Comments on: The Disney/Marvel deal: Did Disney Get Screwed? http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/ General interest observations and true web-log. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:19:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Superhero Legacy http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1680531 Superhero Legacy Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:30:29 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1680531 Disney's not dumb, so they must have something up their sleeve... Maybe the boomers grew up with the comics, but Generation Y and the current generation have grown up with the cartoons, and even though a lot of the movies are rated PG-13, kids still see them today. So that means there will be superhero fans for quite a few years to come. The thing that will stop hero movies from being made is if people get sick of seeing Peter Parker being bitten by a Spider (eg, 2012 Spider-Man reboot). Disney’s not dumb, so they must have something up their sleeve…

Maybe the boomers grew up with the comics, but Generation Y and the current generation have grown up with the cartoons, and even though a lot of the movies are rated PG-13, kids still see them today. So that means there will be superhero fans for quite a few years to come. The thing that will stop hero movies from being made is if people get sick of seeing Peter Parker being bitten by a Spider (eg, 2012 Spider-Man reboot).

]]> By: jesusj124y6 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1584243 jesusj124y6 Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:12:30 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1584243 yeah man will still love the comics yeah man will still love the comics

]]> By: bkressin http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1580913 bkressin Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:38:12 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1580913 Your post on Disney’s take over of Marvel offers an intriguing argument. I especially liked your analogy to eBay that, “despite spending billions, eBay bought nothing. It merely licensed the right to use Skype’s technology.” I actually cannot think of a better way to explain the take over myself, particularly because of the new developments involving Jack Kirby’s estate. Why Disney would want to buy the rights to characters that have already been made into franchises through other studios does not make much sense, unless of course they had planned to produce future movies themselves, such as Captain America, The Avengers, and Thor. You point out that “in about ten years Disney would be set to go on its own”. However, the notices of copy right termination from Jack Kirby’s camp will become effective as soon as 2014 (http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6068). The validity of the copy right termination of characters co-created by Jack Kirby would not only cause inconvenience for Disney and Marvel but also any film studio that has made movies using Kirby’s characters. Production for The Avengers, Captain America, Thor and Iron Man 3 would have to come to an end. No doubt, Kirby’s heirs are most likely put out about missing out on a piece of the $4 billion Disney paid Marvel, especially since Kirby’s characters are by far the most popular. You bring up valid points about superhero movies being geared towards adults, but I have to disagree with you that the super hero genre is dying out. True, it is possible that “in ten, twenty years no one is going to give a rip about Spider-Man”, but that is why remakes and reinventions of old characters can generate so much success. Take the newly franchised Batman as an example. The first Batman was released in 1989 and there is still as much, if not more, buzz and excitement about the Batman Begins series as there was ten years ago for the original film. For the time being it certainly seems that Marvel has become a trophy for Disney to put on the shelf, but as time progresses it could very well find a niche in the Disney brand if approached correctly. Your post on Disney’s take over of Marvel offers an intriguing argument. I especially liked your analogy to eBay that, “despite spending billions, eBay bought nothing. It merely licensed the right to use Skype’s technology.” I actually cannot think of a better way to explain the take over myself, particularly because of the new developments involving Jack Kirby’s estate. Why Disney would want to buy the rights to characters that have already been made into franchises through other studios does not make much sense, unless of course they had planned to produce future movies themselves, such as Captain America, The Avengers, and Thor.

You point out that “in about ten years Disney would be set to go on its own”. However, the notices of copy right termination from Jack Kirby’s camp will become effective as soon as 2014 (http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6068). The validity of the copy right termination of characters co-created by Jack Kirby would not only cause inconvenience for Disney and Marvel but also any film studio that has made movies using Kirby’s characters. Production for The Avengers, Captain America, Thor and Iron Man 3 would have to come to an end. No doubt, Kirby’s heirs are most likely put out about missing out on a piece of the $4 billion Disney paid Marvel, especially since Kirby’s characters are by far the most popular.

