web stats

CSBG Archive

The Disneyfication of Marvel?

Disney is buying Marvel for $4 billion in cash and stock.

Thoughts?

107 Comments

• Say goodbye to Convention sketches? (Since Disney has been known to be VERY strict with unlicensed drawings of their characters compared to how other character owned companies react)

• Will Marvel become a similar “cog” within a huge corporation the way DC has been within Warner Brothers?

I’m hoping having that Disney money and access to offering Disney benefits packages will help Marvel sign a bunch of great exclusives and get back a lot of talent from DC. So many good writers were lured to DC for exclusives and ended up going from doing great work to utter hackery under Didio’s editorial mandates. It seems to me that unless you are Morrison or Johns and are allowed to work with some level of autonomy or outside the mainstream continuity, your work will suffer when forced to write under Didio’s editorial direction.

What is this going to mean for it’s content? Disney has been known to make sure their content stays watered down and stays family friendly. Wolverine was already watered down to the point where it was just too funny to watch. Now with disney behind the wheels how bad can it get??

Could be good, could be bad. Just have to wait and see.

Let the panicing commence in 5… 4… 3… 2….

R.I.P. Marvel – you will be misses.

With its own comic book publisher, will Disney continue licensing out its properties to others?

And, will Marvel’s books now begin with “Walt Disney Presents?” ;-)

I’m almost expecting Spider-man to wear mickey mouse ears.
I do wonder if this will affect creators original characters an royalties in any way.

Warners doesn’t really touch anything DC does, so the same could go for Marvel.
Unless you count the Wachowskis stealing the Invisibles, and Joel Silver for lying on Alan moore’s behalf.

Time for me to dust off my script for an animated buddy comedy featuring M.O.D.O.K. and a cute talking squirrel.

Otherwise; M.O.D.O.K. should be the Jonas Brothers new drummer.

Very scary as a comic/Marvel fan. Disney is not really known for a hands off approach to their subsidiaries and they are one of the most ruthless competitors in any business. The days of comics having a few months of under 30,000 sales because they are critically received are probably over.I guess the kids comics now have added cast members.

I can only see this as stifling of creator rights and quality. I don’t expect them to do much experimentally with their titles, although let’s hope they keep the Marvel cartoon line going.

Dale, that would never work. M.O.D.O.K. hates squirrels, ever since Squirrel Girl handed him his arse. Make it a mongoose and I think you’ve got a winner there.

Roquefort Raider

August 31, 2009 at 8:14 am

Howard the Duck can now lose the trousers.

Why would Disney’s purchase necessarily mean anything for the level of maturity (or lack of such) in Marvel’s books? Disney has long had arms that produce mature fare. Touchstone Pictures comes immediately to mind.

Good-bye, Northstar. Good-bye, Wiccan & Hulkling. So long, Shatterstar & Rictor. Caroline from Runaways, just make sure your Skrull beau stays in boy-form, and you’ll be fine.

I wonder what this will do to Universal Studios themepark in Orlando, the competitor to Disney World.

Many of their rides are Marvel Comics themed.

Damn, wish I had bought that Marvel stock.

Roquefort Raider

August 31, 2009 at 8:26 am

Will Marvel start publishing Disney-themed comics? If it helps getting younger kids reading more comics, that would be quite a boon.

If Disney has any sense they will allow Marvel to be run in pretty much the same way it has been for the last 5-8 years.

After all, the only reason Disney have any claim in the last 20 years to still be the font of creativity that Uncle Walt built it up to be was that they left Pixar pretty much alone to pursue their own vision of an all-ages film (alternatively, it could be said that the deal meant that that they ultimately they weren’t allowed to meddle too much).

A sensible approach would be leave Marvel Comics do the comics thing (which is what they are good at) and just leech off all the merchandising deals and media rights through the Disney organisation (which is what they are good at).

This is my hope anyway – the probability is I will be utterly sick to death of Spidey and Wolverine within 5 years due to endless merchandising crapola and the watering down of comics content.

This is huge. Planet-wide HUGE. =0

Nobody escapes the Mouse.

The only thing I can see happening is BOOM losing its Disney properties in a year or two and Marvel developing a Kids imprint that more resembles Johnny DC with a mix of Superheroes and media characters. I hope I’m wrong though as I would hate to see a company like BOOM treated like that.

I have seen people say that Pixar could do Marvel Films. I doubt this as they seem to do original projects rather than adupations.

Does this mean Peter Parker will be wearing a purity ring? How about Wolverine getting a woodland critter sidekick?

Personally, I’m looking forward to the inevitable Mickey Mouse/Wolverine cross-over. Or they could do an Amalgam thing, e.g. merging Donald Duck with the Hulk

My expectation is they want the character catalogue for use in other media (e.g. animation) and merchandise. Comics themselves are pretty small fry and I suspect Marvel will probably be left more or less to its own devices. I’ll be interesting to see if this affects distribution through.

I’ve been more than a little turned off by Quesada’s childish comparisons with D.C, so I’m wondering what happens now that the central plank of his talking points has been taken away.

Also, and I’m sure I’m in the minority, but I found the end of Secret Invasion and Ultimatum to be perfect jumping off points and except for Bru’s Cap story, I’ve found I don’t buy Marvel anymore, and kind of don’t miss it. Here’s hoping this news ushers in a new creative force that will make me want to buy their books again.

Nothing at Marvel will change. This is just Disney adding another trophy to thier mantle.

Disney new XD channel already has a bunch of Marvel cartoons.

And in response to Richard Marcej said, that is completely true about Disney. My gym had a daycare room with Mickey Mouse painted on the wall, in one week there was a cease and desist order. As for what the Dane said, the difference is the visibility of the characters. Marvel superheroes are considered role models for children but some of their behavior isn’t role model material. (Tony Stark comes to mind) Don’t be surprised if Disney clamps down on controversial aspects of characters to protect the brand.

Like Squashua, my first thought was how this fits in with the theme park competition. Universal (Disney World’s biggest competition) has a major section of Islands of Adventure designed around Marvel characters. If they have the rights to that material in theme parks, there’s something strange about this deal. Maybe they’re planning for when the rights expire, and are going to hold off using the characters until then. I’m sure the legal stuff going on there is complicated.

My initial reaction was pure terror, and there’s a part of me that’s still there. I hate Disney. Can’t stand them. But more to the point, I’ve long felt that Marvel had the edge over DC precisely *because* they were more or less independent; they didn’t have a huge hulking multi-national corporation looking over their shoulder like Time Warner. Yes, they had ToyBiz but ToyBiz is hardly Disney or TW.

I feel like being their own company means Marvel’s creators can take more risks. It’s better in terms of creative freedom. It’s also just better karma.

However, since I’ve started ranting on messageboards, I’ve been reminded that Disney also controls Miramax, and Pixar, and I can’t say they’ve suffered terribly from Disney’s influence. Rich Johnston is convinced that at least at the beginning Isaac Perlmutter, and no one from Disney, will still run the publishing division fully; it’s the movies and TV and toys and other merchandising that Disney are interested in. And it does seem like Disney have bigger fish to fry than making changes in Marvel’s publishing line.

There IS even a chance this could HELP Marvel, though part of me doesn’t want to admit it, if Disney decides to use its distrbution and marketing infrastructure to support its latest publishing line.

I still definitely have my reservations, but it may not be the end of the world.

Todd – Do you live in Florida? I remember that story – it was either you guys, or an identical daycare with a similar story that’s been one of the primary inspirations for Disney-hate for years, lol… was just thinking about that this morning when I heard the news!

What is this going to mean for it’s content? Disney has been known to make sure their content stays watered down and stays family friendly. Wolverine was already watered down to the point where it was just too funny to watch. Now with disney behind the wheels how bad can it get??

Disney owns Miramax and they manage to get away with some edgy craziness over at that studio, so who knows? Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill Vols 1 and 2 were released by Disney for example.

I’ve been more than a little turned off by Quesada’s childish comparisons with D.C, so I’m wondering what happens now that the central plank of his talking points has been taken away.

That has not been one of his major talking points since the Jemas days. Even if he still does mention it, which I haven’t seen him do lately, it’s not a major talking point. I haven’t heard him make the “AOL Comics” criticism in years.

“I have seen people say that Pixar could do Marvel Films. I doubt this as they seem to do original projects rather than adupations.”

During the conference call, it was mentioned that Marvel people have already met with John Lasseter, and that the meeting went so well and both sides got so excited they had to be told to calm down because the deal wasn’t official yet. Pixar WILL be doing Marvel-based films.

I, too, thought of the theme park stuff first.

Maybe I’m naive, but I just figure this will mirror the WB/DC relationship. More multimedia/licensing projects but the comics themselves won’t change much.

“Good-bye, Northstar. Good-bye, Wiccan & Hulkling. So long, Shatterstar & Rictor. Caroline from Runaways, just make sure your Skrull beau stays in boy-form, and you’ll be fine.”

…it’s not like Disney has “Gay Days” at its theme parks or anything, right?

Yeesh.

Good-bye, Northstar. Good-bye, Wiccan & Hulkling. So long, Shatterstar & Rictor. Caroline from Runaways, just make sure your Skrull beau stays in boy-form, and you’ll be fine.

Stop being so dramatic and reactionary, Disney’s Miramax studio has had plenty of movies with gay characters, themes, and scenes, like Chasing Amy and Pulp Fiction for example. There’s no guarantee they’ll automatically excise all gayness from their books. It may happen, it may not.

Also, too many people act like if violence is curtailed and work is made more family friendly, it’s somehow synonymous with reduced creativity and worse product. That’s not necessarily true. Incredibles was family-friendly and was incredibly brilliant and creative. Identity Crisis and Jeph Loeb’s Ultimates and Ultimatum had rape, attempted rape, gratuitous death, cannibalism, biting off of heads, and incest. I defy anyone to tell me that Incredibles suffers in comparison to the latter works due to being constrained by family friendly subject matter. In fact, I think knowing that you can rely on violence and mature themes in a work actually can lead to MORE hackery because it encourages laziness. Having to create entertaining work in a family friendly film is more challenging and forces you to be more creative in your craft because you can’t just rely on cheap shock value or sex or violence.

Tom Fitzpatrick

August 31, 2009 at 9:37 am

Anybody remember when DC bought Wildstorm which at that time made up 20% of Image?

I don’t think Disney owns Mirimax anymore. But Disney as a company has a pretty good record on gay issues, I’m pretty sure. I know some fundies who boycot the theme parks because of it.

I actually doubt this will mean too much for the comics in the short term.

*choke!* Horrible!
This is the most horrifying reminder of why Quesada is bad for business. Of course, he’ll be the first person Disney replaces.

You blow Joe!

So, I don’t usually leave comments on here, but two things came to mind–

1. I loved Crossgen and miss them dearly, and if I’m not mistaken, don’t these guys own the rights to just about every title they had?

2. I always wanted to know what Milestone comics could have become (I know most of the titles went to Vertigo, so that’s probably my answer). Heck, I’d love to see Disney launch a new imprint, or even throw some series into the Marvel Max line.

So think there’s any chance of either? Because I’m sure the answer is absolutely not, but hey, I can dream.

Disney still owns Miramax and has since 1993:

http://www.miramax.com/about-us.html

An article I read (CNN perhaps) mentioned that Disney wanted the expand the 2nd tier marvel characters so hopefully this means there will be more room for books like AoA, Exiles, Cap Britain, Iron Fist. et al.

As a fan of Marvel, I’m a little worried unless they actually are going to try and get these 2nd tier books going.

As a Diney stockholder (all 6 of my shares) this is awesome news.

I always wanted to know what Milestone comics could have become (I know most of the titles went to Vertigo, so that’s probably my answer).

I don’t believe any Milestone books were ever published under the Vertigo umbrella.

Speaking of which, did anyone see Didio’s recent interview last week where he was asked what his plans were for Milestone and he admitted they had none? So basically they make a big deal about bringing back Milestone characters and it turns out outside of the buzz-creating initial announcement, they had no actual long-term strategy in place to implement? Shocking! Seems like they’ve learned nothing from the Batwoman debacle.

My mistake, T. Someday I’ll remember something correctly.

I can’t wait for Huey, Dewey and Louie to meet Unca Howard. Talk about a world he never made.

“. Pixar WILL be doing Marvel-based films.”

I wonder if they could get the non-Marvel toy-oriented rights to the Micronauts… They’d be *ideal*.

I thought Sebastian O and Enigma were both originally planned as Milestone titles?

So does this mean Marvel can now publish comics with the Crossgen Comic Book characters?

