RSS - Posts
Tired of relying on third-party Hollywood types to transplant its intellectual property from printed page to silver screen — with the results less than satisfying, both creatively and profit-share wise — Marvel Comics has set up its own wholly-owned production house, Marvel Studios.
This isn’t really relevant to the anatomy of this business set-up, which is fairly complex with regard to the necessary distribution of upcoming projects like Iron Man and Hulk; but I must note the following:
Marvel’s chief rival in the comic book/superhero biz, DC Comics, has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company that is now Time Warner since 1969. That conglomerate has always included Warner Brothers and various other film/television studios. So DC has always had a direct conduit into the movie-making business; that’s why practically every DC character — including the heavy hitters like Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman — have had movies and TV series release under the Warner imprint for decades, while Marvel’s stable — Spider-Man, Fantastic Four and others — have had to be farmed out to Sony, Fox and other adopted homes.
So, in a sense, the creative stables of each superhero house are now on somewhat equal footing, execution-wise. More of a fair fight at the box office and Nielsens.
Though certainly not surprised, I’m less than thrilled with this development. By and large the spate of Marvel movies these last few years have demolished DC’s offerings, quality-wise. It was only when Marvel demonstrated how superhero movies should be made that Warner Bros started to become serious about actually making better movies rather than a platform to sell toys.
My fear is that Marvel will fall into the trap of seeing the movie as a means to sell t-shirts and action figures. The independent studios haven’t done so, maybe because they don’t reap the benefits of the properties of the movies they make?
The good news is that one of the reasons Marvels movies have been so much better is that they made an effort to find studios and companies that were serious about making a good product. If they take that with them to their in-house productions, they’ll do alright.
Comment by trumwill — 06/20/2007 @ 11:18 AM
You don’t think the Spider-Man movies were merchandising bonanzas? Consider the Times Square parade scene from the first movie (best I could find; a more dramatic scene clearly showcased about a dozen product-placement logos for several seconds). I think Marvel’s already quite adept at using their character vehicles as sell platforms.
Comment by CT — 06/20/2007 @ 6:49 PM
That’s not really what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about using Spiderman to sell deoderant or a watch, I’m talking about using a Spiderman movie to sell Spiderman products.
When everything is done in-house the incentives are much stronger to do that sort of thing compared to doing it through Sony.
A lot of the visuals for the last two Batman movies seemed geared towards selling a plethora of Batman-related products. I’m not saying that Marvel-based movies don’t do it, but they don’t seem to do it as much.
The joke with my friends is that if DC were making a Spiderman movie, he would have changed costumes four times every movie so they could sell a different action figure for every costume. That sort of thing.
Comment by trumwill — 06/21/2007 @ 1:29 AM
…if DC were making a Spiderman movie, he would have changed costumes four times every movie so they could sell a different action figure for every costume.
Um, hello — Venom/black costume? From personal experience, that sold more merch: I bought a black suit for my currently Spider-crazy little nephew, to complement the red/blue one from which he’s inseparable.
And consider Marvel Studios’ first big production: Iron Man. How many customized suits of armor does Tony Stark own? (I’m assuming the Armor Wars arc didn’t change that; and even if it did, the movie doesn’t need to adhere to it.)
I think you’re objecting to inserting elements — characters, equipment, etc. — into a storyline not for their plot value, but for their merchandising potential. At that point, the commercial interferes with the creative, probably more directly than mere product placement. I agree that’s a cheesy move, although I don’t think the recent DC movies did that any more than the Marvel-branded ones.
Consider, though, that this is a time-honored commercialization technique, going at least as far back as the first Star Wars movie. Remember when they released action figures for the aliens playing in that bar-room band on Tattooine (sp)? I distinctly remember as a kid seeing through that blatant sell-out move. But the Star Wars template for monetizing action movies with toys remains in place to this day, because it generates loads of cash. Does it influence the filmmaking, to the point where writers/directors feel compelled to pad the plot? Yeah, probably.
Also consider: Merchandise spin-off products don’t require actual screentime to be brought to life. Look at all the Spider-toys in the store aisle: Spidey dune buggies, Spidey with armor suit, Spidey with Spider-gun, etc. None of those things are ever (let’s hope!) going to appear in the movies. They fall under the “inspired by the motion picture” justification, which is also applied to songs that aren’t in the movie, but get on soundtrack album anyway.
This is all great fodder for a whole separate discussion, actually.
Comment by CT — 06/21/2007 @ 10:33 AM
Um, hello — Venom/black costume?
The Venom costume is pretty firmly entrenched in the story of Spiderman. It’s a stretch to say that using one of Spiderman’s chief villains is a marketing ploy. Most Spiderman fans I know were asking from the beginning when they were going to introduce Venom.
I agree that’s a cheesy move, although I don’t think the recent DC movies did that any more than the Marvel-branded ones.
Not if you look at the last couple of movies (Batman Begins and Superman Returns), no. That’s what I meant when I said that they forced Warner Bros to become serious about making better movies. I think that Warner Bros became complacent in that department because they figured that the movie also served as advertising for merchandizing.
Under the current model Sony doesn’t have much incentive to do that because a lot of the merchandizing money does not go to them but instead goes to Marvel. My concern is that if Marvel is making the movies in-house, they will act more like DC used to.
It’s not that I believe that Marvel is intrinsically superior (I’m actually a DC fan), but the incentives were better for the Marvel movies to be able to stand on their own (rather than high-profile advertising). I’m probably worrying over nothing since the quality bar has been so substantially raised since the Marvel movies started.
Comment by trumwill — 06/21/2007 @ 12:07 PM
No stretch at all. Just because it dovetails with popular support doesn’t make it any less of a bottom-line move.
And let’s not forget: The plot element that eventually evolved into Venom was devised as little more than a marketing ploy in the first place. When the black costume debuted twenty years ago as a consequence of Secret Wars, Marvel blatantly promoted it as a rebranding of an iconic character. They got a some mileage out of it in mainstream press and boosted sales, then moved on.
It sounds like you have issue with the source of the merchandisable element: If it comes from the canonical source, i.e. the comics, then it’s okay. But if it originates in a derivative source, like a movie or TV show, then it’s less palatable or even unacceptable. A dislike of the tail wagging the dog…
Comment by CT — 06/21/2007 @ 11:22 PM