What Marvel/Disney Merger Means to Comic Book Shops

While no one can predict exactly what the Disney acquisition of Marvel Entertainment will mean for comic books, there's a high likelihood of changes on the horizon.

And with Disney's distribution and marketing network being so extensive, the one segment of the comic book industry that may be the most affected by changes is the comic retailer. Most comic books are currently sold through specialty comic book stores, and with a big new corporation in the mix, the potential for big changes makes some store owners wonder what it all means for their businesses.

"With all the things that are happening with digital comics, there are already a lot of questions about what comic book retailing will look like in the future," said Jason Pierce, owner of Alter Ego Comics in Muncie, Ind. "Now, with Disney in the mix, you have to wonder if they're going to be satisfied with the current method of comic book distribution. And if they make changes, will those end up benefitting the industry as a whole enough that comic shops will also benefit?"

J.C. Glindmyer, owner of Earthworld Comics in Albany, N.Y., said that Disney should use Marvel's history as a guide when approaching distribution. In the late '90s, Marvel attempted to self-distribute products through its own company, Heroes World Distributing. The effort failed, and Diamond Comic Distributors ended up emerging as the leading distribution company.

"My main concern is with Disney's vast resources, will they self-distribute and leave Diamond Comics?" said Glindmyer. "I hope not. One 'Heroes World' debacle is more than enough."

Mike Wellman, owner of The Comic Bug in Manhattan Beach, Calif., pointed out that the efforts by comic book publishers to have their products sold in "big box" retailers should be easier for Marvel to accomplish now, having the power of Disney's leverage behind them. The retailer wondered if that would help or hurt the smaller shops.

"Any big company is going to have their eye on the bigger picture," Wellman said. "They're going to be more concerned with getting product into Targets and Wal-Marts than they will with taking care of the little guys -- us comic shops. But... looking at Warner Bros, they have DC Direct, so hopefully on that front, we'll get a little slice of that pie."

Joe Field, owner of Flying Colors Comics in Concord, Calif., serves as the president of the ComicsPRO retailing organization. He said that Marvel's current relationship with retailers isn't exactly great, so he thinks Disney stepping in could mean positive changes.

"As a business owner in the comics' industry, I am excited by the prospects of a larger company owning Marvel Comics, which over the last 10 years, has been a very penurious operation -- bowing out of doing most major conventions, ending its retail co-op advertising program and basically eschewing much of the inside industry stuff as they laid a course for Hollywood fortune," Field said. "Marvel may be the industry sales leader, but it's been 15 years since the company was the true market leader."

[*editor's note: While Marvel did forgo having major booth presence at Comic-Con International: San Diego for a few years earlier this decade, they have always been a programming participant and have offered a Comic-Con booth for several years now. They have also been a significant presence at all major Wizard shows this decade, along with Reed Exhibitions' New York Comic Con, and many other regional and international shows.]

While several of the retailers echoed what comic books fans have said -- wondering if comic book content would be controlled and changed by Disney -- Field said he thinks Disney is less interested in the comic publishing side of Marvel and more interested other media use of the company's characters.

"Comics are a small part of Marvel. This deal is for the riches in licensing and spin-offs to other media, notably video games and movies," he said.

Dean Phillips, owner of Krypton Comics in Omaha, Neb., said Disney adds a potential for Marvel to communicate about comics to a wider audience, which means more people might end up reading comics. And more customers is a good thing.

"Disney is a marketing powerhouse! Hopefully some of this marketing power will be directed to strengthen the comic book industry," Phillips said. "Perhaps a better superhero theme park than we have seen in the past. More than likely, is Disney wants the movie and video game rights! Hannah Montana vs. Iron Man is every fanboy's dream!"

But there's also a concern among retailers who have seen Disney try comics and abandon the effort in the past, including the recent failure of the Disney Adventures magazine and the virtually unused ownership of former CrossGen properties, leaving some with a sense that the company isn't dedicated to making comics publishing work.

"I'm in a fairly unique spot in this business in regards to this deal," said Field of Flying Colors Comics. "Years ago, when Disney launched their Disney Comics' line, I was one of a few comic book specialty retailer advisers to the publishers of Disney Comics. The Disney Comics line didn't last very long as Disney corporate wasn't happy with the meager revenue the line generated for the internal expenses it created. Shortly thereafter, Disney went back to a licensing agreement with its U.S. comic publisher."

Other retailers wondered about the future of the existing Disney and Pixar comics that have already established an audience in comic shops, as well as what will happen to Marvel's MAX line.

"I just hope this deal doesn't monkey with the BOOM! comics that we do very well with," said Adam Casey, manager of Ssalesfish Comics in Winston-Salem, N.C. "I think we'll be paying close attention to our pre-orders and stock levels of backlist mature, MAX, and niche product that may be slow to go into new printings under content and profitability concerns."

But most retailers pointed out that Warner's ownership of DC Comics hasn't really affected comic book retailing, so they're generally optimistic that Marvel's acquisition by Disney won't mean any drastic changes.

"If we look at DC/Warner Bros. as an example, I see nothing to worry about," said Wellman of The Comic Bug. "DC continues to make great comics and we've had excellent product in other media, like the Justice League Unlimited cartoon, The Dark Knight in theaters and a bevy of video games."

"When new companies have become part of the Time/Warner conglomerate, there has always been an attitude of: DC is doing fine so let them be," said Charlie Harris of Charlie's Comic Books in Tucson, Ariz. "I'd think that Disney would wish to adapt a similar attitude with Marvel."

"It probably means the same thing that DC being owned by Time-Warner affects our business -- pretty much, not at all," said Glindmyer of Earthworld Comics.

"As a retailer, I'm cautiously optimistic this deal will be a good thing for our specialty market," said Field of Flying Colors Comics. "As a Marvel reader since 1967, if the comics are entertaining, I'll stick with them. If not, there are many other publishers doing very remarkable and engaging comics, so comics will continue to thrive."

Originally posted by: LETS GO FLYERS!

I'm assuming this is simply a "sit back and collect the benefits and stamp our name on everything" move, and will be hands off. (I'm HOPING, anyway) Remember a few years ago when Warner Bros bought DC, and nothing changed? I'm just guessing it's gonna go like that, where it's business as usual, and it's just different corporate fatcats collecting the checks.

Warner Brothers doesnt preach morality, though. Disney has banned bands from venues they own because of this. I'm not liking this at all. If they keep it to just money, I'm all for it. But with fucking Disney's record, I highly doubt it.

Marvel/Disney - The ANIMATED View


Wall Street and the comic book industry are currently buzzing like a nest of hornets over Disney's $4 billion cash/stock acquisition of Marvel Entertainment. On the hand, the animation industry is taking a much more cautious approach.

"I'm stunned," one voice artist long associated with superheroes responded. "I just don't know what to think. As both a comic book fan and a professional, this could affect me on so many levels. I really have to find out myself."

In fact, many animation professionals are currently declining comment as Marvel and Disney does employ a lot of them.

One who isn't affected in any form, but still is keeping abreast of the acquisition, is Matt Seinreich, co-creator and executive producer of the shows "Robot Chicken" and the soon-to-air "Titans Maximum".

"It's stunning!" said Seinreich. "I think Joe Quesada's Twitter said it best when he said everybody's dancing around. I think he said it best.

"I don't know how it's going to affect the animation world," Seinreich added. "There's so much to this I think it's going to be a long time before we see how it's going to play itself out, but I think it's going to be exciting. There's so much to think about on so many levels."

"This really is off the charts," one industry professional volunteered...as long as his name was off the record. "Marvel had made some missteps with some of their recent releases. Nothing major, but they realized if they had made one major mistake, it could have been disastrous, if not put Marvel Animation in the hole. With Disney, they now have the financial support to withstand something like that."

The source also stated this is actually could be very beneficial to Disney's comics.

"Disney has been trying to do comics for a while," he said. "It's gotten to the point where there were times their booth was virtually ignored at last year's Comic Con. Now they have Marvel, a team that certainly knows how to sell comic books. Marvel's comics and graphic novels are some of the best selling titles in the industry."

Another person who is asking some very interesting questions is noted animation historian and critic, Jerry Beck.
"What will this mean for our favorite comics characters," Beck asked on his blog on www.CartoonBrew.com, "and the animation studios Disney controls? Will Donald meet Howard The Duck? Will The Incredibles cross over to fight The Fantastic Four? Will Disney Feature Animation do an Inhumans movie? Will Disney character comics be published by Marvel? How will this affect the theme parks? Disney XD?

"Due to prior deals (for example, live-action "Iron Man" is sown up at Paramount for years to come) nothing will happen right away, but lots to think about, and lots of exciting possibilities."

"Marvel's reputation is based on how they managed to brand themselves and reinvent themselves," added Steve Stanchfield, another noted animation historian and producer of "Thunderbean" DVDs. "I also think that Disney is wanting to change their branding, and are working very seriously to do that.

"In fact, if we went back and looked at Disney's history, this isn't the first time they've done this. In the early 80s, that little period when the board hired Michael Eisner, Frank Wells, and Jeffrey Katzenberg in 1983, the first thing they did was ask what is it that's working here and what isn't? One of the things that wasn't working was Disney was no longer providing beautiful, family-oriented entertainment. In the early 80s, it was producing cheesy B-movies. It wasn't working.

"They knew they had to create another brand for the studio. Disney did have another brand at the studio, a little operation called Touchstone Pictures, which had already produced one successful movie, "Splash", but that was all," says Stanchfield, who also happens to be the grandnephew of the legendary Walt Stanchfield and an animator in his own right. "So in order to rebrand Disney, Eisner made the comment that when you walked into McDonald's, you knew what you were getting. You didn't have to worry what it would taste like. What he meant was at Disney there wasn't a quality of branding that said they didn't make the great animated feature anymore.

