Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

Status
Not open for further replies.
TeriofTerror

TeriofTerror

Well-Known Member
asianway said:
It is all a matter of character families. They own Avengers, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, and X-Men plus all associated villains. Everything you mentioned is one of those.

The GotG have loose ties to Avengers which may free them from the contract. People have said their use as walk arounds, the last scene of GMR, and the movie preview proves they have the theme park rights. Im not yet convinced....
Click to expand...

I am.

NothingRhymeswithOrange said:
After reading the contract again, I really cannot think of a way that Disney could pull this off without getting Universal's approval for this ride. It's such an air tight contract that it almost seems impossible to think that GOTG is some type of loophole.
Click to expand...

Okay, here I go again:

"(S)uch exclusivity shall be limited as follows:
i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is 'being used by MCA' if (x) it or another character of the same 'family' (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be 'being used by MCA' unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]"

Guardians are not in the FF, X-Men, or Avenger "families". Neither are the characters from Big Hero 6. Crossovers are not the same thing as families. That's why they have different names/terms. If they were the same, Stan Lee's cameos would negate everything in perpetuity.

@wdwmagic - We really need not only a link to the contract verbiage: (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm), but a definitive explanation thereof. Unless everyone is willing to accept my word on it. (For the record, I'm totally cool with that.)
 
MagicHappens1971

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
TeriofTerror said:
I am.



Okay, here I go again:

"(S)uch exclusivity shall be limited as follows:
i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is 'being used by MCA' if (x) it or another character of the same 'family' (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be 'being used by MCA' unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]"

Guardians are not in the FF, X-Men, or Avenger "families". Neither are the characters from Big Hero 6. Crossovers are not the same thing as families. That's why they have different names/terms. If they were the same, Stan Lee's cameos would negate everything in perpetuity.

@wdwmagic - We really need not only a link to the contract verbiage: (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm), but a definitive explanation thereof. Unless everyone is willing to accept my word on it. (For the record, I'm totally cool with that.)
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for posting this. I don't really understand the constant debate of whether or not WDW can use Guardians.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
NothingRhymeswithOrange said:
After reading the contract again, I really cannot think of a way that Disney could pull this off without getting Universal's approval for this ride. It's such an air tight contract that it almost seems impossible to think that GOTG is some type of loophole.
Click to expand...
GoTG characters have already appeared at WDW at the DHS villains party. There wasn't an issue then and there isn't now.

http://sciencefiction.com/2014/08/26/guardians-of-the-galaxy-characters-appear-walt-disney-world/
 
skimbob

skimbob

Well-Known Member
DCA for sure is getting GOTG to replace TOT. That is sad news. Supposedly DHS's TOT is safe. They figure people can visit DHS to see TOT.
 
RobidaFlats

RobidaFlats

Well-Known Member
Disclaimer: I haven't read the document in question, nor do I particularly care.

However, this is a constant source of confusion/debate and so I would like to contribute two points:

1. @TeriofTerror suggestion of the sticky with a link and explanation is an excellent one that should help immensely.

2. When discussing legal documents (or if it was up to me, discussing anything at all) it is important to focus on facts, but also the logic required to draw conclusions from facts. Stating that something has been used before without incident does not logically indicate that such use is in compliance with the contract. Short of a statement from Universal that the use was in compliance, it is merely an anecdote. (Although not necessarily an irrelevant one.) If a police officer decides not to stop or cite you for exceeding the posted speed limit, it does not follow that exceeding the posted limit is within the law.

Such assertions only sow confusion when they are presented as facts, since they are based on flawed logic.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
asianway said:
They can never use "Marvel" to market no matter what. Even DL cant.
Click to expand...

This part of the contract seems to be the latest buzz... but remember this constraint of the contract is Marvel can not LICENSE the right to use Marvel to advertise with attraction name or marketing. It wouldn't constrain Marvel from doing it themselves... so the ownership of the divisions within the company would come into play when applying that constraint in the contract.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
RobidaFlats said:
Disclaimer: I haven't read the document in question, nor do I particularly care.

However, this is a constant source of confusion/debate and so I would like to contribute two points:

1. @TeriofTerror suggestion of the sticky with a link and explanation is an excellent one that should help immensely.

2. When discussing legal documents (or if it was up to me, discussing anything at all) it is important to focus on facts, but also the logic required to draw conclusions from facts. Stating that something has been used before without incident does not logically indicate that such use is in compliance with the contract. Short of a statement from Universal that the use was in compliance, it is merely an anecdote. (Although not necessarily an irrelevant one.) If a police officer decides not to stop or cite you for exceeding the posted speed limit, it does not follow that exceeding the posted limit is within the law.

Such assertions only sow confusion when they are presented as facts, since they are based on flawed logic.
Click to expand...
It's not flawed logic when you actually take into account the facts.

Here are some facts:
  1. Universal has a contract for the theme park rights to certain Marvel characters. It does not cover all Marvel characters.
  2. In the past Universal stopped Disney from using the Avengers wrap monorail on the EPCOT loop because it physically entered a theme park. This wasn't a Marvel ride or characters in the park, just an advertisement on the side of the monorail.
  3. Based on fact #2 Universal is actively monitoring the contract and did pursue action on violations.
  4. GoTG characters appeared in DHS at the villains party.
  5. GoTG characters appear at the end of GMR
  6. None of the Marvel characters covered under this contract have appeared at WDW.
Even if you didn't read the contract and see that these characters were excluded, based on these facts alone it's easy to draw the conclusion that GoTG are not part of the contract. Universal is part of a Fortune 100 company with tons of lawyers on staff and law firms at their disposal. The contract has a lot of value to them so there would be no reason for them to just allow Disney to violate it. The villains party at DHS was specifically intended to appeal to an older demographic for Disney and specifically locals. The local teen/young adult crowd is Universal's bread and butter. It would make no sense for them not to pursue legal action if the appearance of those characters was in violation of the contract.
 
asianway

asianway

Well-Known Member
TeriofTerror said:
I am.



Okay, here I go again:

"(S)uch exclusivity shall be limited as follows:
i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is 'being used by MCA' if (x) it or another character of the same 'family' (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be 'being used by MCA' unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]"

Guardians are not in the FF, X-Men, or Avenger "families". Neither are the characters from Big Hero 6. Crossovers are not the same thing as families. That's why they have different names/terms. If they were the same, Stan Lee's cameos would negate everything in perpetuity.

@wdwmagic - We really need not only a link to the contract verbiage: (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm), but a definitive explanation thereof. Unless everyone is willing to accept my word on it. (For the record, I'm totally cool with that.)
Click to expand...
Again, you can't look at this in terms of "the guardians". You would need to analyze each CHARACTER on their own terms. Each of the 5 as I said is a D lister that was gathered into a team in recent years and have their own tendrils into the various families. Gamora in particular is tightly connected to Thanos who most agree is off limits. So does that taint her? I don't know, but until I see more than a movie clip or a one off meet and greet I won't be convinced.
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
This part of the contract seems to be the latest buzz... but remember this constraint of the contract is Marvel can not LICENSE the right to use Marvel to advertise with attraction name or marketing. It wouldn't constrain Marvel from doing it themselves... so the ownership of the divisions within the company would come into play when applying that constraint in the contract.
Click to expand...

But it does seem pretty consistent with what Disney is doing. The M&G's they have done with the GOTG characters don't use the Marvel name, the Super Hero store in Disney Springs doesn't use the name, and they haven't used Marvel in connection with the ride coming to DCA.
 
N

nor'easter

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
This part of the contract seems to be the latest buzz... but remember this constraint of the contract is Marvel can not LICENSE the right to use Marvel to advertise with attraction name or marketing. It wouldn't constrain Marvel from doing it themselves... so the ownership of the divisions within the company would come into play when applying that constraint in the contract.
Click to expand...
Marvel, the corporation, is still a separate entity in law from its shareholder(s) (now Disney). Marvel, not Disney, would have to give the license to Disneyland or Walt Disney World, and it cannot do that under the contract. It doesn't matter that Disney owns the shares...only the parties to the contract can change it....both Marvel and Universal would have to agree.
 
asianway

asianway

Well-Known Member
danlb_2000 said:
But it does seem pretty consistent with what Disney is doing. The M&G's they have done with the GOTG characters don't use the Marvel name, the Super Hero store in Disney Springs doesn't use the name, and they haven't used Marvel in connection with the ride coming to DCA.
Click to expand...
Or the race weekend or the former "Superhero HQ"
 
Mawg

Mawg

Well-Known Member
RobidaFlats said:
If I had my way, I would change the purpose and vision. I would like to see a return to inspiration and yes, even edutainment. I like that the Magic Kingdom is predicated upon the suspension of disbelief and the transportation to a fantasy world that will never be. I want Epcot to once again be a place that doesn't ask you to suspend your belief, but to suspend your skepticism. I want Epcot to showcase the world in which we live and highlight the successes of our past and present with the aim to inspire new successes in our future.

What that looks like in terms of specific attractions is of less interest to me. If I could describe the details of what I want, then the imagineers serve no purpose and can't live up to their legend. I want them to wow and inspire me in ways that I don't even realize I want.

My perfect vacation would do two things:

1. Let me escape the world for a little while and forget about the troubles of daily life. (Magic Kingdom)
2. Inspire me to go back to the troubles of daily life and tackle them head on with optimism, imagination and resolve. (EPCOT Center)

Maybe not what you were looking for, but I tried to keep it brief (not one of my strong suits).
Click to expand...

Yes, this!!! #2. This is a Theme Park we desperately need. It's Ok to go to a theme park to escape normal life on vacation and live in a fantasy. But, on vacation I also need to be able to recharge and come back to real life with optimism and new perspectives.
 
DisneyGentlemanV2.0

DisneyGentlemanV2.0

Well-Known Member
Mawg said:
My perfect vacation would do two things:

1. Let me escape the world for a little while and forget about the troubles of daily life. (Magic Kingdom)
2. Inspire me to go back to the troubles of daily life and tackle them head on with optimism, imagination and resolve. (EPCOT Center)

Maybe not what you were looking for, but I tried to keep it brief (not one of my strong suits).
Click to expand...
tWDc (that is, the company built and inspired by Walt) cared deeply about items 1 and 2. Walt was a dreamer and an idealist, and even though Epcot was not built to his vision, those who designed it knew and understood what he was looking for.

Fast forward to today and you have twdc, a multinational corporation focused on stockholder return. And so now you have:

1. Let us focus on memories of your childhood and get you to drop tons of cash. (Magic Kingdom)
2. Inspire us to drop dollars on recent exciting properties with energy, free-spending, and resolve. (EPCOT and Studios)
3. Capture the imagination (and dollars) of those to whom nature and the environmment are important (Animal Kingdom)

Just follow the money folks...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom