The Shrine

"LOS ANGELES - The Walt Disney Co. says it is acquiring Marvel Entertainment Inc. for $4 billion in cash and stock, bringing characters like Iron Man and Spider-Man into the Disney family.

Under the deal, Disney will acquire ownership of 5,000 Marvel characters.

Disney said Monday that Marvel shareholders will receive $30 per share in cash plus 0.745 Disney shares for every Marvel share they own.

It said the boards of Disney and Marvel have both approved the transaction, but it requires an antitrust review and the approval of Marvel shareholders."

source

Kingdom Hearts. Think about it.

Coming soon: Capcom vs. Marvel vs. Disney. I can't wait for Snow White vs. Onslaught.

Kupek wrote:Kingdom Hearts. Think about it.

That is the first thing I thought actually.

Wolverine beating the shit out of a crying Tidus while Minnie, Jubilee, Mary-Jane, Ariel, And Jazmine laugh.

Tupac Seekur wrote:Wolverine beating the shit out of a crying Tidus while Minnie, Jubilee, Mary-Jane, Ariel, And Jazmine laugh.

You sick monkey!

Replay wrote:

Tupac Seekur wrote:Wolverine beating the shit out of a crying Tidus while Minnie, Jubilee, Mary-Jane, Ariel, And Jazmine laugh.

You sick monkey!

Hey, at least I didn't say anything about spiderman shooting his web all over Rikku.

Aaaaand this has run its course.

CNN has an interesting article about five movie hopefuls from lesser known characters. The best out of the five for a movie is probably Iron Fist. He was an extremely lame minor character but once they gave him his own series he became interesting. If they even came close to following the story from that series it would be worth watching.

Iron Fist was NOT lame. I call you take that back with all alacrity. The Power Man/Iron Fist team-ups were like the best of 70's bi-racial white-guy-and-black-guy-team-up-together-to-kick-some-ass blaxploitation.

Hah, well, okay, maybe that was not the word to use. I nevertheless found him uninteresting until the recent books.

Tupac Seekur wrote:Wolverine beating the shit out of a crying Tidus while Minnie, Jubilee, Mary-Jane, Ariel, And Jazmine laugh.

Man. What's with the Tidus hate? I always seem to love the characters that are reviled as hopeless wusses by the videogame community at large - Tidus makes two with Raiden, so far.

Considering how the game ends, I'm surprised Tidus gets so much hate, since the haters get their wish fulfilled IN THE GAME.

Of course, since he actually gets a respectable death...*shrug*

Replay wrote:Man. What's with the Tidus hate? I always seem to love the characters that are reviled as hopeless wusses by the videogame community at large - Tidus makes two with Raiden, so far.

FFX is not exactly a well-loved game

Eric wrote:

Tupac Seekur wrote:Wolverine beating the shit out of a crying Tidus while Minnie, Jubilee, Mary-Jane, Ariel, And Jazmine laugh.

What the fuck???! That made me laugh hard =)

I'll have to catch up with that site.

Replay wrote:Man. What's with the Tidus hate? I always seem to love the characters that are reviled as hopeless wusses by the videogame community at large - Tidus makes two with Raiden, so far.

I actually liked Tidus, it's just that he is exactly the sort of guy who seems to be asking for it, and you KNOW it will be funny =P

Remember how funny it was when that British guy jumped out and punched Justin Timberlake in the face? Kind of like that. Or kind of like how you might deeply respect the Pope, but you'll always want to see his reaction if you slap him in the face.

Only bad things can come out of this. Let's not forgot that Disney has not produced anything worthy of attention in the last 25 years. (Pixar doesn't count; it's not Disney.)

Really? because a lot of Disney stuff in the past 25 years has been getting A TON of attention. The recent Pirates trilogy alone is one of the biggest selling of all time, Pirates 2 hitting 1.06 billion dollars, and 3 hitting 960 million at the box office; 2 and 3 years ago.

Beauty and the Beast 17 years ago was the first animated film to have a best picture Oscar nomination. Then there was also Lion King and Alladin which were very popular later on.

Also Pixar was bought by Disney in 2006; they are a part of Disney now, and beforehand did a lot of Disney movies when Steve Jobs owned them for the 20 years beforehand.

