News bye bye bugs: Marvel Land announced, opens 2020

Rich T

Rich T

Well-Known Member
I don't enjoy Disney's Marvel movies (they're just not for me), but if Disney includes some sort of excellent tribute to Stan Lee in this land (a statue, maybe?) I will be very, very happy. Make it more than just a cash grab. Connect to the history of this fictional universe and how it relates to Americana and modern myths. Give it something to ground it for those of us who don't buy into the films, just as Cars Land plays to beauty of the Western U.S. regardless of whether or not you enjoy movies about talking cars.
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
There are distinctions you gloss over... there is a difference between merger, and acquisition for instance and what the surviving entities actually separate.
Click to expand...

None of these were mergers though, they were all acquisitions.

As such when they were acquired they were brought in as a subsidiary, and thus not "merged" with another business unit. This means all rights for use of characters still falls within the specific subsidiary.
 
mickEblu

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
raven24 said:
That is most definitely included in my list. 👍🏾
Click to expand...

Wooooow. Sorry considering the options/limitations , that name is solid. Much better than Super Hero City or other names I’ve heard thrown around. I challenge someone to come up with better. I haven’t heard one yet and I’ll be honest if I do.
 
Last edited:
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
Disney Irish Bruh said:
None of these were mergers though, they were all acquisitions.

As such when they were acquired they were brought in as a subsidiary, and thus not "merged" with another business unit. This means all rights for use of characters still falls within the specific subsidiary.
Click to expand...

You are looking at the lay version of it... vs the legal vehicles and shifts taken in the acquisition that aren't always externalized. For instance, Lucasfilm even tho it's a subsidiary today, did not just continue on in it's same form through the Disney acquisition. It was converted as part of the buyout to a new type of holding corp.. and multiple other legal entities were merged and flattened in the deal. (and why we have Lucasfilm LTD LLC now, instead of just Lucasfilm LTD). You also can't tell anything about the transfer of assets between these entities from looking at Park maps or reading headlines.

These are not 'stuck things' that can not be sold, transferred, etc between entities. They end up the way they do because of what makes sense from the company financially or for legal protections. The tracking and accounting of these kinds of things don't happen at the news level...
 
SSG

SSG

Well-Known Member
britain said:
SuperCity
Click to expand...


a1gVemq.gif
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
You are looking at the lay version of it... vs the legal vehicles and shifts taken in the acquisition that aren't always externalized. For instance, Lucasfilm even tho it's a subsidiary today, did not just continue on in it's same form through the Disney acquisition. It was converted as part of the buyout to a new type of holding corp.. and multiple other legal entities were merged and flattened in the deal. (and why we have Lucasfilm LTD LLC now, instead of just Lucasfilm LTD). You also can't tell anything about the transfer of assets between these entities from looking at Park maps or reading headlines.

These are not 'stuck things' that can not be sold, transferred, etc between entities. They end up the way they do because of what makes sense from the company financially or for legal protections. The tracking and accounting of these kinds of things don't happen at the news level...
Click to expand...

So if what you are saying is true, which I don't believe but we'll say for argument it is, then the contract is null and void. Because Disney would not be a licensee but the owner. Which if that is the case why is Disney even acting as if the contract is still in full effect?

Point I'm making is we can make some very educated assertions based on facts available to us. Marvel Entertainment LLC, just like Lucas, was formed after the acquisition by Disney. So just like Lucas it is its own entity while being a subsidiary. As such any contract in effect stays in effect. So legally Disney cannot just claim ownership in terms of this contract because for legal purposes Marvel is its own entity.
 
Last edited:
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
Disney Irish Bruh said:
So if what you are saying is true, which I don't believe but we'll say for argument it is, then the contract is null and void. Because Disney would not be a licensee but the owner. Which if that is the case why is Disney even acting as if the contract is still in full effect?

Point I'm making is we can make some very educated assertions based on facts available to us. Marvel Entertainment LLC, just like Lucas, was formed after the acquisition by Disney. So just like Lucas it is its own entity while being a subsidiary. As such any contract in effect stays in effect. So legally Disney cannot just claim ownership in terms of this contract because for legal purposes Marvel is its own entity.
Click to expand...

Point is.. it's complicated. And why haven't they challenged it? It could simply be about picking your battles, or something else. Survivability and transfer are whole other topics upon themselves. (the contract wouldn't be void... the question is more who the parties are after several shifts)

Remember when WDI used to own attractions? Imagine if Marvel owned the theme park attractions, etc... so many ways you could slice this up if you really wanted to.

I found the wording of that piece interesting and potentially risky...
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
Point is.. it's complicated. And why haven't they challenged it? It could simply be about picking your battles, or something else. Survivability and transfer are whole other topics upon themselves. (the contract wouldn't be void... the question is more who the parties are after several shifts)

Remember when WDI used to own attractions? Imagine if Marvel owned the theme park attractions, etc... so many ways you could slice this up if you really wanted to.

I found the wording of that piece interesting and potentially risky...
Click to expand...

I don't think its that complicated and they aren't picking their battles. The contract is fairly clear, at least it is to me. They are bound by an existing contract that unless both Marvel (ultimately Disney) and Universal agree to dissolve is and will continue to be in effect.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom