Comments on: ICv2 wording makes for my misreading. I think. http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/ The Blog@ Team and prominent comics personalities share what’s on their minds. Sun, 19 May 2013 11:18:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Travel Offers http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-565213 Travel Offers Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:05:14 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-565213 Hi I love your comment and it is so good and I am gonna bookmark it. I Have to say the Indepth analysis you have done is greatly remarkable.No one goes that extra mile these days? Bravo! Just another suggestion you shouldget a Translator for your Global Readers .. Hi I love your comment and it is so good and I am gonna bookmark it. I Have to say the Indepth analysis you have done is greatly remarkable.No one goes that extra mile these days? Bravo! Just another suggestion you shouldget a Translator for your Global Readers ..

]]> By: del gorky http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-29058 del gorky Wed, 01 Nov 2006 05:11:12 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-29058 I absolutely hate how this blog just throws financial and legal red meat out there with wild guesses as to what it means without any real research or even apparent understanding of the materials which the blog itself links to. Apparently, Marvel has used the movie rights to ten characters as collateral to finance their production of up to ten upcoming films. If the Marvel defaults on the loan for whatever reason, the only recourse the lender has against Marvel is to take ownership of the movie rights for the time period is specified in the loan document. They can't recover any of $525 million any other way. All of Marvel's movie could make no money at all, but if they continue to make the payments on this loan. Marvel loses nothing. In reality, if Marvel were to default or come close to doing so, they would probably negotiate a new settlement or restructuring of the remaining debt. Even if Marvel defaulted, the lender would not start making Captain America movies but would instead just resell the rights to other film studios or maybe pornographers (Heh). By producing their own films, Marvel hopes to realize greater income streams from the movies themselves, and subsequent licensed products and dvd sales. Marvel doesn't have to make all of the money back out of the box office receipts, DUH! So unless you have financial breakdowns of all the revenue streams from Marvel's recent films don't make assumptions on whether Marvel has "fallen short" of total projected revenue which is in the only thing that matters here. Box Office numbers are used mainly to keep fans of Premiere magazine, Ain't it Cool News and Entertainment Tonight happy. The publishing rights are not at stake here whatsoever. I absolutely hate how this blog just throws financial and legal red meat out there with wild guesses as to what it means without any real research or even apparent understanding of the materials which the blog itself links to. Apparently, Marvel has used the movie rights to ten characters as collateral to finance their production of up to ten upcoming films.

If the Marvel defaults on the loan for whatever reason, the only recourse the lender has against Marvel is to take ownership of the movie rights for the time period is specified in the loan document. They can’t recover any of $525 million any other way. All of Marvel’s movie could make no money at all, but if they continue to make the payments on this loan. Marvel loses nothing. In reality, if Marvel were to default or come close to doing so, they would probably negotiate a new settlement or restructuring of the remaining debt. Even if Marvel defaulted, the lender would not start making Captain America movies but would instead just resell the rights to other film studios or maybe pornographers (Heh).

By producing their own films, Marvel hopes to realize greater income streams from the movies themselves, and subsequent licensed products and dvd sales. Marvel doesn’t have to make all of the money back out of the box office receipts, DUH! So unless you have financial breakdowns of all the revenue streams from Marvel’s recent films don’t make assumptions on whether Marvel has “fallen short” of total projected revenue which is in the only thing that matters here. Box Office numbers are used mainly to keep fans of Premiere magazine, Ain’t it Cool News and Entertainment Tonight happy.

The publishing rights are not at stake here whatsoever.

]]> By: Morrison http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-29029 Morrison Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:25:31 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-29029 $525 million for 10 movies? Considering that outside the Spidey, Blade, and X-Men movies, Marvel movies have been short of their projections at the box office and you start to wonder if this is such a good idea. And if marketing costs will be taken out of that $525 million. We'll have to see how it plays out, but I think this is a risky move on Marvel's part. Folks are going to get sick of superhero movies at some point and Marvel's catalogue of characters is pretty darn thin outside that genre... $525 million for 10 movies? Considering that outside the Spidey, Blade, and X-Men movies, Marvel movies have been short of their projections at the box office and you start to wonder if this is such a good idea. And if marketing costs will be taken out of that $525 million.

We’ll have to see how it plays out, but I think this is a risky move on Marvel’s part. Folks are going to get sick of superhero movies at some point and Marvel’s catalogue of characters is pretty darn thin outside that genre…

]]> By: Nick Evans http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28954 Nick Evans Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:39:20 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28954 This may mean that, if a movie doesn't pay back the loan, Merrill Lynch has complete rights over the DVD sales. Or something. This may mean that, if a movie doesn’t pay back the loan, Merrill Lynch has complete rights over the DVD sales. Or something.

]]> By: Mike Nicolai http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28949 Mike Nicolai Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:20:17 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28949 This was the most straight-forward explanation I could find: (from Motley Fool http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05050222.htm) "Marvel didn't intend to throw a lot of the stockholders' cash at the future slate of films. Instead, it entered into a non-recourse financing structure with Merrill Lynch Commercial Finance Corp. that is collateralized by certain movie rights to a total of 10 characters from Marvel's vast vault. Marvel gets $525 million to make a maximum of 10 movies based on the company's properties over eight years, according to the parameters of the deal with Paramount. The distributor gets a distribution fee and guaranteed worldwide distribution rights to any resultant sequels. If Marvel's movies bomb at the box office, forcing it to default on its financing, Merrill Lynch gets the movie rights to the characters involved in the deal -- not a great loss for Marvel if these films aren't successful. Captain America and Nick Fury are up first on Marvel's production slate; it'll be two to three years before audiences see the results of this deal in theaters." The key word is Nonrecourse. Merrill Lynch is limited to what they can recover from Marvel, even if every film bombs. Such loans are not made lightly, I would guess because Merril Lynch handled Marvel's bankruptcy loans they have a good understanding of what their projected revenue is. Who would have guessed ten years ago that Blade the Vampire Hunter would have a succesful film trilogy? I guess they figure Ant-Man could really take off or something. This was the most straight-forward explanation I could find: (from Motley Fool http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05050222.htm)

“Marvel didn’t intend to throw a lot of the stockholders’ cash at the future slate of films. Instead, it entered into a non-recourse financing structure with Merrill Lynch Commercial Finance Corp. that is collateralized by certain movie rights to a total of 10 characters from Marvel’s vast vault. Marvel gets $525 million to make a maximum of 10 movies based on the company’s properties over eight years, according to the parameters of the deal with Paramount. The distributor gets a distribution fee and guaranteed worldwide distribution rights to any resultant sequels. If Marvel’s movies bomb at the box office, forcing it to default on its financing, Merrill Lynch gets the movie rights to the characters involved in the deal — not a great loss for Marvel if these films aren’t successful. Captain America and Nick Fury are up first on Marvel’s production slate; it’ll be two to three years before audiences see the results of this deal in theaters.”

The key word is Nonrecourse. Merrill Lynch is limited to what they can recover from Marvel, even if every film bombs. Such loans are not made lightly, I would guess because Merril Lynch handled Marvel’s bankruptcy loans they have a good understanding of what their projected revenue is. Who would have guessed ten years ago that Blade the Vampire Hunter would have a succesful film trilogy? I guess they figure Ant-Man could really take off or something.

]]> By: DBHughes http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28939 DBHughes Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:52:56 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28939 ^ Exactly. I mean, who on this earth would loan out 500 million dollars with no strings attached? Are we to believe Merill-Lynch really said, "The Marvels is good people; we gonna do 'em right and let 'em play with our dough. The Marvels are good for it; f'geddaboutit." ^ Exactly. I mean, who on this earth would loan out 500 million dollars with no strings attached? Are we to believe Merill-Lynch really said, “The Marvels is good people; we gonna do ‘em right and let ‘em play with our dough. The Marvels are good for it; f’geddaboutit.”

]]> By: Dirk Deppey http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28934 Dirk Deppey Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:45:33 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28934 Everything I've seen so far would seem to indicate that we're talking about full copyright and trademark for each individual character, actually. Granted, at this point it appears likely that Marvel's upper management sees these characters as little more than widgets, but I still have a hard time swallowing this whole "no risk" spin. Everything I’ve seen so far would seem to indicate that we’re talking about full copyright and trademark for each individual character, actually. Granted, at this point it appears likely that Marvel’s upper management sees these characters as little more than widgets, but I still have a hard time swallowing this whole “no risk” spin.

]]> By: Mike Nicolai http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28922 Mike Nicolai Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:03:11 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28922 It's a really sweet deal for Marvel. I can't find a good link, and I'm working from memory here (I think I read about it in the Comics Journal), but it roughly goes like this: Marvel gets money to make their films, and if Marvel defaults on the loan, Merril Lynch gets the film rights for a bunch of characters (that probably aren't getting films anyway) for a certain period (maybe 5 years). It's not quite like a mortage, since Marvel would'nt really lose anything if they default. I also heard Captain America was one of those characters, as well as Nick Fury. Like I said, no one's rushing out to make movies out of these characters anyway, and the rights will revert back to Marvel anyway. It’s a really sweet deal for Marvel. I can’t find a good link, and I’m working from memory here (I think I read about it in the Comics Journal), but it roughly goes like this: Marvel gets money to make their films, and if Marvel defaults on the loan, Merril Lynch gets the film rights for a bunch of characters (that probably aren’t getting films anyway) for a certain period (maybe 5 years). It’s not quite like a mortage, since Marvel would’nt really lose anything if they default. I also heard Captain America was one of those characters, as well as Nick Fury. Like I said, no one’s rushing out to make movies out of these characters anyway, and the rights will revert back to Marvel anyway.

]]> By: Tuckenie http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28918 Tuckenie Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:56:29 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28918 Original amount plus interest. It's the interest that kills you. Original amount plus interest. It’s the interest that kills you.

]]> By: Kiel Phegley http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28917 Kiel Phegley Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:53:51 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28917 I thought the idea was that if they couldn't pay back the original amount borrowed from the profit of all the films, then the bank had the right to take film rights. It's not a one flop = one lost character type thing, and therefor if they make a boatload on "Iron Man" but "Iron Fist" tanks, they will still be able to pay off the loan in good standing. I thought the idea was that if they couldn’t pay back the original amount borrowed from the profit of all the films, then the bank had the right to take film rights. It’s not a one flop = one lost character type thing, and therefor if they make a boatload on “Iron Man” but “Iron Fist” tanks, they will still be able to pay off the loan in good standing.

]]> By: Adam http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28907 Adam Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:37:15 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28907 ten "undisclosed" characters. Well, it's always been widely reported that Cap' is one of these characters. I seriously doubt they'd risk losing ownership/publishing rights to Captain America. It's just GOT to mean that they'd lose the movie rights... Mostly, though, it sounds like bad reporting to me. I mean, what is the definition of a "bomb" anyhow? Not breaking even? Not breaking $100 million? Not getting a sequel? in any case, it's a hell of an incentive to Marvel to make sure that they only make good movies.. ten “undisclosed” characters. Well, it’s always been widely reported that Cap’ is one of these characters. I seriously doubt they’d risk losing ownership/publishing rights to Captain America. It’s just GOT to mean that they’d lose the movie rights…

Mostly, though, it sounds like bad reporting to me. I mean, what is the definition of a “bomb” anyhow? Not breaking even? Not breaking $100 million? Not getting a sequel?

in any case, it’s a hell of an incentive to Marvel to make sure that they only make good movies..

]]> By: Kevin Melrose http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28898 Kevin Melrose Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:09:04 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28898 An <a href="http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/6788.html">April 2005 ICv2 article</a> -- linked to from this one -- states the setup a little more clearly: <blockquote>To finance the films Marvel has obtained a financing commitment from Merrill Lynch Commercial Finance Corp. for a $525 million non-recourse revolving credit facility over seven years. The facility will be secured by the theatrical and motion picture production and distribution rights for ten (undisclosed) Marvel characters.</blockquote> I'm no financial expert, but it sounds as if it's similar to, say, using your house as collateral to secure a loan. An April 2005 ICv2 article — linked to from this one — states the setup a little more clearly:

To finance the films Marvel has obtained a financing commitment from Merrill Lynch Commercial Finance Corp. for a $525 million non-recourse revolving credit facility over seven years. The facility will be secured by the theatrical and motion picture production and distribution rights for ten (undisclosed) Marvel characters.

I’m no financial expert, but it sounds as if it’s similar to, say, using your house as collateral to secure a loan.

]]> By: Paul http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/comment-page-1/#comment-28897 Paul Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:59:56 +0000 http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/10/31/icv2-wording-makes-for-my-misreading-i-think/#comment-28897 So, if the Iron Fist movies tanks, then someone else has the rights to make more movies based on the character? I don't understand why they'd do that...don't they care about their characters? So, if the Iron Fist movies tanks, then someone else has the rights to make more movies based on the character? I don’t understand why they’d do that…don’t they care about their characters?

]]>