A Spirited Perfect Ten

[ford91exploder]

Thanks, that clears up the question I had. Seems kind of uh, incestuous. Can I use that word?

I think you can its not showing up as a line of asterisks

 

[lebeau]

No, you are confusing some.
First thanks for the correction on X-men I keep forgetting they are Fox.
Secondly, Sony ONLY decided to follow Marvel/Disney's plans AFTER the success of what Marvel/Disney did.

I will add, after the Spiderman 2 flop, they have already moved away from the Venom series, and discussions are being had to kill the Sinister Six move. At least that is some of what I have read.

Sony would be wise to sell now, while they have value in the character they have, another movie flop, and they kill that franchise.

First, you are welcome.
Second, agreed. So? Not sure what that has to do with anything. Sony's current plans are for an Avengers-like franchise. Yes, the failure of ASM2 has put all of that in limbo.

Sony would be wise to sell at the right price. I won't be surprised if they negotiate a deal with Marvel that allows Marvel to use the character for a while and then they can try to piggyback on whatever Marvel does with the character. Let Marvel make him cool again and then start making your own movies in that vein. Win and win.

 

[truecoat]

First, you are welcome.
Second, agreed. So? Not sure what that has to do with anything. Sony's current plans are for an Avengers-like franchise. Yes, the failure of ASM2 has put all of that in limbo.

Sony would be wise to sell at the right price. I won't be surprised if they negotiate a deal with Marvel that allows Marvel to use the character for a while and then they can try to piggyback on whatever Marvel does with the character. Let Marvel make him cool again and then start making your own movies in that vein. Win and win.

Spiderman is already slated to be in the Infinity Wars.

 

[Phicinfan]

First, you are welcome.
Second, agreed. So? Not sure what that has to do with anything. Sony's current plans are for an Avengers-like franchise. Yes, the failure of ASM2 has put all of that in limbo.

Sony would be wise to sell at the right price. I won't be surprised if they negotiate a deal with Marvel that allows Marvel to use the character for a while and then they can try to piggyback on whatever Marvel does with the character. Let Marvel make him cool again and then start making your own movies in that vein. Win and win.

Possible, but not probable. Disney is too greedy to allow a shot for someone to come in behind and live of their expertise, and make more money than them. No, my guess is the final deal will be to allow Disney/Marvel to use the character in movies, and TV, but not in parks until Universal drops it.

 

[Phicinfan]

Spiderman is already slated to be in the Infinity Wars.

Rumored, but I don't think it is locked and loaded. There are rumors the deal with Sony is complete, at least for use of Spiderman, but no details of the deal have been released, nor has it been confirmed.

 

[Rodan75]

I am not a fanboy, watch the characterizations please.

I do think like a business man, and you don't pay top dollar for a failing franchise. So yes, IF Sony wanted to sell they could have. You are making the assumption Disney low balled, I am making the assumption Sony wants too much to make up for their own failures.

Based on what the 'entertainment insiders' have been saying lately, it looks like any deal would be similar to the path that Disney took with Paramount in getting back the Avengers movie distribution rights. Marvel takes creative control, Sony gets to release and gets 1st dollar grosses and that will expire over X number of years/movies. I can't remember what they did to get Indiana Jones 'back' but I don't think it was a straight cash payment.

Disney has a history of doing this and they are showing that they are willing to minimize the X-Men and Fantastic Four in the comics to get the rights back.

 

[lebeau]

I am not a fanboy, watch the characterizations please.

I do think like a business man, and you don't pay top dollar for a failing franchise. So yes, IF Sony wanted to sell they could have. You are making the assumption Disney low balled, I am making the assumption Sony wants too much to make up for their own failures.

I didn't call you a fanboi. But you're making fanboi arguments here.

Even though Sony has messed up their Spider-man films, the franchise is not a failure. In this day of reboots, the Spider-man film rights are still very valuable.

Actually, it is.

When the original Avengers team contracts expire with Avengers: Infinity War part 2, Marvel Phase 4 is planned, however it would be foolish business logic to assume that all the new characters (Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, Inhumans) will have the same popularity as Guardians of the Galaxy.

Spider-Man is a flagship property and who better to lead the Phase 4 films than him? Disney wants him back. Just at the right price. And Sony has no clue what it's doing. They're going to have to cave eventually.

Do you not see the difference between buying back the rights and negotiating to borrow the characters from the company that owns the rights? Because those are two very different things.

Your theory on Avengers: Infinity War part 2 is silly. If Disney feels they *need* Spider-man, they will make an appropriate offer at that time.

Of course Disney would be happy to have Spider-man back "at the right price". That goes for all of their characters. But they don't need him and they aren't going to spend a lot of money on him.

I agree Sony has no idea what they are doing. That's obvious. Will they cave? Maybe. Wouldn't surprise me at all. I think if Disney made a reasonable offer, Sony would probably take it. The fact that it hasn't happened yet proves my point. If Disney really wanted to make their own Spider-man movies (as opposed to using him in other Marvel movies) they would have bought him back by now.

I've learned by now that you can't change a fan boy's mind. And this is probably not the right thread to try and do so. So if anyone wants to continue the conversation, feel free to PM me.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Can you expand on stock buybacks. In having a conversation with a friend (vp at fortune 500 company), he told me that only the board could do stock buybacks and a CEO wouldn't initiate this.

Bob Iger is COB and no one gets on the BOD without Iger's approval.

 

[lebeau]

Based on what the 'entertainment insiders' have been saying lately, it looks like any deal would be similar to the path that Disney took with Paramount in getting back the Avengers movie distribution rights. Marvel takes creative control, Sony gets to release and gets 1st dollar grosses and that will expire over X number of years/movies. I can't remember what they did to get Indiana Jones 'back' but I don't think it was a straight cash payment.

Disney has a history of doing this and they are showing that they are willing to minimize the X-Men and Fantastic Four in the comics to get the rights back.

Just to clarify, the FF thing isn't Disney. It's Marvel. Specifically, it's Ron Perlmutter, a notoriously cheap and petty human being if ever there was one.

 

[flynnibus]

Can you expand on stock buybacks. In having a conversation with a friend (vp at fortune 500 company), he told me that only the board could do stock buybacks and a CEO wouldn't initiate this.

It's a corporate move - hence a BoD action. But Iger is the Chairman of the Board and they work as the borg.

Lack of independence of the Board of Directors has been a hot topic... and ironically the same problem topic that haunted Disney as Eisner was at his end.

 

[Rodan75]

Just to clarify, the FF thing isn't Disney. It's Marvel. Specifically, it's Ron Perlmutter, a notoriously cheap and petty human being if ever there was one.

Good point. But he is a major shareholder and a board member so his will on Marvel is Disney's will now. Probably the least 'Disnified' person on the board.

I wouldn't be surprised if he is the one pushing ESPN to adopt the fantasy league on-line betting thing.

 

[Rodan75]

It's a corporate move - hence a BoD action. But Iger is the Chairman of the Board and they work as the borg.

Lack of independence of the Board of Directors has been a hot topic... and ironically the same problem topic that haunted Disney as Eisner was at his end.

I suspect that Iger will be the last CEO/Chairman. They even added that any further combination of the CEO/Chairman role would have to be voted on by the shareholders after Iger leaves.

 

[spacemt354]

Do you not see the difference between buying back the rights and negotiating to borrow the characters from the company that owns the rights? Because those are two very different things.

Your theory on Avengers: Infinity War part 2 is silly. If Disney feels they *need* Spider-man, they will make an appropriate offer at that time.

Of course Disney would be happy to have Spider-man back "at the right price". That goes for all of their characters. But they don't need him and they aren't going to spend a lot of money on him.

I agree Sony has no idea what they are doing. That's obvious. Will they cave? Maybe. Wouldn't surprise me at all. I think if Disney made a reasonable offer, Sony would probably take it. The fact that it hasn't happened yet proves my point. If Disney really wanted to make their own Spider-man movies (as opposed to using him in other Marvel movies) they would have bought him back by now.

I've learned by now that you can't change a fan boy's mind. And this is probably not the right thread to try and do so. So if anyone wants to continue the conversation, feel free to PM me.

You keep calling people fan boys who disagree with you instead of actually listening to what they're saying.

