It was such an abrupt news story for me. But, I could imagine some Disney teen show with a teenage Peter Parker having lady problems in high school or something.
" It was such an abrupt news story for me. But, I could imagine some Disney teen show with a teenage Peter Parker having lady problems in high school or something. "
I think this shit already exists. Have you seen like that Teen iron man show?
No, I'm not curious in that one bit and hopefully am not exposed to that. Anyways, I was imagining a live-action Peter Parker played by some Jonas brother. Yeah, I should stop there.
lol okay seriously, i think that comic books have become popularized, and disney's buying of marvel just proves that, and Furthermore, i think it's more stupid than a frog in shorts, primarily because now there's going to be changes in staff and ideals and all kinds of shady business. 4 billion dollars is not enough, marvel shouldn't have sold out. even though they already had. but still. >=(
" No, I'm not curious in that one bit and hopefully am not exposed to that. Anyways, I was imagining a live-action Peter Parker played by some Jonas brother. Yeah, I should stop there. "
this isnt a massive step up/down from toby mguire dude. srsly.
" They go either do it right or completely fuck it up. Leave the comic division the way it is. Add some kick ass Marvel theme rides to DIsney land and call it a day. Don't start crossing Marvel with any of their other crap and I'm ok. "
They are totally going to add Mickey Mouse to the Xmen
" They go either do it right or completely fuck it up. Leave the comic division the way it is. Add some kick ass Marvel theme rides to DIsney land and call it a day. Don't start crossing Marvel with any of their other crap and I'm ok. "
They are totally going to add Mickey Mouse to the Xmen "
@Rowr: I particularly enjoyed the first two spider-man movies because of their charm and distinguishing character, but with the third, my only gripe with it was that it felt as though Tobey Maguire, evenwithin the movie itself, was flaunting about how popular he has become because of this beloved character who, I think, shouldn't have become a movie in the first place. But, now that about three movies are in production, or soon to be, seeing any actor play Peter Parker/Spider-Man would seem wrong and foolish. (Un)Fortunately, Sony owns the license to those movies and not Disney.
" @Rowr: I particularly enjoyed the first two spider-man movies because of their charm and distinguishing character, but with the third, my only gripe with it was that it felt as though Tobey Maguire, evenwithin the movie itself, was flaunting about how popular he has become because of this beloved character who, I think, shouldn't have become a movie in the first place. But, now that about three movies are in production, or soon to be, seeing any actor play Peter Parker/Spider-Man would seem wrong and foolish. (Un)Fortunately, Sony owns the license to those movies and not Disney. "
your right. Spiderman is ruined for good, its too late for recasting.
O well we still have deadpool.
O wait thats right. Xmen origins dangerously close to ruining that as well.
" No, I'm not curious in that one bit and hopefully am not exposed to that. Anyways, I was imagining a live-action Peter Parker played by some Jonas brother. Yeah, I should stop there. "
Well, Disney does have an adventure show called "Aaron Stone" about a teenager who fights some sort of evil organization. He has a costume and gadgets, too. And, furthermore, there was a "Superboy" series (not Smallville) made back in the mid 90s that ran a half-hour, and let's not forget the "Young Hercules" series, as well. So, there is precedent for teen half-hour adventures. I doubt any Spiderman series would be made do to licensing rights. Just because Disney owns Marvel doesn't mean they can make anything thing they want with the character. Years ago, the creators of Smallville wanted to bring on a young Bruce Wayne to guest star and provide a counter to Lex Luthor. But, do to the movie and all rights associated with the image of Batman, they were unable to make that happen even though the series ran on the WB which is owned by DC Comics parent company Time-Warner. Spiderman, the X-Men, the Avengers and Fantastic Four are all in film production now (pre- and/or active) so, no one is going to be making live-action TV shows starring any of the Marvel icons. A lesser hero could get the treatment, though. Anyone up for "teen" Moon Knight?
As much as some folks like to complain about how this will drastically alter Marvel (as if the going bankrupt didn't), there will probably be no real changes to the line other than maybe a new series of Disney comics published under a Marvel subsidiary.
" You know why I'm excited about this mashup? The photoshop opportunities...that everyone is missing =( "
Credit to the artist who drew this. Personally I don't think anything will change with Marvel, just profits. We shouldn't all be crying and whining about how Marvel is dead or has/will sell-out. Business is business.
" You know why I'm excited about this mashup? The photoshop opportunities...that everyone is missing =( "
Credit to the artist who drew this. Personally I don't think anything will change with Marvel, just profits. We shouldn't all be crying and whining about how Marvel is dead or has/will sell-out. Business is business. "
Yeah okay, baby. The guys who produced every Tarentino and Kevin Smith flick are going to "ruin" Marvel, as if that's possible with the shit they're shoveling out right now.
Just because Disney has bought Marvel, doesn't mean Marvel is doomed to an existence of entertaining mindless tweens. Disney recently bought Pixar but they didn't merge Pixar with Disney just because they bought it. Disney has no real say in what Pixar creates, it just profits from it. What makes this new Marvel acquisition any different ? Disney knows not to shit where it eats, if it didn't touch Pixar - it won't touch Marvel.
There's asset sharing between Disney and its subsidiaries, meaning if Pixar revolutionizes CGI in some way, everything under the Disney umbrella benefits. That's why Disney was able to make Bolt last year, and they'll be able to make Disney comics this year, and they'll probably have some quality animators working on Marvel properties that come out next year, etc etc. Its all about asset sharing and residuals.
" Just because Disney has bought Marvel, doesn't mean Marvel is doomed to an existence of entertaining mindless tweens. Disney recently bought Pixar but they didn't merge Pixar with Disney just because they bought it. Disney has no real say in what Pixar creates, it just profits from it. What makes this new Marvel acquisition any different ? Disney knows not to shit where it eats, if it didn't touch Pixar - it won't touch Marvel. "
This. At worst they might make a show similar to that teenage iron man show.
Marvel stock went up like $10 yesterday. I remember when I was like 10 years old my Grandma wanted to buy me some stock and I told her I wanted Marvel stock. The stock at the time was at like $.55 a share since they had recently gone bankrupt. My Grandma said that she didn't like superheroes and bought me Disney stock instead.
Today Marvel stock is like $48 and my Disney stock is at $25 which is about $10 dollars less per share then what I got it for. I would have owned probably about 2000 shares of Marvel at the time and today that would have been worth about $96,000.
Today, I have about $1000 in Disney stock instead.
Log in to comment