The "if even Marvel" logic

[NatGertler]

There's much good stuff in the current piece, but it falls into a trap I've seen again and again in comics-related discussion, that if even Marvel can't do something, that means it can't be done, presumably because Marvel is the biggest, baddest, most effective all-around publisher in comics.
But it isn't so. Marvel's never been a very good all-around publisher. Before the Siler Age, they could never build anything, and counted on riding on the tails of whatever was popular. Then with the Silver Age, they turned into the superhero powerhouse, but repeatedly tried to build themselves into other markets with very little success. They've tried and gotten out of many types of books that others have continued doing successfully.
Ah, but we're talking about superheroes, right? And if Marvel can't launch new superheroes that go across other media, then other publishers can't? But no - Marvel has little incentive to create new. They've got the superheroes they need for almost all purposes. They like having people putting new polishes on them, keeping their old models in tune... but their inability to launch new ones does not translate to others being unable to do so.
Consider the movies: the most recent Marvel superhero property to headline a movie is Elektra, I believe. Is that the most recent comics-sourced superhero property to headline a movie? Of course not. Heck, Watchmen is newer than that. Hellboy is newer than that. Mystery Men were newer than that and had a far shorter lag between creation and film. And if you don't require a reasonable modicum of success, even the Zoom Academy is newer than that. If Hollywood needs fresh comics sources, then they'll be looking beyond Marvel (although with successes like The Incredibles and Hancock, as well as various failures, they obviously don't require the comics licenses.

[M. Bushbug]

I have never before heard this theory you're ranting against.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Consider the movies: the most recent Marvel superhero property to headline a movie is Elektra, I believe. Is that the most recent comics-sourced superhero property to headline a movie? Of course not. Heck, Watchmen is newer than that. Hellboy is newer than that.

What?

Elektra is from 2005.
Spiderman 3, Hulk and Iron Man (and the flop that was Ghost Rider and FF's) came after that.
Hellboy, came before it.

I believe the latest, Wolverine, was so instantly successful that they are spinning a Deadpool movie out of it.
Deadpool!

Worth pointing out to you though, that the successful Marvel Superheros have made a lot more money than Hellboy or Watchmen did.

They also look a lot better on a lunchbox than Hancock does.

Mystery Men were newer than that and had a far shorter lag between creation and film.

Mystery Men counts as a success?

It did nowhere near any of the other films you cite's numbers.

[M. Bushbug]

What?

Elektra is from 2005.
Spiderman 3, Hulk and Iron Man (and the flop that was Ghost Rider and FF's) came after that.
Hellboy, came before it.


Dear sir. Out of the characters from Marvel Comics that have movies Elektra is the newest one, having debuted in 1981.

Hellboy is a non-Marvel character that is newer than Elektra.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

That makes more sense.

Give it a year, and the latest property will be Deadpool, a decade younger, but ten times more sad.

Of course, you can't just use Elektra to show how bankrupt Marvel are - that's a character who's never sustained an ongoing series for more than a couple of years at a time, and yet they got ia film out of it.

[M. Bushbug]

That makes more sense.Yeah. It's what the OP actually said. That the property was newer, not the movie.

Give it a year, and the latest property will be Deadpool, a decade younger, but ten times more sad.I know, right?

Of course, you can't just use Elektra to show how bankrupt Marvel are - that's a character who's never sustained an ongoing series for more than a couple of years at a time, and yet they got ia film out of it.I'm going to assume you meant "a film". Yeah. Based on the "success" of 'Daredevil' even.

[NatGertler]

I didn't say Mystery Men counts as a success.. although it did gross more domestically than Elektra, at a time when tickets were cheaper. I was just isolating it from Zoom, which snuck into theaters and didn't even get noticed doing so, it seemed. I'm surprised it broke the $10 million mark.

And no, I didn't use Elektra to show how bankrupt Marvel was. I used it to show how Marvel hasn't had films based on newer properties while newer superhero concepts from other publishers have already gone to film.

This is addressing comments in Steven's most recent column.

[Steven Grant]

I didn't say Mystery Men counts as a success.. although it did gross more domestically than Elektra, at a time when tickets were cheaper. I was just isolating it from Zoom, which snuck into theaters and didn't even get noticed doing so, it seemed. I'm surprised it broke the $10 million mark.

What's Zoom? I've never heard of it.

- Grant

[David G]

"Zoom" was Tim Allen super-hero movie. He played a veteran hero that gets pulled back into action to train a new generation of heroes. It's based on a book series, I think. The film itself came and went.

[NatGertler]

Zoom started life as a comic book, Zoom's Academy for the Super Gifted (http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/may01/lethcoe.shtml), which came out in 2000, five years before the novel.

I haven't seen the film myself; it came and went pretty quickly. But given it's 4% rating on the tomato-meter, I'm not panicked over this particular lack.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

And no, I didn't use Elektra to show how bankrupt Marvel was. I used it to show how Marvel hasn't had films based on newer properties while newer superhero concepts from other publishers have already gone to film.


I meant creatively bankrupt.


I'm going to assume you meant "a film". Yeah. Based on the "success" of 'Daredevil' even.

You have to assume it was part of a package deal with Jennifer Garner, contracts done before DD had ever come out.

Maybe they had an option to do a sequel with her, and decided to ditch the DD part.

Which is a shame, as that fight on top of the pipe organ, in the first DD, was bad-ass!

(Not really).

[NatGertler]

Again, I did not use Elektra to show how bankrupt Marvel was, creatively or otherwise.

[badMike]

I believe the latest, Wolverine, was so instantly successful that they are spinning a Deadpool movie out of it.
Deadpool!Wolverine did all right, but it wasn't instantly successful -- by Hollywood standards anyway. It opened well, but word of mouth couldn't carry it. It did way less than the previous two X-Men movies and got trounced domestically by the Star Trek reboot.

Ryan Reynolds had talked about starring as Deadpool in a solo film for years. And, funnily enough, producer Lauren Shuler-Donner has given interviews that Deadpool in a solo film will be a complete reboot from the Deadpool character in Wolverine.

[Lord Destiny]

BACK TO THE OP: Grant wasn't quite saying that Marvel was the best at creating new superheroes. He was refering to the automatic, willing audience Marvel has to which they can immediately (and nearly effortlessly) market the new property. If Marvel can't sell new superheroes to perhaps the largest superhero-craving audience in the industry--historically so indiscriminate that they are often refered to (even by themselves) as loyal-to-the-company "zombies"--then there is a big problem.

BACK TO THE COLUMN: I have been considering this phenomenon for years. Marvel's last major contribution was Wolverine. That's the last new character for Marvel that has risen to the top tier, one that can be seriously compared to Spider-Man in popularity.

DC is still mining 1938-41. Very few later concepts can even hold their own title for more than a handful of years, let alone be seriously compared to Superman or Batman in popularity.

The Image properties are more an exception than proof that major properties can arise in the independents. Non-Marvel/DC superheroes have been around since the 1930s. How many have the same draw as Marvel/DC characters?

Despite some exceptions, Grant's column is dead on correct. There is simply very little interest in new superheroes. If there was, then why aren't movie producers creating their own and keeping all the money? Instead of rushing to the comic shops to snatch up something pre-made?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

DC is still mining 1938-41. Very few later concepts can even hold their own title for more than a handful of years, let alone be seriously compared to Superman or Batman in popularity.

Only mining it in regards to Batman and Superman - all the other names from back then that are still around are based on their 60's revivals.

[Steven Grant]

all the other names from back then that are still around are based on their 60's revivals.

In other words they're still mining '38-'41 once removed...

- Grant

[EuropaBambaataa]

In other words they're still mining '38-'41 once removed...

- Grant

Just as you said. It's the brand that's doing the selling. In spite of the belief they had at the time only children read comics, they were counting on the name recognition of Flash, Aquaman and Green Lantern to market those "new" characters. Even the JLA is a thinly-veiled retread of the JSA (I suppose League sounds better than Society in some way).

As a "zombie", I gave Marvel's Gravity a try. I kinda liked it, of course it was nothing innovative, in fact, the familiarity I felt with the concept came from Monica Rambeau, Roger Stern's black female southern Captain Marvel. Potentially very-very-oh-so-very powerful, capable of creating deus ex machina solutions, rookie superhero with a more normal POV than a guy who's been running around in tights in the last relative-time in-continuity 10 years, gets taken out of action in somebody else's hands before Warren Ellis or Grant Morrison can figure out how to turn into Vertigo's Kid Eternity. That was Marvel's latest attempt at a new "brand". And before that, what? Thunderbolts? I think it was, and it turned out it was an insider joke.

[Alex Scott]

I thought Noah Berlatsky had a good point in this post (http://hoodedutilitarian.blogspot.com/2009/11/aint-dead-yet.html). There actually have been plenty of recent successful superhero properties--it's just that none of them came from Marvel and DC. And there's some interesting discussion as to why that is.

Of course, in my mind this is all kind of related to another recent blog discussion regarding the tendency for recommendations for getting women into comics to get confused with "getting women into comics I like." The problem is they tend to ignore books that don't come from Marvel or DC/Vertigo, like, say, those ones from Japan that have a proven record of appealing to non-guys. Even as much as they try to branch out, Marvel and DC often seem to work under the assumption that everybody either gives a crap or should give a crap about their superheroes, their universes, and their tropes, when that just can't be the case.* Nothing will change as long as they're stuck with that kind of myopia.

* and even then, it seems focused on the writers and editors' favorite characters. I'm still wondering why Marvel isn't trying to position Power Pack as its answer to Naruto. Or why it hardly even has a presence on the Marvel Kids site. Really, it seems obvious, doesn't it?

[Steven Grant]

I think it was, and it turned out it was an insider joke.

??

What was the insider joke of Thunderbolts?

- Grant

[EuropaBambaataa]

??

What was the insider joke of Thunderbolts?

- Grant

The Masters of Evil reveal. By themselves, the Thunderbolts were rather generic, they could have been a WildStorm or Extreme Studios team just on design basis. The only surprise came at the end of #1 when the team was revealed to be Baron Zemo's team of supervillains, but readers could only care if they had prior knowledge of the characters.

[badMike]

then why aren't movie producers creating their own and keeping all the money? Instead of rushing to the comic shops to snatch up something pre-made?Because movie producing is an investment racket. Before a producer can "keep all the money," as you say, that producer has to RAISE a certain amount of money in order to produce the film that will theoretically create a profit.

In order to get an original superhero concept, a producer will have to read a certain number of "spec screenplays," which are screenplays written for no pay by a writer hoping to sell it, and pick a good one he think will make money. And there are more spec screenplays floating around Hollywood than drops of water AND granules of salt floating around in the ocean. Seriously, go ANYWHERE here and you'll see SOMEBODY with a screenplay they're reading or writing. If the producer does find a script he likes, he'll then have to "option" it, which means paying the writer some money for the right to find investors to back the making of the film. OR, there's the possibility some dumb, young, eager writer will agree to option his script for free.

OR, the producer can listen to lots of free pitches from writers who are hoping to get paid BEFORE writing their screenplay. This will entail the producer to like the idea being pitched, believe the writer can actually write, believe he can work with the writer over rewrites or fuck the writer over and have somebody else rewrite it, all in the space of about a five minute meeting. Pitching, while frequent, isn't pleasant for anybody. If the producer hears a good pitch, he'll then have to pay that writer to write the screenplay. OR he can convince some dumb, young, eager writer to write it for free maybe.

OR, the producer can write the damn script on spec himself.

NOW after acquiring a screenplay or writing his own, the producer then has to go out and CONVINCE OTHER PEOPLE to invest their money into a film that will hopefully make everybody money back, or at least break even. AND that producer will have to convince people to give him money on a script/idea that nobody's ever heard of.

So, what's easier? Going the new script route as outlined above? Or picking up an already produced comic and going to investors saying, "Give me money to make this which already has a readership of x thousand number of readers, so those chumps will pay to see this film guaranteed, so at least there will be SOME return on your investment at $10 a ticket."

[Steven Grant]

The Masters of Evil reveal. By themselves, the Thunderbolts were rather generic, they could have been a WildStorm or Extreme Studios team just on design basis. The only surprise came at the end of #1 when the team was revealed to be Baron Zemo's team of supervillains, but readers could only care if they had prior knowledge of the characters.

Ah. I never thought of that as in-joke, just another comicbookism...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Because movie producing is an investment racket. Before a producer can "keep all the money," as you say, that producer has to RAISE a certain amount of money in order to produce the film that will theoretically create a profit.

