Showing posts with label marvel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marvel. Show all posts

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Forget Pixar – Bruckheimer could be a more immediate Disney partner for Marvel

Since Marvel bought Disney a lot has been made of the potential for a Pixar -Marvel match up - the company has even revealed that Pixar’s Chief Creative Officer John Lassetter has met with Marvel staff to discuss possible collaborations. But I haven’t read anyone discuss a more obvious Disney partner that may also be likely to take an interest in Marvel’s properties : uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer.

Bruckheimer is one of the most successful and controversial producers in Hollywood. Known for massive action heavy and critically unpopular productions his long list of credits includes Beverly Hills Cop, Top Gun, The Rock, Bad Boys, Con Air, Crimson Tide, Armageddon, Enemy of the State, Gone in Sixty Seconds, Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor, Pirates of the Caribbean, King Arthur and the National Treasure films. For television he produces the successful CSI franchise, Without a Trace, Cold Case and The Amazing Race.

So given that the action genre is right in his wheelhouse and the fact that he has been known to help Disney develop their properties in the past with Pirates of the Caribbean, a Bruckheimer produced Marvel film, like for instance Power Man and Iron Fist, Deathlok or Daughters of the Dragon, could appeal to Disney execs. For television he could even produce procedurals based around concepts such as SHIELD, Jessica Jones or X-Factor.

Of course the fan reaction to such a move would be mixed at best, and Marvel’s Ike Pearlmutter and Kevin Feige would likely be resistant to such an intrusion into their domain. But by talking about teaming with Pixar they have already opened the door to such collaborations, and given the fact that Pixar productions have a long development process working with Bruckheimer could be a faster way to ramp up new productions.

The popular spin on this merger is that it helps Disney broaden its appeal to young boys and adolescents. Up until now Bruckheimer has been Disney’s go-to man for this type of thing – with initiatives like Pirates of the Caribbean and the recent G-Force films. Inherent in the coverage has been an acknowledgement (sometimes made pretty explicit) that this hasn’t really worked. Could Bruckheimer be pissed about this implicit criticism? This move certainly makes his role at Disney a little less crucial. Disney may wish to reinforce their attachment to the producer by giving him access to some of Marvel's properties if he wants them.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Is Marvel Studios fifth Paramount movie a potential source of dispute?

Marvel studios seems to be locked into a distribution deal with Paramount for its next five movies, but exactly what properties those movies will be about is a bit unclear. Specifically after Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America and Avengers – what is the fifth and final film? some coverage says that it will "most likely" be Iron Man 3 (note the uncertainty) while others suggest Ant Man. Indeed when the distribution deal was first reported by Nikki Finke Ant Man was listed as the final movie.

Ant Man has been in development since 2006 with Shaun of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim writer/director Edgar Wright at the helm. Wright was still connected with the project as recently as this July and Marvel Studio's head Kevin Feige has discussed the project in numerous interviews.

I’m guessing that the idea of producing this Ant Man movie has suddenly become much more attractive to Feige – you have got to believe that if they could, Disney would seize the opportunity to own Iron Man 3 outright. Ant Man is clearly a riskier project with a narrower appeal.

Added to that are some logistical issues – all indications are that Marvel wants Favreau to direct their big Avengers movie. That means that to make Iron Man 3 the fifth film either Favreau leaves the franchise or the movie is pushed back from 2013 and the Paramount deal is extended for another few years – neither of which is too desirable for Disney/Marvel, I would imagine.

Also worth thinking about here is the fact that when this Paramount deal was first agreed it wasn't clear which of these properties were going to be the most successful – so it’s by no means a sure thing that Paramount locked down sequel rights to any particular characters in their 5 film deal. Indeed it is still possible that Iron Man 2 will be a flop or that either Thor or Captain America might be an even bigger hit, making Iron Man 3 less attractive.

One other possibly crucial detail - in June Feige revealed that another, as yet unannounced Marvel movie was planned for release in 2012, the same year Marvel/Paramount's 3rd and 4th movies (Captain America, Avengers) are due to be released. He seemed to hint that an announcement would come at San Diego, but none materialised. Maybe I'm crazy but the timing (and the probable delay in any announcement) makes me suspect that this could have had something to do with Marvel's acquisition of the Marvelman property. At any rate is this new movie part of the Paramount deal? is it even still in development?

