Because they used the same technique to decide who they where going to buy as was used in South Park to determine economic outcomes........the chicken just happened to land on Marvel:
because DC is already owned by WB....nothing anyone said above
Precisely
This, but also Marvel is a lot more profitable. DC has Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman and not much else as far as marketing goes. Marvel has Spider-Man, Wolverine, Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man etc... DC has the more iconic characters, but Marvel has more marketable characters.
@Night Thrasher: Well that isnt true at all. Superman and Batman are THE quintessential comic characters. Their marketing value alone far eclipses Cap, Thor, and Iron Man combined especially before their movies came out which was around the time when Disney made the decision to buy Marvel. Spider-Man and to a lesser extent Wolverine are the only characters that comes close to Superman and Batman in terms of the public consciousness. Though it is true Marvel was more profitable comic sales wise at the time. I think you're also underestimating the marketing value of characters like Green Lantern and The Flash.
@Night Thrasher: Well that isnt true at all. Superman and Batman are THE quintessential comic characters. Their marketing value alone far eclipses Cap, Thor, and Iron Man combined especially before their movies came out which was around the time when Disney made the decision to buy Marvel. Spider-Man and to a lesser extent Wolverine are the only characters that comes close to Superman and Batman in terms of the public consciousness. Though it is true Marvel was more profitable comic sales wise at the time. I think you're also underestimating the marketing value of characters like Green Lantern and The Flash.
Go to WalMart look at sheets, pajamas, coloring books, toys, etc...You are going to see Superman, Batman, Wolverine, Spider-Man predominantly but to a lesser extent the others are made up of mostly Marvel characters mainly Iron Man and Hulk with Captain America lagging slightly behind. As far as Superman/Batman - Wolverine/Spider-Man comparison, I think they are fairly comparable. More people might recognize Superman and Batman but just as much crap has Spider-Man and Wolverine plastered on them as do the DC characters. All you have to do is look in a department store to see the evidence.
WB is pretty much their only actual competition and they owned Marvel's only actual competition so honestly Marvel being bought out by Disney kind of seems like it was destined. Also them buying Lucasfilm makes me wonder how long it will be before WB acquires Star Trek so the two companies will pretty much control all of nerdom
This, but also Marvel is a lot more profitable. DC has Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman and not much else as far as marketing goes. Marvel has Spider-Man, Wolverine, Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man etc... DC has the more iconic characters, but Marvel has more marketable characters.
Man TDKR almost made as much money as the Avengers combined. I don't think Marvel gets to claim the marketability side.
At the time I imagine Marvel was just cheaper to buy then DC, I assume. Besides, WB would never willingly sell to Disney because DC is too iconic and profitable and if they did the price would be too high or WB would be going bankrupt.
@Night Thrasher said:
@Juandicimo_Magnifico45 said:
@danhimself said:
because DC is already owned by WB....nothing anyone said above
Precisely
This, but also Marvel is a lot more profitable. DC has Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman and not much else as far as marketing goes. Marvel has Spider-Man, Wolverine, Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man etc... DC has the more iconic characters, but Marvel has more marketable characters.
DC and Marvel are both just as iconic and therefore just as profitable and just as marketable.
This, but also Marvel is a lot more profitable. DC has Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman and not much else as far as marketing goes. Marvel has Spider-Man, Wolverine, Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man etc... DC has the more iconic characters, but Marvel has more marketable characters.
Man TDKR almost made as much money as the Avengers combined. I don't think Marvel gets to claim the marketability side.
You do realize I posted a link with facts and not opinion right? All of Warner Bros made $6B from licenses; that includes Loony Tunes and DC comics. While Disney made $26B alone and Marvel made $5.6B from licenses. That's the numbers for you. I'm not saying this to be biased, I'm saying it as fact. TDKR almost made as much as Avengers but Avengers plus Amazing in one year put them well past DC in films this year alone not to mention over the past decade were they have been crushing. The numbers say Marvel is more marketable not me.
Disney could afford to buy TimeWarner if they wanted. The net worth of Disney is over three times as much as TimeWarner and that's before the purchase of LucasFilm. Disney is a mega corporation and might honestly be "Too Big to Fail". It's ridiculus how much they are worth.
You do realize I posted a link with facts and not opinion right? All of Warner Bros made $6B from licenses; that includes Loony Tunes and DC comics. While Disney made $26B alone and Marvel made $5.6B from licenses. That's the numbers for you. I'm not saying this to be biased, I'm saying it as fact. TDKR almost made as much as Avengers but Avengers plus Amazing in one year put them well past DC in films this year alone not to mention over the past decade were they have been crushing. The numbers say Marvel is more marketable not me.
That only means Disney is better at marketing than WB is. You're assuming all things equal here, when it's not. Marvel has put out more films, better films, and had the most elaborate movie marketing strategy ever seen so far. The fact that DC, whose entire movie output has so far rested on Batman and a couple of flops that shouldn't even be mentioned much, is still following along nicely speaks volumes of DC's marketable potential. All the numbers tell you is that DC and WB are a bit retarded when it comes to tapping into that potential, at least relative to Disney.
@AtPhantom: You are talking potential and I'm talking reality. The reality is Marvel capitalized on the library of characters that they have much better than DC over the past decade. They've made successful franchises out of The Avengers and it's subsidiaries, Spider-Man, X-Men and it's subsidiaries, Blade, Ghost Rider, and Wolverine. They've got their characters plastered on just as many books, clothes, beddings, underwear, electronics, etc as DC if not more. And they sell just as many toys. The fact is that Marvel came out of it's bankruptcy with a plan and it's worked. You can hold on to the bias of loving DC but the numbers won't change. Marvel made almost as much money from licensing by itself as TimeWarner did as a whole. The most important factor IMO is that while DC has it's "Big 3", they don't have much outside of that and Marvel is using a lot more of their catalog. If you really want DC to do better then you should've seen Green Lantern a few times and written about a hundred positive reviews so maybe they'd think about a Flash movie. The real indicator that Marvel is outshining DC in outside revenue is that Ghost Rider has had a movie and a sequel before Superman Returns had one and got rebooted.
@Night Thrasher: The word marketability means potential for marketing. So the reality is still that Marvel isn't necessarily more marketable than DC, but that they've been using what they had better.
@AtPhantom: I know what marketability means...and I'm telling you your wrong. The fact is that DC has a "Big 3" that drives their maketing. After that they are limited. They have some marketable characters, but not as deep a catalog as Marvel. They have been slacking in terms of capitalizing on what they have though. A Flash movie is well overdue and Green Lantern was utter crap; but after that there aren't many characters off the top of my head that many think could carry their own movie or show. Arrow has his own show, but it is on CW and it will be a few years before that shows dividends in terms of licenses. Marvel however, has a list of characters that aren't exactly A-List that are not only carrying their own movies, but also getting sequels. Blade!, freakin Blade got THREE movies. Blade got three movies since the turn of the century and Superman has one. That should be all you need to know. The movies you are probably craving for from DC are probably the Big 3 or a couple of B-Listers; Blade is a freakin C-Lister at best! Ghost Rider got TWO movies and both did pretty decent at the box office. Thing is that Marvel is digging deeper in the crates to pull out licenses than DC is and that's why they're more marketable. It's not just what they CAN do; it's also what they HAVE done and how that affects what people are WILLING to do. That's what marketability really means....class dismissed
The real indicator that Marvel is outshining DC in outside revenue is that Ghost Rider has had a movie and a sequel before Superman Returns had one and got rebooted.
Ow...as a huge Supes fan that feels like a punch in the gut....haha.
Log in to comment