Disney to buy Marvel

Post by **Dan** » August 31st, 2009, 3:20 pm

James wrote:
Every article on Disney/Marvel deal: "Disney adds 5,000 new characters to its stable." BUT! They forget to add "..Of which 23 are any good."

That's just the X-Men roster alone.

Post by **Josh** » August 31st, 2009, 3:40 pm

That is pretty funny, James.

Regarding its deal with Marvel, Paramount has released an interesting statement. Some folks today have been wondering what will be the fifth, and final, film in Paramount's lineup. Looks like it's going to be Iron Man 3.

Post by **Ben** » August 31st, 2009, 4:27 pm

George: you, teaching, sucking, eggs, me... get ma drift?

Of course I <I>know</I> Stan Lee co-created many of the Marvels...sometimes I wonder if my posts are secretly re-written by aliens as my points occasionally seem to get lost.

I even pointed out that Lee was a creator for Marvel in my post!

Since his involvement with Disney hasn't yielded any major results, this is why they're buying. As to why they didn't buy before...why would they? What was Marvel back in the 1980s if nothing but an animation licensee, of which Disney arguably had the better characters and the potential to introduce more? Why didn't they buy in the 1990s? Again, Marvel wasn't really worth picking up until the blockbuster movies started flowing in the 2000s.

That's the one and only reason Disney has bought now...and it's doing so before Marvel stock gets even more expensive what with all the Avengers movies and spin-offs about to explode.

As I said at the top of my reply, Disney has never gotten a hook on superheroes...now they arguably have access to some of the greatest of them all. And, yes, you can say maybe only 50 have any widespread recognition factor in the 5000 characters they just picked up...but it's those 50 or so that will bring in the all-important boys audiences that Disney has routinely failed to ever get a complete grip on. I think I even made the Warner/DC and Disney/Marvel comparison too!

Now Disney have got girls, boys and all kinds of geeks covered. And how!

Post by **OriginalGagBonkers** » August 31st, 2009, 6:16 pm

Okay I am mixed about this, but also worried since I am into Marvel comics. Although my friends think a fully-animated movie of howard the duck might happen now. But personally I am most concerned about the marvel characters being tone down. If a howard movie happens I just hope it stays true to the comics and I hope Disney knows what they are doing. My brother thinks this is A VERY big mistake.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » August 31st, 2009, 7:29 pm

Lord Akiyama wrote:That's just the X-Men roster alone.

How many Marvel Comics have you read?

The iconic Marvel characters for the most part aren't mutants ==> Captain America, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, The Fantastic Four, and The Avengers (Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, The Vision, Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Ant Man/Goliath/Yellow Jacket).

X-Men are relatively new to popularity and iconic status. (The iconic X-Men team isn't even the current one... It's the team that was in place back when Chris Clarement and John Byrne were collaborators on the original X-Men comic.) That comic, contrary to popular belief, wasn't a hit until the mid-1980s. Their movies and animated shows aren't even that good of adaptations. Iron Man and Spider-Man have had far better live-action adaptations than the X-Men or Fantastic Four for that matter... I certainly saw the film budget spent better in Iron Man and the Spider-Man films than I did with either X-Men or FF. The latter two film series looked like movies of the week produced for TV!

Marvel still has a huge universe and there are a lot more characters than just the X-Men. A lot more than the so-called 23 that are "the only filmable ones." There are plenty of characters lying fallow since the 1970s and before that would be the basis for great films with the right creative talent involved. What is limiting is if somebody in charge of decision-making at either Marvel or Disney decides that "only 23" are worth filming. Certainly makes that $4 billion wasteful if you're considering a publication history of over 5,000 characters. Why not have just outright bought or licensed only 23 characters then?

Heck, both Marvel and DC Comics have far more than "just superheroes." There are Western characters, science fiction, and horror comic characters that might be worth exploring in film. Marvel had a very good run of Dracula comics in the 1970s that introduced a lot more characters than just Blade alone... The problem is the mentality of fans, editors, and creators that think only certain characters are worth creating books and films around.

********************

Ben, we're going to continue to have arguments on and off but I hope we can still respect each other.

But please don't tell me Pixar or Marvel Entertainment are worth $4 billion... I think the only reason that costs get mentioned half the time in media is to impress people with the buying power of a corporation. It's a part of PR that I stopped caring about years ago. However, if I were a stockholder I would be very concerned about how the Disney Board is spending company money when there are continuing safety issues with the parks and parental concerns about the behavior of certain Disney Channel stars in public -- especially the ones that little kids role-model after...

I still think Disney overspent to acquire Marvel. Like anything else in movies, superheroes are a fad. This genre will eventually peter out not for lack of characters but for lack of new ways of executing ideas and quality storytelling.

Obviously, most of the pundits and fans (like me) were wrong when we thought the superhero film fad was over with Spider-Man 3. (That film, as bad as it was, still made money. More than the other two at box office in fact...) Iron Man (the movie) sure proved us wrong!

My other concern still remains -- and I think it's well-founded -- with the continued growth of these conglomerates. It has not been good for the exchange of ideas and promulgation of new filmmakers...

*********************
UPDATE:

Comics creators respond to the Disney/Marvel merger ---

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page ... e&id=22765

Kurt Busiek and Dan Vado probably have the most balanced views... They're certainly more in line with my thinking. Things won't change right away, but 5, 10 years from now---? Who knows?

Post by **estefan** » August 31st, 2009, 8:00 pm

OriginalGagBonkers: I would support a Howard the Duck animated series, actually.

Post by **Josh** » August 31st, 2009, 8:35 pm

Reuters has Stan Lee's take on the Disney acquisition of Marvel.

Stan Lee said, not wrote:To me, becoming 'Disneyfied' is not a bad thing. I mean look at (Disney) movies like Pirates of the Caribbean. Disney knows how to do movies. They know how to do colorful characters and I think the fans, if they think about it, they're going to love it.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » August 31st, 2009, 9:24 pm

estefan wrote:OriginalGagBonkers: I would support a Howard the Duck animated series, actually.

To do that, Disney would have to create a new mature label or revive Touchstone Pictures (which seems more sensible).

(Howard is not exactly family-friendly and definitely no Donald Duck.)

This is something Disney should have done years ago. So far, the only (partly) animated feature released under the Touchstone label was Who Framed Roger Rabbit (which definitely qualified for the label because of a few scenes in questionable taste).

Miramax, also a division of Disney, also released The Cobbler and the Thief and Princess Mononoke (the first Studio Ghibli film marketed by Disney) under its labels, too.

They'd have to clearly distance that from WDFA since Disney still means "family-friendly" to most people.

Of course, with teenage stars doing pole dances at music events and some other misbehavior you kind of wonder how Disney is handling the distinction between family friendly and adult now. It's been an issue with Disney for a while now, and NOT just with her...

There's tension between the Disney traditionalists and people who want something more daring and challenging -- which is not necessarily the same thing as "adult". It's generally been a PR and box office disaster for Disney when they've ventured too far into the latter territory. No Disneyphile in their right mind wants to hear F-bombs and see explicit adult situations on something clearly marked "Disney".

Post by **James** » August 31st, 2009, 11:10 pm

Coming soon to your favorite Marvel retailer?

Post by **Dan** » August 31st, 2009, 11:32 pm

GeorgeC wrote: How many Marvel Comics have you read?

The iconic Marvel characters for the most part aren't mutants ==> Captain America, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, The Fantastic Four, and The Avengers (Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, The Vision, Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Ant Man/Goliath/Yellow Jacket).

I was being sarcastic, George. I am well aware of the roster of characters in Marvel and that a good chuck of them are not mutants. Although Scarlet Witch is, being Magneto's daughter and all that.

Post by **James** » September 1st, 2009, 12:14 am

Lots of good coverage here
http://www.newsarama.com/

Post by **Sunday** » September 1st, 2009, 12:49 am

If anything, this bodes well for the next installment in the Kingdom Hearts series.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » September 1st, 2009, 1:27 am

Lord Akiyama wrote:I was being sarcastic, George. I am well aware of the roster of characters in Marvel and that a good chuck of them are not mutants. Although Scarlet Witch is, being Magneto's daughter and all that.

Ee gotcha!

Sarcasm just doesn't translate well in posts. Very hard to read. (That's why I usually tell people when I'm being sarcastic.)

Seriously though -- any think a decent film couldn't be made based on Deathlok, the Inhumans, or any number of science fiction characters in the Marvel stable?

The Tomb of Dracula series published in the 1970s would also be a great source of material for a new cinematic take on Dracula. There was an anime feature based on that material that aired on Japanese TV and was translated into English by Harmony Gold. The VHS tape is long out of print, though. I've also heard stories that it wasn't a very good film.

A fresh take by someone raised in the US (mangling doesn't occur just in English-speaking film) could be a fresh shot in the arm for that material.

Dracula's a well-known name around the world... and vampires are on something of a rebirth in popularity in pop culture right now...

Post by **estefan** » September 1st, 2009, 8:15 am

GeorgeC wrote:So far, the only (partly) animated feature released under the Touchstone label was Who Framed Roger Rabbit (which definitely qualified for the label because of a few scenes in questionable taste).

The Nightmare Before Christmas was released under Touchstone, too.

Anyway, ABC is currently showing Mike Judge's newest series in in their prime-time line-up, so Howard the Duck should have an appropriate place there.

Or they could go the Ace Ventura: Pet Detective route by greatly toning down the content for an animated series for Saturday morning consumption. Lord knows even that would be better than every new show being featured on the Disney Channel right now.

Post by **Dacey** » September 1st, 2009, 9:20 am

Somehow I don't think that this is a coincidence:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=58594

Unless I'm mistaken, it would seem that Fox is doing this to keep Disney from getting the rights to the characters. Or am I mistaken when I assume that?