Can we now have a real discussion on Marvel in DHS?

[GrumpyFan]

While I share your enthusiasm and would love to see something like this happen, I think you need to take off the Disney "fan boy" hat for a moment, and look at it from a business perspective, both Univesal's and Disney's. It really doesn't make sense for either company to try and do anything with this right now, it's just too hot.
1) Even though they're paying fees to Disney, Universal is still making lots of money off the Marvel characters. Why would they want to give that up, unless they had something equally as profitable, which they don't.
2) Disney is making lots of money off this right now too, even though some of that is going into the pockets of Universal. They can use their money to capitalize on the Marvel-mania by building elsewhere, instead of blowing a lot of it now just to own the rights.
3) It would cost too much to buy the rights from Universal. I'm not a financial wiz, but if the franchise has made $3B, that says to me it's worth at least twice that or more to sell. Price is largely determined by demand. It would just be stupid for Disney to buy those rights at the moment, due to the high popularity, any (smart) investor knows this.

 

[tomman710]

The license is only for certain characters I believe right? (Granted it's all the ones that matter.) But if the coming Guardians of the Galaxy movie is a hit they could make an attraction off that without repercussions. So there's something to hang our hat on ...

It's hard to measure potential really, and how it will translate into theme park payback. However, I would agree that there does seem to be a lot more potential in this franchise than say blue aliens. But, that's kind of a low blow... (Sorry, couldn't resist).

Well ... I'd gladly sacrifice the 500 million for Avatarland. Hypothetically, if the price was 500 million and the result was no Avatarland, no capital spending for two years (I mean they aren't spending now so what's the difference), and a waiting period before something for Marvel got budgeted, approved, and built ... I'd do that ... but mostly because I just can't stand the idea of Avatar as a franchise, as timeless relatable characters, or as an ENTIRE land.

 

[misterID]

While I share your enthusiasm and would love to see something like this happen, I think you need to take off the Disney "fan boy" hat for a moment, and look at it from a business perspective, both Univesal's and Disney's. It really doesn't make sense for either company to try and do anything with this right now, it's just too hot.
1) Even though they're paying fees to Disney, Universal is still making lots of money off the Marvel characters. Why would they want to give that up, unless they had something equally as profitable, which they don't.
2) Disney is making lots of money off this right now too, even though some of that is going into the pockets of Universal. They can use their money to capitalize on the Marvel-mania by building elsewhere, instead of blowing a lot of it now just to own the rights.
3) It would cost too much to buy the rights from Universal. I'm not a financial wiz, but if the franchise has made $3B, that says to me it's worth at least twice that or more to sell. Price is largely determined by demand. It would just be stupid for Disney to buy those rights at the moment, due to the high popularity, any (smart) investor knows this.

...And, the more successful Marvel is, the more it benefits UNI to keep it in their parks.

 

[tomman710]

2) Disney is making lots of money off this right now too, even though some of that is going into the pockets of Universal. They can use their money to capitalize on the Marvel-mania by building elsewhere, instead of blowing a lot of it now just to own the rights.

To continue with this point ... like was stated earlier Uni only has rights to build Marvel attractions in Uni Orlando ... that's it, period. The movies, the worldwide merch, comics, TV shows, apparel, rides everywhere else all goes directly to Disney.

So really the Marvel money coming from Uni is a small percentage of the whole and that small percentage is split with Disney.

The argument of "what's the point" for Disney is valid.

 

[Lee]

And so has the number Disney is willing to pay.

Not really. The number is just too high to make sense.

3) It would cost too much to buy the rights from Universal. I'm not a financial wiz, but if the franchise has made $3B, that says to me it's worth at least twice that or more to sell.

Nah...the theme park rights wouldn't bring $6billion.

Let's say they want $1.5B (which may be a bit low). That would provide enough to retheme the existing land and cover some lost revenue from loss of the characters.

That puts Disney in the hole a billion and a half before they even begin to develop, design, build and open a single attraction. In a single park.
Say they wanted to build an Iron Man attraction at the Studios. Say it has a budget of $225mil.
That brings us to $1.75B before one ticket is sold.

Any idea how long it would take to earn back that $1.75B? Long, long time. And as I said, the figures I'm using are quite likely on the low end.

Ain't gonna happen. Not when they can build Marvel all day everywhere else in the world without paying Uni a dime.

 

[PirateFrank]

While I share your enthusiasm and would love to see something like this happen, I think you need to take off the Disney "fan boy" hat for a moment...

Wow, I've never been saddled with 'fan boy' before -- if nothing else, wading into these shark infested waters has been worth it for that alone!

 

[GrumpyFan]

Wow, I've never been saddled with 'fan boy' before -- if nothing else, wading into these shark infested waters has been worth it for that alone!

I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. I think most of us here are in some sense very much "fan boys", I mean why else would we continually come here to discuss such things. Surely we all have other more meaningful things to do with our lives, and perhaps even more important (like jobs), and yet we come back again and again. If that's not the definition of fanboy, I don't know what would be.

BTW: I looked up "fanboy" on UrbanDictionary -

An extreme fan or follower of a particular medium or concept, whether it be sports, television, film directors, video games (the most common usage), etc.