If you’re fearing the state of Islands of Adventure, look into something like MGM Studios. Disney does own Miramax, but they dont’ have MGM any more. They re-tooled the park itself using the same stuff, just adjusting. If Marvel and Universal have the theme park contract still going in the forseeable future there may not be any changes at all.

And thinking that this deal is going to be just like DC/ WB is not naive. It’s logic. Disney is just saying “hey, we like what you’re doing, keep it up.” Cashing in on a good thing doesn’t mean completely re-doing it.

Good lord this is an awful lot of overreacting. I’m certain Disney knows that Marvel knows better than they do what fans want, so stop the dramatics. And Disney does own properties that are a little more mature than fairies and forest animals, okay? They’re doing this to EXTEND their catalog, not just lump it in and change it to more of the same thing.

Look at Pixar: part of their deal was that they remain relatively autonomous and stay in Emoryville. If DIsney were as bad as some of you believe, “Up” would not have been released as it was, without a heavily-marketable character starring in it.

Disney bought Marvel for the same reason Time Warner suffers DC: Because they’re content creators. They leave the publishing arm alone to do it’s little thing and then get first right of refusal on most every single property.

The rest of the story is pretty boring and uninteresting.

I’d be interested in hearing just which 2nd-tier characters Disney had it’s eye on developing* and how it planned to go about that.

I’m also curious as to whether Disney’s financial backing will allow Marvel to keep it’s well-reviewed but low selling titles around a little longer. They used to say that was the big advantage DC had in as far as it’s ability to keeps titles like Jonah Hex on the stands.

* Who’s left that isn’t already being developed currently? Namor? Dr. Strange? Ms. Marvel?

I live in New York, but apparently that has happened in a lot of places. So I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened in Florida as well

Long run, I think this a good deal for Marvel. Disney is pretty much the gold standard in terms of managing creative content as brands. Marvel Animation efforts will get a huge boost as content gets produced for various Disney TV platforms. Marvel toys will become a lot cooler as Disney re-packages them in that way. At least one cool movie project will get made that otherwise would not have. Something like an Pixar version of the “Fantastic Four”.

However, anyone who thinks that this will not effect editorial on the comics side is deluded. Disney may own Miramax, but it is gutted shell of itself. Bob and Harvey Weinstein spent a bunch of Mouse Dollars for a few years, but couldn’t handle the restrictions. So, they left.

Trust me, Disney did not do this deal because they were so excited Ed Brubaker’s “Criminal” or even Brian Michael Bendis’ “Powers”. Smart folks at Vertigo, Dark Horse, Boom Studios and Image are on the phone with Brubaker and Bendis today saying exactly that. Doing exclusives with guys who like to do Mature Readers work will be harder, not easier.

My best guess is that top tier guys will stop doing exclusives at all in the near term. They don’t want either DiDio or the Mouse telling them what to write and/or draw. They’ll bounce around doing runs on whatever character moves them and move their creator owned stuff to the indies.

So, this is good news for Marvel and its fans. It is also good news for indies that publish creator owned stuff. It probably doesn’t effect DC much beyond the number of dollars paid to top creators going up.

I am calling this good news.

I’m actually a big Crossgen fan and I wonder…do you think Marvel will continue those properties? They have most of the artists. As for the theme parks, I’m no expert but I think Marvel will have an island of adventure until whatever contract they have with Universal expires.

Am I the only one who wants a Marvel MAX Mickey Mouse title…he could lose Minnie and try to kill himself a bunch of ways and…oh…wait.

Nevermind.

@ Todd, I would love to see more Way of the Rat and perhaps Disney could leverage some of Marvel’s talent to use the Crossgen properties to expiriment with alternative distribution methods. Way I see it Marvel could add in another imprint but it would be a waste not to expiriment around a bit.

[…] Further analysis and discussion at Comics Worth Reading, The Beat, Robot 6 and Comics Should Be Good. And it looks like Bleeding Cool is barely holding up under the strain of the […]

DWright wrote: “Also, and I’m sure I’m in the minority, but I found the end of Secret Invasion and Ultimatum to be perfect jumping off points and except for Bru’s Cap story, I’ve found I don’t buy Marvel anymore, and kind of don’t miss it. Here’s hoping this news ushers in a new creative force that will make me want to buy their books again.”

I’m right with you DWright. I’ve given up on buying Marvel almost altogether after Secret Invasion. I only get Amazing Spider-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy, and have started to pick up Captain America in trade (got the first Omnibus, waiting for the second to hit in December). Otherwise I’ve pretty much given up on Marvel for the time being.

Last time Disney acquired a franchise I loved they ran it into the groud. Oh Marvel, don’t suffer the same fate as the Power Rangers.
I just hope they don’t somehow mandate that content be watered down. Most of Marvel seems to have forgotten how to tell a good story anyways, I don’t want guys like Fraction and Brubaker being driven out. As long as they’re able to operate autonomously…

Hulk smashes “It’s a Small World.” Thousands cheer.

Wolverine guts Captain Hook in an unfair fight. Peter Pan, Wendy, and the Lost Boys finally rescued from decades of pointless adventures.

Spider-Man swoops down and rescues Snow White/Cinderella/Sleeping Beauty/Ariel/Belle/Jasmine et al. Disney’s “princess in peril” movies end and Prince Charming is out of a job.

I guess I’m old… I never understood the appeal of the Power Rangers.

On the one hand, maybe I was a bit harsh and hasty in my response to the news. As Anonymous pointed out, Disney World does have Gay Days. Digging a bit more, I found that they do gay weddings there, too. Good for them. Additionally, ABC (owned by Disney) has the most gay characters on any network. Another point in their favor. I’m willing to admit I may be wrong. In fact, I hope I am.

On the other hand, ABC cancelled areality show about prejudices that was won by a gay couple. Disney executives did not provide an explanation. The show (“Welcome to the Neighborhood”) was being boycotted by fundamentalist groups. Low ratings weren’t even used as an excuse, and a lawyer explained that giving away a house based on minority status was not illegal in this case. On Grey’s Anatomy, a story about a lesbian relationship was cut off abruptly. Gay Days are not sponsored by the Disney company.

T.: Where do you get off telling me to “stop being dramatic & reactionary?” Especially with reactionary meaning extremely conservative. (Dramatic, maybe; I was making a pithy comment, but I can see how it could be read as dramatic) Especially given your responses to subjects ranging from misogyny and welfare to Jeph Loeb and DC! I’ll respond to a reasoned argument, even if I don’t agree, but don’t tell me to “stop” anything.

In fact, I kind of agree with your point that Marvel being more family-friendly isn’t a bad thing, as long as individual voices aren’t stifled. Your argument doesn’t; comparing Incredibles to Ultamatum would be like me saying, “look at the family-friendly pap Disney spews like ‘Brother Bear,’ and compare it to the excellence of ‘Criminal.’ ” All-Ages appropriate does not mean “good” or “bad.’ There is room for more than one type of comic at Marvel, and I don’t want to see personal works (Incognito, Powers, Kabuki, even a Marvel property done as well as Ennis’ Punisher or Alias) lost because they don’t meet Disney’s theoretical obscenity standards.

Howard the Duck can now lose the trousers.

Yeah, I was thinking Howard would get to be Howard again. He might even get to be a duck in his own book. If, um, he ever gets another shot at being a title character.

Also: I wonder if Runaways will be the first Disney/Marvel Studios movie.

On the other hand, ABC cancelled areality show about prejudices that was won by a gay couple. Disney executives did not provide an explanation. The show (“Welcome to the Neighborhood”) was being boycotted by fundamentalist groups. Low ratings weren’t even used as an excuse, and a lawyer explained that giving away a house based on minority status was not illegal in this case. On Grey’s Anatomy, a story about a lesbian relationship was cut off abruptly. Gay Days are not sponsored by the Disney company.

Look, it is just a matter of time before some Talk Radio guy finds an issue of something like “Ultimatum” and does a whole week on “what is the world coming to when DISNEY is producing COMIC BOOKS featuring this depraved content?” That will have a chilling effect on what Marvel puts out.

If Quesada is smart, then he will get ahead of this. He will very politely distance Marvel from folks that do edgier material. This is great news for fans of Fred Van Lente and Jeff Parker. Those guys are the future at Marvel.

Look, it is just a matter of time before some Talk Radio guy finds an issue of something like “Ultimatum” and does a whole week on “what is the world coming to when DISNEY is producing COMIC BOOKS featuring this depraved content?” That will have a chilling effect on what Marvel puts out.

This is a negative how exactly?

“I guess I’m old… I never understood the appeal of the Power Rangers.”

Characters in coloful costumes fighting with other characters in coloful costumes, some on the side of good, some evil? You’re right, it’s just a fad, it’ll never catch on…

If you think about it, the potential synergy is almost limitless. Howard the Duck and Donald Duck. Peter Parker and Peter Pan. The Fantasia Four. Mickey Mouse vs. Vermin. Hercules and Pluto vs. Pluto, god of the underworld. Tinkerbell and Sprite (Kitty Pryde). Deadpool and Goofy (which one will out-goof the other?). Namor and the Little Mermaid. Beauty and Hank McCoy the Beast. Shang-Chi and Mulan. Warpath and Pocahontas. Stitch the surfer and the Silver Surfer (“two aliens trapped in a world they never made”). The Wasp and the Seven Dwarfs. Power Pack and the Power Rangers. G-Force and Force Works. Hannah Montana, Fancy Dan, and the Ox. The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Quasimodo. Wonder Man in Wonderland. Black Bolt and Bolt. Kermit the Frog vs. the Toad. Tigger and the White Tiger. Minnie the Mouse and Millie the Model. Etc.

Had enough, or should I go on? I trust I’ve proved my point.

Also: I wonder if Runaways will be the first Disney/Marvel Studios movie.

Why make it a movie when they can make it an ongoing live-action TV show?

Here are some other things I’m wishing for out of this deal:

-An Uncle Scrooge comic written by Jeff Parker.

-An animated cartoon for kids set in current 616 continuity, crossing over with the comics often to get more kids to read ‘em.

-Flashy advertisements for Marvel Comics at the beginnings of Disney DVDs and on Disney’s TV channels, getting even more kids into comics.

-The toning-down of gratuitous violence and language in the most-prominent of the Marvel comics. (That’s kind of an inevitability when bringing in more young readers.) Yes, I am looking forward to that. There’s no need for the majority of the Marvel Universe to be unsuitable for kids.

-Movies based on old Marvel stories like Secret Wars 2.

“The Wasp and the Seven Dwarfs.”

I would rather Disney have bought DC, so we could’ve gotten Perry White and the Seven Dwarfs.

If this means Pixar will be doing Marvel movies, it’s the greatest news ever. After I saw The Incredibles, I had no desire to ever see a live action comic book movie again. (Iron Man changed my mind on that.)

There are so many great Marvel characters and stories that just won’t work as live action movies.

I’m hoping for the best.

@ T:

It is not necessarily a negative, just a change. My point is that Disney will have an effect on the editorial direction of the comics, not that Disney is going to “ruin” Marvel. I think many of the most likely changes will be for the better.

My best guess at the eventual strategy is that Disney will decide to market its Marvel line at teens (13-18), not “kids”. They have Mickey and Pixar to appeal to young kids already. They have Hannah Montanna and the Jonas Brothers to appeal to Tweens. They really do lack a product for Teens and Marvel is pretty well ideal for that purpose. It is just that you would expect the marketing folks to insist the product be tailored to people who were watching the Jonas Brothers last year, instead of life-long adult Marvel Zombies.

By “product”, I mean everything. It will start with animation on TV and migrate to the comics. Much of this will be for the best as the comics get less violent and the themes get less “mature”. Disney has done a great job with its line of Princesses and Hannah Montanna in appealing to girls. Maybe they can figure out a way to transition those customers as well.

All good things.

It is just that creators like Warren Ellis, Garth Ennis, Mark Millar, Brian Michael Bendis and Ed Brubaker have enjoyed a lot of freedom in recent years. That likely will not continue for very much longer.

Mike Loughlin:

“Where do you get off telling me to “stop being dramatic & reactionary?” Especially with reactionary meaning extremely conservative.”

I don’t think ‘reactionary’ means ‘extremely conservative’ at all, and certainly T wouldn’t use conservative as an insult (I might but he wouldn’t). I would say that it means “harsh and hasty”, which you absolutely were. But given that you’ll “respond to a reasoned argument” lets see if I can oblige.

A. From what I can see, ‘Welcome to the Neighborhood’ was tacky, manipulative and as likely to increase prejudice than reduce it. B. Yes, the lesbian relationship was cut from Grey’s, but that’s because it was crap. What’s more, it was immediately replaced by another lesbian relationship (not that I would ever watch Grey’s). C. Gay Days may not be sponsored by the Disney company, but I’ve seen no evidence they have got in the way of them.

