Disney to Buy Marvel for $4 Billion

[JB2K]

Disney already owns many Marvel animated works from the 1960's-80's (except for the 1960's "Fantasic Four" series, which was produced by Hanna-Barbera and now owned by Warner Bros.) -- this happened when Disney purchased the Saban catalog (which is how Disney ownership of the "Power Rangers" franchise came to happen).

This purchase will finally give Disney the ability to release these works on DVD (much like they did with the 1967 Spider-Man series in 2001 to cash-in on Spidey's big-screen debut).

 

[WaltD4Me]

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.

This is actually a good point...why is that? I'm still trying to figure out why there is an American Idol attraction at DHS. But there has been talk, granted rumor, of a Monsters Inc. coaster going in at DHS, I hope that happens over a Marvel related attraction and I'd much rather see the rumored Fantasyland make-over rather than anything else.

 

[lady danger]

This is actually a good point...why is that? I'm still trying to figure out why there is an American Idol attraction at DHS. But there has been talk, granted rumor, of a Monsters Inc. coaster going in at DHS, I hope that happens over a Marvel related attraction and I'd much rather see the rumored Fantasyland make-over rather than anything else.

I could be wrong, but I've always assumed it was because a lot of the more "traditional" Disney works aren't big money makers anymore in terms of selling merchandise or earning an audience for its entertainment division and Disney attractions are in part active advertisements for Disney's various properties. People may run out and buy DVDs of all of the old Disney classics when they're released from the vault, but apart from that, they're not as useful in inspiring consumers to spend money buying toys, apparel, etc. with Disney as other things. They've managed to revive and reuse some of the characters in other ways, like with Tinkerbell or what they've done with the Disney princesses, but overall a lot of the old films don't gain the same level attention since they're no longer being rereleased periodically on the big screen. I seem to remember that line of reasoning coming up as part of the explanation of why they decided to replace Mr. Toad's Wild Ride with the Winnie the Pooh ride. Of course this strikes me as sad as I'm not nearly as fond of Pixar's films as I am of the old Disney animated films and Fantasyland has always been my favorite part of both WDW and Disneyland because of that. But unless something big happens with the Frog Princess this Christmas that convinces Disney corporate that there is money to be made with what used to be their bread and butter, I don't expect we'll see many more attractions based on animated classics in the future.

 

[WaltD4Me]

I could be wrong, but I've always assumed it was because a lot of the more "traditional" Disney works aren't big money makers anymore in terms of selling merchandise or earning an audience for its entertainment division and Disney attractions are in part active advertisements for Disney's various properties. People may run out and buy DVDs of all of the old Disney classics when they're released from the vault, but apart from that, they're not as useful in inspiring consumers to spend money buying toys, apparel, etc. with Disney as other things. They've managed to revive and reuse some of the characters in other ways, like with Tinkerbell or what they've done with the Disney princesses, but overall a lot of the old films don't gain the same level attention since they're no longer being rereleased periodically on the big screen. I seem to remember that line of reasoning coming up as part of the explanation of why they decided to replace Mr. Toad's Wild Ride with the Winnie the Pooh ride. Of course this strikes me as sad as I'm not nearly as fond of Pixar's films as I am of the old Disney animated films and Fantasyland has always been my favorite part of both WDW and Disneyland because of that. But unless something big happens with the Frog Princess this Christmas that convinces Disney corporate that there is money to be made with what used to be their bread and butter, I don't expect we'll see many more attractions based on animated classics in the future.

Even if this were true, there is very, very little American Idol merchadise being sold at the parks. I was just there in May and only remember seeing a few pins. And Giselle from Enchanted was very popular, but you saw little of her in the parks...even merchandise wise, but I know her stuff sold really well in the Disney mall stores. I think one of the things that keeps the characters alive and popular is in fact the parks. In fact, I've often wondered how Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty would have stood the test of time without the theme parks.

 

[mainegal]

Over ten years ago, my partner bought "one share" of Marvel and Disney stock. Came in a nice frame.

