Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Iron Mouse?
August 31, 2009 6:55 AM   Subscribe

Iron Mouse? Disney to buy Marvel for 4 Billion dollars. This is good news for Marvel Shareholders but is it good news for Marvel fans?
posted by Fuzzy Monster (174 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
If this allows Darkwing Duck to join the fight in Disney vs Marvel vs Capcom, then I guess I'll adjust.
posted by Servo5678 at 7:00 AM on August 31, 2009 [20 favorites]


It's good news for Marvel/Disney slash-fic fans
posted by scrutiny at 7:00 AM on August 31, 2009 [5 favorites]


Well they already did Punisher Vs Archie so there's a precedent set for Punisher Vs Lilo & Stich: This Time, It's Personal.
posted by PenDevil at 7:02 AM on August 31, 2009


I'm sure if they don't do anything with it and keep it wrapped up in a plastic bag, they can sell it on at a convention for a sweet profit.
posted by tapeguy at 7:02 AM on August 31, 2009 [17 favorites]


"adding Marvel to Disney's unique portfolio of brands provides significant opportunities for long-term growth and value creation."

Think of the Broadway musical possibilities!
posted by R. Mutt at 7:02 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


I look forward to Disney's new movie Beauty and The Thing.
posted by DU at 7:04 AM on August 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


R. Mutt: "Think of the Broadway musical possibilities!"

Hopefully they'd work out better than Spiderman: The Musical.

posted by octothorpe at 7:08 AM on August 31, 2009


"Xavier High School For the Gifted Musical"
posted by escabeche at 7:09 AM on August 31, 2009 [16 favorites]


If this allows Darkwing Duck to join the fight in Disney vs Marvel vs Capcom, then I guess I'll adjust.

Personally I'm hoping for Marvel vs Capcom vs Disney vs SNK vs Pixar vs ABC vs ESPN vs DreamWorks vs Miramax. I'm thinking Chris Berman could give me the edge I need over the Geese and M Bison tag team.
posted by burnmp3s at 7:11 AM on August 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


Each superhero shall now be issued a garrulous, wise-cracking talking animal friend.
posted by deanc at 7:12 AM on August 31, 2009 [12 favorites]


This is probably a good acquisition on Disney's part and seems to make sense. There's a lot of potential to expand its parks and boost merchandising revenues. I don't know how much Marvel is merchandised overseas, but I doubt it rivals Disney's foothold. Disney's also surprisingly hands off with the properties it owns. Even with the Miramax, Weinstein's got their way in terms of what could be released and it appears conflicts were more due to huge egos involved and less about the types of films to be released (Farenheit 9/11 being an exception, but they still released it).

My biggest question is what will happen to Universal's "Super Hero Island" which appears to be completely based on Marvel characters. I can't imagine scrapping a whole section of an amusement park, but it is right in Disney World's backyard.
posted by geoff. at 7:13 AM on August 31, 2009


The Little Namor?
posted by The Bellman at 7:15 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


Snow White and the Seven Mutants?
posted by jquinby at 7:17 AM on August 31, 2009


Kingdom Hearts III, now with Wolverine.

In my opinion, something like this was bound to happen eventually after Time Warner picked up DC.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:18 AM on August 31, 2009


I'm curious what this means about Islands of Adventure, the theme parks owned by Universal Studios that heavily feature Marvel characters.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:18 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


For Disney, this is a big deal. Six Flags (which had a prior arrangement to use Marvel characters) declared bankruptcy this June, but not before working on a deal with the Dubai Emirate to open an overseas amusement park/resort. Dubai tried to continue the project on its own, but the deal fell through. This leaves Disney with a chance to strengthen Euro Disneyland as a tourist draw, while using the publishing licenses to put pressure/competition on Panini Group, the Italian company which still owns reprint rights to some of the Marvel UK titles.

And of course, the comic rights, as well as media/toy franchises and costumed character appearances, bode for an extra perk in revenue.
posted by Smart Dalek at 7:19 AM on August 31, 2009


Interesting news if you're a shareholder, or 13 years old.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:20 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


I swear the first time I see Wolverine, the old man from Up, and Goofy fighting Jafar I'm out.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 7:22 AM on August 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


It was late 1997. I was living in Shizuoka Prefecture at the time, being just about the biggest Capcom fanboy you ever imagined, and eagerly buying the new issue of Gamest Magazine every two weeks despite barely being able to read a word of it. That was where I first saw an ad for Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of Super Heroes. Thinking that this sort of company-wide ubercrossover was about the most ridiculous and awesome thing I'd ever seen, I whipped up a mock ad for a Disney vs. Capcom game, featuring Ryu, Chun-Li, Zangief, Morrigan, Mega Man and the rest facing off against Mickey, Goofy, Donald, Pinocchio, Beast and Winnie the Pooh, among others. Keep in mind that this was long before Kingdom Hearts was first envisioned.

It's all coming true.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:24 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


My biggest question is what will happen to Universal's "Super Hero Island" which appears to be completely based on Marvel characters...
Yeah. I gotta think there was a huge, collective brick dump over at Universal when this news hit the airwaves. It is possible for them to re-brand that section of the park, though. Note the re-naming of movie-branded rides at King's Island when Paramount sold it to Cedar Fair (owners of Cedar Point.)

Obviously, there's a whole lot more work to do in re-vamping Universal's park. But, it can be done, if the will is there. That said, I have to wonder just how much of Marvel's stable would actually fit with the atmosphere of a Disney park? Given the overt violence of most of Marvels titles, one has to wonder if Disney would even let them in the parks without a wholesale neutering? Maybe Disney simply kicks-up the licensing fees to Universal?
posted by Thorzdad at 7:24 AM on August 31, 2009


Oh shit I just realized I AM a shareholder!

Also, as anyone who knows me can attest, I might as well be thirteen years old.

posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:24 AM on August 31, 2009


All kidding aside, though, I imagine you're not really going to see tons of brand overlap with this. I mean, Disney is owned by ABC and it's not like characters inexplicably keep showing up on Gray's Anatomy. The most likely benefit Disney will get is now having the most well-known comics company on the planet as a distributor for their brand comics, not to mention product advertisements.

Here's my predictions: definitely the use of Marvel characters in the next Kingdom Hearts game, most likely incorporation of Marvel into Disney theme parks, and any future Marvel-related cartoons bailing on Fox Kids and airing on ABC.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:26 AM on August 31, 2009


The Little Namor?

I think "Finding Namor" is what you're looking for.
posted by escabeche at 7:26 AM on August 31, 2009 [11 favorites]


Disney's also surprisingly hands off with the properties it owns.

