ergodic citizen : NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Marvelling at the world : On a personal level, I am horrified at this news--I am hoping against hope that this takeover will be similar to the buyout of Pixar, and that Disney will leave well enough alone, artistically speaking, and just collect the royalties they so clearly want. If they were having such trouble capturing the young male audience, why not create something, instead of taking over an existing franchise? Are they really that low on ideas at Disney? One thinks not. Perhaps it is because Disney has a huge competitor in Warner Brothers, the same company that owns That Other Duck and a whole slew of superheroes of their own (DC Comics, Marvel's long-time archnemesis). But I digress. However, in addition to my personal uneasiness with the news, I was disappointed in Mr. Melia's reporting of it. There are a couple of glaring internal contradictions: he cites Disney's ability to "complete the evolution of comics from a dime-store fringe market to a global economic powerhouse" and then goes on to mention the $1B Spiderman has raked in from its movie presence. He also mentions that Disney will be combining its forces with Spider-Man, Iron Man and the X-Men--yet these are the characters whose movie rights are already owned by competitors (a fact he himself cites later in the article). One has trouble imagining that a corporation that so clearly wants consumers' money in its own pockets, rather than in those of its competitors, will be spending much time marketing the already-claimed superheroes and will instead focus on the up-and-comers (Captain America has already been mentioned). Also of concern is the tack of the article. There is a tone in it that suggests that everything about this move is okay since our corporations say it is. While stockholders and executives praise the move, nearly every Marvel fan on social networking sites (as well as every fan I personally have talked to) is disappointed, shocked, or even appalled by the move. Perhaps a little more insight into ground zero of this buyout--like Mr. Melia provided in his excellent article on Alice Leora Briggs ("An Unflinching Look at Violence in Juarez", 8/20/09)--would have been appropriate. I can go anywhere to be fed the company line that All Is Right With Our World no matter how wrong the news may be; I come to PBS to get differing, insightful, and human points of view. I doubt this post will make it past moderation--you may find it 'abusive' or 'untruthful', and it certainly passed 'brief' a paragraph or two ago. But thank you for taking the time to screen it, nonetheless, and for providing this forum on the internet.

marvle fan : i cant stand it disney just had to go and buy out marvle i think there just going to mess up perfectly good comics if they want to reach an older set of people then just make up a new person and leve marvle well if alone if its not broke dont fix it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Matthew Rumph : Nobody I have spoken with thinks this is a good thing for Marvel. I have been reading their comics since the sixties, and if Disney starts sticking their fingers in things, it can only go downhill. Disney has proven that they have moved away from any sort of artistic endeavor, and have fully embraced the corporate environment. Their only care is to their shareholders. A little bit of the realm of Art died today. I will pray for all those at Marvel.

avathaar : While I sympathize with the previous posters' sentiments despite the obvious ageism of at least one of the articles, permit me to offer a slightly different point of view. I agree that Disney has been moving steadily towards creative bankruptcy, and is filling this gap through acquisitions. While I understand the skepticism about acquisitions based on the not-so-stellar record of corporations in this regard, the hope is that Mr. Iger understands the need to leave well enough alone, based on his record with Pixar. Of course,to mouth the obvious cliche, only time will tell!