He tired of his small dabbling in the stock market. Sold me the one share of Disney stock. This was long before I visited WDW. He held on to the Marvel because the certificate was pretty, but mostly worthless.

Now, he will be getting Disney stock, after all! He is a Marvel guy. Fantastic Four, not the Fab Four.

 

[lady danger]

I think American Idol was just something that was easy, cheap to produce, and tied into something wildly popular. They already had a building set up for that sort of show and it couldn't have taken much to retheme it. Enchanted did sell really well, but would it keep continuing to do so by the time they built a worthwhile attraction dedicated to it and beyond that? And would it be getting them new fans and new money, or would it just cut into the existing market that already buys Disney princess merchandise and media. I do agree that the parks and their attractions do a lot to keep certain characters and movies alive, but some of the more traditional stuff might not be as instantly lucrative as other franchises, and unfortunately I think that ties into the current prevailing logic of how some projects get greenlit and others do not. You said you've wondered if Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty would have stood the test of time without the theme parks. I think this a good question, but I think even better is to wonder if today's WDW management would have promoted Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty the way their predecessors did. Given the more minimal attention attraction wise later films received, I doubt it. I'm not arguing that what they're doing is smart or in the best interest of the parks, their legacy and their fans. I personally would be thrilled to death if they did something like expand the Magic Kingdom to include more real attractions with Disney tie ins. I just think this is likely what's going on.

 

[JB2K]

I think American Idol was just something that was easy...

While we're on that subject, if you look around the parks (particularly DHS), there are plenty of attractions that are not even remotely connected to what made the Disney franchise famous:

Names like Twilight Zone and Aerosmith immediately come to mind (and those non-Disney attractions are among the most popular in all the parks).

 

[pilferk]

Stan weighs in:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32645353/ns/business-media_biz/

 

[pilferk]

And the sentinel has more on the IOA impact:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-disney-marvel-universal-090209,0,7440273.story

 

[ADP]

The contract allows Universal to continue using the Marvel trademarks for as long as the attractions are in operation. It also ensures that no other theme park east of the Mississippi River — including Walt Disney World — can develop attractions based on the same characters.

It doesn't look like we'll be seeing Spiderman, Hulk, Dr. Doom, or Storm Force in the WDW parks anytime soon. They would likely end up out at Disneyland, or the other global parks; except Orlando. Of course, there are about 4996 other Marvel characters to choose from to develop movies and attractions in Orlando.

 

[Decorated_Dust]

I am a little confused by this. I'm glad there's going to be no Marvel involvement in WDW (too much Marvel in this town already), but the rest of it is a little weird. Marvel characters are not exactly Disney friendly, like Iron Man (alcoholic) and the Hulk (anger management 101) among others. I know ABC and ESPN can be in the same boat, but they don't have costumed characters all around.

My biggest worry, though, is Marvel itself. Will Disney have any creative control over the comic books and movies? Will they take away what made them special. Disney tends to take every adaptation meant for kids and bend it to fit their formula of what these kids should be seeing. Their adaptations of A Wrinkle in Time and The Chronicles of Narnia come to mind. The latter was less apparent than the former, but the Disney influence was still noticeable, and took away from the original themes of the novels. Let's hope new Marvel adaptations do not go the same way since they are intended for kids.

 

[FireDancer]

I am a little confused by this. I'm glad there's going to be no Marvel involvement in WDW (too much Marvel in this town already), but the rest of it is a little weird. Marvel characters are not exactly Disney friendly, like Iron Man (alcoholic) and the Hulk (anger management 101) among others.

I'm not worried about it. Disney didn't make Pulp Fiction, The Piano, Clerks, Reservoir Dogs, Trainspotting, Gangs of NY, No Country for Old Men, Con Air, or Apocalypto family friendly. Disney is more than capable of divorcing their brands from the Disney image if they want to. If they want to make a darkmovie or R rated movie of a Marvel character they will just release it through Miramax or Touchstone.

As far as a park presence goes I still think that they will fit better into a 3rd park in CA than anywhere in FL. I still think a thrill based park in CA with a mix of Marvel characters and Disney characters (like the Villains park that has been talked about) would fit into the demo of locals better than they would in FL. If you are east of the Mississippi and want thrill rides come to Cedar Point.

 

[ADP]

I am a little confused by this. I'm glad there's going to be no Marvel involvement in WDW (too much Marvel in this town already), but the rest of it is a little weird.

There will more than likely be Marvel involvement at WDW just not the 4 characters already in place over at Universal. Since Universal already has 4 attractions based on 4 Marvel characters Walt Disney World cannot base experiences around those particular characters; however, they can use the many other Marvel characters in the WDW parks.

 

[Decorated_Dust]

I'm not worried about it. Disney didn't make Pulp Fiction, The Piano, Clerks, Reservoir Dogs, Trainspotting, Gangs of NY, No Country for Old Men, Con Air, or Apocalypto family friendly. Disney is more than capable of divorcing their brands from the Disney image if they want to. If they want to make a darkmovie or R rated movie of a Marvel character they will just release it through Miramax or Touchstone.

Then again, those were under Touchstone/Miramax and meant for adults. The Disney brand is VERY hidden in those kind of things. Marvel is meant for kids (mostly), and whenever movies come out of Disney that are PG or below (POTC excluded), they are under the Disney name. The reason POTC was under Disney was because it was for kids despite it's rating, and the Marvel superhero movies are the same way.

My worries are more than likely for naught, and you very well might be right, but it is just a nagging thought I have.

Aaron, I must have misread the above posts. Thanks for clarifying.

BTW, I just listened to the podcast, and something REALLY bothered me (no good reason for it, it's just an OCD thing). Batman and Wonder Woman were mentioned as being under Marvel, but they are not. They are under DC comics (along with Superman, the Flash, etc). Captain America, the Hulk, Spiderman, Iron Man, Daredevil, etc. are under Marvel (basically all the boring ones). I did not expect the podcast crew to know that since none of them are comic book geeks, but it was just something I wanted to clarify.

 

[JB2K]

Then again, those were under Touchstone/Miramax and meant for adults. The Disney brand is VERY hidden in those kind of things. Marvel is meant for kids (mostly), and whenever movies come out of Disney that are PG or below (POTC excluded), they are under the Disney name. The reason POTC was under Disney was because it was for kids despite it's rating, and the Marvel superhero movies are the same way.

Personally, I don't think the WDC will use their "Disney" signature brand on anything Marvel-related -- since Marvel recently took their movie-making in-house, they will most likely continue to use Marvel as a seperate brand, as it already has familiarity with fans of their movie franchises.

As for Universal, sure, they have the rights to those current Marvel attractions, but over the long haul, will they really want to keep what will be the most popular brands of a long term rival in their park?

Especially, should Six Flags not be able to get out of bankruptcy (and close a large number of parks, or fail, altogether), that would open up the likes of Superman, Batman, etc. for theme park attractions (Disney would not get into that game, obviously, but it could be an opportunity for Universal, or the Cedar Fair family of parks).

If Universal does decide to stay with the status quo, you can expect another "Monday Night Football" deal in the works (for those who don't know, Disney and Universal made a trade a few years ago -- Disney traded the contracts of longtime MNF announcers Al Michaels and John Madden for some concessions from Universal including all rights to "Oswald the Lucky Rabbit", Walt's first big creation).

 

[Geef]

Especially, should Six Flags not be able to get out of bankruptcy (and close a large number of parks, or fail, altogether), that would open up the likes of Superman, Batman, etc. for theme park attractions (Disney would not get into that game, obviously, but it could be an opportunity for Universal, or the Cedar Fair family of parks).

Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman, AquaMan, etc.... are DC Comics.

They are my favorites, but not part of this deal.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I think American Idol was just something that was easy, cheap to produce, and tied into something wildly popular. They already had a building set up for that sort of show and it couldn't have taken much to retheme it. Enchanted did sell really well, but would it keep continuing to do so by the time they built a worthwhile attraction dedicated to it and beyond that? And would it be getting them new fans and new money, or would it just cut into the existing market that already buys Disney princess merchandise and media. I do agree that the parks and their attractions do a lot to keep certain characters and movies alive, but some of the more traditional stuff might not be as instantly lucrative as other franchises, and unfortunately I think that ties into the current prevailing logic of how some projects get greenlit and others do not. You said you've wondered if Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty would have stood the test of time without the theme parks. I think this a good question, but I think even better is to wonder if today's WDW management would have promoted Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty the way their predecessors did. Given the more minimal attention attraction wise later films received, I doubt it. I'm not arguing that what they're doing is smart or in the best interest of the parks, their legacy and their fans. I personally would be thrilled to death if they did something like expand the Magic Kingdom to include more real attractions with Disney tie ins. I just think this is likely what's going on.

The question I always had is the financing. If AI came to them and is Sponsoring and paying for the attraction, then it makes perfect sense, especially as Disney's monetary investment becomes less and less. Better something quick and sucky that doesn't cost them much, vs an empty building (see Wonders of Life).

If Disney invested a lot into AI, then I think... once again... that Meg is a moron who is illsuited for the position she has...either she had a hand in it or supervises idiots who don't know what they are doing.

If they DID invest heavily into the attraction, then I'm suprised they didn't do something like a 30 minute HSM show or a Jonas/Hannah variety act... Filmed footage of Jonas or Montana with real performers performing....

Or maybe "Be the Next Disney Channel Star" competition that could be shown on the Disney Channel.

Either way... I miss the Doug show that was in there 10 years ago :-D

 

[yitbos96bb]

The contract allows Universal to continue using the Marvel trademarks for as long as the attractions are in operation. It also ensures that no other theme park east of the Mississippi River — including Walt Disney World — can develop attractions based on the same characters.

It doesn't look like we'll be seeing Spiderman, Hulk, Dr. Doom, or Storm Force in the WDW parks anytime soon. They would likely end up out at Disneyland, or the other global parks; except Orlando. Of course, there are about 4996 other Marvel characters to choose from to develop movies and attractions in Orlando.

That would be STORM from the Xmen... not Storm Force... I wonder if that covers Magneto and Professor X too.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman, AquaMan, etc.... are DC Comics.

They are my favorites, but not part of this deal.

He never said they were... he said if Six Flags goes belly up another company could bid on them. Read a little closer ;-)

 

[yitbos96bb]

Then again, those were under Touchstone/Miramax and meant for adults. The Disney brand is VERY hidden in those kind of things. Marvel is meant for kids (mostly), and whenever movies come out of Disney that are PG or below (POTC excluded), they are under the Disney name. The reason POTC was under Disney was because it was for kids despite it's rating, and the Marvel superhero movies are the same way.

My worries are more than likely for naught, and you very well might be right, but it is just a nagging thought I have.

Aaron, I must have misread the above posts. Thanks for clarifying.

BTW, I just listened to the podcast, and something REALLY bothered me (no good reason for it, it's just an OCD thing). Batman and Wonder Woman were mentioned as being under Marvel, but they are not. They are under DC comics (along with Superman, the Flash, etc). Captain America, the Hulk, Spiderman, Iron Man, Daredevil, etc. are under Marvel (basically all the boring ones). I did not expect the podcast crew to know that since none of them are comic book geeks, but it was just something I wanted to clarify.

Batman is by far my Fav Character, but Iron man, Daredevil, Spidey, wolverine are WORLDS more interesting than Superman or Wonderwoman, as is Original Hulk. The movies of Xman 1 and 2, Spidey 1 and Ironman are tons better than any of the Superman movies (2 is the closest) and the original 4 Batman Movies... although the new Christian Bale ones are better than any of the previous movies.