"So what Eisner and especially Frank Wells did was diversify the Disney brand. They said they needed to improve it. They said they needed to make adult films, too. They also started making B-horror movies and a whole plethora of things.

"They also went and upgraded their animation department, too. They first cut production on the film "The Black Cauldron", which had cost the company $47 million and is still the worst film Disney ever produced. So of course it tanked. On the other hand, they were having a lot of success on the TV side with shows like "Gummi Bears" and "Duck Tales". They actually built a brand doing that.

"Now Eisner was just about to totally dismantle the animated film department, in fact he closed the Glendale studio down. Then Ron Clements and John Musker begged Eisner to let them do one last feature film with a total budget of $7 million. As it turned out, that was "The Great Mouse Detective" and not only was it a good film, it made money."

According to Stanchfield, the success of "Mouse Detective" as well as Steven Spielberg's blockbuster "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was all the impetus Eisner, Katzenberg, and company then needed to green light "The Little Mermaid", effectively cementing the animation renaissance.

"Now to tie it all back, Disney realizes that in order to keep growing it needs to keep diversifying," says Stanchfield. "Their animated feature department was again becoming a disaster, with only the Pixar 3-D films being their hits. The reason for that is not that they weren't drawn well. I think it was because most of them didn't have good stories. With the exception of "Lilo & Stitch", most of the recent Disney films were not good films. They don't really know what they want to do.

Still, it does pose one key question. Is Disney capable of handling Marvel's line of more edgy characters? The closest the company had previously come to truly edgy storytelling coupled with superlative animation was the original "Gargoyles" series.

"I think what Disney needs to do is leave Marvel alone," Stanchfield responded. "I think they have to run Marvel as a successful entity, the directors will have to be in charge. Marvel has some excellent directors such as Frank Paur and Gary Hartle. What Marvel has also done is they've established both a strong adult and children's line of products. I like the "Spider-Man" series. Some of their other TV shows have been really well animated. It's something to considered about their shows is Marvel has some really excellent key artists. They make shows that have some real feeling and heart."

"Disney, in terms of TV animation, right now is pretty lost. They've focused pretty much on their live action shows. The only real success they've had as far as animation is "Phineas and Ferb". What's interesting about that is they aren't sure that they have anything to follow that up. The classic characters aren't even being utilized at all."

One person who seems to be taking it all in stride though is voice artist Yuri Lowenthal. He currently is working on the Marvel side as the voice of Bobby Drake on "Wolverine & the X-Men" and on the Disney side in a number of their video games.

"A lot of my colleagues in the voice world are calling me saying that Disney buying Marvel is going to be awful," said Lowenthal. "I've been thinking about it and I don't think it's going to ruin anything. It's not like Starbucks bought Marvel and have no idea what they're doing. Disney's been doing animation for what seems like a million years.

If their acquiring of Pixar is any indication, well Disney bought Marvel because they like what Marvel's doing already," says Lowenthal. "If they're smart, they'll let Marvel keep doing that. That's what I think Disney was really trying to buy. I don't think Disney bought them so they can be the only game in town. I think they bought them because Marvel appeals to a demographic Disney didn't have."

STAN "the Man" LEE Calls Marvel/Disney Deal "Perfect"


Add Stan "The Man" Lee to those people who think Disney's blockbuster $4 billion purchase of Marvel is a stroke of genius.

In some of his first comments on the historic deal, the living-legend Lee, who along with artists such as Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko created most of the characters and settings that still fuel the media powerhouse that is Marvel to this day, told Newsarama Tuesday the merger is a win-win for both sides.

"I think it's a terrific deal which will be extremely beneficial to both companies. The synergy between them is perfect," said Lee, who remains Marvel's Chairman Emeritus but hasn't been involved in day-to-day operations for a number of years.

Lee says the strengths of each company fit perfectly with the other's needs.

"Nobody can produce and market franchises better than Disney, and nobody has the extensive library of characters that would make great franchises that Marvel has," Lee said.

Lee is quite familiar with the Disney way of doing business. His new company, POW! Entertainment, has a first-look deal with the company, and at the San Diego Comic-Con in July, he unveiled his first Disney project, the digital motion comic "Time Jumper."

In fact, Lee himself always envisioned Marvel as becoming the next Disney. In his 2002 autobiography, "Excelsior! The Amazing Life of Stan Lee", he wrote about how, during Marvel's boom years in the mid-60s, he tried to convince the company's upper management to invest in merchandising and other ventures, to take advantage of its stable of popular characters. Alas, his bosses did not share his grand designs.

Throughout the 70s and 80s, Lee worked tirelessly to turn Marvel's heroes into multimedia superstars - especially in Hollywood - with limited success. It would be many years before the movie industry realized the box-office potential of superheroes.

No one is more closely linked with Marvel Comics than Stan Lee. As writer and editor in the early 1960s, Lee co-created enduring characters such as Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, the X-Men, Iron Man, and Daredevil. Unlike most of the comic book heroes of the day, Marvel's superheroes were complex, flawed...human. It transformed the industry, made comics okay for grownups to read, and made Marvel a household name.

Along the way, Lee made a name for himself as the comics industry's version of P.T. Barnum, an unabashed promoter who was a regular on the college lecture circuit. For decades, his name was even on the masthead of every comic the company published.

In 2005, his six-decade long relationship with the company hit a major obstacle.

Lee sued Marvel, claiming he was owed profits from the Marvel films that had started to take Hollywood by storm. The suit was eventually settled with Lee reportedly getting a settlement of more than $10 million.

With that business taken care of, and his old company and his new firm under the same corporate roof, Lee, who has appeared in nearly every Marvel movie, thinks it could mean more work for him.

"Think of the fun I'll have since I'm positioned right smack in the middle of them - and maybe some extra cameos, too!"

industry reaction:

Now that more details have been released about the Disney acquisition of Marvel, comic book industry representatives and fans have been chiming in with a more tempered view of the news.

At first, news on Monday morning that the Walt Disney Company would acquire Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion shocked the loyal readers of Marvel's comic books and had industry insiders speculating about what it could mean for the publisher.

Long-time Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada told fans on his Twitter account: ""Everybody take a deep breath, all your favorite comics remain unchanged," he wrote.

One deep breath later - and after a lot of comparisons to Disney's merger with Pixar - and comic book readers are starting to see the positives that might come from the acquisition, despite the ongoing concern that publishing might be negatively affected.

"I don't think that Disney is going to shake up the publishing side of Marvel. Why would they? It makes money and Disney wants to make money right?" one fan wrote on Newsarama's message board.

"I doubt Disney will care about the publishing end of Marvel as long as it's not losing money, pretty much as Warner Bros. treats DC," another fan said.

"I'm actually not concerned about this," another comics' reader posted. "I think it's a great move for Marvel due to the deep pockets that Disney has and the creative respect Disney has shown for Pixar's creators. Disney is a conglomerate but they're not stupid and make many wise business moves and creative moves."

Industry insider Jeff Katz knows the power Marvel has in Hollywood after serving as an executive producer on this summer's blockbuster, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," the Marvel property-based movie that now has two spin-off movies in development. The former 20th Century Fox executive has seen so much potential in comic book properties that he left Fox last year to start his own film/comics production house, American Original. He said the Disney/Marvel deal reflects a growing trend in Hollywood to consolidate efforts and cut redundancies.

"It's a game-changer, clearly," Katz said of the acquisition. "And long term, it's a brilliant move for Disney that will be worth every penny. It makes a ton of sense for them at a corporate level, especially once some of the current Marvel deals expire and can then be exploited through the larger Disney pipeline. I think this is indicative of the general shrinking of the entertainment marketplace. There will be more consolidation along these lines."

Comics writer/executive Robert Kirkman has experience as both a creator at Marvel in the past and now as a competitor, since he was named last year as a partner at Image Comics. The writer is also aware of how enticing comic book properties are to Hollywood since his Image comic "The Walking Dead" is currently being developed as a television series for AMC.

"While there is certainly the possibility of this ending up being something negative for the [comic book] industry as a whole, I don't see that being very likely at this point," Kirkman. "For now, I see things like the comics being sold in theme parks and Disney stores and hopefully an expanded initiative to get more comics in the hands of children.

"But let's be real here. This is all about Marvel movies, animation, video games etc. This is a great move in that respect, especially for Disney," he said. "I think this sale is being made based on the potential of Marvel's continued motion picture success and if they'd just waited until after the opening of Iron Man 2 they could have sold for possibly more money. I think Disney got a deal."

Dark Horse, the third largest comic book publisher behind Marvel and DC, which is owned by Warner Bros., had reason to point out that the company is now the largest independent comics' publisher without ties to a bigger corporate entity.

"I guess what it means is that Marvel becomes more corporate and, if it isn't there already, a company that creates comics for reasons that have nothing to do with the joy of creating comics," said Mike Richardson, Dark Horse publisher. "Nothing wrong with that, but certainly a far cry from the Merry Marvel Marching Society. As far as Dark Horse goes, I happen to have an inside track as to what goes on in the owner's head (yeah, he's a guy, not a company) and he's still in it for the love of comics."

While Marvel's largest competitor in the comic book industry, DC Comics, was contacted for a reaction, a company spokesperson declined comment. But other publishers see the acquisition as verification that comic books hold immense power in the entertainment marketplace.

"The Disney acquisition of Marvel Comics is a testament to the value of comics, the properties & franchises we in the industry create," said Matt Hawkins, president and COO of Top Cow Productions, "and a positive indication of how comic book companies are valued by the larger entertainment industry."

