posted
It doesn't make any sense... I can't see this going well. I hope the Marvel shareholders shoot it down.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is this bad? Disney has enough room to create an entire park dedicated to Marvel. I don't see a Disneyfying of Marvel.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it had everything to do with movies, and merchandising. The comics arm is the least moneymaking part of Marvel.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, the comic arm is the most important part of Marvel, and they have neglected it at their peril.
The shift from comics to movies led to their bankruptcy early on, and the ToyBiz bid moved their focus into (not surprisingly) movies and toys.
Marvel's been around for 70 years as a comic book company. They've enjoyed just about a decade of success making movies... all of which have done well purely because of the success of comic book that was the source material.
If the comic well is allowed to run dry, where will the new properties come from in twenty years when Iron Man 6 and Spiderman 8 have fell victim to the laws of diminishing returns?
I hope Disney can bring back more of a comic focus.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually didn't realize that a thread covering this had already started and created a new topic about the same thing. Woooops!
Anyhow, I'll just post some of what I did in my thread to sum up my thoughts:
Actually, seriously, I really don't have any problem with this news, at least not yet. I'm looking at the comments on these websites and it seems like the majority of people automatically thinks this means all future Marvel movies are going to be "kiddiefied." Fact is, Disney has helped produce or release plenty of adult fare under other studios it owns (Touchstone Pictures- "Con Air", Miramax Films- "The English Patient," "Dogma", Hollywood Pictures- "The Sixth Sense"). While this may lead to Marvel characters at Disney theme parks and maybe Disney-Marvel saturday morning cartoons, beyond that I don't see this as signaling the watering down of all Marvel properties. The article actually mentions Pixar and Marvel meeting up, and that actually does get me excited, as I pretty much have absolute faith in Pixar to turn anything it touches into solid gold.
But, if you need a good dose of comedy, go and look at the comments boards on Aint It Cool, comingsoon.net, or ign.com over this. I think there are few things more pathetically hilarious than fanboys proclaiming their life is over now that the same studio that brought us High School Musical could, in theory, touch their beloved spandex-clad soap operas (and I do say that as a admitted fan of superheros in general).
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget "Wolverine and the Pirates of the Carribean".
Daventor is right Disney is huge and most people don't have a clue how many properties they own. So I wouldn't worry about them Disneyfing Marvel. Now that Pirates has run its course Disney needs a mega hit summer tentpole franchise. Spman, Xmen, Iron Man should cover that demographic nicely for them.
Hopefully the Pixar guys will teach them a thing or two about telling a good story. It seems like Marvel has just been retelling the same stories for the last 15-20 years with upgraded special effects.I don't want to see yet another version of the Spiderman or X-men origin stories. Nor do I want to see every character the director liked from the comics thrown together into one movies because we'll be able to film a really cool fight scene. (Spider 3 and X3)
Posts: 6 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they will provide more Superman movies, and do them justice, then that will be a great outcome! On the other hand, I do NOT want any more Batman.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If they will provide more Superman movies, and do them justice, then that will be a great outcome! On the other hand, I do NOT want any more Batman.
What?
What does marvel or disney have to do with that?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Superman and Batman are with DC Comics and Warner Bros and got nothing to do with this.
The big Marvel titles would be Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man, Hulk, Fantastic Four, Captain America, Thor, The Avengers, Daredevil (pretty much all the ones already adapted into movies, except for Caps, Thor, and the Avengers team-up, and those are already in the works) and then myraids of more obscure heros and titles.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh. I stand corrected. I haven't read a comic book in about 50 years. Is there still an Action Comics? I remember Forbidden Worlds comics, back when I was about 10 years old. I believe that was the first magazine where I contributed letters to the editor. Had some arguments with other contributors even then. And that was before I became a creationist.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: The shift from comics to movies led to their bankruptcy early on
Marvel filed for bankruptcy in the late 90s, before Marvel Studios had secured the major film deals they became known for in the 21st century. Their bankruptcy was due to questionable financial activities of Ron Perelman and the crashing of the speculator driven glut direct sales comics experienced in the late 90s.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were shifting away from quality comics in the 90s, too, Puffy - it was all #1's and foil embossed covers. They were destroying properties to make a buck - losing sight of what made them the money in the first place.
My accountant had been higher up in their financial department in the mid-90s and constantly harped on them to put more focus on quality comics, as he felt they were abandoning their core competency. Between that and other financial practices they were compelled to engage in, he left the company in 1997.
They asked him back to consult years later, after the reorganization under ToyBiz, and he came back with the same advice - if you don't refocus on quality comics, you'll eventually run the well dry. (Edit: They didn't want to do that, so he didn't accept their consulting offer)
Marvel has some wildly successful film properties, but they all share roots in a strong comic book following over many years. None of these were "new" characters made specifically for movies, in other words. The comic book industry got them to the dance - and if they neglect it, they will eventually have no one left to dance with.
It's a finite resource, unless it's replenished. What's the maximum on any given franchise before people start to lose interest? Four movies? Five? Even the third installments of X-Men and Spiderman were weak.
Without building/strengthening properties in their comic wing, they'll end up having to scrape the bottom of the barrel with Moon Knight and Sleepwalker movies. Somehow I don't see an Alpha Flight movie bringing in the big bucks.
posted
Read Old Man Logan, and your faith may be restored. But in the long run this doesnt bother me all that much, after Spider Man 3 and its blatant scoff at the lore (not to mention evil Peter just goes around dancing, wtf?) and character appearance I dont see how much worse it can get. I dont trust Disney, especially after they fired the main character of So Wierd (the very talented Cara Delizia) because she had developed DDs at fifteen years old, and thats hard to ignore when shes 5'2 in heels. And yet they hire an adult Raven Symone to play a teenager and basically paint the clothes onto her body, while targeting storyline to tweens... gg Disney.
Either way Im a DC/Dark Horse boy anyhow. JK Rowling may have ruined Books of Magic for the world at large, but I still hope for a The Dark Knight Returns film adaptation, Id even take Night Wing over Thor any day.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hence my remarks about why the speculator-driven glut's inevitable crash hurt them so badly.
They were playing to that crowd.
Marvel's movie division and comics division are not the same thing. They have different staffs, and different creators working therein. The emergence of the former into the public eye has little to do with the diminishing quality of the latter.
I would say that Marvel Studios' projects are the only thing keeping their characters in the public eye at this point. The decline of the super-hero comic direct market has hurt companies across the board, regardless of the quality of the books. This is due in large part to the core audience of dedicated fans aging and vanishing. Until Marvel and the rest decide to stop being horse-and-buggy about how they try to reach a new audience, this decline will continue not matter what the quality of their books.
In the 90s, even high quality titles aimed at new readers like Untold Tales of Spider-Man ultimately failed. They're not very good at reaching beyond their boundaries.
Also, remember that the X-Men and Spider-Man film series were not done in-house.
Until Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk last summer, Marvel Studios worked as a production team on the various films, but did not have total control. With the decision to make the Avengers films themselves, this has changed.
(Note that suddenly there's a cinematic Marvel Universe.)
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until Marvel and the rest decide to stop being horse-and-buggy about how they try to reach a new audience, this decline will continue not matter what the quality of their books.
This. Exactly - they need to focus on reaching a new audience. They've been around for 70 years... and if they plan to be around for 70 more, they need to find a better way to get to their target audience. It's not simply that they need to improve quality of content, but more importantly quality of delivery. I don't think they are reaching their audience effectively.
It's interesting, because they are suffering the same fate as newspapers in a way - the fate of print media. But I feel they are uniquely suited to more digital methods of delivery - if they'd invest in it.
I understand that the movie division and the comics division are not the same thing - but it really seems like the movie division is treated to candy and sweets while the comics division is told it has to sleep in the cupboard under the stairs.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this could lead to some positive things as well:
STITCH vs. WOLVERINE
No really... think about it. Adamantium claws against Stitch's near-invulnerability. No chance at communication between the two, because they both do not tend towards loquaciousness. If someone with a flair for writing lent himself to that story, it could be something. Posts: 1100 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think of the synergies: Emma Frost and the Seven Dwarfs High School Mutant Musical Buzz Lightyear and the Guardians of the Galaxy Finding Namor Big Bad Wolf and the Howling Commandos
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can argue that "Big Bad Wolf and the Howling Commandos" has already been done in Fables. And "X-Men: First Class" basically did the "Mutant Musical" bit. But I would pay good money for "Finding Namor." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mulan VS the Mandarin The Black Panther in the Lion Kingdom That Darn Catwoman (OK, its a DC, but the name fits) The Absent Minded Professor X X-Mice Darkwing Duck vs Deadpool Bambi Hires The Punisher
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Michael Vick Organizes Fight to the Death between Goofy and Pluto Some Big-headed Disney Character in Steroid Scandal a la Barry Bonds
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused, Universal Studios runs Marvel Superhero Island in Orlando, what happens to the rights to use all of the super heroes in those rides? It would be expensive to remarket all of those roller coasters and reconstruct parts of them.
If disney buys the company i think they're going to have to let Universal keep the ride rights, not sure hoe that is going to work out (just a side note in the Universal vs Disney world debate I'm pro Disney world, it's way more fun)
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So does Sony and Fox still have rights to the live action X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four and Daredevil films?
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
