PDA

View Full Version : Disney buys Marvel



El Chuxter
08-31-2009, 02:09 PM
Wow.

Didn't see this coming, and I'm not sure what to make of it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090831/ap_on_bi_ge/us_disney_marvel_entertainment

Hopefully, this means there will be more kid-friendly comics (meaning they're rated the equivalent of PG, not the watered-down fare they aim at kids without considering kids want story, too) and more exposure in standard retail outlets. Marvel's kind of lost sight of how kids represent their future, so it'd be nice to get them back on track. I'd love to be able to buy my daughter a Marvel comic one day soon without looking for inappropriate content first.

On the other hand, Disney's been taking a very short-sighted approach lately, putting way too many eggs into the Hannah Montana/Jonas Brothers/Generic Talentless Kiddie Entertainer #3 basket lately, without focusing on the timelessness that makes their better material, well, better. And it's rather sad that both the major comic publishers are now owned by gigantic multinational conglomerates.

pbarnard
08-31-2009, 02:14 PM
So I can hug Spiderman and the Hulk next time at Disney World?

sith_killer_99
08-31-2009, 02:33 PM
Cool, maybe they will have Mickey Mouse (and gang) in the next "Marvel Zombies" series!:twisted:

Yeah, I know, I'm twisted, at least I didn't make a joke about Mickey Mouse eating Minnie Mouse. Oh, that wasn't right, I sincerely apologize. It's bad enough we had to see Peter Parker eat Mary Jane. WOW, did I just say that, okay I'll stop now.

Droid
08-31-2009, 03:07 PM
I am very interested to know what that means for Universal Studios theme parks. Don't they have Marvel tie-ins, characters, and rides?

sith_killer_99
08-31-2009, 03:32 PM
It probably just mean Disney will get royalties. I doubt they will make any changes.

plasticfetish
08-31-2009, 03:38 PM
I loath just about everything that Disney does or has had their hands in for at least the last 20 years, so I'm sure they'll do their very best to make me hate Marvel Comics as well. Not that I've been a tremendous fan of modern comics anyway... but after they've applied the "Disney magic" to everything Marvel, I can see myself loosing interest completely.

El Chuxter
08-31-2009, 03:43 PM
Disney described seeing the relationship the same way they see the relationship with Pixar: they own them, but are smart enough to let them be pretty much autonomous. I don't care for the way Disney's handled a lot of stuff, but their animated feature output was pretty solid up until they decided they could do things better than Pixar. But, now, they've had a change of heart, and their upcoming Frog Prince movie looks excellent (and it's 2D, since it seems the biggest fan of traditional animation is the head of Pixar, and now Disney's entire animation arm, John Lasseter). So I wouldn't sell them short entirely.

plasticfetish
08-31-2009, 04:03 PM
So I wouldn't sell them short entirely.You make a good point. I've enjoyed what Pixar has done (for the most part), and yes, Frog Prince looks good, so maybe I am being overly cynical. In my mind though, Disney stands for quality second, and overwhelmingly obnoxious marketing and merchandising first. Not that there's anything new there when it comes to Marvel... so, ehhh... I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

jjreason
08-31-2009, 05:17 PM
Well the once-impossible dream of having Pixar deal with a Marvel franchise in the manner of the Incredibles has now been upgraded to extremely-unlikely-but somewhere-barely-within-the-realm-of-possibility (albeit barely).

I'm good with that.

Rocketboy
08-31-2009, 05:37 PM
As you’ve probably heard by now, The Walt Disney Company is in the process of acquiring Marvel for $4 billion. But what does this mean for the future of Marvel Comics and Marvel Films? Disney CEO Bob Iger responded to questions on a conference call (http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090831/live-disney-marvel-call/) this morning, and here is some of the information that you need to know.



Disney CEO Bob Iger said the company didn’t plan on interfering much with any of the in-development Marvel movies (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/31/what-the-disneymarvel-deal-means-will-pixar-develop-marvel-superhero-films/#), using the term “If it ain’t broke…” All of the creative control will remain in the hands of the people who know the Marvel Universe best: the people at Marvel.


