Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

[Kamikaze]

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.

Yes, it most certainly does. The section in question is IV.a

It states that WITHIN 2 YEARS of the park opening (spelled out as 2001 in the contract, actual opening date is not important), unless the contract was re-negotiated (it wasn't) that if a character is not being used and is also not part of a family that is being used, then it is considered "shrunk" and therefore it is no longer under contract to Universal.

Now, if you're going to question 'family' as @AndyMagic wants to do, then its good thing that is also spelled out. As of 2003, (two years after 2001) none of the Guardians of the Galaxy current roster had ever been a member of a 'family' that Universal had also used (Avengers, X-Men and Fantastic Four, basically).

It doesn't matter if those members had later joined a group, because the contract is not something that is retroactive, once the character is 'shrunk' then it stays that way.

The contract is actually extremely clear. Problem is, most people don't know its readily available to read and thats why there is confusion about it.

 

[danlb_2000]

Yes, it most certainly does. The section in question is IV.a

It states that WITHIN 2 YEARS of the park opening (spelled out as 2001 in the contract, actual opening date is not important), unless the contract was re-negotiated (it wasn't) that if a character is not being used and is also not part of a family that is being used, then it is considered "shrunk" and therefore it is no longer under contract to Universal.

Now, if you're going to question 'family' as @AndyMagic wants to do, then its good thing that is also spelled out. As of 2003, (two years after 2001) none of the Guardians of the Galaxy current roster had ever been a member of a 'family' that Universal had also used (Avengers, X-Men and Fantastic Four, basically).

It doesn't matter if those members had later joined a group, because the contract is not something that is retroactive, once the character is 'shrunk' then it stays that way.

The contract is actually extremely clear. Problem is, most people don't know its readily available to read and thats why there is confusion about it.

I will re-iterate, it may be clear to you, but if it were as clear as you say there wouldn't be all this debate. Even people who have read the contract have interpreted it different ways. There is even an article posted on another fan site that interprets the contact to meant that NO Marvel characters can be used in WDW. Jim Hill has come out and say that as soon as GoTG appears in a an Avengers film, WDW won't be able to use them.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

I will re-iterate, it may be clear to you, but if it were as clear as you say there wouldn't be all this debate. Even people who have read the contract have interpreted it different ways. There is even an article posted on another fan site that interprets the contact to meant that NO Marvel characters can be used in WDW. Jim Hill has come out and say that as soon as GoTG appears in a an Avengers film, WDW won't be able to use them.

I guess they better hurry up and put them into EPCOT !

 

[celluloid]

Anyone see anything beyond Benecio returning as the Collector chracter for DL? A look alike Starlord I don't think will cut it. We are beyond that these days. Especially with a screen attraction. If they don't get the main cast for DLs I don't think Epcot will.

 

[RoysCabin]

I will re-iterate, it may be clear to you, but if it were as clear as you say there wouldn't be all this debate. Even people who have read the contract have interpreted it different ways. There is even an article posted on another fan site that interprets the contact to meant that NO Marvel characters can be used in WDW. Jim Hill has come out and say that as soon as GoTG appears in a an Avengers film, WDW won't be able to use them.

Yeah, it does appear that there's enough going on here to muddy the waters for those of us who aren't well versed in contract law.

Still, I have a hard time imagining that Disney would sink a bunch of cash into this project in the preliminary phase if they weren't already sure it at least could get off the ground without much legal handwringing, assuming things have gone as far as some of our insiders have hinted (not saying said insiders have written anything explicit, so plenty of us may well have misread certain things).

On the other hand, with Disney often in cost cutting mode when they're not dealing with slam dunk IPs, it does seem odd that they'd go so far into gutting the entire Energy pavilion, with the WoL tent potentially right behind. Obviously, GotG is a slam dunk IP as of 2016 (and I'm sure the sequel will do amazingly at the box office), but the work involved in gutting UoE and completely transforming that corner of the park is daunting in terms of cost, when I have to believe the bean counters are fully aware that they could simply overlay something or update the attraction already there and at least see an ok uptick in attendance, if not the 90 minute type of lines they may wish to be drawing there. The work done in Norway on Maelstrom doesn't measure up to the work and costs necessary to get things off the ground at Energy, so that part does make me curious.

 

[danlb_2000]

Yeah, it does appear that there's enough going on here to muddy the waters for those of us who aren't well versed in contract law.

Still, I have a hard time imagining that Disney would sink a bunch of cash into this project in the preliminary phase if they weren't already sure it at least could get off the ground without much legal handwringing, assuming things have gone as far as some of our insiders have hinted (not saying said insiders have written anything explicit, so plenty of us may well have misread certain things).

On the other hand, with Disney often in cost cutting mode when they're not dealing with slam dunk IPs, it does seem odd that they'd go so far into gutting the entire Energy pavilion, with the WoL tent potentially right behind. Obviously, GotG is a slam dunk IP as of 2016 (and I'm sure the sequel will do amazingly at the box office), but the work involved in gutting UoE and completely transforming that corner of the park is daunting in terms of cost, when I have to believe the bean counters are fully aware that they could simply overlay something or update the attraction already there and at least see an ok uptick in attendance, if not the 90 minute type of lines they may wish to be drawing there. The work done in Norway on Maelstrom doesn't measure up to the work and costs necessary to get things off the ground at Energy, so that part does make me curious.

