Black Panther M&G coming in 2018

[MisterPenguin]

Wait, so this whole production in the street is just the lead-in for an indoor meet & greet? What an incredible waste of resources, in true Disney fashion.

Casting and planning for this was months ago. If Black Panther winds up with even half of Frozen's interest, they'll need time to create a dedicated M&G for him with the one-lobby-many-rooms approach to deal with the crowds.

It's not like that have dozens of shaved-head type-cast Dora Milaje waiting in the wings just in case they needed them.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

They ruined everything.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Here is the exact contract statement which is at play here:

"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;"

The last part of that statement is in question with regard to Black Panther. Does his image on a random mural equate to more than just an incidental element of theming? I think a savvy lawyer (which Disney has many) could argue that this is incidental usage of the image. Especially since its a Capt America themed restaurant and not Avengers. So that would equate to incidental usage since Avengers is the not theme.

I will say though that I am not a lawyer, so who knows how it would play out in court.

The contract, it should be noted, is horribly written. Undefined terms. Improper outlining. Certain topics dealt with through unconnected paragraphs. Paragraphs that start with one topic and thrown in some other topics. It's a nightmare. The lawyers involved in that contract should be disbarred.

The section you quote then goes on to say that a character is "in use" by Universal if it was significantly featured in advertising. I don't know how much Black Panther has appeared in ads as one of the Avengers.

Here's a better outlined version of that section with the parties in question updated:

After such 2 year period, UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows:

1) If no action is taken by UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY, 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 UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY at the time such other license is granted.​

​

[For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY” 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 UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY marketing during the previous year.​

​

Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY’s marketing.]​

​

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

Wait, so this whole production in the street is just the lead-in for an indoor meet & greet? What an incredible waste of resources, in true Disney fashion.

They have a bunch of performers, a driver, and countless CMs doing crowd control for something that is an advertisement for a small-scale experience that can only be had by a few dozen guests per hour. As lame as most of their promotional stage shows have been recently, at least they had the ability to reach a wide audience with the same (or smaller) staffing requirements as this. Although Disney seems to think otherwise, meet & greets simply can't function like traditional attractions and have an incredibly narrow reach in a park filled with tens of thousands of guests each day.
< snip >

There's another way of looking at this. Black Panther's arrival and departure in the Jeep exposes him to a lot more people besides the meet and greet. People can get a look at him and take a picture without waiting 90 minutes in line. Character M&Gs are a quick way to add representation of a new film and give flexibility. Anna & Elsa started out in Fantasyland, moved to DCA with a larger M&G and added the singalong, then Frozen at the Hyperion. And don't kid yourself. Those "promotional stage shows" require a lot more personnel, including union stage technicians.

 

[Curious Constance]

It's unfortunate that every time a movie does well in the theater, Disney's and everyone else's reaction seems to be, "How can we infiltrate the park with these characters?"

I'm Marvel fatigued, and not particularly looking forward to this movie, but I'll be seeing it in theaters since Black Panther is my son's favorite superhero character. I'm sure it'll be entertaining, maybe even really good, but that's enough for me. I don't need to see this blasted everywhere. It's still the best way to date a park. Despite movies doing phenominal at the theater, they still normally pass into obscurity before too long. (See Avatar.)

 

[Curious Constance]

Does anyone want to go to IPDisneyPurchasedLand this summer!?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Does anyone want to go to IPDisneyPurchasedLand this summer!?

View attachment 265052

Hey, they got one of those, too, in Orlando...

You can find them in a separate subsection land of Magic of Public Domain Appropriation Kingdom.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

Does anyone want to go to IPDisneyPurchasedLand this summer!?
< snip >

Is that across the Esplanade from DisneyPuristNothingChangedSince1969Land?

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

Hey, they got one of those, too, in Orlando...

View attachment 265056View attachment 265055View attachment 265057

You can find them in a separate subsection land of Magic of Public Domain Appropriation Kingdom.

Now here's an interesting question--what was the first IP licensed by Disney for a feature animated film? What's earlier than Peter Pan?

 

[Curious Constance]

Is that across the Esplanade from DisneyPuristNothingChangedSince1969Land?

Serious question.

Did you choose the shade of green your avatar square is, or was is randomly assigned to you?

Do you realize it's the EXACT same shade as the little green online indicator triangle?

Do you know what this means? You could be online, with your online indicator triangle gleaming bright as the sun, and no one would ever know!!!!!!

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

Now here's an interesting question--what was the first IP licensed by Disney for a feature animated film? What's earlier than Peter Pan?

To answer my own question, Dumbo was purchased as an unproduced concept for a children's toy called Rollabook. Bambi's author was still living, so the rights would have to have been acquired. Pinocchio's author died in 1890, so I'm unclear what copyright law was back then. I'm guessing Snow White was in the public domain as the Brothers Grimm died in 1859 and 1863.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

Serious question.

Did you choose the shade of green your avatar square is, or was is randomly assigned to you?

Do you realize it's the EXACT same shade as the little green online indicator triangle?

Do you know what this means? You could be online, with your online indicator triangle gleaming bright as the sun, and no one would ever know!!!!!!

OH NO!!! You've discovered the key to my plan for world domination. I guess I'll have to go back to my original, more costly plan of adding mind control chemicals to Dole Whip and Churros! Bwahahaha!!!

(And yes, it was randomly assigned, but on my Windows laptop the triangle is a distinctly different shade.)

 

[lazyboy97o]

IP attractions made up a minority of attractions at Disneyland from opening through the next several decades. A large chunk of those that were used would not have passed muster with today's criteria, being box office disappoints and not being franchises.

 

[Curious Constance]

I'm not opposed to IP in the parks. But does it have to be EVERYTHING new that's added? And does it have to take over non IP attractions in the form of rethemes? Why can't there be more balance?

And why can't there be more park specific IP? Create more characters that only exist in the theme parks, so the theme parks aren't just a regurgitated version of movies, but have their own unique stories.

Disney seems insistent on only creating blockbusters at the theater, and then adding them to the parks. This won't be able to go on much longer before virtually everything is taken over by blockbuster IP.

 

[mickEblu]

IP attractions made up a minority of attractions at Disneyland from opening through the next several decades. A large chunk of those that were used would not have passed muster with today's criteria, being box office disappoints and not being franchises.

In addition it’s really an apples n oranges comparison. Disney was taking IP like Snow White, Peter Pan etc. and really almost redefining all the IP By telling the stories the Disney way by adding humor, great songs, re working the story and really bringing the characters to life for the first time in any sort of meaningful way. Not to mention Disney’s representation of those properties became the “official” version of these stories as no other productions came close in quality or being consumed at mass levels in theatres around the world.

When you take Marvel or Star Wars for example, their is nothing about Disney’s spin or influence on these properties that make them feel any different than before they were acquired. It’s literally just plug and play.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Now here's an interesting question--what was the first IP licensed by Disney for a feature animated film? What's earlier than Peter Pan?

How about a more complete accounting?...

 

[Disney Irish]

The contract, it should be noted, is horribly written. Undefined terms. Improper outlining. Certain topics dealt with through unconnected paragraphs. Paragraphs that start with one topic and thrown in some other topics. It's a nightmare. The lawyers involved in that contract should be disbarred.

The section you quote then goes on to say that a character is "in use" by Universal if it was significantly featured in advertising. I don't know how much Black Panther has appeared in ads as one of the Avengers.

Here's a better outlined version of that section with the parties in question updated:

After such 2 year period, UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows:

1) If no action is taken by UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY, 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 UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY at the time such other license is granted.​

​

[For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY” 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 UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY marketing during the previous year.​

​

Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in UNIVERSAL PARENT COMPANY’s marketing.]​

​

You've proved my point for me. A savvy lawyer could pick apart the contract if needed.

As for Black Panther, I think its save to say that prior to the MCU he was an ancillary character at best to Universal. So likely not much if any marketing was done with him outside of the singular reference provided here.

I have a feeling even if something could be done with him by Disney in WDW, it won't be now. Disney is going to wait until after the Fox deal is done, then get all rights back lock, stock, and barrel in some trade.

 

[mickEblu]

I'm not opposed to IP in the parks. But does it have to be EVERYTHING new that's added? And does it have to take over non IP attractions in the form of rethemes? Why can't there be more balance?

And why can't there be more park specific IP? Create more characters that only exist in the theme parks, so the theme parks aren't just a regurgitated version of movies, but have their own unique stories.

Disney seems insistent on only creating blockbusters at the theater, and then adding them to the parks. This won't be able to go on much longer before virtually everything is taken over by blockbuster IP.

I think this approach works for parks like DHS or USH but even then I feel like a lot of IP can feel dated relatively quickly.

I think the castle parks need to be more of balance of original and IP and I think they are. Take DL for example - almost the entire west side of DL is IP free with the exception of Indy which to me has always felt organic in Adventureland and Pooh. I don’t count POTC. I still view POTC as the original attraction with a few Johnny Depps and annoying soundtrack added. (We ve seen what a real POTC ride based on the movie looks like and it’s in Shanghai). I also don’t count Splash Mountain as being an IP ride in the traditional sense as most of the general public under 60 doesn’t know those characters.

With all of that said, A 14 acre Star Wars Land tips the scale at DL. An original TL redo could help tip it back the other way or at least make it even.

The problem with DCA is that Disney now views it as the movie studios sister park (they have to put all this newly acquired IP somewhere) so we have things like Pixar Pier and GOTG:MB in Hollywoodland.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'm not opposed to IP in the parks. But does it have to be EVERYTHING new that's added? And does it have to take over non IP attractions in the form of rethemes? Why can't there be more balance?

You'll have to take your case to the Bobs, but, that is indeed their plan with very few exceptions.

When DL opened, Disney had about 17 movies under their belt (some were anthologies of shorts, but, Mr. Toad had his ride!). Now, they have 64. And that's just Disney Animation. There's also Disney Studios and TV (Mary Poppins, Davy Crockett, Disney Jr.). And now, Muppets, and Pixar, and Marvel, and LucasFilm. Disney is drowning in IPs they created or now own.

Why build a tropical paradise with new generic characters when you have Moana or Lilo? Why build a generic space fight simulator when you have Star Wars? Why build a coaster with a generic storyline when you have dozens of action films to promote? Why pay CBS a licensing fee for Twilight Zone when GotG or Doctor Strange could serve as a huge or subtle retheme? It's not a stupid business decision just as long as IP isn't a substitute for making the ride good (looking at you, Nemo and Ariel).

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm not opposed to IP in the parks. But does it have to be EVERYTHING new that's added? And does it have to take over non IP attractions in the form of rethemes? Why can't there be more balance?

And why can't there be more park specific IP? Create more characters that only exist in the theme parks, so the theme parks aren't just a regurgitated version of movies, but have their own unique stories.

Disney seems insistent on only creating blockbusters at the theater, and then adding them to the parks. This won't be able to go on much longer before virtually everything is taken over by blockbuster IP.

In addition it’s really an apples n oranges comparison. Disney was taking IP like Snow White, Peter Pan etc. and really almost redefining all the IP By telling the stories the Disney way by adding humor, great songs, re working the story and really bringing the characters to life for the first time in any sort of meaningful way. Not to mention Disney’s representation of those properties became the “official” version of these stories as no other productions came close in quality or being consumed at mass levels in theatres around the world.

When you take Marvel or Star Wars for example, their is nothing about Disney’s spin or influence on these properties that make them feel any different than before they were acquired. It’s literally just plug and play.

I think this approach works for parks like DHS or USH but even then I feel like a lot of IP can feel dated relatively quickly.

I think the castle parks need to be more of balance of original and IP and I think they are. Take DL for example - almost the entire west side of DL is IP free with the exception of Indy which to me has always felt organic in Adventureland and Pooh. I don’t count POTC. I still view POTC as the original attraction with a few Johnny Depps and annoying soundtrack added. (We ve seen what a real POTC ride based on the movie looks like and it’s in Shanghai). I also don’t count Splash Mountain as being an IP ride in the traditional sense as most of the general public under 60 doesn’t know those characters.

With all of that said, A 14 acre Star Wars Land tips the scale at DL. An original TL redo could help tip it back the other way or at least make it even.

The problem with DCA is that Disney now views it as the movie studios sister park (they have to put all this newly acquired IP somewhere) so we have things like Pixar Pier and GOTG:MB in Hollywoodland.

Why does every thread have to end up being IP vs Non-IP.