Comments | blackflame2180: On Disney buying Marvel

blackflame2180

On Disney buying Marvel

Aug 31, 2009 12:55

I dunno. The problem is that Disney is DISNEY. As in aggressive in managing the image of their intellectual properties, and responsive to even minor PR campaigns targeted at objections to edgy material. They're family focused, meaning that they eschew adult themes and topics ( Read more... )

Comments 9

fsfitz August 31 2009, 19:07:13 UTC

When Disney purchased the rights to distribute Hayao Miyazaki's movies in the USA, there was a clause which stated that Disney could only dub the movies into english and not make any changes to the content/storyline/etc.
While I am not familiar with the terms of the Marvel sale, it's possible there could be a similar clause to not interefere with characters we know and love.

blackflame2180 August 31 2009, 20:40:17 UTC

They haven't simply purchased rights here, they bought the entire company. While there was likely some deal over the continued management of Marvel, once the acquisition is complete, Disney owns Marvel, lock, stock and barrel.

ravenrose August 31 2009, 20:16:17 UTC

Remember that Disney also owns Miramax Studios, makers of very controversial and adult-themed movies... Disney does not have to be the death-touch.

blackflame2180 August 31 2009, 20:37:13 UTC

Yeah, but Mirimax is not so closely related to Disney's core business. This is much more like Disney's aquisition of Pixar. There's simply too much money to be made/saved by Disney management of Marvel IP for Disney not to switch such management over.

cheetahmaster August 31 2009, 21:34:52 UTC

...Except Disney really didn't interfere with Pixar's content either. I seriously think people are over-reacting to this. Warner Brothers didn't screw up DC when they bought it years ago, and I doubt Disney is going to really interfere with Marvel that much either. It's the licenses they want.

blackflame2180 August 31 2009, 21:56:32 UTC

cheetahmaster August 31 2009, 23:24:00 UTC

Except WB /did/ screw up a great deal of the management of the DC IP, to the point that Smallville (a show produced by Warner Brothers) can't feature Bruce Wayne (aka Batman, a character owned by DC, in turn owned by Warner Brothers) due to rights management issues. Hence they chose Ollie Queen.

That wasn't their fault, that's a looooong-standing copyright thingy, involving characters appearing in other mediums.

A more valid comparison would be the *vast array* of very adult storylines in DC Comics (*cough*Identity Crisis*cough*), despite it being owned by the people who make Bugs Bunny.

And yeah, actually, Disney has screwed the pooch on Pixar, just this year actually. How much marketing did you see for Up? Disney decided to low-ball Up's marketing budget (in comparison to other Disney-marketed Pixar movies) because they didn't think Up would appeal to a large market.

The same Up that's made over $250 million so far, not including foreign box office, DVD sales, and other licensing treats? And is widely predicted to cash in again ( ... )

blackflame2180 September 1 2009, 17:10:35 UTC

"A more valid comparison would be the *vast array* of very adult storylines in DC Comics (*cough*Identity Crisis*cough*), despite it being owned by the people who make Bugs Bunny ( ... )

monster_girl September 1 2009, 16:46:45 UTC

Disney sucks for alot of reasons, however.... when it comes to promoting the visual concepts for ideas... Disney tends to get behind things and push. So I can imagine that Disney would be realiiy supportive of marketing well... anythign that will make them more money.

I agree that a Marvel part of Disney would be.. um.... friggin fantastic!!!! Or perhaps Disney might try to buy up a couple of the bankrupting amusement parks and open a slightly more mature and less animal cartoon riddled place? Marvel World? *dreams*

Disney tends to suck at creating new story but its good at reselling old stuff... so that might also be good for Marvel. Time will tell eh?