From what I can see, you went from no evidence to some Chicken-Little, knee-jerk, reactionary position. And I believe you, and anyone else who makes the same jump, should stop being so reactionary.

don’t tell me to “stop” anything.

And what the hell’s with that. If you want something “extremely conservative” it’s that kind of you’re-not-the-boss-of-me, tea-party, free-market-fundamentalist libertarianism. If you don’t want to be a conservative you’ve got to be prepared to be told what to do.

Now I get the One More Day satanic annulment.
Peter Parker and MU Hannah Montana to wed by next summer.

And Daisy jilts Donald for Howard at in four months at Disney New Year’s Eve.

“Good-bye, Northstar. Good-bye, Wiccan & Hulkling. So long, Shatterstar & Rictor. Caroline from Runaways, just make sure your Skrull beau stays in boy-form, and you’ll be fine.” – Mike Loughllin

If you’re implying that Disney will not tolerate gay characters, I don’t think that is really an issue.

I once read a review of the movie about the performer Sting and the making of “The Emperor’s New Groove” that described the filmed story-planning meetings as “…the gayest place on earth.”

Also DisneyWorld is quite cooperative (or at least tolerant) of the “gay days” event in their park each year. Sorta like the annual “Star Wars days” celebration, but with less wookies and more rainbows. I can only imagine the cosmic circus resulting from a scheduling error that puts both events on the same day.

***Also, I agree with The Mutt on the awesomeness of The Incredibles… it was the best Fantastic Four movie ever made.

If wraith’s speculation is correct i hope they revive the old marvel anthology series so we can have “Walt Disney Presents: Marvel Comics Presents…”

also could we get some sort of donald duck Max? or perhaps fantasia mickey could become doctor mouse sorcerer supreme… also can’t wait for ultimate goof troop….

FunkyGreenJerusalem

August 31, 2009 at 5:33 pm

It scares me.
I fear the mouse.

Actually, DC’s done alright, but if a Disney exec decides the comics aren’t making enough cash, and the characters could just survive in other media…

Rich Johnston makes the point that Disney has it’s own book distributor, and if Marvel go with them, that could lead to a massive shake up for the industry…
And it’s not like Marvel pre-Disney was ever scared of making moves that give them gain but might destroy the industry.

So many good writers were lured to DC for exclusives and ended up going from doing great work to utter hackery under Didio’s editorial mandates. It seems to me that unless you are Morrison or Johns and are allowed to work with some level of autonomy or outside the mainstream continuity, your work will suffer when forced to write under Didio’s editorial direction.

And that hasn’t happened with DC writers brought over to Marvel?

Which great writer went to DC and had their work reduced?

Disney has been known to make sure their content stays watered down and stays family friendly. Wolverine was already watered down to the point where it was just too funny to watch. Now with disney behind the wheels how bad can it get??

That’s Disney, not their subsidiaries – Disney owns Miramax and Dimension amongst a million other production houses… not exactly family friendly stuff.

The example I could imagine would be Sean McKeever, but his Marvel stuff wasn’t all that great or big.

I don’t think Disney owns Mirimax anymore.

Dinsey owns Miramax, but the Weinstein Bros, infamous heads of Miramax and Dimension, left to form their own company.

It is just that creators like Warren Ellis, Garth Ennis, Mark Millar, Brian Michael Bendis and Ed Brubaker have enjoyed a lot of freedom in recent years. That likely will not continue for very much longer.

The industry being what it is they will just move over to DC, and DC will become the house of ideas again.

The two companies swap every decade anyway.

Ted,

“Radical” means extreme leftist, “reactionary” means, in most cases, extremely right-wing. I know T. didn’t mean it that way, one of the reasons the label annoyed me. “Knee-jerk,” fine, I’ll cop to that. “Reactionary?” Nope.

Also, telling someone you don’t appreciate the tone in which he is responding to you is not “extremely conservative.” There’s a gigantic difference between being told what to do by my boss (no matter how she phrases it) and being told to “stop” responding in a certain way by someone on an internet message board. You’ll further notice I didn’t resort to name-calling, labeling, or whatever you’re doing when responding to a post I don’t like.

Tonebone,

Someday, Gay Star Wars Day at Disneyworld will happen. And it will be the greatest cos-play day of all!

Again, it seems my image of Disney may not match up with the reality of Disney, and I hope that’s true. My initial post was not well thought-out. Let me try again:

I am not happy with the level of gore and sex in mainstream Marvel & DC super-hero comics (not counting Max, Ultimate, Marvel Age, Johnny DC, Vertigo, Icon, Epic, or any other imprint. I’m talking core Marvel & DC Universe), and I don’t mind if the violence & sex are toned down. If some of the comics are turned into “family entertainment” without losing their strengths and without aborting runs or costing people jobs, that’s fine.

What worries me is the idea that gay characters can be seen as having no place in “family entertainment.” People may be skittish about putting gay characters in because they don’t want to hear from parents or focus groups who don’t like the idea of gay characters in family entertainment. As has been noted by others, there is the idea that gay characters are more defined by who they have sex with than by their personality traits. To me, pulling gay characters out of books, or just not acknowledging their sexuality (e.g. Morthstar’s post-reveal mini-series), is a possibility. Based on what I knew about Disney (their level of product control, the fate of “Welcome to the Neighborhood” and the Grey’s Anatomy relationship, their micromanaging Miramax, their status as a huge corporation that produces family entertainment), it seemed likely.

After reading other people’s posts, and doing some reading on my own, Disney is a much more gay-friendly company than I had assumed. That’s good news. That doesn’t mean they haven’t made some moves that have me wary.

Actually, DC’s done alright, but if a Disney exec decides the comics aren’t making enough cash, and the characters could just survive in other media…

Public relationswise it would be a DISASTER for Disney on par with New Coke in the 80s. Never happen. You don’t want to be the company the ends Marvel’s publishing line.

Which great writer went to DC and had their work reduced?

Pretty much all of them I’ve followed over to DC, with the exception of Geoff Johns. For some reason he was worse at Marvel.

Most drastic drop in quality I’d say was Ted McKeever though. Man did he turn horrible at DC. Tony Bedard got worse too.

All hail Disney Comics!

What will REALLY be interesting is the type of legal muscle Marvel will now have available if they have to go against McFarlane for Marvelman rights. I’m sure their lawyers were no lightweights before, but I’m even more sure Disney has even bigger legal guns in its arsenal.

Mickey Mouse wouldn’t become the Sorceror Supreme. He’d be the Sorceror Supreme’s apprentice. Hijinks ensue as Dr. Strange and the animated broom keep bumping into each other.

T. – Johns worked at Marvel during the height of decompression. He’s stated that some of his Avengers work was stretched out longer than it was supposed to be. And, yeah, Ted McKeever’s work has gone from fantastic to not-so-great. I think his garish coloring has something to do with it, although his linework has suffered, too.

Oh wait, I’m sorry, I meant Sean McKeever. Oops.

I worked for the Rat for 10 years in Orlando, so what I can tell you is this:

1. There were rumors for years that Disney was preparing to bid on (or just flat-out purchase) Universal, just to control the majority of “entertainment venue” in Orlando. This actually blends right in with that rumor.

2. Pixar will NOT be doing Marvel films, as everybody from Lasseter on down has said Pixar only does original material. That is why they were actually HAPPY with the Disney/Pixar merger. The Pixar guys & gals can work on non-Pixar stuff but still keep Pixar “pure”.

3. Disney could not give a rat’s-ass about the comic book market per se. Yes Marvel comics (the actual paper books) generate millions of dollars a year. Y’know those Mickey-head shaped ice cream bars? 20 million dollars worth per year sold just in ORLANDO! G-D parking fees generate around 100,000 a day! Disney wants the merchandise and the movie market.

4. It is possible that Disney will crack down on “unauthorized” use of it’s characters once they own Spidey and the rest. Disney IS fanatical about that (witness the fact that they do not TECHnically own Mickey Mouse).

5. This will not affect the possibility of further interaction between Marvel and DC or anyone else. Disney is actually pretty good about cooperating with other corporate entities if it benefits them.

6. Yes Disney could now lend it’s legal muscle to Marvel’s occassional problems, but it is unlikely they will bother. Likely as not, Marvel will continue just as before with little interference. Think of it this way: Movies are canon, comics are ancillary product.

7. No Disney does not have a problem with gay people. How do you think they have 1000s of ride operators, gift shop cashiers, and severly overworked wait staff that are actuall smiling?! Trust me on this, Walt Disney World ( as goes the percentages os the gay population) totally wrecks the curve.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

August 31, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Most drastic drop in quality I’d say was Ted McKeever though. Man did he turn horrible at DC. Tony Bedard got worse too.

Who else was there though?

Gail Simone did much better at DC than at Marvel… I just can’t really think of any of the others who jumped over…
Bedard and McKeever though… they weren’t e

Chuck Austen?

(I mean Azzarello and Johns only really did one or two projects at Marvel before going back to DC).

FunkyGreenJerusalem

August 31, 2009 at 7:04 pm

No Disney does not have a problem with gay people. How do you think they have 1000s of ride operators, gift shop cashiers, and severly overworked wait staff that are actuall smiling?! Trust me on this, Walt Disney World ( as goes the percentages os the gay population) totally wrecks the curve.

Yeah, but large clumps of Disney’s audience have problems with gay people, and they like to scream really, really loudly.

Oh, and yes I read the quote about Lasseter being “excited”. I stand by my statement however. If there are Marvel animated projects, they will not be under the Pixar banner.

Also, consider this, those who are shocked by this turn of events. Many of us have followed Marvel (and DC of course) for many years, since well before there were “corporate banners” under which they operated. Yes we were there to watch them grow and mature. Remember this though; Marvel (as we currently know it) is about to turn 50. Disney is about to turn 90 ( or more depending on where you set the beginnning). This is all a natural progression and nothing to be alarmed about. Disney can make some boneheaded decisions (as if Marvel has never done that [HELL-O Clone saga!]) but they haven’t stayed at the top of the entertainament world all these decades by being completely stupid. But remember this as well:

Out in the “real world” comic books are still considered a niche market. Sure, the general public knows Spider-Man, Batman, Wolverine (or something sort of like Wolverine), etc. but from the movies, not the books. 99.9 % of what we all love about comics is unknown to 99.9% of the populace. Everybody knows Mickey Mouse and has seen Disney animation, but how many of them have actually read a Mickey comic? Whatever moves Disney might make with the characters for movies or merchandise, they will probably not even look at the books themselves. That is until some wise-ass, eager to make a splash, writes or draws something into a comic to stir-up controversy and there is a corporate back-splash.

“Yeah, but large clumps of Disney’s audience have problems with gay people, and they like to scream really, really loudly.”

Well, every year during Gay days there would be (and probably still is) hundreds of complaints from unsuspecting tourists, who knew nothing about it beforehand, wondering why the Hell Disney didn’t warn them when they made their reservations. Disney still does not endorse or even officially recognize Gay Days. But it remains the most profitable single day (the first Saturday in June, in case you were wondering) of the year, so they don’t discourage it either. Bottom line (no pun intended): As long as it’s making money, Disney will tolerate it.

Mike Loughlin,

I know T. didn’t mean it that way, one of the reasons the label annoyed me.

So, basically, you were offended by comment you were fully aware that someone wasn’t making? Yes reactionary has connotations of conservatism, but it was obvious to everyone, even apparently you, that that wasn’t what T meant, and yet you still decided to be offended.

And that’s rather the point, isn’t it. That not only are you prepared to be offended at actual slights, as well as perceived slights, you’re also prepared to be offended at slights that do not yet exist. I agree that it is important not to tolerate offensive characterisations of homosexuality. Yet, the kind of hypersensitivity that you have displayed here, reacting to non-existing slights, means that people like T dismiss all forms of political correctness as hypersensitive. I really don’t think you are helping the cause.

You’ll further notice I didn’t resort to name-calling, labeling, or whatever you’re doing when responding to a post I don’t like.

Yeah, you kind of did. Not to me, but if reactionary can mean everything you think it means then “given your responses to subjects ranging from misogyny and welfare” seems to be are fairly clear labelling of T. Not that I have a problem with it, as I don’t have a problem with labelling, so long as it is accurate.

telling someone you don’t appreciate the tone in which he is responding to you

But that’s not really what you did. You said “don’t tell me to “stop” anything.” Anything. It sounds to me like you don’t just not want to be told not to do certain things, you don’t want to be told to do anything. And to me that is the attitude that drives much conservatism and ‘post-PC’ bigotry. My point is that, if you say that, then the next person who comes along with anti-homosexual slurs can just say “don’t tell me to “stop” anything.” Once again, you only seem to be making things worse.

