I just don't know if this is entirely a bad thing, so sue me. For one thing, having all the movies under one studio roof can only improve the quality, and prevent stuff like the Wolverine movie from happening.
@Wookie1972: Nice thought - but this doesn't change pre-existing agreements. It's going to take a long time to clear up. Disney will be seeing the cash from the production of the films, but they'll still be getting distributed through lots of other studios for a while.
One thing to remember is that the word "Disney" doesn't mean what people are complaining that it means.
It's just a huge company that already owns a million tv and radio stations and movie studios, and have retained the iconography that founder Walt Disney created (like Mickey Mouse) as their corporate identity.
Whatever it once meant, died with Walt Disney and that was over 250 years ago.
Now it's just a very powerful company that makes money off that old brand recognition it had when it was a company dedicated to family entertainment.
It's like that Afleck insurance, they have a memorable talking duck in their branding and commercials, but their business actually has nothing to do with talking ducks.
@cylon_conspiracy: Thank you for pointing this out. I honestly can't help but wonder how many people complaining about how bad Disney is actually consume any Disney product. Or are they all just annoyed by teenage girls liking things that they don't?
As long as they don't fast track their manufactured stars into all the superhero roles I'm fine with this. No 'kids tv series' -> 'made for dvd musical' -> 'pop star' -> 'Tweentastic Four'.
Oh, Jesus. Prepare for the fanboys heads to explode. Honestly, people, it's just two huge companies merging. Now I know you hate the evil mouse, but just for a minute, please get your panties out of a bunch and think. NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE! Stop hyperventilating and use your inhalers. Calm down. Jesus. This isn't the end of the world.
I would expect Marvel to operate fairly independently since they've shown a good (recent) track record. But there will be times when certain films and projects are reviewed by the corporation writing the checks - inevitably making it a less nimble, autonomous production company.
Pixar avoided that due to the strength of Lasseter, the demands of the deal giving them their own creative control and their creative vision (left to their own corporate devices Disney would NOT have voted for a film about an old man with balloons tied to his house). Marvel's been recently led by savvy people, but hasn't exactly had a long history of a strong coordinated vision.
@Magicant: Pretty much... The reason Disney bought them is because they were strong enough to make a profit off of. I can't see them doing a whole lot of messing around with that.
I wonder what impact this will have on Disney World and Universal Studios. Will Universal have to shut down the Marvel Super Hero Island? Or will Disney just build it's own version?
@Calicomarie: In Orlando, Universal quite likely has a long-term licensing deal with territorial exclusivity. I wouldn't expect any changes any time soon, the same way you won't see the rights to Marvel films all shift over to Disney immediately. They have to honor existing deals.
Those types of licensing deals don't abruptly end without significant financial or legal ramifications.
someone want to explain why this is such a big deal? someone capable of seeing disney as something other than their movie or television properties? they're a media conglomerate, they buy media. it's what they do. disney owns the history channel and yet somehow miley cyrus has never narrated the events of the battle of the bulge. i'm sure marvel and it's properties will be fine or at least as well as can be expected.
@tetracycloide: Largely it's because Disney tends to put their fingerprints all over the media they acquire: that cheesy, shopping-mall, Disney Store style of cheap, saturation marketing that undermines anything not specifically both "family-friendly" and cheap plastic. There are recent exceptions, but there are far more examples in Disney's past. Look at ESPN now and compare what it was when it was an independent cable network - it's practically a mockery of what it started out as, somewhat like watching fanatic-driven college football fandom devolve into ratings-driven pro wrestling fandom.
@MonkeyT: i guess since i feel that way about all media, including marvel of last week and the ESPN of 1983, i don't see it as much of a change. they're all companies trying to peddle a product to turn a profit.
@tetracycloide: I don't know about "fine", but I don't think it'll be a big change in the current state of affairs, yeah.
At first I was all pissed that Marvel had been bought up by a giant corporate conglomerate, grrr consolidation of media under corporate tyranny. Then I remembered their previous owners were Proctor & Gamble.
tetracycloide promoted this comment
i hate when your douchbag friends change your name while you are on a hunting trip was starred
i hate when your douchbag friends change your name while you are on a hunting trip was unstarred
@MonkeyT: Agreed. Just look at ABC. My daughter used to love watching America's Funniest Videos before it became the huge hour long Disney Vacation commercial that it has become. They also tend to cast Disney 'stars' in all of their various TV shows, films and music videos. Thank God for the DVR!
@tetracycloide: Beats me... I guess people look at Disney brand stuff and, even then, only the most annoying things not made for their demographic. I personally don't get why people are so pissed off about High School Musical and Hannah Montana... I'm a 31 year old male and DON'T WATCH THEM. However, I do LOVE Fantasia, Treasure Planet, Pirates of the Caribbean 1, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Tron.
But in the mean time, the Pixar deal worked well for them. I've even heard it described as Pixar buying Disney for -$7.4B. Pixar got even more massive exposure, Steve Jobs got the biggest share of Disney and a BOD seat, Lasseter became Disney's Chief Creative Officer and Catmull became head of Disney Animation. And I'm not sure that anybody here has taken a proper survey of A&E, History, Biography or Lifetime to see if it has been stereotypically "Disnified".
@tetracycloide: I largely agree. Disney is a media distribution company in dire need of content. Marvel has more content than it knows what to do with. The deal makes sense. At the end of the day, it probably means we see marginally more Marvel (or Marvel-Lite) content than we would otherwise. Whether that is good or bad will depend on the editorial stamp.
DC Comics has been owned by a major media distributor (Warner Bros.) for ages. In a lot of ways, that has been a good deal and allowed DC to do more than they could have independently. The counter-argument to that, of course, is Smallville....
08/31/09
09/01/09
08/31/09
It's just a huge company that already owns a million tv and radio stations and movie studios, and have retained the iconography that founder Walt Disney created (like Mickey Mouse) as their corporate identity.
Whatever it once meant, died with Walt Disney and that was over 250 years ago.
Now it's just a very powerful company that makes money off that old brand recognition it had when it was a company dedicated to family entertainment.
It's like that Afleck insurance, they have a memorable talking duck in their branding and commercials, but their business actually has nothing to do with talking ducks.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
Oh, Donald would murder him. I love Howard, but Donald is full of rage.
Donald vs. Daffy would be the real match up, because Daffy would fight dirty.
08/31/09
08/31/09
He wasn't doing that before? What have I been reading?
08/31/09
"oh no it's i-ron mann!"
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
I would expect Marvel to operate fairly independently since they've shown a good (recent) track record. But there will be times when certain films and projects are reviewed by the corporation writing the checks - inevitably making it a less nimble, autonomous production company.
Pixar avoided that due to the strength of Lasseter, the demands of the deal giving them their own creative control and their creative vision (left to their own corporate devices Disney would NOT have voted for a film about an old man with balloons tied to his house). Marvel's been recently led by savvy people, but hasn't exactly had a long history of a strong coordinated vision.
08/31/09
08/31/09
1) Agreed. For evidence, look at the Henson company.
2) otoh, maybe the Mouse could stop Marvel from doing a crossover EVERY DAMN YEAR.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
Is Dalton too old?
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
Those types of licensing deals don't abruptly end without significant financial or legal ramifications.
Their other parks are another matter.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
At first I was all pissed that Marvel had been bought up by a giant corporate conglomerate, grrr consolidation of media under corporate tyranny. Then I remembered their previous owners were Proctor & Gamble.
Yeah.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
But in the mean time, the Pixar deal worked well for them. I've even heard it described as Pixar buying Disney for -$7.4B. Pixar got even more massive exposure, Steve Jobs got the biggest share of Disney and a BOD seat, Lasseter became Disney's Chief Creative Officer and Catmull became head of Disney Animation. And I'm not sure that anybody here has taken a proper survey of A&E, History, Biography or Lifetime to see if it has been stereotypically "Disnified".
08/31/09
DC Comics has been owned by a major media distributor (Warner Bros.) for ages. In a lot of ways, that has been a good deal and allowed DC to do more than they could have independently. The counter-argument to that, of course, is Smallville....
08/31/09
08/31/09
And we're all out of bubblegum.
08/31/09
I'm just waiting for Disney buy Hasbro to bring these beauties to the States.
08/31/09
08/31/09