I think most of us qualify as extreme fans of Disney, thus making us "Fanboys"

 

[lazyboy97o]

Universal is not lining Disney's pockets with cash. They share the merchandise profits with Marvel just as before. They also pay the set, never changing, except with inflation, licensing fee to Marvel just as before. There is no change except that Marvel Entertainment is now a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. Big deal. None of that changes the known, steady amount that Universal was already paying. If Universal was concerned about paying other studios they would not also have deals with Warner Bros., whose parent Time Warner is also involved in Comcast's primary business, and Fox. Media is incestuous. People and properties move back and forth between companies and there is no exception for those who also own theme parks.

If Disney was really concerned with stopping these other theme park deals, I think the proving ground would have been the comatose Dubai project that just awoke. It was assumed to be dead. It is now moving forward, albiet on a smaller scale, without Walt Disney Parks and Resorts or Walt Disney Imagineering. Disney didn't stop that, why would they stop the bigger, existing development?

The license is only for certain characters I believe right? (Granted it's all the ones that matter.) But if the coming Guardians of the Galaxy movie is a hit they could make an attraction off that without repercussions. So there's something to hang our hat on ...

The character rights include the entirety of the respective families. One Avenger means they own all of the Avengers, their associated side characters and villains.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

While I can't say never, I believe anything has a price if one is willing to pay it, I doubt we will see Marvel attractions anytime soon.

But...

I believe we will see Marvel toys and comics up and around the parks sooner than later, expecially with more and more Marvel franchises getting more and more into the public eye. I think Disney will push this subject's envelope when it comes to marketing of the properties in their parks, like the monorail, but I don't think we will see any real attractions in WDW.

Jimmy Thick- We all know its because of the Avengers monorail thats why it made so much money.

 

[GLaDOS]

Universal doesn't want to put future capital improvements into an entire section in one of its theme parks, with properties it does not own.

Properties in Islands of Adventure Universal doesn't own:

All of Seuss
All of Toon Lagoon
All of Marvel
All of Potter

That's the majority of the park.

Properties in Universal Studios Universal ddoesn't own:

Potter 2.0 (soon)
Transformers (soon)
MIB
Simpsons
Terminator
Shrek
Barney

I don't think they care all that much about having outside properties.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Disney can do whatever they want with Marvel at Disneyland without having to pay the huge legal costs. Make Marvel exclusive to California in the US, boost attendance there and concentrate on improving WDW with the properties Disney already have at hand (or even through creating immersive original lands or attractions like Expedition Everest).

 

[lebeau]

I believe we will see Marvel toys and comics up and around the parks sooner than later.

Are toys already sold in the parks?

Disney wouldn't want to sell the average Marvel comic book in the parks. They aren't written with families in mind. The actual business of publishing comics is almost a nuissance.

 

[71jason]

Universal doesn't want to put future capital improvements into an entire section in one of its theme parks, with properties it does not own.

They are building an entire land (with two new E-tickets) based on a property they do not "own."

In a more general sense, you answered your question in your original post. The closet thing Disney has to a "Potter Swatter" is Cars Land. It's a proven commodity. It sells more merch. And it's free and clear legally. (Also, it wouldn't invite inevitable comparisons to the attractions that USED to be at Universal, or result in brand confusion). Why go through the hassle of trying to get Marvel back when you have a cheaper obvious solution right in front of you.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Are toys already sold in the parks?

Yep, there's a substantial amount of Marvel merchandise on sale at WDW.

 

[lebeau]

Yep, there's a substantial amount of Marvel merchandise on sale at WDW.

I know I got some snazzy mugs at the Disney Store! Whenever I take my daughters, I wish I was 9 years old again so I could wear that Captain America costume. That would have made a young lebeau the happiest kid on the street!

 

[fosse76]

lol...

I agree to an extent. I don't think the number is astronomical...and I do believe that both parties have discussed this number. I think the number is beyond disney's reach right now....but again, $3 BILLION in revenue with several movies to go might in fact change their minds here.

There's no guarantee that those future movies will be as successful, if successful at all.

As been stated before in other discussions, Universal is *not* holding all of the cards here.

Yes, they are. The fact that Disney can't use the properties at all in the Florida parks gives Universal a huge advantage.

Universal doesn't want to put future capital improvements into an entire section in one of its theme parks, with properties it does not own.

Really? It just broke ground on Harry Potter, Phase II and Transformers, neither of which are Universal properties.

It does not want to allow it's direct competitor access to it's merchandise revenue every year to certify it's licensed sales. Eventually, Universal is going to want to jettison this IP and move on to something that allows for future growth.

They are perfectly happy with the arrangement. No one at Parks and Resorts can look at Universal's revenue. And the amount they pay in Royalties to Marvel is negligible compared to the money Universal earns.

 

[tomman710]

There's no guarantee that those future movies will be as successful, if successful at all.

Well ... future movie success is clearly not a determining factor in building attractions for Disney or else why committ to Avatar?

 

[wm49rs]

Well ... future movie success is clearly not a determining factor in building attractions for Disney or else why committ to Avatar?

Because Disney doesn't have to purchase any rights from Universal before investing in the parks with Avatar....

(And I can't believe we're discussing this again.)

 

[lebeau]

Because Disney doesn't have to purchase any rights from Universal before investing in the parks with Avatar....

(And I can't believe we're discussing this again.)

Which one? Marvel or Avatar?

I need my hammer to the head smiley!

 

[wm49rs]

Which one? Marvel or Avatar?

I need my hammer to the head smiley!

Yes.