Disney’s acquisition does notaffect the deals for movies in place at other movie (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/31/what-the-disneymarvel-deal-means-will-pixar-develop-marvel-superhero-films/#) studios, such as Spider-Man and X-Men at 20th Century Fox.
Paramount still holds to rights to distribute up to five Marvel films, including: Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers and possibly one more unannounced film.


There are still existing deals in which other studios hold the big screen rights to certain characters.
But after those deals expire, Disney “want[s] to be sole distributor of these films.”


On the possibility of Pixar developing a future Marvel films? “We’ve talked about this internally. Pixar boss John Lasseter talked to the Marvel guys about this and they all got excited about it. We think there’s ultimately some exciting product that come of that. Sparks will fly!” Sounds like Lasseter is very interested at the possibility.


Disney also plans to “exploit more lesser-known characters.”


It is unclear what Marvel’s deal looks like with Universal Studios, but it’s hard to imagine that Disney isn’t interested in the theme park rights to the Marvel Universe.


And I have to include this out-of-context unintentionally funny quote from Iger telling CNBC how they hope to attract more young boys: “We’d like love to attract more boys, and we think Marvel’s skew is more in boys’ direction. Although there’s a universal appeal (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/31/what-the-disneymarvel-deal-means-will-pixar-develop-marvel-superhero-films/#), we think, to a lot of their characters and a lot of their story. Just look at Spider-Man and Iron Man films. This is a great fit. But we obviously know Disney has a lot of products that are more girl-skewed than boy. And we’d like the opportunity to go after boys more aggressively.”
slashfilm.com (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/31/what-the-disneymarvel-deal-means-will-pixar-develop-marvel-superhero-films/)

JediTricks
08-31-2009, 05:41 PM
I think this is a pretty bad idea, Marvel's strength lately has been its independence, the ability to make Marvel movies and to tell Marvel stories outside just the standard comic book format. Adding Disney to the decision-making process won't produce better, only lesser. At first it might be ok as they stay hands off, but as their money gets tighter they'll want to try to "fix" it with Eisner-style groupthink that'll run it into the ground. Plus, Marvel isn't a good fit for Disney, Marvel is the more mature comic book.


I thought Marvel was working on some kid-centric titles under the banner "Marvel Adventures", isn't that more PG?

El Chuxter
08-31-2009, 06:29 PM
They're dumbed-down. Really dumbed-down. One of the policies is no story arcs that take longer than a single issue. There's some decent storytelling in there, but they really underestimate the desire of kids to read backstory--which should be a whole lot easier in the internet age!

Besides, they're only available at comic shops and Borders (aside from the sporadic reprint issue at Target and very rare appearances at other stores). Getting kids into reading comics is tougher if you have to make a special trip to the comic shop without already being hooked on something you found at the grocery store, or Wal-Mart, or somewhere the kid was already.

Maerj2000
08-31-2009, 08:35 PM
I think this is a pretty bad idea, Marvel's strength lately has been its independence, the ability to make Marvel movies and to tell Marvel stories outside just the standard comic book format. Adding Disney to the decision-making process won't produce better, only lesser. At first it might be ok as they stay hands off, but as their money gets tighter they'll want to try to "fix" it with Eisner-style groupthink that'll run it into the ground. Plus, Marvel isn't a good fit for Disney, Marvel is the more mature comic book.


I thought Marvel was working on some kid-centric titles under the banner "Marvel Adventures", isn't that more PG?

I really don't think that Disney will interfere with them. Eisner is gone and Eiger said he doesn't want to 'fix' Marvel. I see it as business as usual. The weirdest part is the strong prescence of the Marvel characters at Universal Studios. I'm assuming that they will lose the rights to those characters at some point and when they do, they'll turn up at the Disney parks.

figrin bran
08-31-2009, 09:24 PM
Admittedly, I'm much more of a DC fan than Marvel but I don't like this deal at all in terms of what it means for Marvel.

While Disney does grant Pixar considerable autonomy, Pixar churns out family friendly entertainment and so Disney can afford to grant that sort of freedom. With Marvel, I can definitely see Disney putting a tighter rein on the entertainment they put out.

Blue2th
08-31-2009, 09:38 PM
Probably not going to see as much gore like a guy getting his face punched through or head blown completely off like in Punisher War Zone.
Definitely not family friendly.

I too am more of a DC fan. wish someone would explore more characters like a live action LOSH.

El Chuxter
08-31-2009, 10:32 PM
There's a fine line between kid-appropriate and kiddie. Spider-Man was also kid-appropriate no matter what the subject matter, until very recently. (Christ, "The Child Within" was one of the best Spidey stories ever, and it was about child molestation and dysfunctional families, for crying out loud! Yet there was nothing in that story I wouldn't let a pre-teen read.)

Now, Aunt May's discussing her sex life openly and Peter's having drunken one night stands (while he's still married in the minds of a lot of fans, whether Marvel recognizes that or not).

Frankly, I don't see a problem with toning it down a bit. The current strategy is very adult-oriented comics, and very kid-oriented comics. Superhero comics work best when they can be equally enjoyed by kids and by adults. I stopped reading Marvel because, if I want a story that's definitively not for kids, I'll read a Vertigo comic or watch HBO, not read X-Men.

sith_killer_99
08-31-2009, 10:46 PM
Probably not going to see as much gore like a guy getting his face punched through or head blown completely off like in Punisher War Zone.
Definitely not family friendly.

I too am more of a DC fan. wish someone would explore more characters like a live action LOSH.

So what, no more Marvel Zombies?

I am a DC guy as well, but the Marvel Zombies...I just couldn't resist, it's really the only Marvel series I have bought over the last few years.

I get the whole "kid appropriate" thing, but sometimes you just find an idea that's too cool to pass up, is hugely popular, and really isn't kid appropriate.

Now for DC to get on board and give us a good Marvel/DC cross over story worth reading!!!:twisted:

El Chuxter
09-01-2009, 01:04 AM
They don't all have to be kid-appropriate. But the flagship titles like Spider-Man, Hulk, etc, if they're going to be sold at Borders and appear on Underoos, should be rated PG at the most.

Maradona
09-01-2009, 01:33 AM
I wonder if an eventual reboot of the entire Marvel film universe is all that far away. This would be a way to get every Marvel film property under the same banner, albeit the evil empire's. Additionally, Disney owned the rights to several Marvel animated properties, most notably Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, which may finally DVD release.

As for comics, we might see Marvel split into two separate continuities, one mature, the other younger. Overall, I doubt there will be any noticeable changes for a couple of years.

Lord Malakite
09-01-2009, 01:46 AM
So maybe someday we'll get a Power Rangers team-up with Spider-Man....If they don't become hell bent on running Marvel into the ground like they have been with Power Rangers that is.

El Chuxter
09-01-2009, 09:00 AM
The (otherwise) best station in Palm Springs reported this with a mere two sentences. See if you can spot the head-smacking moment:

"Imagine Superman teaming up with Mickey Mouse. Disney has bought Marvel Comics for four billion dollars."

So, NO ONE in the entire news department knew that the single most iconic comic book superhero was published by the other of the two largest and best-known comic publishers?

pbarnard
09-01-2009, 09:21 AM
Well if they're hired for looks, probably not. There are very few "reporters" left who actually know how to research.

sith_killer_99
09-01-2009, 09:46 AM
The (otherwise) best station in Palm Springs reported this with a mere two sentences. See if you can spot the head-smacking moment:

"Imagine Superman teaming up with Mickey Mouse. Disney has bought Marvel Comics for four billion dollars."

So, NO ONE in the entire news department knew that the single most iconic comic book superhero was published by the other of the two largest and best-known comic publishers?

Wow, just....wow.

TeeEye7
09-01-2009, 12:55 PM
Well if they're hired for looks, probably not. There are very few "reporters" left who actually know how to research.

I can hear "Dirty Laundry" playing in the background of this post.

pbarnard
09-01-2009, 12:59 PM
I can hear "Dirty Laundry" playing in the background of this post.

Kick 'em while there up, kick 'em while there down...:thumbsup:

Also one of the better songs at the Eagles concert I went to.

JetsAndHeels
09-01-2009, 01:43 PM
The (otherwise) best station in Palm Springs reported this with a mere two sentences. See if you can spot the head-smacking moment:

"Imagine Superman teaming up with Mickey Mouse. Disney has bought Marvel Comics for four billion dollars."