We will see. I know that if I were a big muckety-muck at Disney and I discovered our new acquisition publishes Spider-Man and kids don't buy it, I might wonder how we could tweak the business model.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:27 AM on August 31, 2009


My biggest question is what will happen to Universal's "Super Hero Island" which appears to be completely based on Marvel characters. I can't imagine scrapping a whole section of an amusement park, but it is right in Disney World's backyard.

It sounds like a way for Disney to pull a few bucks out of Universal's back pocket. On the one hand, the Marvel attractions are a huge draw at Universal's parks, so they're inclined to try to renew the licensing. On the other, if they promote them heavily, they're really promoting Disney properties. It seems to be win-win for Disney, even if they continue to license the properties to Universal.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:27 AM on August 31, 2009


(Just as long as the Tower of Terror, which is awesome, doesn't turn into Dr. Doom's Death Drop, which stinks.)
posted by uncleozzy at 7:28 AM on August 31, 2009


New corporate slogan: "To infinity... and Beyonder!"
posted by escabeche at 7:28 AM on August 31, 2009 [6 favorites]


Uatutouille!
posted by escabeche at 7:29 AM on August 31, 2009 [8 favorites]


It's hard to imagine anyone wrecking Marvel any more than they near-wrecked themselves so many times in the past.

Then again, as someone who bought Marvel at $2.20 many years ago after one of those collapses.... I'm not exactly unbiased here. Disney will be good for the short-term, and probably long-term also. Who does merchandising better, after all.
posted by rokusan at 7:32 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm looking forward to reading The Punisher Kills the Disney Universe.
posted by Prospero at 7:32 AM on August 31, 2009 [11 favorites]


(Also note they have not yet ruined Pixar, so there is creative hope, too.)
posted by rokusan at 7:33 AM on August 31, 2009


Man, Marvel just turned 70 - and already they're shipping 'em off to Florida.

(Please, Mr. Iger, please don't rape my childhood.)
posted by bashos_frog at 7:34 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


they have not yet ruined Pixar,

Bolt in fact indicates that Pixar fixed Disney, a bit.
posted by signal at 7:38 AM on August 31, 2009 [6 favorites]


The Wall Street Journal is Liveblogging The Disney-Marvel Investment Call
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:38 AM on August 31, 2009


Of course, I had recently been bitching about how most comics I grew up with aren't really suitable for kids anymore, so if Disney could pull that off (without screwing up comics for people like me) I think it would be a big win.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:39 AM on August 31, 2009


Uatutouille!

...movie watches you!
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 7:41 AM on August 31, 2009 [8 favorites]


I really doubt that Universal will be forced to change overnight. My suspicion is that Universal has a multi-year lease on those trademarks. I'd be highly surprised if that contract allowed for Marvel to pull out overnight, and there is probably a clause in there that covers Universal's rights should Marvel merge with another company.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:41 AM on August 31, 2009


We will see. I know that if I were a big muckety-muck at Disney and I discovered our new acquisition publishes Spider-Man and kids don't buy it, I might wonder how we could tweak the business model.

The big muckey-mucks at Warner Brothers seem fairly happy to let DC do what it does so long as the Superman and Batman Underoos sell.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:41 AM on August 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


escabeche: How could I have missed that?
posted by The Bellman at 7:43 AM on August 31, 2009


I actually had some Marvel stock my parents bought me back in the 90s at the height of comics-mania. What was great about it was that the quarterly reports came with four-page comic books! So you'd have Spider-Man talking about P/E ratios or something. Fifteen-year-old me thought that was pretty cool at the time, but in retrospect maybe they should have focused on producing better comic books.

I'm looking at you, Clone Saga.
posted by Rangeboy at 7:44 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


More Information from Bloomberg.com.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:44 AM on August 31, 2009


The big muckey-mucks at Warner Brothers seem fairly happy to let DC do what it does so long as the Superman and Batman Underoos sell.

Yeah, but you're talking about the same people who bought AOL.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:44 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Sort of amusing: Disney CEO and President Robert Iger's great-uncle was Jerry Iger, of Eisner & Iger.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:48 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Stan Lilo
posted by orme at 7:51 AM on August 31, 2009


I was going to go with "Hannah Zatanna" until I remembered she was DC. Rats.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:55 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


I am simultaneously intrigued and fearful of what this means for Howard the Duck.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:56 AM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


It's really telling to me that the Bloomberg article mentions the Iron Man and Hulk movies but not the comics. I really feel that Marvel has a bit of an identity crisis in that they want to be a household entertainment name, but except for the licensed summer blockbuster, they appear to be utterly incompetent when it comes to pitching products outside of a limited fanboy demographic.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:57 AM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


The big muckey-mucks at Warner Brothers seem fairly happy to let DC do what it does so long as the Superman and Batman Underoos sell.

I've read before that because the film and merchandising revenues from DC dwarfed the comic revenues, there was less pressure on DC comics to focus on profitability, compared to Marvel. I'd guess this deal will end up being positive for fans of Marvel.
posted by bobo123 at 7:58 AM on August 31, 2009


Lucky Marvel stockholders. Little does Disney know that superheros have reached critical saturation of the mainstream media, bored/turned-off by "the good vs. the evildoers" of the previous administration. When superhero movies take the fall these next few years, look for them to be replaced by blockbuster Hollywood dramatizations of the underdog, those who persevere beyond all odds, and Johnny-come-latelies of from today's crop of current reality TV hits: American Idol: the Movie, Survivor: the Movie, America's Next Top Model: The Movie, Top Chef: The Movie, etc., etc., etc.
posted by spoons at 8:05 AM on August 31, 2009


I am simultaneously intrigued and fearful of what this means for Howard the Duck.

That was the first thing I thought of. What a weird crossover that would be.
posted by brundlefly at 8:05 AM on August 31, 2009


I guess this means that all Marvel superheroes will be coming out of the closet.
posted by WolfDaddy at 8:07 AM on August 31, 2009


My biggest question is what will happen to Universal's "Super Hero Island" which appears to be completely based on Marvel characters. I can't imagine scrapping a whole section of an amusement park, but it is right in Disney World's backyard.

YES! Ha ha ha! YES! Oh please oh please oh please oh please destroy that park or at least make them pay half of their ticket prices to WDW. Ha ha ha! Oh that would be awesome.

(Bias: Complete WDW Fanboy with utter contempt for Universal's strategy which is usually summed up as "What did Disney do two years ago?! OH! We should do that! Mimic")

Utterly bizarre to think of Marvel as a Disney property, though.
posted by cavalier at 8:18 AM on August 31, 2009


And all of you "I'm a grown up" "you're all 13 lol" need to get a little more childhood back into you. Jus' sayin.
posted by cavalier at 8:19 AM on August 31, 2009 [5 favorites]


The comics are incubators - no-one makes any money off the comics. But it's used heavily as a creative laboratory that yields some pretty intense revenue for TV and movies and merchandising. What's more, artists go on to become storyboarders and concept designers, and writers go on to scriptwriting and scriptdoctoring, and some of the biggest creative talent in Hollywood gets their four-color staple-bound fix every wednesday.

Warner has been able to dip into DC for wildly popular movies and animated shows (Batman: The Brave and the Bold is easily the most entertaining thing on its network. I mean, R. Lee Emery as Wildcat? Awesome.)

I think Disney wants in on some of that action, and to be blunt, Marvel could use some brand discipline when pitching to Hollywood, as evidenced by their recent TV disasters (Spiderman fighting furverts in the future, WTF? Teenage Tony Stark? Are you shitting me? Wolverine as the =leader= of the X-men? "OK! Everybody eviscerate somebody! Go!")
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:19 AM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


The comics are incubators - no-one makes any money off the comics.

I'm not saying Disney will realize this or care, but there's no reason for that to be true. When comics sold off newsstands, their returns were often higher than actual sales on some comics today. People like comics, they like these characters, and yet they don't buy these comics. It's all well and good to say that the comics will be R/D for movies and TV, but they could be profitable in their own right.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:28 AM on August 31, 2009


they have not yet ruined Pixar,

Though that's partially because Pixar basically took over DisneyAnimation. Still, Disney knows how to make money, and if Marvel's making money, they'll keep away.

re: Universal's Marvel license at their theme parks, that's surely a multi-year contract that will expire at some point. I wouldn't be surprised if Universal did a slow pull-back over the next six months or a year and eventually phased out the characters before the end of the contract, though. It's also possible they could ramp up the character-exploitation, try to squeeze everything they can out of them up until the very end of the contract, and then hand them over to Disney used and abused, but that'd be Machiavellian, and Universal is a little too busy sucking at the box office (The Tale of Despereaux! Land of the Lost! Public Enemies!) to come up with master plans like these. I'll bet Universal will phase out the characters but sit on the exclusivity contract so Disney can't capitalize on them before the end of the agreement.
posted by incessant at 8:33 AM on August 31, 2009


[few comments removed - popping in to a thread to say how little you care smacks of "doth protest too much"quit it, thanks.]
posted by jessamyn at 8:48 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


except for the licensed summer blockbuster

From what I understand, the films aren't licensed. Marvel makes them in house.
posted by empath at 8:58 AM on August 31, 2009


Super Jonas Bros. anyone??? And what about Mighty Mouse??? Just sayin'... this should be interesting.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 8:58 AM on August 31, 2009


Maybe for once we'll get a cartoon based on Marvel properties that has some decent animation? I have been severely disappointed by Marvel's recent direct-to-DVD animated features. The design and animation is always so sketchy and cheap looking.
posted by autodidact at 9:00 AM on August 31, 2009


Oh-- Some are produced in-house, some are licensed:

Licensed:

Spiderman/X-Men/Wolverine

In house:

Thor/Hulk/Iron Man/Avengers
posted by empath at 9:02 AM on August 31, 2009


I'm worried about Marvel's movie division more than the comics. With DC, Time Warner only seem to interfere with more adult properties. The Boys most recently and I think I can recall some issues with Wildstorm or Vertigo books. Other than their Max line, which doesn't get more "adult" than your average R-rated summer action movie, Marvel comics don't tend to go in that direction.
However, Marvel's movie division has really taken off now that they've been producing their own properties instead of licensing them out. I'm worried about Disney having a heavy hand in this department. And the question isn't how does Disney feel about their new acquisitions being featured in rides at Universal Studios, it's how does Disney feel about their properties being featured in movies produced by Fox (X-Men) or Sony (Spiderman).
posted by thecjm at 9:04 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


The scuttlebutt I keep reading is that direct-market shop sales are slowly shrinking, and Mavel and DC are getting clobbered in the general bookstores by the likes of Tokyopop, and literary comics. The format isn't suffering in print, but there is a strong argument that the superhero genre isn't the powerhouse it used to be.

thecjm: Well, I imagine that they wouldn't be making future licensing deals. But the fact that Marvel has/had agreements with Fox and Sony is probably part of the package.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:14 AM on August 31, 2009


I know this is a bit out of left field, but I worry what this means for The Hero Initiative. For those who don't know, they help comic artists, writers, and creators who have no money due to the poor comics contracts of years past (and sometimes current).

I was at Wizard World in Chicago recently and went to one of their panels. They talked about how Marvel was one of their largest aids in fund raising, helped them repeatedly with things like having artists draw things like covers for comics that the Hero Initiative can auction off to raise funds, etc. In the panel they were asked if DC also helped the Initiative, and the panelists said "no", and not because DC didn't want to, but because DC was owned by WB and everything had to go through so many channels of authorization that DC never was able to get anything approved to help the charity. They even said the head of DC would sometimes call them and say "Hey I have this great idea for the Hero Initiative. We can't do it because of Time Warner but maybe you can do it with Marvel or Dark Horse".

If Marvel now has the same stringent limitations on helping this charity, I don't know if it will survive...
posted by arniec at 9:17 AM on August 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


Holy shit.

Interesting.
posted by Artw at 9:29 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Art, that's it? Interesting?
posted by Mister_A at 9:30 AM on August 31, 2009


You must be flummoxed or something...
posted by Mister_A at 9:31 AM on August 31, 2009


I wonder if they'll let Don Rosa write and draw a comic or two. I don't know if I'd actually kill for The Life and Times of J. Jonah Jameson but I'd certainly say that I would if that would get it made. I would, however, kill for The Life and Times of May Parker.
posted by Kattullus at 9:37 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


There is not going to be a lot of Disney/Marvel crossover. Disney bought the Henson company and they built one 3D show in the Disney MGM Studios park, and they only ever did one Disney/Muppets television crossover special that I know of.
posted by Matt Arnold at 9:41 AM on August 31, 2009


I would subscribe to Dr. Doom Eats the Muppet Babies.
posted by Dr-Baa at 9:43 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


There's a Mickey Eye joke in here somewhere, I just can't find it.
posted by COBRA! at 9:45 AM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume superhero movies will continue to be just as generally awful and bewilderingly popular as before.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:45 AM on August 31, 2009


The most likely benefit Disney will get is now having the most well-known comics company on the planet as a distributor for their brand comics, not to mention product advertisements.

I think it also gives Disney a big in to a demographic that's been fairly elusive for them: the teenage fanboy. I'm not sure of all their holdings, but it seems like they cover kids, tween and teen girls, and adults. Does Disney already own anything that hits that 13-21 year old male demographic as squarely as Marvel Comics?
posted by LooseFilter at 9:46 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


KirkJobSluder: Mavel and DC are getting clobbered in the general bookstores by the likes of Tokyopop, and literary comics. The format isn't suffering in print, but there is a strong argument that the superhero genre isn't the powerhouse it used to be.

For my part, as someone who grew up reading Silver Age DC stuff and now read almost every literary/arty/whatever graphic novel I come across, the reason I don't read superhero stuff anymore is that every book I've picked up in the last several years seems to be either A) episode 26 of a 152-book arc, thus making it impossible to follow or get into, or B) a quick one-off with Spidey nabbing some bank robbers or something that also for whatever reason spends half the book relating his origin story. It seems that the superhero books only go in those two directions, huge elaborate story that necessitates knowing the relationships between all the characters in the Marvel/DC stables, or quickies that require a short attention span and no interest in character or story, and only a few nice splash pages.

If they started making superhero stories that were stories (and maybe they are and I just haven't come across them) rather than exercises either in fanboy obscurity or comicy sameness, I'd still be reading them. As it is, I don't see any reason to pick up the latest Deadpool or Green Lantern instead of Jeffrey Brown Wallows In Failed Relationships Digest.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:47 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


(not that I have a problem with superhero movies per se. It just baffles me that people failed to notice that "Iron Man," for example, was just terrible, and that so many people who never had any interest in comics see them just because they're there.)
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:47 AM on August 31, 2009


Looking through this list, maybe some of their film companies do, but I don't see any holding that will hit the young male fanboy demo square in the center like Marvel does. This looks like a smart acquisition to me, at least in concept, and if this is part of Disney's motivation they will be mostly hands off so that Marvel can keep appealing to those it already does.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:50 AM on August 31, 2009


I'm curious what this will mean for BOOM! Studios' The Muppet Show and Disney/Pixar comics.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:53 AM on August 31, 2009


I also think they'll use Marvel to figure out how to capitalize on teen girls' interest in comics, so maybe Marvel will expand to include some lit comics or Tokyopop or whatever. Disney grooms its customers from early childhood, this looks like filling an important gap the more I think about it.

(sorry to be all calculatingly demographic about a beloved entertainment product line, but that's what it is to Disney, and that's where their motivation for the deal will be found of course.)
posted by LooseFilter at 9:55 AM on August 31, 2009


It just baffles me that people failed to notice that "Iron Man," for example, was just terrible,

It's frustrating when others fail to appreciate objective facts like that! If only they had access to the same clear vision of reality that you possess.
posted by brain_drain at 9:55 AM on August 31, 2009 [18 favorites]


I confess I own a piece of the mouse as well, but mostly 'cause the certificate is so awesome.
posted by dragonsi55 at 9:57 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Acknowledgement: I liked Iron Man, at least until the hackneyed battle at the end.
posted by brain_drain at 9:57 AM on August 31, 2009


I don't know if I'd actually kill for The Life and Times of J. Jonah Jameson but I'd certainly say that I would if that would get it made.

If there's someone we could kill to get that made, let me know.

("DO YOU READ THE DAILY BUGLE?!")
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:01 AM on August 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


Um.... what was so terrible about Iron Man? It's actually an exemplar of how to do superhero on the screen right.

I'm not sure yet if this is good or bad. I'm leaning toward indifferent right now. The one thing that gives me pause is I feel like since Marvel Studios started producing movies directly, they have been much improved. Iron Man being a key example of that.

Just compare 2004's The Punisher to the 2008 Punisher: War Zone and you'll see what i mean. Marvel Knights (their more adult imprint) produced WarZone, and it's not only better than the 2004 Thomas Jane debacle, but it was cheaper to make and thus more profitable. Iron Man cost a bit more, but was also a much bigger hit.

This suggests to me a willingness on Marvel Studios to explore simpler superhero movies. Everything doesn't have to be a tentpole. And also, considering that Thomas Jane walked off and they still stuck to their creative guns, it implies that lower stakes films allow them to be truer to the source material.

So like anything, it all depends. If Disney recognizes why Marvels fortunes are improved since the late 90s, then this is probably a good thing. As soon as they try to influence Marvel writers though, you should expect to see hero movies with too many villains and dance numbers.
posted by butterstick at 10:02 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Ok, serious question here. Does this mean that the spiderman 3d ride is going to be taken out of Universal Studios?

Because I am NOT ok with that.
posted by tylerfulltilt at 10:03 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


From what I can tell, The Henson Company is still owned by the Henson family. Disney bought the rights to The Muppets. So Disney can't do anything with Farscape, Dark Crystal, or Labyrinth because those are still Jim Henson Company properties.

shakespeherian: Yes, that's why I can't get into superhero comics myself. Just about when I get into a set of characters and a writer, DC and Marvel pull a big mega-event where I have to fork out too much money for stuff I don't like that much just to understand what's going on. X-Men continuity is a mess of trying to retcon the retocon they retconned to retcon the last retcon. But I bailed back when they were still jerking the reader around on the issue of whether Jean Grey is dead or not.

So if I get pulled into a comic, it's usually something that's safely tangental and has good writing like Runaways or an independent publisher where there is no pretense that The Umbrella Academy inhabits the same universe as Hellboy.

To LoseFilter on preview: Marvel certainly tried with very funny results that were not that successful at hitting the target.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:05 AM on August 31, 2009


Warren Ellis has this to say:

No, I am not going to be writing Disney comics.

Fairly fucking obviously.

posted by slimepuppy at 10:11 AM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


X-Men of the Caribbean!
Iron Man and the Seven Dwarfs!
Dr. Von Doom's Wild Ride!
Wolverhontas!
posted by ...possums at 10:11 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


Wolverhontas I would read/watch/battle/whatever.
posted by Mister_A at 10:12 AM on August 31, 2009


Colossus Montana! Steel-plated superhero by day, teenage pop sensation by night.
posted by ...possums at 10:13 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


But I bailed back when they were still jerking the reader around on the issue of whether Jean Grey is dead or not.

So . . . was this yesterday, or thirty years ago? I kid, I kid. I know what you mean. Jean Grey is the fucking Schroedinger's Cat of comic characters.
posted by Skot at 10:16 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


There's a Mickey Eye joke in here somewhere, I just can't find it.

