Marvel/Disney playing hardball with FOX & Sony

[Elveen]

Now you are just arguing to argue.

You calling me TAFKAZ!

(this is purley a joke)

[jeremycoe]

If you had the choice between putting your resources towards something that gives you 100% return and something that gives you a 10% return what would you do?

[bosco685]

The point is that Marvel gets no movie $$$$ from the "Marvel characters" in the movies.
Pretty clear and valid comparision I'd say.

Actually, incorrect. You are looking at this as a profit share arrangement. Let me give you an example. But it will be a Sony one.

Disney Acquires Sony's Merchandising Participation For The Amazing Spider-Man

So Sony got itself in a financial bind. It needed to raise fast cash to overcome excessive expenses. In walks Disney with that magical wallet and offers to pay for the Amazing Spider-Man film right and all. Sony won't do it. So Disney does the next smartest thing and tackles the merchandising rights. What a win!

Now if Sony puts out movies that drives Spider-Man interest, Marvel/Disney merchandising sees an increase in demand. But even if Sony delivers a bomb (which it did), Marvel/Disney knows there is always Spider-Man merchandising demand.

No hard feelings. No 'Let's kill the comics and screw them over' which has blowback on Marvel. Smart business negotiations that also maintained a partnership of Spider-Man movie distribution that they couldn't get back into the fold. But whether they own it or Sony does, it is still a partnership that has open doors of communication.

[bosco685]

If you had the choice between putting your resources towards something that gives you 100% return and something that gives you a 10% return what would you do?

The business answer would be 'it depends' as you would have to look at level of effort, risks, costs and of course profits.

1) If I am a business and can deliver on only one thing myself, then I am going for the 100% returns (though nothing is ever 100% profit).

2) If I am a business and can delivery on more than one thing (I better, or I am a broken business), then I need to look at those criteria noted above.

- On those that are internally delivered that can achieve the highest profit rate, I'll do it myself.
- On those that can be delivered by someone else but still helping me expand my portfolio, then I am going for the relationships that provide the best benefits.

Again, if Marvel had all these properties within its creative house (and that would be the ideal situation for shared universe engagements), we still would maybe see two to three movies a year. But they would be REALLY BIG. With the current arrangement, Marvel is wise to let all these move forward but with the best arrangements they can achieve to benefit Marvel/Disney. If that means merchandising benefits and theme park side benefits from these movies, even better. Less risk and expense for it.

[geocarr]

Maybe to change the direction of this discussion slightly:
How many super hero characters can a movie support before the expenses outweigh the expected likely revenue? I would love to see a comprehensive Marvel cinematic universe, but what's the average cost of including a super hero character in a movie in terms of casting, doubles, wardrobe, CGI effects for their powers, etc. It would be nice if Marvel/Disney weren't limited by licensing and contractual rights but there would likely still be some financial budget ceilings. At least, I think there would. And please, don't anyone be a pain the *SQUEE* and ask me to interpret what I just wrote.

[Elveen]

The point is that Marvel gets no movie $$$$ from the "Marvel characters" in the movies.
Pretty clear and valid comparision I'd say.

Actually, incorrect. You are looking at this as a profit share arrangement. Let me give you an example. But it will be a Sony one.

Disney Acquires Sony's Merchandising Participation For The Amazing Spider-Man

So Sony got itself in a financial bind. It needed to raise fast cash to overcome excessive expenses. In walks Disney with that magical wallet and offers to pay for the Amazing Spider-Man film right and all. Sony won't do it. So Disney does the next smartest thing and tackles the merchandising rights. What a win!

Now if Sony puts out movies that drives Spider-Man interest, Marvel/Disney merchandising sees an increase in demand. But even if Sony delivers a bomb (which it did), Marvel/Disney knows there is always Spider-Man merchandising demand.

No hard feelings. No 'Let's kill the comics and screw them over' which has blowback on Marvel. Smart business negotiations that also maintained a partnership of Spider-Man movie distribution that they couldn't get back into the fold. But whether they own it or Sony does, it is still a partnership that has open doors of communication.

Good for Marvel. Closer to getting their characters.

[bosco685]

Maybe to change the direction of this discussion slightly:
How many super hero characters can a movie support before the expenses outweigh the expected likely revenue? I would love to see a comprehensive Marvel cinematic universe, but what's the average cost of including a super hero character in a movie in terms of casting, doubles, wardrobe, CGI effects for their powers, etc. It would be nice if Marvel/Disney weren't limited by licensing and contractual rights but there would likely still be some financial budget ceilings. At least, I think there would. And please, don't anyone be a pain the *SQUEE* and ask me to interpret what I just wrote.

Pretty straightforward to me. Is there a point of diminishing returns where so many actors/characters are crammed into a film, it becomes overly expensive to produce the film?

[Elveen]

If you had the choice between putting your resources towards something that gives you 100% return and something that gives you a 10% return what would you do?

The business answer would be 'it depends' as you would have to look at level of effort, risks, costs and of course profits.

I would agree with you only if you could not get the 100%.

If the 100% is an option then EVERY time yes.

Unless, you are a small company but some how get a chance to get 10% of a massive company. Obv, Disney (Marvel) is not a small company, but a massive one, so why, EVER, go for the 10%?

Why?

Do you know what Disney likes? Money. Not 10%, but 100%.

But really at this point this conversation has ran it's course. I stand by my points.
And really liked my mention of my Todd Marinovich t shirt.

[bosco685]

The point is that Marvel gets no movie $$$$ from the "Marvel characters" in the movies.
Pretty clear and valid comparision I'd say.

Actually, incorrect. You are looking at this as a profit share arrangement. Let me give you an example. But it will be a Sony one.

Disney Acquires Sony's Merchandising Participation For The Amazing Spider-Man

So Sony got itself in a financial bind. It needed to raise fast cash to overcome excessive expenses. In walks Disney with that magical wallet and offers to pay for the Amazing Spider-Man film right and all. Sony won't do it. So Disney does the next smartest thing and tackles the merchandising rights. What a win!

Now if Sony puts out movies that drives Spider-Man interest, Marvel/Disney merchandising sees an increase in demand. But even if Sony delivers a bomb (which it did), Marvel/Disney knows there is always Spider-Man merchandising demand.

No hard feelings. No 'Let's kill the comics and screw them over' which has blowback on Marvel. Smart business negotiations that also maintained a partnership of Spider-Man movie distribution that they couldn't get back into the fold. But whether they own it or Sony does, it is still a partnership that has open doors of communication.

Good for Marvel. Closer to getting their characters.

Bingo!

See? We know how to communicate.

By keeping those doors open between the two companies, now the next step is taking place.

Spider-Man May Play In The Marvel Cinematic Universe, Here Are The Details

Now that is smart business. Sony still needs financial help, and good old partner Disney steps in to offer its kind assistance.

[Elveen]

The point is that Marvel gets no movie $$$$ from the "Marvel characters" in the movies.
Pretty clear and valid comparision I'd say.

Actually, incorrect. You are looking at this as a profit share arrangement. Let me give you an example. But it will be a Sony one.

Disney Acquires Sony's Merchandising Participation For The Amazing Spider-Man

So Sony got itself in a financial bind. It needed to raise fast cash to overcome excessive expenses. In walks Disney with that magical wallet and offers to pay for the Amazing Spider-Man film right and all. Sony won't do it. So Disney does the next smartest thing and tackles the merchandising rights. What a win!

Now if Sony puts out movies that drives Spider-Man interest, Marvel/Disney merchandising sees an increase in demand. But even if Sony delivers a bomb (which it did), Marvel/Disney knows there is always Spider-Man merchandising demand.

No hard feelings. No 'Let's kill the comics and screw them over' which has blowback on Marvel. Smart business negotiations that also maintained a partnership of Spider-Man movie distribution that they couldn't get back into the fold. But whether they own it or Sony does, it is still a partnership that has open doors of communication.

Good for Marvel. Closer to getting their characters.

Bingo!

See? We know how to communicate.

By keeping those doors open between the two companies, now the next step is taking place.

Spider-Man May Play In The Marvel Cinematic Universe, Here Are The Details

Now that is smart business. Sony still needs financial help, and good old partner Disney steps in to offer its kind assistance.

Yes. My point the entire time. If I was Disney I'd do whatever I can to get back my characters.

[bosco685]

If you had the choice between putting your resources towards something that gives you 100% return and something that gives you a 10% return what would you do?

The business answer would be 'it depends' as you would have to look at level of effort, risks, costs and of course profits.

I would agree with you only if you could not get the 100%.

If the 100% is an option then EVERY time yes.

Unless, you are a small company but some how get a chance to get 10% of a massive company. Obv, Disney (Marvel) is not a small company, but a massive one, so why, EVER, go for the 10%?

Why?

Do you know what Disney likes? Money. Not 10%, but 100%.

Well, other than the simple answer 'And?' Disney has to slowly work its way into regaining all the properties. So I will stand by my points (1) go wisely in handling a negotiation and (2) don't cut off any revenue stream to spite a partnership just because of hurt feelings.

Taking action out of spite and emotion is bad business.

[bosco685]

Yes. My point the entire time. If I was Disney I'd do whatever I can to get back my characters.

See. Disney not doing something out of spite allowed it to have an open door for further negotiations versus revenue wars.

Exactly our points!

[Elveen]

Yes. My point the entire time. If I was Disney I'd do whatever I can to get back my characters.

See. Disney not doing something out of spite allowed it to have an open door for further negotiations versus revenue wars.

Exactly our points!

See, we are like Hall and Oats.

[depluto]

What in the hell are y'all arguing about?

[Elveen]

What in the hell are y'all arguing about?

better song?

Private Eyes or Maneater.

[lorddunlow]

What in the hell are y'all arguing about?

better song?

Private Eyes or Maneater.

Trick question. The answer is Barracuda.

[lorddunlow]

Maybe to change the direction of this discussion slightly:
How many super hero characters can a movie support before the expenses outweigh the expected likely revenue? I would love to see a comprehensive Marvel cinematic universe, but what's the average cost of including a super hero character in a movie in terms of casting, doubles, wardrobe, CGI effects for their powers, etc. It would be nice if Marvel/Disney weren't limited by licensing and contractual rights but there would likely still be some financial budget ceilings. At least, I think there would. And please, don't anyone be a pain the *SQUEE* and ask me to interpret what I just wrote.

Could you interpret that?

[slym2none]

Maybe to change the direction of this discussion slightly:
How many super hero characters can a movie support before the expenses outweigh the expected likely revenue? I would love to see a comprehensive Marvel cinematic universe, but what's the average cost of including a super hero character in a movie in terms of casting, doubles, wardrobe, CGI effects for their powers, etc. It would be nice if Marvel/Disney weren't limited by licensing and contractual rights but there would likely still be some financial budget ceilings. At least, I think there would. And please, don't anyone be a pain the *SQUEE* and ask me to interpret what I just wrote.

Could you interpret that?

-slym

[leonmallett]

1) Second & third string characters: Although I have known of them for some time now, ever heard of a non-comic book person mention they wanted Bishop, Blink, Sunspot, Quicksilver or Warpath in a movie? That's quite a few third-string characters thrown into a main movie. Risk? Fox took it.

The risk would have been making a Bishop movie. Fox made an X-Men movie that just so happened to have second and third string characters along with their main characters.

So that Deadpool movie approved for 2016 - not risky?

As risky as making Iron Man in 2008, Batman in 1989 or Blade in 1998.

The point jeremycoe appeared to be making was two-fold: that Bishop is not first tier these days; Deadpool really is. And that he is part of ensemble, the ensemble is first tier.

Now that has little meaning for a movie audience, but it is hard to argue against Deadpool's ubiquity for Marvel as a comics publisher.

[bosco685]

Yes. My point the entire time. If I was Disney I'd do whatever I can to get back my characters.

See. Disney not doing something out of spite allowed it to have an open door for further negotiations versus revenue wars.

Exactly our points!

See, we are like Hall and Oats.

[bosco685]

As risky as making Iron Man in 2008, Batman in 1989 or Blade in 1998.

The point jeremycoe appeared to be making was two-fold: that Bishop is not first tier these days; Deadpool really is. And that he is part of ensemble, the ensemble is first tier.

Now that has little meaning for a comic book audience, but it is hard to argue against Deadpool's ubiquity for Marvel as a comics publisher.

X-Men (2000) was quite the risk at the time, as how many comic book fans do you think there are to make a massive box office hit? These movies are made for a much larger audience than comic book readers. We are a part of the general audience - not the dominating force.

So going with a Deadpool was based on Fox seeing the reaction to the concept trailer (funny video, too). But it was most probably with the assumption this would go over with even non-comic book (NCB) patrons of theaters. Otherwise, it would have a difficult time achieving such high returns on the budget assigned. None of us would assume comic book fans helped The Avengers achieve a worldwide $1.5 billion on their own. It was a much, much larger audience that attended this movie - and many times multiple times - leading to those results.

So with X-Men: Days of Future Past, it would be the same situation. To hit that $746 MM worldwide box office, the movie had to reach a much larger audience than comic book fans. But adding these new characters came with some risk. Who outside of comics knew Bishop or the other characters that appeared? Warpath - never heard anyone at work in a movie conversation state 'Gotta have me some Warpath' in their comic book movies. And Blink was a masterful choice, as she went over very strongly with Asian audience members. But before that, it was risky to toss out this character that really had no history with those NCB theater-goers.

So Deadpool will be another one that is new ground for Fox. The character in Origins was nothing like the Deadpool in comics, other than 'Wade Wilson' being used in the movie and some smart-alleck jokes and sweet swordplay in certain scenes. Other than that, NCB folks are not going to really know who this is. Risk abounds!

[bosco685]

And wait until X-Force gets announced for real. I will be overjoyed if Cable is part of that crew.

[bosco685]

What in the hell are y'all arguing about?

Arguing? No arguments I am seeing here. This was more about differing views on Marvel's approach to movie distribution partners. That's all.

But if Marvel thinks canceling comics is going to cut off Fox's reference pool leading to impacting its movie distribution efforts, that is very shortsighted. Again, X-Men have been around since 1963, and Fantastic Four since 1961. And that includes all the related spin-off series. Fox has a large library to choose from for years.

Better to take the Sony partnership approach, and maintain friendly relations while slowly whittling away at those movie rights. Experienced business people lean towards that approach as opposed to a heads-on attack. Marvel can gain the upper hand through direct influence and negotiations. And, it can still distribute its comics and merchandising products without any revenue hiccup, no matter how small or large those revenue categories may be.

[Cyberstrike]

There is also some thing else that needs to be said that the head of Marvel doesn't like the head of 21st Century Fox Films on a personal level.

[bosco685]

There is also some thing else that needs to be said that the head of Marvel doesn't like the head of 21st Century Fox Films on a personal level.

Now THAT is an interesting point to make.

Any articles to note you feel are worth reading? Hollywood battles like that get very personal.