Nikki Finke recently published a quote from Rich Greenfield at Pali Research, in which he discussed the Marvel/Paramount deal:

Marvel’s current distribution deal with Paramount (Viacom-owned) covers the next five Marvel pictures including Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011),Captain America (2011), The Avengers (2012) and Iron Man 3 (2012/2013). Paramount confirmed the films to be produced under their Marvel agreement.

He apparently did not check with Marvel though. Could this be Paramount putting down markers to indicate to Marvel that they believe that Iron Man 3 is part of the deal? is it that they are actually on board with Feige's secret new film project and are just being coy with Greenfield? or could all this speculation be way off-base -have Marvel and Paramount already agreed that Iron Man 3 is the last film in their agreement?

All this reminds me of the dispute between Pixar and former Disney chief Michael Eisner over Toy Story 2. That mess took years to sort out and almost destroyed the very lucrative Disney/Pixar relationship. Hopefully all my speculation is groundless and the terms of the Marvel/Paramount deal are clearly set-out.

Disney buys Marvel: great for Disney, bad for Marvel Fans

Okay I’m studying for exams at the moment but the big news has drawn me out of my temporary sabbatical. I have a lot of thoughts about the whole thing but Ill start off with my first impressions: I think it is great for Disney, but bad for Marvel fans in the long run.

I understand that some are claiming that Disney overpaid but I don’t see it, these superhero movies can make a half billion each when they are successful and much more when they are massive hits, which is not uncommon. The merchandising potential is massive and has already been growing consistently for over 20 years – the appeal of superheroes is much more than a fad. Over time the investment will pay off in spades for Disney.

Whatever way you look at it, practically speaking, Marvel Comics just got a whole new tier of management. As a fan, I worry that this means the company will take less risks and become slower, more bureaucratic and less innovative. As I see it Marvel’s main competitor DC Comics’ problems can ultimately be traced to its corporate culture – as a small part of a massive media conglomerate they are tightly structured and too fractured creatively. Marvel’s biggest strength, especially in recent years, has been its dynamism – its fresh approach to its characters, looseness of its editorial culture and willingness to take storytelling risks.

I’m aware that Marvel and Disney are claiming that the company’s independence will be maintained – but that is clearly a vague intention, not a strong guarantee. Does anyone really believe that Marvel will make a potentially controversial move with a character – like for instance the recent death of Captain America - without making senior executives at Disney aware of it first? of course not.

However I can say that I see at least one obvious example where this new oversight may have been a positive thing had it been around a few years back. I’m pretty sure someone at Disney would have realised the madness of having a pact with the devil be the central plot point in a major Spider-Man story, and would have objected to it. Nevertheless I still think that most of the time Disney’s natural instincts to avoid controversy will be a negative influence.

Hovering over this is a threat to the comic business as a whole. Disney has actually abandoned successful comic book operations in the past because the business and the margins are too small. In the past Marvel has seemed to justify its comic business as a sort of research and development division for other media, but who is to say that should the business become less profitable or more controversial Disney would not just abandon it? Marvel already has a wealth of material built up after all (though the 7,000 character thing is nonsense – less than 6,000 have received Official Handbook entries and those books have been if anything overly comprehensive).

Disney has shown little sentimentality about this sort of thing in the past. Their most synonymous properties - Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck etc - have had only minimal new development for decades. Disney seems to prefer to rely on library material to spur licensing rather than risk their appeal by trying anything new. Let’s hope that this attitude doesn’t seep into their new acquisition.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Marvel acquires Marvelman: Has anything like this ever worked out well before? Part 3


Go here for Part 1, and here for Part 2.

This time I hope to explain why I think that there may be opportunity costs involved in investing in these new acquisitions and that in order for them to work in their new settings these concepts must have some unique or exceptionally strong qualities that complement the existing library into which they are being placed, which unfortunately has rarely been the case.

First off: Captain Marvel/Shazam. I think it's a given at this point that the similarities between Superman and Captain Marvel are such that as long as they own both the whole "Shazam Family" will be surplus to requirements at DC.

Ive already conceded that the money DC paid to buy the Fawcett characters in the 1970s must have been paid back many times over by now by the returns from the various comics, TV shows, cartoons etc. But would the company have made that money anyway without the character?

