How would Superman fit in the Marvel U if they bought the rights to him?

Originally posted by dmills
Which would sadly mean there's no chance at all. marvel comics is a SMALL portion of their revenue, but at the same time the brand comes from the comic material. Everything would go through Joe Q as a result because it's all a part of the overall direction of the toys, films, animations etc. Abnett and Lanning's run on "Nova" and "Guardians Of the Galaxy" were the first casualties of that new business model per Joe Q himself.

that, and having the house of mouse owning competing comic companies would only ruin the market.

Originally posted by -Pr-
that, and having the house of mouse owning competing comic companies would only ruin the market.

As a fan of the medium I agree. But looking at it from a business perspective, it's damn near inevitable. Disney is the biggest bully on the block and if they want DC, the will get DC eventually. Disney is soaking up every entertainment IP that they can get their hands on. Hell they could straight up buy WB. They'd probably face accusations of being a monopoly, a bit of hand wringing from congress etc, but they'd do it.

Originally posted by dmills
As a fan of the medium I agree. But looking at it from a business perspective, it's damn near inevitable. Disney is the biggest bully on the block and if they want DC, the will get DC eventually. Disney is soaking up every entertainment IP that they can get their hands on. Hell they could straight up buy WB. They'd probably face accusations of being a monopoly, but they'd do it.

Probably.

I'd just hate to see a day come when Marvel and DC aren't trying to outdo each other. Sure, Disney could think that having them compete would be a good idea, but It just wouldn't be the same.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Probably.

I'd just hate to see a day come when Marvel and DC aren't trying to outdo each other. Sure, Disney could think that having them compete would be a good idea, but It just wouldn't be the same.

It'd be a faux competition. A house divided against itself cannot stand and all...

Originally posted by dmills
It'd be a faux competition. A house divided against itself cannot stand and all...

yup.

though I will admit, I wouldn't mind having Disney's backing for dc movies.

I agree to those saying that Marvel will treath superman with respect if it were their property. I think I left my judgement to be clouded by how thet treath his clones, but yes?Marvel will threat superman with respect.

Originally posted by dmills
As a fan of the medium I agree. But looking at it from a business perspective, it's damn near inevitable. Disney is the biggest bully on the block and if they want DC, the will get DC eventually. Disney is soaking up every entertainment IP that they can get their hands on. Hell they could straight up buy WB. They'd probably face accusations of being a monopoly, a bit of hand wringing from congress etc, but they'd do it.

Originally posted by 753
wouldnt your ftc prevent it?

It would probably become an issue if it's Disney buying WB. But if it's merely Disney buying DC then I doubt the FTC would step in. Fans would file complaints with the FTC and I'm sure that several lawsuits would be filed in order to stop it, but ultimately they'll fail.

Think about Stan Lee's lawsuit against Marvel prior to Disney picking it up. It was dismissed. No one in DC is as big a name or has as much personal history invested in the development of several iconic (Marvel) characters as Stan Lee, so what chance would they have?

That's a scary thought.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
That's a scary thought.

Word. And so were WWE buying WCW and Zuffa (UFC) buying Pride, and eventually all competing MMA organizations. 10-15 years ago people would've scoffed at the notion.

Competition among companies is fast becoming a thing of the past. Just look at how Sony eventually won the war between Blu Ray and HDdvd. The consumer never got to determine the outcome.

Originally posted by 753
wouldnt your ftc prevent it?

Maybe

however, profit aside, the vast majority of Eisner nominees this year weren't Marvel or DC, so it may be hard to argue that Marvel/DC have a monopoly on the market.

Hell, for as lame as I find 99% of their titles (and how much I apparently love the other 1%) the existence of Image and Dark Horse probably are enough of a counterweight to keep the FTC out of it.

Originally posted by lawest9
Thev title says it all, any suggestions?

Like a single piece of a child's Dora the Explorer puzzle forced into the middle of a 10,000 piece puzzle of Sistine Chapel ceiling.

^ kang in a nutshell

Originally posted by Oliver North
Maybe

however, profit aside, the vast majority of Eisner nominees this year weren't Marvel or DC, so it may be hard to argue that Marvel/DC have a monopoly on the market.

Hell, for as lame as I find 99% of their titles (and how much I apparently love the other 1%) the existence of Image and Dark Horse probably are enough of a counterweight to keep the FTC out of it.

I dont think the eisner awards could be used as a defense agaisnt monopoly charges, because it is about quality assessed by an artistic perspective and the comics market can be effectively monopolized by the publishing of medicore dribble.

Originally posted by 753
as of april 2013, they account for near 70% of the market when combined, though DC has apparently taken a plummet and marvel a slight 2% drop. how much control over the market do you reckon a company would have to muster for the ftc to get involved?

I dont think the eisner awards could be used as a defense agaisnt monopoly charges, because it is about quality assessed by an artistic perspective and the comics market can be effectively monopolized by the publishing of medicore dribble.

As I understand it most cases that are taken into serious consideration by the FTC seem to involve companies that also possess the means of production to effectively put their rivals out of business. In order for the FTC to get involved Disney would have to own or have a large stake in the means of distribution of comics material (Acquiring Diamond distribution for example) or at least have a substantial influence in it (buying out a large amount of the 2000 or so comic shops still in existence for example).

As it stands now, Image and other independent publishers business wouldn't be affected much by a Disney acquisition of DC properties. That's not to say that a merger like that wouldn't send shockwaves pulsing through the industry, but at the end of the day what would a merger between Marvel and DC really change in the grand scheme? They would still dominate the market in terms of sales, which is the way it stands right now anyway.

The best chance (which means zero chance) of stopping it would be via lawsuits filed by various parties. See Stan Lee vs Marvel, Marv Wolfman vs Marvel, Jerry Siegel vs DC and most recently, DC vs the heirs of Joe Shuster et al. They all got their collective assess handed to them in various courts.

it's not about them hurting the rest of the business, but consumers. if merged a single company would domiante 70% of the market, which is different form 2 companies doing it.

Originally posted by 753
it's not about them hurting the rest of the business, but consumers. if merged a single company would domiante 70% of the market, which is different form 2 companies doing it.

Consumers are only hurt if their choices are limited to that one company. As long as they can access the material where they want, when they want to, then there's no harm done. Unless Disney did something exceptionally stupid like say, acquired the properties and then sent them off into oblivion never to be seen again, then the consumer MIGHT have a chance of getting the FTC to step in. And even that is a very slim chance.

Corporations do this stuff everyday. Hell just look at what EA is trying to do to Nintendo right now. They got pissed that Nintendo didn't go with Origin as it's online service and have basically blackballed them by not having a single game scheduled for release on the Wii U in 2013. Going forward that is a huge blow to Nintendo and by proxy, Nintendo fans. If not for Ubisoft standing by Nintendo, the Wii U would have virtually zero large publisher third party support.

We have some fairly weak consumer protection laws in certain respects in the USA. For example, say that that you are late on your car payment for whatever reason and the bank assigns a repo team to your account. You are in the car about to drive your child to school, but forgot to grab your mobile phone so you run back in the house really quick to grab it. In some states the repo man can hop in the car and drive off with your kid inside without fear of punishment. Repo men don't give a phuck, because they don't have to fear any consequences.

I said all that in a roundabout way of saying that if Disney acquired the rights to DC properties, don't expect the FTC or the courts to save you.

Here is a link to a recent FTC investigation that has some parallels to what you're talking about 753. It involves a merger between two direct competitors in the hair restoration industry, which is a half billion dollar per year industry.

http://antitrust.weil.com/federal-trade-commission/ftc-challenging-antitrust-violations-unearthed-in-a-merger-review/

As I said often happens in these types of deals, there was a little hand wringing about competition for posterities sake, but ultimately everything went right on through.

Looking at things from an in universe standpoint; you couldn't make Superman and Thor work at the same time.

Think about Martian Manhunter in the JLA when Superman is absent vs present. The only way to really make Supes work would be to scale back Thor- which would suck.

I would really like to read some comics where Super/Thor were working together and actually became friends. That's why I don't understand the lack of DC/Marvel crossovers; I know they are competitiors, but those books will always sell.

Originally posted by 753
as of april 2013, they account for near 70% of the market when combined, though DC has apparently taken a plummet and marvel a slight 2% drop. how much control over the market do you reckon a company would have to muster for the ftc to get involved?

isn't the FTC highly inconsistent in these cases?

I think there would have to be some type of challenge from a company saying that the set-up prevents them from accessing the market for it to be a real monopoly.