MARVEL at WDW?

[twinnstar]

A while back, a coworker told me he knows an Imagineer, and said that he was told 100% that Marvel rides would be in HS.

...

Yesterday he told me he knew about the Avatar thing 5 months ago.

....so...yeah. im not listening to him anymore :lol:

 

[Buried20KLeague]

As a regular to both parks I need them to keep adding things to maintain my interest and willingness to part with ever increasing amounts of wedge for no perceptible improvement. This trip in June was the first, where despite having a great time, I was concious that it all had been done before.

Ill see how the other place compares, but if it werent for my DVC commitment I think it would be some time before Id be back to Florida

You're not alone in that... We've taken a break from WDW and are now DL annual pass holders.

So now I've gotta ask... Do you regret buying in to DVC? You're only X number of years into a 50 year contract and you're already wanting to take a break from WDW...

 

[Captain Neo]

Is it confirmed that Universal is paying royalties to Disney for Marvel characters?

Well they have to give money to Marvel to license the characters and a percentage of the merchandise sales goes to Marvel and since Marvel = Disney....

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

You're not alone in that... We've taken a break from WDW and are now DL annual pass holders.

So now I've gotta ask... Do you regret buying in to DVC? You're only X number of years into a 50 year contract and you're already wanting to take a break from WDW...

It wasnt my decision, or to be fair only my money. But I regretted it from minute 1 on a hard nosed tight fisted scots setting. The Plus has been getting to stay in some of the DVC resorts at a fairly discounted level, baring in mind we bought in when the ££ was much better against the $$$. The exchange rate has eroded and management fees growing quicker than expected. So as I always say a decision from the heart not the head.

I think from now on we will only visit during the F & W festival and we will eat off site more as I'm fed up of the over pricing and decline of standards on site. This applies to Uni too, the HRH I felt was taking the ______ with some of its charges when the same drink was available in City walk for $5 a throw less.

If theres nothing to entice me to the area itll be like Busch Gardens / Sea World and we end up going every three or four years

 

[jt04]

Dude, Universal is two steps ahead of Disney right now in the Orlando market when it comes to new development. It took 4 years for Disney to come up with a response to WWoHP. Disney is not taking a leadership position by announcing Avatar. They are responding to changes in the market that Universal forced them to make. You think Universal is the one on its toes? Hardly!

I love the "dated MSHI" comment. LOL, MSHI is home to 2 of the most popular and well-respected rides in the theme park business. Where is this "demand" for a change to it?? You mean the 100% concrete and announced upgrade to Spiderman isn't convincing you that it is here to stay? Right...corporations make industry announcements as a bluff. That wouldn't p*** off their stockholders or anything. Enjoy living in Fantasyland, if you will.

When I say it is "dated" I am not talking about Spiderman especially since they have recognized the need to update it (assuming that is still the plan).

What I am refering to is the overall aesthetics of this land in particular. You have a nice coaster and tower shot but their overlays are more in line with a company trying to compete with Six Flags rather than Disney. I don't hate it I just think it is the weakest of the lands at IoA aesthetically speaking. However, these same rides would be stengths if given overlays based on Transformers. The look and feel of the land would be perfect for such an overlay and would easily improve on the current look of the land with little effort or overwhelming expense.

IMO.

 

[PixieMichele]

Spiderman

I did a webinar for Universal at the beginning of the week (ta's only) and they were talking about the Spiderman refurb. How it's going from 3D to 4D and the imaging is going to be amazing and it will be the only thing like it, blah blah blah.

I haven't personally been to Universal and Spiderman is not my favorite Marvel character by any means, but that's what I know about it.

Personally, I'd skip the Avatar crap at Animal Kingdom and move Tony Stark into Epcot :animwink:

 

[maxairmike]

When I say it is "dated" I am not talking about Spiderman especially since they have recognized the need to update it (assuming that is still the plan).

What I am refering to is the overall aesthetics of this land in particular. You have a nice coaster and tower shot but their overlays are more in line with a company trying to compete with Six Flags rather than Disney. I don't hate it I just think it is the weakest of the lands at IoA aesthetically speaking. However, these same rides would be stengths if given overlays based on Transformers. The look and feel of the land would be perfect for such an overlay and would easily improve on the current look of the land with little effort or overwhelming expense.

IMO.

Ummm...what?

