You are still higher than a fucking kite if you think everything is going to get toned down just because it's Disney The company that owns Touchstone, Miramax, and how many others Ummm... Not exactly a good example - the Weinstein brothers, who founded Miramax, left and started the Weinstein Company because Disney was micromanaging the company and not letting them have any creative freedom. Remind me of those times that Miramax hasn't been able to release a movie rated stronger than PG

Wrong. The audience that Disney wants is adult men - a market they have never been able to get in to. That is why they just made a $4 billion investment to essentially buy that market. Buying a new business vertical is one of the most beneficial things a business can do and Disney was profoundly smart to do this. edit: I apparently cannot type tonight. The analyst quoted in the article has a different take on what motivated the buy. Analyst David Joyce of Miller Tabak & Co. said the acquisition will help Disney appeal to young men who have flocked to theaters to see Marvel's superheroes in recent years. That contrasts with Disney's recent successes among young women with such fare as "Hannah Montana" and the Jonas Brothers. "It helps Disney add exposure to a young male demographic it had sort of lost some balance with," Joyce said, noting the $4 billion offer was at "full price." Also, Pirates and National Treasure didn't appeal exclusively to adult men, which is the case with comics today. I mean, imagine there was a Pirates comic. Disney probably wouldn't micromanage it, but they wouldn't let any of the characters suffer graphic torture either. Yes, but that's not because Disney owns Marvel. It's because Pirates is a Disney property. It would be the same situation if Disney licensed the property.

You are still higher than a fucking kite if you think everything is going to get toned down just because it's Disney The company that owns Touchstone, Miramax, and how many others The R-Rated films released by Miramax and Touchstone don't feature characters that were meant to appeal to pre-teen and teen boys. If Disney had intended for parents to buy their kids Beatrix Kiddo merchandise, however, there probably wouldn't have been as much dismemberment in the Kill Bill series, and it probably would have ended up looking a lot more like Pirates in terms of how far the violence was allowed to go

Here is you -----> * Here is a kite ----->*

In fact let's post this, from CBR -Existing licensing and distribution deals should remain where they are. -Disney believes there’s real opportunity with the Marvel catalog of characters and will work on where those opportunities are greatest and how best to leverage them across the existing Marvel and Disney infrastructure. -Disney executives went to great lengths during the call to make the point that they don’t pretend to be more expert than Marvel is in handling their characters, citing the hands-off relationship Disney has had with Pixar since the acquisition of that studio. Disney said Marvel manages the properties from a business perspective very intelligently and trusts them to make the right decisions for these products for a long time to come. -Disney said the deal was attractive not just because they’re buying great characters, stories and brand, but about working with people who know these characters best and how best to work with them in other media. -Again, referencing the Pixar deal, Disney finds working as one company with Marvel removes friction and creates value that’s very compelling. Licensing offers very attractive opportunities, but nothing is better than being one. International expansion of Marvel properties through Disney was cited as a potential growth area. -Cable channel Disney XD is currently running about 20 hours a week of Marvel content and Disney has been looking to license more Marvel content and this deal gives them that opportunity as well as the opportunity to expose these characters internationally. -With regards to video game publishing, Disney praised Marvel’s licensing agreements with some of the best video game producers and publishers in the business and said moving forward they will consider what’s best for each individual property as each licensing deal comes up for renewal and that there would likely be a blend of licensed and self-produced/self-distributed titles. -With respect to Paramount’s distribution deal with Marvel and the Iron Man franchise, Disney has every intention to respect the deal that’s in place, but noted that it’s in their best interest, overtime, to become the sole distributor of Marvel films. -Will Disney3D be used for Marvel movies? That will be determined by those who are in charge of producing Marvel’s theatrical films. -When asked if there was potential for cross-polination between Marvel and Pixar, Disney said that Pixar’s John Lasseter has met with key Marvel creative executives recently and the group got “pretty excited, very fast.” Disney will look at all opportunities and thinks there are some exciting product that could come from this sort of partnership. -Disney said this deal is expected to benefit Marvel’s retail efforts, being able to leverage Disney’s shelf space and relationships with major chains and distributors. -The deal began when Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger reached out to Marvel Chief Executive Ike Perlmutter earlier this year. Again, Disney noted that they believe in the creative team at Marvel and see no reason to upset that applecart. -Disney has not made any real estate decisions and sees no reason to move Marvel Studios from their headquarters in Manhattan Beach, California. No mention of Marvel Publishing’s offices in New York City was made.

-Disney executives went to great lengths during the call to make the point that they don’t pretend to be more expert than Marvel is in handling their characters, citing the hands-off relationship Disney has had with Pixar since the acquisition of that studio. Disney said Marvel manages the properties from a business perspective very intelligently and trusts them to make the right decisions for these products for a long time to come. Like I said, I don't expect them to micromanage. That said, setting firm ground rules about what you cannot do, for fear of alienating pre-teen and teen males and/or offending their parents, isn't out of the question. If Pixar wanted to release an action/adventure film where someone is placed on a torture rack and loses an arm, I'd expect them to be reined in too, even considering the amount of creative freedom they currently enjoy.