I agree with Seek. Disney has done GREAT stuff over the last 25 years. Sine, that hole in your ass needs some medical attention, it's not supposed to be quite so verbal.

Aside from enabling crossover projects, I doubt there will be any difference with Disney owning Marvel. Disney also owns Miramax which it purchased in 1993, after which Clerks, Pulp Fiction, Gangs of New York, Kill Bill, No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood all came out. Touchstone is an alternate Disney studio which has put out Good Morning, Vietnam, Dead Poets Society, What About Bob?, Starship Troopers, Summer of Sam, High Fidelity, The Royal Tenanbaums and 25th Hour.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_movies

Start at 2003's first Pirates movie (the sequels sucked IMO) and tell me which ones have been good that havent been Pixar... MAYBE National Treasure and thats about all i see.

Like buying Pixar, Disney knows it sucks lately and resorts to buying content (Marvel) as opposed to what it used to do... create. I agree with Sine.

I'll just note: if you're agreeing with Sine, then you should be starting at September 1st 1984, not 2003.

Purchasing new studios and hiring new employees is a natural process for all successful businesses that have been around for a while. It is simply called "growth".

As for the value of attention for Pirates 2 and 3, I would support that the 2 billion+ in ticket sales is a little more weighty an argument for attention value than a couple of guy's opinions on an internet gaming forum. Just what I think though. =P

For fuck's sake, not the "Popularity is the same as quality" argument. Everyone here aside from Seeker doesn't agree with it, so let's just skip having that discussion for the fourteenth time.

Anyway, the only movies released as a Disney movie that I've thought were good in the past decade were the first Pirates, all Pixar movies and the first Narnia. (I was entertained by the other two Pirates, but I can't call them "good." And I haven't seen the second Narnia movie yet.)

Just to be clear, my list was to point out that many movies released by Disney subsidiaries are good movies with mature themes. You can't see, for example, Disney's hand in Kill Bill. I see no reason why we'd start to see Disney's hand in Marvel properties.

That is not my argument at all. Nowhere do I state quantity = quality. My arguement is about what people feel is worth their attention. I am stating factual information to back my claim that there actually has been Disney movies in the past 25 years worth peoples attention.

If someone pays the money at the box office to watch a movie, it is likely because they feel the movie is worth their attention. 2 alltime top 10 movies selling 2 billion plus in tickets indicates a LOT of people felt it was worth their attention.

And it should be clear that everyone else here is evaluating the quality according to their own tastes. That X number of people spent money to watch something has no relevance to my own assessment of it.

Although I hadn't noticed Sine originally said the past 25 years - I think Disney's animated movies from the '90s are the best films they've made. Those are what I think of when I think "Disney." But Flip's point of the past decade I agree with. My own point was none of this will have any impact on Marvel.

I also missed that Sine said the last 25 years... but anyways, a good point also being made is that, like Pixar has not lost any quality, i assume the Marvel movies wont be ruined by being apart of Disney. I guess its true that Disney doesnt crap on any acquisitions assets, unlike some game companies (somebody help with an example).

Activision and Guitar Hero? The games aren't necessarily poor quality, but they are super saturating the market to the point where I won't buy any more!

Well, my point was for movies from studios that are subsidiaries of Disney. When Disney actually puts their name on the film - when the Disney logo appears before the movie starts - things change.

Your point about Pixar is off, because Ratatouille almost didn't happen. Disney wasn't interested in being involved with it because there was no obvious way to market it - Disney doesn't do a movie unless they know how to market it. Pixar went ahead anyway, figuring (probably correctly) that someone would want to distribute it. Then Disney bought Pixar, and had to figure out how to market it anyway. (Turns out this is easier when the film is superb.)

Off topic:

Speaking of rats; I just found out recently that pet rats are illegal in Alberta. I knew that province was filled with a bunch of backwards hick fucks with oil money, but I didn't realize how entrenched in the 18th century these ignorant fucks actually were =P

If I may continue my rant on Alberta, those self centered assholes cause more pollution per capita than any other province or state in North America, and are solely responsible for the nation missing our emission cutting commitments... Meanwhile places like the UK and Germany have cut theirs considerably.

If someone here is from Alberta, I am not talking about you, I am talking about the other assholes you hate in your province =P

Guys...for 25 years or so BEFORE they did the Little Mermaid, Disney had an incredibly uninspiring run. That picture revitalized the animation department, which then knocked Aladdin, the Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast out of the park. Around that era they purchased Miramax - they'd had Touchstone for awhile which was not a bad studio, they used it to brand more "adult" fare than the Disney brand. And of course they acquired Pixar, which has loaded the bases for them over and over in the last 25 years. Having two parents that worked in the movie industry the entire time I was growing up until just a few years ago, I can almost tell you that if you took 1964-1989 and contrasted that to 1989-2004 (the post-Mermaid era), nearly everyone in the industry will tell you Disney was near moribund in the first period and in the second has grown to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, entertainment conglomerate in the business. I do not see 2004-2009 as a huge departure from 1989-2004, either. I agree with Seek, you guys can bitch about how they suck all you want, it's mostly just hot air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disne ... d_Classics

This is the flagship line that Disney puts all their attempts at "animated classics" in - Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Lilo and Stitch etc. There may be something to the idea that they, themselves, haven't made anything really clever since 2002, but I urge you guys to strongly look at the period after Sleeping Beauty, up to the Little Mermaid, and tell me they aren't doing better now than they were in 1975.

I think you're arguing against a stance no one took.

God, was it only 12 years since the Lion King? Okay, maybe I meant the last 10 years, after Lion King.

And the fact that they acquired all of these properties doesn't really make them "Disney", if they aren't going to put their logo on it. Pixar will still be Pixar. I guess that also means that Marvel will still be Marvel, but I can't help but think that Disney is going to shit all over anything that is remotely adult.

Then again, Marvel did that to themselves ten years ago. That's why Image, Dark Horse, and Vertigo were formed. They were pissed off at the kiddie image that Marvel was catering to. Marvel lost shitloads of people to the new companies, and I could tell by just looking at the quality of the artwork and writing going downhill.

Chris, did Marvel really recover from that? I find that most of what I read in trades are Vertigo (Preacher, Y, 100 Bullets, Fables, etc.), and I don't really hear much about new characters and series in Marvel. (More like they are just milking their existing properties.)

SineSwiper wrote:God, was it only 12 years since the Lion King? Okay, maybe I meant the last 10 years, after Lion King.

And the fact that they acquired all of these properties doesn't really make them "Disney", if they aren't going to put their logo on it. Pixar will still be Pixar. I guess that also means that Marvel will still be Marvel, but I can't help but think that Disney is going to shit all over anything that is remotely adult.

Then again, Marvel did that to themselves ten years ago. That's why Image, Dark Horse, and Vertigo were formed. They were pissed off at the kiddie image that Marvel was catering to. Marvel lost shitloads of people to the new companies, and I could tell by just looking at the quality of the artwork and writing going downhill.

Chris, did Marvel really recover from that? I find that most of what I read in trades are Vertigo (Preacher, Y, 100 Bullets, Fables, etc.), and I don't really hear much about new characters and series in Marvel. (More like they are just milking their existing properties.)

wow. what's it like to talk out your ass? The Image Studios started in the 90's because the biggest artists in the business wanted to keep the money and royalties from everything to themselves Rather than collecting a paycheck they wanted to do it themselves as if it worked they would be rolling in money.....and it did.....and Image killed comics because it was image that realy kick started the speculator book that lead to the market crash. Vertigo was a DC imprint long before Image was even a twinkle in them guy's eye. It came before the boom..

Marvel right now is dominating the market. and have forever.

I find it helps to think of Marvel as a pocket universe that Galactus - i.e., the Disney entertainment mega-empire - is going to devour.

Kupek wrote:Aside from enabling crossover projects, I doubt there will be any difference with Disney owning Marvel. Disney also owns Miramax which it purchased in 1993, after which Clerks, Pulp Fiction, Gangs of New York, Kill Bill, No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood all came out. Touchstone is an alternate Disney studio which has put out Good Morning, Vietnam, Dead Poets Society, What About Bob?, Starship Troopers, Summer of Sam, High Fidelity, The Royal Tenanbaums and 25th Hour.

That and Disney may become the big publisher of Marvel stuff for any new or expired option properties. And I agree, they're far more hands-off than people think they are. We should hardly see any difference and, if anything, Disney's resources and talent may help Marvel's properties. Imagine Pixar's animators doing a Marvel film?

