I, for one, welcome our new overlords

[angelophile]

Since everyone else has talked about it...

Honestly, the Disney owning Marvel thing? I don't honestly think it's likely to make a huge difference. And almost certainly not a negative one.



The internet's already abuzz with the idea that Marvel is going to get Disneyfied and all its comics will suddenly become places where GLBT characters are no longer welcome (because Marvel were doing so well at that before?), the only books will be child friendly and cutsey (don't people love Marvel Adventures and hate 90s gorefests like X-Force? Where's the bad?) and so on.

Most of which ignores the idea that Disney already own a number of companies (Miramax, Touchstone Pictures) which haven't exactly been sanitized or interfered with. It's useful to remember that the Disney owned Miramax made Clerks, The Piano, Pulp Fiction, Il Postino, From Dusk Till Dawn, Trainspotting, The Talented Mr. Ripley, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, The Crow and many others. Hardly Disneyfied output.

Hey, there was the same worry about Pixar and it seems business as usual with them, still. And, honestly, if Disney decide to stick Hannah Montana in an issue of Spider-man Family, would that be so bad? Worse than the fellating of Obama in recent Marvel comics?

Quotes like "I hope I'm wrong, but this seems like the worst news in comics' history"? Ridiculous.

It seems to me like Disney got a bargain in marketing alone and, in terms of the comics, are now in a position to push comic book characters, and by extension comics, meaning wider exposure. This can only be a good thing.

There's also the buzz in the hugely optimistic direction. I had a discussion with someone last night who insisted that a statement saying that Pixar and Marvel had a meeting and they were "excited" by it meant that Pixar were going to start producing movies based on Marvel properties. Despite the fact that Pixar have had access to all of Disney's characters over the past few years and have continued to create new and fresh worlds regardless and the statement about the Pixar/Marvel meeting being for shareholders (you know, the kind of statements where hyperbole runs rife) they insisted it was going to be Pixar making Spider-man movies or something. They claimed that the tone made it clear that it was going to be Pixar doing Marvel movies and not, as I take it, Marvel doing Pixar comics based on the idea that there was nothing exciting about it that way round. Oy.

While, undoubtedly, Disney will be seeking to unite all the various Marvel film franchises under one roof when existing contracts run out, in the meantime they have massively successful films that seem unlikely to be replaced by CGI. Pixar doing a Power Pack movie? Nnnnoooo.

Another good thing, the big business support now puts them in the same position as DC, who are supported by Warner Brothers and don't have to worry about their bottom line so much. Paul Cornell puts it best:

"It gives Marvel Comics the same financial security as DC has, the latter being part of TimeWarner, while previously Marvel had to survive purely on the strength of its comics...
That's why, in the past, a marginal Marvel title would be cancelled long before a marginal DC title would. Now, when the immediate success of every single title isn't make or break, I expect we'll be seeing more experiments and more creative risks from people whose love of the medium meant they couldn't help themselves but to publish comics they knew would find only a small audience, even when finances were tight."

So, titles like Runaways, Spider-girl, Captain Britain and MI13, the Marvel Adventures line, Squadron Supreme, Exiles, Agents of Atlas, Guardians of the Galaxy, Immortal Iron Fist, Nova, Incredible Hercules, X-Factor and so on could be on firmer ground.

Then there's the question of widening the range of Marvel's output. Again, a good thing. From Marc Bernardin, comic writer and Senior Editor at Entertainment Weekly:

"The biggest question this acquisition poses to me, from a purely comics standpoint, is ‘How will this change what Marvel chooses to publish?’ Not that I think that suddenly, Disney will step in and set some sort of mandate, but if you draw an analogy to the Warner/DC relationship, it’s important that DC publish non-superhero titles for Warner to funnel into production. Because not every superhero demands his or her own movie," said Bernardin. "You also need to have your 'Preachers', your 'Y: The Last Mans', your 'Losers'. But right now, Marvel doesn’t do much of that outside their Epic line. They are, by and large, a publisher of superhero comics, and to this point, it’s worked incredibly well for them. But I think that’ll probably change.”

