Marvel coming to WDW?!?!

[aladdin2007]

Imagine also the tower gift shop being filled with a bunch of walmarted GOTG crap, cause that's exactly what will happen, that's what chappie wants. unbelievable, imagineering is dead and the place has been turned over to retail accountants.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

We're not talking Flash Gordon; we're talking Guardians of the Galaxy. What does Flash Gordon have to do with Guardians of the Galaxy?

Disney's Guardians of the Galaxy film is set in modern times, not the 1940s. What twisted storyline is going to be used to get Peter Quill and the rest of the cast to travel back to 1940s Hollywood?

Why bother when WDW's Tower of Terror already is widely viewed as one of the best attractions ever created by WDI?

Let's be clear. This is not happening because this is a good idea. This is happening because Disney's Powers That Be are fixated on jamming a Marvel IP into DHS and are too gosh darn cheap to do this the right way by building a new E-ticket attraction.

Seems to me that a better home for this is Epcot's Future World. The Wonders of Life Pavilion sits empty most days. Why not use it? (Can anyone say "Guardians of the Galaxy Pavilion"?) After all, once Pandora and the DHS redo are complete, Epcot is the theme park that will need the most TLC.

After all, doesn't Xandar kinda remind you of Future World:

View attachment 134973


Instead, someone with no background in theme parks has decided to jam this into what is arguably WDW's single best attraction.

If it were my call, I would have a guardians E-Ticket as the centerpiece of a reinvention/expansion of TL.

 

[LAKid53]

I'm bringing my gym buddy with me next month to run in the Dark Side. She hasn't been to WDW since she was a kid and the one ride she really wants to ride is ToT. I'm glad I made a FP so we all can ride it, because I'm afraid by the time I go back, it will be re-themed.

I was one of the few disappointed to see the BAH go. But I bowed to those more sensible than me and now admit the view down Hollywood to the theatre - when there's not a stage in the way - is amazing. But my feelings about this move far exceed that disappointment. I'm not just disappointed, I'm sad. For all the reasons, and more, @FigmentForver96 mentioned. RIP, ToT.

 

[Mike S]

Oh yes indeed. And Splash Mountain will become Zootopia like all those twits want. But that's none of my business.....

 

[LAKid53]

Oh yes indeed. And Splash Mountain will become Zootopia like all those twits want. But that's none of my business.....
View attachment 134991

Maybe time to renew those expired Uni APs...

 

[janoimagine]

I just am ready to call it quits and give up. The Disney I know, we all use to know, is gone and its probably never coming back.

The Disney that would make sure to cover small details like Tower from Epcot has been replaced by a Disney that can't hide a tower from Liberty Square.

The Disney that trained their cast members to be high quality has been replaced by a Disney that could care less. Now Cast role their eyes and while we still have those good ones, they become fewer and fewer.

A Disney that put effort into the atmosphere of their parks has been replaced by a Disney that tears trees and park like environments straight from the ground just so more people can watch a small show.

A Disney that once was the leader in entertainment has been replaced by a Disney that only makes entertainment focused on the popular movie of the year.

A Disney that made amazing attractions, unseen anywhere else in the world, had been replaced by a Disney that tears down rides of the future, replaces national pride with princesses, towers with heroes and quality with junk.

A Disney that once was priced for all has been replaced by a Disney that looks to up charge and raise the price of anything they can.

In the end, I would love to be excited about the future of Disney but it has become truly hard and for the first time in forever I have to say I no longer have hope for this company. I guess Disney truly did get it right when they said "unforgettable happens here" because the things, the disasters, they have created are undeniably unforgettable.

I don't know how, but you need to get this in a place where it can be seen by those who are making these calls. If I could like this twice I would.

 

[GoofGoof]

Heard from another source tonight. From a completely different part of TWDC. Again, confirmation of a few things.

1.) Desire to stop paying CBS royalties, even if they must be a pittance (trying to find out what that deal entails), as the deal is up for renewal; and
2.) Chappie's desire to get Marvel IP into the parks (as he was very good at selling Thor hammers, Hulk action figures and Avengers tees as head of CP) as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Are the crazies still saying I am wrong or pulling this out of my tuchus? Oh, and again let me stress that both WDI and Chappie are not doing this to destroy ToT. They just are so beyond ignorant that they think this is a great idea. Not sure anything is gonna stop this train. (Oh and please tell the Twit nuts that Disney can and will use Guardians in O-Town ... and if these characters are allegedly going to be in a film with the Avengers, that has either passed muster with legal or they won't be in the film. I haven't studied the contract, but I don't think just appearing in a film with these characters makes them off-limits. I could be wrong about that, but Disney isn't moving ahead without this being already certified as OK. No secret deals with UNI here.)

