Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

[No Name]

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...

Though is there anything wrong with #3? That is kind of what Animal Kingdom is about and should do. It's great that they see a path, a future, in Animal Kingdom, and despite Avatar it seems that they aren't just turning into the next movie IP mishmash park.

What upsets me is that they don't seem to have the same vision or the same belief in the theme of Epcot. It's not just that I like that theme. It's that each park needs to have its own identity, and Epcot is in danger of becoming another DHS.

 

[RetroCot]

It's tough seeing EPCOT losing its identity, but it would be tougher seeing everything just remain the same.

I hope Guardians is able to fit a Future World theme in somehow, but I'm not hopeful.

I'm still excited, the attraction should be amazing despite its fit.

 

[RobidaFlats]

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.

I'm going to start this by saying that I don't think your reasoning is unsound, and your conclusion is perfectly rational. However, it does not rise to the level of proof, and that is what I am trying to get at. When it is presented as proof, but isn't, it causes confusion. If it is presented as a reasoned theory coupled with other facts it is perfectly reasonable to make the argument you did, and I would probably even be persuaded by it, but it doesn't make it proof.

As a quick explanation of why what you presented isn't conclusive proof, it falls apart at #2. First, past behavior does not guarantee future behavior, see the example of the traffic cop, just because he wrote a ticket last time, doesn't mean he will next time. In addition, do we know for a fact that Universal has not sent a cease and desist letter? I would imagine we would have heard if they did, but ifs don't work for proof. There could be any number of reasons why any perceived breach is/isn't pursued. The ultimate arbiter of the situation is the contract itself. Given that we have access to it, it would seem prudent that the focus be placed on it rather than circumstantial evidence.

 

[NothingRhymeswithOrange]

I'm going to start this by saying that I don't think your reasoning is unsound, and your conclusion is perfectly rational. However, it does not rise to the level of proof, and that is what I am trying to get at. When it is presented as proof, but isn't, it causes confusion. If it is presented as a reasoned theory coupled with other facts it is perfectly reasonable to make the argument you did, and I would probably even be persuaded by it, but it doesn't make it proof.

As a quick explanation of why what you presented isn't conclusive proof, it falls apart at #2. First, past behavior does not guarantee future behavior, see the example of the traffic cop, just because he wrote a ticket last time, doesn't mean he will next time. In addition, do we know for a fact that Universal has not sent a cease and desist letter? I would imagine we would have heard if they did, but ifs don't work for proof. There could be any number of reasons why any perceived breach is/isn't pursued. The ultimate arbiter of the situation is the contract itself. Given that we have access to it, it would seem prudent that the focus be placed on it rather than circumstantial evidence.

My point exactly. The only thing we have is the contract and what it states.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I believe that it is safe to conclude that Disney Legal and Comcast Legal hammered out any grey areas of the contract prior to Disney announcing ANYTHING MARVEL anywhere in the U.S.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm going to start this by saying that I don't think your reasoning is unsound, and your conclusion is perfectly rational. However, it does not rise to the level of proof, and that is what I am trying to get at. When it is presented as proof, but isn't, it causes confusion. If it is presented as a reasoned theory coupled with other facts it is perfectly reasonable to make the argument you did, and I would probably even be persuaded by it, but it doesn't make it proof.

As a quick explanation of why what you presented isn't conclusive proof, it falls apart at #2. First, past behavior does not guarantee future behavior, see the example of the traffic cop, just because he wrote a ticket last time, doesn't mean he will next time. In addition, do we know for a fact that Universal has not sent a cease and desist letter? I would imagine we would have heard if they did, but ifs don't work for proof. There could be any number of reasons why any perceived breach is/isn't pursued. The ultimate arbiter of the situation is the contract itself. Given that we have access to it, it would seem prudent that the focus be placed on it rather than circumstantial evidence.

If what you are looking for is definitive proof, it doesn't exist. Any lawyer could pick up that contract and argue either side. Having the contract gets us no closer to an answer because it's still up for interpretation.

In this case I disagree that past action is not a good indicator of future behavior. The cop example is irrelevant here. Its one man's individual decision to do or not do something. It's not likely at all that Universal would simply choose to ignore its rights under the contract. That's not how corporations treat valuable assets like that contract. If the past action was a violation it would have been addressed then. The characters appeared in the park (which was advertised by the park blog so Universal knew about it in advance). They also continue to appear in GMR. These are 2 multi-billion dollar corporations with armies of lawyers on both sides. It's highly unlikely Universal would just let a violation go unchallenged.

