Originally Posted By leobloom And thanks for the info, leemac. So if I hear you correctly, you're saying Ant-Man: The Ride is opening at DAK in 2018??
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<That's the specific language - but only for specific characters.>> Sweet that means we could get a Great Lakes Avengers attraction. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Avengers" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...Avengers</a>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<So if I hear you correctly, you're saying Ant-Man: The Ride is opening at DAK in 2018??>> Which I'm guessing will be along the lines of the Honey I Shrunk/Bug's Life play areas.
Originally Posted By dshyates "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." Hans, I admire your faith, but from what I heard the Avatar deal was a total knee jerk reaction to getting kicked in the teeth by the snot nosed little wizard up the road.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: I don't ever want to see Marvel characters at the Magic Kingdom. They just don't fit in with Mickey and the gang. ORDDU: I agree. Over time Disney theme parks may slowly become taken over by so many non-Disney properties that they may as well re-name the park to something else other than Disney. If that happens we won't care for the parks any longer. It would simply change the atmosphere too much. After all, we love Disney for because of DISNEY movies and DISNEY characters--not because of the movies or characters from OTHER studios. ORGOCH: Dizzy just ain't Dizzy anymore!
Originally Posted By dshyates Marvel characters and Disney Character existed side by side on the spinning comic book rack down at the Ben Franklin Five and Dime since the mid 60s at least. But you know what doesn't fit in the MK? Starbucks! It is a Disney Parks tradition to drink chitty coffee, and bringing in high quality third party coffee vendors is a slap in the face to us traditionalist chitty coffee drinkers. Moves like this are ruining the Disney Parks Experience.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: We don't approve of Star Wars in the Disney theme parks either--nor the Muppets--nor Indiana Jones. They are all properties of other studios and not Disney.
Originally Posted By dshyates But Star Wars and Indy never were and never will be Disney. Muppets and Marvel are now Disney. Like it or not, Disney is now a $40B Multinational Media Conglomerate.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Well no the Muppets are property of Disney.>> Point is that they weren't when MDE wanted to build Muppet Studios as part of the Disney Decade.
Originally Posted By leemac <<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.>> Star Wars and Indiana Jones can't go to another competing theme park. The terms are very similar to those for Uni and MARVEL.
Originally Posted By leemac <<So if I hear you correctly, you're saying Ant-Man: The Ride is opening at DAK in 2018??>> Ha! The reality is that Ant-Man could be at WDW - he isn't a named property for Uni. ) <<Sweet that means we could get a Great Lakes Avengers attraction.>> This is where it gets all screwy - as there every character or group of characters needs to be named in the MLA. So Hulk is a specific character but The Avengers are not. Same for Fantastic Four - Storm is specifically named as are the Fantastic Four but Human Torch and The Thing aren't (for attractions). Disney probably could push for an Avengers attraction but they might be best to leave Hulk out of it. The beauty of Kevin Feige's policy at MARVEL Studios is the success of the minor characters like Iron Man. Uni were right at the time not to develop an attraction based on a property that no-one knew or even cared about - fast forward a decade and he is a huge MARVEL star.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Hans, I admire your faith, but from what I heard the Avatar deal was a total knee jerk reaction to getting kicked in the teeth by the snot nosed little wizard up the road." Is that what really happened, or is that some fan boy wishful thinking?
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: The Disney Company can buy up all the movies and properties they want but unless they were originally released by Disney they aren't really Disney properties. ORWEN: That doesn't mean the attractions they created--like Indiana Jones of Star Tours--aren't good attractions. We just wish Disney Imagineering would have created attractions based on their own crop of movies instead--or if they couldn't come up with a Disney movie to base an attraction upon they could have simply come up with an original attraction not necessarily based on any movie. ORDDU: This is all a matter of preference, of course, and we understand why it doesn't matter to some. But if you're a Disney purist--as we are--it doesn't settle so well with us.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Star Wars and Indiana Jones can't go to another competing theme park. The terms are very similar to those for Uni and MARVEL." Doesn’t Lucas have the right to pull the properties from Disney at the conclusion of the agreement, or is it perpetuity.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>We just wish Disney Imagineering would have created attractions based on their own crop of movies instead--or if they couldn't come up with a Disney movie to base an attraction upon they could have simply come up with an original attraction not necessarily based on any movie.<< I hear ya, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed long ago.
Originally Posted By dshyates IDK, I still think I would prefer Indy over, say, the same ride based on a Disney property (Dinosaur, for example). One is a spectacular ride, the other is just loud and dark.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Indy could have been loud and dark if that's what they'd chose to do. It isn't the subject matter, it's how they present it. DCA in 2001 vs 2012 is a case in point.
