# Disney to buy Marvel!



## Shade (Aug 31, 2009)

Disney to Buy Marvel Entertainment for $4 Billion - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com

Will we be getting Pixar X-men or Hannah Magneto?


----------



## Wombat (Aug 31, 2009)

Personally, I think Disney is simply looking to have something that is really making money aside from Pixar -- the Marvel movies are bovines of great specie.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Aug 31, 2009)

holy cheese!!!​


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 31, 2009)

I am not sure if it is a good deal, Marvel has worked well as a production company, selling different titles out, not sure if Disney will even address some titles that would get produced otherwise.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 31, 2009)

Disney claims to treat Marvel with the same "off-hands" approach as Pixar, i.e. let the experts do what they do best.

If this moves Marvel towards making its characters and comics a little more kid-friendly, I'm all for it.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Aug 31, 2009)

I hope they don't water down Marvel.  If Disney does anything to Marvel I hope it's confined to creating more of a "kidified" imprint that does Disney related material.  Also, seeing several of my least favorite writers and artists leave (especially those who massacred the X-Verse and as certain artist who is known for making 15 year old female character stripper-tastic as part of creative's force feeding of her as the new Kitty Pryde).


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 31, 2009)

_*Aw, Hell!  There goes the Neighborhood!*_

​
​


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Aug 31, 2009)

Ah, I can see it now- 

Coming soon from Disney: Wolverine vs. The Punisher!

Yeah, right.


----------



## Samnell (Aug 31, 2009)

Ed_Laprade said:


> Ah, I can see it now-
> 
> Coming soon from Disney: Wolverine vs. The Punisher!
> 
> Yeah, right.




Disney operates several subsidiaries that produce entertainment geared towards adults. I think there's minimal risk that they'll put their name on the comics, though they might start selling Donald Duck comics through a Marvel imprint. (Marvel did this with other kiddie properties back in the 80s.)

Given Disney's legacy of indifferent management and uninspired leadership, I'm sure any recent Marvel editorial staff would not have much culture shock. Also considering that Disney's flagship brand is mostly about character licensing and selling past products, it's in more or less the same business Marvel is.


----------



## Krug (Sep 1, 2009)

Well I guess it does make sense. Marvel can focus on creating, get financing for its movies, and the deal seems to be the 'hands-off' deal that Pixar has.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2009)

Shade said:


> Hannah Magneto?




BWAH-HA-haaaaaaaaaa!

Awesome!


----------



## RichCsigs (Sep 1, 2009)

I firmly believe Disney was interested in: new movie properties, new television properties, new theme park attractions and maybe even the "motion comic" stuff.  I really think they could care less about the actual comic product.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 1, 2009)

My guess is the biggest change that will come from this is that Diamond Distributors will take a serious hit.  Marvel will probably publish through Harper, with more exposure to book markets at the Disney chain of stores, and Diamond will lose it's monopoly on comics distribution.

Which is a good thing for folks who buy and read comics.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 1, 2009)

This news troubles me greatly....
Disney can be good, and was in the past.  Now-adays when I think of Disney, I think of Eisner and the Disney channel... *shudder*


----------



## Klaus (Sep 1, 2009)

Xavier's High School Musical?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Now-adays when I think of Disney, I think of Eisner and the Disney channel... *shudder*




But Eisner hasn't worked for Disney since 2005!

Interestingly, Disney acquired Pixar in 2006, and that hasn't noticeably hurt Pixar quality.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2009)

Umbran said:


> But Eisner hasn't worked for Disney since 2005!
> 
> Interestingly, Disney acquired Pixar in 2006, and that hasn't noticeably hurt Pixar quality.



Well, maybe they would have been a lot better without Disney! 



Spoiler



Not really believing that.


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 1, 2009)

Pixar movies take a long time to make (I think _Up_ started in 2004, at least the writing), so maybe the dreadful Disney impact is still coming.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Sep 1, 2009)

Doesn't Marvell have their characters licensed out to Universal Studios?

Wonder how this deal would effect that? Are we going to see a Disney Marvell theme park in the future?


----------



## Klaus (Sep 1, 2009)

Taelorn76 said:


> Doesn't Marvell have their characters licensed out to Universal Studios?
> 
> Wonder how this deal would effect that? Are we going to see a Disney Marvell theme park in the future?



The Universal Theme Park contract grants them exclusivity east of the Mississipi. So maybe you'll get Marvel rides in Disneyland.

As for Disney/Pixar: even when Pixar was independent, they already followed a style and tone similar to Disney's, so it's really easy for Disney to let Pixar do their own thing.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 1, 2009)

Taelorn76 said:


> Doesn't Marvell have their characters licensed out to Universal Studios?
> 
> Wonder how this deal would effect that? Are we going to see a Disney Marvell theme park in the future?



The Universal Theme Park contract grants them exclusivity east of the Mississipi. So maybe you'll get Marvel rides in Disneyland.

As for Disney/Pixar: even when Pixar was independent, they already followed a style and tone similar to Disney's, so it's really easy for Disney to let Pixar do their own thing.


----------



## Richards (Sep 1, 2009)

Nate Beeler, Political Cartoons, Editorial News (Despite the "political cartoons" in the URL, the cartoon itself is not political in nature.)

Johnathan


----------



## papastebu (Sep 2, 2009)

This saddens me. It seems that this will lead to homogenization of Marvel. Boil the whole thing down and make it kosher. I hope that doesn't happen, but if they treat the Marvel characters the way they did the Grimm's fairy tales, then the Marvel properties will be pre-production edited for niceness. The heart-warming story of The Punisher? He kills because he cares.


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 2, 2009)

If they're going to Disney-fy the Punisher, he's not going to _kill_ anyone.

(Somewhere, I saw the name for Disney's Punisher: Frank "Magic" Castle.)

The thing I saw mentioned that I think could be exciting is that John Lasseter, from Pixar, has already had some conference calls with Marvel people. Pixar-made Marvel movies? Yeah, I'll take those.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2009)

Is it possible that Disney could do horrible things to Marvel?  Yes.

But is it possible that _Marvel_ could do horrible things to Marvel?  YES!

Historically, Marvel itself has not been able to guarantee quality, either of individual comics, or the entire collection of lines.  So I am unconvinced that Disney management is really any more dangerous than Marvel's own.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Sep 3, 2009)

Plus who is to say that Disney will interfere with the day to day happenings at Marvell. They may leave it alone and let it do it's own thing on the comic front.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 4, 2009)

A friend mentioned that they may try and use Marvel characters to attract tween boys to Disney XD or something like that.

Brad


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 4, 2009)

I have it on good authority that:

1) the Punisher's new logo will be a white Mickey "Skull", complete with ears.

2) Thor will get an animated movie...just like Hercules did.

3) Henry "Hank" McCoy- aka The Beast- will star in an animated series, featuring a new love interest, Bella Donna Boudreaux.  In a plot twist,_ his_ love for _her_ will make her give up being an assassin.

4) Every object in the Avenger's Mansion will be sentient and talkative.

5) A new comic book will appear- The Aristocats- featuring Black Panther, Hellcat, Tigra, White Tiger, and others.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Sep 4, 2009)

I decided to read House of M again...  and I swore it said something else before...







I guess some one change reality by talking to Mephisto or something.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 4, 2009)

Ed_Laprade said:


> Ah, I can see it now-
> 
> Coming soon from Disney: Wolverine vs. The Punisher!
> 
> Yeah, right.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Sep 4, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


>



LOL, I'd forgotten about that!


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have it on good authority that:
> [...]
> 3) Henry "Hank" McCoy- aka The Beast- will star in an animated series, featuring a new love interest, Bella Donna Boudreaux.  In a plot twist,_ his_ love for _her_ will make her give up being an assassin.




I heard it goes differently.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> 5) A new comic book will appear- The Aristocats- featuring Black Panther, Hellcat, Tigra, White Tiger, and others.




If it ends up at Marvel Knights, and Kevin Smith or Millar or Ennis writes it, it might go differently, too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2009)

There was a nice editorial cartoon in the Dallas Morning News today...Cap, Spidey, the Hulk and 1 or 2 others all wearing Mouse Ears...with great disgust.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> If it ends up at Marvel Knights, and Kevin Smith or Millar or Ennis writes it, it might go differently, too.




