Since we haven’t picked on Disney in hours, and since we’ve heard people wondering if Disney is going to have trouble with potentially adult situations coming from Marvel, we’d just like to refresh people’s memory of the Disney character from the 90’s, Marsupalami…
Don’t ask where the rest of his tail is, either.
The Broadway musical Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark may not be as dead as previously thought.
According to a report in Variety, the rumor mill is spinning with word that the financially troubled production will resume production this week or maybe next, with at least some folks being called back to work. The production stalled earlier last month due to “cash-flow” issues. There is no official word as of yet.
They’re saying there is no connection to production on the musical picking up again and Disney acquiring Marvel, but I don’t believe that for a minute. Disney has tremendous experience working on Broadway, including Julie Taymor’s previous adaption of The Lion King for Broadway.
No word yet on if the musical will open on time… it had been set to begin previews on February 25, 2010, and officially open in March.
Every year, Beloit College puts together a list of facts regarding the mindset of the class entering college this Fall—the Class of 2013. Their list, as always, is well worth a read, but this is ComicMix, and we’re here to talk about comics, by gum.
So as we get ready to send them off to college, we wondered: what constitutes the comics status quo for them? What’s normal to these kids born in 1991 (he asks, knowing that being born in 1986 puts him in largely the same boat)? So glad you asked.
What’s yours?
(Alan Kistler and Glenn Hauman contributed to this list.)
Well, if I’m reading these stock forms correctly, Avi Arad’s stock holdings jumped about $10 million dollars yesterday with the stock bump.
And Issac Perlmutter’s stock holdings went up about $282 million, with his total holdings worth about $1,391,049,355. Put another way, when they say that Disney bought Marvel for four billion dollars, over a third of it goes to Issac. And since this is a 60% cash/40% stock deal, Issac pulls in $830 million in cash.
Yowza. That’s a lot of variant covers.
So the mouse is eating the spider. What does it all mean?
Poke around the Internets and you’ll see a lot of hysteria. Comics fans aren’t happy; they’re worried Disney will Disnify the whole thing. Movie fans are worried the Marvel flicks will have all the weight and depth of your average Disney movie. Theme park fans are concerned about Universal losing their franchise just so Ant-Man and the Wasp can fit into “It’s A Small World After All.”
Calm down. Assuming the deal gets approved by Marvel’s stockholders – which is likely – and the government – which is likely but not as certain – contracts are contracts and Disney would rather spend the next five years buying other things than paying for litigation. Paramount will still release those next five Marvel Films films, Universal will continue to maintain their current lifespan (however long that might be) with the Marvel rides and that fat lady who’s knocking the poo out of Captain America’s winged head in those commercials, and the comic books will continue to be published.
Well, most likely.
Marvel’s been trying to pattern itself after the Disney business model for at least the past four or five owners, so it’s no surprise that the House of Mouse took preemptive measures. Disney can’t mess with their theme parks right now – I mentioned the contractual obligations and, quite frankly, business ain’t what it used to be. The Disney characters and the Marvel characters are not a good theme park fit: the latter are not grandmother-friendly.
I doubt Disney will interfere with publishing very much, at least not in the short run. They have a very bad track record in the publishing fields, and the racks are littered with their cancelled product. They’re in the licensing business; that’s what they do and what they know. If the overall comic book publishing field continues to deteriorate they might do what they did with their other product and simply license it all out. It would be wonderfully ironic if Mark Waid’s Boom Studios gets the franchise, and I’ll bet you Mark feels the same way.
If there are any changes, they are likely to take the form of a reorientation of the Marvel characters towards the teen-age male market. Disney is weak in that demographic and can use some bolstering up. And bringing Marvel Comics back to the teen-ager friendly arena isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It worked for Lee and Kirby and Ditko and Thomas and Buscema; today there are more than enough really good writers and artists to address that market in a contemporary manner.
So I don’t think we’ll see Doctor Doom threatening The Little Mermaid. Don’t hold your breath for that Sinister Seven Dwarves movie. The Hulk probably will not stomp Goofy. Stan Lee will not be frozen and placed on the shelf next to Walt Disney and Jim Henson. All that’s a pity. Disney has no sense of humor. Just ask the Air Pirates.
The fact is, big business has never, ever been able to understand the American comic book industry. We defy the Harvard MBA mentality, and I’m proud of that. If DIsney does what Disney does best and the publishing business doesn’t implode, nobody will notice a thing. The Avengers 3 will make more money than publishing could lose.
Unless Dean Jones is cast as Nick Fury.
A 33 year veteran of the comic book industry, Mike Gold is ComicMix’s editor-in-chief. Portions of this blather appeared in today’s The Point podcast.
Everybody’s talking about Disney buying Marvel, but what does it really mean? Beyond all the speculation is there a real story yet? Plus we continue our visit backstage at WAREHOUSE 13. Meet the guy behind that oh so familiar face – noted character actor Saul Rubinek who is at the center of the new SyFy series. And it was a frightening box office tally this weekend, but it’s a good week in the comic store with some real treats waiting for you!
PRESS THE BUTTONto Get The Point!
And be sure to stay on The Point via 
, RSS, MyPodcast.Com or Podbean!
Follow us now on 
and 
!
Don’t forget that you can now enjoy THE POINT 24/7. Updates on all parts of pop culture, special programming by some of your favorite personalities and the biggest variety of contemporary music on the net.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVEFOR FREE or go to GetThePointRadio for more including a connection for mobile phones including iPhone & Blackberrys
One minute after today’s Wall Street opening, Marvel Entertainment’s stocks jumped 25%, to over $48 a share.
Disney will be allowing Marvel to continue to operate under its own name.
Disney Entertainment, owner of damn near everything in the entertainment world, is planning on purchasing Marvel Entertainment. The purchase price is purportedly $4,000,000,000. That’s four billion, for the zero challenged.
No word on what will happen to the current crew of Marvel employees, but as of this writing the House of Idea is not expected to move to the west coast.
More as this story develops.
One of the things that I love about Pixar is that they
remember what a lot of filmmakers – and sadly, particularly those working in
the CG medium – have forgotten:
A film needs a story.
So many films today focus on technological dazzle, shock value, making pretty
pictures, or cleverness. None of these are bad things; any and all of them can
add enjoyment, but for me a good story is more important than anything else. I’ll
enjoy the spectacle, the beauty, the wit, but what stays with me is the story.
If story is absent, everything else fades quickly. Pixar’s films have had
consistently strong storytelling, letting the characters carry the viewer along
on their adventures, and this summer’s offering, [[[Up]]], is no exception.
Up doesn’t come near to matching the sheer dazzling brilliance of last
summer’s [[[Wall-E]]], but it is a sweet and charming movie in its own right,
and like Wall-E, it remembered to have a story.
Not only that, but Up takes a startling number of storytelling risks,
particularly for a movie aimed at children.
First there was the absolutely heartbreaking montage of Carl
and Ellie trying to save for their dream trip, and having their dream
constantly derailed by crisis after crisis, only to have Ellie fall ill and die
just as the trip was finally in their reach. This montage is also a rare
instance of a wedding being the beginning of a couple’s story rather than the
“happily ever after.” Seeing Carl lose the legal battle to stay in his home was
also painful.
I have to laugh when I watch old [[[Tom and Jerry]]] cartoons. First, of course, because they’re funny. The original series of 114 theatrical cartoons by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s Hollywood cartoon studio were produced between 1940 and 1957, seven of them winning the Academy Award for Best Short Subject (Cartoons)…a tie for most awards, one should note for the animation snobs out there, with Walt Disney’s [[[Silly Symphonies]]] animated series. A series of perfectly dreadful and too-often released cartoons followed, produced in Eastern Europe (cheap labor, I would imagine, and worth what they paid for it), produced by Gene Deitch at Rembrandt Films in 1960 before, thank the animation heavens, there came Chuck Jones in 1963.
Which brings us to Tom and Jerry: The Chuck Jones Collection
The second reason I find to laugh at these, or any classic animated shorts is because of how the reality of these characters clashes with the perception that has grown up around them since the 1950s when they began appearing as Saturday morning children’s programming. These cartoons were not created, originally, as children’s fare. They were, instead, part of a program of entertainment shown to adult movie audiences in a day and age when theaters routinely ran double features and the bill changed twice a week. Before, between and after the movies, however, came a variety of subjects: a newsreel, a short feature (usually humorous), a cartoon, and coming attractions, at the minimum. Look at a World War II era Bugs Bunny cartoon; that was not kid’s stuff!
Because as I watch these cartoons—and they are a lot of fun, have no doubt of that—I’m struck at how mercilessly violent they are. Heavy objects routinely fall and crush their victims (Tom), explosives blow in hand or in the victim’s (Tom’s) mouth, an axe used to chop open a mouse hole chops a victim’s (Tom’s) tail like a chef chops a carrot. The network censors chopped a lot of that material out of the cartoons when they went to TV in the 1960s, and, by the 1980s, the original essence of these little seven minute masterpieces was corrupted beyond redemption, to the point that as the writer of the Tom and Jerry syndicated newspaper strip for Editor’s Syndicate around 1990, I was told Tom could chase Jerry, but if he caught him, he could do him no harm. No hitting, no smashing, no slamming, certainly no chopping of tails. These guys were pals they just chased one another for fun.
Bugs Bunny has suffered a similar fate in the modern world: A friend working on a Bugs Bunny promotional comic book project was told by WB to change a gag because “Bugs would never produce a mallet out of nowhere and whack someone like that!”
But thanks to home video and DVD and the demand of the marketplace for original and uncut material, the truth is coming out. Tom and Jerry is funny and it’s funny because it’s violent. Take away the psychedelic randomness and well-constructed but mean-spirited violence of a situation like Tom and Jerry or the Road Runner and Wiley E. Coyote and all you’re left with is the existential angst of the eternal loser pursuing that well-known definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again in expectation of a different result.
Columns / Glenn Hauman / News
Stephen Colbert, we have your writer for “The Chronicles of Amber”!
January 20, 2023
The Law Is A Ass #460: Those “For Life” Sentences Are Nonsense
February 24, 2022
