9/1: Spider-Mouse

[craig]

That's the problem with most comic crossovers. They have characters with similar powers fight each other. Batman vs. Hulk is much more interesting than Aquaman vs. Namor or Green Arrow vs. Hawkeye.

Brad Bird ripped off the Fantastic Four and called it his own.

[Jspider]

Originally Posted by hockeyland

As usual, some good thoughts in Kevin's article, mixed in with a lot of errors:

• Fox Family was purchased because of the cable channel (distribution) and had very little to do with characters
• Iger specifically mentioned that certain parks could take more advantage of the Marvel characters; IOA will have a long-term lock-up on the characters they use (you don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars building rides you don't have the rights to though the full expected life of the attraction); that leaves WDW out; there is no immediate fit or room in Anaheim; so, think Hong Kong, Shanghai and maybe Paris to see Marvel attractions/characters (look at the Hong Kong Alien themed Halloween promotion in Hong Kong -- it's much edgier than Disney normally is, just as Marvel is)
• Disney didn't have $4B sitting around and decided they had to do something with it; they made a big investment based on their ability to leverage the Marvel characters through much of the Disney Empire; Return on Investment is the goal and a 5th park or major additions to WDW don't have those potential ROIs.

You have to think bigger than just WDW on issues like this.

Actually I'm going to partially dissagree with you on the whole Fox Family bit. I'd actually wager the purchase of Fox Family way back when is what started Disney on the path towards considering a marvel purchase.

Your all busy undercutting the value of Power Rangers (which is actually a fairly successful show with a fairly decent turn in merchandising though I feel Disney bought it on the decline and has done nothing but reduce the value of the property). See Power Rangers was produced by a little entertainment company called Saban which did most of the cartoons I grew up with in the 90's.

More to the point Saban didn't just do Power Rangers, they also produced the popular Xmen cartoon sereis of the 90's as well as distribution for the popular 90's Spiderman cartoon (which was one of the only series Marvel did in house). Saban also did the lesser known Ironman cartoon from the early 90's as well as the dub of Digimon.

Disney essentially took all of these old cartoons from the 90's and mixed them with things like Kim Possible when they created the Jetix lineup on Toon Disney (which always bugged me because it was like some sort of twisted reincarnation of Fox Kids which had been destroyed with the sale of Fox Family).

Anywho Jetix looked to meet Disney with quite a bit of success in the young boys market which isn't suprising knowing the quality of the shows they had. This year with the rebranding to Disney XD, Disney pretty much started airing almost exclusively all the new Marvel cartoons (along with getting the rights to reruns of DC Comics Static Shock).

If I'm not mistaken Disney also took over dubbing for future Digimon shows, so your actually seeing ALOT of character invovlement from Disney's purchase of Fox Family (MUCH more value then I've seen from the Muppets I might add)

So yeah when Disney says this was a move mainly for a childrens animation block/programming standpoint they arn't lying. Not to say the movie and theme park rights arn't enticing either but the main thing this will bring is Disney synergy with all future Marvel cartoons. It'll probably be a good while until we see any kind of theme park presence stateside. Afterall even Universal Studios Hollywood has a few Marvel areas (mostly stores). And this is also true for Japan.

Now my question is, does this axe the Marvel park that was rumored to be part of Dubialand?

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by craig

That's the problem with most comic crossovers. They have characters with similar powers fight each other. Batman vs. Hulk is much more interesting than Aquaman vs. Namor or Green Arrow vs. Hawkeye.

Brad Bird ripped off the Fantastic Four and called it his own.

Problem is Batman is DC and Hulk is Marvel.

And if you want to get REALLY specific, Bird also ripped off Watchmen with its whole "no more superheroes" backstory and by having a villian that wanted to change the world by faking an alien invasion. Then there's the "no capes" thing, but that's only if you read the Under The Hood suppliments.

[Not My Real Name]

I don't care what others say; I want the first Spider-Mouse figurine!

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by FrankieD

Oh, you left out that the contract between Marvel and Universal would have been eyes-only. No one at Disney would have had access to it during negotiation and thus would be blind as to the degree to which the Marvel characters would be available for use in the theme parks.

No way - when a company buys another such as this.. they do not do it blindly. They do get access to the company's true books, their contracts, and other assets and liabilities. That's part of the vetting process in deciding if they are going to buy the company. Only in cases of hostile takeovers where the purchase is only through leveraging of stock to gain control of the board would you be doing it from the outside.

Originally Posted by FrankieD

You can bet your sweet little dogie that at minimum Universal has an exclusive on the characters actually used in IoA if not on any and all Marvel characters. They'd have been idiots to give up exclusivity for any character not used.

This isn't even a question. The licensing behind IoA has been reported on since day one. It's for specific characters, for a specific region (east of Missi), and for the longevity of their use in IoA. They don't have licensing for all Marvel characters, nor are they exclusive worldwide.

