DC and WB are starting to worry...

[enyawd72]

What would be kind of cool is if they could somehow do it as an alternate reality sort of thing. Swamp Thing in one universe is Man Thing in another universe.
Dr. Fate is Dr. Strange, etc.

Oh, who am I kidding...these guys can't keep their stuff straight now. Combining them would totally screw up everything.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I used to be vehemently opposed to one company every owning the others characters. Since the New 52 came and any semblance of my DCU is gone, it wouldn't bother me so much if Marvel ever got them.

Chris

[madmarva]

Funny thing is, as a kid growing up in the 70's they were all just superheroes to me anyway. I never really thought about Marvel and DC as separate entities. They happily coexisted together alongside each other in all the toys, model kits, paper stuff, coloring books, etc, etc. There was a lot less of the US vs. THEM mentality that exists between the two companies today.

Yeah, I understand that. I mean, Mego wouldn't have been the same to me if it had just had one license or the other in the 70s.

But, I just can't see shoehorning Metropolis and Gotham into the Marvel Universe and making it work. But that just may be me.

[madmarva]

I figured there might be a way for just certain characters to go. I just hope something like that doesn't happen for the comics.

I know in the 80s, There were talks between Marvel and Time/Warner for Marvel to license some of the DC characters, but it fell through.

But, Warners could license it's movie rights to Marvel to get them to make its films, lol. Certainly, there is no incentive for either to do it, but I'd love to see the essence of DC's characters respected by filmmakers as much as Marvels are.

[hedrap]

I could see Antitrust covering market share, except there's no way Marvel would maintain all 52 titles. When Marvel was in bankruptcy court, DC had a rep who was there to pick the bones and just take Spidey and X-Men, possibly Hulk. That was it and the argument was the other titles didn't sell, had little brand awareness, or were duplicates of existing DC characters. For Marvel to get around antitrust, they could pare it all down to Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman books while merging other characters into existing Marvel titles. Justice League Avengers, for example.

[enyawd72]

Funny thing is, as a kid growing up in the 70's they were all just superheroes to me anyway. I never really thought about Marvel and DC as separate entities. They happily coexisted together alongside each other in all the toys, model kits, paper stuff, coloring books, etc, etc. There was a lot less of the US vs. THEM mentality that exists between the two companies today.

[madmarva]

I'm no lawyer, but my lay understanding is that anti-trust laws would not allow mergers or buyouts that constitute a monopoly. If Disney were to own DC and Marvel, I think they would own enough of the comic book printing market share to be considered a monopoly under the Sherman Act. There might be ways of setting up the business where it would fly under. I don't know.

I know the acquisition of the newspaper I worked for and the competing paper was slapped down for the same reason. Years later after several different maneuvers to skirt anti-trust laws were made, the consolidation happened.

As fun as some team-ups might be, I wouldn't really want the two universes merged creatively, and I'd certainly hate to see what comics would cost if Marvel held even more sway over the industry than it does now.

I like what makes the two universes unique, and competition is good for the consumer. Or at least ,it's supposed to be.

But as a consumer, I really don't care who owns what. I just want solid entertainment for a price as reasonable as I can get it.

I want WB to get their act together because I like DC's characters, and I hope Marvel is able to keep producing fun movies with its characters for as long as possible.

I do wonder about super hero fatigue by the time B v. S comes out. It's still two years away.

[hedrap]

Boy, now THERE'S an interesting thought...what if Disney/Marvel eventually acquired DC and ALL superheroes were under one roof...
Imagine the toys...the crossovers...the movies...Hulk vs. Superman anyone?

It wouldn't be anti-trust, it would be who can offer what. Keep in mind Disney didn't really spend 4 billion on Marvel, most of it was a stock buy that put Marvel's owner as the number one owner of Disney stock and the number two guy in the entire Disney company. Disney couldn't offer that to DC. Now, Marvel itself could take a shot, but then they wouldn't technically own it as it would be bought via hedge/investment loans. So they would have control over the characters, but would be on the hook for at least 3 billion. After the BvS/JLA movies, where do they find the return? Avengers/JLA? How much does that cost to produce/market? Another 400 million. And this is after A3, so how many years away are we at that point?

WB would also want a percentage of all non-comic book sales with zero investment. When GotG opened to 94 million, it didn't all go back to Disney/Marvel. Theaters get a weekly sliding percentage, then P&A and Overhead has to to paid, then you get to actual production costs. So it's going to take 400 million for GotG to break even. Now add-in a 10-15% cut to WB, which would come second in line so it's gross, not net, and I think Disney would stop the purchase. Unless it was a clean sale, but that puts the price above 4 billion, because, well, Batman and Superman.

Sony would sell off a division for DC, but they have zero footprint in publishing. I mean, they just got out of the e-book game so that makes them more independent on third parties. So it comes down to CBS (who owns Simon & Shuster) or Newscorp. My big concern would be a real outside investor, like a hedge or Chinese production, throwing an insane amount at WB.

[madmarva]

^I don't think antitrust laws would allow it to happen.

[enyawd72]

The new plan seems to be to saturate the market and hope one or more versions sticks. Historically, when companies do this, it means they're trying to squeeze out every last dollar before they're sold. I've felt for sometime that shareholders will demand DC be sold as it will fetch premium billions thanks to Marvel.

Boy, now THERE'S an interesting thought...what if Disney/Marvel eventually acquired DC and ALL superheroes were under one roof...
Imagine the toys...the crossovers...the movies...Hulk vs. Superman anyone?

[MIB41]

It's all dependent on BvS/JLA. If they can't make at least a billion for each, then it's over.

DC/Warner Bros. aren't doing themselves any favors if they have to open against Cap III. Cap will not only have the advantage of a wildly successful installment in Winter Soldier, but will also be riding off the likely momentum of Avengers 2. In a movie franchise, the latest installment tends to get the good will or bad blood left over from the prior installment. It's my opinion, a sequel to Superman (even with the added gimmick of Batman) does not trump public desire to see the next narrative from Avengers 2. To me, it's almost suicide to think a movie that carries so much significance to the studio and future of the franchise would be risked against a behemoth like Marvel when they need to meet such lofty financial goals. It also places a glut on the marketplace that could potentially hurt both franchises should consumer fatigue set in. Hopefully this is a face-off that never occurs.

[hedrap]

I think one problem is that during most of that time, WB execs have looked down on DC as some sort of red-headed stepchild, they are almost embarrassed to be connected to a comic book company. For the movies, WB is running the show, not DC, and as long as that happens, things will continue to suck. On the other side, Marvel is running the show, Paramount/Universal/Sony, etc and now Disney are handling the distribution, promotion and such, but Marvel is involved in the development and production end, it makes a difference.

Technically, DC owns WB. It wasn't until Time merged that the entire company structure changed. IIRC, until a decade ago, the chairman emeritus was the man who founded NPP and its licensing arm held power til the very end. WB's problem is they do less self-financing now than Marvel. Marvel has their own credit line, so they call their own shots. The only interference would come from Disney and at this point, there is none. DC has no financing and WB relies on outside financiers, who have their own input. When it's a company like Legendary, things can be great but you need execs who are willing to cede control. Now with Ratners group, the new WB regime and Affleck's group, you have movies by committee. Too many cooks, which was the same problem in the 90's.

The new plan seems to be to saturate the market and hope one or more versions sticks. Historically, when companies do this, it means they're trying to squeeze out every last dollar before they're sold. I've felt for sometime that shareholders will demand DC be sold as it will fetch premium billions thanks to Marvel. It's all dependent on BvS/JLA. If they can't make at least a billion for each, then it's over.

[cjefferys]

After over 4 decades of being connected to one of the biggest movie studios in the world.

I think one problem is that during most of that time, WB execs have looked down on DC as some sort of red-headed stepchild, they are almost embarrassed to be connected to a comic book company. For the movies, WB is running the show, not DC, and as long as that happens, things will continue to suck. On the other side, Marvel is running the show, Paramount/Universal/Sony, etc and now Disney are handling the distribution, promotion and such, but Marvel is involved in the development and production end, it makes a difference.

[PNGwynne]

DC has been trying to be Marvel since 1985. In the process, they slowly lost anything that made their characters and universe unique. Now they are chasing Marvel's tale again, at the movies. After over 4 decades of being connected to one of the biggest movie studios in the world.

Chris

Well said. Marvel is making their characters iconic through deft adaptation in multiple media. DC has already-iconic characters they waste in daft adaption.

(That's probably hyberbole, but I like the sound of it )

[hedrap]

I'm guessing he means nervous on set, because the execs have been sweating bullets since Man O' Steel. With Newscorp pulling out of the Time-Warner buyout, the stress has gone up as they now have to open strong.