I Always Knew Deadpool Was A Disney Princess

I've waited to talk about Disney buying Marvel because I wanted to get all the freaking out over it out of my system before attempting to discuss it rationally. Even now that I've had the week to let it sink in, I feel extremely mixed about it. I think it has the potential to be really awesome, but it could easily be pretty horrendous.

The good stuff first:

• THINK OF THE CROSSOVERS. The idea of two huge, deeply developed universes being united is filled with endless exciting creative possibilities. You've seen the mashups by now, but I think they're more than just an excercise in hilarious and unlikely juxtaposition. They're a glimpse into how we as a society try to make sense of colliding and seemingly contradictory mythologies. I think it's fascinating that something like Darkwing Duck teaming up with Daredevil is nearly universally considered to be amazing when normally when childhood images and associations merge with adult ones, it's generally kind of creepy and unsettling at the least. I think the difference is that comics--especially superheroes--have always lived comfortably on the barrier between being for kids and being intensely adult. There have been X-Men cartoons and video games designed for kids, for example, and the movies are definitely appropriate for middle schoolers, but the recent Wolverine vs. Hulk (which this female thoroughly enjoyed) seems specifically for the 18-30 male demographic.

• Marvel animated/Pixar movies. I'm really excited about this. I'm a big fan of hand-drawn, 2D animation, so while I love many of the Pixar films, I don't think that animation style should be the default--I think you need to let the story determine its form. Comics, though, lend themselves to that very well, in my opinion, particularly superheroes. I think a title like Runaways (careful, that summary has spoilers!) would be perfect for Pixar. And maybe finally we'd get a Pixar movie with female leads for once!
  
  
• Speaking of female characters, Alyssa suggests that Disney could use its influence with young girls to promote Marvel female characters. That was actually one of my first thoughts on this whole issue, and I think that could be a really positive counter to the overwhelming Disney Princesses push. I'm not sure how likely this is when possibly the most active, gender-stereotype breaking female Disney lead, Mulan, is virtually nonexistent in Disney merchandising. I spent an entire weekend at Disney World searching for Mulan merchandise, and all I found was Mulan cell phone jewlery. If that's the respect Disney pays to its own ass-kicking heroine--the girl practically saved China herself!--it's a pretty discouraging precedent. However, there are smaller titles that Disney could easily get behind, such as the aforementioned Runaways and of course Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane (can we please have an animated movie of this title?!). Even Spectacular Spider-Man is pretty "girl-friendly," and Disney is now in a great position to ensure the future of that show.

Now here's what I'm afraid of:

• Disney exercising creative control. A title like the violent and foul-mouthed NEXTWAVE doesn't exactly jive with the Disney image. I'm also worried that writers, such as NEXTWAVE and Astonishing X-Men's Warren Ellis, will refuse to write for Marvel out of fear of (or the reality of) censorship. The main Marvel universe is a fairly terrifying place in many ways: Norman Osborne is President, for one thing. I'm all for having family-friendly titles, but Marvel properties have a long history of being rooted in the world we know; their villians are in real places, like Los Angeles and New York. There's a hopefulness in DC comics--and a feeling that there are people out there, taking care of you--that doesn't exist in Marvel. And as much as I love Batman and Green Lantern, I'm glad there's the Marvel universe as an alternative. (Not that Batman is rainbows and fuzzy bunnies...and not that the Gaurdians aren't jerkfaces.) Disney, as far as I know, is pretty good about being hands off; that's how they are with Pixar, and as I understand it, the stage adaptations of their animated films. Disney also recognizes talented people when they have them, as anyone who's seen Julie Taymor's work on The Lion King can attest. So while I don't seriously think Disney will force Norman Osborne's insanity to simply be the result of unresolved daddy issues, I'll need time to be completely reassured.

• The death of smaller, less commercially viable titles. I promise I know titles that are not Runaways, but that's been such a great example for much of this post, and I really cannot mention it enough because of how brilliant it is. Anyway, that's an example of a title that didn't seem that it'd make any money, and it was actually cancelled at one point (it was brought back, luckly). Now, it's doing pretty well, and is generally considered to be very, very well written; Joss Whedon has even written for it. With Disney now owning Marvel, I'm worried there's an even greater chance that titles like Runaways won't get any support, if they're even published in the first place. It's hard enough to get new titles featuring new characters done; when you have a huge corporation in control--one that owns many other companies, in addition to yours--it'll only get more difficult. I think I'm most concerned about this. It's the most likely to happen, and I think it has the worst consequences. New voices are crucial in any art form, and nobody benefits--not audiences, not other writers, and certainly not the art form--when those voices are shut out.

I'm curious to see how this will shake out. As I've said, this has the potential for a ridiculous amount of creativity, and it could change Marvel--and Disney--for the better. Especially if it enables Marvel characters to sing in animated features or onstage. Are you listening, Disney Theatricals?