Who can say that, without Shazam/Captain Marvel, the money that was invested to launch those products would not have been put to better use on Superman or even another, more unique DC property like say Green Lantern? DC has never lacked for concepts - surely one of them could have generated a higher return? after all none of those Shazam products were runaway successes.

Over the last year, DC has acquired the rights to three different sets of old superhero properties - the Milestone, MLJ and THUNDER Agents characters. I cant see that I see the logic in any of these moves.

The company already has an excess of characters - are these concepts so unique that they add something significantly valuable to their library? I have enjoyed stories about characters from all three lines in the past, but I think that's a testament to the work of the various creative teams rather than any unique properties inherent in these concepts.

For example, what stories can you tell about Hardware that you cannot tell with Steel instead? couldn't you use the ideas from the Shield revamp on a new version of the Americommando or one of the other many patriotic trademarks DC owns? is the THUNDER Agents such a unique concept to justify all this investment, when DC already has strong properties like Suicide Squad that they haven't been able to get right?

There has never been, to my knowledge, significant demand out there for any of these concepts to return. There may be a market for reprinting the old material, but even the acclaimed THUNDER Agents stuff has probably only a niche audience at best.

Why is Marvelman different? well chiefly because the concept continues to be in demand, independent of nostalgia. There is an aura of prestige around the whole property that comes from the caliber of talent have worked on it, making Marvelman the most credible candidate to fill the "Superman distaff" role in Marvel's catalogue. Also that quality work, by creators with proven crossover appeal, makes the potential audience for the Marvelman back catalogue wide and deep.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Marvel acquires Marvelman: Has anything like this ever worked out well before? Part 2


Go here for Part 1.

So if they never really work out for the characters how do I explain the fact that these acquisitions continue to happen?

In a few of these cases there have been obvious reasons for these sales that have little to do with getting access to the intellectual property involved. It's well known that the main motivation for Marvel's acquisition of Malibu and, to a lesser extent, DC's of Wildstorm was to the acquire the sophisticated coloring departments both companies possessed.

Wildstorm also had exclusive contracts with arguably the two biggest creators in the business - Jim Lee and Alan Moore - and DC hoped to make use of those relationships. The other big benefit for Marvel and DC in buying Malibu and Wildstorm was that it immediately increased their market share by taking a potential competitor out of the marketplace.

It is this second, somewhat controversial motivation that I think explains why so many other properties have been bought up by the big two. Buying these characters removes the possibility that another competitor will figure out a way to utilise and disrupt the marketplace.

Valiant is an example of just that happening. Jim Shooter set-up this company in the early 1990s using a bunch of nearly-forgotten characters from 1960s Western/Gold Key Comics to launch his new line of comics. With solid production values and the full resources of a talented editorial and promotional team behind them, the company took off and quickly became one of the biggest comics publishers in the country.

Their success was brief, and in part based on peculiar market conditions of the time, but the example is as stark reminder of the potential disruptive power of new comic company using old concepts in a focused and well promoted manner. If Valiant had only been an imprint of a larger company I don't think it would have been anywhere near as successful, just remember Shooter's earlier attempt to a launch a new superhero line - his failed "New Universe" project at Marvel.

It is for this "spoiler" reason of wanting to block potential competition that I think DC may be kicking itself now that it didn't actively pursue Marvelman. The character probably wouldn't add a huge amount to DC, but he has the potential to help Marvel enormously in areas that DC traditionally dominates.

In part 3 I'll go into the opportunity costs inherent in buying and promoting these new acquisitions and explore the most obvious benefit these companies see in buying the rights to old properties - the idea that these new characters will add value to their pre-existing catalogues -and explain why I think that, except in rare cases (like Marvelman), this is usually a mistake.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Marvel acquires Marvelman: Has anything like this ever worked out well before? Part 1


Here's my take on this: no, nothing like this has ever really worked out perfectly in the past. There is a long history of the two biggest comics publishers acquiring the rights to other company's characters and failing to fully exploit the potential of those properties. Once acquired, the characters never manage to regain the heights of popularity they enjoyed at the peak of their success at other publishers.

