Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

Status
Not open for further replies.
asianway

asianway

Well-Known Member
Kamikaze said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jarvis and Pepper Potts were never Avengers, but I dont think anyone could argue they arent part of the family...
 
AndyMagic

AndyMagic

Well-Known Member
Kamikaze said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are coming up with this. I know there were a lot of excited people who held out hope that Disney World would be filled to the brim with Marvel attractions after the sale in 2009 because of a complete lack of understanding of "in-perpetuity" but since then we've all discussed, interpreted, quoted, and argued over every single line of the Universal/Marvel contract for an eternity. YES, we know it's available online and while many agree GoTG will in fact be coming to Disney World is some form or another, I don't think anyone would define the contract as "extremely clear."

Kamikaze said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed before but the exclusivity "shrinkage" in this particular portion of the contract that could conceivably allow a park east of the Mississippi to use a Marvel character in an attraction comes with a number of caveats that you seem to be ignoring. The word, "Marvel" must be removed from all branding, signage, and marketing of said attraction and any advertising related to the character and/or attraction being present outside of a Universal park east of the Mississippi must make it clear to the consumer that the existence of said character does NOT indicate a Marvel presence outside of Universal Orlando. In other words, the contract has verbiage that makes sure there can be no consumer confusion regarding Marvel characters existing outside of the Universal Parks east of the Mississippi. If that kind of vague nuance regarding what is, and isn't appropriate, sounds "extremely clear" to you then so be it.

Kamikaze said:
The contract terms are what they are, they can't be amended after the fact, unless both sides agree to re-negotiate those terms.
Click to expand...

And there you have it. At the end of the day, the contract was written in 1994 when the companies were in different positions and on more than one occasion includes the phrase, "in good faith," which is the legal equivalent of a black-hole. Bottom line, something's happening at Epcot. It most likely involves a Guardians of the Galaxy attraction. Disney and Universal will work something out.
 
Last edited:
S

seascape

Well-Known Member
marni1971 said:
They don't have to. Not for this.

Aside from this "when hell freezes over" springs to mind.
Click to expand...
You are right about this. Disney can and will build whatever they want with Marval characters not under contract with Universal. Universal will then decide its still in their interest to keep the Marvel Charachters they have the right to. Until Universal decides its not in their interest they have all the power over the characters they are paying Disney for.
 
MichWolv

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
marni1971 said:
They don't have to. Not for this.

Aside from this "when hell freezes over" springs to mind.
Click to expand...
What surprises me is that Disney is using GotG in Cali, when they could use any Marvel characters they want out there. Why not make GotG theming unique to Florida (and yes, I understand it'll be a significantly different attraction at WDW than at DCA)?
 
Next Big Thing

Next Big Thing

Well-Known Member
MichWolv said:
What surprises me is that Disney is using GotG in Cali, when they could use any Marvel characters they want out there. Why not make GotG theming unique to Florida (and yes, I understand it'll be a significantly different attraction at WDW than at DCA)?
Click to expand...
Part of it is I think Disney wants to create Marvel attractions based off of properties not at Marvel Superhero Island so that there's no comparison.

It seems to me that they got the inferior GotG while we got the inferior Frozen. They will likely get a great Frozen ride while our GOTG will blow theirs out of the water (If everything happens as planned).
 
marni1971

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
MichWolv said:
What surprises me is that Disney is using GotG in Cali, when they could use any Marvel characters they want out there. Why not make GotG theming unique to Florida (and yes, I understand it'll be a significantly different attraction at WDW than at DCA)?
Click to expand...
I assume the overlay proposed for Orlando's ToT is seen as easy and cheap to port.
 
