DHS CARS LAND

[djlaosc]

Jim Hill has said that it's getting the full dining experience inside Hogwart's Castle.

I wonder if that will ever come to IOA as part of a "Phase 3"?

 

[PeterAlt]

Huh? Why would such a licensing agreement exist? Isn't it a Touchstone film (which is a Disney subsidiary)?

Because Looney Toons characters are in it, which was licensed through Amblin Entertainment, Steven Spielberg's production company.

Trust me, it's a cool ride. It's like as if you entered a cartoon.

 

[PeterAlt]

Please explain how not being able to build Marvel in WDW is so important to the existence of the company!? You actually believe that this is that serious a threat to Disney? Disney will survive just fine as a corporation without having Marvel in WDW.

It's a new day so I can look at what I wrote a bit clearer now... A bit dramatic, I was, wouldn't you say? Of course I don't really mean the existence of the whole company is at stake. It just sets the wrong precedent. The company should be have a strong IP legal offense in order to have a strong defense. If not, these rights are the beginning of others they could potentially be denied use of.

 

[PeterAlt]

You're operating under the flawed premise that Disney/Marvel thinks that these contracts are somehow a problem or that some kind of injustice is being committed. They don't think it's a problem. The fact that Disney struck a deal with Paramount for the Marvel Cinematic Universe distribution rights but doesn't show any interest in making a deal with Universal for theme park rights should make it obvious where Disney's priorities lie. (FYI, Disney still does not have the distribution rights for Spider-Man, X-Men, or Fantastic Four. Make of that what you will.)

You nailed my point exactly. The fact that they don't see it as a problem is the problem.

 

[PeterAlt]

Last time I respond to this absurdity....

But bullied? Disney knew the legal constraints and still decided to go ahead with the monorail. It wasn't stopped, and I'm sure they'll do it again. They're no victim, just as they're not trading/swapping/exchanging/bartering for those rights in WDW. Both sides are perfectly content with the deal, along with the share prices right now.

Move on and stop derailing threads with this nonsense....

Look, you're entitled to your opinion. Don't you think I am entitled to mine? It's okay that you disagree with me. I think that if this is not straightened out, Disney will have an unfavorable situation in the future. Don't think so? Man, I hope you're right!

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's a new day so I can look at what I wrote a bit clearer now... A bit dramatic, I was, wouldn't you say? Of course I don't really mean the existence of the whole company is at stake. It just sets the wrong precedent. The company should be have a strong IP legal offense in order to have a strong defense. If not, these rights are the beginning of others they could potentially be denied use of.

You have it backwards. It's not like others can just make claims that will hold up because existing contracts are being honored. Paramount was willing to deal, so they did. Sony was somewhat willing, and they did. Fox basically told Disney to " off" so they did. Disney makes a lot of money every year from licensees and attacking existing ones only makes them look bad for future deals. They can ask, but they must ultimately respect existing contracts. It's why something is still sort of moving forward in Dubai. If they didn't kill an already near death project, they're not going to try for something well established.

 

[wm49rs]

Look, you're entitled to your opinion. Don't you think I am entitled to mine? It's okay that you disagree with me. I think that if this is not straightened out, Disney will have an unfavorable situation in the future. Don't think so? Man, I hope you're right!

No one said you couldn't have your opinion. It's the incessant banging of the drum for this little theory of yours at every tangential opportunity that I find objectionable.

 

[PeterAlt]

Which was probably nothing more then a blip on the radar of Disney's massive legal department.

This minor incident foreshadows

I hope this means you understand Marvel won't be coming to Florida?

I never said Marvel was coming to WDW. What I said was they need to continue what they've already started to do and put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It's not Disney's fault, but now that they own them, they have a responsibility to pick up all of her pieces and glue them back on. Doing so strengthens the validity of her IP.

I forgot the year this happened, but a church used Mickey Mouse characters for something. People lashed out at "mean" Disney for aggressively using their legal department to go after the church in order to protect their copyrights. Do a little research and read what Disney's legal team at the time had to say and their rationale as to why they had no other choice for doing what they did. That explanation fits better in regards to Marvel.

 

[PeterAlt]

You have it backwards. It's not like others can just make claims that will hold up because existing contracts are being honored. Paramount was willing to deal, so they did. Sony was somewhat willing, and they did. Fox basically told Disney to " off" so they did. Disney makes a lot of money every year from licensees and attacking existing ones only makes them look bad for future deals. They can ask, but they must ultimately respect existing contracts. It's why something is still sort of moving forward in Dubai. If they didn't kill an already near death project, they're not going to try for something well established.

Bingo. All they need to do is ask. Comcast might actually welcome it!

 

[lazyboy97o]

This minor incident foreshadows
I never said Marvel was coming to WDW. What I said was they need to continue what they've already started to do and put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It's not Disney's fault, but now that they own them, they have a responsibility to pick up all of her pieces and glue them back on. Doing so strengthens the validity of her IP.

