My brother and I have been back and forth about this for the last few days.

He argues that Disney will always be the premier entertainment brand for children and adults alike, and I argue that Marvel is slowly making a case for that position. From a business standpoint, my grounds are that while Disney has seen a resurgence with properties like Hanna Montana and High School Musical while also experiencing a boom with Pixar, their traditional reliance on animation is all but extinct. If not for Toy Story and the Disney channel, I think Disney would not be as strong as it currently is. I am willing to argue that while Disney has the 2-6 years olds on lock, Marvel has a stranglehold on the 7-35 demographic. I mean if Marvel can grab a kid's attention at 8, then they'll likely have that same kid's attention off and on until he's 38 and he's old enough to spend money on his own kids. From here out, Marvel will drop at least one blockbuster every summer, whereas one could speculate that Disney won't do megadollars again until Toy Story 3. Yea they'll do steady millions like they're doing with High School Musical 3 right now, but I just can't see where Disney could do a project with as much legs as Iron Man had last summer. And Marvel has the distinct advantage of having their success in theaters spill over into their books, which now account for a little over half of the sales of comics in America. Does Disney have such a well-established complimentary relationship as that one? I mean I'm not asking like a wiseguy, I truly want to know if you can think of one because I can't really.

Now the area where Disney probably has the advantage is overseas. Whereas domestically I'd say Spider-Man is about as popular as Mickey Mouse, I don't think the same could be said in France or Brazil. I do know that Spidey 3 did huge numbers overseas, but I'm curious to know whether that's attributed to the allure of the American blockbuster or the fascination with the Spider-man mythology. I'm interested in seeing what Marvel has up their sleeves for going abroad from here out as they expand into making their portfolio bigger.

I don't know, this probably reads like just one big rambling of thoughts, but I think it's a comparison that at least holds weight and has some merit for discussion. So what say you?

Disney has its own immensely popular TV channel, their theme parks, the wildly successful Disney Radio, the stars they have created, the franchises they have built from the ground up, and their 70 year history of making great and/or popular films, both animated and live-action.

Marvel has had a nice run over the last decade of superhero action flicks

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

This is all after so many years though. If Marvel does business "right" maybe they can have as much going for them, as Disney does now, in the distant future.

I mean the iconic characters are there, ones that could really be around long enough for Marvel to make a legitimate run at this thing.
I think I said that in the original post that they're SLOWLY getting there. I wouldn't deny that Disney is still Disney, but I do think that Marvel is really making a case for that eventual position right now.

But Frank is right, Disney is way too diverse to even compare right now. Not only does it have the Disney channel but it also produces a vast array of films from Pirates of the Caribbean to Remember the Titans to Armageddon and The Ref, etc.

And if anyone is going to be able to diversify, it's Pixar since they seem to have a better development/pre-production process whereas Marvel still isn't even making quality adaptations of all of their products.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Think about it this way:

DC has more immediately recognizable characters, television, cartoon and movie success, and they're still no where near Disney.

Outside of comics, Marvel is just beginning to stick its chest out.

Either comic book company would have to maintain this level of success through the next 50 years if they wanted to catch up.

Or to use OKP-Speak "They king stay the king".

Fun is the new gritty

If they were ever to be spun out of Time Warner and made into a separate company like Marvel and Disney.

I doubt it will happen, but if they could be a standalone company like Marvel and Disney, the 3 companies could be the holy trinity of intellectual properties.

But I agree DC has more popular characters than Marvel to turn into movies and whatnot. They COULD be huge, but as a speck in Time Warner's balance sheet they will probably be held back from reaching full potential.

>DC has more immediately recognizable characters,

Whoa.

DC has Batman and Superman. And I guess Joker counts. You could argue Wonder Woman, maybe. That's three, four if you're real generous.

Those are really the only DC characters that come to mind immediately, and that pretty much everyone knows. Robin maybe, but only through Batman. Flash?


Meanwhile, Marvel has Spider-man, Hulk, Wolverine, and now Iron Man. Plus Magneto, Dr. Doom, Daredevil, the Fantastic Four, maybe even some of the other X-Men... hell, even Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus and Venom... most of whom are probably more well-known than other DC characters outside of those I mentioned.