All I can come up with is, "When you live, when you die, here comes Mickey Eisner!" which sadly doesn't work, as he's no longer in charge.

AM DEK EISNER
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 10:17 AM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


This suggests to me a willingness on Marvel Studios to explore simpler superhero movies. Everything doesn't have to be a tentpole. And also, considering that Thomas Jane walked off and they still stuck to their creative guns, it implies that lower stakes films allow them to be truer to the source material.

Apparently, Paramount still has five more Marvel movies to distribute under their deal (Thor, Iron Man 2 and 3, The Avengers, and Captain America.) And Fox has Deadpool (which is a good opportunity to do something different, but since it's Fox I'll assume they'll screw it up if it even gets made) and Wolverine 2. That pretty much covers all the announced upcoming films.

After Paramount is done, Marvel is going to be pretty wrung out of big, recognizable name movies (except for what they can squeeze out of sequels, [a lot].) We might have to wait several years to see the actual effects of this deal.

(Incidentally, I do really like the plan to set Captain America entirely during WWII. I think that's a nice creative decision along the lines of what you're talking about.)
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:22 AM on August 31, 2009


Now personally, I think Iron Man (along with The Dark Knight, Hellboy, and Spiderman and even Lord of the Rings) work to the degrees they did because they were well-structured movies that didn't pander to fanboys, who ideally have no role in the translation to film other than to be hogtied in the corner with a sock in their mouth. We didn't get the thinly-veiled anti-communist parable of classic Iron Man, or the tortured political technocrat who stomps all over civil liberties for the greater good that currently dominates the character. We got a Tony Stark that takes the bare outline of the character and bridges from there to a post-Enron corporate environment.

Likewise, I think DelToro's instincts are generally on the nose in balancing Mignola's Lovecraftian slogs with comedy, and Jackson was entirely correct in discarding Tolkien's narrative devices in favor of a more straight-forward story flow that liberally pulls from the appendix to make Aragorn a protagonist. Marvel's attempts to make a more direct comic-book-ish adaptations show up in their direct-to-DVD releases, and they are ugly, tone-deaf, and unwatchable.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:27 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


I mean, Disney is owned by ABC and it's not like characters inexplicably keep showing up on Gray's Anatomy. posted by XQUZYPHYR

To clarify on this, it's the other way around, ABC is actually owned by Disney.

It just baffles me that people failed to notice that "Iron Man," for example, was just terrible
posted by drjimmy11

Iron Man received a 79 on Metacritic which is pretty positive. Maybe they (critics as well as fans) were too busy liking it to notice it was terrible. Plus, Robert Downey Jr.

Also it's worth mentioning it is fairly common for the production arm of a company to produce television that ends up on other networks than their own. (Scrubs is produced by ABC but airs on NBC. The West Wing was produced by WB but aired on NBC. How I Met Your Mother is produced by 20th Century Fox but airs on CBS. And so on and so forth.) So I'm not sure this will radically change the structure of the myriad licensing deals that go on in Hollywood.
posted by haveanicesummer at 10:28 AM on August 31, 2009


Hmm. Marvels been all about maintaining IPs for use in non-comics projects for ages now, so I'm not really seeing that it will change things in the comics too much - all change will continue to be essentially cyclical, anything of interest happening will continue to be relegated to weird little corners no one cares much about.

This is what happens when your movies start making money.
posted by Artw at 10:28 AM on August 31, 2009


Solon and Thanks: And Fox has Deadpool (which is a good opportunity to do something different, but since it's Fox I'll assume they'll screw it up if it even gets made)

Question, since I don't know any details about this: Is this going to be in continuity with the Wolverine movie from earlier this year? Because I'd like to see a Deadpool movie (especially with 4th-wall breaks! How awesome would that be? Charlie Kaufman should write it.), but I don't think the character from that movie, even if they change actors from Ryan Reynolds, would work very well in the Deadpool movie I'd like, what with the built-in swords and the laser eyes and everything.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:30 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


they have not yet ruined Pixar

Get read for a run of Cars and Toy Story sequels - it's coming.
posted by Artw at 10:31 AM on August 31, 2009


@andydiggle: Let's remember Disney owned Miramax when they made films like RESERVOIR DOGS, PULP FICTION, TRAINSPOTTING and THE CROW.
posted by Artw at 10:33 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


For those of you frustrated with the Marvel and DC style mega-arcs spanning 20 different titles, I recommend you check out Invincible.

You can read the first issue online here. It's at the bottom of the page. Sorry, I can't figure out how to link to it directly.

Invincible preserves a lot of that superhero/villain fun while at times poking fun at itself and the superhero genre. I recommend the Ultimate Collection hardcovers, which are the best value for collected issues.

It's written by Robert Kirkman, who also writes The Walking Dead.

On topic, it will be interesting to see where this deal with Disney leads. I wonder if we will see Marvel characters showing up in the Disney parks when whatever contracts Universal has run out.
posted by Fleebnork at 10:37 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


Question, since I don't know any details about this: Is this going to be in continuity with the Wolverine movie from earlier this year? Because I'd like to see a Deadpool movie (especially with 4th-wall breaks! How awesome would that be? Charlie Kaufman should write it.), but I don't think the character from that movie, even if they change actors from Ryan Reynolds, would work very well in the Deadpool movie I'd like, what with the built-in swords and the laser eyes and everything.

No, supposedly they're just going to ignore it completely. Ryan Reynolds is actually a fan, and rumor has it pushed for it to be as authentic as possible. (There's an interview where he mentioned 4th wall breaking, for example. I googled it and found this quote from him: "I wish they would do a ‘Cable’ movie first, just to explain the guy. And then they could do a ‘Deadpool vs. Cable’ kind of thing.")

But I don't really see how an authentic Deadpool movie could work for Hollywood - Spider-Man is another movie with a handsome lead who wears a facemask, and they make him remove it constantly. I have trouble seeing them making Ryan Reynolds all tumor-y and nasty. For Spider-Man I heard there were attempts made to animate the mask, but it entered the uncanny valley. That might work for Deadpool.

BUT also. Ryan Reynolds has been picked to play the Green Lantern, and with the currently schedule would be filming both movies around the same time. And the Green Lantern is probably more profitable and better for his career. So I'm not sure Deadpool will get made afterall.

why yes hello future employer please interpret this as me being a sharp analytical mind and not simply someone who pays a lot of attention to comic books.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:40 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Action: Disney buys Marvel.

Reaction: SNIKT!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:44 AM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


Allow me to answer the question with a question. How do you feel about an Avengers movie starring Miley Cyrus as Wasp?

Wait a minute. Why am I not consulted on these things?
posted by SinisterPurpose at 10:45 AM on August 31, 2009


I stopped following Deadpool in the early XForce days, anyone care to recommend a good run/writer to look up?
posted by butterstick at 10:46 AM on August 31, 2009


Artw; yeah, if anyone was worried about Disney somehow CutesyFyingtm the Marvel universe, they probably haven't heard of Touchstone pictures or Miramax...
posted by cavalier at 10:47 AM on August 31, 2009


I'm the Juggernaut, Stitch!
posted by brundlefly at 10:51 AM on August 31, 2009 [12 favorites]


Pretty good NYTimes peice
posted by Artw at 10:52 AM on August 31, 2009


I knew that there were too many good comic book movies being made. Now Disney has bought the next generation's childhood memories, and we can generally expect less art and more focus-group driven garbage.
posted by zekinskia at 10:53 AM on August 31, 2009


I'm the Juggernaut, Stitch!

Heh.

Lilo and Stich is actually kind of weirdly cool. I have no idea how they came to make such a thing.
posted by Artw at 10:54 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


Warren Ellis has this to say:

No, I am not going to be writing Disney comics.


The Warren Ellis-era of "Scrooge McDuck" is considered the definitive version on Earth II.

Cal Banks' "Transmetropolitan" was considered an abject failure though.
posted by GuyZero at 10:56 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Lilo and Stich is actually kind of weirdly cool. I have no idea how they came to make such a thing.

Yeah, I was really pleasantly surprised when I saw it.
posted by brundlefly at 10:56 AM on August 31, 2009


How do you feel about an Avengers movie starring Miley Cyrus as Wasp?

She's as WASP-y as it gets I suppose.
posted by GuyZero at 10:57 AM on August 31, 2009


Lilo and Stich is actually kind of weirdly cool. I have no idea how they came to make such a thing.

Yeah, neither could the powers-that-be at Disney, apparently. They fired most of the staff that worked on that film after it came out. Which was weird considering that it was the last good animated film they ever made...
posted by nushustu at 11:04 AM on August 31, 2009


Spider-Man is another movie with a handsome lead who wears a facemask, and they make him remove it constantly. posted by Solon and Thanks

I think that is largely because of acting and portrayal of emotion reasons, as well as Spiderman movies largely dealing with his difficulties in ordinary life rather than because they want to show their handsome Tobey McGuire off.
posted by haveanicesummer at 11:09 AM on August 31, 2009


Lilo and Stich is actually kind of weirdly cool. I have no idea how they came to make such a thing.

Yeah, Lilo and Stitch is pretty great. I've been too filled with dread to check out the series or the cheapquel(s?), though.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:10 AM on August 31, 2009


I've been too filled with dread to check out the series or the cheapquel(s?), though.

Ah, that would be my next question.

/has watched all or part of the Little Mermaid cheapquels many, many times now. Sigh.
posted by Artw at 11:12 AM on August 31, 2009


Actors like having faces. It's weird.

Here's hoping that for the next Judge Dredd movie they keep the fucking helmet on. And, you know, make something that's actually got some of the character of the comic and isn't a total bucket of poo.

Which, to bring it back to Marvel, is why Spiderman worked as a movie: It's not about the nit-picky detail, it;s that they kept the character of the thing intact.
posted by Artw at 11:16 AM on August 31, 2009


I've said it before, but the biggest problem I have with Marvel movies is that they waste so damn much time on origin stories. Give us a Star Wars scroll with "Peter Parker was bit by a spider and got powers". As much as I enjoy the characters, most of the origin stories are just plain dumb and stupid and repetitive as hell.

____ was ____ and got powers.
Hulk was irradiated (gamma bomb) and got powers.
Fantastic Four were irradiated (solar radiation) and got powers.
X-Men were mutants and got powers.
Daredevil was blinded/irradiated and got powers.
Punisher's family got killed and he got guns.


Just drop us in the middle of a damn story and quit treating the audience like morons who need to be hand-held. If we can't figure out that Tony Stark designed Iron Man armor and is using it to fight crime how did we even manage to buy the movie ticket?
posted by graventy at 11:18 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


butterstick: the current run of Deadpool written by Daniel Way is very funny, surprisingly dark for a mainstream comic, and probably the most entertaining three bucks I spend all month.

I kind hope this deal results in a consolidation of Marvel titles. It seems for the past couple of years they've been throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, resulting in eleventy dozen Avengers titles, an equal number of Wolverine books, and a muddled mess for the comics buyer like me who just wants to read Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man, dammit.

But I hafta admit that the thought of Charlie Kaufman writing a Deadpool movie did kinda make my pants tighter.

And though I know it would never happen in a million years, imagining what Pixar could do with Eternals or Guardians of the Galaxy is happy-making.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:19 AM on August 31, 2009


Hopefully this means the quality of anything from Marvel Animation will increase in quality. Most of the stuff has been, at best, rather generic and lackluster. The stuff coming out of DC's animation dept at Warner has been vastly superior.
posted by GavinR at 11:20 AM on August 31, 2009


At first, it seemed like a strange deal, but given the niche Disney is trying to fill and some of the other benefits this will bring, it makes sense. And now there will be more things to look forward to when I go to the parks.
posted by cmgonzalez at 11:23 AM on August 31, 2009


I think that is largely because of acting and portrayal of emotion reasons, as well as Spiderman movies largely dealing with his difficulties in ordinary life rather than because they want to show their handsome Tobey McGuire off.

I think there are many reasons to remove the mask in Spider-Man's case, definitely, so maybe that wasn't a good example on my part.

I should have said, I'm sure they'll take the mask off a lot and so I'm doubtful they'll make Wade Wilson very gross looking. I still am cynical about someone at Fox being able to resist the temptation to pretty every character up, but we might get "hollywood ugly" at least.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:24 AM on August 31, 2009


(I mean, look at the recent Phantom of the Opera. Sheesh, big movies.)
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:27 AM on August 31, 2009


Just drop us in the middle of a damn story and quit treating the audience like morons who need to be hand-held. If we can't figure out that Tony Stark designed Iron Man armor and is using it to fight crime how did we even manage to buy the movie ticket?

The origin story has emotional resonance. It sets the story, gets us to care about the character, understand what he or she has gone through, and associated motives. It's simply more powerful to watch Tony Stark beforehand, then struggle and nearly die, and then make the suit than it is to just drop into a group of bad guys like a badass.

