Disney does it best
Okay, the big news today is that Disney is buying Marvel. Check it.
While it's still early, and the formal details haven't been released, people are freaking out. In the past ten minutes alone, I have heard and read that No Good Can Come of this. Complaints range from the comics will suddenly stop swearing, that Mickey will suddenly become a superhero, and all sorts of over reactions.
Let me start by saying I like Disney as a company right now. I pay attention to the behind-the-scenes as much as I can, because I am a huge nerd. While I have nearly always been a Disney fan, I have not always been able to say that I like the company. Yes, Disney has a terrible history of racism, sexism, and corporate scheming and corporate corporateness. But so does every company ever.
They have been steadily improving ever since Eisner would kicked out. Right now, I am confident that the management, notably Lasseter, though I think Iger doesn't get enough credit, at least knows to weigh a good story, merchandising, and making money. Sometimes (Princesses), yes, the emphasis is on the latter, but they do try at the former rather often. I think they have some good things coming down the pipeline. I think they are as aware of corporate morals as others media companies, and perhaps moreso, but they can't necessarily prevent the layoffs that have made the news recently.
Disney is also a lot of things. They are not just Mickey Mouse and Princesses and Hannah Montana. This misunderstanding seems to be the source of a lot of problems people are having with this purchase. They are Theme Parks and Toys, and yes, that's relevant, but they are also ABC and Miramax and Touchstone.
So! I think the comics themselves will be affected very little, but if (and that is a huge if) anything changes, it will be for the better. You might see a bigger push with the Marvel Adventures, but I really don't think Punisher will be cancelled or Bendis will dumb down his dialogue or whatever terrible fears you have. The rules will be the same as they were before: Make money, sell issues, tell good stories, in that order.
What might be drastically affected are tv properties, including animation, and toys. This purchase was partly to get a firmer hold on the boy-child audience, since that's something they started when they re-branded Toon Disney to Disney XD. If we're being honest with ourselves Disney XD is closer to Toonami (though it still has a ways to go) than anything Cartoon Network is currently pushing. I know, better than most, that Superheroes aren't just for boys, but it does certainly appeal to them.
Animation is important to toys. And there will be toys. I do not say this to scare you, but to excite you. Compare the Marvel section of the action figure aisle to yes, the Princess and fairy lines. Marvel is probably smaller. I do not think it will be, come Toy Fair '10, and how is that not a good thing? And maybe, who knows, we will see Superhero toys aimed at girls? It was my understanding that the Fairy line was initially concieved to target girls that are more interested in adventures than Princesses, but I do not know if that's the case any longer. Maybe we will see a Ms. Marvel series, or who knows?
(I know a lot of people have problems with the princess line, that I don't necessarily argree with. Some girls do like playing with princess dolls, and wanting to be princesses, and that is more Disney capitalizing off Society, which, hello, it is a company. Some boys also do, and then their parents and those around them try to change them, this is more a problem then girls liking them in the first place (for the record, I don't see this happening if girls like Marvel heroes). I would also argue that the recent princesses have actually been pretty BA, with the last damsel-y princess being when Walt was still around, because even Ariel was more proactive even if she was motivated by a guy that I'm pretty sure she could take in a fight. I know the line doesn't play up the proactive aspect, but maybe one day it will, and the next princess is supposed to be Super Competent and Confident, and Awesome so maybe that day is soon.)
(At the very least, it should be noted that Marvel is not too hot on the Female front either, but they did manage to turn Iron Man into an A-list hero, so maybe we'll see that happen with Ms. Marvel or or the Black Widow or the new White Tiger (Or has she been killed?) or the Runaways or something. In fact, I think this is more likely under Disney.)
I would also not discount the possibility of Live-Action shows, either. Disney is not just Disney Channel and XD, but ABC Family, and oh yeah, ABC. ABC Family is currently in a bit of a repositioning, and I think, making a grab at the CW audience. I definitely think some Marvel properties could fit there. Middleman, while too perfect for this world, clearly showed they're looking for something superhero-y.
What's more, the creator had nearly complete freedom on the show. It was his vision, from start to finish. While it could be argued that editorial mandates might have saved the show, or better marketing or whatever, those arguments are wrong. Editorial mandates would have changed the show, and how the hell do you market Middleman? Sexy girls in leather suits can market anything, so that is what they tried and it still failed.
Marvel properties might not fit on ABC, but I do think they want a relationship with some of the creators Marvel has, and purchasing the company gives them that. In the past few years, there's been a lot of crossover between Hollywood and Comics, but it's been both ways. Vaughn worked on Lost (isn't that on ABC?) for awhile and Heinberg is too busy on Grey's (oh, what channel is that on?) to write for Young Avengers. Perhaps there are more! Again, there are no details about first right of refusal to the people on contract, but it's a lot easier for Bendis to pitch a tv show to a company that sort of owns him.
