Are DISNEY Finally Working On An Animated MARVEL Movie?

I like the movis that go straight to dvd. Ultimate Avengers 1 and 2, Next Avengers, Planet Hulk, and Hulk VS, they are all really good. They should make another one.

DC has some good ones too, like Batman Year One and Justice League Doom.

The Punisher ;)

That would be interesting

The Inhumans plz

if thats the chance its going to be ANT-MAN cgi animated movie. still can see ANT-MAN as a live action movie

batman under the red hood is the best DC animated movie ever

Since Disneyworld closed the adult fun area "Pleasure Island" .. even IF people that went there are ONLY adults.. and it was mostly only nightclubs to have fun in.. they have no plans to reopen it. They are letting Universal's Citywalk enjoy the night time adult clubbing fun.. with no competition.

Do I want Punisher to shoot paintballs or just spank people, to stream it through Disney? Will Daredevil only have one eye blind now? Will Herbie the robot replace the Human Torch because of kids again??????

I worry.

[shrugs] hey, I'm just being honest.

uh, pretty thin guess here.

...Deadpool....

NFL Super Pro!






He hates chainsaws!

Guardians of the Galaxy or Uncanny X-Force would be Sweet! :D

Planet Hulk 2 maybe, or X-men..hell who knows.

I really don't have much of an idea.

"ARE Disney..they are a team of people in the company, not just one. "

Sorry, but no. Just about every company is made up of teams of people and/or subsidiaries, but it doesn't change the fact that if you are referring to the business entity name, then it is referred to in the singular case. If you were to say "Are Disney and Marvel finally working on a movie, then that would be correct because you are listing more than one name. Just look at the countless articles on the internet from sources like Forbes, Disney, etc in which the titles start with "Is Disney".

Example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/elisadoucette/2011/03/18/is-disney-or-bad-parenting-to-blame-for-the-princess-phenomenon/

I don't think Forbes is going to get it wrong. ;-)

"I think ARE and IS would both be correct. Disney is a group of people while Disney is also a corporate entity."

Grammatically, they are not both correct. If you refer to the group of people at Disney, then you would use "Are" . "Are the creative teams at Disney working on an..."

It depends, since its animated by Disney are they aiming it at a younger audience? More of a family friendly movie?

If that is the case then they should avoid MOST of their properties.
Stick with Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Powerpack. (But Im not sure if they could do Fantastic Four, the movie rights might be tied up???)

If they are going to have it be more adult and be like the comic books then anything goes. Spiderman is always a great choice. We saw the hints that it might be iron man with some disney type images of Tony Stark. But Id like to see something we havent seen yet. Silver Surfer origin movie or Black Panther. Both could have beautiful visuals

Ranger, there is no right and wrong..you will find examples all over the net of uses of both "is" and "are", I think depending on the Country of origin. If you check the source for thsi story - Bleeding Cool, an English site - you will see they also say "are". I have always thought of a company, in this case Disney, as being a "they" regardless of what context the name is used in. "Is Disney" just doesn't sound right to me, and I'm sure anyone else from the UK or Ireland would feel the same.

This well be good, Disney is the king of animated cartoons and Pixar is te king for computer animated movies. Marvel is in good hands. Too bad WB isnt pushing enough for DC.

@CorndogBurglar They only have the live action film right I belive. If Marvel wanted to to a dvd animated feature they would be able to.

Ror@ It must be the "other side of the pond" thing. I saw that Bleeding Cool used it as well. In the U.S. it is not considered grammatically correct. You would never say "Are Walmart..., "Are Wall Street Journal...". You would use "Are Walmart employees..." "Are Wall Street Journal writers...", because you are then referring to plural cases within the organization. I guess another difference between how things are done in the UK and here.

Maybe a weird movie where Disney figures are the Marvel characters. Like the Tazz being Wolverine, the choleric Donald being Hulk or things like that.

Grammar varies from locale to locale, but disagreeing about it over the Internet is eternal.

As for a Disney/Marvel animated film, I would be stoked. I'm wouldn't worry about them taking the teeth out of any of the characters, at least not more than Marvel has done when trying to adapt to a larger audience. Disney bought Marvel specifically so they could release content to a certain demographic, and that demograpic wouldn't take kindly to a PG Deadpool animated movie, for instance.

Halfrican

"They only have the live action film right I belive. If Marvel wanted to to a dvd animated feature they would be able to."

Nope. They own the MOVIE rights. It doesn't matter if its an animated movie or live action. Theatrical release, or straight to DVD. If its a full length feature film, they own the rights.

Examples of this would be the World War Hulk animated movie, where they had to substitute Silver Surfer with Beta Ray Bill because Marvel didn't own the movie rights to SS. Yet we see these characters being used all the time on animated TV shows. Thats because they are tv shows, and not movies.

I don't want to be "that guy", but am I the only one that was slightly offended by them referring to us fans as a "certain geek community"?

Guardians of the Galaxy is the first thing I thought of. Seems like the (currently being developed) concept that most lends itself to animation.

We need a Pixar movie based on a Marvel charcter