote the consensus for Morbius after x number of reviews, then there were y more reviews added, and the consensus does not get updated for it. (EDIT: Just confirmed -- RT consensus was written after 101 reviews as seen here, and there are now 241 reviews.) It could be that a commentator looked at only a dozen "top" reviews and reported the trend among them. It's all messy, but we need to follow these sources (and not our own takes) and put the various commentary together with in-text attribution and direct quoting and let the readers have their own takeaway. Maybe we should just keep it simple in the lead section and just mention that the film got negative reviews, no specifics other than that, and then the "Critical reception" section can have everything after that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
That would be an acceptable solution. Toa Nidhiki05 14:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Draft:Highest grossing movie of all time" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2022

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)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

#MorbiusSweep?

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)

I thought the same, its gotten more than enough coverage, and such a large cultural reaction to a subpar movie that would be otherwise forgettable is definitely noteworthy. jonas (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree as well. The meme was covered fairly prominently. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Should it get it's own section, own article, or just get punched into the reception area? June Parker (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Mid-Credits Scene of Morbius Explained

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ji11720 (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022 (2)

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ji11720 (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

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)

Article is not semi-protected, just pending changes so you can edit?
Oppose this change though as it's not needed, and not standard practice. Morbius the comic character is wikilinked in lead, production section, and navbox Indagate (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2022

"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)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 05:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Have Sex

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NickyLam12 (talk | contrib) 02:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Add a morbius meme reference in the title (the one that shows in google when you search morbius)

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)

 Not done While I can confirm it's morbin' time, this should not be in the lead (vandalism). It's more suitably covered in § Internet memes. — SirDot (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Thought it would be cool to have that reference as the first thing you see when you search the movie, since it provides comical context on what the movie will be remembered for. But sadly i understand... Fellowmorbhead (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't morb, and not fun at parties. Neocorelight (Talk) 05:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2022

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 03:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Typo

> 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)

 Fixed — SirDot (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Re-release bomb

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'll add it for now but I'm unsure if theres any sources out there regarding it being the first movie in history to bomb twice, so I'll say likely for now when I add it but I'm unsure if it'll be edited out or not. RadioHobbyist (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! 92.10.13.209 (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
It got undone understandably, but I'll keep an eye out for sources as I unfortunately didn't have one, at least in the meantime another edit was kept pointing out that it very much has bombed twice. RadioHobbyist (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Wicked, thank you very much! 92.10.13.209 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the recent comment by the Rotten Tomatoes fragment should stay

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)

Rottentomatoes percentage

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)

According to https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/morbius, 17% is the correct score. Editors might be checking this page periodically to update the scores. If you're saying about scores from top critics, that means that the score is 13%, so there's no need for editing. Weareblahs (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Check the page now, the RT score is now sitting at 16% with some nine(?) more reviews registered on the site. green@grenier ~$ sign --now 05:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Relevancy of meme history?

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)

There have been other articles of films and books that covered their usage in memes (I forgot what other articles had this, do a quick search that doesn't redirect to "memes" in general). Regarding the change.org petition, I'm not entirely sure.
UPDATE: I found one, see this. green@grenier ~$ sign --now 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Paul Tassi

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)

@Vaulter: It doesn't matter whether the source is being cited as a factual report or an opinion piece. Per WP:FORBESCON, all articles written by Forbes contributors are unreliable and should be treated as self-published sources unless they are subject-matter experts. Self-published sources are never to be used except in rare circumstances, or else we would be able to add in random blogs and tweets into the Critical reception section. Tassi is NOT a subject-matter expert, I could not find any reliable sources other than his Forbes article that cite him. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Read WP:RSOPINION. I beg you. And btw, neither FORBESCON nor SPS says we cannot use self published sources for opinion. -- Vaulter 22:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I did read it, and nowhere does it say unreliable sources can be used if it's being cited for the author's opinion. The way I interpret it, it's saying that we can't treat opinion pieces as fact, not that we can use any source we want as long as it's an opinion. Like I said, this is equivalent to citing a random blog or social media post in the Reception section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" seems pretty clear to me, but you do you. -- Vaulter 02:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
It would be helpful if WP:RSOPINION was more specific in what some sources refers 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)
@Vaulter: would you mind responding? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I was hoping others would comment on this thread. I really don't have much to add to what I've already said. -- Vaulter 15:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll make a post at WT:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Vaulter 18:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Vaulter: 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)
Are you familiar with WP:EDITCON? Long-standing text should not be removed without proper discussion first. -- Vaulter 02:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The text has been restored, you still need to prove he's a subject-matter expert. —El Millo (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think the Tassi comment really adds that much to the article TBH so it wouldn't detrimental if it were left out, but on the other hand some Forbes contributors can be pretty well informed in their topic areas so I have always been relaxed about their inclusion. I think the acid test for determining whether someone is an "expert" is whether they have published similar content in other reliable sources. If they have then I think it is ok to include it, if they haven't then it probably should be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Tassi's Twitter page indicates he only writes for Forbes and no one else, and I couldn't find many reliable sources (max. 3) citing his work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Leave aside Tassi for a second—are there really no indisputably more reliable sources that can be used? There's no shortage of notable critics at major publications with at least some editorial oversight. This was a major Hollywood release with plenty of critical commentary—Why not use those better sources? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion, but I feel this discussion should establish a consensus on whether WP:FORBESCON can be ignored for reviews in case something similar happens in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Edits like this one is why I think we need to establish some sort of consensus on this matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate what WP:RSPS is trying to do in general and it is reasonable to be cautious when referencing "contributors" on factual matters but excluding reviews from film critics seems absurd (and I would say the same about publications far less reliable than Forbes). On general principle I would say that the review should be included. After that if editors still wanted to replace his opinion on with other reviews from other critics I'd be fine with that too but I would not make it a priority (for example this article repeatedly uses not great sources like Screenrant as references and there are other sources I'd see about replacing before Forbes). -- 109.77.202.118 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • So for the record, the disputed text in question is 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)
Tassi's opinion is echoed by many, so there is definitely a plethora of alternate sources to use. Even with the Tassi source removed, the same paragraph still has three critics basically saying the same thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 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)

I don't believe he can be considered a subject-matter expert just because his Twitter is verified and he is a verified RT/Metacritic review. WP:SPS states: 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)
There's been no movement on this, so I'm unwatching this page. (The initial objector also appears to have been blocked, so they won't be replying further anyway.) Please ping me if there are new developments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"Morbius (Film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

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)

That number ($163.8 million) is rounded up to $164 million, which isn't wrong per se. —El Millo (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
best be specific You choose your username 1124 (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Morbius (film)/Archive 1". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved June 17, 2022. ID is missing in both template and Wikidata; please add to either place.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

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)

This was discussed before. The answer then was [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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morbius_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1229976614"