The Hoard Potato wonders if "Reality Check" is the right term here.

[athelind]

The news in my last post has a lot of people worried about Marvel getting "Disneyfied". Funny, that hadn't really occurred to me.

I'd hate to see the intelligent, thoughtful storytelling of recent years compromised by a company who didn't respect the years of development and history of these characters. I'm not sure the store where I work could survive without merchandise aimed at the mature, sophisticated sensibilities of the modern comics audience.

I know, I know, when people hear "Disney", they still automatically think of the "wholesome" Mouse Factory of fifty years ago, as if the company had no idea how to tell exciting, entertaining action-adventure tales. But, seriously, folks: the modern Disney megalopoly has its tentacles in a lot more than happy, sappy, saccharine kiddie stuff. When I hear "Disney", I don't hear "Cartoon Company" anymore. I hear "Entertainment Powerhouse".

When I mentioned the effect this might have on the Marvel Studios movie series, it was almost entirely wondering if that side of the business would see a cash infusion that would re-accelerate the filming schedule (which has been pushed back a couple of times from the original plan of two big-name superhero pictures a year for three or four years).

Edit: cpxbrex pointed out that Marvel owes its recent barrage of movies to "complex financing", and that this may have something to do with the acquisition deal.

A lot of folks, on the other claw, are worried about them somehow compromising the integrity of the properties.

Personally? I think that the megacorp that gave us movies like No Country for Old Men and Miracle at St. Anna won't bat an eye at Tony Stark's antics.

---

Edit: Since none of the other comics blogs I read have mentioned this at all, I've combined the last two posts into a single post on my comics blog, Kirby Dots & Ditko Ribbons. Scooped! You are all so totally scooped! Like Raisin Bran, you're scooped!

---

Comments

[toob.livejournal.com]

Wyrm, I think the concerns are related to the Mouse's well-earned reputation for providing overly rigid control over their products and stifling creativity. It may not seem like a bad thing on the surface, but if Disney runs Marvel like it runs some of its other holdings, it could well find itself in the sort of environment in which Zombie Spiderman could not happen. You may hear "Entertainment Powerhouse," but that powerhouse nonetheless has a reputation, even among its more adventurous holdings like Miramax, for being overly controlling and censorious.

It's not the concept of the wholesome Disney that concerns some people, I suspect, as much as the concept of the tyrannical and litigious Disney.

[araquan.livejournal.com]

Don't forget Pulp Fiction. Teeeeeechnically that's a Disney film, the company having acquired Miramax the year before its release.

Tarantino continued to work with Miramax while the Weinsteins were there, up to and including Kill Bill vols. 1 and 2.

Indeed, Tony Stark is tame by comparison.

[scarfman]

I didn't think to be concerned about "disneyfication" till I saw worries on my flist. Not particularly then either, but you remind me of the second of three sketches on my page here.