Marvel IDW Team up?

[Gaastra]

https://www.newsarama.com/40850-marv...er-titles.html

So with IDW now making marvel comics and marvel and idw now buddies will this lead to the one thing many have been wanting for years?


Will we get reprints of the marvel rom the spaceknight and micronauts comics in trades? Marvel epic collection of micronauts with the X-Men crossover sounds great!

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[XPac]

Weird that marvel needs IDW to publish this stuff for them.

[Skedatz]

Weird that marvel needs IDW to publish this stuff for them.

I think it might be good for Marvel's younger line titles since those tend to get lost in the shuffle of Marvel's other titles. Not having the weight of "Marvel" on that imprint line helps with perception of not being lost, especially if you're a young newcomer who finds a bigger company overwhelming.

[Knightmare10880]

I think it might be good for Marvel's younger line titles since those tend to get lost in the shuffle of Marvel's other titles. Not having the weight of "Marvel" on that imprint line helps with perception of not being lost, especially if you're a young newcomer who finds a bigger company overwhelming.

I get what your saying but it does seem weird that Marvel couldn't create their own new kids/young reader imprint kinda like they did with something Star Comics all back in the 80's. It's also really strange to me that Disney keeps licensing their properties out to other comic book publishers instead of using Marvel. I mean why hire an outside company when Disney already owns their own comic book publishing company?

[Skedatz]

I get what your saying but it does seem weird that Marvel couldn't create their own new kids/young reader imprint kinda like they did with something Star Comics all back in the 80's. It's also really strange to me that Disney keeps licensing their properties out to other comic book publishers instead of using Marvel. I mean why hire an outside company when Disney already owns their own comic book publishing company?

I'm assuming because IDW is already a nice established company with some readers that already have eyeballs on it but don't read "big two" comics. So basically more venues than Marvel traditionally reaches. Marvel "non-Marvel" imprints were okay, but the editorial staff probably doesn't want too much confusion to juggle. I think Disney does a little bit of the same with other properties for the same reason. Marvel as a brand is traditionally superheroic so you don't really look for something like Doktor Sleepless, and would probably fail miserably. Really I think it's just the IDW recognition as a big comic company without the Marvel weight holding new readers back.

At least that's what I think is going on.

[Prof. Warren]

I get what your saying but it does seem weird that Marvel couldn't create their own new kids/young reader imprint kinda like they did with something Star Comics all back in the 80's. It's also really strange to me that Disney keeps licensing their properties out to other comic book publishers instead of using Marvel. I mean why hire an outside company when Disney already owns their own comic book publishing company?

Not weird, really.

I'm sure Marvel doesn't want to divert its own talent (and not just creative talent but also the marketing personnel that would have to be devoted to these titles) from the full plate of work already at hand or hire additional talent to work on material that can instead be farmed out to another publisher who already has the means in place to take it on.

Yes, Marvel already is a publishing company but it's not in their best interests to stretch themselves too thin. And there's surely other long term benefits to Marvel, which we would be unaware of as yet, from them partnering with IDW.

[Anthony W]

Positive Me: Cool. This gives Marvel some time to breath and expand their focus.

Cynical Me: It begins. Disney doesn't need Marvel Comics and its cheaper to just let another company do the comics even if that company is a sinkhole like IDW.

[Skedatz]

Not weird, really.

I'm sure Marvel doesn't want to divert its own talent (and not just creative talent but also the marketing personnel that would have to be devoted to these titles) from the full plate of work already at hand or hire additional talent to work on material that can instead be farmed out to another publisher who already has the means in place to take it on.

Yes, Marvel already is a publishing company but it's not in their best interests to stretch themselves too thin. And there's surely other long term benefits to Marvel, which we would be unaware of as yet, from them partnering with IDW.

Yeah, like decades of merchandising rights fighting when they eventually wanna re-release this stuff but IDW doesn't agree to their terms.


Actually, I'm sure Marvel learned their lesson from this one and made sure the rights are solidly on their side in this event.

[Anthony W]

I mean why hire an outside company when Disney already owns their own comic book publishing company?

Isn't it cheaper to just licence the property out then do everything yourself?

[Derek Metaltron]

It would be nice if Marvel did some crossover content with IDW, given that DC have been doing numerous crossover comics for years now and Marvel hasn’t. A new Star Trek/X-Men mini series would be awesome.

[KurtW95]

I think it might be good for Marvel's younger line titles since those tend to get lost in the shuffle of Marvel's other titles. Not having the weight of "Marvel" on that imprint line helps with perception of not being lost, especially if you're a young newcomer who finds a bigger company overwhelming.

Not when IDW has been making horrible business decisions. But apparently, Marvel thinks it's more important to produce cooking shows than make comics.

[Knightmare10880]

I agree with many of the points you guys have made, however the fact that DC just announced that they are launching two new young readers imprints in-house really does make you think about why wouldn't Marvel.

Also to bring up the points that Anthony W made in his two posts,

1) It might be cheaper for Disney to license their other brands to another comic book publisher while also getting a licensing fee from the other company.

2) By that same logical it might make sense for Disney to shut down Marvel Comics the publisher and license their characters to other publishers. I really don't want that to happen but from a business standpoint think of how much money Disney would save if they did that.

[Skedatz]

Isn't it cheaper to just licence the property out then do everything yourself?

Cheaper to produce, less lucrative to rake in. But in terms of this deal it would require an expansion on Marvel's end and a diminishing focus on their primary line.

It would be nice if Marvel did some crossover content with IDW, given that DC have been doing numerous crossover comics for years now and Marvel hasn’t. A new Star Trek/X-Men mini series would be awesome.

I'd settle for a ROM/Spaceknights crossover. Sorta bring him home for a mini.

Not when IDW has been making horrible business decisions. But apparently, Marvel thinks it's more important to produce cooking shows than make comics.

I'm pretty sure Marvel has been making comics this whole time.

I agree with many of the points you guys have made, however the fact that DC just announced that they are launching two new young readers imprints in-house really does make you think about why wouldn't Marvel.

Also to bring up the points that Anthony W made in his two posts,

1) It might be cheaper for Disney to license their other brands to another comic book publisher while also getting a licensing fee from the other company.

2) By that same logical it might make sense for Disney to shut down Marvel Comics the publisher and license their characters to other publishers. I really don't want that to happen but from a business standpoint think of how much money Disney would save if they did that.

Like I said up there, it would be cheaper for Disney to produce them since they'd shoulder none of the production costs. Unfortunately it means they'd make a lot less money than directly distributing them as Marvel and would create a distribution nightmare for them because they'd either try to license wholesale to one underperforming label or split them all up and have like four Fox's and five Sony's to deal with when it comes to any comic output. Marvel and DC work on internal synergy within their own lines, so Disney being the smart people they are would avoid doing that since they'd lose more than they'd save.

The powers that be know these titles aren't going to be big time sellers like Avengers or Spider-Man proper with the bigger comic crowd. Disney knows they're not going to be making a ton of money from the titles however they decide to sell them. But they're probably thinking (and Marvel as well) how much more likely they are to succeed without the Marvel Moniker and make at least some money rather than lose money trying to make another "Marvel Adventures" styled comic line. And it would be a quagmire mess for Disney to sort out since Marvel the publisher is only an arm of Marvel Entertainment, which also handles its studios, movies, copyrights, merchandise, etc. Disney would basically be asking itself to make a lot less money than it is now while hoping Marvel maintains a lot of relevance post breakup as a shared universe and company to continually launch some of its brands from.

Forgot to talk about DC and imprints: Comic imprints are sort of a crapshoot. The only extremely successful one was Vertigo, and even that wasn't the successful powerhouse we like to fashion it as. Marvel alone has had over 2 dozen failed imprints (many sharing the Marvel name) with half a dozen active ones, and DC has had over a dozen defunct ones themselves with half a dozen currently functional imprints (I think). I guess we can argue Marvel and DC also count as super successful imprints since they technically are imprints of bigger entertainment corporations, but I think we're talking about the non primary imprints.

[KurtW95]

I'm pretty sure Marvel has been making comics this whole time.

Yeah, but a majority of them suck and a smarter approach would be to make comics for all ages, like the old days, rather than books that kids and read and stereotypical kids books, with cartoonish art, that adults can't enjoy.

[Skedatz]

Yeah, but a majority of them suck and a smarter approach would be to make comics for all ages, like the old days, rather than books that kids and read and stereotypical kids books, with cartoonish art, that adults can't enjoy.

Marvel hasn't really focused on "all ages" books in a loooong time (DC too). And even when they did it wasn't quite how we think about them. Nor are their books really not adult fare. Marvel has a pretty wide line of themes and art.