My dueling counterpart Anders Bylund wants you to believe that Marvel (NYSE:MVL) can continue to leverage its famous superhero characters into a perpetual money-printing machine. Nice theory, but let's look at the real value of one of the most successful movie franchises in history, Star Wars:
|
Release Year |
Movie |
Worldwide Gross |
|---|---|---|
|
1977 |
A New Hope |
$797,900,000 |
|
1980 |
The Empire Strikes Back |
$534,200,000 |
|
1983 |
Return of the Jedi |
$572,700,000 |
|
16-year Gap | ||
|
1999 |
The Phantom Menace |
$924,288,297 |
|
2002 |
Attack of the Clones |
$656,695,615 |
|
2005 |
Revenge of the Sith |
$848,470,577 |
If you take a look at those numbers, what should pop out immediately is that the original film of each "trilogy" performed the best overall. The key lesson from Star Wars is that a producer can only push a successful franchise so far before it exhausts its fan base. And yes, the revival numbers are great, but the 16-year gap can be quite painful for any investor waiting for that potential.
Even Disney (NYSE:DIS) realizes this problem. How often do you see commercials indicating that one or another of its classics is available only "for a limited time," after which it will be put back in its vault for several years? Disney's a smart company. It knows the risks of overexposing its characters -- namely, losing a once-strong franchise.
Looking at Marvel, I already see X-Men done with its third iteration, Spider-Man finished its third, and Hulk in the process of its second. Those are some pretty big names, and they probably won't have anywhere near the near-term future earning power as they had in the recent past. Throw in some heavy leverage to support the moviemaking business, and Marvel's risk/reward tradeoff no longer looks so sweet, once you peel back the covers.
