32

On August 31, 2009, The Walt Disney Company announced a deal to acquire Marvel Entertainment for $4.24 billion...

I know that Disney acquired Marvel in 2009. But, why do they not display their logo at the start of the films? Nor is there any mention in the credits, as I recall.

65

Marvel Studios, LLC (originally known as Marvel Films from 1993 to 1996) is an American film studio that is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Studios, a division of The Walt Disney Company.

As Wikipedia states, Marvel Studios is a film studio, similarly like The Walt Disney Studios, both of which are owned by the Walt Disney Company. These studios produce many kinds of movies and the movies which are produced by The Walt Disney Studios show the Disney's logo and movies produced by Marvel Studios show Marvel's logo.

The case is same with Star Wars:

Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC is an American film and television production company that is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Studios, a division of The Walt Disney Company.

Here Wikipedia states exactly the same thing. Lucasfilms is a studio that produces Star Wars movies, so their logo shows up.

The Walt Disney Company owns all three studios, but they are separate entities, with each producing their own movies, signed by their logos. This company also owns studios like Pixar, 20th Century Fox, many TV stations such as ABC and ESPN.

  • In the wikipedia reference, it states that Walt Disney Studios is the parent for Marvel Studios LLC. These wikipedia references are OK but can you post more authentic sources like Disney's or Marvel's. Thanks. – ashveli Aug 28 at 10:38
  • @ashveli Marvel Studios doesn't have their own website, there is only a general Marvel one with the following information: marvel.com/corporate/about – TK-421 Aug 28 at 11:29
  • @TK-421: Thanks for looking into mate, there are many other sites where you can find answers but stack-exchange is all about providing genuine/authentic answers. So, putting a lot of good references in answer is equal to getting an excellent answer. You can add references later when you find them. – ashveli Aug 28 at 12:53
  • 10
    @ashveli Stackexchange doesn't have a source rule. That is ironically however a rule on Wikipedia, so if you want references those wikipedia articles would be good places to start looking for them. – Cubic Aug 29 at 11:00
  • 3
    @Cubic That's not true: movies.stackexchange.com/help/referencing – TylerH Aug 29 at 14:34
36

The Walt Disney Company owns a huge number of brands. One of their brands, and one of the most famous and valuable of them, happens to share a name with the company that owns it, but that doesn't matter much. What matters more is that it is associated in the minds of consumers with a certain kind of "safe" entertainment that won't bore young kids or scandalize their parents, and Disney (the company) wants to preserve that association because it's the source of the brand's value.

While some of the movies released under the Marvel brand may fall in that category, some clearly don't, and you can't really separate them because they take place in a shared world and reference each other extensively.

It's possible that the Marvel fan base might react negatively to a rebrand. And Marvel is itself one of the most valuable brands in the world right now, being associated with several of the highest grossing movies of all time, so there is no incentive for Disney to risk rebranding as long as the status quo continues to bring in customers.

  • 6
    I think this is the better answer: the logo isn't there because Disney has chosen for it to not be there. – IMSoP Aug 29 at 9:24
  • 2
    Agreed. This is exactly the right answer. It's the same reason the Smart Car doesn't have a Mercedes badge, or an Alienware PC doesn't have a Dell logo - the brand identity means something, and those products just don't fit with the parent brand like they do with their own. – J... Aug 29 at 15:51
  • 3
    Also no Disney logo on Pulp Fiction for that matter. – JPhi1618 Aug 29 at 19:44
  • 1
    Another point of comparison: Pixar movies do have the Disney logo, despite Pixar being a subsidiary, because in that case, the association is positive rather than negative (and also because of a complicated tug-of-war from long, long ago). Similarly, Disney Animation Studios' films (e.g. Zootopia) have two consecutive Disney logos, one for Disney and one for DAS. – Kevin Aug 29 at 22:11
  • 1
    Yes, should be the accepted answer. Look at any other industry. PepsiCo own Quaker Oats, and Coca-cola own Honest Tea. These are all separate branding propositions. They aren't separately branded because they happen to be separate companies in some kind of organisational sense, they're separate because they don't want to start selling "Coke tea" and "Pepsi cereal". Is there any reason why film-making would be different? – Nathan Cooper Aug 30 at 12:09
4

Disney generally don't put their logos on things that aren't strictly suitable for all ages. While Disney the company owns Marvel, Disney the brand is HEAVILY associated with childhood. If you see the actual Disney logo prominently displayed on something, you know it's going to be safe for kids, and also really good. It's that association that Disney uses to sell their products to parents, many of who grew up watching Disney films.

The MCU movies, on the other hand, are generally aimed at teenagers and up. The same applies to Touchstone Picture movies, which are generally aimed at adults, and ABC, which does show programs not suitable for children. There are many other examples.

  • The reasoning seems to hold, though if you could edit in a quote from someone at Disney or something like that, that'd make for a better answer. – Jenayah Aug 30 at 11:21
  • Citation unneeded. That is my perception of a 'Disney movie': "suitable for all ages". That means no blood and no bewbs. - I don't have kids, so unless it's a remake of one of my childhood favorites, I'ma skip it. – Mazura Aug 30 at 22:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .