Insider buying up Marvel stock

[shadroch]

According to published reports,a company Director recently bought over $250,000 worth of Marvel stock. This is generally seen as a positive sign.

Just thought I'd toss it out for those of you who might be interested.

[ComicSupply]

It also could be an insider buying back to just regain a larger control of the company. Not all insider purchases are a good thing.

 

Could be a purchase to cover an option or something of the sort.

[CommandD]

Like what, this "insider" excited the Spiderman movie franchise is over, X-men movies are no longer being planned, the Ghost Rider film tanked, the Punisher movie sucked, Hulk sucked even worse and there are no well-known properties that remain to be exploited?

 

Does anybody outside of comics know Thor, Captain America or Dr. Strange and care about seeing a movie (or buying a toy based on the movie?)

 

Marvel's "resurgance" has been entirely driven by the exploitation of their IP properties as movies, but since Marvel did nothing to try and build the brand (by say, marketing comics to children) their fate in the future is obvious - purchased by a larger company only to be treated by them like DC is treated by Warners - as a loss leader kept whose sole responsibility is to provide life support for Superman and Batman until the next movie is in the can.

[MrBedrock]

If Marvel were ever to be treated by a parent company as well as DC is treated by Time/Warner I would think that would be a positive for all of us. Seems to me DC is able to do what they do without much interference from Warner (i.e. Vertigo, overstock and perpetual stock on TPBs, the RRP program, trade show appearances). Heck, Marvel can't do a fraction of those things and their presence in the market is still fairly strong. Imagine what it would be if they could.

[CommandD]

If Marvel were ever to be treated by a parent company as well as DC is treated by Time/Warner I would think that would be a positive for all of us. Seems to me DC is able to do what they do without much interference from Warner (i.e. Vertigo, overstock and perpetual stock on TPBs, the RRP program, trade show appearances). Heck, Marvel can't do a fraction of those things and their presence in the market is still fairly strong. Imagine what it would be if they could.

 

That being said, when was the last time DC made an effort to get kids reading comics, make reading affordable or launch a hugely succesful new character? Warners allow DC to do what they need to keep their properties alive. Let me be the first to say it "Warners is absolutely the all-time best life support system DC, or any company in the history of for-profit corporations, has or could ever had."

 

With that on the table, you have to wonder when they are going to stop harvesting the organs and let the body die.

 

I mean, come on, the TV show "Heroes" has made a much larger impact on comics/super-heroes than anything from Marvel/DC. What was the majors' last new character that crossovered into the mainstream? Wolverine? Or "The Dazzler?" (I kid, I kid)

[Tomega]

Like what, this "insider" excited the Spiderman movie franchise is over, X-men movies are no longer being planned, the Ghost Rider film tanked, the Punisher movie sucked, Hulk sucked even worse and there are no well-known properties that remain to be exploited?

 

Does anybody outside of comics know Thor, Captain America or Dr. Strange and care about seeing a movie (or buying a toy based on the movie?)

 

Marvel's "resurgance" has been entirely driven by the exploitation of their IP properties as movies, but since Marvel did nothing to try and build the brand (by say, marketing comics to children) their fate in the future is obvious - purchased by a larger company only to be treated by them like DC is treated by Warners - as a loss leader kept whose sole responsibility is to provide life support for Superman and Batman until the next movie is in the can.

 

Marvel is venturing more into film production like never before and all will not only be based on Marvel characters. It is a risky overhaul of a business model that may prove to be very lucrative. 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.) 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. 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

Black Panther

Captain America

Cloak & Dagger

Doctor Strange

Fantastic Four 2

Hawkeye

Iron Man

Nick Fury

Power Pack

Shang-Chi

Wolverine

The Avengers

The Incredible Hulk 2

 

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.

 

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

[MutantKeys]

Power Pack

[ComicSupply]

If Marvel were ever to be treated by a parent company as well as DC is treated by Time/Warner I would think that would be a positive for all of us. Seems to me DC is able to do what they do without much interference from Warner (i.e. Vertigo, overstock and perpetual stock on TPBs, the RRP program, trade show appearances). Heck, Marvel can't do a fraction of those things and their presence in the market is still fairly strong. Imagine what it would be if they could.

 

That being said, when was the last time DC made an effort to get kids reading comics, make reading affordable or launch a hugely succesful new character? Warners allow DC to do what they need to keep their properties alive. Let me be the first to say it "Warners is absolutely the all-time best life support system DC, or any company in the history of for-profit corporations, has or could ever had."

 

With that on the table, you have to wonder when they are going to stop harvesting the organs and let the body die.

 

I mean, come on, the TV show "Heroes" has made a much larger impact on comics/super-heroes than anything from Marvel/DC. What was the majors' last new character that crossovered into the mainstream? Wolverine? Or "The Dazzler?" (I kid, I kid)

 

I will say this. Marvel has 0 count them 0 titles at a reduced cost for kids.

 

DC has at least 6-7 that come out on a monthly basis. Even though this is peanuts it might as well be a landfill worth because Marvel doesn't give a camelturd.

[CommandD]

"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?

 

"It is a risky overhaul of a business model"

 

To say the least!

 

"...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?

 

"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.

 

"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!

 

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.

 

By the way, you forgot the following titles as currently in development:

 

Thor

Magneto

Call to Duty

Daredevil 2

Deadpool

Deathlok

The Gargoyle

Killraven

Power Man

Moon Knight

Morbius

Punisher 2

Sub-Mariner

Werewolf by Night

 

"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 p 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.

 

"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.

 

"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.

[Aman619]

I was put off by your outright condemnation of Marvels prospects. Until I read your dissection of the Pollyanna-like comments about Marvel's place in Hollywood. Good stuff. Im not as pessimistic about Marvel's future as you are, but Im not buying stock either. Im pretty sure they will be around for quite a while more, and their movies will keep coming out with the home runs few and far between....just gonna get tougher now. Bottom line is that a good well made movie will do business.

[CommandD]

I was put off by your outright condemnation of Marvels prospects. Until I read your dissection of the Pollyanna-like comments about Marvel's place in Hollywood. Good stuff. Im not as pessimistic about Marvel's future as you are, but Im not buying stock either. Im pretty sure they will be around for quite a while more, and their movies will keep coming out with the home runs few and far between....just gonna get tougher now. Bottom line is that a good well made movie will do business.

 

I don't mean to put anybody off, I'm just irritated that the comics business doesn't seem to care that the comics business is dying. I take my kids to one of the LCS and they are treated with awe and wonder. "Who are these tiny people who are so familiar with Captain America and Thor?" people seem to think.

 

I could think of a dozen ways to get kids to read comic books. And, by the way, not one of them is "Free Comic Book Day."

[shadroch]

I don't see where it matters if people know a character or not.

If a movie is well-done,it will succeed. If not,it will fail.

How many people went to see The Road To Perdition because it was a comic?

How many went to see 300 because it was based on a comic?I have no idea what Marvels future prospects are,I posted this because I find it interesting that one of its board members is buying now,when street wisdom says Marvel stock should be at a peak.

[EastEnd]

I think there's a sense that there could be significant upside to Marvel's entry into film production. I believe they also said that publishing revenues were growing about 14% at the last conference they presented at.

[CommandD]

I don't see where it matters if people know a character or not.

If a movie is well-done,it will succeed. If not,it will fail.

How many people went to see The Road To perdition because it was a comic?

How many went to see 300 because it was based on a comic?I have no idea what Marvels future prospects are,I posted this because I find it interesting that one of its board members is buying now,when street wisdom says Marvel stock should be at a peak.

 

If you are an IP company, that is what the rest of Hollywood expects from you - well known properties. Of course, most movies are not based on well known properties, but that is what people expect from doing business with Marvel and will be why they walk away from Marvel when they realize they no longer have well known properties to exploit.

[CommandD]

I think there's a sense that there could be significant upside to Marvel's entry into film production. I believe they also said that publishing revenues were growing about 14% at the last conference they presented at.

 

That's my problem - comics revenue are 14% - they should be building back their business in that field and not place the company's future on a risky business like movies.

[shadroch]

I will be the first to admit I know next to nothing about what hollywood wants or expects,nor even what an IP company means.

But I would think that having fully developed characters with an extensive published history would be quite significant.

Take Shang-Chi,as an example.Son of a power mad Asian demi-god,he turns against his evil father to defend truth and justice,kicking *spoon* and making love.Tell me Bruce Lee couldn't have made this a franchise rivaling Bond.

Yes,he is unknown to 98% of the movie going audience,but he has a fully developed universe that the writers/directors/producers can pick and choose from. Combining martial arts withthe world of espionage could be a real winner. Yet you dismiss it out of hand.But the XXX series combined X-sports and spys and was successful enough to have a sequel.

 

Then tell me why Power Pack couldn't become as big a franchise as The Three Ninjas?

[CommandD]

I will be the first to admit I know next to nothing about what hollywood wants or expects,nor even what an IP company means.

But I would think that having fully developed characters with an extensive published history would be quite significant.

Take Shang-Chi,as an example.Son of a power mad Asian demi-god,he turns against his evil father to defend truth and justice,kicking *spoon* and making love.Tell me Bruce Lee couldn't have made this a franchise rivaling Bond.

Yes,he is unknown to 98% of the movie going audience,but he has a fully developed universe that the writers/directors/producers can pick and choose from. Combining martial arts withthe world of espionage could be a real winner. Yet you dismiss it out of hand.But the XXX series combined X-sports and spys and was successful enough to have a sequel.

 

Then tell me why Power Pack couldn't become as big a franchise as The Three Ninjas?

 

Sorry, "IP" stands for intellectual property.

 

Three Ninjas cost six million. Power Pack would cost upwards of 100-200 million. It is not that I think PP would be a bad movie, I just think it is is far less likely than Three Ninjas to get made - and make a profit. I'd be first in line to see a PP movie, btw.

 

And not to burst your Power Pack bubble, but the project was apparently put into turnaround from Artisan (now Lion's Gate) in 2005 without a -script having ever been written.

 

Shang-Chi is unlikely to ever be made unless a new Asian star shows up in our sights. After all, wasn't Bruce Lee the Asian actor passed oved for Keith Carradine to star in the original "Kung Fu" TV series?

 

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.

 

Shang-Chi's film status is in limbo at the moment. No studio, no screenplay and no talent of any kind attached.

 

All in all, everyone here is missing my point - I am simply proposing that Marvel Entertainment focus on keeping comics alive. It has been proven that turning a CB into a movie doesn't significantly boost sales (except for CGC graded first appearances!) Only Marvel can market CBs to children. Only Marvel can create children-specific CBs that they want to read and are easy to locate for purchase. Any joker can make movies, but when publishing revenue dips from 14% to 4% isn't somebody going to say "why publish at all?"

[EastEnd]

Circulations of all publishers... comics, magazines, books... are down. It's a function of changing technologies and markets. While Marvel and Warner Bros (in the case of DC) would like to see the Publishing side grow (and certainly are investing in them to do so by hiring high profile writers and artists and seeking out different channels of distribution), the real upside is in licensing and other channels of exploitation. And so in that regard, I think both Marvel and Warner Bros. view their publishing divisions as more of a "research and development" activity than a high growth, high potnetial money-maker on their own. And I don't think that assessment is off the mark considering where media is heading in the coming decades.

[awe4one]

I will be the first to admit I know next to nothing about what hollywood wants or expects,nor even what an IP company means.

But I would think that having fully developed characters with an extensive published history would be quite significant.

Take Shang-Chi,as an example.Son of a power mad Asian demi-god,he turns against his evil father to defend truth and justice,kicking *spoon* and making love.Tell me Bruce Lee couldn't have made this a franchise rivaling Bond.

Yes,he is unknown to 98% of the movie going audience,but he has a fully developed universe that the writers/directors/producers can pick and choose from. Combining martial arts withthe world of espionage could be a real winner. Yet you dismiss it out of hand.But the XXX series combined X-sports and spys and was successful enough to have a sequel.

 

Not a very good example...you could make the same Martial Arts movie without having to pay the licensing fees. Same with Iron Fist, Werewolf by Night or Tomb of Dracula...

 

Jim

[Aman619]

And so in that regard, I think both Marvel and Warner Bros. view their publishing divisions as more of a "research and development" activity than a high growth, high potnetial money-maker on their own. And I don't think that assessment is off the mark considering where media is heading in the coming decades.

 

definitely true for Time/Warner. Marvel is still independent of a multinational conglomerate, so their publishing revenues are more important. But, still dwarfed by the potential income from film and licensing, so thats where ther will focus their energies having had success in the recent past.

 

I always say that DC Marvel and all comic publishers are doing all they can to keep sales going. CommandD - - you mentioned you have 12 ideas. Im curious what they are and whether they are any different than all the ideas proposed here in the past. Im optimistic but fatalistic about it in general. Optimistic in that comics will last just as long as they matter culturally; Fatalistic in realizing that day is coming in the next 2 decades when they wont, and there is no magic bullet that can revive sales to match the past.

 

c'est la vie. Really - - why should comicbooks be immune from all the tremendous societal and technological changes all around us?