So, NO ONE in the entire news department knew that the single most iconic comic book superhero was published by the other of the two largest and best-known comic publishers?


Unbelievable.

Knowing who's who of the major comic publishers...FAIL.

Ando
09-01-2009, 06:21 PM
That's hilarious. This is why people like me prefer to get the news from sources like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert...

Bel-Cam Jos
09-01-2009, 06:58 PM
Well, they could have Walt turn over in his grave, then burst out of it as a zombie. Best of both worlds?

El Chuxter
09-01-2009, 08:13 PM
The station is usually the best in Palm Springs, and the one I have on during the morning when I'm getting ready. One of the other stations tries too hard to be hip and fails, and the other has shoddy reporting and too obvious a political bias. (I prefer them to at least pretend to be impartial, like Fox or MSNBC pretend to be.)

And no one at the station was hired for looks. Except maybe the weather reporter, who apparently is an actual meteorologist in addition to being quite the cutie. :love:

Darth Jax
09-01-2009, 09:33 PM
don't really care bout this one way or the other as long as disney leaves the best vigilante in comics alone. only reason i read marvel is for the punisher stories.

Rocketboy
09-01-2009, 11:52 PM
And no one at the station was hired for looks. Except maybe the weather reporter, who apparently is an actual meteorologist in addition to being quite the cutie. :love:That's why I like my local news station: hot chicks and pretty good reporting.

RooJay
09-02-2009, 01:34 AM
The (otherwise) best station in Palm Springs reported this with a mere two sentences. See if you can spot the head-smacking moment:

"Imagine Superman teaming up with Mickey Mouse. Disney has bought Marvel Comics for four billion dollars."

So, NO ONE in the entire news department knew that the single most iconic comic book superhero was published by the other of the two largest and best-known comic publishers?

That's kind of similar to the one I always get when someone finds out who I work for, and the first thing out of their mouth is, "Ooh, I love Shrek!"

TeeEye7
09-02-2009, 02:52 AM
That's kind of similar to the one I always get when someone finds out who I work for, and the first thing out of their mouth is, "Ooh, I love Shrek!"

Ouch!

You should tell them: "You must be dreamin'."

Darth Jax
09-02-2009, 08:39 AM
just puts me one step further to proving my hypothesis that the general population at large are complete and utter morons

pbarnard
09-02-2009, 09:32 AM
just puts me one step further to proving my hypothesis that the general population at large are complete and utter morons

Genomics. :thumbsup:

TeeEye7
09-02-2009, 12:45 PM
just puts me one step further to proving my hypothesis that the general population at large are complete and utter morons

Come ride with me for just one shift, DJ, and you'll see for yourself! :yes:

JediTricks
09-02-2009, 01:28 PM
They're dumbed-down. Really dumbed-down. One of the policies is no story arcs that take longer than a single issue. There's some decent storytelling in there, but they really underestimate the desire of kids to read backstory--which should be a whole lot easier in the internet age!

Besides, they're only available at comic shops and Borders (aside from the sporadic reprint issue at Target and very rare appearances at other stores). Getting kids into reading comics is tougher if you have to make a special trip to the comic shop without already being hooked on something you found at the grocery store, or Wal-Mart, or somewhere the kid was already.I think there's no way to get kids back into comics without significantly lowering the cover price. All the self-contained stories in the world aren't going to change anything if kids don't buy the book in the first place.



I really don't think that Disney will interfere with them. Eisner is gone and Eiger said he doesn't want to 'fix' Marvel. I see it as business as usual. The weirdest part is the strong prescence of the Marvel characters at Universal Studios. I'm assuming that they will lose the rights to those characters at some point and when they do, they'll turn up at the Disney parks.Eisner is gone, but the company is still high on his corporate-decision-making style, there's no single driving vision, Eiger isn't the benevolent dictator he'd need to be to really make stuff work as well as it should at Disney.

Universal will keep Marvel characters until their contract expires, and after that they're hosed. But if Disney puts them into their own theme parks, it'll be a horrible fit.