>television,

Admittedly I don't watch any DC or Marvel TV shows, so no comment there.

>cartoon and movie success,

Aside from the recent Batman success, you've got to go back to the Batman and Superman movies from the 80s/early 90s. I don't think that's gonna compete with Marvel's movies lately... Three Spider-man joints, three X-Men, two Hulks, two Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Elektra, three Blades... Marvel has been running shit in the past decade (granted, some of them weren't very good).


>and they're still no where near
>Disney.

Talking strictly movies, I'd rather invest money in Marvel than Disney right now.

But obviously, there's no fucking with Disney's empire in other respects (theme parks, TV channel, merchandising, etc).


>Outside of comics, Marvel is just beginning to stick its chest
>out.

If "just beginning" means within the past 8-10 years, then yes. But by the same token, DC has been quiet aside from two Batman joints (and a pretty forgettable Superman reboot, though I did actually like it, especially in IMAX) for almost a decade.

>>DC has more immediately recognizable characters,
>
>Whoa.
>
>DC has Batman and Superman. And I guess Joker counts. You
>could argue Wonder Woman, maybe. That's three, four if you're
>real generous.
>
>Those are really the only DC characters that come to mind
>immediately, and that pretty much everyone knows. Robin maybe,
>but only through Batman. Flash?
>
>
>Meanwhile, Marvel has Spider-man, Hulk, Wolverine, and now
>Iron Man. Plus Magneto, Dr. Doom, Daredevil, the Fantastic
>Four, maybe even some of the other X-Men... hell, even Green
>Goblin, Dr. Octopus and Venom... most of whom are probably
>more well-known than other DC characters outside of those I
>mentioned.
>>>>

Let's set the record straight. The only superheroes that have reached iconics status are Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man and Hulk. You can go anywhere in the world, talk to anyone young or old and they'll know who you are talking about if you mention them. After that Flash, wolverine etc, you're just talking about superheroes with varying levels of popularity.


>
>>cartoon and movie success,
>
>Aside from the recent Batman success, you've got to go back to
>the Batman and Superman movies from the 80s/early 90s.>>>

Well DC's recent Batman success blows everything else, critically and commercially, out of the water. But even that aside, you have V for Vendetta, and Constantine.

I don't
>think that's gonna compete with Marvel's movies lately...
>Three Spider-man joints, three X-Men, two Hulks, two Fantastic
>Four, Daredevil, Elektra, three Blades... Marvel has been
>running shit in the past decade (granted, some of them weren't
>very good).
>>>

Marvel definitely puts out more movies, I'll give you that.

>
>>and they're still no where near
>>Disney.
>
>Talking strictly movies, I'd rather invest money in Marvel
>than Disney right now.
>

Good bet.

>But obviously, there's no fucking with Disney's empire in
>other respects (theme parks, TV channel, merchandising, etc).
>
>
>
>>Outside of comics, Marvel is just beginning to stick its
>chest
>>out.
>
>If "just beginning" means within the past 8-10 years, then
>yes. But by the same token, DC has been quiet aside from two
>Batman joints (and a pretty forgettable Superman reboot,
>though I did actually like it, especially in IMAX) for almost
>a decade.

Batman Begins, LoEG, Superman Returns, V for Vendetta, Dark Knight, and Watchmen is set to blow. DC concentrates more on it's television programs, though.

Fun is the new gritty

the Teen Titans, Legion of Superheroes and Justice League International cartoons have been pretty big with the kids, too... and JLU has bestowed some popularity on a wide range of traditionally lesser characters like Dr. Fate, Booster Gold and Green Arrow.

(GA has also benefited from being a featured character on "Smallville")

________________

"Do you know what a nerd is? A nerd is a human being without enough Africa in him or her." � Brian Eno, "A Year With Swollen Appendices"

Mostly from an investing viewpoint, as in which is a better longterm stock to be invested in, but also just in general as a movie-based media company.

Honestly I can't decide if one is necessarily better. Both have really good, smart, business-savvy CEOs, good balance sheets, great properties, etc. "Media" stocks have been getting smoked lately, but longterm it might be a great time to buy both.

