VJ
Well-Known Member
Some people already call it Disneyland Florida...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney's Hollywood Studios Name Change
- Thread starter neoian
- Start date
doctornick
Well-Known Member
So, they can't run an advertisement for a movie (i.e. Avengers or Iron Man monorail) in a theme park due to the Uni contract but they can show actual screening of a movie? I'm sorry, but I call shenanigans. Jim Hill might have said that but it doesn't pass the sniff test. If GotG were limited the way Iron Man, Hulk and the rest of the Avengers were, we would not have seen them in the parks in any capacity. If a simple movie billboard on monorail is not allowed in a park for a property, then nothing is.
Besides which, insiders on these pages have already indicated that Disney lawyers determined that GotG could be used in WDW.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
It wasn't the full movie, it was an extended preview- essentially the opening scene with Star-Lord in the temple.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Your missing the key word in that quote, "extremely limited", don't expect rides and dedicated M+Gs for anything Marvel in Florida. For the preview they couldn't use signage with the words 'Marvel'.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Monorail_Red_77
Well-Known Member
They should change the signage on the roads on property that direct guests to Hollywood Studios to LED Signs, including the Studios Parking Plaza sign. This way whenever they change the name there would be minimal costs. They could then invest in a Twister spinner and one luck Cast Member could spin to pick the name of the Park for the Month. They could then market it as the year of a million names. Come to our Hollywood Style Park Where each month it is like a brand new park. They could even use the same type of signage at the front of the Park too.
But, I'm sure if they went through all that trouble it would be about two weeks and they would cover them all up in cardboard signs. Like Small World's exit scene: Some of the colorful goodbye signs were TV's with presentations scrolling on them of Good Bye in different languages. Then awhile later they just covered over the TV's with cardboard signs. I have the pics to prove it. Will post later tonight.
But, I'm sure if they went through all that trouble it would be about two weeks and they would cover them all up in cardboard signs. Like Small World's exit scene: Some of the colorful goodbye signs were TV's with presentations scrolling on them of Good Bye in different languages. Then awhile later they just covered over the TV's with cardboard signs. I have the pics to prove it. Will post later tonight.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
The "extremely limited" refers to the number of properties that can be used, not what can be done with them. If a property can be used, it is free game for anything in the parks. Go back and read what @WDW1974 actually said:
Now, Disney's willingness to actually build anything is a different issue entirely. But they could plop a GotG ride in DHS right now -- if they wanted to. The contract with Uni does not prevent it.
It is true they cannot use the "Marvel" branding for anything in WDW. The contract with Uni prevents that even if the characters in use are allowed.
Last edited:
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I'm aware. I was just pointing out the silliness in the idea that Disney is prohibited from having a moving billboard to advertise a movie (i.e. the Avengers or Iron Man monorails) enter a park, but it is okay to show a scene from a movie? Clearly the screening would be legally prevented if the monorail was not allowed. The difference between the two is that GotG is a property that is not prohibited by the contract with Uni, but Iron Man and the Avengers are prohibited.
It has nothing to do with a movie preview or a dance party being "minor" or "not really an attraction" or such.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
The second paragraph is the more important. We aren't saying a preview can't come in the parks but no Marvel attractions. If GoTG was so easy to place inside the parks they would of constructed a permanent M+G in DHS for Starlord ... I wonder why they haven't.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
The second paragraph is the more important. We aren't saying a preview can't come in the parks but no Marvel attractions. If GoTG was so easy to place inside the parks they would of constructed a permanent M+G in DHS for Starlord ... I wonder why they haven't.
Because there are a ton of characters that they don't have M&G's for? As I said before, they don't have one for Chewbacca either, it doesn't mean they can't. I don't think they've ever had a M&G for Star Lord at DLR either and there's absolutely no question as to whether they could.
The second paragraph from @WDW1974 is simply reiterating what is said in the first. An extremely limited number of characters can be used at WDW -- mostly ones that are unpopular and worthless. GotG is an exception.
There's nothing in the Uni contract that differentiates between different "levels" of usage. Either a character can be used or they can't. In any capacity.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Point 16.
But to your second point there is a Master Licensing agreement which is available online, then individual licenses for how each character is portrayed which version of the characters used, maximum dimensions of the signage, etc. There is a lot of minutia.
Otterhead
Well-Known Member
Otterhead
Well-Known Member
We call those people "idiots".
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Point 16 refers to the "Marvel Action Universal" which is a retail concept and different from a theme park and would not apply. Point 9 is the one that applies to theme park rights.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Let us say the Marvel Action Universe was DHS that is well within the 60miles radius which it is not allowed to be. Soon won't matter anyway. Thank God though that this the only Marvel set of characters that they can show movie previews of at DHS.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
For now, though. Inhumans seems to be in the clear once that picks up filming, and likewise if WDAS starts picking through Marvel for more potential movies in the wake of BH6, those would no doubt be clear too.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
They didnt added much other than new scenes.
and its been how long since they added them?
5 years?
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I would think Inhumans should be clear. Dr. Strange probably now. Of course, GotG 2 is going to come out as well.
I wonder too about the TV shows. Daredevil seems to fall into the same vague area as Dr. Strange (though he's not connected to the Hulk the way Strange is). Luke Cage and Iron Fist would seem to be free historically, except they've been associated with Spider-Man so they'd probably be off. I still think SHIELD itself falls into a sort of gray area.
I know we've discussed before as to what properties WDAS could adapt like BH6. Power Pack seems like a popular choice and they might be free and clear to use as long as Franklin Richards isn't involved.
Also, there was previously talk about a Runaways movie (or possible TV show). It's not being developed now I don't think, but it might in the future and should be free to use by WDW.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
Honestly, who HASN'T been associated with Spider-Man at this point? He's the Detective Munch of the Marvel Universe.
That's good because, up until the introduction of Valeria, Franklin Richards SUCKED.
Otterhead
Well-Known Member
If by "added new scenes" you mean "completely redid the ride in every respect, including new AAs and a new ride system", then yes, that opened three years ago.