MIKE GOLD: Disney Does Marvel

Mike Gold

ComicMix's award-winning and spectacularly shy editor-in-chief Mike Gold also performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com and on iNetRadio, www.iNetRadio.com (search: Hit Oldies) every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check www.getthepointradio.com above for times and on-demand streaming information.

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Kyle G. says:

    I hadn't thought about this angle on what Disney's doing. It's interesting to think that Disney would take this kind of a risk. As long as we get something better developed than Dark Angel or Birds of Prey I'll be a happy viewer.

  2. Martha Thomases says:

    Dakota North?

  3. Jeremiah Avery says:

    Interesting that Disney is pushing more of the female characters to the forefront (and good for them) while the publishers (not just Marvel) continue to marginalize and fetishize them.

  4. SDM says:

    "courage they developed by purchasing Marvel."

    cart – horse

    Or are you suggeting Disney didn't have this plan in mind until after they purchased Marvel?

  5. Mike Gold says:

    Sometimes it's somebody else's cart that's before the horse. Somebody at Disney might have had all kinds of ideas they wanted to implement as the deal was going down, and somebody at Marvel might have had all kinds of ideas to offer waiting for the deal to go down.

  6. kplanx says:

    It's an odd commentary you have here, Mike.

    I think Disney saw Marvel as an ancillary cash cow from the start — not a publishing company. It's been no secret for quite some time that comics aren't big money-earners; it's the licenses — from movies to backpacks — which bring in the dough.

    That said, I don't think creating properties for women was the plan so much as that they are simply exploiting particular properties to an audience that is currently responding to them as a company.

    To wit, consider the several years of success they've had from female-driven shows on Disney, ABC Family, as well as on ABC itself with Desperate Housewives, (surprisingly), Revenge, Once Upon A Time, not to mention the interest in — if not outright success of — Pan Am, and even most of their Wed. night sitcoms. All of these are all very popular, sure, but mostly, and especially, among female audiences.

    Perhaps what they're trying to do is draw in MALE viewers to join their already strong female viewership by creating female-driven ACTION series (as opposed to dramas).

    As for the shows you reference; it's very clear — and it must be to executives at this point (and perhaps was from the start) — that those shows did not succeed NOT because of the audience they were after but because they were inferior products. Charlie's Angels has a pretty simple formula: Sexy, smart women dress up in costumes, beat up bad guys and win the day. And, in no way, is that what we got. But when you've got Drew Barrymore and other big-name film writers/directors creating a series for you, even if the pilot is garbage, sometimes you give it a small order and put it on the air. Bionic Woman at least tried, but it just never found its groove — and it didn't help the series was hampered by licensing ("Cyborg"/"Bionic Man") issues.

    You might very well have it all backwards.