I found it on i09 but the link to its source was dead.Oh. My. God.
As this was from Gawker, in what context was this posted?
I found it on i09 but the link to its source was dead.Oh. My. God.
As this was from Gawker, in what context was this posted?
I have no idea if there is a correlation but, if Disney's purchase of Marvel made the picture featured below possible, I think that we can all agree that it was money well spent.
Any new character, though, has a decent chance of catching on though. Having that in our pockets is relatively nice.
I have no idea if there is a correlation but, if Disney's purchase of Marvel made the picture featured below possible, I think that we can all agree that it was money well spent.
Sam's too conservative to be Cap. He wouldn't fight Super-Hero Registration, he'd be for it to keep track of all of the "weirdos"
Except history has shown that they have virtually no chance of catching on. Seriously, who is the most recent character you can think of who is not linked to a franchise covered by the Universal deal who is popular enough to carry an attraction (or even a meet and greet) at Disney. I'm pretty well versed in comics and Marvel and I can't think of a single character who would be suitable for use.
Heck, if a character gets any kind of popularity at all, Marvel makes them an Avenger. Plus most new characters rend to be extremely violent.
Every time someone posts about the new characters Marvel is going to generate, I think, "Well, clearly this person has never read a comic book."
I get what you're saying to a degree, but are you really confident that Marvel will never again make an even mildly successful character? Anything is possible.
Based on the last 20 years of history, yes, I am reasonably confident Marvel will never again create a character with no affiliations to an existing franchise that would be popular enough to merit a Disney World attraction.
If you can name even one example in the last 20 years, please feel free. Until then, it seems really unlikely, don't you think?
But this is hardly about merchandise sales and all about theme park rights.
Do you not think the main reason for Universal to get Harry Potter was to be able to sell the merchandise? Sure, they sold a few million extra tickets last year - but the amount they make on all the Potter-themed stuff, from wands to butter beer, far exceeds that.
It's all about merchandising, unfortunately.
I blame George Lucas.Do you not think the main reason for Universal to get Harry Potter was to be able to sell the merchandise? Sure, they sold a few million extra tickets last year - but the amount they make on all the Potter-themed stuff, from wands to butter beer, far exceeds that.
It's all about merchandising, unfortunately.
I blame George Lucas.
I blame George Lucas for a lot of things. This included.
blame kiss too....
Do you not think the main reason for Universal to get Harry Potter was to be able to sell the merchandise? Sure, they sold a few million extra tickets last year - but the amount they make on all the Potter-themed stuff, from wands to butter beer, far exceeds that.
It's all about merchandising, unfortunately.
But this is hardly about merchandise sales and all about theme park rights.
because of gene simmons merchandisizing the kiss logo on practically everything...
because of gene simmons merchandisizing the kiss logo on practically everything...
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.