The best version of "The Aristocrats" joke I've ever heard was done by Gilbert Gottfried...the only portion of which I can repeat is the name of the joke.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 6, 2009)

Disney won't touch the comics.  Their print run is simply too inconsequential to matter, and they serve as an incubator for IP and stories for film.

But, it does mean Diamond publications will see their distribution monopoly end, and a wider potential audience for the books.  More people around the world will now recognize Marvel characters.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2009)

I could also see the House of Mouse throw its weight around in other ways, like:

1) Extra-vigorous defense of copyright issues.  Hopefully not to the point that we won't see the various homages that pop up in comic books.  After all, how many Superman (or Batman, or Wolverine, etc.) knock-offs can _you_ name without trying?

2) Faster and broader development of some of the various projects Marvel has been kicking around for a while.

3) Development of new, "disneyfied" outlets for Marvel products.  IOW, that suggestion of a Marvel theme park could become very, very real.

4) Higher quality memorabilia.  There is a Batman motorcycle suit.  Why not an Iron Man one?


----------



## Klaus (Sep 6, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Disney won't touch the comics.  Their print run is simply too inconsequential to matter, and they serve as an incubator for IP and stories for film.
> 
> But, it does mean Diamond publications will see their distribution monopoly end, and a wider potential audience for the books.  More people around the world will now recognize Marvel characters.



Yes, but Marvel will be under a much tighter scrutiny now that they are a part of the Disney empire, not from Disney itself but from the consumers (and specially those that hunt for reasons to be offended). I could see some second-guessing happening at Marvel in the future.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Sep 6, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Yes, but Marvel will be under a much tighter scrutiny now that they are a part of the Disney empire, not from Disney itself but from the consumers (and specially those that hunt for reasons to be offended). I could see some second-guessing happening at Marvel in the future.




Especially considering the "X-men Universe" currently has about a half a dozen gay/lesbian/bisexual characters.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 6, 2009)

That isn't bad (well, might be for some people out there). What I'm thinking about are some of the dark stuff going on in, say, Dark Reign (villains as the protagonists), Marvel Zombies (flesh-eating versions of iconic Marvel heroes), most of the MAX line, Spiderman (hello, Mephisto!).

At the least, I expect some reduction in the graphic nature of the violence in the core comic books.


----------



## Gog (Sep 7, 2009)

RichCsigs said:


> I firmly believe Disney was interested in: new movie properties, new television properties, new theme park attractions and maybe even the "motion comic" stuff.  I really think they could care less about the actual comic product.




Universal Studios in Orlando has a lot of Marvel themed rides. Spider Man, Hulk, etc So I'm curious what will happen


----------



## Umbran (Sep 7, 2009)

Relique du Madde said:


> Especially considering the "X-men Universe" currently has about a half a dozen gay/lesbian/bisexual characters.




I don't expect that to be much of an issue.  Disney has, on occasion, stuck its neck out to support the gay and lesbian community, in the face of criticism.  "Gay Day" in Orlando started at Disney, and Disney continues to be part of the Gay Day celebrations.  Despite that they get some negative publicity for doing so.

Now, it isn't like Disney has had actively gay characters in its children's movies, but I think it may be a little early to assume they'll tone down characters specifically for being gay.

Interestingly, Gay Day 2010 has "Heroes" as its theme: Gay Day at Disney World Orlando Florida.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 8, 2009)

Gog said:


> Universal Studios in Orlando has a lot of Marvel themed rides. Spider Man, Hulk, etc So I'm curious what will happen



As I said upthread:



> The Universal Theme Park contract grants them exclusivity east of the Mississipi. So maybe you'll get Marvel rides in Disneyland.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Sep 8, 2009)

Does it say when the contract with Universal is done. 
Disney can't throw up a theme park overnight. So they could start planning one for when Universals contract expires.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 9, 2009)

Taelorn76 said:


> Does it say when the contract with Universal is done.
> Disney can't throw up a theme park overnight. So they could start planning one for when Universals contract expires.



IIRC, for as long as Universal keeps it active.


