• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

Status
Not open for further replies.

NothingRhymeswithOrange

Well-Known Member
I don't know much about this part. But I don't understand why not. Disneyland can't be included in the contract. The contract states east of the Missippi (WDW).
iii. East or West of The Mississippi – permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.
 

NothingRhymeswithOrange

Well-Known Member
So that being said, it's hard to believe that this ride is happening unless Universal and Disney have come to some sort of agreement about GOTG (aka some sort of money being involved).
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
iii. East or West of The Mississippi – permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.
But then theres this. - It also says if the "particular character is used by MCA", which kinda nulls GOTG, since they don't use them, hence why Disney can.
"If the particular character is used by MCA (as defined above), such character will not be advertised or promoted East of The Mississippi, except by means of national Network buys of television, within printed materials such as brochures, or by print advertisements in periodicals directed to readers more than 300 miles from Orlando; and with regard to any of the foregoing permitted marketing, if the marketing is for a group of theme parks located both East and West of The Mississippi, the marketing shall make abundantly clear that the character only appears in the parks West of The Mississippi and shall not be subject to confusion on such point (such as would occur by visual inclusion of the character in a generic, multipark advertisement subject to a small print explanation of the parks where the character is present)."
 

Ripken10

Well-Known Member
But then theres this. - It also says if the "particular character is used by MCA", which kinda nulls GOTG, since they don't use them, hence why Disney can.
"If the particular character is used by MCA (as defined above), such character will not be advertised or promoted East of The Mississippi, except by means of national Network buys of television, within printed materials such as brochures, or by print advertisements in periodicals directed to readers more than 300 miles from Orlando; and with regard to any of the foregoing permitted marketing, if the marketing is for a group of theme parks located both East and West of The Mississippi, the marketing shall make abundantly clear that the character only appears in the parks West of The Mississippi and shall not be subject to confusion on such point (such as would occur by visual inclusion of the character in a generic, multipark advertisement subject to a small print explanation of the parks where the character is present)."
so is it the same people, just changing screen names, that always start this argument over and over again on whether GotG is allowed in the parks, or is it new people. GotG is allowed, it is coming, so obviously those that think it is not allowed should listen to those that say it is. Maybe time to just time to move on from this tired argument...just maybe...
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
so is it the same people, just changing screen names, that always start this argument over and over again on whether GotG is allowed in the parks, or is it new people. GotG is allowed, it is coming, so obviously those that think it is not allowed should listen to those that say it is.
I've always stated GOTG is allowed in the parks, and so have so many insiders. I don't know why everyone continues to argue about it.
 

Ripken10

Well-Known Member
I've always stated GOTG is allowed in the parks, and so have so many insiders. I don't know why everyone continues to argue about it.
Yeah. I agree with you, and I probably should have quoted them in reply, but I just didn't want to encourage them more (even though I probably still did)
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
Yeah. I agree with you, and I probably should have quoted them in reply, but I just didn't want to encourage them more (even though I probably still did)
Lol, I was also referencing the contract because I don't understand the statement that Disneyland can't use the Marvel name to advertise.
 

NothingRhymeswithOrange

Well-Known Member
I've always stated GOTG is allowed in the parks, and so have so many insiders. I don't know why everyone continues to argue about it.

I'm not arguing that they aren't allowed in WDW, it's just hard to believe that they are. I am all for a GOTG ride due to me being a long time comic book fan, and also an avid WDW vacationer. I certainly hope that there is a way for them to incorporate this into the park. Contractually speaking its just hard to pinpoint where this "loophole" is.
 

asianway

Well-Known Member
But then theres this. - It also says if the "particular character is used by MCA", which kinda nulls GOTG, since they don't use them, hence why Disney can.
"If the particular character is used by MCA (as defined above), such character will not be advertised or promoted East of The Mississippi, except by means of national Network buys of television, within printed materials such as brochures, or by print advertisements in periodicals directed to readers more than 300 miles from Orlando; and with regard to any of the foregoing permitted marketing, if the marketing is for a group of theme parks located both East and West of The Mississippi, the marketing shall make abundantly clear that the character only appears in the parks West of The Mississippi and shall not be subject to confusion on such point (such as would occur by visual inclusion of the character in a generic, multipark advertisement subject to a small print explanation of the parks where the character is present)."
Since youve already proven you cant interpret a contract, Ill refer you to "as defined above".

For the 1 millionth time, it is based on character families. The contract doesnt contemplate taking a bunch of D list characters who have existing ties and making them a team. There may be a side agreement. Uni may be purposely ignoring this until they have a larger claim.
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing that they aren't allowed in WDW, it's just hard to believe that they are. I am all for a GOTG ride due to me being a long time comic book fan, and also an avid WDW vacationer. I certainly hope that there is a way for them to incorporate this into the park. Contractually speaking its just hard to pinpoint where this "loophole" is.
To my understanding the loophole is "Character's used by MCA".
 

hobovampire

Active Member
so is it the same people, just changing screen names, that always start this argument over and over again on whether GotG is allowed in the parks, or is it new people. GotG is allowed, it is coming, so obviously those that think it is not allowed should listen to those that say it is.
I'm sorry, it was most likely me and I'm a new people. I was just trying to understand the legal logistics of what is and is not permitted and why Guardians is permitted etc. etc. How tight or loose families are. Like the Inhumans as a whole arent FF, Medusa and Crystal(also an Avenger) were so just lump them in with those families but keep Karnak, Triton, uh, the others out of it who werent? Make Inhumans its own family. Not that I'm saying make an Inhumans thing, just, what defines a family really when you have people who were Avengers for a single issue to a mere mention once thirty years ago.

Gah, just me starting the conflict, I'm sorry.
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
Since youve already proven you cant interpret a contract, Ill refer you to "as defined above".

For the 1 millionth time, it is based on character families. The contract doesnt contemplate taking a bunch of D list characters who have existing ties and making them a team. There may be a side agreement. Uni may be purposely ignoring this until they have a larger claim.
Ok. When the GOTG attraction is confirmed for WDW we can discuss this further.
 

Ripken10

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, it was most likely me and I'm a new people. I was just trying to understand the legal logistics of what is and is not permitted and why Guardians is permitted etc. etc. How tight or loose families are. Like the Inhumans as a whole arent FF, Medusa and Crystal(also an Avenger) were so just lump them in with those families but keep Karnak, Triton, uh, the others out of it who werent? Make Inhumans its own family. Not that I'm saying make an Inhumans thing, just, what defines a family really when you have people who were Avengers for a single issue to a mere mention once thirty years ago.

Gah, just me starting the conflict, I'm sorry.
No, it's not you. I believe there is other Marvel Characters too that are capable of being in parks. I am curious as to which ones. Most that would don't have anything worth being in the parks yet (no stand alone movies or even appearance in a movie). It is the people that then argue with "you must not know how to interpret a contract" that pop up every so often by passing on information that isn't completely accurate since GotG is allowed in the parks that get annoying. I think your question was a good question.
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
No, it's not you. I believe there is other Marvel Characters too that are capable of being in parks. I am curious as to which ones. Most that would don't have anything worth being in the parks yet (no stand alone movies or even appearance in a movie). It is the people that then argue with "you must not know how to interpret a contract" that pop up every so often by passing on information that isn't completely accurate since GotG is allowed in the parks that get annoying. I think your question was a good question.
There was an article I think about the characters Disney can use or something. It was the really obscure Marvel characters.
 

Ripken10

Well-Known Member
There was an article I think about the characters Disney can use or something. It was the really obscure Marvel characters.
I would like to see that article...but would that article would be someone interpretation of what was available or truly what is available. My guess is interpretation, and I would then wonder, how true was their logic to those that truly know the contract in their opinion. (did that make any sense)
 

hobovampire

Active Member
No, it's not you. I believe there is other Marvel Characters too that are capable of being in parks. I am curious as to which ones. Most that would don't have anything worth being in the parks yet (no stand alone movies or even appearance in a movie). It is the people that then argue with "you must not know how to interpret a contract" that pop up every so often by passing on information that isn't completely accurate since GotG is allowed in the parks that get annoying. I think your question was a good question.

Thank you. :) I do bring up Inhumans with how these comics are reallllly reallly pushing them and burying mutants because I think they have the ability to implement that product down in Florida. Agents of Shield has Inhumans and they are getting their spin off tv show. To me it always felt like, "Well, we don't own mutants so lets make Beast an Inhuman and push these fellers real hard, hell, make 'em the center of conflict in Civil War II! Jolly good." Make an Inhuman family that is a catchall for what Uni doesn't have or isn't using. That could be a loophole. ((Though Legion is a thing, so maybe I'm talking about my booty but it is my speculation))
 

hobovampire

Active Member
In short what exactly is that GotG loophole and how best can it be used to get a few other Marvel kids into Florida. That's kind of where I'm getting at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top Bottom