As I've mentioned already, many visitors are already reporting better quality in Spiderman. They have already started on the upgrades. There is no "assuming that is still the plan." The plan is already in action. And comic book cutouts look blah, but Transformers cutouts are "teh awesomeness!1!"...what?

I've agreed with some of your talk elsewhere, but this is ridiculous. Have you spent any time in Orlando in the past two years?

 

[wm49rs]

Ummm...what?

As I've mentioned already, many visitors are already reporting better quality in Spiderman. They have already started on the upgrades. There is no "assuming that is still the plan." The plan is already in action. And comic book cutouts look blah, but Transformers cutouts are "teh awesomeness!1!"...what?

I've agreed with some of your talk elsewhere, but this is ridiculous. Have you spent any time in Orlando in the past two years?

Two?

 

[maxairmike]

Two?

I'm being generous. :lol:

 

[Thiger]

Marvel in Epcot

I've been going to Epcot since the year it opened and I truly love it, but I have to say that I feel it's the park that needs the most loving.

Mark my words though... Marvel will be in Epcot. I know it sounds insane, but just last week we saw Thor merch in Norway and Cap America merch in the US. Soon it'll be Wolverine in Canada and Tony Starks' Innoventions. Of course, I'm just guessing...

 

[maxairmike]

I've been going to Epcot since the year it opened and I truly love it, but I have to say that I feel it's the park that needs the most loving.

Mark my words though... Marvel will be in Epcot. I know it sounds insane, but just last week we saw Thor merch in Norway and Cap America merch in the US. Soon it'll be Wolverine in Canada and Tony Starks' Innoventions. Of course, I'm just guessing...

Yes, you are just guessing. Marvel merch has been in the parks for quite some time now, it is nothing new. Nothing beyond the merch will be happening at the World anytime in the near or semi-distant future, though.

Edit: Not trying to sound like a jerk, but if it comes across as short and blunt...that's because it is. The contractual reasons have been rehashed many times over, and despite what jt has posted, the reality of the situation isn't changing anytime soon (or in the time I mentioned above).

 

[AEfx]

Universal released this OFFICIAL press release:

Universal Announcement

Over on the Islands of Adventure side of Universal Orlando, the popular attraction, The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man is getting a visual update with the addition of HD.

From the Universal press release:

The newly reanimated, high-definition experience will unfold within the attraction’s towering visual spaces – taking on even larger than larger-than-life proportions. The new digital animation – combined with the new Infitec system and new set enhancements – will transform what is already one of the most technologically advanced attractions ever created into what will feel like an all-new experience.

The animation is being done in 4K high definition, the highest HD resolution available right now. This will bring a whole new clarity to the visuals, making the 3D appear to be even closer.

2012 is when the updated animation will start running in the attraction.

Here's the thing about that announcement:

1) "Newly reanimated" does not mean start from scratch, any more than they started from scratch to make, say Toy Story into Toy Story 3D. The raw data was still there, the work was largely done by a computer. It's sort of like the term "remastered" in home video - "Oh, it's 'newly remastered'!" All it means is they went back to an earlier source and re-recorded it. If I use my iPhone's video camera to record a movie from my HDTV, guess what, I've just remastered it! Yes, being flip, but that's about as much as the term means. In this case, "reanimated" means they took the original digital files and ran them through a computer again. They may have made a few alterations (which is pretty easy at that point), but it doesn't mean some huge capital investment.

2) The upgrading of the sound/visual systems that went along with this could very well be re-purposed should the ride itself ever change theme. It would need to be done anyway should that occur, and it makes sense to do it now to save time/expense later. Throwing the "why not" of #1 (the negligible cost of "reanimating" the visuals) into the mix could very well be a thumb upside the nose towards Disney added on to the upgrade of a building for future reasons unknown (i.e. a Transformers overlay).

3) 4K is certainly not the "highest" resolution available, even "right now" (isn't that oddly worded for a press release anyway?), as classic films are often redone in 8K (then down-converted to 1080p for Blu-ray). Not much of a difference to the human eye, but just odd to point that out, 'specially when it's wrong (while there is virtually no native 8K content out there, 8K projectors have been available to consumers for several years now, it certainly is available for industrial application).

I'll be honest, I don't think the OP has any more insight than I do, and I don't proclaim to be any type of 'insider', but I have to say unlike some people who relish the "Oh Disney has it best in this deal!" or "Uni is happy and sittin' pretty with Marvel!" endless arguments, I don't think either companies want to be in this position. It defies all business logic, no matter how armchair CEO's with no access to real figures try to make it sound like one side has the upper hand on the other.

My guess is they all just wish the situation would go away, and I don't think we'll be riding Spiderman as it is today (or be visiting MSHI) ten years from now. It's gotta give at some point, and yes, I've read all the dang contracts, etc. - but only a would enjoy this situation if you are one of the companies involved. Contrary to opinion, they don't really like to think about each other at all, and being tied together like this can't be a situation any rational executive would want to have hanging over everyone's heads for eternity.

 

[jt04]

Ummm...what?

As I've mentioned already, many visitors are already reporting better quality in Spiderman. They have already started on the upgrades. There is no "assuming that is still the plan." The plan is already in action. And comic book cutouts look blah, but Transformers cutouts are "teh awesomeness!1!"...what?

I've agreed with some of your talk elsewhere, but this is ridiculous. Have you spent any time in Orlando in the past two years?

The FLE was under construction when it was reimagined. The same thing is possible in this situation. And even liklier now that Disney has upped the ante. IMO.

Here's the thing about that announcement:

1) "Newly reanimated" does not mean start from scratch, any more than they started from scratch to make, say Toy Story into Toy Story 3D. The raw data was still there, the work was largely done by a computer. It's sort of like the term "remastered" in home video - "Oh, it's 'newly remastered'!" All it means is they went back to an earlier source and re-recorded it. If I use my iPhone's video camera to record a movie from my HDTV, guess what, I've just remastered it! Yes, being flip, but that's about as much as the term means. In this case, "reanimated" means they took the original digital files and ran them through a computer again. They may have made a few alterations (which is pretty easy at that point), but it doesn't mean some huge capital investment.

2) The upgrading of the sound/visual systems that went along with this could very well be re-purposed should the ride itself ever change theme. It would need to be done anyway should that occur, and it makes sense to do it now to save time/expense later. Throwing the "why not" of #1 (the negligible cost of "reanimating" the visuals) into the mix could very well be a thumb upside the nose towards Disney added on to the upgrade of a building for future reasons unknown (i.e. a Transformers overlay).

3) 4K is certainly not the "highest" resolution available, even "right now" (isn't that oddly worded for a press release anyway?), as classic films are often redone in 8K (then down-converted to 1080p for Blu-ray). Not much of a difference to the human eye, but just odd to point that out, 'specially when it's wrong (while there is virtually no native 8K content out there, 8K projectors have been available to consumers for several years now, it certainly is available for industrial application).

I'll be honest, I don't think the OP has any more insight than I do, and I don't proclaim to be any type of 'insider', but I have to say unlike some people who relish the "Oh Disney has it best in this deal!" or "Uni is happy and sittin' pretty with Marvel!" endless arguments, I don't think either companies want to be in this position. It defies all business logic, no matter how armchair CEO's with no access to real figures try to make it sound like one side has the upper hand on the other.

My guess is they all just wish the situation would go away, and I don't think we'll be riding Spiderman as it is today (or be visiting MSHI) ten years from now. It's gotta give at some point, and yes, I've read all the dang contracts, etc. - but only a would enjoy this situation if you are one of the companies involved. Contrary to opinion, they don't really like to think about each other at all, and being tied together like this can't be a situation any rational executive would want to have hanging over everyone's heads for eternity.

This is an awesome post and I think you have summerized the situation as well as anyone ever has. I don't think either side wants it even discussed in forums like this. But this situation has almost a Shakesperean aspect to it. It is not a Uni vs Disney story really but that is how everyone sees it. It is so much more interesting than that. And it can be looked at from so many perspectives. It is just an amazing situation and endlessly fascinating paradox.

 

[Mouse Detective]

It's gotta give at some point, and yes, I've read all the dang contracts, etc. - but only a would enjoy this situation if you are one of the companies involved. Contrary to opinion, they don't really like to think about each other at all, and being tied together like this can't be a situation any rational executive would want to have hanging over everyone's heads for eternity.

I don't understand this at all. What indication is there whatsoever that this bothers Universal? They contracted with Marvel to use their characters. They got it when Marvel was down and pay next to nothing for the privilege, at least compared to what such a deal would cost today. And they pay Marvel a percentage of merchandise sold, not a big deal either. The fact that Marvel is owned by Disney changes nothing. They get to use these hot Marvel characters on the cheap and in doing so they deny Disney the very use of property Disney owns. And there is nothing Disney can do about it. This is one of the greatest "pimping over" of a competitor in history. Universal doesn't have this hanging over their head. Disney does.

 

[jt04]

I don't understand this at all. What indication is there whatsoever that this bothers Universal? They contracted with Marvel to use their characters. They got it when Marvel was down and pay next to nothing for the privilege, at least compared to what such a deal would cost today. And they pay Marvel a percentage of merchandise sold, not a big deal either. The fact that Marvel is owned by Disney changes nothing. They get to use these hot Marvel characters on the cheap and in doing so they deny Disney the very use of property Disney owns. And there is nothing Disney can do about it. This is one of the greatest "pimping over" of a competitor in history. Universal doesn't have this hanging over their head. Disney does.

Universal quickly removed all Marvel references at their park in California almost as soon as the deal happened. That is the indication that it bothers them.

Of course if they did the same at IoA they would lose their rights. They obviously can't just shut down MSHI. That is the dilemma. Do they stop promoting a profitable Disney franchise that is helping fund their competion or do the drop the Marvel theme park rights and replace it with an overlay (and merchandise) to a franchise they do own which would improve the resort's bottom line in a day and age when that matters a lot?

It is a conundrum. :lookaroun:lol:

 

[GLaDOS]

Of course if they did the same at IoA they would lose their rights. They obviously can't just shut down MSHI. That is the dilemma. Do they stop promoting a profitable Disney franchise that is helping fund their competion or do the drop the Marvel theme park rights and replace it with an overlay (and merchandise) to a franchise they do own which would improve the resort's bottom line in a day and age when that matters a lot?

You do realize that they don't own Transformers, right?

Either way they're paying to use characters.

EDIT: And theoretically, they may be paying MORE to use Transformers. They're using both the characters, which are owned by Hasbro, as well as the movie versions of the characters which are presumably a Paramount product. Theoretically, they're paying two companies for those characters.

 

[jt04]

You do realize that they don't own Transformers, right?

Either way they're paying to use characters.

EDIT: And theoretically, they may be paying MORE to use Transformers. They're using both the characters, which are owned by Hasbro, as well as the movie versions of the characters which are presumably a Paramount product. Theoretically, they're paying two companies for those characters.

I'm sure that is part of the negotiating process and that is the kind of details that are not readily available. The advantage is that they would not be directly funding their primary competitor by dropping Marvel. I guess they could convert it to Stretch Armstrong-Land but that really doesn't have the same ring to it as Transformers.

No doubt they face a series of difficult choices but the ball seems to be in their court. Disney just has to sit and watch their neighbor to the north while they are developing DAK and the MK.

 

[Skip]

Universal quickly removed all Marvel references at their park in California almost as soon as the deal happened. That is the indication that it bothers them.

Of course if they did the same at IoA they would lose their rights. They obviously can't just shut down MSHI. That is the dilemma. Do they stop promoting a profitable Disney franchise that is helping fund their competion or do the drop the Marvel theme park rights and replace it with an overlay (and merchandise) to a franchise they do own which would improve the resort's bottom line in a day and age when that matters a lot?

It is a conundrum. :lookaroun:lol:

Incorrect information here. Universal Hollywood had a separate contract with Marvel that coincidentally expired around the time the deal was made. They had nothing to do with each other (nice try, though.)

As for someone's argument that they're just putting the Spider-Man animation back in the computer - no, they're completely reanimating it. The press release was quite clear about that. Look at the image released of the new animation and tell me it's just an HD version.

 

[GLaDOS]

I'm sure that is part of the negotiating process and that is the kind of details that are not readily available. The advantage is that they would not be directly funding their primary competitor by dropping Marvel. I guess they could convert it to Stretch Armstrong-Land but that really doesn't have the same ring to it as Transformers.

Either way, Comcast/NBC/Universal will be funding a primary competitor.

Paramount is a competing media company that would get money from Transformers. Warner Brothers is a competing media company that is getting money from Potter. Fox is a competing media company that gets money from Simpsons. Disney is a competing media company that gets money form Marvel.

I don't really think they care about funding other companies that are in direct competition with the parent company.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Incorrect information here. Universal Hollywood at a separate contract with Marvel that coincidentally expired around the time the deal was made. They had nothing to do with each other (nice try, though.)

As for someone's argument that they're just putting the Spider-Man animation back in the computer - no, they're completely reanimating it. The press release was quite clear about that. Look at the image released of the new animation and tell me it's just an HD version.

Skip.. how dare you provide facts... the shame!!!!