"We're living in an historic moment," echoed Nick Barrucci, president of comics' publisher Dynamite Entertainment. "It's wonderful to see the hard work that all of our friends at Marvel have worked hard for be rewarded with this opportunity."

One publisher that will surely be reacting to the news is BOOM! Studios, although the company has so far declined to comment. BOOM! acquired the comic book license for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck from Disney earlier this year and already publishes comics starring Disney's Pixar characters.

Jim McLauchlin, comics creator and president of the Hero Initiative charity that helps comic book artists and writers, said the main thing he takes away from the deal now is that Disney is interested enough to pay up for a company that is all about comic books. "A $4 billion purchase price certainly shows the strength of comics, comic properties, and comic assets in the marketplace," he said. "That's a very good thing."

Reed Exhibitions, which runs the New York Comic Con and Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo, indicated the company has worked with both Disney and Marvel and will continue the business relationship with the newly formed entity.

"No matter the owner, Marvel will remain our valued partner in NYCC and C2E2 and additionally, Disney, in various incarnations, has been a strong supporter of NYCC for several years now," said Lance Fensterman, vice president at Reed. "We look forward to continuing our work with Marvel."

But despite all the talk, most fans and creators are still just amazed that something like this came out of nowhere.

"This came as a total bolt from the blue to me," said comics' writer/inker Andy Lanning, who currently co-writes several comic titles based in the "cosmic" part of the Marvel Universe. "The deal makes sense to me based on the amount of Marvel licenses Disney is using at the moment but I wonder about Marvel's independence. If Disney treats the deal like the Disney/Pixar setup, then I think it will benefit both companies and give Marvel huge worldwide potential as Disney are such a global operation. I can only hope that our efforts on the cosmic books went some way to smoothing the deal as we've been at pains to put cute talking animals in all our books! Now, because everyone will be demanding it...the Mouse meets the Raccoon, in space!! It's gotta happen!"

But one comics' creator summed it up with one word, as artist Rob Liefeld's official statement on the acquisition was simply: "Wow!"

Marvel/Disney - How It Will Affect Marvel's Videogames?

The potential implications of Disney's $4 billion dollar acquisition of Marvel Entertainment are vast and varied, and perhaps the biggest question marks stem from Marvel's licensing of their Intellectual Property to third-parties, particularly in light of the companies recent strategy to self-finance big screen adaptations and become their own de facto movie studio.

One such arena with a potential for significant change is the development of Marvel-themed video games.


Disney has an in-house development team, Disney Interactive, that develops and publishes games both based off Disney properties and Intellectual Property original to the game division. Marvel on the other hand currently has multiple third-party game developers and publishers across the industry working on games for them.

Vicarious Visions and Activision have the "Marvel Ultimate Alliance" franchise, and Activision also recently published a "Wolverine" game based on and released alongside this summer big screen adventure from Fox. They also have developed and published all the recent "Spider-Man" games.

THQ is developing a game based on Marvel's upcoming new "Super Hero Squad" kids' animated show, and SEGA has the license for games based on/released with the "Iron Man" movies, along with last year's "Incredible Hulk" and the upcoming Marvel Studios releases featuring Thor and Captain America.

What does the Disney-Marvel marriage mean to them? While Newsarama was unable to secure comment from THQ at press time and Activision had no official statement yet, sources inside that company said they did not know about the deal, and were surprised when they heard the news Monday morning.

SEGA meanwhile gave us this official statement from Mike Hayes, President & COO, SEGA of Europe and SEGA America:

"We congratulate Disney on its acquisition of Marvel and look forward to working with both companies on future ventures. At this time, there are no changes to SEGA's existing licensing agreement for the Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America video game titles. We're hard at work on the Iron Man 2 game and committed to making all three of these titles hugely successful working right alongside the combined forces at Disney and Marvel."

In the investor's conference call earlier this week following the announcement of the deal, Disney President and CEO Bob Iger said that Mouseworks appreciates the licensing deals Marvel currently has, but is also looking to bring some of the properties into Disney Interactive. He noted as well that each deal with third party developers/publishers would be re-evaluated when the current deals expired.

ENLARGE IMAGE
In the short term, gamers who are fans of Marvel properties likely see no major changes. The games currently in development will apparently not be affected by this deal.

In the long term, the most likely outcome will be a combination of Marvel games being developed and published "in-house" by Disney and licensed to third party developers.

Marvel's chief competitor in the comic book Intellectual Property market, DC Comics, has corporate ownership in Time Warner, but many DC-related video games are developed and published by outside companies, despite TIme Warner having their own games division, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment (WBIE). "Batman: Arkham Asylum" was developed by Rocksteady and co-published by Eidos Interactive and WBIE. And the upcoming DC-themed Online Role Playing Game, "DCU Online" is being developed by Sony Online Entertainment.

