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.
-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.
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.
Once again, that's because a gory action flick would contradict Pixar's brand messaging. It's not because of a Disney mandate. I don't understand why this isn't clear.
Each company does its own "thing". Disney is better served by letting each company do what it has historically been successful doing. Sure, they'll try to organically grow new areas but never would a company kill a proven money-maker for an unproven new business initiative.
Marvel doesn't have a clear brand message right now. On the one hand, they have a plethora of highly marketable characters that test extremely well with males of all ages. On the other hand, the publishing arm of Marvel that prints stories about these characters aims its books squarely at the very limited demographic of adult males. The way I see it, Marvel and Disney will have to come up with a coherent message before anyone can talk about what would or wouldn't contradict that message, and odds are that the mission statement they settle on will be the one that caters to the largest audience.
Also, while Marvel is a success relative to other publishers, the fact remains that the comic book medium as a whole is not itself a huge cash cow. As such, while we may view them as a huge money-maker, Disney could have a different perspective when they compare the success of Marvel comics to the sales of other books and magazines they publish featuring characters of comparable popularity such as the Pixar and Disney stable of characters.
Marvel absolutely has a clear brand message. Also, adult males are not the only demographic they target - it's just that adult males are the ones with money currently. Marvel's push into the movie space is an effort to bring that younger demographic into the fold.
Disney is not going to whitewash Marvel's current brand. We can sit here and argue back and forth but we're clearly not going to get anywhere. All I can say is wait and see but I'd be willing to bet anything that we're not going to ever see any sort of editorial mandate placed on Marvel.
I don't know what you mean by saying adult males are the only one with money. Younger males, who'd ideally contribute as much or more to Marvel's bottom line than, have plenty of disposable income as well and are much more likely to spend their money on entertainment purchases than the average adult. If younger males aren't buying Marvel comics, it's because they don't want to, not because they can't.
Anyway, Marvel's push into movies has had very little, if any, effect on the sales of monthly titles. Clearly they have to do more, like actually going to the trouble of advertising their books and major events to people other than adult males who already read comics. When books and events feature decidedly adult imagery, however, it's not exactly kosher to tell young males to buy them. Because of this, I feel the presence of especially graphic violence in Marvel comics is likely to be viewed not as an asset to storytelling, but rather as an obstacle to being able to appeal to the same audience that films appeal to.
Also, I feel that drawing a line at borderline disturbing subject matter is hardly tantamount to whitewashing.
I don't know what you mean by saying adult males are the only one with money. Younger males, who'd ideally contribute as much or more to Marvel's bottom line than, have plenty of disposable income as well and are much more likely to spend their money on entertainment purchases than the average adult. If younger males aren't buying Marvel comics, it's because they don't want to, not because they can't.
Anyway, Marvel's push into movies has had very little, if any, effect on the sales of monthly titles. Clearly they have to do more, like actually going to the trouble of advertising their books and major events to people other than adult males who already read comics. When books and events feature decidedly adult imagery, however, it's not exactly kosher to tell young males to buy them. Because of this, I feel the presence of especially graphic violence in Marvel comics is likely to be viewed not as an asset to storytelling, but rather as an obstacle to being able to appeal to the same audience that films appeal to.
Also, I feel that drawing a line at borderline disturbing subject matter is hardly tantamount to whitewashing.
Wait, what? Marvels increase in sales directly correlates with their push into the film market.
Also, I don't know where you're getting your facts on young males having more disposable income than adult males because it just isn't right. Sure, young adults income is basically completely disposable but it's also tiny compared to the access to funds a working adult has.
You're going to have to show me documentation, because this board has often pointed out that there is no bump in monthly sales following the release of films. All those sales seem to instead go to trades. That's still great, but it doesn't provide the same consistent source of income that you'd get from sales of singles, and it doesn't help the business model of monthly releases of serialized content remain a worthwhile one.