The one possible exception I can think of is the 1944 merger of Detective Comics and All-American Publications which united Detective's characters like Batman and Superman with All-American's properties such as Green Lantern, Flash and Wonder Woman to form National Comics (which eventually changed its name to DC). That merger has obviously been an unqualified success for both companies' characters. I'm not sure that it really qualifies for what I'm talking about here though, as it wasn't technically an acquisition and both companies had never really been separate entities anyway.

Probably the biggest and most successful acquisition of the type I'm talking about has been the sale of the Fawcett Comics library (basically the "Captain Marvel/Shazam" characters) to DC Comics. DC has probably made their initial investment back many times over since they bought those characters in the 1970s. There have been numerous comic series, a TV show, an animated series and even plans for a big screen movie featuring the characters.

However, whatever success the property has had at DC pales in comparison to the popularity that the various Captain Marvel series enjoyed in their heyday in the 1940s, when the character was the most popular superhero in America, outselling even Superman, who was also at his peak at the time. At DC, Captain Marvel has never been more than a mediocre success, a property given a third rate priority by the company.

Since then DC has acquired lots of other libraries of characters including the Quality, Charlton and Wildstorm Comics heroes. Though these concepts have had periodic upsurges in visibility, all these acquisitions have followed the same pattern of fading popularity post-sale, as DC focuses its resources on promoting the Detective/All-American stable of characters.

Marvel has been down the same road, buying Malibu Comics in 1994 and then being so derelict in managing their "Ultraverse" characters that they are now unusable, victims of arcane rights issues that were triggered by Marvel's negligence in not producing new material featuring the concepts.

So if never works out, why do comics companies keep doing it? what are DC thinking in acquiring the rights to the MLJ, Milestone and THUNDER Agents characters - all in the space of the last year? and why do I think that Marvelman could be an exception to all this?

In the next few days I hope to post part two where I explain some of my theories!

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Capsule Reviews For Last Week's Comics

In the future I hope to do these earlier in the week, but anyway...

Marvel Zombies 4 #4
The series ends on somewhat of a whimper, as the zombie virus is defeated too quickly and easily for my tastes. I really enjoyed the series overall though, and Van Lente did a great job using some obscure characters and making them seem pretty cool (the Piranha Men in #1 were a highlight for me). I guess I would definitely read a Midnight Sons series by this team.

New Avengers #55
Yeaaaah Immonen!!! Ive been a fan of this guy since he started out ages ago on Legion of Super-Heroes and he is just what this series needed. Clear, fluid and attractive storytelling with each character in the large cast looking different and dynamic. The trouble within the Hood's crew is a good hook and a long overdue development given some of the guys involved. I like the fact that the fallout from Clint's media war with Osborn continues to boil over, but I have to say that the character's murderous intentions are pretty out of sync with past depictions.

Justice Society of America #29
A pretty standard set-up issue. I love Fables so I'm hoping that this new team are a success, but going on this issue alone I'm not hugely confident that the book will take off. It just needs something extra, a bit more pizazz and a little less exposition.

Thunderbolts #134
I have been pretty disappointed in Diggle's stint on this book. I had high expectations due to his work on The Losers, and while it started promisingly, this run was derailed by the awful Deadpool crossover and hasn't been able to recover since. This issue is okay, but nothing spectacular. Here's hoping that Remender is Diggle's replacement. I have been very impressed with his work on Punisher, which has some similar themes to this book.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Newly released document illuminates Marvel’s 2004 shift in focus to the Avengers

Marvel editor Tom Brevoort recently released a “publishing strategy memo” he wrote for the Marvel Universe line (basically the various Avengers and Fantastic Four titles) in late-2003. The main body of the memo outlines his specific month-by-month plans and ideas for 2004 and is in itself pretty standard and unremarkable stuff.

However, the preamble that Brevoort attached to that information appears to be pretty significant when considered in light of the massive shift that has occurred at Marvel in the interim since the memo was written. The memo was written at the request of Marvel’s new management and Brevoort makes a bold appeal to them that they focus their resources and promotion on his books:

The mainline Marvel U imprint is, I feel, the toughest to manage at this point. There's a specific cache, both in sales and prestige, that comes with the Ultimate or Marvel Knights labels. And X-Men is just X-Men, a sales juggernaut for thirty years. But the mainstream Marvel books, while they form the core of our business, have ended up by virtue of these other initiatives over the past few years as the vanilla of our line. As such, they're at a promotional disadvantage to everything else--Ultimate Hawkeye or Marvel Knights Hawkeye is almost certain to open better than plain old Hawkeye.