Spider-Man is not *needed* right now. My point is that he *may* be needed for Phase 4 after Avengers: Infinity War part 2. You just backed up what I was saying. Disney will make the appropriate offer to Sony when they need Spider-Man. They don't *need* him now, they are riding high. After IW part 2? The future is murky especially if new characters are not as well received as Iron Man/Cap/etc. Disney/Marvel would have certainly have liked Spider-Man back for Civil War, however my guess is the price was too high and it wasn't worth it.

What part of that are you not understanding? That's not a fan boy mind, I'm looking at it from an objective standpoint. And if Sony keeps making nonsense, they are going to negatively influence the comic film market and saturate it with poor quality films. That's not good for Marvel/Disney, who is expanding to 3 films per year in 2017.

You claim my theory is silly but you're basically just repeating what I'm saying.

 

[WDW1974]

So, I leave here last night and stick my nose in now at lunch the next day and see almost seven pages of new posts. When I left, the main topic was largely just 'What Is Disney?' now based on the jumping off points provided by those stories in the HuffPo and The Atlantic.

My contention was that Disney has become a mess of large, and mighty successful to be sure, but disparate BRANDS, IPs, franchises.

All at the expense of what the Disney BRAND is ... or was ... or will be?

Congrats, my friends!!! You have all more than proved that with seven pages of almost entirely Marvel debate and discussion. I'm not going to enter into a back and forth on how many 'Disney fans' (from fanbois, Lifestylers and Mommy Bloggers to simply families in the Heartland who own DVC) truly gave a damn about Marvel before 2010. I very strongly suspect it was a much smaller number than what some folks here believe, but again, that misses the point.

Marvel is owned by Disney. Marvel is subordinate to Disney. Yet ... Marvel is that tasty treat that Disney fans now want to consume ravenously. Is that treat good for them? More importantly, what does it do to Disney? Sure, it makes them lots of money, but what does it do to DISNEY?

It's not unreasonable to think that of all the BRANDS that TWDC owns now that one of the least valuable is actually the one that brought us all here to begin with.

Think about it!

 

[lebeau]

You claim my theory is silly but you're basically just repeating what I'm saying.

Sent you a PM so we can stop derailing the thread.

 

[flynnibus]

I suspect that Iger will be the last CEO/Chairman. They even added that any further combination of the CEO/Chairman role would have to be voted on by the shareholders after Iger leaves.

I read it as still in the board's control to elect.. they just have to 'justify' it each year in the annual report if the CoB isn't independent.

Edit to add: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/disney-activist-shareholders-reach-compromise-2014-03-18-15485137

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Based on what the 'entertainment insiders' have been saying lately, it looks like any deal would be similar to the path that Disney took with Paramount in getting back the Avengers movie distribution rights. Marvel takes creative control, Sony gets to release and gets 1st dollar grosses and that will expire over X number of years/movies. I can't remember what they did to get Indiana Jones 'back' but I don't think it was a straight cash payment.

Disney has a history of doing this and they are showing that they are willing to minimize the X-Men and Fantastic Four in the comics to get the rights back.

Devin Faraci and others have suggested that X-Men might not come back, initially, after they reset their universe with Secret Wars.

 

[Magenta Panther]

So, I leave here last night and stick my nose in now at lunch the next day and see almost seven pages of new posts. When I left, the main topic was largely just 'What Is Disney?' now based on the jumping off points provided by those stories in the HuffPo and The Atlantic.

My contention was that Disney has become a mess of large, and mighty successful to be sure, but disparate BRANDS, IPs, franchises.

All at the expense of what the Disney BRAND is ... or was ... or will be?

Congrats, my friends!!! You have all more than proved that with seven pages of almost entirely Marvel debate and discussion. I'm not going to enter into a back and forth on how many 'Disney fans' (from fanbois, Lifestylers and Mommy Bloggers to simply families in the Heartland who own DVC) truly gave a **** about Marvel before 2010. I very strongly suspect it was a much smaller number than what some folks here believe, but again, that misses the point.

Marvel is owned by Disney. Marvel is subordinate to Disney. Yet ... Marvel is that tasty treat that Disney fans now want to consume ravenously. Is that treat good for them? More importantly, what does it do to Disney? Sure, it makes them lots of money, but what does it do to DISNEY?

It's not unreasonable to think that of all the BRANDS that TWDC owns now that one of the least valuable is actually the one that brought us all here to begin with.

Think about it!

I still don't want Marvel in any of the Disney parks. Let the ROBERT IGER COMPANY make the movies and rake in the dough...but keep the Hulk out of Disneyland PLEASE. Thank god WDW will be free of them. Yay lawyers! (Star Wars is already in DHS, which right now hasn't any particular character anyway, and so is Indy, sort of, so whatever, sigh, bummer. And of COURSE there will be more. But I bet most families who come to the parks still prefer to see Walt Disney over George Lucas any day - a rather pertinent assertion, perhaps, given the recent massive floppage of "Strange Magic", even though the ads touted that it was "from the mind of George Lucas"!!! Box office poison...?)

As for what you're hinting...I do believe that Iger feels that way. He sees the Disney classics and traditions as old stuff, and so he feels he needs to bring in new stuff (at least stuff that's new to the company). He is so completely tone-deaf to what made Disney DISNEY to most people that it'd be almost comical, if it weren't so tragic...

 

[lebeau]

So, I leave here last night and stick my nose in now at lunch the next day and see almost seven pages of new posts. When I left, the main topic was largely just 'What Is Disney?' now based on the jumping off points provided by those stories in the HuffPo and The Atlantic.

My contention was that Disney has become a mess of large, and mighty successful to be sure, but disparate BRANDS, IPs, franchises.

All at the expense of what the Disney BRAND is ... or was ... or will be?

Congrats, my friends!!! You have all more than proved that with seven pages of almost entirely Marvel debate and discussion. I'm not going to enter into a back and forth on how many 'Disney fans' (from fanbois, Lifestylers and Mommy Bloggers to simply families in the Heartland who own DVC) truly gave a **** about Marvel before 2010. I very strongly suspect it was a much smaller number than what some folks here believe, but again, that misses the point.

Marvel is owned by Disney. Marvel is subordinate to Disney. Yet ... Marvel is that tasty treat that Disney fans now want to consume ravenously. Is that treat good for them? More importantly, what does it do to Disney? Sure, it makes them lots of money, but what does it do to DISNEY?

It's not unreasonable to think that of all the BRANDS that TWDC owns now that one of the least valuable is actually the one that brought us all here to begin with.

Think about it!

"I hope we never forget that it all started with cosmic radiation a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."

 

[Rodan75]

So, I leave here last night and stick my nose in now at lunch the next day and see almost seven pages of new posts. When I left, the main topic was largely just 'What Is Disney?' now based on the jumping off points provided by those stories in the HuffPo and The Atlantic.

My contention was that Disney has become a mess of large, and mighty successful to be sure, but disparate BRANDS, IPs, franchises.

All at the expense of what the Disney BRAND is ... or was ... or will be?

Congrats, my friends!!! You have all more than proved that with seven pages of almost entirely Marvel debate and discussion. I'm not going to enter into a back and forth on how many 'Disney fans' (from fanbois, Lifestylers and Mommy Bloggers to simply families in the Heartland who own DVC) truly gave a **** about Marvel before 2010. I very strongly suspect it was a much smaller number than what some folks here believe, but again, that misses the point.

Marvel is owned by Disney. Marvel is subordinate to Disney. Yet ... Marvel is that tasty treat that Disney fans now want to consume ravenously. Is that treat good for them? More importantly, what does it do to Disney? Sure, it makes them lots of money, but what does it do to DISNEY?

It's not unreasonable to think that of all the BRANDS that TWDC owns now that one of the least valuable is actually the one that brought us all here to begin with.

Think about it!

I think you are absolutely correct, although TWDC seems to be trying to bring Mickey more front and center as more than a corporate logo. But what I think many of these discussions lack is perspective. While sure this is 'Disney', and should stand head and shoulders above and in many ways it still is. Look how much Time Warner has shifted away from its core brands through the years, how little value they have had to the overall company for decades. TWDC is at the very least unlocking the value of those brands instead of just sitting on them. TWDC is fulfulling the corporate synergistic dreams that the Time Warner folks promised wall street decades ago.

Mickey, Animation and the Theme Parks may no longer define Disney, but I believe that is a strength and not a weakness. They have brought 'Disney' to unexpected places and businesses and while it hasn't been universally better, it has been pretty successful.