S

seascape

Well-Known Member
MichWolv said:
What surprises me is that Disney is using GotG in Cali, when they could use any Marvel characters they want out there. Why not make GotG theming unique to Florida (and yes, I understand it'll be a significantly different attraction at WDW than at DCA)?
Click to expand...
I think it makes perfect sense if Disney were interested in making a deal that benefits both Disney and Universal. It is well accepted that Spideman is one of the best rides in the world. Right now it can only exist onlly at Universal Orlando. Same with Hulk coaster. A deal where Universal could use these characters at all their parks around the world with appropriate payments in exchange for allowing Disney to use all the other charachters and the Marvel name would be a great solution and make everyone happy. In either case Disney can use all the characters at every Disney Park around the world, since Japan rights revert to Disney in about 10 years and Universal will only have a small Marvel Island in Orlando. Universal has their rights to what they have now and that wont change until they want it to.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
seascape said:
I think it makes perfect sense if Disney were interested in making a deal that benefits both Disney and Universal. It is well accepted that Spideman is one of the best rides in the world. Right now it can only exist onlly at Universal Orlando. Same with Hulk coaster. A deal where Universal could use these characters at all their parks around the world with appropriate payments in exchange for allowing Disney to use all the other charachters and the Marvel name would be a great solution and make everyone happy. In either case Disney can use all the characters at every Disney Park around the world, since Japan rights revert to Disney in about 10 years and Universal will only have a small Marvel Island in Orlando. Universal has their rights to what they have now and that wont change until they want it to.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Japan rights expire. I also don't think Tokyo Disney even wants Marvel to begin with. They turned down Cars, Avatar, and even Star Wars.
 
Kamikaze

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
asianway said:
Jarvis and Pepper Potts were never Avengers, but I dont think anyone could argue they arent part of the family...
Click to expand...

Pepper yes, for her connection to Iron Man/Tony Stark, not because of the Avengers. JARVIS no. It didn't exist in 2003. Edwin Jarvis the butler DID exist, but thats a different character. He would belong to Uni. JARVIS would belong to Disney. But there really is no way they could use it without Iron Man/Tony Stark and have it make one lick of sense.
 
Kamikaze

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
AndyMagic said:
I'm not sure where you are coming up with this. I know there were a lot of excited people who held out hope that Disney World would be filled to the brim with Marvel attractions after the sale in 2009 because of a complete lack of understanding of "in-perpetuity" but since then we've all discussed, interpreted, quoted, and argued over every single line of the Universal/Marvel contract for an eternity. YES, we know it's available online and while many agree GoTG will in fact be coming to Disney World is some form or another, I don't think anyone would define the contract as "extremely clear."
Click to expand...

So because people don't know how to read, it makes it true that they can't use the characters? I don't understand the logic there.

AndyMagic said:
This has been discussed before but the exclusivity "shrinkage" in this particular portion of the contract that could conceivably allow a park east of the Mississippi to use a Marvel character in an attraction comes with a number of caveats that you seem to be ignoring. The word, "Marvel" must be removed from all branding, signage, and marketing of said attraction and any advertising related to the character and/or attraction being present outside of a Universal park east of the Mississippi must make it clear to the consumer that the existence of said character does NOT indicate a Marvel presence outside of Universal Orlando. In other words, the contract has verbiage that makes sure there can be no consumer confusion regarding Marvel characters existing outside of the Universal Parks east of the Mississippi. If that kind of vague nuance regarding what is, and isn't appropriate, sounds "extremely clear" to you then so be it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I not mention marketing or use of words or branding. I was simply referring to the use of the characters. And if they used 'Guardians of the Galaxy' as the only branding, would people really not know which GotG it was?

AndyMagic said:
And there you have it. At the end of the day, the contract was written in 1994 when the companies were in different positions and on more than one occasion includes the phrase, "in good faith," which is the legal equivalent of a black-hole. Bottom line, something's happening at Epcot. It most likely involves a Guardians of the Galaxy attraction. Disney and Universal will work something out.
Click to expand...

Right. This would not get this far if they didn't think GotG were in the free and clear.
 
wdisney9000

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member
Who here is an attorney? There are a lot of people interpreting the legalities of this contract. If you actually are an attorney, and have looked at the contract, it's worth reading what you say. If not, how or why should your claim be taken seriosuly? I'm not asking those who are just speculating, I'm asking those making hard claims.

My father is a lawyer and a Disney fan. He has not read the contract but He told me one thing in regards to this. He said the more words a contract has, the more an attorney can find a loophole for either side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom