Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 7661275" data-attributes="member: 6680772">5% of the revenue.&nbsp; 5% of the revenue from the first X-Men movie got them just under $15 million from the box office alone, not counting DVD sales, merchandise (which is totally separate from the contracts with Fox and Sony), and indeed, increased sales of the comic books.&nbsp; They would get $20 million from X-Men 2, and even more from X-Men 3.&nbsp; Spider-Man got them $41 million, and that's assuming they licensed him for the same amount as the X-Men, which I find unlikely.That doesn't make the contracts bad.&nbsp; Marvel was the toast of the town for a while.&nbsp; Everyone was feting Avi Arad for having turned the company around and saved Marvel.&nbsp; Those contracts are what gave Marvel the wherewithal to start their own movie studio.Given that he refers to &quot;X-Men truthers&quot;, I'm not sure you and the author are on the same page.&nbsp; But all the article says is that the studios were in a strong position when they negotiated the contracts, so X-Men was licensed for 5% of revenue, which of course is a pittance when Marvel's making its own movies and keeping 100% of the profits.&nbsp; That doesn't mean the contracts were bad.&nbsp; It means producing your own product, if you can, is better on the whole than merely getting licensing revenue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 7661275, member: 6680772"] 5% of the [i]revenue[/i]. 5% of the revenue from the first X-Men movie got them just under $15 million from the box office alone, not counting DVD sales, merchandise (which is totally separate from the contracts with Fox and Sony), and indeed, increased sales of the comic books. They would get $20 million from X-Men 2, and even more from X-Men 3. Spider-Man got them $41 million, and that's assuming they licensed him for the same amount as the X-Men, which I find unlikely. That doesn't make the contracts bad. Marvel was the toast of the town for a while. Everyone was feting Avi Arad for having turned the company around and saved Marvel. Those contracts are what gave Marvel the wherewithal to start their own movie studio. Given that he refers to "X-Men truthers", I'm not sure you and the author are on the same page. But all the article says is that the studios were in a strong position when they negotiated the contracts, so X-Men was licensed for 5% of revenue, which of course is a pittance when Marvel's making its own movies and keeping 100% of the profits. That doesn't mean the contracts were bad. It means producing your own product, if you can, is better on the whole than merely getting licensing revenue. [/QUOTE]

Verification