So, I'm really struggling to see the bad here. (And, admittedly, the hopelessly optimistic Pixar making Marvel movies failing to see the good too). Disney starting to intervene, maybe even putting one of their guys in charge? Well, when did everyone decide Joey Q was someone they didn't want replaced? Everyone seems to be reacting like Marvel has a flawless track record recently that can't be messed with instead of glorifying villains and murderers, Spider-man selling his soul to Satan and coming back as a sad man-child, Sins Past, Civil War, depowered mutants, rampant misogyny and the "boys only!" mindset, sex obsessed BDSM X-men, etc etc etc

Undoubtedly there will be changes, but huge and immediate? I think that's highly unlikely. The changes I do foresee are only good ones.

Well, all will become clear in time.

Comments

[newnumber6.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's pretty much my feelings too. I mean, my first instinctive gut reaction was 'uh-oh', but once I thought about it, on the whole, I don't think it'll be necessarily bad. Has potential to be, sure, but so does every change Marvel makes (and many of them have, so we're do for a good one).

The only thing I _really_ worry about is that Disney taking over the films will mean it's more likely Runaways will get filled with Disney Teen Stars rather than relative unknowns.

And if they can somehow get away with making Marvel Zombies 8: Disney Zombies, where some of the Marvel Zombies cross into an alternate Disney universe and start zombifying everybody there, well, then, that might just be the coolest thing ever. ;)

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

Disney won't have any control over the Runaways movie, since it's a pre-existing deal with an existing studio. In fact, in the immediate future, the existing deals mean Disney won't be able to produce X-men, Avengers, Young X-men, Iron Man, Spider-man, Captain America, Wolverine, Runaways, Hulk, Ant Man, Deadpool, Fantastic Four, Thor etc etc movies. Which takes many of Marvel's "big guns" off the table for them. Of course, in the long term the existing deals will lapse and Disney will start to have input in the movies, but it's not an immediate concern (if it is a concern) for any pre-announced projects.

However, Disney are going to start cashing in on movies starring Marvel characters right off the bat. That means they're going to have to start looking at Marvel's lesser known characters if they want to hit the ground running with movies - off the bat, there's stuff like Young Avengers (although the Avengers name may be tied up in the existing deal), Power Pack, The Initiative, Squadron Supreme, Captain Britain and MI13, The Hood, Thunderbolts, Guardians of the Galaxy, Agents of Atlas, Moon Knight, Midnight Sons, Heroes for Hire, and the previously mentioned Dr Strange, Black Panther, Iron Fist, Nighthawk and Vision which may not have been tied into any deals yet. (I think the rights for Dr Strange reverted to Marvel again).

Pushing these lesser known characters into the mainstream has to be a good thing, though, right?

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

I assume Runaways is tied into the Paramount deal anyway, since all the other projects announced at the same time definitely are (Thor, Captain America, The Avengers, Ant-Man, Nick Fury, Runaways, Sub-Mariner).

[newnumber6.livejournal.com]

But the "existing studio" Runaways (and some of the other studios) has a deal under is "Marvel Studios", which is also now brought under Disney (in fact, that's probably the primary reason they bought the company, for the movie division). Remember? They were one of the first big (to me, at least) announcements about their solo division and we were all pleased because Marvel would have complete control? Well, now Marvel's controlled by somebody else.

In fact, in any deal where Marvel has a specific say in the production (rather than just invited out of politeness), it's hard to imagine that Disney will have 'no influence' unless they specifically decide not to have influence, because Disney can, at least theoretically, influence Marvel to influence it in ways they want.

So I don't see how "they'll have no influence on it" can really be realistic, especially if it's a case where, in the minds of Marvel Studios, casting Disney stars is a good thing (since it'll mean box office benefit). They see it as a good idea, so does Disney, and since they're all affiliated now, even if there is some disconnect, it's much easier to 'make it happen'.