But you have to look at it this way, Disney besides having a 70+ year history of properties and movies to fall back on, they have SO much more than that. The Disney Parks & Cruiselines(worldwide), ABC/ESPN(huge asset), the Disney Channel, even the movies are more diverse than "Disney" movies, because they own Touchstone, Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, Buena Vista as the distribution company.

They are pretty well-diversified for a traditional "media" company. Problem with Disney though is that they are so big already the amount of growth they might generate could be very limited.

This list is not perfect but gives a good idea of how they are spread out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney

Marvel though not as old as Disney still is considered to trace back to the 30's, of course it's not considered exactly Marvel until Stan Lee's era. They don't have the conglomerate-like reach of Disney, yet. But they have a treasure chest full of properties they could spin into movies, books, etc.

Like you said the Disney appeal is big for kids, but late teens seem to be the age they start losing them, whereas Marvel can get them young and keep them well into the 30's or later. Marvel is smaller right now so their room for growth is still huge, which is a positive for investing.

But also they are supposedly already working on a Disneyworld-like park for the Marvel characters in Dubai, so they are already expanding into that realm which could be a real money-maker when the economy recovers. And will obviously come to America if it is successful.

You know Ironman wasn't considered one of their "premiere" properties and look what they've spun that into, movie, toys, books, all kinds of licensing. Imagine what they could do with the other more known properties, even though Hulk didn't blow up like Ironman it was a better step forward than the Ang Lee trash.

Plus they have archives of "darker" material more in the "Sin City" vein, so everything isn't superhero fluff. Obviously they don't have the ABC/ESPN-like cable reach at all, but I could see a Marvel-TV station in the future.

Anyway to me Marvel has more upside, but Disney is not going anywhere either. Both are great companies to own, Disney for more stability and a dividend, Marvel for the future growth.

but Disney's whole thing was entertainment suitable for the _whole_ family - the four year olds as well as the forty year olds.

Marvel's not, and can't, do that. That, and Marvel's produced what, two films to date on its own? Disney's been around since 1923 and they're still here.

I mean, dude's trying to say something about Marvel as a commodity, but let them make a 3rd movie before they're the next Disney. This Avengers shit could flop for all we know.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Well, I guess that settles it.

<--- Big Baller World Order

Disney, was the larger company and took over Marvel, if I understand this merger correctly. So at this point Marvel really can't be THE new Disney, it's just a part of modern day Disney now.

I mean, I bought a sandwich yesterday (and no I didn't "merger" with it, I BOUGHT that shit, just like Disney BOUGHT Marvel)... it doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I wanted a sandwich. That sandwich was not threatening to take my job in any way.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

Wow, my login still works 🤦🏾‍♂️

by disney, do you mean the walt disney studios, or all of disney? because there is no way on earth marvel will ever rival the entire disney corporation, which owns a gajillion theme parks, a movie studio, the go internet network, an enormous cpg division, and most importantly several tv channels.

in fact, i haven't read their 10-k in a few quarters, but im pretty sure espn, which is owned by abc, which is owned by disney, is the entire company. like, that one asset is worth far more than the rest of the entire corporation.

anyway, that's question 1, the movie studio or the whole corporate entity.

question 2: is this pre or post merger? cuz obviously, the issue is academic now.

rick

pretend to be cats don't seem to know they limitations
exact replication and false representation

>question 2: is this pre or post merger? cuz obviously, the
>issue is academic now.
>
>rick

This post was actually started back in November, so it was pre-merger when he asked then.

hence the up, got it

pretend to be cats don't seem to know they limitations
exact replication and false representation

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

Mickey wuz scared!

....I guess in a way, both you and your brother were correct after all.




Since 1976

Disney Channel stuff and their movies, which isn't even where they make their real money. Their real money comes from the theme parks (where families and couples and single people go), and ESPN, which has more or less kept the rest of the company afloat for years now. Just because it's not plastered with anthropomorphic animals and princesses doesn't mean the money's not going in to the same pot.

There is at least one property Disney owns at least a 50% share in that allows them to have a lock on virtually every corner of the entertainment market, every gender, and every quadrant. Marvel, before or after the merger, only has a fraction of that reach, but that's more than enough for them.