• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

2351metalcloud

Active Member
Well one... they weren't being shopped around. Two, who else would pony up the money? Sony? You may want to take a look at their distractions...
Universal/Comcast, Fox/News Corp, Sony would all have some vested reason to buy it due to previous interactions with Marvel. Universal's situation I mentioned previously and Fox and Sony had both previously made movies with Marvel characters and considered creating some other movies that were never made: http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Undeveloped_Movies

The difference was 'wide appeal' - People weren't actually all that interested in 'comic book' stuff, that had been kind of cordoned off as niche and dying.
Marvel filed for bankruptcy in 1996. Batman Forever was 5th in the box office for films released in 1995 and Men in Black (based on a comic owned by Marvel at the movie's release) was 3rd in the box office for movies released in 1997.


Nah.

There are only two comic book companies that have any real general pop cultural value - Marvel, and DC.
...
The reason Marvel was such a no-brainer (just like Lucasfilm) is because of it's massive character library. That's why it was a brilliant long term investment. Disney already arguably had the premiere library of perennial characters, and adding both Marvel and Lucasfilm made that unquestionable.
...
Disney also showed a lot of courage dumping hundreds of millions into films like GoG and Ant Man, who previously were unknown to the masses yet making huge successes of them.
If Disney paying 4 billion for Marvel was a no brainer and Marvel having such a big list of characters that have appeared in printed and electronic media previously was correctly perceived as a big reason for buying them, then I don't think it makes much sense for it to be considered courageous for Disney to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on movies like Ant Man and GotG.

It's possible to make new superheros for movies and tv shows that people will go to see. Even Sky High had a decent return on what it reportedly cost to make according to Wikipedia. Static Shock, Ben 10, and the Incredibles weren't read by many people in comics that also watched the shows/movies. The same is true for some other superheros in other shows/movies even if they had appeared in comic books for decades before the show/movie. That was basically the case for Iron Man. The history of GotG was close to unknown to the general American public, European public, and people elsewhere prior to the purchases of Marvel. They weren't much more well-known than the Rocketeer prior to his movie or Delilah Dirk prior to Disney getting her movie rights and possibly less so in Delilah Dirk's case.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Neither Disney or Marvel created the Cinematic Universe. Universal Studios and Toho beat them to the punch decades ago.
Of course there are other cinematic universes, LOL.

But not with comic book films, and even outside of comics - nothing like this has ever been pulled off. You know what I am talking about. ;)

There have been nods and brief cameos (though the majority of the latter never made it past the script stages), but nothing like this was ever attempted before, and it was against all conventional wisdom for comic characters. This was for lots of reasons - many of them business related - and that's why Disney was the perfect place for them, and Lucasfilm. They had the money to fund the films, the studio to make them, and the best merchandising experience in the business.

So yes, it was a bold move for the right company at the right time.

The IP acquisitions aren't bad deals for the company. They are bad for the long term identity and soul of Disney because Disney is no longer the focus. General Motors of the entertainment industry, if you will.
Eh, I don't see it that way. That sort of feels like how the first born feels when their parents have another kid. They aren't replacing Snow White and Cinderella. Yes, the parks are a different story, I understand people feel they are invading. But as a whole, it doesn't make sense for Disney to have built this empire and business model for content creation and not try to expand on it.

Let's face it, as much as people of all ages might love them, the company would have always been inherently limited in it's reach if it just stayed with characters who's largest audience was 2 to 9 year-old's. If it wasn't for Pixar, that would mean being largely be limited to your main earning audience further to only 2 to 9 year-old girls. That's pretty narrow, even if you manage to capture some to become life-long fans.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
If Disney paying 4 billion for Marvel was a no brainer and Marvel having such a big list of characters that have appeared in printed and electronic media previously was correctly perceived as a big reason for buying them, then I don't think it makes much sense for it to be considered courageous for Disney to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on movies like Ant Man and GotG.

It's possible to make new superheros for movies and tv shows that people will go to see. Even Sky High had a decent return on what it reportedly cost to make according to Wikipedia. Static Shock, Ben 10, and the Incredibles weren't read by many people in comics that also watched the shows/movies. The same is true for some other superheros in other shows/movies even if they had appeared in comic books for decades before the show/movie. That was basically the case for Iron Man. The history of GotG was close to unknown to the general American public, European public, and people elsewhere prior to the purchases of Marvel. They weren't much more well-known than the Rocketeer prior to his movie or Delilah Dirk prior to Disney getting her movie rights and possibly less so in Delilah Dirk's case.
I'd really have to disagree with the idea that Disney could have just started creating all kinds of new superheroes. Most of the things you are citing are some form of parody or satirical take. But hold on that one for a second.

First, because I know someone is going to say "why do they need superheroes?" - they do. Superheroes aren't just popular right now because that's what is being pushed. Superheroes have a history of popularity where they come back every couple of decades in a big way with the general public.

So that looks cyclical, right? Until you realize that it's not just because "every 20 years or so people get interested again" - it's because we tend to get involved in major world conflicts every twenty years or so, too. I mean, Superheros had their first hurrah in terms of everyone knowing their names in WWII. When you look back, the peaks of Superhero popularity are remarkably tied. And where are we now - in the middle of the longest war ever, with no signs of it letting up. In times like these, people don't want to be entertained by reality - they want good guys and bad guys and the bad guys to lose. Even today - even when Captain America and Iron Man are fighting, we know they are both good guys.

Once you realize Superheroes are the thing and are going to be around for awhile, it doesn't make a ton of sense to start from scratch when a huge existing library already exists. The very thing you are pointing out - how many "unknowns" there were to popular culture as a whole, is precisely why.

There *are* a limited number of Superheroe archetypes. Really. Sure, you can keep coming up with goofy names, and different ways to combine powers, and mix and match origin stories - but the existing Superheroes already uncomfortably bump up against each other as it is. Quicksilver vs. Flash. And even in their own universes - Joker/Riddler, Batman/Green Arrow. Disney would have had a hard time getting into the "Serious Superhero" business with all-new characters and would have risked a whole lot more trying to make them than just purchasing an entire, pre-made stable with the benefit of all those "unknowns" in there to mine for years to come.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
I'd really have to disagree with the idea that Disney could have just started creating all kinds of new superheroes. Most of the things you are citing are some form of parody or satirical take. But hold on that one for a second.

First, because I know someone is going to say "why do they need superheroes?" - they do. Superheroes aren't just popular right now because that's what is being pushed. Superheroes have a history of popularity where they come back every couple of decades in a big way with the general public.

So that looks cyclical, right? Until you realize that it's not just because "every 20 years or so people get interested again" - it's because we tend to get involved in major world conflicts every twenty years or so, too. I mean, Superheros had their first hurrah in terms of everyone knowing their names in WWII. When you look back, the peaks of Superhero popularity are remarkably tied. And where are we now - in the middle of the longest war ever, with no signs of it letting up. In times like these, people don't want to be entertained by reality - they want good guys and bad guys and the bad guys to lose. Even today - even when Captain America and Iron Man are fighting, we know they are both good guys.

Once you realize Superheroes are the thing and are going to be around for awhile, it doesn't make a ton of sense to start from scratch when a huge existing library already exists. The very thing you are pointing out - how many "unknowns" there were to popular culture as a whole, is precisely why.

There *are* a limited number of Superheroe archetypes. Really. Sure, you can keep coming up with goofy names, and different ways to combine powers, and mix and match origin stories - but the existing Superheroes already uncomfortably bump up against each other as it is. Quicksilver vs. Flash. And even in their own universes - Joker/Riddler, Batman/Green Arrow. Disney would have had a hard time getting into the "Serious Superhero" business with all-new characters and would have risked a whole lot more trying to make them than just purchasing an entire, pre-made stable with the benefit of all those "unknowns" in there to mine for years to come.
Remember Gargoyles? The entire existence of that show is based on Eisner rejecting the idea of buying Marvel in the 90s because he had full confidence that Disney could make up their own superhero universe. That whole thing in the second season where Goliath and Eliza are stuck on a seemingly endless global roadtrip running into a bunch of different characters? Those were all intended as set-ups for spinoff series that would expand the universe, but plans changed as Disney Television's priorities shifted increasingly towards tween sitcoms and cartoons revolving primarily around kids in school.

 

NearTheEars

Well-Known Member
@WDW1974 , if you need further evidence of the type of guest that vacations at Walt Disney World during a hurricane, take a look at this eBay listing:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Walt-Disney-World-Grand-Floridian-Roof-Shingle-Tile-Prop-/172864732769?hash=item283f8a7e61:g:kDcAAOSwT4tZugT~
View attachment 230381 View attachment 230382 View attachment 230383
Hurricane Irma devastates the Caribbean and Florida and this guest seeks to make $289.00 off of the tragedy of others. Maybe this individual is looking to cover her/his check from Citricos?

This is precisely why Disney shreds pieces of attractions (e.g., Great Movie Ride, World of Motion) and puts them in pins, because of actions like this eBay listing.
That seems like theft.
 

NearTheEars

Well-Known Member
DHS was a pleasant ghost town today with ToT being a walk on during most of our time there.
Went to 50s Prime Time for the first time and was quite disappointed in our server. The food was OK, but we didn't really get the full experience. He brought our food and we never saw him again until we got the check and clean plate stickers. I don't want to sound sexist, but I hope we get a "Mom" next time. This seems to be my luck as we also recently went to Whispering Canyon and had about the same experience. We watched everyone else around us having fun with awesome servers, and ours didn't seem like they wanted to be there. Oh, well. Luck of the draw I guess.
 

Corey P

Well-Known Member
DHS was a pleasant ghost town today with ToT being a walk on during most of our time there.
Went to 50s Prime Time for the first time and was quite disappointed in our server. The food was OK, but we didn't really get the full experience. He brought our food and we never saw him again until we got the check and clean plate stickers. I don't want to sound sexist, but I hope we get a "Mom" next time. This seems to be my luck as we also recently went to Whispering Canyon and had about the same experience. We watched everyone else around us having fun with awesome servers, and ours didn't seem like they wanted to be there. Oh, well. Luck of the draw I guess.
Maybe you're the problem?
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
It's for the Secret Life of Pets ride.

Rumors have it being a non-screen-heavy LPS ride taking over the Shrek area. It looks like they're going to spin the area off into an Illuminations land, which is kind of stupid. But the ride itself sounds good.
Well they got to do something to give more attention to the Ilumination film catalog besides Despicable Me. Since you hardly see any of characters from any Ilumination film at the Universal Parks. The only two that comes to mind that were seen at the resorts would have to be the characters from Hop (Mostly in the Parade before getting replaced with the Secret Life Of Pets section) but that's about it.
 

flynnibus

Well-Known Member
Universal/Comcast, Fox/News Corp, Sony would all have some vested reason to buy it due to previous interactions with Marvel. Universal's situation I mentioned previously and Fox and Sony had both previously made movies with Marvel characters and considered creating some other movies that were never made: http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Undeveloped_Movies
Collaborators are a long way from buyers. By your logic, put Hasbro, Haynes T-shirts, and all kinds of others in that same mix. Keep the timeframe in mind as well... this isn't a topic of "lets cherry pick names and forget about what the year was, and what other things were happening at the time in the market and in each of those companies". Since you brought Universal into the mix... lets' remember at that time NBC had slipped to FOURTH in networks, Universal's movie division was struggling. Universal was the one to be bought in that period... not the one looking to buy a fledgling studio that needed financing.

Marvel filed for bankruptcy in 1996. Batman Forever was 5th in the box office for films released in 1995 and Men in Black (based on a comic owned by Marvel at the movie's release) was 3rd in the box office for movies released in 1997.
Ugh... you are so far off in your comparisons its making my head hurt just trying to break it down in a way that even touches the remote place you are at.

The Marvel of 2008 was nothing like the Marvel of the 90s... nor even the Marvel of 5 years prior... that Marvel that was purely licensing it's content with little influence (or return) in how it was used. The Marvel that swooned Disney was a Marvel with new leadership and vision... that on the backs of success of their Fox and Sony deals that made hundreds of millions for Fox and Sony... but a pittance for Marvel... had started their own studio and aimed to produce the films themselves. So instead of a Marvel in the 90s or early 2000s that may only make 100k on a film... now stood to make 100 MILLION on a film. THIS Marvel had new leadership and vision in Kevin Feige that blew the doors off with Iron Man.. which was now making tons of money for Marvel (unlike the Marvel of the 90s.. ) and had a new formula for films - that has proven to be blockbuster. THAT is the Marvel that Disney bought... not the Marvel of the 90s.

The Disney of the 90s wasn't desperate to rebuild it's appeal to males.. the Disney of the late 2000s was. Disney of this period was cash rich and looking to buy new growth. Disney of the 90s was more organic focused.

What Marvel needed in 2008 was capital to finance it's films. It was still striking various deals to raise that capital. Selling out to Disney and rolling under their capital power fixed that issue (and made the CEO a billionaire...)

If Disney paying 4 billion for Marvel was a no brainer and Marvel having such a big list of characters that have appeared in printed and electronic media previously was correctly perceived as a big reason for buying them, then I don't think it makes much sense for it to be considered courageous for Disney to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on movies like Ant Man and GotG.
Well you weren't the guy signing on the line saying "yes, please go spend 300+ million dollars on unproven content" - so I'm sure the courage needed seems trivial to you.

The reason the 'no brainer' answer exists is not simply because Marvel was an IP holder - but because of the potential of their studio output. Potential that has been PROVEN since.

Go back and look at the Lucasfilm announcement... what dominated the announcement? The FILMS. What did fanbois cry over? No immediate plans for theme parks... because the focus was on the output of films and media (and downstream merch). Much like Marvel was before it. The Iger team knows media is the tip of the spear for which the rest of the TWDC machine follows and reaps what was sown by media.

Disney bought into the Marvel STUDIOS formula... not just Marvel Entertainment. Comparisons to 90s MEG to 2009 Disney-Marvel are just night and day.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Well they got to do something to give more attention to the Ilumination film catalog besides Despicable Me. Since you hardly see any of characters from any Ilumination film at the Universal Parks. The only two that comes to mind that were seen at the resorts would have to be the characters from Hop (Mostly in the Parade before getting replaced with the Secret Life Of Pets section) but that's about it.
LOL boy I feel old - I don't know what a single thing there is, except Despicable Me - that's those little yellow smurfy things in work clothes, right?
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
LOL boy I feel old - I don't know what a single thing there is, except Despicable Me - that's those little yellow smurfy things in work clothes, right?
Yeah that's pretty much it.

HOP is basically about a male rabbit who wants to be in a band instead of a new Easter Bunny (The bunny is named EB) since his father is now a former Easter Bunny. EB leaves "Easter Island" and stays with this dude who's name I forgot and don't care who eventually becomes the new "Easter Bunny". Meanwhile EB's father sends in "The Pink Berets" (Who are the best characters of the film) track the bunny down and take him back home. There's more info to the film but it's pretty weird film.

Meanwhile The Secret Life Of Pets is basically what the film is.
 

Fox&Hound

Well-Known Member
I think the acquisitions were genius! I hate to say it but Disney could not rely on Little Mermaid, Snow White, Lion King, Aladdin, and B&B forever. Yes they are making some amazing films these days (Tangled, Wreck it Ralph, Frozen) but I love that when people hear Disney or shop Disney merchandise they also now think Darth Vader, Iron Man, and Thor. I think in order to retain boys (and men) they were smart to acquire Marvel and Star Wars. I love that Disney has Pirates,Cars, Star Wars, and Marvel!!!!!
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
The Disney of the 90s wasn't desperate to rebuild it's appeal to males.. the Disney of the late 2000s was. Disney of this period was cash rich and looking to buy new growth. Disney of the 90s was more organic focused.

What Marvel needed in 2008 was capital to finance it's films. It was still striking various deals to raise that capital. Selling out to Disney and rolling under their capital power fixed that issue (and made the CEO a billionaire...)

The reason the 'no brainer' answer exists is not simply because Marvel was an IP holder - but because of the potential of their studio output. Potential that has been PROVEN since.
Precisely.

And what's funny is that I am a DC guy through and through - till I die. I mean, I liked Spiderman growing up (but no where near what a lot of kids did). I liked the X-Men movies. I like many of the new Marvel movies (I've seen about 2/3 of them). So I don't blow smoke up Marvel's behind LOL.

Marvel had the most untapped potential - that sums up the entire point. Disney had the funds, structure in place, and the expertise for running modern franchises. That's why the Marvel and Lucasfilm deals were the best things that could have happened to each other, mutual finances, and, frankly, the fans in most cases.

Marvel's IP had been so mismanaged since nearly the companies invention, rights thrown around, and rented out their characters to anyone with a few bucks to make an indie film. On the flip side, Warners has controlled DC cinematic properties for so long they were stuck in the 1980's with their lack of foresight. One only needs to look at their own version (the not as bad as some say, but certainly not stellar) of the MCU.

Marvel's stable of characters (again, I say this as a DC fan) is also easier to translate into modern sensibilities. With the exception of Batman - who is the exception to every Superhero rule, he has proven universal enough that every generation has their own because he is one of us - DC has the Gods and Marvel has the arch-angels and the science experiments gone wrong, etc. - and inherently flawed characters, too. Just in terms of cultural shifts, it was a brilliant time to buy Marvel.
 

bclane

Well-Known Member
The one thing that stands out in the top picture to me is the guy in a wife beater holding a baby. LOL. Class and style baby, why does Disney even try?

That guys walks into any other high end hotel in the world other then Disney and he would be lucky that security wasn't having a talk with him. LOL.
Ha! I didn't even notice that guy when I took the picture. But yeah, there is always a broad range of people staying on Disney property and a lot of people who may have just jumped off the monorail to check out the lobby (like us today).

By the way, I hadn't been back to any of the resorts since they moved security for the Magic Kingdom out to the Ticketing and Transportation Center. I thought it was cool to see security check points now at all the monorail stations and was amazed at how quickly they got us through. That metal detector at the Contemporary was super sensitive though. It's the only place my wife's underwire bra set off an alarm anywhere on Disney property...at least so far.
 

egg

Well-Known Member
Well they got to do something to give more attention to the Ilumination film catalog besides Despicable Me. Since you hardly see any of characters from any Ilumination film at the Universal Parks. The only two that comes to mind that were seen at the resorts would have to be the characters from Hop (Mostly in the Parade before getting replaced with the Secret Life Of Pets section) but that's about it.
Oh, that's not the issue, of course. The issue is that Illuminations is simply a studio name, and doesn't lend itself to a setting or a theme. It makes no more sense for the minions and pets to be together than it does for, say, Harry Potter and Iron Man.
 
Last edited:

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
The one thing that stands out in the top picture to me is the guy in a wife beater holding a baby. LOL. Class and style baby, why does Disney even try?

That guys walks into any other high end hotel in the world other then Disney and he would be lucky that security wasn't having a talk with him. LOL.
The difference is that Disney is a High Priced hotel, Not a High End hotel there is a difference a large one.
 
Top Bottom