http://www.newsarama.com/21880-could-ru ... erger.html



Interesting.

While WB and DC sucks, it seems chilling to me that both companies would be owned by one corporation.

I'm a big fan of what Disney is doing with Marvel, and they seem to be hiring good people for Star Wars.

But owning DC as well? No, I don't like that. It's too much.

It will be like when WWE bought WCW and we all know how bad that turned out to be

Plus that would make Image = TNA and IDW = ROH and I don't know if I can handle that.

Considering 6 companies own just about everything in this country, I don't really see DC comics shifting over being much of ....anything, really. And hell, they probably wouldn't tinker with the DC flicks anyway.

A Disney made Superman might be a good thing...

Disney owning Superman and Bugs Bunny would make me sick to my stomach.

like others have already stated....this would be a sickening prospect if it were ever to happen.

regardless of how awful a job the WB has done in taking advantage of the incredible stable of properties it has.

That is interesting as Comcast has been interested in purchasing Time-Warner. But there has been much talk about Comcast becoming a media monopoly, so that merger might be blocked.

I would not care to see either of those things happening.

Come to think of it, wouldn't this mean Disney would own Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse, etc? That would be as wild as Marvel and DC being under Disney's umbrella.

Plus, they own Star Wars It's really just too much box office muscle for one studio to have, IMO. One company shouldn't own pop culture.

And, as fans, I think we all hope that we would see really great crossovers, but I have to wonder if that would actually happen, and if it did, would we get tired of it after awhile?

Can you think of an example when one of these situations worked well? Captain Marvel? I don't think so.

Would be nice if the Steelers and Ravens had the same ownership and a shared fanbase.

This is fun!

Just how much have you had to drink tonight?

(Readers of Jim Shooter's blog know that Warners sent out feelers to Marvel in the early '80s about buying DC from them, or possibly outsourcing creative to them.)

Heh. That's like if your kid wanted a puppy, and you brought home this:

Yes. A media corporation that monstrous would raise far more issues than just the question of whether Marvel and DC ought to have the same owner. It's a shame how we have perfectly good anti-trust laws on the books that don't seem to have been enforced in decades. This is how we get things like banks that are too big to fail.

Pluto without makeup.

Go, kid, go.

I think there are good reasons for the FTC to oppose the merger of ANY of the major Hollywood studios, but for the sake of argument let's say this is was just a case of Time-Warner selling DC Comics to Disney.

Would Congress really care that one company has a monopoly on all major comic book characters? After all, with the Big Two there's already a NEAR monopoly. (Keep in mind that both DC and Marvel jointly own the rights to the term "Super Hero", which is why some comic book about a coffee shop that catered to super heroes had to change the book's name. It isn't Love and Capes, but I can't think what the title is.) In professional sports, there's a monopoly on all of the major sports leagues and nobody really cares.

If this were to take place, I can see one thing happening. If the new Aquaman movie flops, Disney might consider getting rid of the character. The major reason why there is any interest in Aquaman is because of the old Superfriends show---otherwise, there's been a whole series of memes about how useless the character is, particularly in regard to Marvel's Namor. Namor may not be as huge a star as he was in the WWII era, but he's still important and considered cool by Marvel fans. Aquaman was created to compete with him. If there's no more reason to compete, then why have Aquaman?

Also, I think Marvel's Wonder Man may bite the dust. The reason he was created was solely because DC wouldn't use the name. If the DCU are now cousins to Marvel, the new regime may decide that that name and maybe the character too will have to go. I can see Carol Danvers' name reverting to either Ms. Marvel or Warbird and Captain Marvel going back to "Big Cheese." Marvel has tried to do everything to hang on to the name "Captain Marvel" simply to keep DC from getting it. DC changed the name of their character to "Shazam" because the old name was inadvertently promoting their competition. If it isn't their competition anymore, I can see him getting his old name back. (And "Shazam!" would be make an ideal animated feature aimed at kids.) I don't think Carol Danvers would go anywhere because she's a popular character, but I can see her going back to "Ms. Marvel."

One more thought. It's not going to happen, but if this merger were to take place, then there would be no serious obstacle to making a sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit except maybe the cost.

I was going to post something else to close this comment, but it would be more appropriate on the Comcast love thread.