Options

Disney to buy Marvel for 4 Billion

1356710

Posts

  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I can see the lawyers being more offensive in protecting their new properties in making sure, say, Garth Ennis doesn't make a Spider-Man knock off in The Boys out to be a pedophile or something. So Kirkman better make Haunt someone besides Peter Parker bitten by a radioactive ghost.
    Grath wrote: »
    I for one welcome Marvel in new installments of kingdom hearts games.

    I mentioned that in the news thread. Imagine fighting a heartless Hank Pym or Emma Frost or flying in the Gummi Ship with the FF to some other dimension.

    TexiKen on
  • Options
    BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I could see Disney issuing a fiat that basically boils down to "no more sexual violence or gore", since they're a tad more concerned with the image of their properties than Warner Bros.

    Not gonna happen

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    I could see Disney issuing a fiat that basically boils down to "no more sexual violence or gore", since they're a tad more concerned with the image of their properties than Warner Bros.

    Yeah no

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Why don't you guys think that could happen? Disney bought Marvel so they could market to kids, which would be a change in direction for a publisher that targets adult men and would likely result in a change in what is and isn't considered acceptable behavior for characters and the books they appear in.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I could big status changes like character deaths having to go through Disney first.

    And it would be nice if they just make a poster out of that shit X-23 splash page in X-Force #18 and put in big letters underneath "Enough, OK? You're not being clever."

    Also, maybe, just maybe, they tell Land to knock it off with the tracing because it would open Disney up to lawsuits.

    TexiKen on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    TexiKen wrote: »
    I could big status changes like character deaths having to go through Disney first.

    And it would be nice if they just make a poster out of that shit X-23 splash page in X-Force #18 and put in big letters underneath "Enough, OK? You're not being clever."

    Also, maybe, just maybe, they tell Land to knock it off with the tracing because it would open Disney up to lawsuits.
    Oh Gods, if the real animators basically shat all over Land it would be worth the 4 billion.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Perlmutter will still be running Marvel, so I think the Disney ownership will change more of the licensing aspects of their business than anything in the comics. His influence has helped Marvel a ton over the past decade, and Disney would be insane to interfere with him at this point.

    Hensler on
  • Options
    SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    This won't change a thing at Marvel. People need to realize that businesses don't buy other, non-competitive businesses to change them. They buy them because of WHAT they are so that they can be tapped into that market. That's exactly what is going on here. There is not a chance in hell that Disney would tell Marvel to "tone it down" - it would be business suicide and completely negate the $4 billion investment they just made. It just wouldn't happen.

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • Options
    Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    You think that toning things down a bit would hurt sales?

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    You think that toning things down a bit would hurt sales?

    "here is an audience that Marvel attracts that we want (guys)

    Let's narrow down the focus of that audience by making everything more kid-friendly"

    Nope

    Also look at the other companies Disney owns and tell me how many of them are sugar and gumdrops and nothing stronger than PG

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    You think that toning things down a bit would hurt sales?

    Absolutely. If Marvel gives off the image that they're going to shift their focus to a younger demographic in the wake of being bought by a historically "for kids/families" business it would be catastrophic for them. The larger comic book audience right now is older and, as such, they would be alienating their bread and butter.

    I know that "toned-down" might not mean "younger" to everyone but, to the wider comic book audience out there, it does.

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • Options
    Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    You think that toning things down a bit would hurt sales?

    "here is an audience that Marvel attracts that we want (guys)

    Let's narrow down the focus of that audience by making everything more kid-friendly"

    Nope

    Also look at the other companies Disney owns and tell me how many of them are sugar and gumdrops and nothing stronger than PG

    Uh, the audience that Disney wants is pre-teen and teen boys, not adult men.

    Also, I don't think anyone would misconstrue the sudden disappearance of guro and sexual violence from their comics as going younger. Unless you like that sort of thing, you'll either not notice or notice and feel pleased.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Less Ultimatum, more Marvel Adventures Avengers!

    edit: Pet Avengers Animated series! Lockjaw and Lockheed plushies everywhere! If you don't like that you're a terrible person.

    TexiKen on
  • Options
    SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    You think that toning things down a bit would hurt sales?

    "here is an audience that Marvel attracts that we want (guys)

    Let's narrow down the focus of that audience by making everything more kid-friendly"

    Nope

    Also look at the other companies Disney owns and tell me how many of them are sugar and gumdrops and nothing stronger than PG

    Uh, the audience that Disney wants is pre-teen and teen boys, not adult men.

    And frankly, I don't think anyone would misconstrue the sudden disappearance and guro and sexual violence from their comics as going younger. Unless you like that sort of thing, you'll either not notice or notice and feel pleased.

    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.

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    If you get the tween/teenage male market, you have easier access to them as adults with their bigger wallets.

    And Disney has gotten males to buy stuff in recent years, National Treasure and Pirates come to mind.

    TexiKen on
  • Options
    Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited September 2009

    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.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    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

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    TexiKen wrote: »
    If you get the tween/teenage male market, you have easier access to them as adults with their bigger wallets.

    And Disney has gotten males to buy stuff in recent years, National Treasure and Pirates come to mind.

    Yes but comparatively speaking the penetration they've gotten into teenage boys is profoundly smaller than their penetration into the young female audience. Also, my ISP is going to think I'm a pedophile after that last sentence.

    Also, I'm not discounting that Disney/Marvel won't play to a younger audience in some form. It just absolutely won't be at the expense of the core audience.

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • Options
    HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    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.

    Hensler on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    Hensler wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    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

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    edited September 2009

    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.

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • Options
    Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    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

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    Here is you
    > *



    Here is a kite
    >*

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    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.

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    -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.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    OK you don't get it I'm done LATERS

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Look, it would be nice if there was more this:
    bo-obama-pet-avenger1.jpg

    spidermandeadpool.jpg

    And less this:
    sick.jpg

    TexiKen on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    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

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I think there is a place for gory stuff, like the latter image, from Marvel, but it should be in the MAX comics.

    Hensler on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    Hensler wrote: »
    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

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    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?)

    TexiKen on
  • Options
    Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hensler wrote: »
    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.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hensler wrote: »
    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

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hensler wrote: »
    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.

    Hensler on
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Hey Wiggin I posted your Wally/Linda moment in the GD Batman thread. You're welcome.

    TexiKen on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    TexiKen wrote: »
    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

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hensler wrote: »
    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.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    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

    Me Too! on
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Comics did sell more with the CCA...

    TexiKen on
  • Options
    Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2009
    TexiKen wrote: »
    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

    Me Too! on
Sign In or Register to comment.