How will WDW fit into the Marvel Theme Park Universe?

[Cesar R M]

Perhaps that's why it's Marvel Day at Sea?

Agree, sounds no different from using the trick of closing the dutyfree shops until they are out in the sea.

 

[Cesar R M]

Something amusing came to me.

Ironically, the new Theme Park Universe, obsessed with being consistent globally, already has issues. There are 6 Breakout Versions, all with a different set of events. How does a single consistent universe contain 6 different versions of a single Breakout? Unless of course the single Universe is constantly being overwritten by new versions of the same event.

Does the MTPU follow a linear time progression, or does it exist perpetually in the present? When someone watches a Marvel movie, the movie isn't set in the present, it's set in the year it came out. These attractions are always happening for the first time to the guests, so are the characters caught in a time loop where only slight variations are possible?

Because the MTPU does not exist inside a land -instead it's simply a resident of a Park- how can they ever bend time and reuse the same character? For example, if Hong Kong Disneyland's MTPU exists in the present, and Shanghai Disneyland's MTPU exist in the present, how then can a single character be in two parks at the same time? Unless of course they're suggesting that as soon as you enter Mickey Avenue, you are no longer in the park the day you entered, in fact you have just transported to another day. The present you are living in at Shanghai is a different present from the one people are living in at Hong Kong Disneyland.


HaHa IP is the best!

You will get VERY dizzy about the multiverses of Marvel and DC comics.

 

[BrianLo]

It is, and that's what I'm finding so bizarre. Why would they want to hem themselves in like that? It seems counterproductive, but @BrianLo's theory makes more sense. Will be interesting to see how it moves going forward.

If they really are reevaluating WDW's use of Guardians to the point of having them make small appearances and no attraction (which, imho, is a good thing), then we're possibly not going to see a large Marvel presence in WDW ever.

Short end of the stick for WDW, but they could simply get Big Hero 6 and Dr. Strange in the end. The former seems like a better fit for Epcot, the latter seems like the leftover scraps compared to an Avengers or GoTG ride... but could at least make for a really, really interesting dark ride.

Again, if their convoluted decision leads to unique attractions for every resort, I'm willing to see where it goes.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The first glimpses of this interconnectivity are seen at DCA, where Iron Man puts in a video call to the Avengers Training Initiative show from the Stark Expo at Hong Kong Disneyland. He can't join us here today you see, he's busy at Hong Kong Disneyland.

I would chalk up Iron Man phoning it in because of the logistical nightmare of making an in-person Iron Man fly.

And the Park Universe has already broken it's self-consistency: big and adult Groot is M&Ging right outside the attraction with a small and baby Groot.


As to whom WDW can use or not with regard to Avenger members is a touchy subject. Just about every Marvel hero (and a lot of their villains) were a part of the Avengers at some time. If one-time membership would prevent Disney usage, then Doctor Strange should not have been doing a streetmosphere in DHS. The contract seems to have a use or lose clause. And a family clause. Does using just a handful of characters from one family (the Avengers) exclude the use of nearly a hundred other characters of that family that Universal has never touched?

Disney and Uni need to come to an understanding. And if they can't, then a Arbitrator will decide according to the contract.

And if I were the Arbitrator, I'd tell them their contract is so poorly written that they have a choice: both lose all rights to all characters or both share all rights to all characters. Then, when the shock wears off, tell Uni they can have exclusive rights to what they're using and no more but Disney gets rights to everything else, but, if it's "in the family," Disney has to buy it back at a fair price. This would allow Disney to use Strange and Black Panther and Ant-man... but at a price.

 

[Princess Leia]

Something amusing came to me.

Does the MTPU follow a linear time progression, or does it exist perpetually in the present? When someone watches a Marvel movie, the movie isn't set in the present, it's set in the year it came out.

The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor all took place in about a week, though they were released in 2008, 2010, and 2011. I'm not positive about the year they took place, but I'd guess sometime between 2008 and 2010.

GotG, Vol. 2 took place 3 months after the first film, so that puts it at late 2014 (in Earth time).

 

[ToTBellHop]

Agree, sounds no different from using the trick of closing the dutyfree shops until they are out in the sea.

Let's hope the guy who plays Star Lord is never seen at the bar on Embarkation Day!

 

[sunsetblvd26]

And now I will point out a fault in the logic. Well, the ride runs all day long. So do the Guardians keep being recaptured and rebroken-out, in an endless cycle?

How is that any different than any other ride with a resolution to the story? Or take the movies; there's a whole bunch of showtimes/you can watch them as much as you want, does that mean they keep getting into the same trouble over and over again? I don't know, to me that just seems like a silly complaint.

 

[danlb_2000]

I would chalk up Iron Man phoning it in because of the logistical nightmare of making an in-person Iron Man fly.

And the Park Universe has already broken it's self-consistency: big and adult Groot is M&Ging right outside the attraction with a small and baby Groot.


As to whom WDW can use or not with regard to Avenger members is a touchy subject. Just about every Marvel hero (and a lot of their villains) were a part of the Avengers at some time. If one-time membership would prevent Disney usage, then Doctor Strange should not have been doing a streetmosphere in DHS. The contract seems to have a use or lose clause. And a family clause. Does using just a handful of characters from one family (the Avengers) exclude the use of nearly a hundred other characters of that family that Universal has never touched?

Disney and Uni need to come to an understanding. And if they can't, then a Arbitrator will decide according to the contract.

And if I were the Arbitrator, I'd tell them their contract is so poorly written that they have a choice: both lose all rights to all characters or both share all rights to all characters. Then, when the shock wears off, tell Uni they can have exclusive rights to what they're using and no more but Disney gets rights to everything else, but, if it's "in the family," Disney has to buy it back at a fair price. This would allow Disney to use Strange and Black Panther and Ant-man... but at a price.

The contact says that the family relationship is spelled out in a separate document which is not public, so it should be pretty clear cut for Disney to know what Uni has exclusive rights to.

 

[asianway]

I would chalk up Iron Man phoning it in because of the logistical nightmare of making an in-person Iron Man fly.

And the Park Universe has already broken it's self-consistency: big and adult Groot is M&Ging right outside the attraction with a small and baby Groot.


As to whom WDW can use or not with regard to Avenger members is a touchy subject. Just about every Marvel hero (and a lot of their villains) were a part of the Avengers at some time. If one-time membership would prevent Disney usage, then Doctor Strange should not have been doing a streetmosphere in DHS. The contract seems to have a use or lose clause. And a family clause. Does using just a handful of characters from one family (the Avengers) exclude the use of nearly a hundred other characters of that family that Universal has never touched?

Disney and Uni need to come to an understanding. And if they can't, then a Arbitrator will decide according to the contract.

And if I were the Arbitrator, I'd tell them their contract is so poorly written that they have a choice: both lose all rights to all characters or both share all rights to all characters. Then, when the shock wears off, tell Uni they can have exclusive rights to what they're using and no more but Disney gets rights to everything else, but, if it's "in the family," Disney has to buy it back at a fair price. This would allow Disney to use Strange and Black Panther and Ant-man... but at a price.

Dr Strange did not become an Avenger until after the contract was signed, the other 2 were.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Whoever got the language included in the contract around usage of Marvel characters "East of the Mississippi" should never have to work again, because Uni should be paying that person handsomely for the rest of his/her life.

 

[asianway]

Whoever got the language included in the contract around usage of Marvel characters "East of the Mississippi" should never have to work again, because Uni should be paying that person handsomely for the rest of his/her life.

An exclusivity clause in a contract is not uncommon...

 

[danlb_2000]

An exclusivity clause in a contract is not uncommon...

I always found that clause odd since it doesn't make it clear where the "east" stops. Does the exclusivity apply to eastern Canada? How about Puerto Rico?

 

[HauntedPirate]

An exclusivity clause in a contract is not uncommon...

I know, I'm certain it was just lawyers being lawyers, just having some fun that it was included by someone who either had a lot of foresight or else knowledge of future events.

I always found that clause odd since it doesn't make it clear where the "east" stops. Does the exclusivity apply to eastern Canada? How about Puerto Rico?

I've always been under the impression that it is only the United States and east of the Mississippi River, but that could just be urban legend.

 

[Dead2009]

By waiting until Universal decides they want to share the theme park rights.

 

[danlb_2000]

I know, I'm certain it was just lawyers being lawyers, just having some fun that it was included by someone who either had a lot of foresight or else knowledge of future events.



I've always been under the impression that it is only the United States and east of the Mississippi River, but that could just be urban legend.

I was just reading through the contract and it does not explicitly state United States.

 

[UpAllNight]

To be honest BOTH Disney and Universal are taking their sweet time with whatever they have planned for Marvel. Disney gets stick but Uni themselves are very slow off the ground updating/adding too such a hot property as Marvel.

 

[marni1971]

I think they need the mouse's permission to do that. #leverage

For what's planned? They won't.

 

[Kamikaze]

The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor all took place in about a week, though they were released in 2008, 2010, and 2011. I'm not positive about the year they took place, but I'd guess sometime between 2008 and 2010.

GotG, Vol. 2 took place 3 months after the first film, so that puts it at late 2014 (in Earth time).

For the most part, the MCU movies happen when they are released. GotG2 was an exception to this.

 

[Princess Leia]

For the most part, the MCU movies happen when they are released. GotG2 was an exception to this.

Pretty much. The only 4 I can think of were the ones that I mentioned.

 

[ford91exploder]

To be honest BOTH Disney and Universal are taking their sweet time with whatever they have planned for Marvel. Disney gets stick but Uni themselves are very slow off the ground updating/adding too such a hot property as Marvel.

Why should UNI do backflips promoting a Disney IP, Disney sooner than later will get 'tired' of MARVEL (after the first MARVEL flop) then UNI will become interested in MARVEL once again.