Marvel at WDW

[Kenny Hensley]

Then you clearly do not understand how The Walt Disney Company operates.

Are you going to Fansplain, or Businessplain it to me, Mr. Rockefeller?

Give me a break.

You obviously have all the answers, don't you?

Okay, everyone...pack it in for this thread. lazyboy97o has all the answers. Nothing more to see or comment on here. Move along.

 

[marni1971]

Too many of you just blindly recite: “Well there’s a contract, and the contract says this, the contract says that. - Uni’s not going to give up those rights because of how inexpensive they were to attain vs the current margin they are getting.” I get your point. I just disagree with it. Contracts can be amended.

They can.

But Comcast really don’t want to. They’re more than happy with the current position.

Until if and when Comcast has a new management board this discussion is moot.

 

[marni1971]

Nothing more to see or comment on here. Move along.

You’re absolutely right

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

They can.

But Comcast really don’t want to. They’re more than happy with the current position.

Until if and when Comcast has a new management board this discussion is moot.

It’s the most “moot” thing since “beastly kingdom”....and it’s gaining hugging the inside rail at the quarter post

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Come on . You've seen the box office numbers, right? One hit movie's BO take, plus maybe another Fox IP to sweeten the deal, could likely more than cover whatever Universal might ask for the theme park rights.

It would definitely be for more than one ride.

Box office gross doesn’t equate hundreds of millions of dollars of profits.

Look at the walt disney filings - they are w public company - most of the profit (only thing that matters) comes from tv and parks...not movies or even merch. 70%.

So to justify buying a contract to then “rebuild” marvel land down the street from universal, you would have to promise massive profits to Wall Street that can’t be promised. That’s why the contract isn’t going to be touched. Follow the walk away profits. They never lead you wrong.

I wouldn’t diss lazyboy in this discussion...they get it. You’re bringing a knife to the gun fight.

 

[Kenny Hensley]

Box office gross doesn’t equate hundreds of millions of dollars of profits.

Look at the walt disney filings - they are w public company - most of the profit (only thing that matters) comes from tv and parks...not movies or even merch. 70%.

So to justify buying a contract to then “rebuild” marvel land down the street from universal, you would have to promise massive profits to Wall Street that can’t be promised. That’s why the contract isn’t going to be touched. Follow the walk away profits. They never lead you wrong.

I wouldn’t diss lazyboy in this discussion...they get it. You’re bringing a knife to the gun fight.

I didn't start a fight either way. But don't assume that I'm outgunned because I don't have "Well Known Member" under my avatar.

EDIT: I just realized that YOU had Well Known Member under your avatar. Wasn't geared toward you.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Box office gross doesn’t equate hundreds of millions of dollars of profits.

Walt Disney World doesn’t even get box office profits. Their irrelevant.

I didn't start a fight either way. But don't assume that I'm outgunned because I don't have "Well Known Member" under my avatar.

EDIT: I just realized that YOU had Well Known Member under your avatar. Wasn't geared toward you.

It has nothing to do with post count. You presented a premise that has absolutely no basis in how The Walt Disney Company operates.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

But Comcast really don’t want to. They’re more than happy with the current position.

Until if and when Comcast has a new management board this discussion is moot.

From a "MarketWatch" Article:

The key for Disney is to be in control of its own future, so it is not caught flat-footed if the video ecosystem continues to undergo seismic change. In a few years, it could theoretically bundle all its assets into a direct-to-consumer offering that completely bypasses the bundle, or just continue on the path of picking off easy money from others to make up for lost fees from cable subscribers. Either way, it has power in negotiations with cable companies desperate to stay in consumers’ lives.

Yep..those darn board members. Look on the bright side...it may hasten the arrival of a new board.....and at some point "if and when" they get a new board......maybe business is going to take precedence.

Now to be clear - I'm not advocating that Disney is walking in to a negotiating room with guns a blazing screaming: "We want the Marvel rights"....but its safe to assume it's gonna come up at some point...at some time.

And who knows.....maybe they cut a deal.

Obviously the "discussion is moot". It is a fan forum after all. Most Many things discussed on this board are moot.

 

[Kenny Hensley]

Walt Disney World doesn’t even get box office profits. Their irrelevant.


It has nothing to do with post count. You presented a premise that has absolutely no basis in how The Walt Disney Company operates.

Dude...they, as a corporate entity, are capable of allocating funds where they need to, for whatever.

And I didn't present the premise. I piggybacked onto another poster's idea.

The point is, whether it's theme park admissions, box office, or merchandise, the Company is making money hand over fist.

I haven't been trying to, nor do I want to, start a "fight."

 

[lazyboy97o]

Dude...they, as a corporate entity, are capable of allocating funds where they need to, for whatever.

And I didn't present the premise. I piggybacked onto another poster's idea.

The point is, whether it's theme park admissions, box office, or merchandise, the Company is making money hand over fist.

I haven't been trying to, nor do I want to, start a "fight."

Just because Disney can do something doesn’t mean it is how they do things.

 

[Kenny Hensley]

Just because Disney can do something doesn’t mean it is how they do things.

And that doesn't mean that they way they do things can't change.
Do we really want to do this back-and-forth thing?

 

[marni1971]

....but its safe to assume it's gonna come up at some point...at some time..

It already has.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

It already has.

I'm sure it has. And I'm sure it will again. Funny thing about circumstances...is that they can change. And along with changing circumstances...sometimes positions change as well. Disney will continue to evolve and may be in a different position after the Fox deal closes, the streaming service launches along with other developments over the course of the next several years.

Just because it was negatively received in the forum it was presented previously .... does not mean that it will always be negatively received. Sure it's conceivable that it might ...... but it might not.

I just don't comprehend your adamancy towards a deal never being reached. I get the fact that your personal knowledge of the situation and/or contacts (or both) lead you to to believe its not immediate in nature. And I'm not saying it's happening tomorrow or next year. But C'mon...things do change.

 

[marni1971]

I'm sure it has. And I'm sure it will again. Funny thing about circumstances...is that they can change. And along with changing circumstances...sometimes positions change as well. Disney will continue to evolve and may be in a different position after the Fox deal closes, the streaming service launches along with other developments over the course of the next several years.

Just because it was negatively received in the forum it was presented previously .... does not mean that it will always be negatively received. Sure it's conceivable that it might ...... but it might not.

I just don't comprehend your adamancy towards a deal never being reached. I get the fact that your personal knowledge of the situation and/or contacts (or both) lead you to to believe its not immediate in nature. And I'm not saying it's happening tomorrow or next year. But C'mon...things do change.

Never say never. But not for the foreseeable.

Nothing is certain but death. As they say.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I didn't start a fight either way. But don't assume that I'm outgunned because I don't have "Well Known Member" under my avatar.

EDIT: I just realized that YOU had Well Known Member under your avatar. Wasn't geared toward you.

See now...the good thing about me (many would say the ONLY good thing about me) is that I don’t do that.

I followed you...so let’s see what you got? I don’t decry anyone. There are people on all disney forums with 40,000 posts that couldn’t find a conscious thought with a flashlight and gps...let alone make a reasonable stance/argument.

Just don’t be the worst...those that spend 50% of their time patronizing and the other 50% of their time being lead around by the bullnose by those with experience or (worse) those that have convinced them they know when they’re just pin trading fan boys. Dime a dozen. All posts should come from common sense and/or experience...anything else is useless.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The point is, whether it's theme park admissions, box office, or merchandise, the Company is making money hand over fist.

In fact...the walt disney company makes the majority of its money of tv/satellite distribution broadcasting fees, sponsorship and advertising for its programming, licensing fees for its IP to thousand of sweatshop manufacturers, home video/iTunes type sales, and merchandising sales WITHIN The parks...

At least...for now.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I'm sure it has. And I'm sure it will again. Funny thing about circumstances...is that they can change. And along with changing circumstances...sometimes positions change as well. Disney will continue to evolve and may be in a different position after the Fox deal closes, the streaming service launches along with other developments over the course of the next several years.

Just because it was negatively received in the forum it was presented previously .... does not mean that it will always be negatively received. Sure it's conceivable that it might ...... but it might not.

I just don't comprehend your adamancy towards a deal never being reached. I get the fact that your personal knowledge of the situation and/or contacts (or both) lead you to to believe its not immediate in nature. And I'm not saying it's happening tomorrow or next year. But C'mon...things do change.

Dude . . . we get it. This is getting a bit tiresome. There's no evidence of the Marvel contract changing for the foreseeable. If it changes one day it changes, but it's not worth the repeated insistence that "maybe, one day, who knows, never say never . . ."

Right now there's nothing to look forward to on this front. Let's wait to have this conversation again until wheels start turning, if ever they do.

 

[phillip9698]

Dude...they, as a corporate entity, are capable of allocating funds where they need to, for whatever.

And I didn't present the premise. I piggybacked onto another poster's idea.

The point is, whether it's theme park admissions, box office, or merchandise, the Company is making money hand over fist.

I haven't been trying to, nor do I want to, start a "fight."

Your premise doesnt make business sense though and thats the only thing that matters. In order to justify the cost of purchasing the rights from Universal there would need to be a clear business case laid out as to how that purchase would lead to increased PARK profits (included the cost of purchasing the rights) over their current plans. If someone came into a meeting and said Disney should purchase the rights simply because they can afford it, that person would have a very short career with the company.

Furthermore Universal has accountants on payroll just as Disney does. They could do the math and determine the types of profits Disney could expect to see if they gained the Marvel rights, how that would hurt Universal's bottom line, and what price they would need to charge to offset these losses. Universal would make that buyout price so large Disney could never justify the cost.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

In order to justify the cost of purchasing the rights from Universal there would need to be a clear business case laid out as to how that purchase would lead to increased PARK profits (included the cost of purchasing the rights) over their current plans.

$4 Billion (with a "B") for Lucasfilms. 7/8 years later they're going to finally open a couple of lands and a hotel after spending another Billion (with a "B") at each park (plus the cost of the hotel). $4 Billion - ironically the same amount Disney paid for Marvel. But as in the case of Lucasfilm they laid out an additional $2 Billion+ over and above to get it into the parks.

If Disney is spending at least additional 2 Billion + on Star Wars inclusion into the parks (probably more over time) - Spending another big chunk of change re-theming rides to Marvel in DLP and CA, looking to add lands (or space or whatever you want to call it) in every other park outside of Orlando. I think the business case is there.

It's not just park revenue that justifies it. Consider that inclusion into the parks is also a marketing vehicle for the franchise - which correlates to visibility, movie B.O., streaming, subscription services, DVD sales, merchandising etc.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Furthermore Universal has accountants on payroll just as Disney does. They could do the math and determine the types of profits Disney could expect to see if they gained the Marvel rights, how that would hurt Universal's bottom line, and what price they would need to charge to offset these losses. Universal would make that buyout price so large Disney could never justify the cost.

Sure. And what if Disney makes streaming or subscription rights for properties Comcast would like to license for their "InDemand" or Xfinity services so high that Comcast just couldn't justify the cost? That's why you have negotiations.

You are right. It comes down to bottom line. If Uni had to give up the theme park rights to obtain something from Disney...and by doing so it would positively impact Uni's bottom line......that's why you make deals.