Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Just thought about this and I think the only way they come into the parks is if they give a major property that's at the parks to Universal. Well none of the major characters would go Mickey Mouse, Pixar, Pirates(ie Jack Sparrow). Something like Winnie the Pooh wouldn't be big enough. That would leave Star Wars and Indiana Jones as the only two logical choices. Whether or not that would happen would depend on Lucas' current relationship with Disney. Thoughts?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 And one second after I realized my premise is shot. This wouldn't be Disney's call but Lucas'
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper The only way it happens is if Disney pays Universal enough to retheme Marvel Super Hero Island and then some.
Originally Posted By leobloom There's a reason Disney hooked Avatar, instead of turning to Marvel. If they thought there was any way to get Marvel into WDW, they would be doing it. They aren't. And I doubt they have the authority to "trade" Lucas for Marvel. This isn't Fantasy Sports.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "There's a reason Disney hooked Avatar, instead of turning to Marvel." I think Avatar is being used as a vehicle to shore up attendance and guest spending at AK, which obviously would be a poor location thematically for anything Marvel related. On paper Avatar works for AK since the film's theme is about the preservation of the natural environment, blah, blah, blah. Anything Marvel related should go in DHS or MK. Maybe Future World incorporated into Imagination somehow.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The only way it happens is if Disney pays Universal enough to retheme Marvel Super Hero Island and then some." Does anyone actually know the details of the agreement? I can't believe that Uni has the rights to use characters in their parks that they never owned until the end of time.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I don't think Disney cares about the characters at this point in time. They still get paid annually, and any merchandise they sell at Universal, Disney gets a cut...
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Does anyone actually know the details of the agreement? I can't believe that Uni has the rights to use characters in their parks that they never owned until the end of time.>> Yup. I've read it many times. The contract states that they have the characters in perpetuity as long as they want them
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt That's it? There has to be more in the terms than just that. If not then the folks at Marvel who settled on those terms basically gave away the farm.
Originally Posted By Mr SpiderSponge From what I've gathered, the reason why the Marvel contract is in perpetuity is because back in the 90's when the deal was made, Marvel was in a massive financial crisis. So Universal asking them for a licensing deal was a complete blessing to them. Marvel was pretty much willing to agree to anything as long as their characters were advertised.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I see. Well, I wonder if the contract says anything about Disney building competing Marvel attractions? If there's nothing stopping them then they might as well do it.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I think Avatar is being used as a vehicle to shore up attendance and guest spending at AK, which obviously would be a poor location thematically for anything Marvel related. On paper Avatar works for AK since the film's theme is about the preservation of the natural environment, blah, blah, blah. Anything Marvel related should go in DHS or MK. Maybe Future World incorporated into Imagination somehow. << You mean Ant Man and Spider-man don't fit into DAK? (Sorta meant as a joke.) I see Avatar as WDW's attempt to cling onto a pop culture phenomenon like Potter. Whether Avatar is a long-lasting phenomenon is another question entirely. But you're right -- DHS makes the most sense for Marvel, although it appears by adding Cars, WDW management is admitting again that they don't see Marvel in their parks anytime soon.
Originally Posted By leobloom Doesn't the contract stipulate Disney can't build Marvel attractions east of the Mississippi? Or was that just rumor?
Originally Posted By leemac <<That's it? There has to be more in the terms than just that. If not then the folks at Marvel who settled on those terms basically gave away the farm>> Think of it like this - if Walt had needed to license the rights to make POTC would he have accepted a 10-year agreement? No - you spend all that money to develop attractions and you want E-Tickets to run forever so perpetuity is important for licensing. Uni can only use the existing characters that they are using in the existing format - so characters that are named for entertainment purposes can't be repurposed for attractions and vice versa. - e.g. Iron Man who was a character Uni weren't interested in is only rated for streetmosphere. They can't incorporate him into an existing or new attraction. Those characters not specifically in the master licensing agreement can be used by Disney in Florida. Otherwise it is hands-off - WDW can never use Hulk, X-Men etc. as long as IoA wants them. Disney can use them in California though.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Doesn't the contract stipulate Disney can't build Marvel attractions east of the Mississippi? Or was that just rumor?>> That's the specific language - but only for specific characters.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I see Avatar as WDW's attempt to cling onto a pop culture phenomenon like Potter. Whether Avatar is a long-lasting phenomenon is another question entirely." Well of course, although I'm not sold on the whole Potter competition thing. My impression is that Disney shopped around for a movie franchise and creative team that fit AK with the purpose of strengthening that park, and settled on Avatar rather than grabbing any available pop culture property to compete with USF. Frankly, as long as the story and theme fit, and the experience is stellar I couldn't care less which film franchise they use at any of their parks. I have zero interest in HP, but I'd like to see WWoHP and I think I'd enjoy it.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Think of it like this - if Walt had needed to license the rights to make POTC would he have accepted a 10-year agreement? No - you spend all that money to develop attractions and you want E-Tickets to run forever so perpetuity is important for licensing." A better example might be George Lucas and Star Tours. Something tells me that Lucas' terms do grant Disney the rights to the attraction and Star Wars characters until Jesus comes.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Frankly, as long as the story and theme fit, and the experience is stellar I couldn't care less which film franchise they use at any of their parks. << I tend to agree with this. Never saw Avatar, but I'm interested in the attractions as long as they're well done. By that same token, I wasn't interested in the Potter universe of movies and books, but after seeing WWOHP I read a few of the books. (Which, of course, is how the media empires like it -- hook you into experiencing the same franchise in multiple media forms.) But even without having read the books and only having seen one of the movies, the Potter attraction stood out as something special. I hope Avatar will be the same way.