It also makes it so when the dropping in like a badass moment does happen, it's more powerful.

This is not just true for film, but comics as well. One reason why the origin story, as noted in comments above, is evergreen.
posted by cmgonzalez at 11:28 AM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


I still am cynical about someone at Fox being able to resist the temptation to pretty every character up, but we might get "hollywood ugly" at least.

Yeah, if I was selling the idea to them I'd just run clips of Ledger's Joker in order to convince them, but that's a villain, so it'd still be more than a tough sell for the hero to be gross.

I remember reading a story about how for PotC Johnny Depp put way more gold crowns on his teeth than he actually wanted because he knew producers didn't want him to have many, but that in negotiation, they could talk him down to the amount he really wanted and it'd seem like a compromise.
posted by haveanicesummer at 11:32 AM on August 31, 2009


I've heard tell of a Jonah Hex movie that might be good...
posted by Artw at 11:33 AM on August 31, 2009


I should write a comic where the superhero doesn't know what his/her origin is, or even exactly what his/her powers are...
posted by Mister_A at 11:34 AM on August 31, 2009


Yeah, if I was selling the idea to them I'd just run clips of Ledger's Joker in order to convince them, but that's a villain, so it'd still be more than a tough sell for the hero to be gross.

Or Two-Face. But same deal.

Anyway, if they got everything else right about a Deadpool movie, but had him sparkle in the sunlight, I'd still be pretty happy.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:35 AM on August 31, 2009


Saturday morning Nextwave.
posted by Pronoiac at 11:37 AM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


Get read for a run of Cars and Toy Story sequels - it's coming.

Toy Story 3 is on the way, as well as Cars 2.

Creatively, it could be said that Cars was Pixar's laziest effort. It was a bad movie in its own right, but managed to be worse when compared with the other Pixar properties. Despite that, it was the studio's most profitable effort and Disney is cashing in with a theme park ride and a sequel. Kids love Cars.

The Marvel acquisition is perfect for Disney. Imagine all the profit to be made from project synergies: first, you make the film. Second, you make a series of comic books without having to outsource or license your IP. The only thing Disney seems to lack at this point is a toy company. If I was thinking long-term, I'd buy some Mattel or Hasbro stock.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:07 PM on August 31, 2009


Go to any toy store, you'll see a fuck-ton of Cars stuff, maybe some Toy Story stuff, Wall-E stuff will most likely be long gone and I'm not even sure there's any Up stuff.
posted by Artw at 12:10 PM on August 31, 2009


WHOSOEVER KNOWS FEAR BURNS AT THE TOUCH OF THE MOUSE-THING
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:10 PM on August 31, 2009 [9 favorites]


Probably this is bad news for IDW, who are making a bunch of Pixar comics at the moment.
posted by Artw at 12:11 PM on August 31, 2009


BitterOldPunk: But I hafta admit that the thought of Charlie Kaufman writing a Deadpool movie did kinda make my pants tighter.

This is maybe my favorite idea I've ever come up with.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:26 PM on August 31, 2009


Check out these tweets, yo. Warren Ellis is unsuprisingly hilarious.
posted by butterstick at 12:55 PM on August 31, 2009


I should have said, I'm sure they'll take the mask off a lot and so I'm doubtful they'll make Wade Wilson very gross looking.

Sam Raimi got away with Darkman being pretty horrific, despite being the hero, and Jonah Hex has been unapologetically hideous in is kids-cartoon appearances. Hell, we never even saw the face behind the mask in V for Vendetta. Keeping the lead behind a mask isn't a big deal, so long as they can make his mask as expressive on the screen as it is on the page, without dropping into uncanny valley territory. This should be achievable - just apply the same mojo they did to Jim Carey in "The Mask", only shroud the lips a bit.

On the other hand, this also probably means a typical hollywood prettyboy isn't right for the part - it would need to be a rubber-faced character actor who understands how to pull a real mug without interrupting the flow of the performance: think along the lines of a Jim Carey or Will Farrel or Johnny Depp or Mike Meyers. Even comedic actors like Owen Wilson or Seth Rogen wouldn't work - too understated to see with the mask-effects overlaid.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:59 PM on August 31, 2009


Ryan Reynolds is currently signed on for a Deadpool film, and is on record as, in this fanboy's opinion as "getting it" - the gross face, the fourth-wall assault, the whole bit.

Hopefully, this Disney deal won't endanger such a film. Also, hopefully this Disney deal WILL derail whatever the crap Frankencastle is supposed to be. God damn it, something has to.
posted by EatTheWeak at 1:12 PM on August 31, 2009


MODUCK
posted by Artw at 1:17 PM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


I would pay to have a graphic novel of Scrooge McDuck running off on one of his wild adventures (with nephew and family in tow, and the Beagle boys not far behind) penned by a Marvel writer and artist.
posted by Ber at 1:18 PM on August 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


In May, Marvel’s vice chairman, Peter Cuneo, called its comic book publishing business “the most profitable print publishing business in the world,” at an investor meeting. He said the net profit margin on that business was 40 percent or more.

!
posted by mediareport at 1:24 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


!

It's easy to make those profits when your customer base is mostly made up of suckers for a constant barrage of limited editions.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:52 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Holy crap! This is definitely news. Totally unexpected and possibly scary news, like Galactus landing on Park Avenue. What happens next? Will the behemoth be friendly, inaugurating a new era of cooperation and growth, or will it suck everything good out of Marvel, leaving a dry, dead husk behind? Guess we'll find out.
posted by Kevin Street at 1:55 PM on August 31, 2009


I'm not a number cruncher, but I do know that most of Marvel's business is essentially print-on-demand -- they print copies of their pamphlets in response to orders placed by retailers months ahead of time. These orders are non-returnable. So if the comics don't sell for the retailer, they've still sold for Marvel. This is the way the direct sales market works. So yeah, it's hard to lose much money doing that. "Most profitable" and "making the most money," however, are not the same animal.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:00 PM on August 31, 2009


Dystopian Disneyverse
posted by Artw at 2:43 PM on August 31, 2009


> Keeping the lead behind a mask isn't a big deal, so long as they can make his mask as expressive on the screen as it is on the page, without dropping into uncanny valley territory.

I will never understand why they put that cheesy mask on Willem Dafoe in the first Spider-Man movie. They should have just painted him green; the mask actually made him look less like The Green Goblin.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:59 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


That reminds me. I think a Dark Avengers movie could actually be pretty sweet. Let's just skip over all this inevitable Civil War nonsense and get to it.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:26 PM on August 31, 2009


I will never understand why they put that cheesy mask on Willem Dafoe in the first Spider-Man movie.

I read somewhere that the idea was that putting the two main characters behind frozen, expressionless masks was an artistic choice to make it look even more like a comic book. You couldn't change Spider-Man's mask, anyway, because it's so iconic. If Green Goblin's face is expressive, then he can emote more than the hero, and would you want that? So, make them both masked.

My take: It was a bucket of fail.

The Goblin's high-tech look for Spider-Man 3 was 100 percent cooler, and more indicative of re-purposed military tech.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:32 PM on August 31, 2009


Because I was both the Editor-in-Chief of Marvel as well as one of the two founding editors of Disney Adventures Magazine, I've already gotten numerous phone calls, including one from Forbes Magazine, asking what I think about Disney buying Marvel. The easy answer is - nobody knows. Certainly I don't.
posted by Artw at 3:34 PM on August 31, 2009


(That and MODUCK are from Andy Diggle again, who seems to be a source of very good links today)
posted by Artw at 3:47 PM on August 31, 2009


what this means for Howard the Duck

He'll be able to take his pants off, since they were the result of a trademark infringement suit by Disney, which successfully held that the duck tail peeking out from under a coat was a Disney trademark.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 3:48 PM on August 31, 2009


Better Disney than Ron Perelman. At least they're a media company with some interest in the underlying properties, and some possibility of knowing how to manage them.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 3:53 PM on August 31, 2009


It's easy to make those profits when your customer base is mostly made up of suckers for a constant barrage of limited editions.

The whole "limited edition," "rare, variant cover" fad has been dead for something like fifteen years.
posted by Amanojaku at 4:50 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm surprised the reaction here so positive.
posted by delmoi at 5:19 PM on August 31, 2009


I'm surprised the reaction here so positive.

Me, too. But then, Time-Warner owns DC and The Dark Knight was good, the new game Batman: Arkham Asylum is good, so...

I dunno. I want to hate this, but I just don't. If it brings more people into the Marvel universe, hurrah. Marvel spent so many years mis-managing their assets, and if there is one thing Disney can do, it's wring a bucket of money out of intellectual property. That's bad and good, of course. I'm ambivalent. But I'm not as upset as I figured I'd be, being a long-time Marvel fanboy.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 5:51 PM on August 31, 2009


Also, Disney would be hard-pressed to fuck things up worse than Toy Biz did when they owned Marvel.
posted by EatTheWeak at 6:14 PM on August 31, 2009


Yeah seriously: Marvel has shit on its own legacy so hard and so often that nothing a new corporate parent can do can possibly infuriate fans half as much as what Marvel's already done to them over and over again.
posted by mediareport at 6:22 PM on August 31, 2009


Saturday morning Nextwave.

Damn. I could die a happy man.
posted by rifflesby at 6:30 PM on August 31, 2009


Let's all imagine the best possible outcome of this development together, shall we?

ACT ONE
Pre-production on Spider-Man 4 drags on too long, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst either balk at reprising roles or ask for unreasonable sums to do so

ACT TWO
Sony, watching potential profit margin shrink on follow-up to god-awful, potentially franchise-killing Spider-Man 3, looks to cut losses.

ACT THREE
Disney, too late to the party to get in directly on all the Avengers film franchise fun, is keen to regain film rights to Marvel's flagship character, a character perhaps second only to the Mouse himself in terms of recognition and marketability. Disney cuts deal with Sony to get Spidey back.

ACT FOUR
In a masterstroke of corporate synergy, Disney bids Pixar to take the reins in relaunching the Spider-Man film series. The villain for part one? Electro.

ACT FIVE
Disney & Marvel print money forever
posted by EatTheWeak at 6:33 PM on August 31, 2009


Face it Tigger, you just hit the jackpot.
posted by painquale at 9:08 PM on August 31, 2009 [6 favorites]


I thought this list of 70 iconic Marvel Panels would be fitting for this thread.
posted by Korou at 9:19 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Electro? Really? Fuck that, dude. KRAVEN THE HUNTER!
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:34 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Kraven would be great, no doubt - but if we're gonna have Kraven, I'm gonna want to see Kraven's Last Hunt, and I'm gonna want to see it done properly, with Vermin, with the spider-eating, with the live burial, with the suicide, the whole thing. I don't see such a movie ever scoring a PG-13, you know?

I figured Electro because A) lots of opportunity for dope special effects and B) it's a well-established fact that all the best Spidey villains wear green.
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:54 PM on August 31, 2009


Though, since that earlier post, I've been thinking I might rather see Pixar unleashed on Silver Surfer or Doctor Strange.

(yes, I'm aware I'm just engaged in fanboy hypotheticals at this point)
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:03 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


I guess this would have been more controvesial in the days before Marvel was good at movies and bad at comics.
posted by Artw at 11:27 PM on August 31, 2009


Pretty soon, the infection will seep from Marvel to a new host and we'll get zombie versions of all the Disney Classics.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:31 AM on September 1, 2009


"Oh, Beast! Great! You're here. ... As you're aware, post-merger, there is a Beast Redundancy"
posted by filthy light thief at 10:25 AM on September 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


He's had that job since the 60s and he's replaced by some Johnny-come-lately 80s new romantic...
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on September 2, 2009


Kotaku has some great mash-ups, via P-A.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:17 PM on September 2, 2009


Good lord, scroll on down for Jack Kirby's rendition of the mouse, c.1991.
posted by marxchivist at 8:51 PM on September 2, 2009


5 Reasons Disney Is Buying Marvel
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 3:48 PM on September 3, 2009


Warner Bros' Jeff Robinov Restructures DC Comics; Diane Nelson Put In Charge Of DC Business; DC Titles In Development Pulled From Producers

To me this actually sounds a bit more ominous than the Disney buying Marvel thing.
posted by Artw at 9:26 AM on September 9, 2009


Warnes Bros. creates DC Entertainment
posted by Artw at 10:04 AM on September 9, 2009


Heh. A definitive explanation of what the DC Comics restructuring means to you, the fan explained by MeFi's own beaucoupkevin.
posted by Artw at 11:18 AM on September 9, 2009


Er, "Gone from here. " and a last comment from 2008 implies he may no longer be MeFi's own. Still, huh!
posted by cavalier at 12:28 PM on September 9, 2009


Hey! Marvel Wants To Restructure Too! Chris Allo Gone, C.B. Cebulski Back, New Candidate Sought
posted by Artw at 11:38 PM on September 12, 2009


« Older Throat singing is popular in Tuva and Siberia, but...   |   The Maltese Falcon: Take 1.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments