2. It's a legal matter. Contracts are not broken by acquisitions, unless the contract specifically states, which these surely would not. If they did state that, then Disney would not be able to make statements to the contrary. You really think Sony or Fox would give up the rights to those franchises without a fight (which would be well-publicized).

3. Why is this one BS again? Of course Lasseter met with Marvel representatives. Pixar is incredibly successful, largely due to the efforts of John Lasseter, and only seems to be growing in popularity. Lasseter has been able to reach multiple demographics without sacrificing quality. Why on earth would Disney not put him in the same room as representatives from Marvel, who represents their only untapped demographic, the teen/young-adult male group? It would be idiotic if they ignored the obvious potential there.

4. Marvel's turd-to-megahit ratio was horrible before Disney. You really think it could get worse? This is definitely going to be a step-up. Iron Man was successful because Marvel poured RIDICULOUS amounts of money into its production/marketing. Their profit margin wasn't all that high, as a result, but it had many intangible successes to go along with its box office success. Disney has the resources to repeat this level of film production/marketing. I, personally, wouldn't turn my nose up at this potential awesomeness.

5. Marvel was recognizable, sure, but had very limited funding available. Marvel films required heavy special effects, which were very expensive. Limited profits means limited funds to use on future films. This article is talking about the newfound ability for Marvel to get its name in every facet of the media, beyond its current limitations. Disney has rarely fused its branding with a subsidiary's. It's not called “The Wonderful World of ESPN,” for example. “Disney & Pixar's WALL-E” is the only type of fusion I can think of, if I had to name one.

6. Mega-corporations definitely screw things up frequently, but this doesn't seem to be one of those situations. If Marvel follows the trend of ABC, ESPN, or Pixar, I will be very pleased.

Maybe that’s because Marvel sucks to begin with.

Yeah, I went there.

I anticipate all this deal will do is put more money into Marvel’s movies and their merchandise lines. While some may not like their Marvel becoming “common”, I’m sure this won’t affect most fans in the slightest.

As the article says…Disney excels at branding. To mess with the Marvel brand would be idiotic and unprofitable. I doubt they’ll do it.

OMGThePeSt@yahoo.com

-Anthony J. Preston

Thanks for the compliment, by the way.

Good analogy though.

As for paranoia, no it is is called experiance, been there done that, seen it done to others many times over.

And sure, contracts can change — however, based on what was said on the conference call, Disney will be waiting out those contracts out.

In all likelihood, it will be years (yes, years) before we see an impact on movie production and/or marketing. Comics, animated properties, merchandising, etc. are all a different story.

#4… Not talking about quality of films here, just about marketing prowess and ability to make money. Marvel already brings creative quality to the table.

#5… I think you're overestimating Marvel's brand recognition. Beyond their A-level characters (Spider-Man, The Hulk, X-Men and now Iron Man), you'd be hard pressed to find solid name recognition in the mainstream. It isn't Coke and Pepsi. It's Coke buying Tang.

#6… See my above comment re: Caution v. Paranoia. You can't just lump every “mega corporation” in together and say they're inherently evil. You have to look at their track record (which in the case of Disney is good), the people involved (Bob Iger, a very savvy guy) and what they're saying (see the part where I talk about what Iger is saying about their relationship with Marvel).

And yes, your opinion is worth merit… however, you started to lose me when you just spouted “bullshit, bullshit.” You're better than that, and we both know it.

Does that make sense?

More of a technical issue, why do we now only get a tagline in our RSS feed instead of the whole article. The reason I have an RSS reader is so that I can stay in one place to read news. I love FSR so I probably won’t unsubscribe but you are pissing a lot of people off by doing this.