In addition, Disney already has established a history of working with partners to release games. The aforementioned THQ this year released Disney/Pixar's "UP" game, and previously released games based on "Cars", "The Incredibles", and "Disney Princesses". Square Enix, now the parent company of Eidos, has developed multiple games in the "Kingdom Hearts" series, featuring a mixture of Disney's characters and their own.

With the ever-expanding games industry, a Marvel-Disney deal likely means one thing for certain: more games based on Marvel IP. With Disney's history of playing well with other companies within the gaming vertical and their recent internal expansion of Disney Interactive, gamers can probably look forward to plenty of Marvel properties on their favored platform in the immediate future, by a variety of developers.

Can Marvel-Disney Help Close the Comic Book Gender Gap?

In the wake of Disney's purchase of Marvel, there's plenty of speculation about what, if anything, Disney will want to change about the comics Marvel currently publishes. Much of the discussion focuses on whether Disney executives will crack down on freedoms at Marvel or the impact that this merger will have on upcoming Marvel movies, and there seems to be some fear that Disney will affect Marvel's focus, forcing it to change things that it already does very well.

But for a moment, let's focus on something that Disney does very well, something that comics by and large, manga excluded, doesn't do very well: market to girls.


ENLARGE IMAGE
Comics companies have tried repeatedly to market to preteen and teen girls - most recently with DC's well-intentioned, but now-canceled Minx line. Traditionally, trade paperbacks from DC's other non-superhero imprint Vertigo and title's like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" from Dark Horse sell relatively well with women. And Marvel and DC have both recently rolled out new series with female leads, more or less explicitly targeted to a female audience. Though "Marvel Divas" has met with mixed reviews from women readers, at least it showed the company's interest in expanding its readership. Could Disney provide a window into that so-far elusive audience?

Disney, with animated and live-action feature films and television programming, has pretty much cornered the market on tween girls. "Hannah Montana". "High School Musical". "Enchanted". All Disney. And of course, the never-ending stream of animated Disney Princesses, from "Snow White" to the upcoming "Princess and the Frog", continue to have pop culture resonance.

The success of the "Twilight" franchise and its spillover into the comics world via Comic-Con has taught fans and creators alike the power of an engaged - some would say obsessed - tween female fanbase. Of course, this has resulted in pushback from territorial fans who think that women have no place at Comic-Con, and endless jokes about squealing teenage girls. But in-between their squeals, teenage girls spend money, and comics' publishers hurting for readers in a recession understand that fact even if they've not done the greatest job as of yet tapping into that audience.

Anne Elizabeth Moore, editor of "The Best American Comics" series, notes, "When comics started out they were actually read by equal or greater numbers of girls than boys." Like many comics fans, Moore grew up on the "X-Men", and she notes, "Marvel in particular has always had sort of a grander gender problem than Disney. But this isn't going to resolve it."

Sean McKeever, writer of teen-girl-friendly comics like "Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane" and "Nomad: Girl Without a World" for Marvel, thinks Disney can help. "I think the entire industry could learn plenty about marketing new characters from Disney," he told Newsarama. "It's one of those areas in the medium where we're just so lax. We put out these new series with new creations and do little more than hype the first issue in the catalogs, show a preview online and do a few interviews. Really, to me, a big part of the reason new characters tend not to 'stick' in comics is because there's no excitement built around them."

Jenn Pozner, media critic and director of Women In Media and News, takes an opposing view. "If we define marketing to girls well as producing a lot of money for the company, then Disney is the king of that," she says. "But if marketing to girls well means giving girls what they want and need in a way that doesn't exploit them, Disney doesn't know the first thing about girls."

Moore agrees, saying, "Disney has always strayed into this dangerous Conan the Barbarian zone to sell things."

Barbara Ehrenreich, an author, columnist, and noted Amercian feminist, took on the Disney Princesses recently, writing at The Nation.com:

"Disney likes to think of the Princesses as role models, but what a sorry bunch of wusses they are. Typically, they spend much of their time in captivity or a coma, waking up only when a Prince comes along and kisses them. The most striking exception is Mulan, who dresses as a boy to fight in the army, but--like the other Princess of color, Pocahontas--she lacks full Princess status and does not warrant a line of tiaras and gowns. Otherwise the Princesses have no ambitions and no marketable skills, although both Snow White and Cinderella are good at housecleaning."

Yet Hoi F. Cheu notes in Claudia A. Mitchell and Jacqueline Reid-Walsh's "Girl Culture: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1" that "Disney's tween girl culture, of course, is modified from its classic themes."

No longer is it just about meeting Prince Charming and being rescued. Instead, the new Cinderellas have a social conscience, and, Cheu says, "glamour and success are not everything. . . . the star must address the ordinary lives of people."

The new Disney glam, still feminine but more active and engaged, might be a decent fit for teenage superheroines as well, and perhaps the superheroines' tendency to do the rescuing themselves could be a good influence on those princesses in return. Recent Disney stars like Mulan have more in common with superheroes than with the passivity of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White.

Still, Pozner notes, there is often far more complexity in Marvel comics characters, whether they are male or female, than allowed in the Disney universe. She worries that Disney might wind up dumbing down those characters, and points out that even through the recent changes in its characters' roles in life, Disney presents a limited range of possibilities for female characters, both physically and mentally. "They're not kid inventors, they're not skateboard queens," she points out.

McKeever has some ideas about girl-oriented fare that he thinks would fit well with Disney and still maintain the integrity of Marvel characters.


"What I'd really love to see is something like 'Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane', but where the protagonist is the superhero, and she has to deal with her life, her family, grades, money, friends, boys. . . and her secret life as well," says the writer. "I think Firestar would make a great character for that sort of series. Or, to once again nudge my upcoming book in everyone's face, 'Nomad'. Her quest for finding a place in a world she doesn't feel is her own is a universal coming-of-age experience."

Though films like "Enchanted" and franchises like "Hannah Montana" rely on the star power of a live actress, the long-standing appeal of the best-known Disney characters is much like the long-standing appeal of comics characters. They have an image that is recognizable despite changes in artist, writer, and certainly the actors that have portrayed the characters on film. Disney is as much a merchandise marketing company as it is a producer of entertainment, and it has licensed several of its tween-girl properties for comics-Tokyopop created "Lizzie McGuire" comics, and Papercutz is creating "Disney Fairies" graphic novels.

Moore notes that with the purchase of Marvel, Disney has closed in on even more of the teen market, and since Marvel's audience skews a bit older, they have a new inroad with that demographic. In addition, the marketing of Marvel-related products, whether in Disney's stores or elsewhere, will be easy. "Nobody's going to balk at Spider-Man being on a lunchbox."

Dawn C. Chmielewski of the Los Angeles Times profiled The Disney Channel's Rich Ross in June, focusing on Ross's success on reaching the tween market. "They existed. They weren't programmed to," she quotes Ross saying of his biggest audience. She also notes that his latest ventures have been aimed at expanding that ferociously loyal fanbase by targeting boys. With a Marvel merger, will more Marvel-themed shows be on the way?

McKeever would love to see more Marvel characters make it to the small screen. "Disney obviously has that outlet in terms of television and movies," he says. "But as we're finding out through success stories like "Iron Man" and "Smallville", the interest generally doesn't seem to filter down to the comic books."

Still, the tween years are often when a person's entertainment preferences are shaped - many comic fans can trace their buying habits back to those years. If comics companies could get preteen girls hooked on comics, they could form a new fanbase that is just as loyal as the old one. The question is, can Disney help Marvel reach out to tween and teen girls, or is purchasing Marvel merely their effort to buy the audience that they've had trouble building for themselves?

Can Marvel-Disney Help Close the Comic Book Gender Gap?

In the wake of Disney's purchase of Marvel, there's plenty of speculation about what, if anything, Disney will want to change about the comics Marvel currently publishes. Much of the discussion focuses on whether Disney executives will crack down on freedoms at Marvel or the impact that this merger will have on upcoming Marvel movies, and there seems to be some fear that Disney will affect Marvel's focus, forcing it to change things that it already does very well.

But for a moment, let's focus on something that Disney does very well, something that comics by and large, manga excluded, doesn't do very well: market to girls.


ENLARGE IMAGE
Comics companies have tried repeatedly to market to preteen and teen girls - most recently with DC's well-intentioned, but now-canceled Minx line. Traditionally, trade paperbacks from DC's other non-superhero imprint Vertigo and title's like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" from Dark Horse sell relatively well with women. And Marvel and DC have both recently rolled out new series with female leads, more or less explicitly targeted to a female audience. Though "Marvel Divas" has met with mixed reviews from women readers, at least it showed the company's interest in expanding its readership. Could Disney provide a window into that so-far elusive audience?

Disney, with animated and live-action feature films and television programming, has pretty much cornered the market on tween girls. "Hannah Montana". "High School Musical". "Enchanted". All Disney. And of course, the never-ending stream of animated Disney Princesses, from "Snow White" to the upcoming "Princess and the Frog", continue to have pop culture resonance.

The success of the "Twilight" franchise and its spillover into the comics world via Comic-Con has taught fans and creators alike the power of an engaged - some would say obsessed - tween female fanbase. Of course, this has resulted in pushback from territorial fans who think that women have no place at Comic-Con, and endless jokes about squealing teenage girls. But in-between their squeals, teenage girls spend money, and comics' publishers hurting for readers in a recession understand that fact even if they've not done the greatest job as of yet tapping into that audience.

Anne Elizabeth Moore, editor of "The Best American Comics" series, notes, "When comics started out they were actually read by equal or greater numbers of girls than boys." Like many comics fans, Moore grew up on the "X-Men", and she notes, "Marvel in particular has always had sort of a grander gender problem than Disney. But this isn't going to resolve it."

Sean McKeever, writer of teen-girl-friendly comics like "Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane" and "Nomad: Girl Without a World" for Marvel, thinks Disney can help. "I think the entire industry could learn plenty about marketing new characters from Disney," he told Newsarama. "It's one of those areas in the medium where we're just so lax. We put out these new series with new creations and do little more than hype the first issue in the catalogs, show a preview online and do a few interviews. Really, to me, a big part of the reason new characters tend not to 'stick' in comics is because there's no excitement built around them."

Jenn Pozner, media critic and director of Women In Media and News, takes an opposing view. "If we define marketing to girls well as producing a lot of money for the company, then Disney is the king of that," she says. "But if marketing to girls well means giving girls what they want and need in a way that doesn't exploit them, Disney doesn't know the first thing about girls."

Moore agrees, saying, "Disney has always strayed into this dangerous Conan the Barbarian zone to sell things."

Barbara Ehrenreich, an author, columnist, and noted Amercian feminist, took on the Disney Princesses recently, writing at The Nation.com:

"Disney likes to think of the Princesses as role models, but what a sorry bunch of wusses they are. Typically, they spend much of their time in captivity or a coma, waking up only when a Prince comes along and kisses them. The most striking exception is Mulan, who dresses as a boy to fight in the army, but--like the other Princess of color, Pocahontas--she lacks full Princess status and does not warrant a line of tiaras and gowns. Otherwise the Princesses have no ambitions and no marketable skills, although both Snow White and Cinderella are good at housecleaning."

Yet Hoi F. Cheu notes in Claudia A. Mitchell and Jacqueline Reid-Walsh's "Girl Culture: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1" that "Disney's tween girl culture, of course, is modified from its classic themes."

No longer is it just about meeting Prince Charming and being rescued. Instead, the new Cinderellas have a social conscience, and, Cheu says, "glamour and success are not everything. . . . the star must address the ordinary lives of people."

The new Disney glam, still feminine but more active and engaged, might be a decent fit for teenage superheroines as well, and perhaps the superheroines' tendency to do the rescuing themselves could be a good influence on those princesses in return. Recent Disney stars like Mulan have more in common with superheroes than with the passivity of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White.

Still, Pozner notes, there is often far more complexity in Marvel comics characters, whether they are male or female, than allowed in the Disney universe. She worries that Disney might wind up dumbing down those characters, and points out that even through the recent changes in its characters' roles in life, Disney presents a limited range of possibilities for female characters, both physically and mentally. "They're not kid inventors, they're not skateboard queens," she points out.

McKeever has some ideas about girl-oriented fare that he thinks would fit well with Disney and still maintain the integrity of Marvel characters.


"What I'd really love to see is something like 'Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane', but where the protagonist is the superhero, and she has to deal with her life, her family, grades, money, friends, boys. . . and her secret life as well," says the writer. "I think Firestar would make a great character for that sort of series. Or, to once again nudge my upcoming book in everyone's face, 'Nomad'. Her quest for finding a place in a world she doesn't feel is her own is a universal coming-of-age experience."

Though films like "Enchanted" and franchises like "Hannah Montana" rely on the star power of a live actress, the long-standing appeal of the best-known Disney characters is much like the long-standing appeal of comics characters. They have an image that is recognizable despite changes in artist, writer, and certainly the actors that have portrayed the characters on film. Disney is as much a merchandise marketing company as it is a producer of entertainment, and it has licensed several of its tween-girl properties for comics-Tokyopop created "Lizzie McGuire" comics, and Papercutz is creating "Disney Fairies" graphic novels.

Moore notes that with the purchase of Marvel, Disney has closed in on even more of the teen market, and since Marvel's audience skews a bit older, they have a new inroad with that demographic. In addition, the marketing of Marvel-related products, whether in Disney's stores or elsewhere, will be easy. "Nobody's going to balk at Spider-Man being on a lunchbox."

Dawn C. Chmielewski of the Los Angeles Times profiled The Disney Channel's Rich Ross in June, focusing on Ross's success on reaching the tween market. "They existed. They weren't programmed to," she quotes Ross saying of his biggest audience. She also notes that his latest ventures have been aimed at expanding that ferociously loyal fanbase by targeting boys. With a Marvel merger, will more Marvel-themed shows be on the way?

McKeever would love to see more Marvel characters make it to the small screen. "Disney obviously has that outlet in terms of television and movies," he says. "But as we're finding out through success stories like "Iron Man" and "Smallville", the interest generally doesn't seem to filter down to the comic books."

Still, the tween years are often when a person's entertainment preferences are shaped - many comic fans can trace their buying habits back to those years. If comics companies could get preteen girls hooked on comics, they could form a new fanbase that is just as loyal as the old one. The question is, can Disney help Marvel reach out to tween and teen girls, or is purchasing Marvel merely their effort to buy the audience that they've had trouble building for themselves?

disney takes everything