Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: lowky on September 01, 2009, 01:56:51 AM
-
Wasn't sure if this belonged in a sf thread (Superheros/Borg-like Disney), A horror thread (will all marvel movies be stuck at PG-13), Those we lost in 2009, or what so giving it its own thread in Gallimaufry.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42204 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42204)
-
Nothing good can come of this. Nothing.
Unless you're Matt Murdock. What do you want to bet that Daredevil will get a wise-cracking street kid sidekick and stop being so bloody depressed all the time. Probably get a hot new girlfriend who isn't even addicted to heroin.
-
People call Microsoft "the evil empire". I think Disney's more deserving of that title.
-
Two words:
Princess crossover
-
People call Microsoft "the evil empire". I think Disney's more deserving of that title.
Agreed, for their Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Appropriation sins alone.
-
odd... i heard this somewhere else today and i thought it was on this board but apparently not...
either way...
my question is: what happens to Universal? (as in the theme park) They have all the Marvel character based rides...
-
odd... i heard this somewhere else today and i thought it was on this board but apparently not...
either way...
my question is: what happens to Universal? (as in the theme park) They have all the Marvel character based rides...
Existing contracts must be honored. If disney doesn't want them to have the chacters, they're going to have to pay Universal to take the signs down. After the contract is over, Universal will have to pay Disney or take down every sign and decoration that is under Marvel copy-right.
Edit: I have never been to a(the?) Universal theme park, so I have no idea what percentage of the attractions we're talking about.
-
I...I used to work for Disney...
/me huddles in the corner, sobbing and clawing at the wall.
-
Eh, I'm not really bothered about this as much as some other people seem to be. I appreciate a lot of what Joe Quesada did initially (everything with Daredevil, hiring Grant Morrison to write the X-Men, etc.) but he really messed up in a lot of other areas. coughBrandNewDaycough. So it's not like Marvel hasn't created a bunch of stupidity all on their own.
Also, I can think of a single great original superhero property that Marvel's put out in the last 20 years: Runaways. So here's hoping Disney will inspire Marvel to do more original stuff somehow. Hey, maybe Marvel will actually try and create comics more females will want to read. I really don't know, but I tend to think it won't be all that bad just because Disney is involved.
odd... i heard this somewhere else today and i thought it was on this board but apparently not...
either way...
my question is: what happens to Universal? (as in the theme park) They have all the Marvel character based rides...
Existing contracts must be honored. If disney doesn't want them to have the chacters, they're going to have to pay Universal to take the signs down. After the contract is over, Universal will have to pay Disney or take down every sign and decoration that is under Marvel copy-right.
Edit: I have never been to a(the?) Universal theme park, so I have no idea what percentage of the attractions we're talking about.
I'm having a hard time thinking of any Marvel attractions at Universal Studios Hollywood. Although I think there's some kind of Marvel theme park in Florida.
But dudes, maybe Disneyland will make Marveland! Or House of Ideas! Or something cool where I can go and hang out with superheroes.
And maybe we'll finally get that X-Babies movie I've been waiting my whole life for...
-
People are getting all bent out of shape over nothing. It's unlikely to have any significant impact on the comics, at least in the short term. They almost certainly bought the company for other, more lucrative exploitation. Once the current contract expires, it's almost certain they won't even negotiate with Universal for the parks, and all films will be brought in-house.
Disney is a corporation. The idea of any guiding principle to its content, good or bad, is a thing of the past. Miramax does plenty of adult-oriented, kid-inappropriate films. Even ABC Family, which sounds like it should be kiddie fare, is full of gay characters, pregnant teens, and underage drinking without the usual PSA lectures on the evils of alcohol.
If something adult gets negative press, Disney may shut it down, but other than that, if Marvel turns a profit, I doubt they could care less what the publishing arm does.
The biggest impact will probably be that Disney will probably not give a rat's ass about giving Marvel writers and editors input on the films, so the creative gestalt that produced the brilliant Iron Man film will probably fall by the wayside.
-
as long as disney keeps punisher from ever being tried as a movie again i will be somewhat happy. I think in large part because i find Punisher comics meh at best. But also a Punisher movie always becomes a revenge shootem' up fest which has been done before else where, at least 10 times better. If you want a good story of revenge, O'barr's The Crow is probably best graphic novel out there. I like the movie too. The first one. The sequels are much like the matrix and Highlander sequels. I will pretend they don't exist. Planet Geist indeed!
-
I...I used to work for Disney...
Oh, you poor thing. I used to work for Marvel. At least they were just inept and indifferent.
-
The sequels are much like the matrix and Highlander sequels. I will pretend they don't exist. Planet Geist indeed!
Don't know what you are talking about. There weren't any Highlander sequels. Trust me.
-
Think of the opportunities. Marvel has always been known for its heroes fighting each other:
Wasp vs. Tinkerbell
Uncle Scrooge vs. Howard the Duck
Aladin's Genie vs. Impossible Man
Ant-man vs. Jiminey Cricket
Beast vs. Beast
Malificent vs. Dr. Strange
Power Pack vs. the Seven Dwarves
Little Mermaid's King Triton vs. The Sub-Mariner
Lockheed vs. Pete's Dragon
Hercules vs. Hercules
Tarzan vs. Ka-Zar
Tigra vs. Shere Kahn
Buzz Lightyear vs. Silver Surfer
and I'm sure there are many, many more...
-
Disney is a corporation. The idea of any guiding principle to its content, good or bad, is a thing of the past. Miramax does plenty of adult-oriented, kid-inappropriate films. Even ABC Family, which sounds like it should be kiddie fare, is full of gay characters, pregnant teens, and underage drinking without the usual PSA lectures on the evils of alcohol.
That's precisely the point. In pursuing a greater stream of revenue, Disney is likely to churn out a product that alienates the original fan base. It may be appealling to more people, but less appealing to the people that have supported the brand for the last few decades. For example: Star Wars Episode 4, everything Metallica did after "...and Justice for All," every SF movie Will Smith has been in, etc. Without a guiding principle of "make a quality product," you get a bland product aimed at the lowest common denominator.
-
Um, Pixar? Miramax?
Sure, for every Pirates of the Carribean, they have a Haunted Mansion, but that doesn't negate that when they get something right, they really get it right.
Disney can do fine producing quality entertainment when they want to, even if they're not headlining something their own names, but one of their subdivisions.
-
I hated Pirates of the Carribean. Worst thing Depp ever did.
-
I hated Pirates of the Carribean. Worst thing Depp ever did.
I enjoyed the first one, the second was okay. the third one while having a lot of gorgeous photography just wasn't very good.
Something about 3 strikes your out? Shrek one and two, great, shrek 3 almost destroyed the series, and any of the direct to DVD shrek movies will make you wish you had never heard of Shrek. Spiderman 1 and 2 good; Spiderman 3 ugh emo spiderman wtf! That was the year for horrible sequels. shrek 3, Spidey3 and Pirate 3, 3 strikes, hollywood can't make sequels.
-
I hated Pirates of the Carribean. Worst thing Depp ever did.
That's the truth. This film seriously sucked. I thought Depp's acting was interesting, but that's kind of like having a good piece of roast beef on a shit sandwich.
-
Something about 3 strikes your out? Shrek one and two, great, shrek 3 almost destroyed the series, and any of the direct to DVD shrek movies will make you wish you had never heard of Shrek. Spiderman 1 and 2 good; Spiderman 3 ugh emo spiderman wtf! That was the year for horrible sequels. shrek 3, Spidey3 and Pirate 3, 3 strikes, hollywood can't make sequels.
But you have to admit, Star Trek 3 was a work of genius. And Matrix Revolutions.
-
Something about 3 strikes your out? Shrek one and two, great, shrek 3 almost destroyed the series, and any of the direct to DVD shrek movies will make you wish you had never heard of Shrek. Spiderman 1 and 2 good; Spiderman 3 ugh emo spiderman wtf! That was the year for horrible sequels. shrek 3, Spidey3 and Pirate 3, 3 strikes, hollywood can't make sequels.
But you have to admit, Star Trek 3 was a work of genius. And Matrix Revolutions.
God, I hope that was irony. Please, let it be irony.
-
Even way down here in Aus, we have irony.
But WAS I being ironic?
Heh heh heh.
Star Wars ep 6.
-
That's precisely the point. In pursuing a greater stream of revenue, Disney is likely to churn out a product that alienates the original fan base.
That's not the point of most of the alarmist posts I've seen in various places. The point of most of those is the assumption that Disney was going to kiddify the books.
If you don't think Marvel is already pumping out books based on a corporate mentality rather than a creative vision, I have bad news for you.
And again, I sincerely doubt Disney will even bother making changes to the publishing arm as long as things continue to go well, simply because it's not important enough.
There is a fascinating piece by brilliant industry observer Steven Grant in this week's Permanent Damage column at www.comicbookresources.com. He has the most balanced, nuanced analysis of the situation I've seen yet.
-
Something about 3 strikes your out? Shrek one and two, great, shrek 3 almost destroyed the series, and any of the direct to DVD shrek movies will make you wish you had never heard of Shrek. Spiderman 1 and 2 good; Spiderman 3 ugh emo spiderman wtf! That was the year for horrible sequels. shrek 3, Spidey3 and Pirate 3, 3 strikes, hollywood can't make sequels.
But you have to admit, Star Trek 3 was a work of genius. And Matrix Revolutions.
What is this Matrix Revolutions you speak of? There was only one Matrix Movie, Only one Highlander Movie, Only one sequel to Alien, and only 3 star wars movies, A new hope, the Empire strikes back, and return of the jedi, which again as a 3rd movie wasn't as good as the previous two.
-
But you have to admit, Star Trek 3 was a work of genius. And Matrix Revolutions.
I don't have to admit that at all. I won't.
What is this Matrix Revolutions you speak of? There was only one Matrix Movie, Only one Highlander Movie, Only one sequel to Alien, and only 3 star wars movies, A new hope, the Empire strikes back, and return of the jedi, which again as a 3rd movie wasn't as good as the previous two.
One Dune novel (Herbert never wrote any sequels, and his son certainly never dug up the corpse to go through its pockets). Three Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels. And I'm still waiting for THHGttG to be made into a movie.
-
Okay, you (plural) don't like PotC, which is cool. I'd still contest that they were movies Disney did relatively well and were generally successful critically, finnancially, and um, entertainingly. At least, I thought they were. (I'm not trying to sway your opinion of the movies.)
Still, Pixar? Miramax? The Miyazaki movies that they distribute? (Ponyo, Princess Mononoke.)
Disney is a corporation, as was/is Marvel. But they've done some stuff I enjoy and I'm definitely willing to give them the benefit of the doubt right now with Marvel. Especially considering this:
If you don't think Marvel is already pumping out books based on a corporate mentality rather than a creative vision, I have bad news for you.
-
I think the only big difference will be Marvel characters in the Disney marketing machine. Even more tie-ins even more merchandising. Disney bought Marvel, because they were making money. I don't expect them to touch the base business. Then again I do see the appeal of a Hannah Montana/Spiderman crossover.
-
Then again I do see the appeal of a Hannah Montana/Spiderman crossover.
Bono's already written the musical ;)
(minus Hannah Montana)
-
Three Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels
There were five.
I have spoken.
-
Three Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels
There were five.
I have spoken.
So Long and Mostly Harmless don't count, as they are made of weapons-grade suck.
-
Three Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels
There were five.
I have spoken.
So Long and Mostly Harmless don't count, as they are made of weapons-grade suck.
That's some serious suck.
-
So Long and Mostly Harmless don't count, as they are made of weapons-grade suck.
stePH, I really, really wish you'd just say what you think, instead of beating about the bush.
-
I don't always agree with stePH, but on this one, I definitely do.
(Actually, I slightly retract. I'm glad Mostly Harmless exists to give the franchise closure, even if it's not a great book. There's no excuse for So Long, though.
-
Okay, you (plural) don't like PotC, which is cool. I'd still contest that they were movies Disney did relatively well and were generally successful critically, finnancially, and um, entertainingly. At least, I thought they were. (I'm not trying to sway your opinion of the movies.)
Still, Pixar? Miramax? The Miyazaki movies that they distribute? (Ponyo, Princess Mononoke.)
Disney is a corporation, as was/is Marvel. But they've done some stuff I enjoy and I'm definitely willing to give them the benefit of the doubt right now with Marvel. Especially considering this:
If you don't think Marvel is already pumping out books based on a corporate mentality rather than a creative vision, I have bad news for you.
What Dave said, basically. I ran a comic shop for seven years and that whole time, there was a rolling deadpool on when Marvel would finally fold at numerous message boards. They weren't producing good comics, they weren't reaching out to new audiences, they weren't growing.
That same company, barely a decade later, is worth four billion dollars.
They're not perfect, that's certainly true, but Marvel have pushed the envelope pretty constantly for the last few years, been unafraid to try new approaches both to old types of story and new ones and fundamentally, have been happy to step outside their normal story frameworks. They've done work which is either good or popular and often both and that's been reflected in this sale.
This is going to have minimal effect on comic content, because Disney know what they want, know where they're strong and where they're lacking and know when to leave well enough alone. Don't forget, one of their companies produced and distributed Kill Bill and the last time I checked, Donald isn't leading the Crazy '88s in the closing fight.
Plus, Rich Johnston, a UK comics journalist has made a really interesting point about Disney buying up a comic company which, via a distribution deal with Panini, has digests of Marvel titles on sale in every major newsagent in England, a country where Disney comics have precisely no market share at all. At least part of this deal may well have been motivated by the desire to change that, to establish Disney in the comics industry in England the same way they have in Italy (Where Mickey X, in which Mickey Mouse is a paranormal detective is massively successful).
Basically , pretty much all this will change, at first at least, is that the next Kingdom Hearts game will have a much more varied roster.
-
Basically , pretty much all this will change, at first at least, is that the next Kingdom Hearts game will have a much more varied roster.
And the Spider-Man ride at Universal Studios in Florida, which totally kicks ass. They can't just change the name on it like they could with The Hulk. Maybe they'll just move it to a Disney park.
-
I'm sure you guys know comics better than I do. I don't follow that closely. I do know that one company does not normally buy another just to have it. I'm just thinking we'll see the same thing here as what happened when ford bought Volvo: bland compromise product.
-
I don't think anyone's suggested they bought it just to have it. I think they bought it because they're much more interested in the more lucrative movie, tv, video game, etc. exploitation of the famous characters than they are of anything that happens in the low-profit, low-profile ghetto of the comics themselves. In fact, we've had the first reports from Marvel editorial's first meeting with Disney execs, and this appears to be exactly what we're hearing.
I don't blame you for not trusting my judgment as a random guy, but EVERY commentator with an informed position, with knowledge of comics, Hollywood, or both, both inside and outside Marvel and Disney's corporate structure, seem to all agree that the only change likely to occur to the comics anytime soon is the quiet execution of Marvel's limp and unimportant, borderline-X-rated "Marvel Max" line.
-
One other thought:
Mark Evanier, a widely respected figure in Hollywood and Comics pro circles, but relatively unknown outside of them, pointed out that not only will they get full benefit to exploit movie, theme park, etc. rights once current contracts expire, that even before that, every dollar Marvel makes from any of those contracts now will appear on Disney's balance sheet. Which means a lot of Sony, Fox, Universal etc. money flowing into Marvel. ME is far from claiming this as fact, but in his generally solid estimation, this is at least significant enough to be a sufficient (even if it isn't the actual) reason to buy Marvel in and of itself.
Also, Rich Johnston points out that Marvel have a contract with Panini, a european company who repackages American comics for European audiences. They are a powerful and direct competitor to Disney's Italian branch, and their dominance of the UK market in particular have effectively locked Disney out of the UK. So owning Marvel could obligate Panini to distribute Disney comics, and Marvel is too important to Panini to simply drop the contract next time it comes up.
So, there are many reasons that Disney could be buying Marvel that have nothing to do with wanting to turn Marvel into some sort of Disney Kids publishing line.
-
Three Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels
There were five.
I have spoken.
So Long and Mostly Harmless don't count, as they are made of weapons-grade suck.
There. Were. Five.
I HAVE SPOKEN.
-
Weapons-grade suck. I have spoken.
-
I'm back.
(http://themixtapemonster.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/popcorn_soda.jpg)
*waves hand*
Please, continue.