Marvel's 1st Quarter Earnings for 2007

[PhotoJones]

If you're a nerd like me, this stuff is interesting...

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111833

Marvel today reported its 1st Quarter, 2007 numbers with net sales rising to $151.4 million, and net income increasing $46.8 million (56 cents a share), compared to $90.1 million and $17.5 million (17 cents a share) of the same time last year. Marvel credits licensing operations plus “increased contributions” from both comics and toys. Spider-Man 3’s minimum licensing guarantees are reflected in the numbers. Analysts were predicting nets sales of $102 million and 35 cent per share profit

 

[Dread]

Marvel's comic sales are up 15% from a year ago, and naturally Joe Q & Co. have restructured the company so that it relies mostly on merchandise and liscenses for their profits (a good 60+% of their profits) than on actual comic sales, after the crash of the 90's killed them.

Marvel also sees money from their major motion pictures, but the ones whose deals were sold to major companies at cheap rates at the end of the 90's all but got away with robbery. SONY originally only had to pay Marvel 5% of anything it made on Spider-Man, and I am not sure if that deal was renegociated. FOX also made a killing on X-MEN. That is why they've organized into doing their own films for whoever is left, like IRON MAN, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA, ANT-MAN, and AVENGERS, so they can see more profits for themselves. Granted, out of those 5 ideas, I can only see 2 not bombing domestically.

It's naturally good to see Marvel doing well, so they can continue paying top dollar for talent. On the other hand, it will do nothing to put a damper on Joe Q's "holier-than-thou" arrogance that allows him to ignore flaws that could be corrected in the company. He's patched the huge holes from when he took over, which is what makes those cracks that he ignores all the more glaring.

Plus, it is worth noting that despite being backed up by Time-Warner, DC is a bit inept at getting movies done and while they still dominate the small screen, their comics are easily outsold by Marvel, and they are losing relevance in some ways. I honestly doubt we will see DC mount a serious challange to Marvel in monthly sales for quite a while.

 

[GNR]

I've found that Marvel hasn't released a good movie since Spidey 2.

However,2008 is looking good.Downey JR,Paltrow,Howard,Norton,Roth...all superb casting choices.Iron Man and Hulk could be the shot in the arm the Marvel films are needing right about now.

 

[PhotoJones]

Marvel's comic sales are up 15% from a year ago, and naturally Joe Q & Co. have restructured the company so that it relies mostly on merchandise and liscenses for their profits (a good 60+% of their profits) than on actual comic sales, after the crash of the 90's killed them.

Marvel also sees money from their major motion pictures, but the ones whose deals were sold to major companies at cheap rates at the end of the 90's all but got away with robbery. SONY originally only had to pay Marvel 5% of anything it made on Spider-Man, and I am not sure if that deal was renegociated. FOX also made a killing on X-MEN. That is why they've organized into doing their own films for whoever is left, like IRON MAN, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA, ANT-MAN, and AVENGERS, so they can see more profits for themselves. Granted, out of those 5 ideas, I can only see 2 not bombing domestically.

It's naturally good to see Marvel doing well, so they can continue paying top dollar for talent. On the other hand, it will do nothing to put a damper on Joe Q's "holier-than-thou" arrogance that allows him to ignore flaws that could be corrected in the company. He's patched the huge holes from when he took over, which is what makes those cracks that he ignores all the more glaring.

Plus, it is worth noting that despite being backed up by Time-Warner, DC is a bit inept at getting movies done and while they still dominate the small screen, their comics are easily outsold by Marvel, and they are losing relevance in some ways. I honestly doubt we will see DC mount a serious challange to Marvel in monthly sales for quite a while.

Out of the movies currently being planned, Iron Man and Captain America are shoe ins for box office glory. Ant-Man has a chance to be a sleeper hit if done correctly, although my vision of an Ant-Man movie is probably not what Hollywood's seeing. I'd go the Kirkman route, have Edgar Wright direct it and have Simon Pegg and Nick Frost do their thing. Thor will bomb no mater what they do and The Avengers will never get made, so it's senseless even talking about it.