I wonder if an eventual reboot of the entire Marvel film universe is all that far away. This would be a way to get every Marvel film property under the same banner, albeit the evil empire's. Additionally, Disney owned the rights to several Marvel animated properties, most notably Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, which may finally DVD release.It's not coming soon, but when those studio deals are up, it is coming. Of course, does anybody want to watch RDJ play Iron Man into his late 50s?



So maybe someday we'll get a Power Rangers team-up with Spider-Man....If they don't become hell bent on running Marvel into the ground like they have been with Power Rangers that is.Wow, you are Power Rangers crazy lately. :D It seems to me like your team-up is exactly what we should fear happening from this merger.

Droid
09-02-2009, 04:12 PM
Universal will keep Marvel characters until their contract expires, and after that they're hosed. But if Disney puts them into their own theme parks, it'll be a horrible fit.

Cue up the action figures of Disney charactes as Marvel heroes.

Spider-Mickey!

Bel-Cam Jos
09-02-2009, 07:05 PM
The op-ed page political cartoon in today's paper had Mickey's glove hand with Wolverine's claws, titled "Mickey Marvel." Not entirely sure the cartoonist's view on the sale from that pic, unless it was just a way to cross over the two companies.

Here's some possibilities for theme park changes:

- Toad's Wild Ride (just knock off the "Mr." part of the sign)
- Storyboard Land (enter a giant head of Stan Lee, to see 3-D images of panels, sketches, inkers, word balloons, etc.)
- Splash Panel Mountain (great for posed pictures! :D )
- Indiana Jones Ride (hey, Marvel ran a series of him for about 4 years)
- Dumbo's Double Sized I-Can't-Fly-Without-the-Feather Issue
- Mr. Fantastic's and Mr. Incredible's Similar Adjectives Adventure
- Doc Ock-otopia
- It's an Arachnid's Life Science Lab

El Chuxter
09-02-2009, 08:27 PM
Indeed, JT, they need to be cheaper. Newspaper editors always went by the maxim that copy (meaning stories) are considered "the filler between ads" (which is why they're in trouble, since their revenue comes entirely from advertising, and they're not smart enough to drop prices and theoretically be a better bargain when it comes to cost-per-reader). Comics used to use that same model. But there are so few ads in "floppies" now, and you read about creative budgets in excess of $14K per issue (usually three or four people or sometimes studios), and you can see why they charge so much. I'd probably buy more comics if they cost half what they do, and would be fine with ignoring ads for Charleston Chews every three pages to get that savings. Aside from a small but vocal group of readers, I imagine a lot of folks would.

BTW, not technically Disney, but Ponyo, their latest release (through their distribution deal with Studio Ghibli) was geared toward small kids, held my interest without even a minor lapse, and had more story and character development in any random five-minute clip than every Marvel Comic I've read in the past fifteen years combined.

Lord Malakite
09-03-2009, 03:50 AM
Wow, you are Power Rangers crazy lately. :D It seems to me like your team-up is exactly what we should fear happening from this merger.
And with Stan Lee backing the Disney/Marvel deal it seems like it could be a real possibility if Disney wasn't trying to bury the Power Rangers show. :D After all, Stan Lee and Marvel have played a significant role in making Power Rangers what it is today. Example 1 (http://surrealu.blogspot.com/2006/01/stan-lee-to-blame-for-power-rangers.html) and Example 2 (http://viewfromthecouch.com/wordpress/2009/04/11/take-one-part-stan-lee-and-mix-with-a-touch-of-power-rangers/). This Japanese "Sentai" version of Spider-Man first introduced the concept of normal sized monsters "growing" and having to call upon a giant robot. This would be carried over to Super Sentai. Example 3 (http://www.supersentai.com/database/1979_battle_fever_j/index.html). The first Super Sentai to follow the "Sentai" Spider-Man was loosely based on Captain America. Example 4 (http://thegkatimes.blogspot.com/2007/11/power-rangers-could-have-been-made-by.html). Stan Lee tried to market an Americanized adaption of Super Sentai in the US alongside Margaret Loesch (future President of Fox Kids). While it failed to get noticed then, a few years later Saban attempted to do the same thing and Margaret Loesch (now in a position of power) gave his Americanized adaption (Power Rangers) its chance. And the rest is history. :p Oh... and Marvel had a line of Power Ranger comics during the show's 3rd season and its 1st theatrical movie. :D