It wouldn't be very smart for Disney to shutter Marvel Comics if they're still profitable.

Marvel does pretty well of shuttering itself via Isaac Perlmutter. Look at the way the Fantastic Four has been obliterated from Marvel history and merchandise (because Perlmutter is upset with Fox).


Until it happens exactly how Rich laid it out. Disney saying they would not take control of the Marvel characters after the buyout is exactly what happened when Marvel Studios shuffled over to Disney.

Well ownership is one thing and doing what Fox and Sony did to their Marvel properties is something else.

I too was worried when they took over Marvel but they haven't messed with the characters and with forcing Feige to do things like I thought they might.

His reporting is solely from the comics side so of course it's going to make the studio side look bad, there's an internal beef going on.

But maybe you haven't paid attention...TMZ may be sleazy, but they get shit right. Their record for accuracy is pretty damn good.

Well as it stands now they're two entities under the Disney brand and I don't see a problem with keeping them separate personally. The Marvel Studios division is doing their thing and continues to have success while doing quality films that are fairly respectful of their source material and the comics side of things seems to be about the same as it ever was before the buyout. I really doubt that Disney will ever just choose to keep the film rights only while shuttering the comics. Obviously the comics don't make as much as the films but there's probably not much of a reason for them to stop producing them either. As long as there's someone in place after Feig eventually steps down that will hopefully have the same kind of vision on how to keep things going I think the films will be fine. Also as some have mentioned I'm not exactly certain that I'd really be wild about more input from the comics division seeing as for every decent idea they have they do a lot more things that are questionable.

That's the thing though. We have no idea what a Marvel Studios film looks like without any involvement from Marvel Comics. Dr. Strange will be the first one since the split.

Even so though. They've made enough of these films to know by now what does and doesn't work and Feig has been on board as producer since the first MCU film. I highly doubt that there's suddenly going to be a drastic shift.

I don't think much will change either, at least in the short term, but the whole point of Marvel producing their own films was so that they could maintain control. They don't have that control anymore. Not only that, but the (in effect) outside studio who does, more or less controls the IP as well. That's kind of a big deal and opens the door to a lot of possibilities that simply weren't even conceivable before.

As long as the films rake in the cash, I'd think Disney will have as minimal input on the films. Marvel just has the advantage now of having Disney to help on marketing/merchandising the films & the extra cash reserve if they need it.

People are giving Disney a huge benefit of the doubt they don't frankly deserve. Corporations don't buy movie studios to let them do anything they want and spend billions. Pixar's direction changed after Disney bought them and took control, Marvel will be no different. It doesn't mean the end of successful Marvel movies, but it will never be the same again.

Disney has owned Marvel Studios for how long? How much of their influence have you seen thus far? The only difference now is that the comic division is now a separate entity.

I dunno. Things take time to maneuver. Disney bought Pixar in 2006 and Cars 2 was 2011. Maybe the Marvel fallout won't really hit for a few more years, if it does at all.

You do what makes money, and giving fans what they want makes you money. I'm not sure why people are so doom and gloom about this shit. I am glad the whole drunk Tony bit was overruled, that just sounds like it'd of bogged down an already shitty movie. The write up in the OP just makes it sound like Disney is dealing with a bunch of children.

At least with Rebel One I get that some people really want an R rated Star Wars. Here though it literally makes no sense.

It isn't as though Pixar is a bad studio now. Yeah there's been some Disney influence that's evident but overall they still make quality films. Maybe the same happens to Marvel and maybe it doesn't. Marvel and Pixar are pretty different things though and I think Pixar was more prone to Disney interference personally.

Hell even the Rogue One thing I can see where Disney is coming from. They want to protect the brand they paid massively for and obviously don't want it to be too dark and gritty where families are less likely to go see the films. The filmmakers need to find a better balance but at the same time I find it odd that the film got as far as it did without Disney realizing it was too dark.

i'd argue Pixar took a huge dip in quality after the pushing the envelope with Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Up. Three offbeat but extremely charming movies. This was followed by Toy Story 3 (which was wonderful but still "safe"), Cars 2 (which was garbage), Brave (which I enjoy but seems to be widely derided), and Monsters University (ecch). They had a massive artistic and commercial rebound with Inside Out, which was quickly followed by their first relative "flop" with the Dinosaur Kid Movie.

And now we have another sequel this summer. I'm not saying the whole thing was mandated by Disney, but something reeks in the state of Denmark, and it ain't the cheese...

As far as Marvel is concerned, I wouldn't agree that they'd be less prone to Disney interference, now that they've cut all ties with the comics/creative committee side and report directly to Disney itself. How this plays out is yet to be seen, but if we judge by past Disney acquisitions? Yeesh.

And then there's "protecting the brand", which in essence is saying "stick to the formula". That rarely works out for the best. I'd love to see a Star Wars movie that spreads its wings. A LOT. Doesn't have to be radically different, but just a fresh angle to new material. Even Civil War, as much as I enjoyed it -- and I did -- was starting to feel a little stale at times.

The drunken Tony stuff was taken out at the behest of MARVEL. The same Marvel who no longer has any say in the creative direction of the movies.

I feel like if Disney was pushing the sequels, we would probably be getting them quicker. 13 years is a long time to wait for a sequel to a kids movie.

Ah well it was the right move regardless.

As for the Pixar stuff, I was never a huge fan of the company's output (aside from Ratatouille and The Incredibles), so I'm not ready to pin their decline in quality on anything in specific. They followed a pretty generic template for Nemo, Up, Toy Story, Wall-E, and Monsters Inc, maybe they need to just get back to doing that.

Between 2010 through 2017, we've got five Pixar sequels... including two of them to what is arguably their worst franchise.

Between 1995 and 2010, we'd had only one. One.

To be fair, Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 (weirdly, that franchise appears to be Lasseter's baby) were going to happen regardless of Disney. Monsters University and Finding Dory were on the docket from Eisner era "Sequel everything! Jafar needs more glasses!"

Out of the first two movies after Toy Story half were sequels. Half!

Which Eisner was going to do, with or without Pixar. He made that perfectly clear. He announced Toy Story 3 without even bothering to call Lasseter and Company.

And once Eisner is out and Disney buys Pixar outright? They do them anyhow! Hmm...

That's a fair assumption, still doesn't explain why something as conceptually potent as Monsters U turned out so bad.

FWIW I thought it was OK. Certainly not horrible, but almost entirely unnecessary. It wasn't an out-and-out disaster like Cars 2, but still... heavily meh.