And yes, Marvel has the market cornered on big screen translations. And the reason is because their characters are better. It's pretty simple. Aside from Batman, Marvel characters have way more depth and are a lot more accessable than DC's guys.

 

[Red]

I've found that Marvel hasn't released a good movie since Spidey 2.

However,2008 is looking good.Downey JR,Paltrow,Howard,Norton,Roth...all superb casting choices.Iron Man and Hulk could be the shot in the arm the Marvel films are needing right about now.

Hulk will suck. A good cast doesn't necessarily make a good film. But a bad director makes a bad film.

 

[Dread]

Out of the movies currently being planned, Iron Man and Captain America are shoe ins for box office glory. Ant-Man has a chance to be a sleeper hit if done correctly, although my vision of an Ant-Man movie is probably not what Hollywood's seeing. I'd go the Kirkman route, have Edgar Wright direct it and have Simon Pegg and Nick Frost do their thing. Thor will bomb no mater what they do and The Avengers will never get made, so it's senseless even talking about it.

IRON MAN I see as a shoe in too, unless it lumbers along like HULK did (also a shoe-in in the production phase). As for CAPTAIN AMERICA, it depends. The problem is the character has to have some sort of political overtones, otherwise he is simply a generic superhero. Ideally, I think a great picture could be made if they took a little bit of Mignola spin on it; envision it as INDIANA JONES meets SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (with a dash of HELLBOY) and it could be interesting, at least for a first film. Perhaps the sequal deals with the "man out of time" as he encounters the modern age; by then we should have a new President and Hollywood won't be as quick to depict America as the most vile and evil nation that has ever existed in all of recorded history as they will so long as Bush is in office. Including the WWII stuff and the thawing into the modern age in one movie may make it too busy. They also may have adapt a stylized way of doing the action, like SIN CITY & 300; those films, rather than attempt to make the action look realistic, go the opposite way so it looks lovely. There is no way to make Cap's shield realistic (it being thrown and returning like that), so don't even try; go the other way.

ANT-MAN is bombing. Bank on it.

THOR may suffer from "myth fatique" after flicks like LOTR, 300, and their endless clones (NARNIA, ERAGON, BRIDGE TO TARA-MONEY, etc).

And yes, Marvel has the market cornered on big screen translations. And the reason is because their characters are better. It's pretty simple. Aside from Batman, Marvel characters have way more depth and are a lot more accessable than DC's guys.

I'm sure some DC fans would object to that. I'm not but I didn't feel like irking any. Perhaps a problem is that the WB is involved, and movie execs habitually "fail to get it", much like TV execs. Why CATWOMAN made it past pre-production I'll never know. And while I actually liked SUPERMAN RETURNS, I don't think it offered much of what the audience expected in a modern Superman film.

 

[PhotoJones]

IRON MAN I see as a shoe in too, unless it lumbers along like HULK did (also a shoe-in in the production phase). As for CAPTAIN AMERICA, it depends. The problem is the character has to have some sort of political overtones, otherwise he is simply a generic superhero. Ideally, I think a great picture could be made if they took a little bit of Mignola spin on it; envision it as INDIANA JONES meets SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (with a dash of HELLBOY) and it could be interesting, at least for a first film. Perhaps the sequal deals with the "man out of time" as he encounters the modern age; by then we should have a new President and Hollywood won't be as quick to depict America as the most vile and evil nation that has ever existed in all of recorded history as they will so long as Bush is in office. Including the WWII stuff and the thawing into the modern age in one movie may make it too busy. They also may have adapt a stylized way of doing the action, like SIN CITY & 300; those films, rather than attempt to make the action look realistic, go the opposite way so it looks lovely. There is no way to make Cap's shield realistic (it being thrown and returning like that), so don't even try; go the other way.

The Captain America movies should be seen as a trilogy, or at least a two picture deal. The first movie, like you said, dealing with WWII, and the next one or two dealing with the current timeline.

I don't know if Helloboy's the way to go, but you're on the right track. Demons and mysticism isn't exactly Cap's forte. I could see some kind of exaggeration of the Nazi's technology with, with maybe a hint of alien influence, but that's about it.

ANT-MAN is bombing. Bank on it.

Not if I had my way, and that's a fact.

THOR may suffer from "myth fatique" after flicks like LOTR, 300, and their endless clones (NARNIA, ERAGON, BRIDGE TO TARA-MONEY, etc).

Thor will be a terrible movie. It won't have anything to do with "myth fatigue".

I'm sure some DC fans would object to that. I'm not but I didn't feel like irking any. Perhaps a problem is that the WB is involved, and movie execs habitually "fail to get it", much like TV execs. Why CATWOMAN made it past pre-production I'll never know. And while I actually liked SUPERMAN RETURNS, I don't think it offered much of what the audience expected in a modern Superman film.

DC fans should accept the truth. DC was the first, and with that comes the ability to be improved upon by someone else (Marvel).

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Why will Thor be a terrible movie? I haven't heard anything about who's involved with it yet.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I think Thor can be a sleeper hit...there hasnt been any movies about Norse Mythology that is worth watching.

His look is very powerful, and the image of Thor can be very amazing to see on the big screen...this will be a big hit with the right Director and Screenplay.

 

[PhotoJones]

Why will Thor be a terrible movie? I haven't heard anything about who's involved with it yet.

I think Thor can be a sleeper hit...there hasnt been any movies about Norse Mythology that is worth watching.

His look is very powerful, and the image of Thor can be very amazing to see on the big screen...this will be a big hit with the right Director and Screenplay.

Thor's a lose-lose situation. If you make a movie true to the comics, you've got a Swedish looking body builder running around in panties on the outside saying "Verily!" And while "I Say Thee Nay!" works in the funny books, it's not going to fly on the big screen. If you try and "modernize" a Thor movie, you've got a bunch of pissed off fans and another Elektra on your hands.

Thor's just one of the properties that works best on printed page.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I dont agree with that. Well maybe his dialogue is kind of corny, but if they make it a very dark, very mythological story, it can turn out to be very amazing. I mean I dont want Fabio in metal armor, but I'd like to see someone that appears Nordic, but very scruffy as well and somebody who looks like he's got a lot of things to worry about.

I dont know, I just see this image in my head of Thor hovering over a body of land at night with rain pouring down with his big *****ing hammer, with lightning shooting through him and the clouds.

I just think with the right Director they can make it amazing. I dont want something over stylized like Elektra (which had the worst actress to play a voluptuous brunette) and the most dissapointing enemies and action sequences.

With Thor, I'm thinking EPIC.

 

[PhotoJones]

Epic like X-Men 3?

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

There really isnt a movie to compare this too.

Im thinking something with Norse mythology, a tragic character, and epic battles b/w Gods and Men.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Marvel's comic sales are up 15% from a year ago, and naturally Joe Q & Co. have restructured the company so that it relies mostly on merchandise and liscenses for their profits (a good 60+% of their profits) than on actual comic sales, after the crash of the 90's killed them.

Its sad to see that comics are not the lifeblood of Marvel anymore,but i suppose that is what its been reduced to.

FOX also made a killing on X-MEN.

I still find that hard to believe.I thought they were pretty bad,now that i have seen all of them.

IRON MAN, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA, ANT-MAN, and AVENGERS, so they can see more profits for themselves. Granted, out of those 5 ideas, I can only see 2 not bombing domestically.

What do you think?I can only see Thor,Captian America and Avengers being success..and that`s only if the right actors are chosen.

I've found that Marvel hasn't released a good movie since Spidey 2.

Very good claim,Ghost Rider was a failure..and im heaing that Spider-Man 3 is not so good either.But ill wait until i see the film for myself.

I can easily see DC taking the movie field away from Marvel.This i could guess,could be very easy actually.Comic wise..it would take some effert,and advertising..but this is slowly being done.