Guardians of the Galaxy Preview at DHS...

[PhotoDave219]

And there we have it! Thanks for sharing that Dave!

Oh this is going to turn into some giant debate much the same of the other UNI/Marvel contract threads.

This is gonna be interesting.

 

[The Crafty Veteran]

And X-Men and Spidey, but those film rights don't CURRENTLY belong to Disney anyways. Really, though, I wonder if EVERY CHARACTER that IOA even has painted on that impact statue counts in their contracted use. So far, all signs point to "yes".
At the end of the day, though, I trust that Disney and Uni will keep one another legally in check, so all of our armchair analysis is truly silly.

Just about every member of GOTG have appeared in the comics which are Universal exclusive so there has to be more to it when the contract states "family", or Disney has better lawyers interpreting the contract.

 

[The Crafty Veteran]

I wonder when we will see something from SHIELD at WDW? It fits the same profile as GOTG.

 

[Tony Perkis]

Really? Thought the joke was obvious.

I don't know the personalities of certain posters well enough to decipher if they truly believe this to be a good addition to a vacant theme park or not.

 

[The Crafty Veteran]

I don't know the personalities of certain posters well enough to decipher if they truly believe this to be a good addition to a vacant theme park or not.

DHS is vacant? When did that happen? My Disney Experience app has attractions with wait times.

 

[jensenrick]

If this works what stops them from an Avengers preview? Disney might be starting to flex their muscles here, now I don't see Marvel at WDW as being impossible.

So just very, extremely unlikely?

 

[jensenrick]

I wonder when we will see something from SHIELD at WDW? It fits the same profile as GOTG.

Hmmm, I wonder. Let's see- does SHIELD have a princess?

 

[doctornick]

I wonder when we will see something from SHIELD at WDW? It fits the same profile as GOTG.

Seems more intertwined with The Avengers to me, so it's more questionable, but who knows? I do think that SHIELD would make a great basis for an attraction at DisneyQuest though.

 

[jensenrick]

MEANWHILE, back in the land of people who aren't armchair lawyers- anyone have any info on what this GotG "preview" entails?
Is it just a 3 minute movie trailer, or something more substantial?
And I thought it was going to go into the Captain EO theater, no? Or was that just Disneyland?

 

[Matt_Black]

Just about every member of GOTG have appeared in the comics which are Universal exclusive so there has to be more to it when the contract states "family", or Disney has better lawyers interpreting the contract.

Honestly, pretty much any member of a Marvel "family" has appeared in another Marvel "family" book. And that's not even counting big crossover books which feature everyone who is hot at the time.

 

[The Crafty Veteran]

Honestly, pretty much any member of a Marvel "family" has appeared in another Marvel "family" book. And that's not even counting big crossover books which feature everyone who is hot at the time.

Of course. But now what is considered family since Disney just threw the internet lawyers a kick in the pants?

 

[jdmdisney99]

MEANWHILE, back in the land of people who aren't armchair lawyers- anyone have any info on what this GotG "preview" entails?
Is it just a 3 minute movie trailer, or something more substantial?
And I thought it was going to go into the Captain EO theater, no? Or was that just Disneyland?

I don't know about length but, as explained in the article from TPI, this wont have moving seats as it would violate the contract. Plus it makes more sense in Tomorrowland than Future World.

 

[PhotoDave219]

MEANWHILE, back in the land of people who aren't armchair lawyers- anyone have any info on what this GotG "preview" entails?
Is it just a 3 minute movie trailer, or something more substantial?
And I thought it was going to go into the Captain EO theater, no? Or was that just Disneyland?

Hey man, I just pass on others analysis that I agree with.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Honestly, pretty much any member of a Marvel "family" has appeared in another Marvel "family" book. And that's not even counting big crossover books which feature everyone who is hot at the time.

I agree but I don't see this as anything Uni's gonna get their panties in a bunch over.

 

[71jason]

I don't see how showing a preview of a movie, which is all this is, is any sort of violation. It's not like they're creating a stage show, or having walk around characters.

If Philharmagic is an attraction, this is an attraction. There is legal wiggle room on this, but not here.

 

[71jason]

Just about every member of GOTG have appeared in the comics which are Universal exclusive so there has to be more to it when the contract states "family", or Disney has better lawyers interpreting the contract.

I think a one-off appearance isn't enough. Have to have some connection to one of the connected "families."

Was never a fan, but from what I can tell, the current GotG line-up were never Avengers. Popped up in the book and the cartoons, but never identified as active members. However,

Spoiler

Thanos and the Collector

--the two heavies in the piece--ARE primarily Avengers villains. Curious to see if all references to them are cut.

 

[jensenrick]

Hey man, I just pass on others analysis that I agree with.

Oh, I have no problem with you, Dave, or those who agree with you- I agree as well.

The only problem I have is when a thread that *should* be about a potentially interesting new addition to a park that *desperately* needs even the tiniest distraction has once again turned to, "SEE! The WhiteKnight Lawyers of the Great and Powerful DISNEE have RIPPED the wrights to Marvel from the terrible clutches of the Uni INFIDELS!!"

 

[doctornick]

Of course. But now what is considered family since Disney just threw the internet lawyers a kick in the pants?

What is considered a family is so vague that it would only really be determined by court order or a specific tightly defined mutual agreement between Uni and Disney. As long as the original contract is all that is determining Uni and Marvel's rights, we will continue to have debates due to the vagueness of what constitutes a "family".

To this point, the issue has largely been moot because there hasn't really been anything worth Disney pushing the envelop for. Spider-Man/X-Men/Fantastic Four/Avengers theme park rights are all clearly owned by Uni. And nothing else is really out there that is worth making an attraction out of for Disney. But GotG is an interesting situation -- the movie will tie it into the larger MCU but the group is not clearly part of any established family that Uni has rights to. If the movie takes off and is popular, it would provide an interesting case for Disney to argue the limits of Uni's "family" rights -- if Disney were so inclined.

 

[71jason]

Of course. But now what is considered family since Disney just threw the internet lawyers a kick in the pants?

"e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used"

I imagine girlfriends/family members would qualify too (e.g. MJ, Aunt May), but a silly point. They are meaningless outside the context of the hero associated with them.

 

[Matt_Black]

I think a one-off appearance isn't enough. Have to have some connection to one of the connected "families."

Was never a fan, but from what I can tell, the current GotG line-up were never Avengers. Popped up in the book and the cartoons, but never identified as active members. However,

Spoiler

Thanos and the Collector

--the two heavies in the piece--ARE primarily Avengers villains. Curious to see if all references to them are cut.

The closest you get is Moondragon, who was an Avenger and did eventually join the team in the comics. However, she doesn't appear to figure into the film at all.

Anyway, I hope this movie is a big success, because a sequel would mean we might get Cosmo, the psychic Russian cosmonaut dog; I imagine David Ogden Stiers doing his Jumbaa voice would be a good choice to voice him.