I admit there aren't many, but I do know a few film producers who could concoct these things by themselves, without having to read spec screenplays, etc. But these days it seems to be easier to take a pre-existing property to a studio (studios are where the money to make films comes from, on the Hollywood level) and make a sale than to sell them an original concept. Studios are what producers sell to, and if a studio doesn't want to back your film it generally doesn't get made.

Most producers feel it's better to get films made than to not get films made (esp. since getting films made makes getting more films made easier) and that owning a piece of something is preferable to owning all of nothing. (Though owning all of everything is the best of all worlds.)

- Grant

[NatGertler]

but readers could only care if they had prior knowledge of the characters.No, I think that the concept of those-good-guys-are-really-bad-guys-in-disguise is a concept that works as one of general interest. I'm not saying that it doesn't have more impact if you see it as being familiar bad guys, but even without that, it's a usable twist.

[Charles RB]

And the first issue hepfully explained there was a Masters of Evil that everyone was scared of, just in case you didn't know who they are.

[badMike]

I do know a few film producers who could concoct these things by themselves, without having to read spec screenplays, etc.Yeah, I kept it kind of simplistic and left out exceptions to the rule. There are producers with a track record and a list of contacts who can put things together without the rigmarole I listed. But who's got that track record? Few, I would think.

This all made me wonder how Hancock got off the ground not being adapted from some other property. Of course, it got made because Will Smith got involved, but how did it move up to get to him.

Looking at Hancock's producer list on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448157/fullcredits) is one of those situations where the deal-making involved could make one's head explode. I don't know how it originated. My guess is it was a spec written by one guy, sold to another producer/writer, who re-wrote it, who then got it to other, bigger-named producers.

Dunno why I particularly care, but I find this kind of thing interesting.

[NatGertler]

The Hancock script was created in 1996. That puppy kicked around for a while before becoming reality.

[badMike]

The Hancock script was created in 1996. That puppy kicked around for a while before becoming reality.Can you imagine trying to get a film made for ten years and THAT'S the result?

So then yeah, it was a spec script written by this dude (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1378206/) cuz he doesn't have any credits in '96 and only one TV credit in '97.

[NatGertler]

Can you imagine trying to get a film made for ten years and THAT'S the result?A film that gives me whatever cut comes from a $150 million budget, $600 million box office, and a planned sequel? Yeah, I imagine that all the time.

[badMike]

A film that gives me whatever cut comes from a $150 million budget, $600 million box office, and a planned sequel? Yeah, I imagine that all the time.Yeah, hopefully the writer got something, but who knows what his deal was.

I know a guy who worked as a writer on an Oscar-winning film that didn't make a ton of money, but, especially considering the budget, made a pretty nice chunk of change. He wrote it for practically no money and got a deal on the percentage on the backend.

And he never made a dime off of it other than that initial fee because of studio accounting saying it never made any money after advertising costs, etc.

So, hopefully whoever came up with the Hancock idea got some dough.

[bartl]

IOf course, in my mind this is all kind of related to another recent blog discussion regarding the tendency for recommendations for getting women into comics to get confused with "getting women into comics I like."
My wife liked Cerebus until Sim alienated virtually his entire female audience, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (especially Michael Dooney's version), and Powerpuff girls. She was a Flash fan in the 60's, and had a letter printed there, except they masculinized her name. And she loved Bone, as well. And any comic which Grant wrote her into (I think there were three?).

[badMike]

My wife liked Cerebus until Sim alienated virtually his entire female audienceI think he alienated most males, too, towards the end. I continued to buy it until the end, but, man, what a drag it became.

And any comic which Grant wrote her into (I think there were three?).Do you know which any of them are?

My wife doesn't read comics and it doesn't bother me one bit. I don't understand that issue at all. We have lots of other hobbies we share interest in and have a great time spending lots of time together.

[Steven Grant]

Can you imagine trying to get a film made for ten years and THAT'S the result?

The average time it takes to get a film made in Hollywood is seven years.

And a sequel to HANCOCK is in pre-production...

Oh, and if the film took ten years to make odds are pretty good there were quite a few writers not on record who "improved" the screenplay all the way to shooting script...

