Disney to Buy Marvel for $4 Billion

[WaltD4Me]

It's funny reading both the Disney and Marvel boards online, both fans think the other group is dying. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As for Marvel (from Globe Investor):

Marvel is profitable — it made $206-million in its last fiscal year on revenue of $676-million — but Disney’s earnings per share will drop partly because the company will issue 59 million new shares. Marvel also is releasing two costly blockbusters, Thor and The First Avenger: Captain America in 2011, and income from DVD sales of those films likely wouldn’t roll in until fiscal 2012.

I went to Fan Expo here in Toronto this weekend, and Marvel is definitely still going strong. They had one of the largest exhibits, and one of the largest crowds.

One of the items that hasn't been mentioned on here yet are video games. Disney hasn't really been known for their great presence in this area, and there are lots of Marvel games in the works, both for the PC and consoles.

This will get the young male audience, which Disney wants with this purchase.

Personally, I see it as a win-win proposition.

The only good thing I see is if Disney turns over it's game making to whoever makes Marvel's games....Disney can't make a really good video game to safe it's life, on the other hand if Disney starts producing the Marvel games those will be bad now too.

 

[soupy11]

If John Lasseter is excited, then I get excited, and it looks like he is!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=58547

UPDATE #1: In a conference call, the companies said that the deals for movies for characters at other studios (Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) will stay in place under the terms set by Marvel and the other studios.

UPDATE #2: John Lasseter met with Marvel last week about a possible team-up between Marvel and Pixar and got "pretty excited, pretty fast." They say there's definitely an opportunity there.

UPDATE #3: The deal with Paramount Pictures to distribute five films--"Iron Man 2," "Thor," "Captain America," "The Avengers" and "Iron Man 3"--stays in place as well, but Disney would like to self-distribute down the line. "When the time comes we'll take a closer look at it."

mmm pixar and marvel.....

 

[metalis4ever]

This is simply amazing!!! I am excited to see what comes of this...I just hope this doesn't soften up Marvel in any way...Meaning their comic book story lines..Not that Marvel is that risque to begin with but if the violence is toned down in certain aspects or if the female super heroes are covered up a bit more it will diminish the overall Marvel product...I mean Wolverine fans want to see Wolverine destroy peoples lives not just rough them up a little pat them on their backs and send them on their merry way, we don't want to see story lines along the lines of Marvel Zombies abandoned. I think if Disney can balance the Adult aspects of Marvel while still catering to the younger audience like marvel currently does they will be fine. The problem Disney will have is a certain percentage of their fan base will be too closed minded to see that Disney is a business and wants to target the ohhh so coveted 18-35 male demographic. Since UFC and/or WWE would cost too much to buy Marvel was the next logical choice.....Great business decision and hopefully it will be great for us 18-35 year olds who have plenty of money to waste on good comics and movies

 

[lady danger]

That said I think Disney has to be very careful to find appropriate ways to protect all of their brands and must take a hard look and where it's appropriate and NOT appropriate to blur the lines. Because if we see Iron Man's Energy Adventure at EPCOT or if Spidey comes into the Magic Kingdom and takes Tinks place in Wishes... all bets are off for lots of loyal fans.

While I'm with you on not bringing Marvel into the Magic Kingdom, I personally would welcome Iron Man's Energy Adventure if for no other reason than I think any change to that attraction would be an improvement at this point!

Now, Marvel Comics has pretty much wrung all of the potential out of the franchise. The only reason the general public knows about Marvel is through movies. There won't be anymore Spiderman movies, Hulk has crashed and burnt twice, there have been more than enough X-Men movies, and who cares about the 2nd tear "Heros?"

Even if I agreed with your premise that Marvel has currently wrung all of the potential out of its major franchises (and I don't because I can't wait for Iron Man II and a few of the other films slated to be released), I think it would be extremely shortsighted to say that that would mean that Marvel couldn't be a good investment in the long run. Comic book franchises are so enduring they can be rebooted and gain new popularity every decade or so. Just look at the success Batman (DC character, I know!) became with Batman Begins in '05 just 8 years after the incredibly horrible Batman & Robin stalled that franchise on the big screen. If handled right, failing franchises can be reinvigorated and make tons of money. There's a large market of movie goers who are attached enough to these characters to give new movies a chance if they ever decide to create new ones later down the line.

