Don't fear the Mickey

Disney owns everything. The likes of Marvel, Pixar, ABC and everything "Star Wars" now falls under the House of Mouse.

As a purveyor of creative diversity, I should join the rallying cry against the Disneyfication of popular culture. The thing is, Big Bad Disney has proven to be more reliable than the people once in charge of Wookies and Avengers.

"Guardians of the Galaxy," the once little-known Marvel comic space heroes, just set an August box office record and debuted higher than this summer's movies from Marvel mainstays Spider-Man and the X-Men.

The box office success can be attributed to Disney's masterful advertising campaign, starting with a teaser trailer that playfully introduced the ragtag antiheroes and culminated with a marketing push that equated "Guardians" with everything you used to love about "Star Wars."

It helps that "Guardians of the Galaxy" is a terrific movie - the energetic and gleefully nerdy film that George Lucas failed to deliver with his "Star Wars" prequels. Audiences were obviously craving it, and Disney did everything right in connecting these new characters to the greater Marvel Cinematic Universe (excluding the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises, both operated under other film studios).

I say this not as some overly giddy comic fanboy or Disney apologist. The studio doesn't always get things right. Case in point: The mega-hit "Frozen" purposefully ignored the musical elements and female protagonists in its marketing for the purpose of tricking boys into the theater. It left the studio ill equipped to handle the merchandising demand once female audiences embraced the film. The movie may have made a billion dollars, but Disney could have made more had they trusted the quality of the film itself.

That (slight) misstep speaks to the greater qualities of Disney-led projects. The studio still believes in delivering a good product. It's the reason they spent an ungodly amount of money to keep Pixar in the fold, and why they put trusted genre-auteur J.J. Abrams in charge of the new "Star Wars" film.

Disney, through Marvel, also doesn't have a problem entrusting huge projects to fresh talent. Case in point: Putting the guy who made "Slither" (James Gunn) in charge of a $200 million untested franchise. "Guardians" wouldn't have been as good of a film without Gunn's unique sensibilities.

Critics could point at Marvel's upcoming "Ant-Man" as a reason against Disney's corporate micromanaging. When acclaimed geek filmmaker Edgar Wright ("Shaun of the Dead") left the project, many assumed it was Disney that pushed against his creative vision.

I'm as disappointed as most about Wright's exit, but the fact is we don't know the specific circumstances behind the change and we haven't yet seen a finished project. If the film turns out to be a generic Disney/Marvel adventure (the studio has far from a perfect record), I'll be the first to complain about the studio's apparent meddling.

At the moment, I'm willing to trust the direction in which Disney has taken these massive projects. For those wanting new "Star Wars," you couldn't ask for a better chance at a quality adventure. Abrams basically morphed the "Star Trek" franchise into more of a rollicking "Star Wars"-influenced universe, and his casting choices have a nice mix of new and familiar faces.

After Abrams' "Star Wars," Disney will entrust the franchise to Rian Johnson, the guy behind cerebral genre entries like "Brick" and "Looper." And those announced "Star Wars" origin story spinoffs will be led by Gareth Edwards ("Monsters" and this year's "Godzilla") and Josh Trank ("Chronicle"), two directors who have a passable interest in creating art out of the CGI haze.

Really, can a Disney-led "Star Wars" be any worse than "The Phantom Menace?" And who really thought we would ever get a live-action movie starring Ant-Man?

I would prefer Disney to get their hands on a few other franchises. Sony's "Amazing Spider-Man 2" was about as creatively bankrupt as blockbusters get, and Paramount seems to have no interest in making "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" anything more than a 90-minute kiddie distraction (more on the surprisingly robust creative history of the Ninja Turtles next week).

Sure, we live in an age where we are supposed to hate on all things corporate. I say we direct those concerns to the entities that play a role in actual history or social influence. Worry about the news you're getting from Fox/CNN or the Internet access you're not getting from (insert large company that probably advertises in this paper).

To worry about Disney in charge of Boba Fett and Dr. Strange seems misguided. Their track record is still pretty good, so why not enjoy the ride? If new "Star Wars" doesn't work out, we already have a Han Solo-equivalent in Chris Pratt in "Guardians of the Galaxy." That's an otherworldly gift.

Tyler Wilson can be reached at twilson@cdapress.com.