I agree, if they do plan to put GoTG in Epcot, I am sure they have already made 100% sure there won't be any legal issues with Universal.

 

[Daveeeeed]

I got the next big thing: Just a thought but what if Expedition Everest would change to Zootopia. It could be part of a larger expansion to bring Zootopia's presence to Ak by taking over and destroying Asia. I love Zootopia just like Guardians of The Galaxy. People have been wanting Zootopia to go there after all so this could be Disney's chanceOf course it would suck, but knowing Disney...

 

[Mike S]

Anyone see anything beyond Benecio returning as the Collector chracter for DL? A look alike Starlord I don't think will cut it. We are beyond that these days. Especially with a screen attraction. If they don't get the main cast for DLs I don't think Epcot will.

This video confirms the whole cast has already filmed for the ride while filming Vol. 2. All they need now is Benecio.

I think it was this one...

 

[FigmentJedi]

I got the next big thing: Just a thought but what if Expedition Everest would change to Zootopia. It could be part of a larger expansion to bring Zootopia's presence to Ak by taking over and destroying Asia. I love Zootopia just like Guardians of The Galaxy. People have been wanting Zootopia to go there after all so this could be Disney's chanceOf course it would suck, but knowing Disney...

You do know there's a gigantic expansion plot between Asia and the Conservation Station that Zootopia could go into right?

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

You do know there's a gigantic expansion plot between Asia and the Conservation Station that Zootopia could go into right?

But... Why? Because animals?

 

[Daveeeeed]

You do know there's a gigantic expansion plot between Asia and the Conservation Station that Zootopia could go into right?

I was just joking.

 

[Matt_Black]

But... Why? Because animals?

It's not a bad idea, if they focus on animal behavior and how that develops. Maybe even tie that in to how certain human traits have evolved. Just skip the pseudo-science that results in that "Alpha-Male/ Beta-Male" garbage the MRA/ PUA snake-oil salesmen peddle.

 

[wdisney9000]

Anyone see anything beyond Benecio returning as the Collector chracter for DL? A look alike Starlord I don't think will cut it. We are beyond that these days. Especially with a screen attraction. If they don't get the main cast for DLs I don't think Epcot will.

Thats a good point. If there is a pre-ride video that features just some random guy or woman dressed up in a Star Lord style space suit who works for some random made up space agency it will be dissapointing. But if what @Mike S said is true, then maybe it will have the proper characters

 

[Kamikaze]

I will re-iterate, it may be clear to you, but if it were as clear as you say there wouldn't be all this debate. Even people who have read the contract have interpreted it different ways. There is even an article posted on another fan site that interprets the contact to meant that NO Marvel characters can be used in WDW. Jim Hill has come out and say that as soon as GoTG appears in a an Avengers film, WDW won't be able to use them.

Then they don't know how to read contracts. Don't know what to tell you.

Even just to consider the Jim Hill comment: When have you ever heard of terms of a contract being applied to an event that is outside of the terms of the contract? Its not something that can happen, legally. The contract terms are what they are, they can't be amended after the fact, unless both sides agree to re-negotiate those terms. If GotG (or any other character(s)) is free for Disney to use at the time of 'shrinkage' as defined by the contract, then they are free to use. They can't be available and then taken away. It doesn't work like that.

 

[DinoInstitute]

I thought of this earlier, but wouldn't a good place for Guardians be as a Star Tours replacement? Since they are likely going to remove SW from those simulators when the land opens, and Guardians could probably lend itself well to a simulator ride (and actually fits in DHS), I think that would be a good place where it can get its overlay.

Edit- plus, if they ever do more marvel stuff in the future, this place has a good access point to an expansion pad

 

[Kamikaze]

I thought of this earlier, but wouldn't a good place for Guardians be as a Star Tours replacement? Since they are likely going to remove SW from those simulators when the land opens, and Guardians could probably lend itself well to a simulator ride (and actually fits in DHS), I think that would be a good place where it can get its overlay.

Star Tours at WDW isn't going anywhere. The only question is if DLR's Star Tours eventually gets moved to SWL.

 

[csmat99]

Thank you so much for posting this. I don't really understand the constant debate of whether or not WDW can use Guardians.

And people please stop referring to it as a loophole. It's crystal clear in the contract. GotG can be used anywhere Disney wants just can't use marvel in the name. And no Disney is not allowed to put Stan Lee in one of the collectors cages east or west of Mississippi.

 

[csmat99]

I will re-iterate, it may be clear to you, but if it were as clear as you say there wouldn't be all this debate. Even people who have read the contract have interpreted it different ways. There is even an article posted on another fan site that interprets the contact to meant that NO Marvel characters can be used in WDW. Jim Hill has come out and say that as soon as GoTG appears in a an Avengers film, WDW won't be able to use them.

Please don't quote Jim Hill to support any argument especially a legal one. Disney can put Guardians in Avengers movie and it won't matter on bit.

 

[Matt_Black]

Thats a good point. If there is a pre-ride video that features just some random guy or woman dressed up in a Star Lord style space suit who works for some random made up space agency it will be dissapointing. But if what @Mike S said is true, then maybe it will have the proper characters

Batista would do it as long as Disney bribed him with some rare lunchboxes.

 

[danlb_2000]

Please don't quote Jim Hill to support any argument especially a legal one. Disney can put Guardians in Avengers movie and it won't matter on bit.

I am not trying to support the argument either way, I am making the point that the contact isn't as clear as some @Kamikaze claims it is.