And I'm not saying that young adult males have more disposable income than adult males. I'm just saying that you'd expect them to spend as much or more on comics, given the subject matter, than adult males. The fact that they don't doesn't indicate to me that kids don't have enough money, but rather that Marvel is currently missing out on a key demographic. If the amount of money Marvel comics currently gets from kids was normal, then kids alone would not be able to sustain sales of anything on their own, and that's demonstrably not the case with the amount of kids products that manage to do well without all-ages appeal.
Marvel pulled itself out of chapter 11 partially by engaging heavily in the film space and licensing its properties out to various studios. I don't have any "documentation" on that as it's completely anecdotal. You can do the research yourself if you want. I used to work with Marvel from a licensing perspective and that's how I know about it myself.
Also, you keep glossing over the fact that I'm saying that Disney will use Marvel to leverage content to a younger demographic. It just will not be at the expense of the core brand.
Here's a list of what Disney has to wait on in terms of being in control of what goes where.
The longest deal on the table appears to be the Spider-Man/X-Men deal with Activision, that lasts until 2017. You're apparently not going to see Marvel characters in theme parks east of the Mississippi that aren't Universal Studios either, and Sony's going to keep pumping out Spider-Man movies. And Marvel Studios has a five picture deal with Paramount that includes everything up to Avengers.
It looks like what we're going to be seeing out of this deal immediately is going to be TV/direct-to-video and comic related. Spectacular Spider-Man probably has a real shot at renewal with this, and as far as comics go, I think it's mostly going to be in terms of monetary investment more than anything else.
Wow, I wonder what Activision paid to license Spider-Man and X-Men out to 2017.
SatanIsMyMotor on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited September 2009
What I'm curious about is how becoming, essentially, an IP farm will affect Marvel's comic output. In the past, their need to be self-sufficient in the publishing arena has led them to make a lot of both inspired and boneheaded plays and I'm wondering about the extent to which having Disney behind them will change that.
Again, as far as that goes you need only look at the DC/Warner Brothers relationship.
The only thing I could see Disney taking umbrage at would be if Marvel wanted to put out a MAX series with one of its major characters (Spidey, Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor) which would put said character in a negative light. Like, remember when Kaare Andres illustrated a wrinkled old Spider-Man's package in Spider-Man: Reign? Or when Daniel Way was promoting an Ant-Man MAX series?
The Pulse: "Hank Pym in the Ultimates universe seems a little 'Max' but the mainstream universe Hank Pym has never seemed that cutting edge or mature - at least before the Avengers 71 issue - so why was this Ant Man (as opposed to Scott Lange ) chosen for the Max series?"
Daniel Way: "I don't know (just like I don't know about this 'Avengers 71' thing). Marvel sent me this big book of old Ant-Man stories and said 'go.' I flipped through it--sometimes he got really small, sometimes he got really big ... I didn't know what the fuck was going on. So I just read the first 6 or 8 pages of the first story, got it and went off."
The Pulse: "What do you view as Hank's greatest assets?"
Way: "Well ... he can make himself really small. That's what we call his 'power'."
The Pulse: "What do you view as his greatest weaknesses?"
Way: "Insecurity. Egomania. Totally gay outfit."
The Pulse: "What are your goals with this series?"
Way: "Midget prostitute in a plush kangaroo costume."
The Pulse: "What are some of the elements that will make this comic have to be for Mature readers?"
Way: "The butt-fucking, mostly."
I could see Disney putting the kibosh on shit like that. Of course, Marvel already censored the Spectacular Spider-Dick, and they solicited, but never released, Ant-Man MAX.
Really, I doubt Disney cares if Marvel wants to do a Dethlok MAX series, or draw Iron Fist punching someone's face off, so long as the major icons remain suitable for a teenage audience, which I'd argue they already are.
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited September 2009
I don't mean this G-rated versus R-rated stuff; I pretty much take it as a given that that will continue much as it always has, and the idea that a company as sprawling as Disney would micromanage everything that Marvel puts out is absurd. What I'm wondering is, freed of the need to be in the black every single quarter, will the publishing arm take chances on less immediately lucrative (but potentially audience-expanding) stuff like Vertigo, or maybe move into different print arenas entirely? (Children's books would seem to be an obvious angle there.) Will they make more ambitious business moves like the Heroes World acquisition in the 90s? That sort of thing.
The other thing to consider is that there is a precedent, within some other purchases Disney has made.
Did you know they own a Soap Opera Network? Not a ton of meddling there, as trashy as some soaps can be. Similarly, they own properties like ABC and ESPN, and are largely, if not entirely, hands off on the creative side of what those networks do. They own a ton of other properties you wouldn't expect Disney to be affiliated with, and haven't gone in to any of them with mandates on their creative output.
I don't think Marvel will be impacted creatively by this buy-out. If anything, expect to see tweaks in delivery mechanisms (maybe a more focused push for digital delivery, and please oh please god nothing like a Marvel-branded mobile phone service, since ESPN Mobile and Disney Mobile were such fantastic successes /sarcasm).
so long as the major icons remain suitable for a teenage audience, which I'd argue they already are.
In general, sure, but I can think of a few titles that might cross a line for Disney: Ultimatum, X-Force, Dark Wolverine, Sinister Spider-Man, the Ultimates series, New Avengers, and potentially Amazing Spider-Man (for the Norman Osborn impregnates his son's fiancee under his nose storyline).
Again, as far as that goes you need only look at the DC/Warner Brothers relationship.
The only thing I could see Disney taking umbrage at would be if Marvel wanted to put out a MAX series with one of its major characters (Spidey, Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor) which would put said character in a negative light. Like, remember when Kaare Andres illustrated a wrinkled old Spider-Man's package in Spider-Man: Reign? Or when Daniel Way was promoting an Ant-Man MAX series?
The Pulse: "Hank Pym in the Ultimates universe seems a little 'Max' but the mainstream universe Hank Pym has never seemed that cutting edge or mature - at least before the Avengers 71 issue - so why was this Ant Man (as opposed to Scott Lange ) chosen for the Max series?"
Daniel Way: "I don't know (just like I don't know about this 'Avengers 71' thing). Marvel sent me this big book of old Ant-Man stories and said 'go.' I flipped through it--sometimes he got really small, sometimes he got really big ... I didn't know what the fuck was going on. So I just read the first 6 or 8 pages of the first story, got it and went off."
The Pulse: "What do you view as Hank's greatest assets?"
Way: "Well ... he can make himself really small. That's what we call his 'power'."
The Pulse: "What do you view as his greatest weaknesses?"
Way: "Insecurity. Egomania. Totally gay outfit."
The Pulse: "What are your goals with this series?"
Way: "Midget prostitute in a plush kangaroo costume."
The Pulse: "What are some of the elements that will make this comic have to be for Mature readers?"
Way: "The butt-fucking, mostly."
I could see Disney putting the kibosh on shit like that. Of course, Marvel already censored the Spectacular Spider-Dick, and they solicited, but never released, Ant-Man MAX.
Really, I doubt Disney cares if Marvel wants to do a Dethlok MAX series, or draw Iron Fist punching someone's face off, so long as the major icons remain suitable for a teenage audience, which I'd argue they already are.
Wow, I would have fired Way immediately. Six to eight pages? REALLY?
so long as the major icons remain suitable for a teenage audience, which I'd argue they already are.
In general, sure, but I can think of a few titles that might cross a line for Disney: Ultimatum, X-Force, Dark Wolverine, Sinister Spider-Man, the Ultimates series, New Avengers, and potentially Amazing Spider-Man (for the Norman Osborn impregnates his son's fiancee under his nose storyline).
I think it ultimately depends on what's considered age-appropriate for teens. I'm not sure where the line should be, but I grew up reading Spawn, X-Force, Turok, and a variety of sexy superhero splatterhouse books as a kid, as did a lot of my peers, and no parents or concerned adults ever said anything.
I hate to keep parroting this line, but I think we ultimately just have to look to the WB/DC relationship. Terrible maiming and brutality occur in stories featuring, or starring, DC mainstays like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, or the Flash all the time. I feel like, so long as neither Marvel nor DC decide to actually portray their characters committing the acts, neither parent company will say much.
But, I don't think either Disney or Warner Bros. would take offense showing villains doing nasty things, because that's their role. But the minute DC or Marvel decides, "Hey, Flash should have an arc where he rapes someone!" or, "Man, Spider-Man should just start tearing dudes' heads off!" that would be the moment WB/Disney would step in, because at that point, DC/Marvel are affecting public perception of a major character that's supposed to be viewed as a hero, and a role model.
Ultimately, I just can't bring myself to care much. While I'm not really concerned that Disney will begin sanitizing Marvel content, I really wouldn't mind a lighter tone either. Plus, the older I get, the more I turn to indie/creator owned books, so I can always get all the sex and violence I want there.
Actually, it's kind of funny that this happens months after Robert Kirkman's claims that DC/Marvel should make more of an effort to appeal to a youthful demographic, with teen-friendly stories, while independent books cover more "mature" topics. Like dudes getting headbutted to death and chicks making their breasts larger with their superpowers.
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
Well, DC now has heroes torturing villains. Now, it might be an incompetent attempt to be topical, but still, I would actually prefer the companies being reigned in, than what we're seeing in those books and X-Force and the like.
Again, as far as that goes you need only look at the DC/Warner Brothers relationship.
The only thing I could see Disney taking umbrage at would be if Marvel wanted to put out a MAX series with one of its major characters (Spidey, Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor) which would put said character in a negative light. Like, remember when Kaare Andres illustrated a wrinkled old Spider-Man's package in Spider-Man: Reign? Or when Daniel Way was promoting an Ant-Man MAX series?
The Pulse: "Hank Pym in the Ultimates universe seems a little 'Max' but the mainstream universe Hank Pym has never seemed that cutting edge or mature - at least before the Avengers 71 issue - so why was this Ant Man (as opposed to Scott Lange ) chosen for the Max series?"
Daniel Way: "I don't know (just like I don't know about this 'Avengers 71' thing). Marvel sent me this big book of old Ant-Man stories and said 'go.' I flipped through it--sometimes he got really small, sometimes he got really big ... I didn't know what the fuck was going on. So I just read the first 6 or 8 pages of the first story, got it and went off."
The Pulse: "What do you view as Hank's greatest assets?"
Way: "Well ... he can make himself really small. That's what we call his 'power'."
The Pulse: "What do you view as his greatest weaknesses?"
Way: "Insecurity. Egomania. Totally gay outfit."
The Pulse: "What are your goals with this series?"
Way: "Midget prostitute in a plush kangaroo costume."
The Pulse: "What are some of the elements that will make this comic have to be for Mature readers?"
Way: "The butt-fucking, mostly."
I could see Disney putting the kibosh on shit like that. Of course, Marvel already censored the Spectacular Spider-Dick, and they solicited, but never released, Ant-Man MAX.
Really, I doubt Disney cares if Marvel wants to do a Dethlok MAX series, or draw Iron Fist punching someone's face off, so long as the major icons remain suitable for a teenage audience, which I'd argue they already are.
And they'll never do that because that's been a Marvel rule since MAX started
That's why you won't see Norman raping Jonah before Spidey rips his arms off
What I'm curious about is how becoming, essentially, an IP farm will affect Marvel's comic output. In the past, their need to be self-sufficient in the publishing arena has led them to make a lot of both inspired and boneheaded plays and I'm wondering about the extent to which having Disney behind them will change that.
They were an IP farm long before Disney came along.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the money Marvel gets from licensing it's characters out to various merchandise manufacturers is higher than anything they get from the comics themselves.
just as an example think about all the Iron Man towels, Hulk soap dispensers, Spider-Man tooth brushes that are out there. For the soap dispenser manufacturer to be able to make a Hulk dispenser, they have to pay Marvel royalties on everything that they do with the Hulk dispenser design.
Disney just allows them to do this on a much MUCH grander scale.
so long as the major icons remain suitable for a teenage audience, which I'd argue they already are.
In general, sure, but I can think of a few titles that might cross a line for Disney: Ultimatum, X-Force, Dark Wolverine, Sinister Spider-Man, the Ultimates series, New Avengers, and potentially Amazing Spider-Man (for the Norman Osborn impregnates his son's fiancee under his nose storyline).
i honestly don't understand why you think something like that would be worse than, at a random disney-affiliated example, the gimp being called out to rape ving rhames.
I don't think that. I just think that, because Disney can't separate itself from Marvel in the same way it separates itself from its R-Rated films (Marvel products are going to be sold at the Disney store, and Marvel Shows will be the bread and butter of the Disney Channel), they'll be much more discerning in what they allow to see print so as not to invite controversy and affect sales.
I'm not sure the man on the street will really link Spider-Man to Disney though. Like, if some controversy sparks up involving Donald Duck, everyone knows where that character has roots at. I think any backlash against Marvel characters will go back on Marvel, as it historically has.
Even if some hypothetical controversy isn't necessarily attributed to Disney, it will still affect Disney in so far as it affects sales and overall popularity of Marvel merchandise. It seems obvious to me that they'd want to avoid that, since it makes no sense to let a division that yields humble profits and no big sales successes negatively impact one of your chief money-makers.
That said, the fact that the comics themselves aren't a huge source of profits will also mean that Disney likely won't bother to interfere too much. I'd predict that they'd just say, "Don't publish anything that will make us look bad," and then up production of Marvel Adventures trades so they can stock the shelves at their stores with them.
How would a controversy not affiliated with Disney ever affect them?
Once again, I reiterate, Disney bought Marvel because of the assets Marvel represents. Meddling with that is business suicide.
The merchandise itself isn't where the money comes from. That all probably equates to about the same thing Marvel makes off of comics. The money comes from the actual licensing deals - royalties are just the icing on the cake. What makes licensing Marvel properties attractive is how Marvel has positioned them. Once again, Disney screwing with that market position would be business suicide.
Disney licenses out its properties just like Marvel does? I thought that wasn't the case based on an article I read about their Disney Princesses line, which suggested that they were in full control of the production of associated merchandise.
Anyway, Disney would be affected through sales of their Marvel merchandise, or sales of licenses to Marvel merchandise if that's how things are.
Also, I still don't see how making any changes at Marvel at all constitutes "business suicide". Since most books don't feature graphic violence or disturbing content, one imagines that the entire line would be largely unaffected, even if you think that gore has a positive impact on sales.
Disney licenses out its properties just like Marvel does? I thought that wasn't the case based on an article I read about their Disney Princesses line, which suggested that they were in full control of the production of associated merchandise.
I was so disappointed when I bought the Disney Princess game for Wii. The box said it would make me feel like a Disney Princess, but I really just felt like a twitchy guy with cerebral palsy. Totally not worth it.
Disney licenses out its properties just like Marvel does? I thought that wasn't the case based on an article I read about their Disney Princesses line, which suggested that they were in full control of the production of associated merchandise.
Anyway, Disney would be affected through sales of their Marvel merchandise, or sales of licenses to Marvel merchandise if that's how things are.
Also, I still don't see how making any changes at Marvel at all constitutes "business suicide". Since most books don't feature graphic violence or disturbing content, one imagines that the entire line would be largely unaffected, even if you think that gore has a positive impact on sales.
Disney definitely licenses its properties. It's why they have a licensing division.
Most of Marvel's titles are rated at least teen and usually have some degree of violence or gore.
You don't make sweeping changes across a business when they aren't needed. It presents an unnecessary risk and an unnecessary risk in business is, essentially, suicide. Especially when you're talking billions of dollars.
Beyond that, why do you think gore, etc would present a problem for Marvel in terms of selling merchandise. Marvel is still, and has been, operating within the status quo and their business has been doing nothing but growing.
Frankly, there's just no case for Disney to make sweeping changes. Anyone sitting in a boardroom at Disney/Marvel would realize this same thing. Anything that becomes "kid oriented" will be something either grown organically out of what already exists (ie: expanding the Marvel adventures line) or be built from the ground up.
I'll admit, I haven't read the thread entirely. But I'll add my two cents.
This is a brilliant move on Disney's part. They're going to lose the rights to Mickey and other silent-era characters pretty soon. They got the 20-year extension the last time Mickey was about to enter the public domain, but 12 years have passed since then. But the press release and all of their comments are pretty clear on what the intent is: It's to have a new roster of characters to own, especially in light of the fact that outside of Cap the most iconic Marvel characters are Silver Age heroes that Disney now will own until 2058 or so--namely, Spider-Man, the F4, Hulk, X-Men, etc. Of course, they have Pixar and those characters until the end of the century. But Marvel's characters carry considerably more name recognition and opportunity for exploitation for the next several decades.
And no matter what doubters may say, they will get the film rights back for Spider-Man and the X-Men. Just because the rights are in perpetuity doesn't actually mean Fox and Sony will have them forever, or even for very long. As people were saying yesterday, the best thing this does for Marvel is now gives them Disney's legal and political juice--and that is considerable. After all, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (which extended copyright from 75 to 95 years) was also known as the "Save Mickey Act" for a reason.
Because, seriously, in the end Disney will want Spider-Man because he is Marvel's most recognizable character and they will destroy Sony if needs be to get those rights back when they decide to make their own Spidey movie franchise in twenty years.
Posts
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.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
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.
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.
The real important result of Mickey Signing Joey Q's checks is..A Donald Duck/ Howard the Duck crossover.
The amount of awesome cannot be described in words alone!
Voilà: MODUCK!
And Ryan Dunlavey with Scrooge McDuck:
Once again, that's because a gory action flick would contradict Pixar's brand messaging. It's not because of a Disney mandate. I don't understand why this isn't clear.
Each company does its own "thing". Disney is better served by letting each company do what it has historically been successful doing. Sure, they'll try to organically grow new areas but never would a company kill a proven money-maker for an unproven new business initiative.
Also, while Marvel is a success relative to other publishers, the fact remains that the comic book medium as a whole is not itself a huge cash cow. As such, while we may view them as a huge money-maker, Disney could have a different perspective when they compare the success of Marvel comics to the sales of other books and magazines they publish featuring characters of comparable popularity such as the Pixar and Disney stable of characters.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Disney is not going to whitewash Marvel's current brand. We can sit here and argue back and forth but we're clearly not going to get anywhere. All I can say is wait and see but I'd be willing to bet anything that we're not going to ever see any sort of editorial mandate placed on Marvel.
Anyway, Marvel's push into movies has had very little, if any, effect on the sales of monthly titles. Clearly they have to do more, like actually going to the trouble of advertising their books and major events to people other than adult males who already read comics. When books and events feature decidedly adult imagery, however, it's not exactly kosher to tell young males to buy them. Because of this, I feel the presence of especially graphic violence in Marvel comics is likely to be viewed not as an asset to storytelling, but rather as an obstacle to being able to appeal to the same audience that films appeal to.
Also, I feel that drawing a line at borderline disturbing subject matter is hardly tantamount to whitewashing.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Wait, what? Marvels increase in sales directly correlates with their push into the film market.
Also, I don't know where you're getting your facts on young males having more disposable income than adult males because it just isn't right. Sure, young adults income is basically completely disposable but it's also tiny compared to the access to funds a working adult has.
And I'm not saying that young adult males have more disposable income than adult males. I'm just saying that you'd expect them to spend as much or more on comics, given the subject matter, than adult males. The fact that they don't doesn't indicate to me that kids don't have enough money, but rather that Marvel is currently missing out on a key demographic. If the amount of money Marvel comics currently gets from kids was normal, then kids alone would not be able to sustain sales of anything on their own, and that's demonstrably not the case with the amount of kids products that manage to do well without all-ages appeal.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Also, you keep glossing over the fact that I'm saying that Disney will use Marvel to leverage content to a younger demographic. It just will not be at the expense of the core brand.
