Disney Buys Marvel

[WheresRICHARD]

Put that date down as the day I quit buying new comic books forever!



Honestly I could care less. I stopped reading Marvel over 10 years ago. The movies are ok but the comics...well they just aren't the same ones I started reading.

Rich

But see THAT is why I think this is a GOOD thing.

[kryptosmaster]

Oh and as someone else said, it now actually gives Marvel the money to buy the rights to Superman if the Siegel family is interested in selling once the copyrights revert to them in a couple of years.

Put that date down as the day I quit buying new comic books forever!

I've been joking about this, but put me in the corner that thinks this is a GREAT thing. It gives Marvel money it's needed for years, allows them an avenue to bring lots more of their characters to TV, and likewise an outlet to bring Disney characters to comic books. I see little down side to this.

Honestly I could care less. I stopped reading Marvel over 10 years ago. The movies are ok but the comics...well they just aren't the same ones I started reading.

Rich

[johnnystorm]

Once the existing licenses run out I would imagine. Too bad... I was really enjoying those BOOM titles. Maybe Marvel can still publish those, but farm out the production to Boom (ala Marvel Knights, Heroes Reborn). Does Disney still control the Muppets?

And does SLG still have a bunch of licenses? I know Gargoyles and Alice and Wonderland were there.

Who's got TRON?

Expect an AVALANCHE of Marvel themed Disney merch... Mickey as Spiderman, Goofy as Captain America etc.

I wonder what happens with the Marvel stuff over at Universal Studios?

Disney still has the Muppets. Yeah, by Christmas I expect to see those figures announced or in stores, at least at the theme parks. At the very least a T-shirt line of Spider-Mickey & Hulk Goofy.

I think the Slave Labor stuff is over with. Didn't they just release the final Gargoyles stuff as a graphic novel. Thought I heard that. I didn't follow those too much, but I did buy the Haunted Mansion books which were pretty good, just..different. In a good way, I mean that, I liked them very much. Problem was they came out sporadically, and nobody knew what to make of them. They seemed like they should be in that Johnny the Homicidal Maniac vein, and yet they were Disney. Retailers just avoided them I guess, since they wrre neither, SLG & Disney were not a good match, I guess.

I expect Disney has the upper hand here concerning Universal...Universal has a great deal tied up in Marvel attractions. Disney can build a new Marvel Universe park or area off Hollywood Studios and until it's completed, allow the licenses with Universal to continue. Then when the contract is up (coincidentally very close to completion of the Disney park), they take the characters away...leaving Universal with 1/2 an empty attraction. Could Universal negotiate with say, DC to replace the Marvel heroes with the JLA? I dunno if Warners would be interested in being the replacements and having everyone knowing that they were second choice. Universal certainly could refurbish the attractions as Universal movie themed properties though, but losing the Marvel stuff to their rivals is rough. And having to pay Disney until it happens as well, basically funding the rival park's creation.

[Tothiro]

Hopefully with Disney calling the shots we won't see anymore Zombies.

Because Pirates of the Carribean much?

I'm on the fence myself because I can't predict the future on this one. It could be great, it could be legal horror, it could mean no appreciable change in development...

Disney already has a "if it ain't broke" quote out on the topic of Marvel Studios. Word is though that Lasseter may have already talked with Marvel Studios about future development... Disney has been fairly hands off with Pixar... who knows.

Disney has released, through their Buena Vista arm, such kid friendly titles as An American Werewolf in Paris, Indecent Behavior III, and who could forget 1993's epic, Bare Exposure?

Sure, the years were bad when Disney was under Eisner but I think Roy E. Disney had helped out quite a bit with his second Save Disney campaign.

[WheresRICHARD]

As someone else mentioned, what a great idea it would be for Disney to have Marvel do an "INCREDIBLES" comic book.

[samurainoir]

On the flipside... HOWARD THE DUCK can go back to his old pantless look and maybe crossover with Donald and Uncle Scrooge. *sigh* That's one I would have loved to see Steve Gerber write.

and likewise an outlet to bring Disney characters to comic books.

Once the existing licenses run out I would imagine. Too bad... I was really enjoying those BOOM titles. Maybe Marvel can still publish those, but farm out the production to Boom (ala Marvel Knights, Heroes Reborn). Does Disney still control the Muppets?

And does SLG still have a bunch of licenses? I know Gargoyles and Alice and Wonderland were there.

Who's got TRON?

Expect an AVALANCHE of Marvel themed Disney merch... Mickey as Spiderman, Goofy as Captain America etc.

I wonder what happens with the Marvel stuff over at Universal Studios?

[WheresRICHARD]

That bus has already left the station two decades ago, and it was across town that seems to be driving that charter. Over at Time/Warner, DC decided long ago to differentiate the "non-mass market books" like Miller's Dark Knight Returns sans code towards their newly emerging adult market in 1986. Of course the "mass market" of newsstands and grocery stores went away and now the new mass market of bookstores is driven by many of the adult oriented material generated from that period... I think Watchmen alone accounts for a huge chunk of that, not to mention Sandman, Dark Knight etc.

TV and Movie divisions have followed suite to maximize the franchise and licensing potential. I certainly wouldn't take kids to see The Dark Knight or Batman Begins... Joker and Scarecrow are way too scary. On the flipside, you have to give them props for seeing the pendulum swing that way and creating new Kid Friendly Batman material like Brave and Bold, and Superfriends.

As long as they are making billions dollars off of the adult movie goers/fans/collectors and can sell kids action figures and pajamas at the same time, you're going to see the respective companies try to maximize profits off of both revenue streams. Arguably the Adult market could potentially be much more lucrative for them these days given the ticket sales for the last Batman movie, and the price points on expensive statues and adult-themed video games like Arkham Asylum or Mortal Kombat VS DC.

Disney is looking at the bottom line of what Marvel is currently worth, I'd say there aren't going to be huge changes with the comic books since it's pretty much not where the real $$$ resides with the exploitation of these characters. Marvel has had in incredibly successful decade given the previous bankruptcy, so why mess with what appears to be working?

Not really taking a side here... just pointing out the simplest of economic realities when it comes to big multinational multimedia conglomerates that exist purely on profits. Unless the aspect of social responsibility become a huge PR problem (as we sometimes see over at DC/Warner), why would Disney mess with what appears to be working with Marvel currently? Of course this is Disney, so you never know.

Disney is also testing the waters of so-called "motion comics," i.e., downloadable comics with limited animation / sound effects. In fact, Stan Lee is doing one for them right now which is doing quite well on iTunes.

[WheresRICHARD]

I've been joking about this, but put me in the corner that thinks this is a GREAT thing. It gives Marvel money it's needed for years, allows them an avenue to bring lots more of their characters to TV, and likewise an outlet to bring Disney characters to comic books. I see little down side to this.

Oh and as someone else said, it now actually gives Marvel the money to buy the rights to Superman if the Siegel family is interested in selling once the copyrights revert to them in a couple of years.

[WheresRICHARD]

I've been joking about this, but put me in the corner that thinks this is a GREAT thing. It gives Marvel money it's needed for years, allows them an avenue to bring lots more of their characters to TV, and likewise an outlet to bring Disney characters to comic books. I see little down side to this.

[WheresRICHARD]

the next issue of spiderman is going to go alittle something like this

Peter: "Hey MJ, I really have strong feelings for you. Some might even call it love... So I'd like to take our relationship to the next level."

MJ: "Oh Tiger, do you really mean it?"

Peter: "Yes. Will you take this promise ring to abstain until marriage?"

MJ: "I thought you'd never ask."

[Next Panel just after the proposal]

*Knock, Knock*

Peter: "Who is it?"

King Pin: "It's Wilson Fisk, the King Pin. I hereby renounce my life of crime, and accept full responsibility for my actions. Plus I'm giving all my money to charity."

I think it's been a few decades since Disney has espoused abstinence.

[samurainoir]

Our acquisition of Pixar three years ago exemplified our focus on creating high-quality, technologically innovative entertainment that appeals to audiences all over the world. The acquisition of Marvel offers us a similar opportunity to advance that strategy, to build a business that’s stronger than the sum of its parts and to drive Disney’s long-term growth.

Interesting that they mention Pixar.

Someone with a better understanding of corporate economics and structure can correct me if my interpretation of events is wrong, but what fascinates me about the mention of Pixar... essentially on paper, Disney bought Pixar, but Lassater and co. were put in the driver's seat at Disney Studios.

Given the fact that Marvel was sold for cash and SHARES. It will be interesting to see where this put the heads of Marvel Studios within the Disney corporate hierarchy?

[samurainoir]

The same characters are marketed to adults and children. If they want to market something like a Marvel Zombies to adults it is totally inappropriate to then market the characters to children. Tagging the books as "adults only" is a cop out when Spiderman products are sold to pre-schoolers.

That bus has already left the station two decades ago, and it was across town that seems to be driving that charter. Over at Time/Warner, DC decided long ago to differentiate the "non-mass market books" like Miller's Dark Knight Returns sans code towards their newly emerging adult market in 1986. Of course the "mass market" of newsstands and grocery stores went away and now the new mass market of bookstores is driven by many of the adult oriented material generated from that period... I think Watchmen alone accounts for a huge chunk of that, not to mention Sandman, Dark Knight etc.

TV and Movie divisions have followed suite to maximize the franchise and licensing potential. I certainly wouldn't take kids to see The Dark Knight or Batman Begins... Joker and Scarecrow are way too scary. On the flipside, you have to give them props for seeing the pendulum swing that way and creating new Kid Friendly Batman material like Brave and Bold, and Superfriends.

As long as they are making billions dollars off of the adult movie goers/fans/collectors and can sell kids action figures and pajamas at the same time, you're going to see the respective companies try to maximize profits off of both revenue streams. Arguably the Adult market could potentially be much more lucrative for them these days given the ticket sales for the last Batman movie, and the price points on expensive statues and adult-themed video games like Arkham Asylum or Mortal Kombat VS DC.

Disney is looking at the bottom line of what Marvel is currently worth, I'd say there aren't going to be huge changes with the comic books since it's pretty much not where the real $$$ resides with the exploitation of these characters. Marvel has had in incredibly successful decade given the previous bankruptcy, so why mess with what appears to be working?

Not really taking a side here... just pointing out the simplest of economic realities when it comes to big multinational multimedia conglomerates that exist purely on profits. Unless the aspect of social responsibility become a huge PR problem (as we sometimes see over at DC/Warner), why would Disney mess with what appears to be working with Marvel currently? Of course this is Disney, so you never know.

[Nostalgiabuff]

I think there is a lot of potential here.....and I would not mind seeing Marvel characters at Disney theme parks either....this could also mean alot of cool action figure exclusives at the parks....just like they have done with Indiana Jones and Star Wars

[johnnystorm]

Here's an idea: Disney bought all those Cross-Gen characters (just to acquire Abadazad, wasn't it? Of which they did nothing really). Could this open the door for Marvel to publish new adventures of Sojourn or Ruse? That would be pretty neat, I really like Sojourn.

[Werewolf]

Did you even read the Books,.. or are you just feeding off of the Non-Love of the Idea ?

The same characters are marketed to adults and children. If they want to market something like a Marvel Zombies to adults it is totally inappropriate to then market the characters to children. Tagging the books as "adults only" is a cop out when Spiderman products are sold to pre-schoolers.

You can't have it both ways. Either the characters, like Spiderman, are for kids or they are not anymore. It's like Disney making a gorey R rated Donald Duck cartoon and still marketing Donald to little kids.