I forgot the year this happened, but a church used Mickey Mouse characters for something. People lashed out at "mean" Disney for aggressively using their legal department to go after the church in order to protect their copyrights. Do a little research and read what Disney's legal team at the time had to say and their rationale as to why they had no other choice for doing what they did. That explanation fits better in regards to Marvel.

It was a daycare and there was one massive difference, permission. You're confusing authorized use and unauthorized use. Licensing deals are not a threat to intellectual property. All of the international Disney parks operate under licensing agreements. If licensing were such an imminent threat then Disney would not have always had a <50% stake in all of those ventures.

 

[PeterAlt]

It was a daycare and there was one massive difference, permission. You're confusing authorized use and unauthorized use. Licensing deals are not a threat to intellectual property. All of the international Disney parks operate under licensing agreements. If licensing were such an imminent threat then Disney would not have always had a <50% stake in all of those ventures.

Ok

 

[marni1971]

It was a daycare and there was one massive difference, permission. You're confusing authorized use and unauthorized use. Licensing deals are not a threat to intellectual property. All of the international Disney parks operate under licensing agreements. If licensing were such an imminent threat then Disney would not have always had a <50% stake in all of those ventures.

Indeed it was. In Orlando, if i recall too. Universal went in afterwards and got a press coup by painting the walls with their characters in front of the press cameras. Eisners quoted as hating to have to protect the IP in that instance.

 

[DocMcHulk]

I forgot the year this happened, but a church used Mickey Mouse characters for something. People lashed out at "mean" Disney for aggressively using their legal department to go after the church in order to protect their copyrights. Do a little research and read what Disney's legal team at the time had to say and their rationale as to why they had no other choice for doing what they did. That explanation fits better in regards to Marvel.

I'm glad they havent gone after my former employer who does a Disney choir concert every year

 

[AndyMagic]

(FYI, Disney still does not have the distribution rights for Spider-Man, X-Men, or Fantastic Four. Make of that what you will.)

They also don't have the Hulk film rights which belong to Universal Pictures.

 

[Daannzzz]

make it stop...

Universal's version of Carsland tops Disney's in the thrill factor!

 

[articos]

There seems to be much ado about nothing here. The Marvel film distribution licenses were made prior to the acquisition, so they stay with the licensees. The studios work together all the time, so this is a common deal structure. Paramount puts up some money, they get distribution rights in certain territories. Fox puts up more money, they get rights in others. That's why you sometimes see multiple studios in the opening titles. Usually, the property has started with one studio, due to owning rights or an on-lot deal with a producer/talent/director or a relationship of some sort, and they have the majority stake. The Marvel film deals are great for Disney, because it's simply money in TWDC's pocket. Marvel, and therefore Disney, doesn't have to put up all the funds for Spiderman, because Sony has the franchise. But Disney DOES collect on the Spiderman franchise now, via those deals. It's good for business for all involved. Eventually, the deals will run their course, and revert back to Disney, and they will then both have to help front the money for the production and marketing costs, but they'll also reap the rewards if the films are hits. More importantly, Disney gets a share of all of the merchandising from the Marvel movies. That is a big pot of money.

Regarding the theme parks, totally different licensing deals, and totally different industry, negotiated by different attorneys, even. Right now, it's in Disney's interest to leave things the way they are with the Universal agreement and keep collecting the royalties. It's in Universal's interest to keep the Marvel characters in the park and keep paying the check. Will that change in the future? Probably. Is it a big deal right now? Nope. It's just one territory out of multiple parks.

 

[GLaDOS]

They also don't have the Hulk film rights which belong to Universal Pictures.

Uh, no. Not anymore. Hulk has reverted back to Marvel, which should be clear considering he was in Avengers.

 

[danlb_2000]

Bingo. All they need to do is ask. Comcast might actually welcome it!

I would be very surprised if Disney didn't already have some idea of what it would take to buy out the contract.

 

[danlb_2000]

It's a new day so I can look at what I wrote a bit clearer now... A bit dramatic, I was, wouldn't you say? Of course I don't really mean the existence of the whole company is at stake. It just sets the wrong precedent. The company should be have a strong IP legal offense in order to have a strong defense. If not, these rights are the beginning of others they could potentially be denied use of.

Sorry, Disney isn't suddenly going to loose the rights to Marvel just because that have a licensing deal with another company. If that could happen then virtually every piece of major intellectual property in existance would be in jeporday. I doubt there is a signficant piece of IP that the owner hasn't licensed at least some aspect of to another company.

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

If Disney really wanted the east coast theme park rights to Marvel IP, they'd be playing hardball for it right now,(negotiating a partial buyback, where Uni keeps Spidey/Fantastic Four but sells back Avengers stuff for more than they paid) but they're not doing that. Frankly I don't think WDI knows what they would do with them if they got them.

Much as I'd love to see Innoventions turned into a Stark Expo, I just don't see all that happening right now.

Cars Land is a great fit for DCA. I don't think it'd be the same for DHS. If WDW wants to expand it's "boy franchise" offerings, turning the area north of Star Tours (Indiana Jones, Backlot Express, Sounds Dangerous) into Tattooine/"Lucas Land" seems like a smarter fit.