The longest deal on the table appears to be the Spider-Man/X-Men deal with Activision, that lasts until 2017. You're apparently not going to see Marvel characters in theme parks east of the Mississippi that aren't Universal Studios either, and Sony's going to keep pumping out Spider-Man movies. And Marvel Studios has a five picture deal with Paramount that includes everything up to Avengers.
It looks like what we're going to be seeing out of this deal immediately is going to be TV/direct-to-video and comic related. Spectacular Spider-Man probably has a real shot at renewal with this, and as far as comics go, I think it's mostly going to be in terms of monetary investment more than anything else.
The only thing I could see Disney taking umbrage at would be if Marvel wanted to put out a MAX series with one of its major characters (Spidey, Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor) which would put said character in a negative light. Like, remember when Kaare Andres illustrated a wrinkled old Spider-Man's package in Spider-Man: Reign? Or when Daniel Way was promoting an Ant-Man MAX series?
I could see Disney putting the kibosh on shit like that. Of course, Marvel already censored the Spectacular Spider-Dick, and they solicited, but never released, Ant-Man MAX.
Really, I doubt Disney cares if Marvel wants to do a Dethlok MAX series, or draw Iron Fist punching someone's face off, so long as the major icons remain suitable for a teenage audience, which I'd argue they already are.
Tumblr Twitter
why did this not get made?
Tumblr Twitter
Did you know they own a Soap Opera Network? Not a ton of meddling there, as trashy as some soaps can be. Similarly, they own properties like ABC and ESPN, and are largely, if not entirely, hands off on the creative side of what those networks do. They own a ton of other properties you wouldn't expect Disney to be affiliated with, and haven't gone in to any of them with mandates on their creative output.
I don't think Marvel will be impacted creatively by this buy-out. If anything, expect to see tweaks in delivery mechanisms (maybe a more focused push for digital delivery, and please oh please god nothing like a Marvel-branded mobile phone service, since ESPN Mobile and Disney Mobile were such fantastic successes /sarcasm).
In general, sure, but I can think of a few titles that might cross a line for Disney: Ultimatum, X-Force, Dark Wolverine, Sinister Spider-Man, the Ultimates series, New Avengers, and potentially Amazing Spider-Man (for the Norman Osborn impregnates his son's fiancee under his nose storyline).
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Wow, I would have fired Way immediately. Six to eight pages? REALLY?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
360
Bayonetta
Fable 3
DS
FF: 4 heroes of light
I think it ultimately depends on what's considered age-appropriate for teens. I'm not sure where the line should be, but I grew up reading Spawn, X-Force, Turok, and a variety of sexy superhero splatterhouse books as a kid, as did a lot of my peers, and no parents or concerned adults ever said anything.
I hate to keep parroting this line, but I think we ultimately just have to look to the WB/DC relationship. Terrible maiming and brutality occur in stories featuring, or starring, DC mainstays like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, or the Flash all the time. I feel like, so long as neither Marvel nor DC decide to actually portray their characters committing the acts, neither parent company will say much.
But, I don't think either Disney or Warner Bros. would take offense showing villains doing nasty things, because that's their role. But the minute DC or Marvel decides, "Hey, Flash should have an arc where he rapes someone!" or, "Man, Spider-Man should just start tearing dudes' heads off!" that would be the moment WB/Disney would step in, because at that point, DC/Marvel are affecting public perception of a major character that's supposed to be viewed as a hero, and a role model.
Ultimately, I just can't bring myself to care much. While I'm not really concerned that Disney will begin sanitizing Marvel content, I really wouldn't mind a lighter tone either. Plus, the older I get, the more I turn to indie/creator owned books, so I can always get all the sex and violence I want there.
Actually, it's kind of funny that this happens months after Robert Kirkman's claims that DC/Marvel should make more of an effort to appeal to a youthful demographic, with teen-friendly stories, while independent books cover more "mature" topics. Like dudes getting headbutted to death and chicks making their breasts larger with their superpowers.