You bring up valid points about superhero movies being geared towards adults, but I have to disagree with you that the super hero genre is dying out. True, it is possible that “in ten, twenty years no one is going to give a rip about Spider-Man”, but that is why remakes and reinventions of old characters can generate so much success. Take the newly franchised Batman as an example. The first Batman was released in 1989 and there is still as much, if not more, buzz and excitement about the Batman Begins series as there was ten years ago for the original film. For the time being it certainly seems that Marvel has become a trophy for Disney to put on the shelf, but as time progresses it could very well find a niche in the Disney brand if approached correctly.

]]> By: RSweeney http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579942 RSweeney Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:59:10 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579942 Surely Disney can call on their pals in Washington and get these contracts nullified. Surely Disney can call on their pals in Washington and get these contracts nullified.

]]> By: pedro http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579884 pedro Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:01:18 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579884 #30 That was the point. Nobody saw it because it blowed chunks. Even my son hated the thing. #33 True. The only successful thing (and I don't like it) they've done is the reboot of Galactica. #10 Actually, the re-brand... and now that I think of the explanation, it's starting to make a little sense, specially since Warner bought DC. The re-branding is the second one they make for the defunct Fox Kids, which they bought from Fox and it had a heavy Marvel & DC cartoon line-up. They rebranded it as Jetix which also blowed and now they change it again to Disney XD. Funny this re-branding happened a month or so before the Marvel deal announcement. So it looks as a haste move to avoid losing Marvel content on their channel. I wonder where the DC content will show up now. A lot of money spending with low performance, if you ask me. There has to be more to it. #30 That was the point. Nobody saw it because it blowed chunks. Even my son hated the thing.

#33 True. The only successful thing (and I don’t like it) they’ve done is the reboot of Galactica.

#10 Actually, the re-brand… and now that I think of the explanation, it’s starting to make a little sense, specially since Warner bought DC.

The re-branding is the second one they make for the defunct Fox Kids, which they bought from Fox and it had a heavy Marvel & DC cartoon line-up.

They rebranded it as Jetix which also blowed and now they change it again to Disney XD. Funny this re-branding happened a month or so before the Marvel deal announcement.

So it looks as a haste move to avoid losing Marvel content on their channel. I wonder where the DC content will show up now.

A lot of money spending with low performance, if you ask me. There has to be more to it.

]]> By: MikeN http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579875 MikeN Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:34:34 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579875 >But Universal Has the rights to Hulk and Hulk was one of the original Avengers and can’t be in the Avengers movies now. Nice Management. No, they're putting them all in. It's why Robert Downey shows up at the end of The Hulk. >But Universal Has the rights to Hulk and Hulk was one of the original Avengers and can’t be in the Avengers movies now. Nice Management.

No, they’re putting them all in. It’s why Robert Downey shows up at the end of The Hulk.

]]> By: Thomas http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579831 Thomas Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:31:31 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579831 While on the surface your premise seems reasonable, there are many possibilities that you might be overlooking: 1. There are many exhibition rights of which cinematic is only one. What about video, free tv, pay tv, internet... 2. The rights might include all distribution mediums but not include the creation of TV content such a new children's series or even made-for-tv movies. 3. Do the contracts cover worldwide distribution or only domestic? While on the surface your premise seems reasonable, there are many possibilities that you might be overlooking:

1. There are many exhibition rights of which cinematic is only one. What about video, free tv, pay tv, internet…

2. The rights might include all distribution mediums but not include the creation of TV content such a new children’s series or even made-for-tv movies.

3. Do the contracts cover worldwide distribution or only domestic?

]]> By: Breetai http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579828 Breetai Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:03:49 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579828 #27 Pedro I saw it. It was produced by the SciFi Channel and was stereotypical SciFi channel Quality. I swear that channel exists for the sole purpose of Hollywood elitists dumping money in a place that keeps SciFi from gaining mainstream traction. It's the only explication for the grade school SciFi effects and kindergarten scripts. #27 Pedro
I saw it. It was produced by the SciFi Channel and was stereotypical SciFi channel Quality.

I swear that channel exists for the sole purpose of Hollywood elitists dumping money in a place that keeps SciFi from gaining mainstream traction. It’s the only explication for the grade school SciFi effects and kindergarten scripts.

]]> By: Obvious1 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579820 Obvious1 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:48:13 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579820 While it's true that there are very few Marvel characters left that Disney can tap for movies, this doesn't mean Disney bought a pig in a poke. Marvel's contracts with Paramount and others are constructed so that Marvel makes a ton on the backend of each movie as well as a healthy advance - and now all that money goes into Disney's coffers. Any huge profits Marvel makes on anything goes into the corporate coffers now - Disney's coffers - so there are still plenty of ways for Disney to monetize their purchase. I wouldn't worry too much about the Mouse... While it’s true that there are very few Marvel characters left that Disney can tap for movies, this doesn’t mean Disney bought a pig in a poke. Marvel’s contracts with Paramount and others are constructed so that Marvel makes a ton on the backend of each movie as well as a healthy advance – and now all that money goes into Disney’s coffers. Any huge profits Marvel makes on anything goes into the corporate coffers now – Disney’s coffers – so there are still plenty of ways for Disney to monetize their purchase. I wouldn’t worry too much about the Mouse…

]]> By: Breetai http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579815 Breetai Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:18:03 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579815 Wow, that explains a lot. Paramount has the Right to Ironman, Thor, Captain America, and the Avengers. But Universal Has the rights to Hulk and Hulk was one of the original Avengers and can't be in the Avengers movies now. Nice Management. Wow, that explains a lot. Paramount has the Right to Ironman, Thor, Captain America, and the Avengers.

But Universal Has the rights to Hulk and Hulk was one of the original Avengers and can’t be in the Avengers movies now. Nice Management.

]]> By: jccalhoun http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579762 jccalhoun Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:24:18 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579762 <i>Which was canceled ’cause nobody saw it.</i> No the Flash Gordon show was canceled because it sucked. It was terrible. It deserved to be canceled. and its creators to never be allowed to work in the tv industry again. Which was canceled ’cause nobody saw it.

No the Flash Gordon show was canceled because it sucked. It was terrible. It deserved to be canceled. and its creators to never be allowed to work in the tv industry again.

]]> By: Angel H. Wong http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579744 Angel H. Wong Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:19:02 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579744 #27 Pedro, These idiots who live in their ivory towers still think that the best way to remake a classic is to make it a skater/twink themed turd. The last really good animated series I saw was Nickelodeon's Avatar. #27 Pedro,

These idiots who live in their ivory towers still think that the best way to remake a classic is to make it a skater/twink themed turd.

The last really good animated series I saw was Nickelodeon’s Avatar.

]]> By: Angel H. Wong http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579740 Angel H. Wong Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:15:53 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579740 Merchandise royalties, that's where the money's at. Don't forget all the money George Lucas is getting from all those toys, games, shirts, etc. In the end, these comic book-based movies are nothing but expensive infomercials nowadays. Merchandise royalties, that’s where the money’s at. Don’t forget all the money George Lucas is getting from all those toys, games, shirts, etc.

In the end, these comic book-based movies are nothing but expensive infomercials nowadays.

]]> By: pedro http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579737 pedro Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:06:16 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579737 #26 Which was canceled 'cause nobody saw it. #26 Which was canceled ’cause nobody saw it.

]]> By: jccalhoun http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/09/19/the-disneymarvel-deal-did-disney-get-screwed/comment-page-2/#comment-1579710 jccalhoun Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:37:08 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=58530#comment-1579710 <i>And by the way, when was the last time they made a Flash Gordon movie? Buck Rogers? Oh yeah, those extremely huge and beloved characters died off. Because no no one gives a rat’s ass about them. In the exact same way no one is going to give a rat’s ass about Spider-man in forty years.</i> Since Superman is only 10 years younger than Buck Rogers and only 6 years younger than Flash Gordon and Superman just had a movie made about him a few years ago I don't think there's any reason to believe that just because a character is old no one cares. Flash Gordon had a tv show just a year or two ago. And by the way, when was the last time they made a Flash Gordon movie? Buck Rogers? Oh yeah, those extremely huge and beloved characters died off. Because no no one gives a rat’s ass about them. In the exact same way no one is going to give a rat’s ass about Spider-man in forty years.

Since Superman is only 10 years younger than Buck Rogers and only 6 years younger than Flash Gordon and Superman just had a movie made about him a few years ago I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that just because a character is old no one cares. Flash Gordon had a tv show just a year or two ago.

]]>