ROM Question

BrianBaer

Forgive me if this has come up before, but I was just thinking...

Marvel doesn't do anything with ROM, new stories or reprints, because it doesn't own the rights to the action figure. So why doesn't someone like Dynamite or IDW jump on that? There's still an Spaceknight fanbase out there...

Greg

Marvel can continue writing stories about the SpaceKnights and everything else they created and own around the ROM character, but not ROM himself.

Another publisher may be able to get the rights to publish ROM comics, but they would not be able to use the SpaceKnights or anything else Marvel created in their ROM run.

BrianBaer

@Greg - Thanks. Do you think starting over with the same name would still draw a crowd? Or was ROM only cool because he was in the Marvel U?

Greg

Hasbro has a pretty decent relationship with both Marvel and IDW. If Hasbro wanted a new ROM book out there it would more than likely go to one of them and it would be a crime not have ROM back in the Marvel Universe. But how cool would it be to see ROM in the next Infestation crossover? It would would be very cool.

Bendis has said several times that he wants a crack at writing ROM and really regardless of whom was writing it, I'd be all over a new ROM or Spaceknights title.

They toy was a flop sales wise, the comic however had to be successful to last 75 issues and it is one of my favorite titles.

@BrianBaer - If Marvel got the rights for a new ROM title I wouldn't be surprised to see a reboot of some kind. A lot of years have passed since that last issue of ROM. I would also hope that we would get reprints. If it were another publsher like IDW that would be starting from scratch and would probably ask for the reprint rights similar to what Dark Horse has with Conan and Dynamite has with Red Sonja.

I think there is still a sizeable fanbase, but I don't think we will see a new ROM series unless Hasbro is producing something esle (games, toys etc) to go along with it.

WetRats

I've said it before.

I'll say it again.

There's no way Parker Brothers made more off of the ROM toy than they made off of the comic.

All the value in the Intellectual Property is as a potential comic. It has zero value without the mythos Marvel added and owns.

While Marvel is flush with movie money, they ought to buy the IP.

Good for Parker Brothers.

Good for Marvel.

Good for the fans.

Clearly this will never happen.

>:P

Hex

I've said it before.

While Marvel is flush with movie money, they ought to buy the IP.

>:P

Just imagine:

ROM: The Movie.

Dare to dream.

Greg

@WetRats nailed it. Hasbro bought out Parker Brothers and supposedly renewed the trademark on ROM in 2008 but did nothing with it that I know of. ROM needs to be a permenant member of the Marvel U.

SolitaireRose

Wetrats, I'll say it again as well: It won't happen because there is no executive who wants to be the one that lets a property get away. The 2nd Ghost Rider movie was made just so Marvel couldn't get the rights back, so spite is pretty damn common in business, even if it means money is left on the table.

WetRats

The 2nd Ghost Rider movie was made just so Marvel couldn't get the rights back

Really? I'd like to read that story.

SolitaireRose

No big story, they just have to make a movie with the character or, after 5 years, the rights go back to Marvel. Oddly enough, the sequel came out on nearly the last week that it had to in order to keep the rights.

Spider-Man had the same clause, which is why most of the people involved on this summer's Spidey movie say things were rushed.

WetRats

No big story, they just have to make a movie with the character or, after 5 years, the rights go back to Marvel. Oddly enough, the sequel came out on nearly the last week that it had to in order to keep the rights.

Spider-Man had the same clause, which is why most of the people involved on this summer's Spidey movie say things were rushed.

How do either of those cases qualify as "spite"?

Maintaining the terms of a contract that is generating some millions, if not mega-millions makes sense.

Keeping an IP that is generating zero income off the market makes no sense at all.

BrianBaer

The same happened with Corman's Fantastic Four movie, if I remember correctly. That sort of corporate ego has always confused me.

SolitaireRose

No big story, they just have to make a movie with the character or, after 5 years, the rights go back to Marvel. Oddly enough, the sequel came out on nearly the last week that it had to in order to keep the rights.

Spider-Man had the same clause, which is why most of the people involved on this summer's Spidey movie say things were rushed.

How do either of those cases qualify as "spite"?

Maintaining the terms of a contract that is generating some millions, if not mega-millions makes sense.

Keeping an IP that is generating zero income off the market makes no sense at all.

"Spite" is more my take on things. The first Ghost Rider movie barely made a profit and the second didn't (and was projected to lose money), but the studio didn't want to lose those rights. Having worked at a number of big companies, the people who are in charge of things don't want to answer the question "Why did you let that get away!"

ABC STILL talks about the network executives who didn't order series of CSI and Third Rock From The Sun and allowed them to go to other networks. Having just read the two "Late Night Wars" books by Bill Carter, he goes into great detail about how executives lost MILLIONS of dollars just trying to keep performers and properties from going to other networks where they had a possibility of success.

None of it made any sense to someone outside the business. The whole "Moving Leno to 10 pm" was to keep him from going to ABC, and giving Conan the Tonight Show after five years contract was to keep him from going to Fox.

The whole "Optioning" system in Hollywood is buying rights to things in some cases to keep other companies from making movies/TV series/Etc... off of them, just ask Rob Liefeld, who made a mint in the 90's off of options.

SolitaireRose

The same happened with Corman's Fantastic Four movie, if I remember correctly. That sort of corporate ego has always confused me.

I think it all boils down to, Do YOU want to answer the question "I see that Project ABC made Sony (or Disney or Comcast) $250 million dollars this quarter. Why didn't YOU do that when the property was in your department?"