Let me get this straight… I don’t like being called something, an inaccurate term at that, so I’m causing “people like T.” to dismiss “all forms of political correctness” as “hypersensitive?” How does that work? What “cause” am I not helping? Incidentally, T. has not responded, possibly because he sees the matter as either not worth responding to or as dealt with, which is fine by me

I did not like how one person addressed me. I made my displeasure known. I didn’t bemoan T.’s lack of sensitivity, or whatever, I just pointed out how he had responded in a manner similar to the one he was decrying. I was not saying “T. is a hypocrite,” because I do not believe that to be true. I did not say “T. doesn’t believe what I believe, so he’s __________.” I was not trying to allege his general conservatism made him less likely to agree with me, the issues cited were issues I recall T. responding to in a strong manner.

You may not like how I phrased “don’t tell me ‘stop’ anything,” but you’re reading waaaay to much into it, and trying to distort the words to make them say something they don’t. You could easily say that not being willing to be told what to do by those who don’t have any moral authority fuels civil rights campaigns of all sorts. Or that letting my displeasure being known was a matter of me exercising my right to free speech. See, I can make words mean what I want them to as well, regardless of their original context.

Gail Simone did much better at DC than at Marvel..

I don’t really like her at either company, but I still found her writing less grating over at Marvel. There’s also Morrison, his Fantastic Four 1,2,3,4, his Marvel Boy and New X-Men I all liked better than his DC work, although All-Star Superman was not bad, just not as good as what he did at Marvel under Quesada. His Batman run, Final Crisis, 7 Soldiers, Final Crisis, none of it really grabbed me. I do like Batman and Robin though, it’s the best thing I think he’s done since coming back to DC. Winick I feel was better at Marvel too. Also, when Brubaker left DC to work under Quesada, his writing, which was already good, improved even more.

By the way, when I say DC in this paragraph, I specifically mean DIDIO DC. Under Jeanette Kahn there were plenty of writers who were doing some of the best work of their careers at DC, easy. I believe it’s specifically Didio bringing out the worst in writers. Anyone who can combine Paul Dini, Tony Bedard and Sean McKeever and make them produce something like Countdown is almost gifted in ruining talent.

Adamantium Wholesaler

August 31, 2009 at 8:45 pm

I hope Disney doesn’t get any crazy ideas about trying to abandon the core adult market and trying to market comics to kids and tweens. Some people think it’s a noble idea, but I think it’s just market suicide, even with their beyond-the-comic-shop distribution. A few titles, fine, like the ones that everyone ignores now…but if you try to go from Brubaker’s Cap to a watered-down, safely-non-offensive version, it won’t be pretty.

I hope they just leave the comic side of things alone.

Let me get this straight… I don’t like being called something, an inaccurate term at that, so I’m causing “people like T.” to dismiss “all forms of political correctness” as “hypersensitive?” How does that work? What “cause” am I not helping?

The problematic hypersensitivity was in decrying how Disney had removed all homosexual content from Marvel comics, before Disney has even bought Marvel, on the basis that Disney is an anti-gay company, which has largely been shown to be an inaccurate characterisation anyway. The fact that you were highly concerned that someone would grossly misinterpret a term, as used in context, is merely another example of your hypersensitivity, albeit not a culturally problematic one.

The cause you are not helping is in creating a fair and representative depiction of homosexuality in the media, which was presumably the gist of your original post. The problem is that if people jump on every possible slight, be it actual, perceived or in your case not yet existent, then others will stop caring about even the actual slights, and say that there are no slights and it is always just hypersensitivity.

Take, for instance, this comment from T (regarding prejudicial comments towards women, not homosexuals, but basically still prejudice):

Seriously, what’s so bad about that? People here are way to sensitive sometimes. It’s not a bad line at all. Women themselves always talk about the superiority of their own feminine intuition. Geez…

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/03/22/a-year-of-cool-comic-book-moments-day-81/

Here, T dismisses a valid criticism on the basis that people are ‘way too sensitive’. My concern is that you are feeding into his incorrect beliefs, and rather than helping create a fair and representative depiction of homosexuality in the media, you are making it easier for T, and people with similar views, to dismiss even out valid concerns and the media will remain as prejudicial as ever, if not more.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

August 31, 2009 at 9:04 pm

I don’t really like her at either company, but I still found her writing less grating over at Marvel.

Go read Secret Six!

There’s a new trade out… apparently there’s couple before it, but it’s the start of the ongoing, and it’s pretty good.
I’ve never read a series of her after the first trade before, but this one I can’t wait for the next one.

There’s also Morrison, his Fantastic Four 1,2,3,4, his Marvel Boy and New X-Men I all liked better than his DC work, although All-Star Superman was not bad, just not as good as what he did at Marvel under Quesada.

You got to be lying when it comes to FF:1234, that was dead boring.
MArvel Boy and New X-Men I’m fine with you saying you personally like better than ASS, but not FF:1234.

Winick I feel was better at Marvel too.

Winick is like Azz and Johns though – he didn’t really do that much at Marvel, one book for a year.
I mean, we all liked it better, but I think that was the cap on his talent.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

August 31, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Disney still does not endorse or even officially recognize Gay Days. But it remains the most profitable single day (the first Saturday in June, in case you were wondering) of the year, so they don’t discourage it either.

That’s at Disneyland, that’s not across the films, tv shows etc.
The complaints to that would be one off complaints (from utter dickeheads who should just die off already) and not ‘I’m never gonna watch anything of yours again’ style complaints.
I mean, Disney is usually pretty good at just ignoring the protests, it’s harder to organise a Mouse boycott because Pulp Fiction had swears in it (which needs one to prove to these people, who don’t have much in their heads, that Miramax made that, Disney owns Miramax etc) – a lot of people see comics as a product aimed for kids, rightly or wrongly.
So for Disney, people protesting Northstar and Shatterstar getting it on – Sat crossed lovers! – this would be more along the lines of Pluto and Goofy getting it on, than a protest over Brokeback Mountain.
A little harder to ignore as it crosses into their big bucks markets – selling shit to kids.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

August 31, 2009 at 9:11 pm

Sat crossed lovers

STAR crossed lovers it should be.

What a way to ruin a perfectly terrible pun.