Movies are where I become a lot less sure of myself. I don't know if this means Disney gets the rights to X-men or Spiderman, because there are existing deals for those. This will probably have little affect on movies in production, but will be more tangible in those still in development. Still, Disney movies aren't just Cartoons, Pixar, and Pirates of the Carribean. There is also Miramax and Touchstone.
And, while there are movies like, oh, say G-Force, that are terrible and horrible and vile, they for some reason still make money, which Disney then uses to do things like buy comic book companies. Ha! At the very least, Disney still does produce quality movies, though it's my understanding that they are less creator-friendly for movies than for tv. They will just boot you from the project if they don't like your direction, however, instead of a stream of editorial mandates. (See: Bolt originally called American Dog. Which, for the record, turned out quite well.)
Another interesting development could be theme parks. Again, I'm not sure what affect this has on existing contracts, but I have to wonder. Disney wanted Harry Potter, and Universal sort of swooped in and stole it. Could stealing the Marvel rights be some sort of revenge?
Copyright is an interesting aspect of this, which was just brought to my attention by firinel. I was going to have thoughts on it, but I don't know enough about the Mickey copyright's ownership, and I'd rather not talk about it than be wrong. I'd be interested in learning how it compares to the DC/Superman Mess, because it was my understanding that Disney and DC (and by extension, WB) were on different sides, but that doesn't quite make sense, because WB is a company and Disney is a company, but then Superman was work for hire, whereas Mickey wasn't really? See, I don't know!
The fact that this came out of nowhere also bodes well. Disney wanted this. They might have looked at WB and DC and said, "We can do it better." (and god knows, it wouldn't be hard.) Or they might have looked at Marvel, like they did Pixar, and say, "We like what you're doing, and we want a piece of it." but will otherwise let them just keep doing what they're doing
I don't think they said, "Hey Superheros are big right now and we have 4 billion extra dollars! Let's buy some of the most successful and then change them to our liking!"
Honestly, I fail to see how this could be a bad thing.
ETA:Newsarama has the most info from a conference call this morning, that I've seen. A lot is relevant, but I will pull this out:
"No one knows the Marvel characters and stories better than Marvel," Iger said. "We continue to be impressed... not just from a creative perspective, but as a business perspective. I think there's an expression, if it ain't broke, and that's our feeling here."
Yes, that could just be business speak, but I stand by everything above.
While it's still early, and the formal details haven't been released, people are freaking out. In the past ten minutes alone, I have heard and read that No Good Can Come of this. Complaints range from the comics will suddenly stop swearing, that Mickey will suddenly become a superhero, and all sorts of over reactions.
Let me start by saying I like Disney as a company right now. I pay attention to the behind-the-scenes as much as I can, because I am a huge nerd. While I have nearly always been a Disney fan, I have not always been able to say that I like the company. Yes, Disney has a terrible history of racism, sexism, and corporate scheming and corporate corporateness. But so does every company ever.
They have been steadily improving ever since Eisner would kicked out. Right now, I am confident that the management, notably Lasseter, though I think Iger doesn't get enough credit, at least knows to weigh a good story, merchandising, and making money. Sometimes (Princesses), yes, the emphasis is on the latter, but they do try at the former rather often. I think they have some good things coming down the pipeline. I think they are as aware of corporate morals as others media companies, and perhaps moreso, but they can't necessarily prevent the layoffs that have made the news recently.
Disney is also a lot of things. They are not just Mickey Mouse and Princesses and Hannah Montana. This misunderstanding seems to be the source of a lot of problems people are having with this purchase. They are Theme Parks and Toys, and yes, that's relevant, but they are also ABC and Miramax and Touchstone.
So! I think the comics themselves will be affected very little, but if (and that is a huge if) anything changes, it will be for the better. You might see a bigger push with the Marvel Adventures, but I really don't think Punisher will be cancelled or Bendis will dumb down his dialogue or whatever terrible fears you have. The rules will be the same as they were before: Make money, sell issues, tell good stories, in that order.
What might be drastically affected are tv properties, including animation, and toys. This purchase was partly to get a firmer hold on the boy-child audience, since that's something they started when they re-branded Toon Disney to Disney XD. If we're being honest with ourselves Disney XD is closer to Toonami (though it still has a ways to go) than anything Cartoon Network is currently pushing. I know, better than most, that Superheroes aren't just for boys, but it does certainly appeal to them.
Animation is important to toys. And there will be toys. I do not say this to scare you, but to excite you. Compare the Marvel section of the action figure aisle to yes, the Princess and fairy lines. Marvel is probably smaller. I do not think it will be, come Toy Fair '10, and how is that not a good thing? And maybe, who knows, we will see Superhero toys aimed at girls? It was my understanding that the Fairy line was initially concieved to target girls that are more interested in adventures than Princesses, but I do not know if that's the case any longer. Maybe we will see a Ms. Marvel series, or who knows?
(I know a lot of people have problems with the princess line, that I don't necessarily argree with. Some girls do like playing with princess dolls, and wanting to be princesses, and that is more Disney capitalizing off Society, which, hello, it is a company. Some boys also do, and then their parents and those around them try to change them, this is more a problem then girls liking them in the first place (for the record, I don't see this happening if girls like Marvel heroes). I would also argue that the recent princesses have actually been pretty BA, with the last damsel-y princess being when Walt was still around, because even Ariel was more proactive even if she was motivated by a guy that I'm pretty sure she could take in a fight. I know the line doesn't play up the proactive aspect, but maybe one day it will, and the next princess is supposed to be Super Competent and Confident, and Awesome so maybe that day is soon.)
(At the very least, it should be noted that Marvel is not too hot on the Female front either, but they did manage to turn Iron Man into an A-list hero, so maybe we'll see that happen with Ms. Marvel or or the Black Widow or the new White Tiger (Or has she been killed?) or the Runaways or something. In fact, I think this is more likely under Disney.)
I would also not discount the possibility of Live-Action shows, either. Disney is not just Disney Channel and XD, but ABC Family, and oh yeah, ABC. ABC Family is currently in a bit of a repositioning, and I think, making a grab at the CW audience. I definitely think some Marvel properties could fit there. Middleman, while too perfect for this world, clearly showed they're looking for something superhero-y.
What's more, the creator had nearly complete freedom on the show. It was his vision, from start to finish. While it could be argued that editorial mandates might have saved the show, or better marketing or whatever, those arguments are wrong. Editorial mandates would have changed the show, and how the hell do you market Middleman? Sexy girls in leather suits can market anything, so that is what they tried and it still failed.
Marvel properties might not fit on ABC, but I do think they want a relationship with some of the creators Marvel has, and purchasing the company gives them that. In the past few years, there's been a lot of crossover between Hollywood and Comics, but it's been both ways. Vaughn worked on Lost (isn't that on ABC?) for awhile and Heinberg is too busy on Grey's (oh, what channel is that on?) to write for Young Avengers. Perhaps there are more! Again, there are no details about first right of refusal to the people on contract, but it's a lot easier for Bendis to pitch a tv show to a company that sort of owns him.
Movies are where I become a lot less sure of myself. I don't know if this means Disney gets the rights to X-men or Spiderman, because there are existing deals for those. This will probably have little affect on movies in production, but will be more tangible in those still in development. Still, Disney movies aren't just Cartoons, Pixar, and Pirates of the Carribean. There is also Miramax and Touchstone.
And, while there are movies like, oh, say G-Force, that are terrible and horrible and vile, they for some reason still make money, which Disney then uses to do things like buy comic book companies. Ha! At the very least, Disney still does produce quality movies, though it's my understanding that they are less creator-friendly for movies than for tv. They will just boot you from the project if they don't like your direction, however, instead of a stream of editorial mandates. (See: Bolt originally called American Dog. Which, for the record, turned out quite well.)
Another interesting development could be theme parks. Again, I'm not sure what affect this has on existing contracts, but I have to wonder. Disney wanted Harry Potter, and Universal sort of swooped in and stole it. Could stealing the Marvel rights be some sort of revenge?
Copyright is an interesting aspect of this, which was just brought to my attention by firinel. I was going to have thoughts on it, but I don't know enough about the Mickey copyright's ownership, and I'd rather not talk about it than be wrong. I'd be interested in learning how it compares to the DC/Superman Mess, because it was my understanding that Disney and DC (and by extension, WB) were on different sides, but that doesn't quite make sense, because WB is a company and Disney is a company, but then Superman was work for hire, whereas Mickey wasn't really? See, I don't know!
The fact that this came out of nowhere also bodes well. Disney wanted this. They might have looked at WB and DC and said, "We can do it better." (and god knows, it wouldn't be hard.) Or they might have looked at Marvel, like they did Pixar, and say, "We like what you're doing, and we want a piece of it." but will otherwise let them just keep doing what they're doing
I don't think they said, "Hey Superheros are big right now and we have 4 billion extra dollars! Let's buy some of the most successful and then change them to our liking!"
Honestly, I fail to see how this could be a bad thing.
ETA:Newsarama has the most info from a conference call this morning, that I've seen. A lot is relevant, but I will pull this out:
"No one knows the Marvel characters and stories better than Marvel," Iger said. "We continue to be impressed... not just from a creative perspective, but as a business perspective. I think there's an expression, if it ain't broke, and that's our feeling here."
Yes, that could just be business speak, but I stand by everything above.