As for the comics not being kid friendly, it's true that Marvel has quite a few more adult oriented storylines, but that was the case too back in the late 80s and 90s when they were simultaneously producing animated series of the same characters aimed at younger markets. My first exposure to Marvel characters as a child was from Saturday morning cartoons. Both DC and Marvel still put out animated series and movies (generally for television or straight to DVD) with some regularity. I assume Marvel will do the same under Disney.

 

[catycatcat4]

Why do you think all Marvel fans are males? There is ALOT of female fans to.

They would have to make charecters like wolverine and deadpool more like they are in the movies cuz the comic book versions are not exactly disneyish.

This is simply amazing!!! I am excited to see what comes of this...I just hope this doesn't soften up Marvel in any way...Meaning their comic book story lines..Not that Marvel is that risque to begin with but if the violence is toned down in certain aspects or if the female super heroes are covered up a bit more it will diminish the overall Marvel product...I mean Wolverine fans want to see Wolverine destroy peoples lives not just rough them up a little pat them on their backs and send them on their merry way, we don't want to see story lines along the lines of Marvel Zombies abandoned. I think if Disney can balance the Adult aspects of Marvel while still catering to the younger audience like marvel currently does they will be fine. The problem Disney will have is a certain percentage of their fan base will be too closed minded to see that Disney is a business and wants to target the ohhh so coveted 18-35 male demographic. Since UFC and/or WWE would cost too much to buy Marvel was the next logical choice.....Great business decision and hopefully it will be great for us 18-35 year olds who have plenty of money to waste on good comics and movies

As long as they dont ruin the comics im non

While I'm with you on not bringing Marvel into the Magic Kingdom, I personally would welcome Iron Man's Energy Adventure if for no other reason than I think any change to that attraction would be an improvement at this point!

I would love to see iorn man themed universe of energy

 

[metalis4ever]

Why do you think all Marvel fans are males? There is ALOT of female fans to.

I know there are plenty of female fans my DW being one of them but as patriarchal as it sounds one cannot deny the simple truth that the core demographic is 18-35 Males which was in part Disney's motivation in purchasing Marvel...

 

[schewy]

I hope it makes the price of stock go up. Marvel's stock rose when they announced the merger. Let's hope Disney stock does the same.

 

[lady danger]

Why do you think all Marvel fans are males? There is ALOT of female fans to.

I hear ya! I wasn't even a tomboy growing up (far from it actually!) and I've loved both DC and Marvel since I was a kid. While I definitely think this has the potential to capture the little boy market in ways they haven't already, I think people would be surprised by how many girls would find it appealing too. And it's not like there aren't female superheroes. I wanted to be Storm when I was 8.

 

[Soopafly]

Not sure how to feel about this really. I think it's a great move by Disney to cater to a younger male audience and also to eventually take away those Marvel characters at IOA. Good business move in that respect but at the same time, I don't want to go to Disney and see Marvel characters as in my opinion they wouldn't fit in anywhere but the studios and even then, I would rather see them use the studios for their own created characters + Pixar.

Though it would be cool if Universal could take the DC deal away from Six Flags and bring Batman and Superman over to IOA instead. Would be so cool to walk around Gotham City or Metropolis. I also think this would fit better at IOA as Universal tends to cater to an older audience with regards to things like Halloween Horror Nights. Could you imagine walking round the streets of Gotham at night with the Joker and his goons running around? If anyone has recently played Batman:Arkham Asylum you could definetely get some ideas from that and create a pretty scary real life experience. I guess we just have to wait and see what happens. It's too bad this didn't happen before last weeks show as I would have loved to have heard Pete's thoughts on it

 

[eeyorethegreat]

I was surprised to hear about this, wouldn't have ever seen it coming. I think that financially this will be a profitiable venture, so in that aspect good for Disney. On the other haND. I hate superheroes, never liked them as a kid don't like them now, I would be shocked if my mind changes on this. My kids not even my boys like superheroes, Marvel or any others. As far as the parks and characters, I really don't want my Mickey mixing with Marvel. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. I do agree that there are definite pluses to this though as others have mentioned, it is just I am going to have a hard time getting past the idea of Marvel and Disney being in the same bag. I am kind of hoping there is an obvious distinction beween the two.

 

[FireDancer]

I think this is a great match and am excited, and I don't even really like comic books. I think we have to step back and remove the parks from the equation to really see the benefit for both.

Disney is a distribution giant with a reach into movies and television. Marvel had to use third parties to make and distribute all of their properties. Now Disney/Marvel can create films/shows with characters they own and distribute it through their own channels. I can also see a lot of online content coming from the purchase.

Now, as the parks are concerned, I don't see for one minute there being a 5th park in the next 10 years. I may be wrong but I just don't see a whole new park coming. I think that there will be a 3rd park in CA before there is a 5th in FL and having a more thrill based park of Marvel characters and Disney Villains would fit the local demo of DL perfectly. Yes, they just put up a parking lot out there but parking lots are easily torn up.

I think there will be a presence in the parks but I think it will be a presence like the princesses are now. Some character meets and meals and maybe a dark ride or even a new EE type attraction. All those people who need something for their sons like parents with daughters have through the princesses will now have something to look forward to.

 

[Chuck S]

I just hope they develop the characters and put them to use in movies and TV much better than they have done with the Muppets.

 

[pilferk]

I just hope they develop the characters and put them to use in movies and TV much better than they have done with the Muppets.

I agree..but I'm not too worried.

See...the thing is: Jim was SUCH a huge part of what the Muppets were that it's hard to take the cloth and give it the the "soul" that Jim gave them. I think that's the part Disney has struggled with. They need to find the right person to run with the muppets, to make them relevant again.

With Marvel, you're not getting a product or characters that have lost their guiding force or creative impetus. I think that's going to make all the difference.

For me...Disney's mistake was not buying the Muppets when Jim was alive, and able to sort of ride herd throughout the transition. Buying them AFTER Jim had passed on just sort of left them in a void. Hopefully, they'll find someone who can really do the franchise justice, soon.

 

[WaltD4Me]

I think there will be a presence in the parks but I think it will be a presence like the princesses are now. Some character meets and meals and maybe a dark ride or even a new EE type attraction. All those people who need something for their sons like parents with daughters have through the princesses will now have something to look forward to.

Now that I've had a day to digest the news, I still just can't see it. As hard as I try I cannot picture non-Disney Marvel characters fitting in anywhere in the parks, not even DHS. Admittedly though, even though I'm a Muppet fan, I still think the Muppets at DHS is a little weird.

My problem with Marvel characters in the parks, even a small presence, will take away space from places/things that could be used for Disney/Pixar characters. I know I've been waiting for a villians dark ride and I don't want it to go to a Marvel character. And even a new EE attraction...there are plently of Disney characters yet to have their own attraction, are they going to lose their spot?

Yes, yes, I understand the "boy" market thing, but really nothing at the parks really targets tween/teenage girls, except the HSM show at DHS, there is no Hannah Montana attraction or anything, the princesses are for younger girls, just like Toy Story, Cars and even Pirates are out there for younger boys. I've never really understood the "there's nothing for boys" complaint, except for the area of character meals, boy ones are lacking there, but other than that there is lots of boy stuff IMHO.

So now, teenage girl representation is going to be lacking from the parks...what is Disney going to do next? Buy the rights to Twilight and have a hunky vampires meet and greet?

 

[Chuck S]

Classic Disney characters really don't lend themselves well to roller coaster and thrill ride themes, the Marvel characters will. Maybe, if they ever re-theme Rockin' RC, the Marvel characters would work there better than any other character in the Disney stable.

They would also go well into a 5th gate, if they ever design a Heroes & Villains park.

 

[FireDancer]

My problem with Marvel characters in the parks, even a small presence, will take away space from places/things that could be used for Disney/Pixar characters.

The Marvel characters are now Disney characters. If you look at the parks there are many characters that are not originally Disney that are in the parks:

The Little Mermaid is a Hans Christian Andersen character.
Aladdin is a folk character that belongs to really no one, though Antoine Galland may have a case.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Galland
Pinocchio is a Carlo Collodi character
Belle and the Beast are also folk characters first published by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve
Even Snow White isn't originally a Disney character

All of these are previously existing characters that Disney either bought or licensed and they are not out of place in the parks. Why should the Marvel characters be any different?

I still think that this purchase has nothing to do with the parks. If they end up in the parks at all it will be an after thought. This purchase was made but the production and distribution arms of the company, not the parks. Marvel has a large inventory of properties and no way to distribute them on their own. Disney now owns that inventory and has the distribution channel to get them out.

Not everything Disney creates or buys has any connection to the parks. I still haven't see a Pulp Fiction ride in the parks, and that is a Disney property too.

 

[DSNY4ever]

Ugh, I was so bored by this announcement from Disney. I don't want to see them just buying the rights to something else (especially something Universal is already using). I would rather see them come up with their own characters and put them into the parks. Even my husband who is a huge Spiderman fan thought it was weird. Can't Disney be creative enough to come up with their own ways to attract boys into the parks?

 

[WaltD4Me]

I still think that this purchase has nothing to do with the parks. If they end up in the parks at all it will be an after thought. This purchase was made but the production and distribution arms of the company, not the parks. Marvel has a large inventory of properties and no way to distribute them on their own. Disney now owns that inventory and has the distribution channel to get them out.

Not everything Disney creates or buys has any connection to the parks. I still haven't see a Pulp Fiction ride in the parks, and that is a Disney property too.

I don't see how the purchase could not involve the parks. Bob Iger said they wanted something for the boy market...why would that not include putting Marvel characters in the parks? And what better way to promote new Marvel movies? Just like they do now...putting those characters out in the parks. The Marvel characters are vastly different from a seperate entirely adult movie property like Pulp Fiction. I would more compare them to Pirates of the Carribbean, which has a huge presence in the parks.

 

[lady danger]

My problem with Marvel characters in the parks, even a small presence, will take away space from places/things that could be used for Disney/Pixar characters. I know I've been waiting for a villians dark ride and I don't want it to go to a Marvel character. And even a new EE attraction...there are plently of Disney characters yet to have their own attraction, are they going to lose their spot?

But that begs the question, would those characters and/or franchises gotten an attraction even if Disney didn't have Marvel to play with? I don't think this will halt their Pixar-related attractions development, but when was the last time they opened a big nonPixar Disney related attraction? I know they just opened Pixie Hollow, but that's essentially a Meet N Greet isn't it? They have plenty to work with but they never moved on it and I don't think that would have changed even if this Marvel purchase hadn't come to pass.

 

[JB2K]

The Marvel characters are now Disney characters. If you look at the parks there are many characters that are not originally Disney that are in the parks:

The Little Mermaid is a Hans Christian Andersen character.
Aladdin is a folk character that belongs to really no one, though Antoine Galland may have a case.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Galland
Pinocchio is a Carlo Collodi character
Belle and the Beast are also folk characters first published by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve
Even Snow White isn't originally a Disney character

All of these are previously existing characters that Disney either bought or licensed and they are not out of place in the parks. Why should the Marvel characters be any different?

I still think that this purchase has nothing to do with the parks. If they end up in the parks at all it will be an after thought. This purchase was made but the production and distribution arms of the company, not the parks. Marvel has a large inventory of properties and no way to distribute them on their own. Disney now owns that inventory and has the distribution channel to get them out.

Not everything Disney creates or buys has any connection to the parks. I still haven't see a Pulp Fiction ride in the parks, and that is a Disney property too.

Of all the recent commentary I have read concerning Disney/Marvel, your posts make the most sense.

Futhermore, in the immeidate future, I envison "Marvel" to be another one of Disney's many entertainment brands (much like ESPN) -- you won't see the familiar "Disney Signature" logo on any Marvel properties (we sure as heck don't see it on ESPN SportsCenter). In fact, the production company that was established for "Iron Man" will most likely become a full-on movie studio (much like Hollywood Pictures and Miramax) under Disney stewardship.

As for the parks, many of you around here tend to forget something - The Walt Disney Company, as a whole, is way more than a collection of parks and resorts in Central Florida.

That said, I agree that before a "fifth park" will even be imagined, they may start work on a third park in California to further even things out between the two coasts (word has it Disney still owns some property adjacent to the Disneyland complex that is yet to be used for anything big). Plus, as Universal Studios Hollywood is not a full-on theme park like its' Florida counterpart (for those who have never been there, USH is a working movie studio with a handful of attractions), the Marvel brand could be put to good use at DL.

As for "why Marvel" - it's a strong, familiar brand, and with that comes big revenue from merchandising/marketing.

Don't believe me? Check out all the merchandise that is sold at the end of any Disney park attraction. That's money in the bank.