OK you don't get it I'm done LATERS

Look, it would be nice if there was more this: Spoiler: show spoiler hide spoiler And less this: Spoiler: show spoiler hide spoiler

Whereas I think that both have their place when done well and that removing one for the sake of the other is a terrible fucking idea

I think there is a place for gory stuff, like the latter image, from Marvel, but it should be in the MAX comics.

I think there is a place for gory stuff, like the latter image, from Marvel, but it should be in the MAX comics. And I think that this is a terrible notion because you're basically drawing a line and saying this is black and this is white and never will there be grey

Don't get me wrong, violence is ok, you need Wolverine to stab people. It's just that Eli Roth masturbatory blood crap that I would be glad to see leave the books (along with Brevoort and Land, but we can only dream, right?)

I think there is a place for gory stuff, like the latter image, from Marvel, but it should be in the MAX comics. And I think that this is a terrible notion because you're basically drawing a line and saying this is black and this is white and never will there be grey We already have lines like that. It's just that these lines are mostly about sexual content.

I think there is a place for gory stuff, like the latter image, from Marvel, but it should be in the MAX comics. And I think that this is a terrible notion because you're basically drawing a line and saying this is black and this is white and never will there be grey We already have lines like that. It's just that these lines are mostly about sexual content. Yeah no shades of grey in my comics Never seen a book be light-hearted and also "jesus fuck look at that" Nooooope

I think there is a place for gory stuff, like the latter image, from Marvel, but it should be in the MAX comics. And I think that this is a terrible notion because you're basically drawing a line and saying this is black and this is white and never will there be grey We already have lines like that. It's just that these lines are mostly about sexual content. Yeah no shades of grey in my comics Never seen a book be light-hearted and also "jesus fuck look at that" Nooooope I think he's trying to be sarcastic.

Hey Wiggin I posted your Wally/Linda moment in the GD Batman thread. You're welcome.

Hey Wiggin I posted your Wally/Linda moment in the GD Batman thread. You're welcome. Yeah I saw, thanks for that I need to track those issues down at some point

I think there is a place for gory stuff, like the latter image, from Marvel, but it should be in the MAX comics. And I think that this is a terrible notion because you're basically drawing a line and saying this is black and this is white and never will there be grey We already have lines like that. It's just that these lines are mostly about sexual content. Yeah no shades of grey in my comics Never seen a book be light-hearted and also "jesus fuck look at that" Nooooope I wonder what universe you live in where outright dismemberment and rape constitute a shade of grey. If we consider the average amount of comic violence as white, then gray is Kyle Rayner discovering his girlfriend and not showing the audience what she looks like. If you get to the point where you actually see a mutilated corpse, however, you've pretty clearly stepped into black. A shade of grey would be going one step beyond what's conventionally acceptable through subtle implication or leaving an image to the audience's imagination. Hard and fast rules about what can and cannot be shown don't prohibit this practice.

So what you're looking for is a Code for Comics that might be enforced by some kind of Authority because surely that has always been a beneficial thing

Comics did sell more with the CCA...

Comics did sell more with the CCA... And it also brought a screaming halt to a lot of comics in the golden age and wouldn't let Marvel do a Spider-Man about how drugs are bad because it talked about drugs So Excuse me for not wanting to impose hard and fast restrictions on things

In-house rules are a far cry from an independent regulatory body designed to weed out immoral content, like the MPAA. Like I said, there are already in-house rules about sexual content, and likely even violence as well (I can't imagine where that line is, though). I just think the rules about violence should be a little stricter, with more graphic imagery being limited to MAX titles, and I'd expect Disney to agree rather than just leaving things as is.

I doubt Disney makes a big sweeping editorial mandate on this kind of thing. I think it'd be more likely that they ask Marvel to expand stuff like the Marvel Adventures line, or bring those titles more into the mainstream. Marvel's been talking about getting stuff in grocery stores and Wal Marts and whatever, and this might be the way to do it. I saw it mentioned that a big reason Vertigo exists is so Warner Bros. has properties it can develop that aren't strictly superhero titles. I mean, they haven't gone very far down that path, but it's a good strategy. It could lead to Marvel expanding their Icon imprint. But I don't really expect a major tone down of violence across the line because of this. Not as an official Disney mandate, at any rate.

Holy freakout guys. Miramax has been owned by Disney since 1993. You know what movies have come from Miramax since then? Here's a sample: No Country for Old Men Pulp Fiction Clerks The Crow Trainspotting Dogma Gangs of New York Kill Bill There Will be Blood Disney doesn't just make kiddie shit. Besides, they just spent $4B to acquire these properties- even for Disney, that's not throwaway money. They're buying strong assets, so why would they go and monkey around with them? It wouldn't be an unprecedented risk if they went in that direction, but it's definitely an unlikely one. It just doesn't make sense- you pay full price when something's performing just fine as it is.

as i said when a friend told me this on facebook, i only hope it will result in minnie mouse dying and becoming the new phoenix