This is why Univ Hollywood had separate licensing (Univ Hollywood and Uni Florida actually have different ownership setups) which they have since backed out of.. and why there was separate licensing for the Spiderman ride in Japan and the other projects.

[flynnibus]

Complicating the 'outting' of the true details of the licensing on the web alone is convoluted by the complete slut Universal has been as it's been sold, resold, and has had so many parents since 1993 when they announced IoA.

In 1993, Universal Studios was owned by MCA.. which itself had just been bought in 1990 by Matsu****a. But then MCA (and Uni) was sold off to Seagrams.. but then were later sold to Vivendi and become Vivendi Universal in 2000... which itself was then merged with NBC to form NBC Universal in 2004.

Follow all that??

[MickeyMousePal]

Originally Posted by Jspider

Your all busy undercutting the value of Power Rangers (which is actually a fairly successful show with a fairly decent turn in merchandising though I feel Disney bought it on the decline and has done nothing but reduce the value of the property). See Power Rangers was produced by a little entertainment company called Saban which did most of the cartoons I grew up with in the 90's.

More to the point Saban didn't just do Power Rangers, they also produced the popular Xmen cartoon sereis of the 90's as well as distribution for the popular 90's Spiderman cartoon (which was one of the only series Marvel did in house). Saban also did the lesser known Ironman cartoon from the early 90's as well as the dub of Digimon.

Didn't the Saban deal also included Fantastic Four 90's version, Incredible Hulk 90's version and Spider-Man and his amazing friends 80's show with Firestar and Iceman?

[Mr Wiggins]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

In 1993, Universal Studios was owned by MCA.. which itself had just been bought in 1990 by Matsu****a. But then MCA (and Uni) was sold off to Seagrams.. but then were later sold to Vivendi and become Vivendi Universal in 2000... which itself was then merged with NBC to form NBC Universal in 2004.

Follow all that??

Sorry, afraid I'm still ROFLMAO over Matsu****a.

[craig]

"Problem is Batman is DC and Hulk is Marvel."

A crossover is when characters from different companies meet.

[ZeekSlider]

I know what a cross over is.

I'm just pointing out that those two companies probably won't do anything together despite the fact that seem to trade artists and writers as often as Disney and WB trade animators and directors. Then there's the legal stuff like who gets distribution rights and how much of the cover price goes to which company and all this garbage.

It's safer to keep it "in house" by having cross over involve companies that are under the same umbrella.

[craig]

Alright. I see the point you were making. I was pointing out how having characters with similar abilities fight is boring and serves neither character.

[rosyrotten47]

My friend and I were discussing how Disney would use the Marvel characters (we were at Disneyland on Friday just to see Murphy). We thought that maybe having Mickey and etc. dress up like the super heros for Halloween time. For example:
Mickey- Spiderman
Goofy- Ghost Rider
Donald- The Hulk
and so on.

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by rosyrotten47

My friend and I were discussing how Disney would use the Marvel characters (we were at Disneyland on Friday just to see Murphy). We thought that maybe having Mickey and etc. dress up like the super heros for Halloween time. For example:
Mickey- Spiderman
Goofy- Ghost Rider
Donald- The Hulk
and so on.

The day that Domestic Disney does what Tokyo Disney Resort does every Halloween will be the day I see another photo trip report from TDLFAN from his trip to WDW.

Seriously, I'd love to see that, but I doubt that will happen. It's cheaper for them to keep wearing last year's costume over and over again instead of making new ones.

[craig]

I would hate seeing Disney characters dressed like Marvel characters. With those costumes/uniforms comes a lot of baggage. Iron Mans alcoholism, Bruce Banner's (Hulk)child abuse, and Wolverine's knack for killing. Second-tier heroes backstories include spousal abuse, premarital sex, miscarriges, etc.

While some Disney characters have sorrid tales as well, the Fab Five remain fairly pure. I still wonder why Disney would have their characters dress like Darth Vader who had no problem with killing someone. You would think they (Disney) would be more protective of their properties.

I would have no problem with a 5th park that was devoted to Marvel though. This is just a case where I don't want my chocolate and peanut butter mixed together. They're both great but just not together.

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by craig

While some Disney characters have sorrid tales as well, the Fab Five remain fairly pure. I still wonder why Disney would have their characters dress like Darth Vader who had no problem with killing someone. You would think they (Disney) would be more protective of their properties.

Protective by Disney standards these days is if someone uses their characters in a context that doesn't warrent it. Rumor has it that when Mickey was going to get angery in Kingdom Hearts 2, Disney came in to make sure that it was handled properly and not in a way that would compromise Mickey's more iconic personality.

Having Stitch dress up like Darth Vader is not protecting their property so much as cross marketing it. If you like Star Wars and Stitch, boy, do we have a collectable for you!