Atop that, we've tended to make this a self-fulfilling prophesy in terms of our allocation of talent and resources over the past few years. We've positioned most of our key creators elsewhere, trusting to these books to somewhat take care of themselves. And then, as the sales decay curve increased, there developed a resistance to allocating too much A & E against these titles…

I think that the message that we need to send this year both through content and through our promotional efforts is that the MU is The Real Deal. It's Coke Classic. It's the characters our competitors wish they owned in the shared universe they endlessly try to emulate, done by the best guys in the business. It's not old, it's not irrelevant, it's not tarnished--it's as vibrant and involving a place to immerse yourself as its ever been. This is the backbone of our publishing program, the standard bearer that you skew away from to get an edgy Marvel Knights book or a modernized Ultimate title. Because the Marvel Universe isn't an imprint--it's the whole ball of wax.

At the time that this memo was written the Marvel Universe line, and the Avengers books in particular, were probably going through their most difficult period since they were relaunched in 1997 following the “Heroes Reborn” fiasco. The period in question was certainly the nadir of Brevoort's career as a major group-editor.

The sales and creative situation on just about every book was pretty bad. Kurt Busiek's stint as Avengers writer was long over by this point and Geoff Johns’ run, which Brevoort had personally promoted heavily, had just been severely curtailed by Johns’ exclusive contract with DC. Chuck Austen was the title's next scheduled writer and the fan reaction to his appointment had ranged from apathy to extreme hostility.

The Thor title was in the last gasps of Dan Jurgens’ long run and the acclaim and fan attention was long gone by that point. Captain America had recently been removed from the line and relaunched as a Marvel Knights series, with Brevoort's office launching a secondary Cap title – Captain America and the Falcon by Christopher Priest and Bart Sears - that was a sales disaster from the outset. Iron Man too was in the doldrums creatively and commercially.

Fantastic Four had just emerged from a traumatic period during which Brevoort’s preferred creative team (Mark Waid and Mike Wieringo) had been fired and then rehired by upper management. The battle involved had been a difficult one, played out in public in the comics press and the fallout from it probably contributed to Marvel publisher Bill Jemas' departure from the company. The whole debacle clearly left no-one unscarred and Waid and Wieringo's return was a shortlived one.

The specifics of Brevoort’s planning memo give further detail as to how desperate the situation was in this corner of Marvel’s publishing line at that time. Any plans involving newly launched titles include provisos acknowledging the possibility of imminent cancellation. Indeed only one of Brevoort’s titles from that period survives today in the incarnation it was in then (Fantastic Four) – and only four of the fourteen other ongoing books listed have direct analogues being published today (Avengers, Thor, Iron Man and Spectacular Spider-Man).

However, shortly after this document was written a massive shift occurred. Marvel assigned its highest profile creator – Brian Bendis – to write Avengers and relentlessly promoted his “Avengers Disassembled” arc. All the major Avengers titles were then relaunched with high-calibre creative teams – Brubaker and Epting on Captain America, Ellis and Granov on Iron Man and Bendis and Finch on New Avengers.

The shift of focus is most clearly represented in the line-up that was made available to Bendis on New Avengers, which included for the first time both Spider-Man and Wolverine, the company’s most popular characters. These characters were also the main attractions of the company’s two other, previously more successful, lines of comics set in the Marvel Universe: the X-Men and Spider-Man imprints. The regular inclusion of these characters in New Avengers may have cost those books some of their unique drawing power, but clearly the decision was made that the new title’s success was more important than such concerns.

Obviously, other factors beyond the advocacy of this document may have factored into Marvel's decision to shift their focus so dramatically. Marvel's plans to develop their own movie properties also began to gather pace around 2004. With the X-Men, Spider-Man and FF movie rights controlled by other studios, the company naturally began to focus their internal resources on promoting those properties whose exploitation they stood to benefit the most from.

But, if nothing else this document highlights Brevoort’s key role in managing this shift in focus successfully. The strategy he outlined – focusing talent and promotion on these previously neglected books even if it came at the expense of other, previously more popular lines – has led the various Avengers titles to become industry bestsellers and to other major successes such as Civil War, The Death of Captain America and Dark Reign.