I just pointed out how he had responded in a manner similar to the one he was decrying.

What do you even mean by that? I think it is clear that we have two usages of the word reactionary here: reactionary meaning knee-jerk and reactionary meaning hyper-conservative. From what I can see, from your own admission, T was clearly using reactionary in the sense of knee-jerk. Yet, you responded to him as if he were using it in the sense of hyper-conservative.

For the life of me, the only why I can see your thought patterns going is like this: “T called be reactionary(hyper-conservative). That makes me so mad, that T, of all people, would call me hyper-conservative. Wait a minute, in context that makes no sense, he must mean reactionary(knee-jerk). But I’m still so mad that, even though he called me reactionary(knee-jerk) I’m going to respond as if he called be reactionary(hyper-conservative).

You made this senseless jump from reactionary(knee-jerk) to reactionary(hyper-conservative). And why did you make it: because you’re hypersensitive. And why is that I problem: for the reasons I outlined above.

Unless, of course, when you said “Especially given your responses to subjects ranging from misogyny and welfare to Jeph Loeb and DC! ” you meant that T’s responses, in those cases, were reactionary(knee-jerk). Of course that would not make sense with you saying “Especially with reactionary meaning extremely conservative.”

And either way, you were calling T hypocritical. Either you were saying “You can’t call me a conservative given all the conservative things you’ve said” or “You can’t call me knee-jerk given all the knee-jerk things you’ve said.” Your comment wouldn’t make any sense if it wasn’t alleging hypocrisy, or at least self-contradiction, on T’s part.

You could easily say that not being willing to be told what to do by those who don’t have any moral authority fuels civil rights campaigns of all sorts. Or that letting my displeasure being known was a matter of me exercising my right to free speech. See, I can make words mean what I want them to as well, regardless of their original context.

But that is what the words mean in their original context. Yes, not being willing to be told what to do is part of civil rights campaigns. Yes, letting your displeasure be known was a matter of you exercising your right to free speech. You didn’t make the words mean anything other than what they originally meant.

But that isn’t really your point. What you mean is “See, I can make it look like you don’t support civil rights campaigns and free speech.” But you aren’t just making it look like I have those opinions, I really do have those opinions (within limits). I do believe in paternalism, which always has the possibility of limiting legitimate civil rights. I do believe in cultural, but not legal, limits to free speech.

You seem to be under the impression that it is unfair to read any implication into people’s words that they didn’t want. I disagree. I am well aware that my words, and opinions, would have totalitarian and fascistic consequences. I merely reply that, so long as things a kept within limits, those consequences wont come about.

I don’t really like her at either company, but I still found her writing less grating over at Marvel. There’s also Morrison, his Fantastic Four 1,2,3,4, his Marvel Boy and New X-Men I all liked better than his DC work, although All-Star Superman was not bad, just not as good as what he did at Marvel under Quesada. His Batman run, Final Crisis, 7 Soldiers, Final Crisis, none of it really grabbed me. I do like Batman and Robin though, it’s the best thing I think he’s done since coming back to DC. Winick I feel was better at Marvel too. Also, when Brubaker left DC to work under Quesada, his writing, which was already good, improved even more.

@T:

I am no great fan of the Dan DiDio era, but I would suggest that the paragraph above does not exactly reflect an objective judgement. Morrison did a fine job on New X-Men, but it does not hold a candle to the amazing work he has done at DC.

Gail Simone is a delight.

I’m guessing Boom Studios is going to be the most impacted by this. They are going to lose the Disney comics eventually. That’s going to hurt them.

I don’t see this really impacting Marvel’s comics at all.

Go read Secret Six!

There’s a new trade out… apparently there’s couple before it, but it’s the start of the ongoing, and it’s pretty good.
I’ve never read a series of her after the first trade before, but this one I can’t wait for the next one.

I think her plotting is good, it’s just her dialogue that grates on me. It is often too self-consciously clever, like it’s trying too hard. I have same problem with Peter David sometimes. Great idea man, good plotter, but that dialogue…

I am no great fan of the Dan DiDio era, but I would suggest that the paragraph above does not exactly reflect an objective judgement. Morrison did a fine job on New X-Men, but it does not hold a candle to the amazing work he has done at DC.

I guess it depends on what you like in Grant Morrison comics. For me my favorite Morrison is when he’s writing about superheros first and doing metacommentary secondary or not at all, like in JLA and New X-Men. What I dislike is when he’s doing metacommentary first and the plot is just window dressing to go into his analysis and feelings on the state of and history of comics. His DC work this time around comes off as the latter, just too filled with metacommentary. His first Batman run just seemed to be nothing but analyses and reconciliations of different Batman eras and Joker interpretations. If I want to know what he thinks of that, I’d prefer he just write an essay to get it out of his system so I can read it there. I don’t want to read an in-story explanation giving pop psychology reasons why all the Joker incarnations are valid and what they represent. Just write a good Joker story and save all that other stuff for an interview.

Same problem with Seven Soldiers. I basically don’t like comics where I need to read annotations on websites or have a phD in obscure comics history to fully appreciate them.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

September 1, 2009 at 5:52 pm

I think her plotting is good, it’s just her dialogue that grates on me. It is often too self-consciously clever, like it’s trying too hard. I have same problem with Peter David sometimes. Great idea man, good plotter, but that dialogue…

Read Secret Six!

I double dog dare you too!

I reckon you’ll dig it.

Especially Ragdoll.

(It’s good, because when these guys do nasty things, they’re villains, so it’s in character!)

His first Batman run just seemed to be nothing but analyses and reconciliations of different Batman eras and Joker interpretations.

It was about how Boss Batman is!

And also, how under the influence of drugs he is – he’s like Elvis, fighting drugs to get the drugs!

I can’t help thinking Marvel’s ‘House of M’ (in terms of the title) now strangely prophetic. Not to mention what House rhymes with. Good arguments going back and forth over whether its a good thing or not, time will tell, but like many I can’t help but feel a little nervous. Then again I’ve always preferred DC to Marvel, although I did like the Pet Avengers, and I guess this now means they might be getting a few more members :)

Same problem with Seven Soldiers. I basically don’t like comics where I need to read annotations on websites or have a phD in obscure comics history to fully appreciate them.

I have to agree with regard to Seven Soldiers. That said I’m only one TPB into Morrison’s Batman and that’s just a great ride so far. His All Star Superman is nice easy reading too.

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives