Q&A: Marvel makes it move

LOS ANGELES--There are at least two significant "teams of two" at Marvel Enterprises. The most prominent is that of CEO Isaac Perlmutter and chief creative officer Avi Arad. Both shrewd business men, each lends his special talents to the momentum-prone comic book company.

Closer to the heart of superhero-adoring gamers is a second pair of shrewd operators: Tim Rothwell (pictured), president of the company's worldwide consumer products media goup, and Ames Kirshen, director of video game development.

The two share a desire to intelligently leverage the 5,000-plus characters in the Marvel library into the gamespace. And if recent history is any indication--recall, the company recently decided it would put $500 million toward making its own movies--the future actions of the suddenly flush-with-cash comic book company could take the game world by surprise.

Is the strategy behind Marvel's decision to take control of its movie business about to be applied to the gamespace? Only Tim, Ames, and Spider-Man 3 know for sure.

GameSpot: Good morning Tim, Ames. We're here to talk about games, but the big news recently at Marvel was that the comic book company was not going to rely on third parties to produce movies using its characters. What's that mean?

Tim Rothwell: We're taking control of our own destiny. Marvel will now totally control everything from the creative to the execution to what film we want to go with, when we want to go, or what window we want to release it in. Marvel will have 100 percent control on any discussions that involve all publishing, all toys, and all and anything in between. It now becomes Marvel's decision--and that would not involve having to ensure that your studio partner was happy, per se. It is control.

GS: Is there a tipping point or a high-water mark that you are looking for to gauge the right time to do the same thing on the game front?

TR: I tell you, we are always looking at that opportunity, [it's] something we have discussed extensively on the inside for the past year--especially since Ames has been on board. As to maybe we should do this on the game side of the business…maybe we eventually would get involved in a partial way…kind of like "walk before we run."

GS: Are there specific data points that you are looking for to judge the right time or the efficacy of that model?

TR: It is a matter of us identifying what we really feel comfortable with and what we know our internal competencies are to fully produce and publish…to do a game on our own.

I think as we look at our future film slate, and as it unveils, [we'll] see what becomes reality. I think then we will have to evaluate each initiative on a case-by-case basis.

GS: But is there a particular data point you are looking for before making the move?

TR: No. It is a matter of us looking at the property, evaluating what the investment is perceived to be, to execute it to the level it needs to be--creative right on through to the marketing, and you know, [we ask ourselves] is this the right thing for Marvel to do, and do we have the resources to do it right?

GS: How pleased are you now with the third parties who are really managing the storytelling, the marketing, and the projecting of the Marvel brand into the game sector now?

Ames Kirshen: It's a two-part answer here. I think all of our partners and their developers, whether they be internal or external, have done a fantastic job on our games. That being said, they are not necessarily choosing the characters and storylines on their own, obviously, because that is what I am here for. Probably a good 70 percent of my time is spent working hand in hand with the studio publishing and development teams, formulating the games on the creative side.

It is a collaborative process between myself and these groups…much like how the Marvel Studios group works with our current film partners and creatives on the film side. I do the same thing on the game side.

GS: What is the strategy at Marvel to get greater return on the investment in the game sector? How do you plan on increasing revenues from games that draw in your characters and storylines?

TR: Basically, it comes down to just making a better game. In the past years prior, prior to Ames' involvement, we had various creative people who didn't necessarily have the talent reviewing the games. So right now, it is making sure that we are licensing the right property for the right genre of game on the right platform, but then making sure that the game just kicks ass.

AK: More importantly, picking the right publishing partner is one thing, obviously.

And on the marketing side, whatever the financial deal is between Marvel and that publisher has to be lucrative for us. But just as important from my perspective, is what development resources are going to go towards "Property X." Does their technology, their expertise, and their pedigree in the past lend itself well to this type of game?

GS: In what ways do you see the game consumer and the movie consumer being similar, and dissimilar, and how does that analysis affect business strategy?

TR: You have got to look at each one of these on a case-by-case basis, but I mean, there is no question that the two industries are converging. So when I am looking at these games, I feel like I am watching a theatrical release. The quality is so unbelievable. There's clearly a convergence and I believe that one [can] have an unbelievably solid game, but finding ways to converge as close as you can to either that theatrical or the television property as much as possible is a benefit for everyone.

It gives the fan the ability to kind of take the movie to new places and extend the experience that much more.

GS: What drives the game-making process at Marvel?

TR: Number 1: To take the situation regardless of what it is, what technology we are working with, what limitations, schedule and budget-wise, and just make it work--and try to make the best game possible; and number 2: Make it as true to the brand and revolutionary as we can.

One thing that we do, especially on all the new deals as we go forward, [is that] we have 100 percent control over who the developer is.

We need to make sure that we are going with a developer that: 1) has a proven track record, and then, 2) has the technological know-how in-house. We rely heavily on Ames and his experience in managing these different companies through that process.

GS: The deal with Mforma signals what?

TR: It's real simple. Marvel is a company that owns 5,000 characters and just since we have been talking on the phone, for the last 10 minutes or so, probably another two or three characters have been created. Now when we looked at the space of wireless--it is totally a new, emerging business that is really exploding internationally, and just beginning to get some traction here domestically.

We realized for a brand like Marvel, we needed to partner up with one player that had the infrastructure, the know-how, and we felt that it would be better to umbrella the business under Mforma. We felt that it was important to create an unbelievable space called "Marvel Mobile," and anything and everything that you want about Marvel could be captured in this wireless space. And that is what we are striving to do.

GS: What I find interesting is that Japan is absent from the deal announcement. Why is Japan left out?

TR: Japan, you have to treat differently. Japan is a different market. Mforma had a very, very strong reach in various Latin-American countries, very strong in Europe, and very strong in North America, so the deal made sense from that perspective with Mforma. But in Japan, we're in discussions with a number of different companies to partner up with, to really try to replicate what we did with Mforma, but, you know, in a purely Japanese way.

GS: What significance does E3 have for the organization?

TR: E3 is a great opportunity for us to showcase the different games we currently have in the marketplace. It's a place to show off, meet with a number of different retailers. And just as important from our standpoint, it gives us the opportunity to meet with anyone and everyone to talk about the future.

GS: Can you tell me just a little bit about Avi? He is obviously very passionate about comics, about comic books. He recognizes how deep they can be. How does he see games, and the gamespace?

TR: He is every bit as passionate about the game side of the business as he is the theatrical side of the business. On the creative front, Ames and Avi have regular conversations as to the creative direction. In fact, all the [Marvel] producers that are involved with the films, Avi, these guys, are all [into] games. After hours, they are playing all the games. They totally respect this business…it's not a business with Avi from the standpoint--well, let me take that back: it is always business, but Avi is truly passionate about the gamespace. He is intimately involved.

GS: Last question. I want to take you guys back to 2002; a year before either of you were hired. Something happened to the Marvel share price in 2002. It spiked. What happened back then?

AK: Actually, there was a little film called Spider-Man.

TR: That's when Marvel became introduced on a global scale [as a result of] a big-event theatrical release. All of a sudden the world just took note. It was like "Wow." All of a sudden you've got this company with all these thousands of characters that potentially could be televisions shows, could be toys, could be films, could be theme parks, could be interactive games…and the world just took notice at that time and with the tremendous success of Spider-Man.

GS: Not too many years ago, it was a bankrupt company.

TR: A bankrupt company that went from owing hundreds of millions of dollars to a company that now…look, we are now going to be producing our own films.

GS: Is there any acknowledgement or thought that games could provide such a consistent stream to revenues--maybe not in the magnitude that the theatrical properties do--but wherein games will be a very significant leg the company stands on?

TR: Well, it already is. It's one of the largest segments of our business and it continues to grow, especially as we are adding new properties to the portfolio. Not only does it add to the value to what we are trying to do with all our marketing dollars--pushing the characters and promoting the characters around the world--but purely from an economic sense, it's just a good business to be in.

GS: Games have had what impact on strategy?

TR: Ames has put together a strategy with these different companies, so as you have the theatrical release, [and] then you follow it up with a game in between. It's not like you have a theatrical release and then Marvel goes away until that property is brought out on a big screen again.

AK: [Plus,] a lot of these properties have been successful enough in games where they can essentially be annualized and be franchises every year--year in and year out. So the idea is to take these non-movie years and to do our classic games, our comic book games, in non-movie years--to keep the brand alive and going.

Like I said, these properties are popular enough, the games are successful enough where they can sustain year-over-year releases, and we are doing that.

You will see a lot of that at E3. The Fantastic Four will be the only movie-centered game that is on display this year. The others are classic games; and I think that layering the successes and leveraging our theatrical-centered games with our classic games in between is where the strength of our diverse portfolio going forward interactively is based on.