Friday, July 31, 2009

A Marvel Universe Marvelman is inevitable


Now that Marvel owns the rights to Marvelman I think that it's inevitable that there will eventually be a Marvel Universe version of the character. It is just a question of sooner or later.

The benefits to Marvel of such a move are obvious - it immediately generates some attention and makes it easier for them to leverage their biggest asset - the "Marvel Universe" continuity - in exploiting the character. Against that there are very few reasons not do it, negative fan reaction being the main one, and that can always be managed.

Remember that Marvelman is not Watchmen. Alan Moore did not create him, he merely wrote his version of a pre-existing character. Indeed Alan Moore actually introduced a version into the Marvel Universe himself in the mid-1980s, the character "Miracleman" from his Captain Britain run, so it's unlikely that he would object to this especially now that Mick Anglo has been properly compensated.

Even if the current management at Marvel is dead set against the idea- which I don't think is a given at all - the essential economic logic of the move will eventually mean that it will be tried at some point by some future administration. They might as well do it now and try and do it properly rather than let some future writer of, say Exiles vol. 7, use the character as a gimmick guest star.

Marvel have had other properties in the past that they initially planned not to include in the regular Marvel Universe - the New Universe, Star-Lord, Marvel Boy etc - but they were all eventually tied in to their existing mythology. Even the Ultimate Comics "universe" has been connected to the regular Marvel line, via the Marvel Zombies books.

I imagine Marvel's immediate priority with Marvelman is to sort out the rights issues so they can republish the sought after Moore/Gaiman material. They will want to get Gaiman and Buckingham to finish their story, which both creators have expressed interest in doing in the past. If possible, they will probably try to continue the story after Gaiman is finished - probably with some extremely prestigious talent, someone of the order of a Michael Chabon or a Jonathan Lethem if they can get them. But talent like that is slow and cant be rushed, and in the meantime a Marvel Universe Marvelman series could make use of the character.

I don't think that debuting such a version of the character necessarily detracts from continuing the Moore/ Gaiman story, as long as it was a separate continuity. The general comics consumer is pretty sophisticated, and assuming all the rights issues are resolved, Marvel could even differentiate between the two versions by continuing the Moore/Gaiman series under the "Miracleman" label. That's the title that most of these stories were originally published under after all, and the name most people associate with this version.

Obviously, a Marvel Universe Marvelman series would have to be handled delicately, and Marvel would be anxious to preserve the prestige that the concept currently has. I'd imagine that people like Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, Mark Millar or Brian K. Vaughan would be their top choices to handle something like this, if they can interest them.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Bendis to write "Dark Siege"?


I not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but almost two weeks ago Tom Brevoort apparently gave away who's behind the upcoming Asgard-based crossover ("Siege of Asgard"?, "Dark Siege"?? the title hasn't been confirmed yet) that's rumoured to be scheduled for the end of the year . Quote Brevoort:
Dark Reign: The List is awesome, and the big thing that Bendis is masterminding out of the Avengers titles for year's end is getting underway.
I think this strongly suggests that Bendis is going to be writing the rumoured Asgard event, whatever it ends up being called. Perhaps lending extra credence to my speculation is the fact that when Rich Johnston reported last week that Matt Fraction would be writing the project Bendis was the one who denied it, expressing his glee at catching the rumour-monger out.

Anyway if I turn out to be right and the "big thing that Bendis is masterminding out of the Avengers" turns out to be this rumoured crossover, I have to admit Im pretty unenthused. Bendis can be a great writer with a strong ear for dialogue and a talent for character-based stuff, but for these big events you really need someone with a skill for tight, simple plotting. Bendis' tendency to play with structure and pacing in unorthodox, ambitious ways always seems to detract from the tension and large set-piece based drama that these big stories rely on.

This is not an original observation - the critical reception to his last two efforts at this sort of thing - House of M and Secret Invasion - was pretty uniform in pointing out that his plotting was a problem.

In fairness to Bendis though there are signs that he has finally taken some of this criticism to heart - his recent Dark Avengers work in particular has been quite straight forward structurally and the recent Avengers: Free Comic Book Day issue was so old-school it could have been plotted by Roger Stern (though the dialogue was uniquely Bendis).

I just hope, for this crossover at least, he doesnt decide to tell the conclusion in flashback again.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Buying Marvelman – potentially the biggest deal of Quesada’s tenure as Marvel Editor-in-Chief

From what I can piece together from interviews over the past weekend Joe Quesada seems to have been the first person to realise the inherent potential to Marvel of acquiring the Marvelman rights. Quesada credits publisher Dan Buckley with doing the (by no means insignificant) legwork but seems to claim the idea and the initial enthusiasm for it as his own. As such I think he deserves enormous credit for seeing what no one else did – that this is potentially a huge deal for the company.

It's only in considering the deal in the few days since its was announced that I've realised that the property has enormous potential, especially for Marvel. Just publishing the back catalogue (specifically the Quality/ Eclipse 1980s material) would be a windfall. There is already a huge pent-up demand out there for this material and even without the scarcity issue similar titles such as the Watchmen, V for Vendetta and Sandman trades have been perennial sales juggernauts for Marvel’s rival DC Comics – a phenomenon Marvel has no doubt envied for some time and are anxious to replicate.

There is even the possibility that because Marvel/Miracleman is much more of a mainstream comic superhero story it could even surpass the popularity of those other titles. I know that many would question this – could a more mainstream super-hero story actually mean higher sales in the largely bookstore dominated trade business? However consider of the three other examples I cite - the best selling of them is Watchmen. I think that one of the key factors in that book’s success is that it is a mature, intelligent story wrapped in the traditional trappings of the super-hero genre, the genre that most people have been trained to expect from comics. Marvel/Miracleman has the same strength, perhaps even moreso.

Then when you consider the potential for new interpretations – new comics, videogames, animation, movies – which if handled right (with due deference, respect and compensation given to the original creators) the company could be onto a major new property here.

Of course, all Marvel has done so far is acquire Mick Anglo’s rights to the character – and unquestionably the real value of the character at this point lies in the 1980s material. But the genius of this move is that Marvel now owns the character – which essentially stops anybody else from trying to publish stories featuring him. This means that all the other rights holders essentially have to deal with Marvel. And Marvel is one of the only organisations with both the resources and now, crucially, a real interest in sorting out the tangled mess of legal issues that remain unresolved.

Anglo and parties representing him have apparently been trying to exploit the character independently over the last few years, but were unsuccessful. I imagine the legal morass surrounding the character was a huge contributory factor to this. What independent party would be willing to invest significant amounts of cash in a largely unknown property with huge legal uncertainties surrounding it, and without access to the stories which make the character most attractive?. I think Marvel was uniquely positioned here.

Marvel have always lacked a credible “Superman” type figure in their catalogue of characters – a single hero with enormous power and all the iconic imagery and themes that go with that simple idea. Their recent attempts to build such a character from the ground-up – characters like the Sentry and the Blue Marvel - have been interesting but ultimately unsuccessful. Marvelman has the potential to credibly plug that gap – the name itself seems to suggest such a role (one note: Im not necessarily suggesting here that Marvelman should be placed into the Marvel Universe – that’s an issue I hope to deal with in a subsequent post).

And while some may point out the graphic nature of the 1980s work as a barrier to the characters future broad potential I would strongly disagree - just look at the wide variety of depictions of Batman, from The Dark Knight Returns to the current Brave and the Bold cartoon. Marvelman’s origins lie in children’s literature after all and that is what he was originally designed for.

DC, perhaps the only other credible company which could have also made this move appear to have been uninterested. They already own Superman and they have the rights to most of Moore and Gaiman’s most popular comics, so it seems they were complacent about it all and didn't see what Marvel sees. It seems ironic though that at a time in which they are spending a lot of resources acquiring the rights to old properties – such as the Milestone characters, the old Archie MLJ heroes and most recently the THUNDER agents - they have missed out on potentially the most valuable property out there.

Of course the legal issues are nowhere near settled yet – there are many interested parties whose rights have to be reconciled before Marvel can fully exploit the character and his back catalogue. Such parties include (but are by no means limited to) – Alan Moore, Garry Leach, Alan Davis, Chuck Austen, Neil Gaiman, Mark Buckingham, Todd McFarlane, Dez Skinn and DC comics. I hope to deal with some of those issues surrounding these parties in future posts.