Tumblr Twitter
And they'll never do that because that's been a Marvel rule since MAX started
That's why you won't see Norman raping Jonah before Spidey rips his arms off
They were an IP farm long before Disney came along.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the money Marvel gets from licensing it's characters out to various merchandise manufacturers is higher than anything they get from the comics themselves.
just as an example think about all the Iron Man towels, Hulk soap dispensers, Spider-Man tooth brushes that are out there. For the soap dispenser manufacturer to be able to make a Hulk dispenser, they have to pay Marvel royalties on everything that they do with the Hulk dispenser design.
Disney just allows them to do this on a much MUCH grander scale.
PARKER, YOU'RE FIRED! <-- My comic book podcast! Satan look here!
i honestly don't understand why you think something like that would be worse than, at a random disney-affiliated example, the gimp being called out to rape ving rhames.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Time will tell I suppose.
Tumblr Twitter
That said, the fact that the comics themselves aren't a huge source of profits will also mean that Disney likely won't bother to interfere too much. I'd predict that they'd just say, "Don't publish anything that will make us look bad," and then up production of Marvel Adventures trades so they can stock the shelves at their stores with them.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Once again, I reiterate, Disney bought Marvel because of the assets Marvel represents. Meddling with that is business suicide.
The merchandise itself isn't where the money comes from. That all probably equates to about the same thing Marvel makes off of comics. The money comes from the actual licensing deals - royalties are just the icing on the cake. What makes licensing Marvel properties attractive is how Marvel has positioned them. Once again, Disney screwing with that market position would be business suicide.
Anyway, Disney would be affected through sales of their Marvel merchandise, or sales of licenses to Marvel merchandise if that's how things are.
Also, I still don't see how making any changes at Marvel at all constitutes "business suicide". Since most books don't feature graphic violence or disturbing content, one imagines that the entire line would be largely unaffected, even if you think that gore has a positive impact on sales.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I was so disappointed when I bought the Disney Princess game for Wii. The box said it would make me feel like a Disney Princess, but I really just felt like a twitchy guy with cerebral palsy. Totally not worth it.
Disney definitely licenses its properties. It's why they have a licensing division.
Most of Marvel's titles are rated at least teen and usually have some degree of violence or gore.
You don't make sweeping changes across a business when they aren't needed. It presents an unnecessary risk and an unnecessary risk in business is, essentially, suicide. Especially when you're talking billions of dollars.
Beyond that, why do you think gore, etc would present a problem for Marvel in terms of selling merchandise. Marvel is still, and has been, operating within the status quo and their business has been doing nothing but growing.
Frankly, there's just no case for Disney to make sweeping changes. Anyone sitting in a boardroom at Disney/Marvel would realize this same thing. Anything that becomes "kid oriented" will be something either grown organically out of what already exists (ie: expanding the Marvel adventures line) or be built from the ground up.
This is a brilliant move on Disney's part. They're going to lose the rights to Mickey and other silent-era characters pretty soon. They got the 20-year extension the last time Mickey was about to enter the public domain, but 12 years have passed since then. But the press release and all of their comments are pretty clear on what the intent is: It's to have a new roster of characters to own, especially in light of the fact that outside of Cap the most iconic Marvel characters are Silver Age heroes that Disney now will own until 2058 or so--namely, Spider-Man, the F4, Hulk, X-Men, etc. Of course, they have Pixar and those characters until the end of the century. But Marvel's characters carry considerably more name recognition and opportunity for exploitation for the next several decades.
And no matter what doubters may say, they will get the film rights back for Spider-Man and the X-Men. Just because the rights are in perpetuity doesn't actually mean Fox and Sony will have them forever, or even for very long. As people were saying yesterday, the best thing this does for Marvel is now gives them Disney's legal and political juice--and that is considerable. After all, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (which extended copyright from 75 to 95 years) was also known as the "Save Mickey Act" for a reason.
Because, seriously, in the end Disney will want Spider-Man because he is Marvel's most recognizable character and they will destroy Sony if needs be to get those rights back when they decide to make their own Spidey movie franchise in twenty years.