How sad. I can't help but to be disappointed. However, I got to admit I am clutching my pearl at the thought of a Goofy vs Wolverine climatic battle scene!

And what will be the tie-in with ESPN?

What will become of the Spiderman and Hulk rides at Universal Studio's Island of Adventure??

THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!!1!

@ 3—didn't those rides go away a long time ago when, like, three people went to the Marvel Island of Adventure?

Can't say I know for sure, but as recent as last January I was seeing ads for those Marvel themed Universal rides all over Orlando.

(I had to go down there for work. Don't judge.)

Regardless of the lamosity of the rest fo Islands of Adventure, the Spiderman ride is fucking amazing.

I'd like to see a slap fight between Spiderman and Snow White, personally.

Comment from Mr. Constant?

I suspect Disney is actually trying to broaden their focus. Their image as a kids-only studio is a millstone around their necks when they try to tap into the adult market. This may be a way for them to get some adult cred.

Thank Goofy! Now our 75 years plus 17 year copyright extension for copyright on works belonging to Disney can apply to all the parodies of Superman!

Even if it was supposed to be 17 years. Period. Max. In the US Constitution.

@10 corporate copyrights exist for 90 years, it is only works created by individuals that last for 75 years, and that clock starts from the death of the creator.

This does not change Marvel's copyright issues in any way.

BTW the constitution merely states that copyrights and patents must be for a "limited term" not explicitly 17 years.

@2 disney hercules vs. marvel hercules table tennis

@12 - tell that to the Constitution-hating lawyers working for Disney.

Corporations used to have no rights.

None.

They aren't people, and the Constitution gives them zero rights.

@14 you sound like Clarence Thomas using the plain words of the constitution to try and resolve arguments that didn't exist until 1880s and 1970s.

The constitution doesn't give a definition for what "legal persons" are. Supreme Court decisions define that, constitutional law goes beyond the formal words of the written document.

The Supreme court (unfortunately) ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 U.S. 186 that the more recent copyright terms are formally consistent with the requirements of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US constitution.

This means that we have to lobby congress to change the copyright terms to a more modest period of time. No just to scream irrationally about the unconstitutionality of modern corporate and IP law

@15 - aww, did I hoit your poor widdle mouse ears?

maybe NOW we'll see the definitive Hulk movie!

@9 All those damn kids shows on ESPN. My kids won't stop watching poker tournaments.

@16, no, I agree with the substance of your critique (what little there is) I was merely attempting to correct your misinformed ideas about copyright law.

In the future we will be amazed that back in the day the Pirates of the Caribbean ride didn't have Jack Sparrow fighting Namor at the end of it.

@20 for the win.