Zeus wrote:

Kupek wrote:Aside from enabling crossover projects, I doubt there will be any difference with Disney owning Marvel. Disney also owns Miramax which it purchased in 1993, after which Clerks, Pulp Fiction, Gangs of New York, Kill Bill, No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood all came out. Touchstone is an alternate Disney studio which has put out Good Morning, Vietnam, Dead Poets Society, What About Bob?, Starship Troopers, Summer of Sam, High Fidelity, The Royal Tenanbaums and 25th Hour.

That and Disney may become the big publisher of Marvel stuff for any new or expired option properties. And I agree, they're far more hands-off than people think they are. We should hardly see any difference and, if anything, Disney's resources and talent may help Marvel's properties. Imagine Pixar's animators doing a Marvel film?

want another interesting thing. Marvel this year had just bought back the animation and television rights for every single one of their properties. Which means marvel has it all. so while you couldn't see a Spider Man movie from marvel you can see a spidey TV show or cartoon

Chris wrote:wow. what's it like to talk out your ass? The Image Studios started in the 90's because the biggest artists in the business wanted to keep the money and royalties from everything to themselves Rather than collecting a paycheck they wanted to do it themselves as if it worked they would be rolling in money.....and it did.....and Image killed comics because it was image that realy kick started the speculator book that lead to the market crash. Vertigo was a DC imprint long before Image was even a twinkle in them guy's eye. It came before the boom..

Marvel right now is dominating the market. and have forever.

Oh, come on. Marvel would have never produced something like Spawn. They couldn't even print red blood. I know that Image was mainly about royalties, but adult themes and no limits were important secondary goals.

Yes, Vertigo is a part of DC, but all of that was formed at around the same time. Image in 1992, Vertigo in 1993 (after Image). Dark Horse was 1986, but they really didn't get popular until the early 90s.

Also, I didn't mean "did Marvel recover" in terms of profitability. Sure, Marvel is making shitloads of money, but so is Disney... because of Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers and other no talent bullshit. Has there really been any good series from Marvel that makes you think "everybody should read this"? Again, Vertigo seems to be the main source of... shit, EVERY good series I've read in the last few years.

Anyone ever think that maybe Disney just wants to revitalize it's comic book tie-ins again? Or did we all forget about Scrooge McDuck?

One question, except for one almost sidenote mention, why is nobody talking about the full fleged AWESOME that was Lilo and Stitch? That is probally my fave recent disney movie. I cracked up so many times when I was watching that.

M'k'n'zy wrote:One question, except for one almost sidenote mention, why is nobody talking about the full fleged AWESOME that was Lilo and Stitch? That is probally my fave recent disney movie. I cracked up so many times when I was watching that.

Lilo and Stitch sucked. It was too much serious with not enough funny. The last...oh...twenty minutes were an awesome extravaganza of slapstick though.

I liked Lilo & Stitch, in fact.

RentCavalier wrote:

M'k'n'zy wrote:One question, except for one almost sidenote mention, why is nobody talking about the full fleged AWESOME that was Lilo and Stitch? That is probally my fave recent disney movie. I cracked up so many times when I was watching that.

Lilo and Stitch sucked. It was too much serious with not enough funny. The last...oh...twenty minutes were an awesome extravaganza of slapstick though.

I have to disagree with you, I found pretty much the whole movie hillarious. I mean yeah it had a more serious storyline than what you see in most other Disney movies, but you could never take your eyes off Stitch. Once things started getting too serious he almost ALWAYS did something in the background that was funny ^_^

that was alright

And Lilo and Stitch was pretty damned popular for Disney. You saw 2 sequels, another sort-of sequel/game, a TV show, multiple games, and an extention of the brand for a long time.

Chris wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyYb_r4cZHE

Okay, first thing. That's the most satisfyingly amusing Youtube link I've seen here since I've started posting here again.

But the main point - Sine while I do agree with you mostly, and the standards have been atrocious lately, did you read any Spider-Man during the Civil War in Marvel? While it was short and the fallout of what happened to him lasted so minor-ly, it was very interesting and entertaining.

Christ, I was going to provide more examples but fuck, there may not be any.

Edit: Iron Man is a prick.

Face it! Vertigo rules, and Marvel drools.