- Grant

[NatGertler]

The mention of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reminds me that I left them off of my superheroes-to-the-big-screen-created-after-Elektra list.... and that's hardly a minor one to overlook. Four feature films, in addition to at least three TV series, and not only newer than anything Marvel did, but also something that could not be generically replaced with anything that Marvel had originated earlier. While obviously no longer a young property, first publication to hitting the big screen was about six years.

[bartl]

Do you know which any of them are?
There was an issue of Terminator, and one of Midnight Sons. I can't recall the third, off hand, but I know there was one.

[badMike]

not only newer than anything Marvel did, but also something that could not be generically replaced with anything that Marvel had originated earlier.At the same time, would the Turtles have ever existed if Frank Miller hadn't done Daredevil?

[badMike]

The average time it takes to get a film made in Hollywood is seven years.

And a sequel to HANCOCK is in pre-production...

Oh, and if the film took ten years to make odds are pretty good there were quite a few writers not on record who "improved" the screenplay all the way to shooting script...

- GrantI'm sure. Anyway, my comment about taking 10 years to get Hancock made was just a joke. I really disliked that movie.

And the sequel is listed as "in development," a fearsome term if there ever was one.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I know a guy who worked as a writer on an Oscar-winning film that didn't make a ton of money, but, especially considering the budget, made a pretty nice chunk of change. He wrote it for practically no money and got a deal on the percentage on the backend.

And he never made a dime off of it other than that initial fee because of studio accounting saying it never made any money after advertising costs, etc.


That's waaaay more common than you'd like to think.

[badMike]

That's waaaay more common than you'd like to think.Actually, I like to think it's very common. But it was weird hearing it come from somebody I know somewhat personally.

That's the standard operation: Give percentage of the backend, then claim the film has NEVER made any money, so that the writer (or whomever) has to sue to find out the accounting. And a studio can probably assume that most people won't sue them because they won't be able to afford the expense.

There was a huge dust-up a few years ago when Peter Jackson requested to look at New Line Pictures' accounting books because he didn't think he was getting what he thought he should for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[NatGertler]

At the same time, would the Turtles have ever existed if Frank Miller hadn't done Daredevil?Of course not. But that doesn't do Marvel any good.

(Miller did a fair amount of work for Marvel. Out of that, Marvel got one movie, and some vital texture in another. Miller has done a fair amount of work for DC, out of which they got some texture in one movie, and another that's been planned for a while. After doing significant work for both those companies, he started having much of his work published by Dark Horse. Out of that material has come two produced and successful films, one TV series, and at least three further films in the planning stage. Now, most of that Dark Horse material isn't superhero, and that's part of it... but part of it is also that DC and especially Marvel are focused on servicing existing character concepts more than generating new ones.)

[badMike]

DC and especially Marvel are focused on servicing existing character concepts more than generating new ones.I don't follow modern superheroes that much, but do DC and Marvel TRY to generate new money-making superheroes these days? It seems to me that if they COULD come up with the next big thing, they'd pounce on it. I mean, DC certainly merchandises and republishes the shit out of Watchmen and Gaiman's Sandman. Watchmen took a long time to get to the screen, but it wasn't from a lack of trying.

I guess my point is that after an industry that fractured into so many small publishers where creators can own their characters, wouldn't Marvel and DC just have a problem with finding creators who WANT to bring them new characters that they won't own? Marvel and DC would have to open to give creators' more ownership, but could that possibly fit into their business plans?

One character that's been left out of the discussion is Blade, who exists in the "Marvel Universe" and who got his own successful film trilogy that's kind of superhero-like, but doesn't really refer to superheroes. But, flash back to 1972 and what if (What If?) Marv Wolfman has the OPTION of making a living writing comics for a corporation that he has no control over or writing comics where he can own the characters. Would he have even written Tomb of Dracula? Whose idea was it to create the comic? Marv's? Or was he hired to write it? Would he have given Marvel Blade or would he have said, "Fuck it, this idea is too good for somebody else to own?" I would assume at the time Marv wouldn't have many options like he would, and does, today.

And Marvel getting into the movie game isn't a new thing. It's just that they were so BAD at it for so long. I'm still waiting for the jive turkey Silver Surfer movie.

[NatGertler]

Marvel and DC do launch new superheroes from time to time; I certainly presume they're trying to make a profit.
And under the current agreements and understandings, there are good reasons to bring a new concept to Marvel or DC. You may not own your property, but you will be a financial participant in something controlled by people who have a good working knowledge of how to license and get things made. And meanwhile, you get paid a page rate, which can be a very comforting thing these days.
It wasn't Marv's idea to create Tomb of Dracula - he wasn't the original writer on it. Would Marv do work for Marvel or DC if he had the options he does today? Well, I was talking to Marv on Thursday. He's in the midst of dialoguing stage on a graphic novel he wrote for DC. And he talked about a series he's writing for them. Doesn't sound to me like he's abandoned that kind of work.
But instead of talking about Marv, let's mention his old buddy, Len Wein. Len has certainly created some creator-owned superhero characters. I can't think of a one that has generated visible cash for him. But that doesn't mean that he hasn't made money from his superhero work. Years ago, he was writing a Batman story, introduced a minor supporting character, and at an editor's urging, filled out the new-character form (despite Len thinking that this character was too minor to bother with.) When Morgan Freeman portrayed that character in the current run of Batman movies, Len got some very nice checks.

[badMike]

I was talking to Marv on Thursday. He's in the midst of dialoguing stage on a graphic novel he wrote for DC. And he talked about a series he's writing for them. Doesn't sound to me like he's abandoned that kind of work.I read Marv's blog from time to time, so I know he still works on projects for DC. But none for Marvel, right? (I can't recall off the top of my head.) And I wasn't speculating about what he'd do NOW, especially after having such an impressive career writing for Marvel and DC. Maybe it was kind of pointless speculating on my part about what could have happened THEN.

And under the current agreements and understandings, there are good reasons to bring a new concept to Marvel or DC. You may not own your property, but you will be a financial participantYes, I know there are benefits to creating characters for Marvel and DC. But, given the model set by Frank Miller that you set up -- not spectacularly profitable Marvel movie based on his character vs. wildly popular movies based on properties he has control over -- is the IDEA more attractive for new creators these days to create characters AWAY from Marvel and DC a drain on Marvel and DC's ability to attract top creators to create new stuff for them?

In other words, are Marvel and DC stuck in a position where they can't get enough good new creators to come to them with exciting new properties they can properly market so THAT'S why they're constantly just trying to re-market their old ones. You said Marvel has "little incentive" to create new characters. I would think they have big incentive, just not the business model to attract good creators who WILL create new characters for them.

And I could be completely wrong about that, but I'm just curious simply because this scenario sounds more logical to me. But, I know people and corporations don't always act logically.

Years ago, he was writing a Batman story, introduced a minor supporting character, and at an editor's urging, filled out the new-character form (despite Len thinking that this character was too minor to bother with.) When Morgan Freeman portrayed that character in the current run of Batman movies, Len got some very nice checks.Then I would have to assume that DC has a better business model to reward creators? Again, I remember reading Len's blog when X-Men 3 came out on DVD and he wrote about finally getting a teeny-tiny, barely readable credit for creating Wolverine on the back of the box. He didn't mention making any money for his character appearing in those movies. So, I'm assuming he didn't.

[NatGertler]

DC has much better treatment for creators of its older materials than Marvel does. (Having said that, both companies are in the midst of leadership changes, although I reckon the loss of Paul Levitz at DC is likely to have more of a negative impact in these matters than the Disney buyout of Marvel is apt to have a positve impact.)

DC seems to have little trouble getting new concepts from established creators... but where they're bothering to do so is in the Vertigo line. They have no shortage of superheroes. Paradox Press may have been a minor line, but it spawned two respected feature films.

[badMike]

the Disney buyout of Marvel is apt to have a positive impact.I started thinking about that, too, in that, if I remember correctly, at the time of the buyout it was touted by both sides that the main attraction here was Marvel's big backlog of great characters.

But Disney doesn't just rely on old characters for their own business. Their business doesn't seem to rely on the heavy marketing of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. Yeah, they continually re-release their old classic films, but the majority of their business seems to be based on wringing the bucks out of new properties like Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers. (I've had two jobs for Disney, but neither in the core business.)

It seems at some point Disney will go to Marvel with, "Well, what marketable properties are you creating NOW?" And that will be a problem.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Actually, I like to think it's very common. But it was weird hearing it come from somebody I know somewhat personally.

That's the standard operation: Give percentage of the backend, then claim the film has NEVER made any money, so that the writer (or whomever) has to sue to find out the accounting. And a studio can probably assume that most people won't sue them because they won't be able to afford the expense.

There was a huge dust-up a few years ago when Peter Jackson requested to look at New Line Pictures' accounting books because he didn't think he was getting what he thought he should for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Anthony Minghella and the producers of The English Patient never made a dime more than their initial pay check (which was low, to make way for a cut of the cash), because according to Miramax, it was a flop.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It seems at some point Disney will go to Marvel with, "Well, what marketable properties are you creating NOW?" And that will be a problem.

Especially when all the characters they can turn a buck with, again and again, in print form, have already been optioned to other companies.

[Charles RB]

It seems at some point Disney will go to Marvel with, "Well, what marketable properties are you creating NOW?" And that will be a problem.

They do have new properties. Those new properties might not do well as comics, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be marketable in other media - Runaways could do well, it's got a clear hook and defined characters.

[bartl]

Actually, I like to think it's very common. But it was weird hearing it come from somebody I know somewhat personally.

That's the standard operation: Give percentage of the backend, then claim the film has NEVER made any money, so that the writer (or whomever) has to sue to find out the accounting. And a studio can probably assume that most people won't sue them because they won't be able to afford the expense.
Actually, it's a threat of blacklisting anybody who sues a studio that protects them.

And studios have very creative accounting techniques, to overload a movie with expenses up front. For example, they have to pay the prop department for props. Need a pad of paper? That'll be $1500.

[NatGertler]

Yeah, they continually re-release their old classic films, but the majority of their business seems to be based on wringing the bucks out of new properties like Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers.That sounds like a fairly US-centric view of what Disney does. Disney's biggest consumer player? It's not Hannah, not a Jonas, not even Mickey or Donald. It's Winnie T. Pooh, and estimates have that one property running about 25% of their total consumer product licensing. Add in not only Mickie and Donald, but their big girls lines - the "Disney" Princesses (i.e., Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, etc.) and Tinkerbell-centered Fairies line, and it would seem quite hard to make the case that Disney's licensing isn't primarily driven by characters that are older than Superman.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

And studios have very creative accounting techniques, to overload a movie with expenses up front. For example, they have to pay the prop department for props. Need a pad of paper? That'll be $1500.

That's a very obvious one.
Better one's are the party they held to promote the film to others in the industry - it was more of a sales thing, so they didn't bother you with it - because then it's hard to say where the cash went.
Pretty tricky for an industry that doesn't even turn that much cash.

[badMike]

It's Winnie T. Pooh, and estimates have that one property running about 25% of their total consumer product licensing.Good thing I didn't work in their consumer product division...

[Lord Destiny]

I don't follow modern superheroes that much, but do DC and Marvel TRY to generate new money-making superheroes these days?

Last sincere attempt from Marvel seems to be Jim Shooter's New Universe. And I think it failed because it didn't look and feel like traditional superheroes.

I'd say DC gave up that idea when Jack Kirby tried to give them a new pantheon also not of the traditional superhero mold.

Notice how both died early deaths. It took DC decades to make the New Gods properties useful, and that basically required blending them in as regular superhero types.

[badMike]

Last sincere attempt from Marvel seems to be Jim Shooter's New Universe. And I think it failed because it didn't look and feel like traditional superheroes.Or just that the comics sucked beyond belief. I read one of them, which was like a Dr. Strange ripoff. It was on par with Martin Goodman's '70s Atlas Comics experiment.

[Steven Grant]

Last sincere attempt from Marvel seems to be Jim Shooter's New Universe. And I think it failed because it didn't look and feel like traditional superheroes.

I'd suggest that's not at all why it failed.

(Always thought DP7 was a great title, though. Not a great book, a great title. Clearly Marvel management didn't have much knowledge of porn terms. It was kind of like TEAM AMERICA, most of whose characters (Honcho, Cowboy, Lobo, Marauder, I forget the other ones) shared names with gay porn magazines...

- Grant

- Grant