Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

[UpAllNight]

They're already spending money on Epcot with Rat and the proposed changes coming to the spine. This is just Chapek-mandated IP-insertion for the sake of IP-insertion, not the park's overall benefit. IMO.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Disneys output has been a few notches above the past decade recently. IP could work if done well. It could also be a disaster but I'm hopeful.

I don't think we can wait longer there's too many what ifs? What if the new person in charge is even worse? What if there's another recession and we're talking another decade of these pavilions in the same state?

 

[danlb_2000]

From what I understand Uni has the rights for only certain characters and I believe those are Spider-Man, The Avengers, Fantastic 4, and X-Men. Uni can continue to uses these characters uninterrupted. Disney can use characters like Dr. Strange and Guardians because they were unknown/not in Uni's contracts. Disney also can not use the name MARVEL anywhere. Please correct me if I am wrong.

They tricky part is that Uni has exclusivity to all the members of those "families" of characters. In the comics you can connect pretty much any two characters in some way because there is so much crossing over. So that brings up the question of what constitutes a character being part of a specific family.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Disneys output has been a few notches above the past decade recently. IP could work if done well. It could also be a disaster but I'm hopeful.

The slightest benefit of the doubt is all I can give them on this one. Especially when they have a perfectly good coaster in DHS that could EASILY receive the IP overlay. A more fitting home for Marvel-that-isn't-Marvel anyway.

EDIT: I just want to make clear that I'm in NO WAY saying that Energy didn't need an upgrade. I just can't justify replacing the longest attraction at WDW for a speedy coaster based on the latest box-office smash. It completely destroys the purpose of FW and Epcot at large.

 

[Kman101]

I'd rather Epcot not stagnate. Epcot Center as it was is gone. All we can do is hope for the best. I'd prefer homegrown IPs but I'm not going to hate something new on principal. Now that being said, I love Guardians but see no need for them or a rollercoaster in Epcot.

 

[Rodan75]

The rights are forward looking. Under EXCLUSIVITY, "plus any characters developed or acquired or licensed in the future." That same clause excludes Star Wars characters or the Incredibles because they would be the type of licensed characters excluded in that same paragraph.

You are claiming expertise over a part of the contract that isn't published. We don't know how the families are defined outside of the main text of the contract. The list of characters and 'families' is clearly part of a schedule that isn't part of the contract that we can see. Please stop peddling your speculation as fact. Again, the Contract, but here is the excerpt specifically stating that the characters are in a defined list:

The present inventory of the Marvel characters is set forth in the schedule to be attached or provided by Marvel promptly after execution hereof, plus any characters developed or acquired or licensed in the future by Marvel which (x) are marketed under the Marvel “Banner” or (y) were previously marketed under the Marvel “Banner” during the term hereof and are subsequently marketed under the “Banner” of a Marvel Related Company (defined below).
​

And we know this part of the contract applies:

After such 2 year period, MCA’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows:
1. If no action is taken by MCA, such 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.]​

 

[lazyboy97o]

You are claiming expertise over a part of the contract that isn't published. We don't know how the families are defined outside of the main text of the contract. The list of characters and 'families' is clearly part of a schedule that isn't part of the contract that we can see. Please stop peddling your speculation as fact. Again, the Contract, but here is the excerpt specifically stating that the characters are in a defined list:

The present inventory of the Marvel characters is set forth in the schedule to be attached or provided by Marvel promptly after execution hereof, plus any characters developed or acquired or licensed in the future by Marvel which (x) are marketed under the Marvel “Banner” or (y) were previously marketed under the Marvel “Banner” during the term hereof and are subsequently marketed under the “Banner” of a Marvel Related Company (defined below).
​

And we know this part of the contract applies:

After such 2 year period, MCA’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows:
1. If no action is taken by MCA, such 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.]​

I was speculating about nothing. Right there in your first quote is the line about future characters being included.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

Is it safe to assume that Marvel IP can only be added to the Orlando park so long as it's in existing buildings i.e. overhauls vs in newly built rides and attractions? Cuz it certainly seems like a contractual obligation or checkbox requirement.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Is it safe to assume that Marvel IP can only be added to the Orlando park so long as it's in existing buildings i.e. overhauls vs in newly built rides and attractions? Cuz it certainly seems like a contractual obligation or checkbox requirement.

New v. old doesn't matter in the contract. It can only be Marvel characters (and their closely related team members or rogues gallery) that aren't currently in use by Universal.

 

[Rodan75]

I was speculating about nothing. Right there in your first quote is the line about future characters being included.

You are speculating about the family relationship which is defined in a separate document. And if the characters weren't already aligned with the Avengers family in that document then the expiration of the exclusivity would go into effect. No where in the exposed contract does it say that the family definition changes after the exclusivity clause expires.

So speculation.

 

[Lora Baines Bradley]

Also, Inhumans is currently the "fetch" of the Marvel Universe, in that they keep trying to make it happen (basically as an alternative to mutants), and it's never going to happen the way they want it to.

You get a like for that reference alone.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You are speculating about the family relationship which is defined in a separate document. And if the characters weren't already aligned with the Avengers family in that document then the expiration of the exclusivity would go into effect. No where in the exposed contract does it say that the family definition changes after the exclusivity clause expires.

So speculation.

The reference to the character schedule does not say if it does or does not define the family relationships, so that is your own speculation. It is a listing of characters available for Universal to use and is immediately followed by the inclusion of future characters.

 

[rocketraccoon]

I just hope whatever this Guardians thing turns out to be, its not some horrid ugly garish eye sore in the park or its skyline. I just don't trust them any longer it sads me to say. I would love to be totally wrong and pleasantly surprised, but.....

It doesn't need to be ugly (but it probably will).

If they're basing it off the movies there's stuff they can work with.One of the planets in the first movie has some architecture styles that could work pretty well that wouldn't look too out of place against things like The Land or Imagination assuming they do it in moderation. Lacks some color but there's room to play around and make something that looks nice.

The worry is that it could end up like the the buildings at the top rather than the bottom of this skyline:

Or hey, it could look like Mission: Breakout and not fit in at all really, who knows. The Swan & Dolphin exists. At least if it took over RnRC it'd be tucked away if they do that.

 

[MCast]

In business, money always talks. I imagine that Disney (if they wanted to) could present an offer to buyout that particular contract. However, the mitigating factors are:

1. What is the estimate of how much the entire rights to the Marvel Universal costs?
2. Would Disney be willing to dish out that estimated amount?
3. Would Universal even entertain releasing that contact?

Time shall tell. That said, if Disney can develop and nurture up-and-coming Marvel brands (i.e. GoTG), perhaps they can develop the next generation of the Marvel Universe and capitalize on that.

Fascinating stuff, people!

 

[davis_unoxx]

In business, money always talks. I imagine that Disney (if they wanted to) could present an offer to buyout that particular contract. However, the mitigating factors are:

1. What is the estimate of how much the entire rights to the Marvel Universal costs?
2. Would Disney be willing to dish out that estimated amount?
3. Would Universal even entertain releasing that contact?

Time shall tell. That said, if Disney can develop and nurture up-and-coming Marvel brands (i.e. GoTG), perhaps they can develop the next generation of the Marvel Universe and capitalize on that.

Fascinating stuff, people!

1: I'd say 200 million.
2: Yes
3: No

(Just my pure speculation.)

 

[lazyboy97o]

1: I'd say 200 million.
2: Yes
3: No

(Just my pure speculation.)

It would cost more than $200 million just to build a replacement land.

 

[The_Jobu]

1: I'd say 200 million.

That is a crazy low figure. It would likely have to several times higher.

 

[davis_unoxx]

That is a crazy low figure. It would likely have to several times higher.

I'm sorry it was a guesstimate, what are you thinking?

 

[danlb_2000]

That is a crazy low figure. It would likely have to several times higher.

Yeah, I would agree. Universal acquired the rights back when Marvel was at a very low point in it's popularity. The amount they pay is only tied to the rate of inflation, so considering how much the popularity of Marvel has increased since then, they are probably paying a bargain basement price for what is currently one of the biggest IP's around.

 

[The_Jobu]

I'm sorry it was a guesstimate, what are you thinking?

No need to apologize, but that amount barely covers re-branding what they have. Not too mention the lost income from converting the hulk coast to the Jolly Green Giant Coaster® and other generalized elements of former Marvel attractions. I'd imagine several times higher to even entertain the possibility.

 

[davis_unoxx]

No need to apologize, but that amount barely covers re-branding what they have. Not too mention the lost income from converting the hulk coast to the Jolly Green Giant Coaster® and other generalized elements of former Marvel attractions. I'd imagine several times higher to even entertain the possibility.

I used to wish that WDW had the rights to Marvel, but now I am glad they don't. I feel like they would just replace good rides, and create a thematic mess.