----------



## Felon (Sep 9, 2009)

papastebu said:


> This saddens me. It seems that this will lead to homogenization of Marvel. Boil the whole thing down and make it kosher. I hope that doesn't happen, but if they treat the Marvel characters the way they did the Grimm's fairy tales, then the Marvel properties will be pre-production edited for niceness. The heart-warming story of The Punisher? He kills because he cares.





Klaus said:


> That isn't bad (well, might be for some people out there). What I'm thinking about are some of the dark stuff going on in, say, Dark Reign (villains as the protagonists), Marvel Zombies (flesh-eating versions of iconic Marvel heroes), most of the MAX line, Spiderman (hello, Mephisto!).
> 
> At the least, I expect some reduction in the graphic nature of the violence in the core comic books.



Sounds like you guys have bought into the squeaky-clean, kid-friendly image of Disney. Disney has, of course, cultivated that image.

So, let's take a closer look. Disney doesn't bankroll material that's graphically violent, raunchy, or dark?

Graphically violent? How about Kill Bill? The Scream movies? From Dusk Til Dawn? A bunch of the Halloween movies? 

Raunchy? How about Jay & Bob Strike Back? Clerks 2? The Scary Movie franchise? 

Dark? How about No Cournty for Old Men? Gone Baby Gone? There Will Be Blood? The Talented Mr. Ripley?

Relax. Disney ain't all Hannah Montana and Snow White. They do mature stuff, they just slap a brand like Touchstone or Miramax or Dimension on it and whistle in the other direction.

It's unlikely Disney bought Marvel to turn into another G-rated franchise. Rather, they want to dominate a market they don't yet: young males. Just as you can't turn on ABC without seeing some show about horny MILFs, you're unlikely to see Marvel Zombies go away--and that's unfortunate, because that dumb one-note joke played itself out a long, long, looooong time ago.

What we might see--and I for one hope this comes to pass--is a return to an emphasis on action. Comics today are overburdened with endless banter. And that's the result of producing comics that writers want to write rather than comics that readers want to read.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 9, 2009)

Yes, but Disney acquired Marvel to have licenseable characters to sell to young boys (a market they're trying to tap into with more emphasis). As such, their products will undergo scrutiny from parents. The examples you mentioned (Kill Bill, Desperate Housewives, etc) aren't aimed at kids.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 9, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Yes, but Disney acquired Marvel to have licenseable characters to sell to young boys (a market they're trying to tap into with more emphasis). As such, their products will undergo scrutiny from parents.




Yes, but Marvel _already_ sells to young boys (lots of things, from toys to sheets, underwear, and food), and has already passed such scrutiny.  The brand is already proven acceptable to parents _in its current form_, and would therefore not need any new oversight or editing.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but Marvel _already_ sells to young boys (lots of things, from toys to sheets, underwear, and food), and has already passed such scrutiny.  The brand is already proven acceptable to parents _in its current form_, and would therefore not need any new oversight or editing.



The scrutiny Marvel undergoes right now is a speck when compared to what it'll see as part of Disney.

Most parents (and kids) know Spiderman and Wolverine from the cartoons, which paint a very different image from the comics. And Iron Man and Hulk are known from the movies (again, very different). The comics themselves are sold mostly to the 20+ crowd.


----------



## Felon (Sep 9, 2009)

Klaus said:


> The scrutiny Marvel undergoes right now is a speck when compared to what it'll see as part of Disney.
> 
> Most parents (and kids) know Spiderman and Wolverine from the cartoons, which paint a very different image from the comics. And Iron Man and Hulk are known from the movies (again, very different). The comics themselves are sold mostly to the 20+ crowd.



Correct, the comics skew to an older audience than the cartoons. Disney, of course, wants to appeal to late-teen and twentysomething males as much as they want to appeal to tweeners, so why throw away that market? They might want to position a line of youth-friendly comics, but then again Marvel already has that in the form of their Marvel Adventures imprint (Power Pack is still around somehow). Notably, comics do have a rating system that distinguishes the kiddy fare from mature titles. We just tend to forget that because kids can't actually drive out to comic book specialty shops, much less find any titles they can afford with their allowances and paper-route money.

Honestly, to my tastes Marvel could use much more scrutiny than we're likely to see. All this dark stuff is mostly just enervating garbage. When I read in Wolverine comics about a death camp for mutants run by the U.S. government called "Neverland", I wonder who the hell this is supposed to appeal to. The "Saw" and "Hostel" crowd of murder-porn fans, I guess. And then the real kicker: after M-Day, what happens? Do superheroes show up and liberate the victims, avenge the dead, and punish the guilty? Nah, that would be too "Saturday-morning Punisher-meets-Archie", right? Instead, the entire camp's population is exterminated mercilessly and the perpetrators get off scott-free. The Beast eventually shows up and buries the bodies. Good times.

And remember Genosha, the mutant nation? Grant Morrison decided that a whole nation of mutants was too much, so he just had some big sentinel come in and kill 99% of them. Bravo.

See, those are examples of writing storylines that's caused the majority of fans--even diedhard ones like myself--to want to throw in the towel and just give up on comics altogether. Some writer like Mark Millar or Warren Ellis who gets off on writing ugly, nihilistic stories that only appeal to a tiny minority of folks--the 100,000 or so folks left who bother to visit a comics shop.

No more dreary, pessimistic crap like Marvel Zombies and Dark Reign? No more corpse-mound spectacles where we get to see a neverending stream of genocide, death camps, and other atrocities? Comics might actually go back to being fun, exciting, or (daresay) optimistic? Please, bring on this all-powerful amry of tut-tutting watchdog mothers who (supposedly) always manage to bend media companies to their will.

Like the Beatles said, things can only get better...because they couldn't get much worse.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 10, 2009)

Ed_Laprade said:


> Ah, I can see it now-
> 
> Coming soon from Disney: Wolverine vs. The Punisher!
> 
> Yeah, right.




The comics will be unaffected. Everyone involved knows they're the idea factory. Let them take chances... 99% of it will be forgotten in 10 years, but 1% of the time you get something to make a movie franchise out of.

As for "Disney-fying" the movies... Marvel has been associated with exactly one R-rated movie and one M-rated game, neither of them did that well, and they had officially declared that "experiment" over before this even happened.

When all you make is PG and PG-13 movies, and Teen rated games, you're already Disney-fied.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Sep 10, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> 99% of it will be forgotten in 10 years..




That is until some future writer dregs it back up (for continualty/ character development reasons) or decides to readdress it after a BND styled retcon occurs.  Hopefully some of the more ridicules story lines will stay out of the movies.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 10, 2009)

Relique du Madde said:


> That is until some future writer dregs it back up (for continualty/ character development reasons) or decides to readdress it after a BND styled retcon occurs.  Hopefully some of the more ridicules story lines will stay out of the movies.




You mean my dream of a Secret War II trilogy of films might never come to pass?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 10, 2009)

Klaus said:


> The scrutiny Marvel undergoes right now is a speck when compared to what it'll see as part of Disney.
> 
> Most parents (and kids) know Spiderman and Wolverine from the cartoons, which paint a very different image from the comics.




Yes, but the fact that the company is now owned by Disney isn't going to change that.  The vast majority of the parents are unaware of who owned Marvel before this, or that Disney now does.  The change of ownership is not going to suddenly signal to consumers, "Whoa!  Maybe we should carefully look at the other content in this line!" all of a sudden.

Change of corporate ownership happens _all the time_.  Most often, we consumers don't know about it, and don't care.  Same applies here - the bulk of consumers will not pass a single thought over the change.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 10, 2009)

Sure, if Disney lets the comics stay in their niche market. But if Disney plans on taking over the comics distribution (now handled by Diamond... Disney has its own service) in order to make comics more accessible to the mass market, we may see, at the least, an increased attention paid to the Marvel Adventures line.

I'm not saying that Disney will "kidify" the comics, but I hope this move leads to Marvel's comics to be more... I dunno... heroic? Less hero-vs-hero and more Good vs. Evil. For decades Marvel was mature enough in their topics, but with heroes that were actually heroic (as an example, look at the Green Goblin cycle of Spiderman... you had some very dark themes there, culminating with the death of Gwen Stacy, and this was back in the 70s).


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 10, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> You mean my dream of a Secret War II trilogy of films might never come to pass?




We can only hope and pray that it is so. 

Edit: BTW, everyone has heard that DC is reorganizing, right? Warner is spinning off a new DC Entertainment company with a new boss?


----------

