Insider buying up Marvel stock

[CommandD]

Here are a few ideas to reinvogorate the comic book business:

 

1.) Free Comic Book Day should be held in schools, not dusty old stores full of fat old guys!

 

2.) Publish low cost newsprint editions of age appropriate comics as loss leaders to get kids hooked when they are young.

 

3.) Publish low cost books aimed at children and available at a discount to retailers if placed near the entrance to their LCs.

 

4.) Revamp the DC/Marvel websites to be destinations for kids, not adults. Compare how they look to the websites og the Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon.

 

5.) Make a strategic alliance with a children's book publisher (like Scholastic) to add comic books (not reprints) to their Scholastic Book Clubs and Book Fair program.

 

6.) Make it a rule that all comic related toys come with a comic book. Many tie-ins do this, but it should be mandatory.

 

7.) I'm taking the kids out for the day so I'll list six more later. Rip these apart in the meantime!

[shadroch]

Does everyone believe it is all that important to hook kids when they are young? perhaps I'm in a great majority,but its not one of my pressing concerns.

[Aman619]

hahahaha. I wont nitpik. Most Ive heard before. And nearly all require leverage over other media/entities that the comics industry just doesnt have. And they all are based on children as neccessary for the future. Im thinking that with the growth of the late teen and 20s sales of late that "children" are more likely the past of comics, not the future. Now kids will have to grow up into what comics are today: alternatives to TV AND MOVIES in terms of plot and content. But those that DO come over to comics without the others that would have begun as kids will be in smaller numbers w/o th ekids... but, this is why I see a slow sustainable decline going forward.

 

I dint think the publishers hav ebeen all that clever in their attempts to deal with this, but I still have never heard the BIG IDEA.

[EastEnd]

Does everyone believe it is all that important to hook kids when they are young? perhaps I'm in a great majority,but its not one of my pressing concerns.

 

I think it would be nice but I don't think it's all-important. I believe comics have grown up a bit and the entry point is now late teens to mid-twenties rather than grammer school age.

 

By the way, I think the best way to get more kids involved in comics is for the publishers to go back to newstand distribution. When I was a kid, comics were EVERYWHERE. Nowadays, most kids don't even know where to buy them. A few months ago I gave my ten year old nephew a TNMT comic. He's a big Turtles fan and was very excited. The first words out his mouth -- "Wow, where did you get this?" I thought that was a sad commentary.

[tth2]

BTW, Bruce Lee died 30-some years ago and while there have been a few Asian stars whose fame has made them near-household names,none have come close to rivaling Lee.

Uh, Jackie Chan's "western" movies alone have grossed much much more than all of Bruce Lee's movies combined, even adjusting for inflation. Jet Li's movies have probably done better too. Obviously Jackie would be too old for the role (and he probably wouldn't be suitable anyways), although Jet Li might be okay although I don't think much of his acting, but I don't think it's so far-fetched that another Asian actor could become similarly successful.

[Tomega]

"Marvel is venturing more into film production like never before and all will not only be based on Marvel characters."

 

So they are like every other producer in town?

 

Sorry, if you think they are going to produce porn or Disney movies then you missed the point.

 

 

"...that may prove to be very lucrative."

 

Trust me, film financing and production is not as lucrative as you think! Why do you think the studios (mostly) don't actually finance their own movies any more?

 

Marvel has developed a proven track record of successful films and the merchandising that follows. Making 2% to 10% on past films just does not make business sense. Marvel will reap a windfall of cash on a successful film compared to what they made on past movies.

 

Source : CNN money

 

"In the past , Marvel has only licensed it's characters to film studios like Fox and Sony and they ate up most of the profit. Marvel used to get up to 10 percent of the profits with little risk but little reward ( they only made $25,000 on Blade 1.) "

 

BLADE saw no profits - Hollywood accounting and all.

 

Give me a break, site your source. Blade was a relatively low budget film ( $45 million or so) and had a box office of $133 million. Show me your source with "Hollywood accounting" that shows that it made no money. Marvel did receive only $25,000 for the film and you can easily find this info anywhere on the net.

 

"It is good money and the risk is low but Marvel got smart an decided to go after the lion share of the profit by producing their own films."

 

You don't get the "lion's share" of the profits by producing movies. You get that by distributing them!

 

If you are only making 2% to 10% on a movie and then you are making double to triple that, I would call that a lions share. They will be able to make more money faster by not being on other studios time tables.

 

 

 

In addition, their branding and interests are in more than people realize ( from Men in Black to Curious George) and their licensing agreements with Hasbro will continue to be very lucrative. Marvel has many movies planned such as :

 

Ant-Man - Has no brand awareness outside of the comic community

Black Panther - Ditto

Captain America - This character only has very little awareness.

Cloak & Dagger - None whatsoever

Doctor Strange - This movie will never get made

Fantastic Four 2 - I'm looking forward to this picture in spite of the first one.

Hawkeye - Means nothing to nobody

Iron Man - the last great, accessible character they have to exploit

Nick Fury - a personal fave, but means nothing

Power Pack - please

Shang-Chi - Not a chance

Wolverine - He's verging on being over-exposed

The Avengers - I wish

The Incredible Hulk 2 - After the first one? I would bet dollars to donuts this movie will never happen.

 

 

Yeah, good point......films about comics that are not mainstream names never make money. Let's see - Men in Black, 300, Sin City, V for Vendetta, League of Extraordinary Gentleman, upcoming Watchman etc......hmmmmmmmm

People are not going to see comic movies simply because they are comic fans but because of how interesting the movie is and the quality of the movie.

 

"Say what you will about whether you like a movie or not - nearly all the movies in the past have made money (especially after licensing and world wide sales.)Even garbage like Daredevil made $75 million profit."

 

Dream on - it cost 80 million to make, a minimum of 40 million for up and a, and barely broke a hundred million in the US. Add in the rest of the world, DVDs and other ancilliary markets and they are lucky if they broke even. I can check on that and will post the answer if you want me to.

 

Go ahead, check on it. Post your source and let's see. It did $178 million world wide ( according to some sources ) not including merchandising. Even with your figures of $120 million cost, it still does not add up to "breaking even."

 

 

 

"Before you dismiss these new movies, lenders have already given Marvel half a billion dollars."

 

Nobody has "given" Marvel a billion dollars.Hedge funds have promised financing on contingency. I am familiar with the deal and in no way is the "money" actually under Marvel's control. They only get to spend the money if Paramount (who loves off-balence sheet financing deals like these) agrees to distribute the film. The Marvel movie financing deal has no "puts." That is, Marvel can't make Paramount distribute a film - and Marvel can't cash flow production without a signed commitment for distribution.

 

Really, a hedge fund? So where did you get this info? Marvel released info that they obtained it from elsewhere. I would be interested in hearing which hedge fund you are talking about. Please elaborate.

 

 

 

"I am sure when a business decision is made to lend that type of money, they might know more then either of us do about the future of that company."

 

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but I am activly involved in a number of deals like the Marvel deal. The Marvel deal, like most of these financing deals, is largely considered BS by the film community.

 

You are involved in several deals with obtaining half a billion dollars in financing/credit for films. Wow. That is interesting, so I assume you have been involved in film community for a while - what films have you been involved in?

[carcrawfordfan]

"Marvel is venturing more into film production like never before and all will not only be based on Marvel characters."

 

So they are like every other producer in town?

 

Sorry, if you think they are going to produce porn or Disney movies then you missed the point.

 

 

"...that may prove to be very lucrative."

 

Trust me, film financing and production is not as lucrative as you think! Why do you think the studios (mostly) don't actually finance their own movies any more?

 

Marvel has developed a proven track record of successful films and the merchandising that follows. Making 2% to 10% on past films just does not make business sense. Marvel will reap a windfall of cash on a successful film compared to what they made on past movies.

 

Source : CNN money

 

"In the past , Marvel has only licensed it's characters to film studios like Fox and Sony and they ate up most of the profit. Marvel used to get up to 10 percent of the profits with little risk but little reward ( they only made $25,000 on Blade 1.) "

 

BLADE saw no profits - Hollywood accounting and all.

 

Give me a break, site your source. Blade was a relatively low budget film ( $45 million or so) and had a box office of $133 million. Show me your source with "Hollywood accounting" that shows that it made no money. Marvel did receive only $25,000 for the film and you can easily find this info anywhere on the net.

 

"It is good money and the risk is low but Marvel got smart an decided to go after the lion share of the profit by producing their own films."

 

You don't get the "lion's share" of the profits by producing movies. You get that by distributing them!

 

If you are only making 2% to 10% on a movie and then you are making double to triple that, I would call that a lions share. They will be able to make more money faster by not being on other studios time tables.

 

 

 

In addition, their branding and interests are in more than people realize ( from Men in Black to Curious George) and their licensing agreements with Hasbro will continue to be very lucrative. Marvel has many movies planned such as :

 

Ant-Man - Has no brand awareness outside of the comic community

Black Panther - Ditto

Captain America - This character only has very little awareness.

Cloak & Dagger - None whatsoever

Doctor Strange - This movie will never get made

Fantastic Four 2 - I'm looking forward to this picture in spite of the first one.

Hawkeye - Means nothing to nobody

Iron Man - the last great, accessible character they have to exploit

Nick Fury - a personal fave, but means nothing

Power Pack - please

Shang-Chi - Not a chance

Wolverine - He's verging on being over-exposed

The Avengers - I wish

The Incredible Hulk 2 - After the first one? I would bet dollars to donuts this movie will never happen.

 

 

Yeah, good point......films about comics that are not mainstream names never make money. Let's see - Men in Black, 300, Sin City, V for Vendetta, League of Extraordinary Gentleman, upcoming Watchman etc......hmmmmmmmm

People are not going to see comic movies simply because they are comic fans but because of how interesting the movie is and the quality of the movie.

 

"Say what you will about whether you like a movie or not - nearly all the movies in the past have made money (especially after licensing and world wide sales.)Even garbage like Daredevil made $75 million profit."

 

Dream on - it cost 80 million to make, a minimum of 40 million for up and a, and barely broke a hundred million in the US. Add in the rest of the world, DVDs and other ancilliary markets and they are lucky if they broke even. I can check on that and will post the answer if you want me to.

 

Go ahead, check on it. Post your source and let's see. It did $178 million world wide ( according to some sources ) not including merchandising. Even with your figures of $120 million cost, it still does not add up to "breaking even."

 

 

 

"Before you dismiss these new movies, lenders have already given Marvel half a billion dollars."

 

Nobody has "given" Marvel a billion dollars.Hedge funds have promised financing on contingency. I am familiar with the deal and in no way is the "money" actually under Marvel's control. They only get to spend the money if Paramount (who loves off-balence sheet financing deals like these) agrees to distribute the film. The Marvel movie financing deal has no "puts." That is, Marvel can't make Paramount distribute a film - and Marvel can't cash flow production without a signed commitment for distribution.

 

Really, a hedge fund? So where did you get this info? Marvel released info that they obtained it from elsewhere. I would be interested in hearing which hedge fund you are talking about. Please elaborate.

 

 

 

"I am sure when a business decision is made to lend that type of money, they might know more then either of us do about the future of that company."

 

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but I am activly involved in a number of deals like the Marvel deal. The Marvel deal, like most of these financing deals, is largely considered BS by the film community.

 

You are involved in several deals with obtaining half a billion dollars in financing/credit for films. Wow. That is interesting, so I assume you have been involved in film community for a while - what films have you been involved in?

 

 

Very smart post and I strongly agree with everything you just said. The figures do not seem to make any sense about Daredevil as they clearly made tons of money off of it. I also disagree that it even matters if anyone at all has heard of any of the properties that are being made. If the movies are good or entertaining they should make a profit. They are making a new Hulk movie, they will probably make at least one more Spiderman movie and many other properties are not dead. Just becuase ASM or XMen have had a complete run of the trilogy does not mean they are dead properties. Are Batman and Superman dead properties? The whole industry works in cycles and I am very sure that none of the properties are dead forever. Marvel will be around for a very long time and they may or may not have anything to do with actual comic book sales. They are very smart for finally taking over the movie business and keeping it in-house and I think you (commandD) look kind of foolish for calling them out with incorrect info/assumptions. Just my 2 cents.

[shadroch]

Is it just me or does anyone else think the tone of these posts read much like those of the now multi-time banned guy who insisted that there would never be another Superman movie,and that he worked for a company involved in these matters,even though he spelled the company name wrong .

[bullseye]

oddly enough, if you watch the movie "Jersey Girl" and listen to the commentary, hollywood people don't consider the movie a flop even if it only breaks even at the box office. The real money for movies is in selling viewing rights to tv stations and selling dvds.

 

Source: Kevin Smith.