But I agree the benefit of pushing lesser known characters in the mainstream is definitely a good thing, and, if nothing else, we could get some really good Marvel-based cartoons out of this.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

As I said above, the Marvel Studios deal is also connected to Paramount, so the rights aren't entirely under Marvel's control, unless I completely misunderstand it. Also, again, it's worth pointing out the whole deal with Miramax, Pixar and others where Disney have been pretty hands off. I'm personally not worried about the Runaways movie - no more than I was already anyway. I don't see it being Disneyfied any more than Marvel would likely want to anyway. There was never any guarantee of complete unknowns. Probably the opposite, since Marvel independent would be more desperate to get names to ensure a big hit.

[newnumber6.livejournal.com]

I _believe_ the Paramount aspect is just in distribution. That is, Marvel produces the movie however it wants it, and Paramount helps get it into theatres in exchange for a slice of the pie at the end. But rights deals are always ludicrously complicated anyway so I might have misunderstood it. Hell, Disney might want to keep its hands off just so they don't have to pay their lawyers for the time to figure out if they CAN put their hands on without getting sued. ;)

And even when under the same umbrella that doesn't mean things go entirely smooth for cross-pollination... remember all those stories about WB not letting Smallville or the Justice league cartoons use certain DC characters because they were being licensed by another group... within DC.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

Indeed. And things can change pretty quickly. Before the Iron Man movie came out the option was bought by Don Murphy, my producer friend. Without going too much into details, Marvel then changed their mind about letting anyone else get their hands on the property and ensured it was never picked up by the studio so the option would lapse and revert back to them. Who knows how long existing options on Marvel properties are? Presumably the X-men properties are tied into long term deals, but it could just be that Marvel were happy allowing the existing company to continue making X-related movies and the option isn't as long as we think and they may take the characters back now Disney are on board.

Wolverine and the X-men is renewed for a second series. After that, who knows? That's one case where I hope the deal is long-term since the toon has been excellent.

But whatever the case, I suspect worries about the Disneyfication of Marvel properties across the spectrum are unnecessary. While Spider-man may pop up in Disney related properties, I can't imagine Disney are going to start taking a heavy hand in establish brands, either in film or publishing.

[newnumber6.livejournal.com]

From what little I've been seeing, Wolverine and the X-Men is fairly successful so far, so I could see it being around a while with or without Disney, assuming the second season's as popular as the first.

Apparently the Disney deal might be good news for the newer Spectacular Spider-Man series, which I've come to think (once you get past the kind of lame-looking design for humanity in general), is the best Spider-Man cartoon yet, too, since it's still in limbo for a third season, but a) Disney channel is airing it so when they own Marvel they can get it for less, and b) Sony's part of any cartoon rights to Spidey was apparently recently negotiated away (in exchange for slightly longer movie rights). I don't understand how these things work exactly, but others have said they can still do a third season without Sony, and probably make more money too since they're not sharing it. Still in Limbo, but perhaps a little more chance at unlimboing. I'm hopeful for that.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

Back on the subject of the movies, Variety add some detail in an article about rebooting the Fantastic Four movies this morning:

"Though Marvel Entertainment owns and finances properties like “Iron Man” and “Thor,” Fox controls “Fantastic Four” in perpetuity — as long as it continues making the films. Fox has the same arrangement on Marvel Comics properties “X-Men,” “Daredevil” and “Silver Surfer.”"

That doesn't shed much light on the Runaways situation, but it does mean that Disney won't be able to directly control movies of those franchises, unless they buy the rights back. I don't know whether the Fox deal extends to X-men movies only or whether it extends to the cartoons as well, but I suspect the former since Marvel produced the Wolverine Vs. direct-to-DVD cartoon movies, Wolverine and the X-men's probably a stand alone deal.

[elsewhere7.livejournal.com]

The idea of Disney animation getting ahold of Power Pack, and the concept that an animated series would be possible under this new deal makes my heart go pitter-pat.

[occamsnailfile.livejournal.com]

Disney at least can actually market products to some degree, something which Marvel has not been very good at with their comics outside of established audiences. I worry that Disney ownership will make Marvel a bit more conservative as Time-Warner has DC, but I don't expect any huge changes or "Disneyfying" either.

[kirke-novak.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to show you my icon. That is all.
Accidentally, I would actually go to see that movie.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

Which movie? Ducklerine?

[kirke-novak.livejournal.com]

Indeed. It would probably be better and made more sense than Origins: Wolverine.