"Completely based on nothing, I could see them with an all-ages comic line, to sell in theme parks and Disney stores and with toys and to grandparents, and a separate publication wing for "mature" content, like they do with the movies.
If that's the case, Wolverine is over, folks.  No wayDisney allows a character with the same name threaten to cut people inthe movies, and be in an all-ages comic."

I don't follow you.  If you can see Disney keeping a "mature line" of comics, then why would Wolverine (a 30+ year old character, and now one of the most recognizable on the planet) be "over?"

Disney is spending money to make money.  They'll find a way to keep Wolverine.  They're not that completely Pollyanna.

I think what Disney is missing for boys was AFTER boys out-grow Pixar (which is hard to imagine as most of us adults seem to love Pixar). There is this big gap in Disney's Brand that is now filled by the non-animation shows for girls, but does not seem to have the same "gap-filler" for boys. (Is that tween? I have no idea...) What are boys into instead? Not sure. Wrestling? Super heroes? Violent stuff? My boy is 2, and I draw Nick books for the young ones, so I'm a bit out of the loop. Heck, SpongeBob captures a broader range of older boys and girls then any Disney license. Could you imagine how cool it would be if Disney was able to somehow make boys as crazy about Marvel characters as girls are over Hannah-Jonas-whatever? (Is that even possible?)

So, yes, for a certain important age group of boys, I do think Disney has a gap that Marvel comics should fill. Now, the shame is that Marvel COMICS aren't for this mysterious age group (9-13?), so I hope there is some change in the actual comics, but the characters and the movies should hopefully help Disney get this demographic... Who knows? One thing for me is that I'm all for changing the majority of main character super-hero comics to entertain a broader age group, and I hope that's what they do...

It doesn't hurt that "Iron Man" was so excellent and showed that relatively unfamiliar characters could be successfully translated to the screen. It's a smart move on Disney's part. i know they will be aggressive in ensuring the publishing is profitable. I just home they show some vision in making it all ages so they can grow some new fans.

I understand Disney has trouble reaching boys 9-14 - a demo that Carton Network's "Star Wars: Clone Wars" is currently doing very well with. Marvel could do this kind of detailed animation for TV with the Marvel characters and clean up.

Lots of possibilities - I'm optimistic what with Iger in charge. I would not have been as optimistic if Michael Eisner were there.

"I don't follow you.  If you can see Disney keeping a "mature line"of comics, then why would Wolverine (a 30+ year old character, and nowone of the most recognizable on the planet) be "over?"

Disney is spending money to make money.  They'll find a way to keep Wolverine.  They're not that completely Pollyanna."

Right, right, I meant "Wolverine as we know it now" is over: chopping people up in videogames AND also on Nicklelodeon and on underwear for all I know.

You think Grandma and Grandpa are going to buy a "hero" with claws and berserker rages (well, they used to be rages) to give to the kids?

"It's not hard to imagine a spinner rack in one of those old-timey Main Street U.S.A. shops selling replica 1940s style comics..."

As much as I miss spinner racks, too, they certainly ain't coming back, what with the OCD, anal-retentive mentality that exploded into the minds of fandom once the comic collecting craze took off in the '80s.  How many comics got bent forward in those racks, before the Direct Market made them obsolete?

The "It's Near-Mint, or It's Crap" zombies were just another nail in the coffin when it came to simply enjoying comics for what they were.

Does this mean Howard the Duck can take off his pants again?

Oh, and since this is from a "Disney" film, I don't see why not.