A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

[flynnibus]

What evidence is there for paying 4 billion for Marvel being a 'no brainer'?

The people that looked at the movie performance and pipeline. You should also remember Disney was desperate at the time to boost their male toy products. By the time Disney bought them... X-Men, Spiderman, and the in-house Iron Man had all been blockbusters. Superhero films were the new hotness and Marvel had a treasure chest of them. Iron Man as their first solo film had just blown the doors off everyone. They knew the past deals were liabilities but Marvel had so much more left unfettered. Plus, Marvel represented TV, animation, and consumer product possibilities to the moon and back.

The biggest concerns at the time was the web of past licensing and distribution arrangements that Marvel had that people thought would limit Marvel's biggest properties. The insiders thought otherwise, and why they went ahead with the deal... and they were proven right. Disney fans were upset because "its not Disney" - and time has shown how that stance has softened and weakened as Disney continues to acquire other IP.

It was a no brainer for Disney because they saw the potential in the library... they could wall out competitors... they would be able to unleash product on many fronts naturally (TV, film, kids TV, consumer products).. and they got the entire thing for practically no risk to Disney.

Lucasfilm was another easy... buy it before someone else can and the outlay from DIS was trivial to the big picture.

 

[IanDLBZF]

It was a no brainer for Disney because they saw the potential in the library... they could wall out competitors... they would be able to unleash product on many fronts naturally (TV, film, kids TV, consumer products).. and they got the entire thing for practically no risk to Disney.

And at the time Disney already had the broadcast rights for the Marvel TV shows that aired on Fox Kids which were airing on Disney XD (before then Toon Disney/Jetix).

 

[GoofGoof]

The people that looked at the movie performance and pipeline. You should also remember Disney was desperate at the time to boost their male toy products. By the time Disney bought them... X-Men, Spiderman, and the in-house Iron Man had all been blockbusters. Superhero films were the new hotness and Marvel had a treasure chest of them. Iron Man as their first solo film had just blown the doors off everyone. They knew the past deals were liabilities but Marvel had so much more left unfettered. Plus, Marvel represented TV, animation, and consumer product possibilities to the moon and back.

The biggest concerns at the time was the web of past licensing and distribution arrangements that Marvel had that people thought would limit Marvel's biggest properties. The insiders thought otherwise, and why they went ahead with the deal... and they were proven right. Disney fans were upset because "its not Disney" - and time has shown how that stance has softened and weakened as Disney continues to acquire other IP.

It was a no brainer for Disney because they saw the potential in the library... they could wall out competitors... they would be able to unleash product on many fronts naturally (TV, film, kids TV, consumer products).. and they got the entire thing for practically no risk to Disney.

Lucasfilm was another easy... buy it before someone else can and the outlay from DIS was trivial to the big picture.

I think the male toy strategy made the deal a no brainer. Marvel had something that Disney desperately needed to add to their portfolio. The movies have been wildly successful, but I think it's harder to say it was a lock that they would be as successful as they were or there would have been more bidders trying to pick up Marvel at the time. The Marvel and Lucas deals were both perfect fits for DIS but I still give Iger some credit for pulling the trigger. I've seen many examples of CEOs not acting and regretting it later.

 

[doctornick]

I think the male toy strategy made the deal a no brainer. Marvel had something that Disney desperately needed to add to their portfolio. The movies have been wildly successful, but I think it's harder to say it was a lock that they would be as successful as they were or there would have been more bidders trying to pick up Marvel at the time. The Marvel and Lucas deals were both perfect fits for DIS but I still give Iger some credit for pulling the trigger. I've seen many examples of CEOs not acting and regretting it later.

Marvel was literally bankrupt in the 90's. They could have been bought for cheap by virtually any mass media company. I'm still amazed it took as long as it did for a large company to buy them -- just the toy sales and other branded goods would have made plenty of money over time. The movies and TV (and comic book) revenue would just be a plus.

I mean, geez, Warner had owned DC since the 1970's.

 

[flynnibus]

Marvel was literally bankrupt in the 90's. They could have been bought for cheap by virtually any mass media company. I'm still amazed it took as long as it did for a large company to buy them -- just the toy sales and other branded goods would have made plenty of money over time. The movies and TV (and comic book) revenue would just be a plus.

I mean, geez, Warner had owned DC since the 1970's.

The difference was 'wide appeal' - People weren't actually all that interested in 'comic book' stuff, that had been kind of cordoned off as niche and dying. The films that appealed to the masses instead of the 'fan boys' is what turned the corner. The product had been considered dated before the right producers changed the formula and found that magic balance.

Look at DC Comics - even after the whole 'super hero' secret was out... DC could not replicate Marvel's success and formula... while they had two of the biggest names that had previously been the most successful in the theaters (Superman and Batman). Now, oddball comics like Guardians have way out performed the biggest characters known.. It's because of what they are creating WITH that history.. and not just the history itself that is leading to that success.

Disney clearly believed in what the KevinF team was doing at Marvel... and why they executed the deal and why they didn't assimilate them immediately. Clearly they were right. And now fueled by the synergy platform DIS brings... juggernaut.

 

[disney1023]

And IYCMI, Ellen had a few words to say about UOE on her show.

She needs her anamatronic back!! That is great.

 

[2351metalcloud]

The people that looked at the movie performance and pipeline. You should also remember Disney was desperate at the time to boost their male toy products. By the time Disney bought them... X-Men, Spiderman, and the in-house Iron Man had all been blockbusters. Superhero films were the new hotness and Marvel had a treasure chest of them. Iron Man as their first solo film had just blown the doors off everyone. They knew the past deals were liabilities but Marvel had so much more left unfettered. Plus, Marvel represented TV, animation, and consumer product possibilities to the moon and back.

The biggest concerns at the time was the web of past licensing and distribution arrangements that Marvel had that people thought would limit Marvel's biggest properties. The insiders thought otherwise, and why they went ahead with the deal... and they were proven right. Disney fans were upset because "its not Disney" - and time has shown how that stance has softened and weakened as Disney continues to acquire other IP.

It was a no brainer for Disney because they saw the potential in the library... they could wall out competitors... they would be able to unleash product on many fronts naturally (TV, film, kids TV, consumer products).. and they got the entire thing for practically no risk to Disney.

Lucasfilm was another easy... buy it before someone else can and the outlay from DIS was trivial to the big picture.

Superhero movies have been coming out since the 1990s in decent number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1990s_superhero_films

Blade: Trinity, Elektra, Fantastic Four 2, Ghost Rider, The Incredible Hulk, Punisher: Warzone, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine were all not huge hits. They made close to double their reported budgets on Wikipedia or less than that.

With the movie rights to the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, X-Men, and the Hulk not with Marvel when Disney purchased them, that's many of Marvel's most popular characters or groups gone at the time of purchase. Additionally because those characters/groups and others like Daredevil and the Punisher had already had movies made featuring them that takes away from some desire to make movies featuring them if Marvel got the rights back even while under Disney's ownership. So some of the appeal of making movies with Marvel's most popular characters at the time of the purchase is not as great as it might otherwise be if superhero movies were just as popular at the time of purchase somehow, but those characters hadn't appeared in movies yet when Disney purchased Marvel.

Given all that, the Marvel superheroes they might reasonably expect to have in movies in the near future weren't traditionally as popular as the ones I mentioned although some of the remaining did have a long history in the USA in comics and tv shows and there is some appeal to having characters like that. There were still various other superheroes and other action hero comics Disney could probably have got the movie, theme park, and/or merchandise rights from various comic books companies for something like the comic book section of Islands of Adventure if they wanted and at a lesser cost. There were also more recently made characters like Delilah Dirk which Disney could have got the rights for (which they have done for Delilah Dirk). Additionally, there are public domain super heroes and action heroes from comics. Although, using public domain characters could allow other companies to make merchandise and other movies with the character.

I'm no expert on this stuff, but to me 4 billion seems like a lot of money given the circumstances. Disney paid much, much less than that for CrossGen, although they were much less popular and bankrupt. There is the appeal of stopping Universal from possibly purchasing Marvel or otherwise minimizing the benefit they might receive from future Marvel movies and new theme park attractions they could put in there, but look at the financial track record of movies featuring Marvel characters before the purchase. It doesn't seem to me like there was any very obvious reason to believe that many future Marvel movies at the time would be very financially successful and be very popular. Even Thor 1 and Captain America 1 that were released after the Disney purchase weren't big hits theatrically. Disney might have believed in themselves and Marvel Studios in obtaining success with this stuff more so than they thought many other studios would have done, but it's not like Disney or other studios haven't had a decline in their general financial success in making movies at one time or another or had financial failures in movies that they even put a lot of money in.

 

[doctornick]

The big value of Marvel -- and DC -- is not in the movies and you shouldn't be focusing on that. The value is on the merchandising. Do you realize how much crap you can buy with Spider-Man on it? I'm not just taking toys, but shirts, bikes, sleeping bags, bedsheets, all that stuff. That, much like Star Wars, is where the real money is for ownership of these IPs.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I remember Jim Hill mentioned in a previous podcast sometime after D23 of this year. Where he mentioned the reason why the Marvel announcement for D23 2017 was pulled for Parks and Resorts would have to do with the negative crowd reaction to Pirates Of The Caribbean changes.

That wasn't my recollection of the explanation. I recall an explanation related to the parking structure and other infrastructure related issues. Jim fillibusters questions better than any politician so they may have been unrelated thoughts.

 

[flynnibus]

Superhero movies have been coming out since the 1990s in decent number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1990s_superhero_films

Blade: Trinity, Elektra, Fantastic Four 2, Ghost Rider, The Incredible Hulk, Punisher: Warzone, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine were all not huge hits. They made close to double their reported budgets on Wikipedia or less than that.

With the movie rights to the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, X-Men, and the Hulk not with Marvel when Disney purchased them, that's many of Marvel's most popular characters or groups gone at the time of purchase. Additionally because those characters/groups and others like Daredevil and the Punisher had already had movies made featuring them that takes away from some desire to make movies featuring them if Marvel got the rights back even while under Disney's ownership. So some of the appeal of making movies with Marvel's most popular characters at the time of the purchase is not as great as it might otherwise be if superhero movies were just as popular at the time of purchase somehow, but those characters hadn't appeared in movies yet when Disney purchased Marvel.

Given all that, the Marvel superheroes they might reasonably expect to have in movies in the near future weren't traditionally as popular as the ones I mentioned although some of the remaining did have a long history in the USA in comics and tv shows and there is some appeal to having characters like that. There were still various other superheroes and other action hero comics Disney could probably have got the movie, theme park, and/or merchandise rights from various comic books companies for something like the comic book section of Islands of Adventure if they wanted and at a lesser cost. There were also more recently made characters like Delilah Dirk which Disney could have got the rights for (which they have done for Delilah Dirk). Additionally, there are public domain super heroes and action heroes from comics. Although, using public domain characters could allow other companies to make merchandise and other movies with the character.

I'm no expert on this stuff, but to me 4 billion seems like a lot of money given the circumstances. Disney paid much, much less than that for CrossGen, although they were much less popular and bankrupt. There is the appeal of stopping Universal from possibly purchasing Marvel or otherwise minimizing the benefit they might receive from future Marvel movies and new theme park attractions they could put in there, but look at the financial track record of movies featuring Marvel characters before the purchase. It doesn't seem to me like there was any very obvious reason to believe that many future Marvel movies at the time would be very financially successful and be very popular. Even Thor 1 and Captain America 1 that were released after the Disney purchase weren't big hits theatrically. Disney might have believed in themselves and Marvel Studios in obtaining success with this stuff more so than they thought many other studios would have done, but it's not like Disney or other studios haven't had a decline in their general financial success in making movies at one time or another or had financial failures in movies that they even put a lot of money in.

Just read this post... http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/a-spirited-15-rounds.930194/page-87#post-7897360

No one said they invented the genre... but they perfected a formula... one that even after it was known, was not able to be duplicated.

4 billion isn't much when you are talking about films that were grossing hundreds of millions, you put out multiple a year, and they had a library so deep.

 

[flynnibus]

The big value of Marvel -- and DC -- is not in the movies and you shouldn't be focusing on that. The value is on the merchandising.

Only if you have a successful movie/show first. The revenue comes from the products... but that's the farming the success. The guy making the successes controls their future. That's why it's the important part.

 

[Cesar R M]

Bob took a lot of risk too. He spent, what, $17 billion acquiring Pixar, LucasFilm, and Marvel? Those aren't the type of spending practices that wall street favors in their quarterly earnings reports. The wall street complex doesn't incentivize those types of long-term investments and CEOs don't typically make them, despite their long-term earning potential and the potential to create jobs and innovation. His successor too could and will be a risk-taker. I'm merely defining "risks" in that case as "any interest in or understanding of the Disney Parks division whatsoever." Iger is setting up the company nicely through acquisitions, saving of their film divisions, embracing technology, and setting up the company for a more successful navigation of the technological storm/disruption in cable chord cutting/digital streaming/box office slumps. Who is to say that Parks or Disney Consumer Products, with their Disney stores in shopping malls that are closing by the thousands as people shop online, won't need some life support between 2019 and 2029?

How so? they are were and are gigantic cashcows. Specially on the merchandise division (Star Wars, Marvel).

 

[ford91exploder]

Marvel was literally bankrupt in the 90's. They could have been bought for cheap by virtually any mass media company. I'm still amazed it took as long as it did for a large company to buy them -- just the toy sales and other branded goods would have made plenty of money over time. The movies and TV (and comic book) revenue would just be a plus.

I mean, geez, Warner had owned DC since the 1970's.

And MARVEL was STILL virtually bankrupt when Disney bought them, The only thing that was questioned was the price paid as Disney probably could have paid 1-2 billion and still walk away with MARVEL as there were no other bidders at the time. But once again Iger had to have 'the biggest' comic book deal evah'

 

[MisterPenguin]

And MARVEL was STILL virtually bankrupt when Disney bought them, The only thing that was questioned was the price paid as Disney probably could have paid 1-2 billion and still walk away with MARVEL as there were no other bidders at the time. But once again Iger had to have 'the biggest' comic book deal evah'

From an unsubstantiated supposition: "Iger could have paid 1-2 billion."

You come to a definite conclusion of fact: "Iger had to have 'the biggest' comic book deal evah."

Do you even hear yourself being so blindly full of rage that you make such ridiculous jumps to conclusions?

 

[GoofGoof]

And MARVEL was STILL virtually bankrupt when Disney bought them, The only thing that was questioned was the price paid as Disney probably could have paid 1-2 billion and still walk away with MARVEL as there were no other bidders at the time. But once again Iger had to have 'the biggest' comic book deal evah'

I doubt that is true. Could they have paid less? Maybe, but they would have been in a strong position to negotiate a much better price than a lot of people out there. Remember, if you look at it from the Marvel prospective Disney was offering a massive balance sheet that could provide nearly unlimited funds to produce the kinds of movies they wanted to make and Disney was offering a pretty large level of autonomous control. Other offers could have been people looking to just capitalize on the licensing rights Marvel already sold plus the merchandising without giving them much opportunity to grow the brand. Marvel needed Disney as much or more than Disney needed them.

 

[flynnibus]

From an unsubstantiated supposition: "Iger could have paid 1-2 billion."

I don't even understand why anyone even reads those posts anymore... they are worse than jt now.

1-2 billion? A company on the rise is is going to sell for LESS than its open market share price??

For those factually behind... disney's offer was only a 30% premium over existing trading. Never mind the PE ratio....

 

[flynnibus]

People at the time thought the deal was rich because of the tied up deals marvel had and that marvel really had only iron man as a kcockout. But that's because those people were only looking at the past... and had little faith in the future (yet marvels stock was at a 52 week high). Basically skeptics doubted marvel's long term trend - they were wrong.

 

[pacolovestacos]

No, he's suggesting they take more than $2.5 of the stellar profits they report every quarter and give it to hurricane relief. A move that wouldn't impact the shareholders much at all....

I understood what he said and I'm disagreeing with it. $2.5M is a very, very generous donation. The amount of money "they (the shareholders)" have is irrelevant. You're basically saying if Warren Buffet donates $1M to someone, it's a worthless donation because he's worth $70B+. That's an awful attitude.

Second point is you say "a move that wouldn't impact the shareholders much at all." And that's why I initially responded "it's always easy to spend other people's money." Because you're asking to spend the shareholders money which Iger typically does in the hopes of generating ROI. That money belongs to the shareholders.

 

[wm49rs]

I understood what he said and I'm disagreeing with it. $2.5M is a very, very generous donation. The amount of money "they (the shareholders)" have is irrelevant. You're basically saying if Warren Buffet donates $1M to someone, it's a worthless donation because he's worth $70B+. That's an awful attitude.

Second point is you say "a move that wouldn't impact the shareholders much at all." And that's why I initially responded "it's always easy to spend other people's money." Because you're asking to spend the shareholders money which Iger typically does in the hopes of generating ROI. That money belongs to the shareholders.

No, it doesn't. And considering the impact of Irma on one of TWDC's main areas of focus, you may just find more than a few shareholders ok with such a decision.....

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Illumination is looking for Animators to work on a theme park project featuring animatronics. That would be a first for an attraction based on illumination IP.
https://jobs.lever.co/illuminationentertainment/defd2ecf-1b93-4eeb-add2-b66049b82fab