But, to your point, is it still possible (however unlikely) that they did ignore their rights before but will enforce them now. So what I wrote isn't definitive proof of anything, but it's our best indicator of what will likely happen. GoTG are coming to WDW in some expanded form...unless the budget gets cut or the project gets replaced or canceled. Either way if GoTG doesn't come it won't be because of the Marvel contract.

 

[DisneyGentlemanV2.0]

Though is there anything wrong with #3? That is kind of what Animal Kingdom is about and should do. It's great that they see a path, a future, in Animal Kingdom, and despite Avatar it seems that they aren't just turning into the next movie IP mishmash park.

What upsets me is that they don't seem to have the same vision or the same belief in the theme of Epcot. It's not just that I like that theme. It's that each park needs to have its own identity, and Epcot is in danger of becoming another DHS.

I agree - #3 is great.

 

[Rodan75]

When thinking about the contract, I think it is important to remember that 1. We do not have the entire contract to review, just the public components. 2. We learned last year that the contract with Sony had appendices with character by character break downs of who could use who and that it was constantly being updated/clarified. 3. We have learned that the Fox contract is similar and that when a character is not specifically named and is in a gray area (Quicksilver in the XCU and MCU) then both can use the character.

I think it is safe to assume the MCA contract works in a similar fashion and that the Guardians (and who knows who else) is outside of the contract.

At the very least there is a enough wiggle room, that for the purposes of this thread we can assume that Disney has done some homework.

This is a Rumor thread after all...not a contract litigation thread.

 

[danlb_2000]

When thinking about the contract, I think it is important to remember that 1. We do not have the entire contract to review, just the public components. 2. We learned last year that the contract with Sony had appendices with character by character break downs of who could use who and that it was constantly being updated/clarified. 3. We have learned that the Fox contract is similar and that when a character is not specifically named and is in a gray area (Quicksilver in the XCU and MCU) then both can use the character.

I think it is safe to assume the MCA contract works in a similar fashion and that the Guardians (and who knows who else) is outside of the contract.

At the very least there is a enough wiggle room, that for the purposes of this thread we can assume that Disney has done some homework.

This is a Rumor thread after all...not a contract litigation thread.

Any thread having to do with Marvel and WDW always turns into a contract litigation thread.

 

[Ripken10]

Any thread having to do with Marvel and WDW always turns into a contract litigation thread.

And don't forget EVERYBODY becomes experts on reading it too.

 

[Chef Mickey]

It's tough seeing EPCOT losing its identity, but it would be tougher seeing everything just remain the same.

I hope Guardians is able to fit a Future World theme in somehow, but I'm not hopeful.

I'm still excited, the attraction should be amazing despite its fit.

I agree. If they can somehow really run with the "Galaxy" aspect and make it more of a scientific/space concept, I think it can work. If it's constant characters from the movie in your face, get ready to be disappointed.

 

[AndyMagic]

There are two things we know for certain about the nuances of the Marvel / Universal contract. First is that the ball has and will continue to be in Universal's court when it comes to negotiations on any allowances of the brand being used east of the Mississippi. Second, and not discussed as often as it should be is that "1999 Universal" is a monumentally different company than present day Universal in nearly every conceivable respect. The film division is the most successful it's been in decades. The parks division has become more successful and lucrative than anyone could have conceived of (even after the lofty expectations following the 2010 opening of Wizarding World East). The parent company is flush with cash and has no need or desire to make deals that don't directly benefit them in the long term. The company is under the leadership of one of the most reasonable, pragmatic, and one could argue, visionary CEOs since mid-80s Eisner. And, perhaps most important of all, NBCUniversal has amassed a collection of new I.P.s (both homegrown and recently purchased) that will allow them to be more flexible and smart with what gets used in their parks.

Long story short, I think it's safe to say that anything is possible with both companies being where they are today but that nothing would happen unless Burke comes out of a hypothetical meeting smiling wider than Iger is. Two cents... given.

 

[DinoInstitute]

I agree. If they can somehow really run with the "Galaxy" aspect and make it more of a scientific/space concept, I think it can work. If it's constant characters from the movie in your face, get ready to be disappointed.

I kind of agree. I do think they could pull it off where it won't be awful, as they have with IP's in the park before, but it's just so hard to make a good connection between the sci-if GotG stuff and Epcot that I worry quite a bit.

 

[NothingRhymeswithOrange]

There are two things we know for certain about the nuances of the Marvel / Universal contract. First is that the ball has and will continue to be in Universal's court when it comes to negotiations on any allowances of the brand being used east of the Mississippi. Second, and not discussed as often as it should be is that "1999 Universal" is a monumentally different company than present day Universal in nearly every conceivable respect. The film division is the most successful it's been in decades. The parks division has become more successful and lucrative than anyone could have conceived of (even after the lofty expectations following the 2010 opening of Wizarding World East). The parent company is flush with cash and has no need or desire to make deals that don't directly benefit them in the long term. The company is under the leadership of one of the most reasonable, pragmatic, and one could argue, visionary CEOs since mid-80s Eisner. And, perhaps most important of all, NBCUniversal has amassed a collection of new I.P.s (both homegrown and recently purchased) that will allow them to be more flexible and smart with what gets used in their parks.

Long story short, I think it's safe to say that anything is possible with both companies being where they are today but that nothing would happen unless Burke comes out of a hypothetical meeting smiling wider than Iger is. Two cents... given.

Again my point exactly. Realistically, Universal probably will come out of this making/getting some sort of significant money. They wouldn't let a rival company make money off of something that they potentially could have rights to under the contract they currently have. Not saying that they do or don't just hypothetically speaking. I'm sure we don't know the complete details of the contract Universal has with Marvel, so like others have stated this might be some sort of "loophole" but Universal will do their due diligence to fight against it if they are in reason to do so. I deal with contract professionally and know the experience of being on both sides of these types of deals so it would need to be a win/win on both sides for this to work.

 

[Kamikaze]

There are two things we know for certain about the nuances of the Marvel / Universal contract.

There is a lot more than 'two things'. The contract is on the web and publically available:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

Read it. It basically spells out that Guardians (as they are configured in the movies, and as they were originally configured) are both fair game for Disney to use.

 

[AndyMagic]

Again my point exactly. Realistically, Universal probably will come out of this making/getting some sort of significant money.

But this ignores one of my main points, "The parent company is flush with cash and has no need or desire to make deals that don't directly benefit them in the long term." I highly doubt even a significant flat cash offer would be of much interest to present-day Universal unless there is some long-term gain attached to the deal. Steve Burke isn't Iger or Immelt and doesn't get as tempted by wads of cash as most CEO's do.

 

[NothingRhymeswithOrange]

But this ignores one of my main points, "The parent company is flush with cash and has no need or desire to make deals that don't directly benefit them in the long term." I highly even a significant flat cash offer would be of much interest to present-day Universal unless there is some long-term gain attached to the deal. Steve Burke isn't Iger and Immelt and doesn't get as tempted by wads of cash as most CEO's do.

Universal is in the drivers seat in this whole situation. They will be getting something significant in this deal (money or not).

 

[AndyMagic]

There is a lot more than 'two things'. The contract is on the web and publically available:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

Read it. It basically spells out that Guardians (as they are configured in the movies, and as they were originally configured) are both fair game for Disney to use.

No offense but I have read this contract several times. Nothing is "spelled" out in the way you describe it. The reason I wrote that post above about the "two things" we DO know for sure is because of the years and years we've spent on these forums debating what is / isn't "allowed" under that contract and how it has never really lead to any conclusions other than, "Disney / Universal lawyers will decide." Also, despite the title of this thread, I wasn't exclusively talking about Guardians of the Galaxy either.

 

[danlb_2000]

There is a lot more than 'two things'. The contract is on the web and publically available:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

Read it. It basically spells out that Guardians (as they are configured in the movies, and as they were originally configured) are both fair game for Disney to use.

The problem is that is doesn't spell that out, it's all up to the interpretation of "families" of characters. Since you can drawn some connection between almost any two Marvel characters that are can get a little muddy. If this wasn't the case we would be having these debates. I personally believe GoTG is ok for Disney to use, but's it's clear other interpret it differently.

 

[Phicinfan]

okay here is the key. Disney isn't paying anything extra, why? Cause they are cost cutting as we speak.
So if they have hard plans for a move like this, then the contract is clear, and GoTG is in fair play. No lawyer in his right mind lets this much happen and not know they are on firm ground.

Now, I am hoping the rumors of Big Hero 6 in Innovations happens as well, or at least I thought I heard some of those.....

but no, I never expect to see Capt. America or FF or Hulk in WDW. Not going to happen.