Thanks for the info even if it sucks

Any chance this is part of a negotiating tactic to pay less for Twilight Zone rights? CBS could look at it and see that attendance at DHS is double what it was when we signed the deal so double the fee. If they think Disney has no choice but to renew they think they have the upper hand. Disney comes up with a "plan B" that could eliminate Twilight Zone from the ride and gains the upper hand. In reality CBS should be paying Disney since the ride probably draws more people to the show then the show draws people to DHS.

I know it's wishful thinking

 

[danlb_2000]

Heard from another source tonight. From a completely different part of TWDC. Again, confirmation of a few things.

1.) Desire to stop paying CBS royalties, even if they must be a pittance (trying to find out what that deal entails), as the deal is up for renewal; and
2.) Chappie's desire to get Marvel IP into the parks (as he was very good at selling Thor hammers, Hulk action figures and Avengers tees as head of CP) as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Are the crazies still saying I am wrong or pulling this out of my tuchus? Oh, and again let me stress that both WDI and Chappie are not doing this to destroy ToT. They just are so beyond ignorant that they think this is a great idea. Not sure anything is gonna stop this train. (Oh and please tell the Twit nuts that Disney can and will use Guardians in O-Town ... and if these characters are allegedly going to be in a film with the Avengers, that has either passed muster with legal or they won't be in the film. I haven't studied the contract, but I don't think just appearing in a film with these characters makes them off-limits. I could be wrong about that, but Disney isn't moving ahead without this being already certified as OK. No secret deals with UNI here.)

I saw someone try to discredit your rumor by using Screamscape as a source.

The contract talks about character "families" (e.g. X-Men, Fantastic Four, Avengers, etc), but I would assume that the definition of the families was set at the time the contract was made and wouldn't change if connections were made between characters after the fact.

 

[wdisney9000]

Imagine also the tower gift shop being filled with a bunch of walmarted GOTG crap, cause that's exactly what will happen, that's what chappie wants. unbelievable, imagineering is dead and the place has been turned over to retail accountants.

You would think that one of the many successful entrepreneurs on the BOD could see the forest through the trees and realize that the intricately woven fabric of magic and theming that made the parks the powerhouse they are is being torn to shreds by people with less imagination than a box of dirt.

 

[lebeau]

I saw someone try to discredit your rumor by using Screamscape as a source.

The contract talks about character "families" (e.g. X-Men, Fantastic Four, Avengers, etc), but I would assume that the definition of the families was set at the time the contract was made and wouldn't change if connections were made between characters after the fact.

I have read the contract. It's available on line. No need to trust Screamscape.

The concept of "families" is not defined. Which is why there has been and continues to be squabbling in the fan community over what is allowed and what isn't. Pretty much any character in Marvel has been an Avenger at some point. So if one took a super hardline approach that any character that appeared in an Avengers comic book was part of the Avengers family, even Howard the Duck would be off limits. Yes, Howard is a card-carrying Avenger.

The Guardians have appeared in plenty of Avengers comics. They have also appeared in the Avengers cartoon. None of those things prevented them from appearing in a meet and greet, so presumably it's not a problem. According to the contract, these matters would be decided in arbitration which for all we know happened already. I'm sure if Disney takes this step, they have reason to be confident they are on solid legal footing.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I have read the contract. It's available on line. No need to trust Screamscape.

The concept of "families" is not defined. Which is why there has been and continues to be squabbling in the fan community over what is allowed and what isn't. Pretty much any character in Marvel has been an Avenger at some point. So if one took a super hardline approach that any character that appeared in an Avengers comic book was part of the Avengers family, even Howard the Duck would be off limits. Yes, Howard is a card-carrying Avenger.

The Guardians have appeared in plenty of Avengers comics. They have also appeared in the Avengers cartoon. None of those things prevented them from appearing in a meet and greet, so presumably it's not a problem. According to the contract, these matters would be decided in arbitration which for all we know happened already. I'm sure if Disney takes this step, they have reason to be confident they are on solid legal footing.

Maybe that's part of it. Disney leaks this rumor to see what they can get away with. Throw it out there that you're thinking about a Guardians attraction and see if Universal seeks an injunction.

 

[Kate F]

Just found this conversation on Twitter involving two people with furry avatars while looking through the Splash Mountain tag:

Person 1: "Do you think the inevitable Zootopia ride at Disney Parks will be its own thing? Or will it be a rebranded Splash Mountain?"

Person 2: "Splash Mountain rebrand seems sensible. I mean the Br'er Rabbit stuff is like ridiculously dated at this point."

Person 1: "That was what we thought here too."

Person 2: "Disney loves bringing in park goers but they love doing it under budget too. Rebranding serves that purpose well."


I...I really don't even know what to say about this one...

Might as well repost this here. It's the exact same logic that's being used with this project.

 

[lebeau]

Maybe that's part of it. Disney leaks this rumor to see what they can get away with. Throw it out there that you're thinking about a Guardians attraction and see if Universal seeks an injunction.

Perhaps. Although if Universal objected, per the contract, they would just go into arbitration behind closed doors. Based on Universal's lack of response to the GotG meet and greet or perhaps an arbitration decision that resulted from it, Disney seems pretty certain they can move forward.

Time will tell.

 

[gmajew]

1.) Desire to stop paying CBS royalties, even if they must be a pittance (trying to find out what that deal entails), as the deal is up for renewal; and

If the contract is up and CBS is playing hardball then maybe it is the hated business will be business argument. Maybe they are just not willing to pay a higher royalty and they are looking for other options that will get them out of it.

I would just drop the twilight zone from the set and make it your own with the same story.... but hey what does this peon know.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Maybe that's part of it. Disney leaks this rumor to see what they can get away with. Throw it out there that you're thinking about a Guardians attraction and see if Universal seeks an injunction.

I think it's more political. People inside the company not happy with this idea and they leak it intentionally.

I agree with you on the less than 50% chance of happening but I also believe it's being considered by somebody. Someone blue skied this abomination of an idea and it didn't die fast....

 

[wdisney9000]

I have read the contract. It's available on line. No need to trust Screamscape.

The concept of "families" is not defined. Which is why there has been and continues to be squabbling in the fan community over what is allowed and what isn't. Pretty much any character in Marvel has been an Avenger at some point. So if one took a super hardline approach that any character that appeared in an Avengers comic book was part of the Avengers family, even Howard the Duck would be off limits. Yes, Howard is a card-carrying Avenger.

The Guardians have appeared in plenty of Avengers comics. They have also appeared in the Avengers cartoon. None of those things prevented them from appearing in a meet and greet, so presumably it's not a problem. According to the contract, these matters would be decided in arbitration which for all we know happened already. I'm sure if Disney takes this step, they have reason to be confident they are on solid legal footing.

Great post. Informative sans the BS of fandom.

 

[Mike S]

Might as well repost this here. It's the exact same logic that's being used with this project.

Brainless idiots, but let's have some fun with this. What can Disney do next?

What makes sense: An Ant-Man Dark Ride that's a modern throwback to the extinct Adventure Thru Inner Space built in DCA's Marvel Land.

What will more likely happen: It's a Small World........ Especially when you're with Ant-Man!!!!!

 

[danlb_2000]

I have read the contract. It's available on line. No need to trust Screamscape.

The concept of "families" is not defined. Which is why there has been and continues to be squabbling in the fan community over what is allowed and what isn't. Pretty much any character in Marvel has been an Avenger at some point. So if one took a super hardline approach that any character that appeared in an Avengers comic book was part of the Avengers family, even Howard the Duck would be off limits. Yes, Howard is a card-carrying Avenger.

The Guardians have appeared in plenty of Avengers comics. They have also appeared in the Avengers cartoon. None of those things prevented them from appearing in a meet and greet, so presumably it's not a problem. According to the contract, these matters would be decided in arbitration which for all we know happened already. I'm sure if Disney takes this step, they have reason to be confident they are on solid legal footing.

The Screamscape comment wasn't meant to be connected to the contract comments; and I never trust Screamscape.

What I was getting at on the contract is, was the makeup of the families set at the time the contract was made, or is it changeable? So for example, if we assume Guardians is ok to use at WDW, and then Disney/Marvel decides in the next Avengers movie to have Starlord be a significant member of the Avengers, does that now give Universal exclusivity to Starlord even though he wasn't part of the Avengers family at the time the contract was written?

 

[lebeau]

The Screamscape comment wasn't meant to be connected to the contract comments; and I never trust Screamscape.

What I was getting at on the contract is, was the makeup of the families set at the time the contract was made, or is it changeable? So for example, if we assume Guardians is ok to use at WDW, and then Disney/Marvel decides in the next Avengers movie to have Starlord be a significant member of the Avengers, does that now give Universal exclusivity to Starlord even though he wasn't part of the Avengers family at the time the contract was written?

The whole concept is left vague in the contract. There's no definition given of what constitutes a "family" much less an idea of when the families would be locked in.

Here's the contract for anyone who wants to read it.

Here's the section that deal with "families"

1. If no action is taken by MCA, such exclusivity shall be limited as follows:


i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]

 

[CaptainAmerica]

What I was getting at on the contract is, was the makeup of the families set at the time the contract was made, or is it changeable? So for example, if we assume Guardians is ok to use at WDW, and then Disney/Marvel decides in the next Avengers movie to have Starlord be a significant member of the Avengers, does that now give Universal exclusivity to Starlord even though he wasn't part of the Avengers family at the time the contract was written?

There's no chance, because that sword would cut both ways. If Disney were penalized for decisions made subsequent to the signing of the contract, they'd have way too much leeway to go the other direction. They could concoct some storyline where Captain America and Hulk were never actually Avengers, and any past references to them being Avengers was a fever dream imparted on them by Mysterio. In fact, there never actually were any Avengers to begin with.

It's called retconning. A retcon can affect narrative canon and continuity but there's no way it would carry any legal weight.