Marvel at WDW

["El Gran Magnifico"]

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.

Nonsense. There's another good 10 pages of life in this thread. It is a "fan forum" where speculation is king. Nobody is forcing you to read it. Plus....I want to hear more about the contract and all the things Disney can't do.......while they are constructing the GoG ride in EPCOT, and looking at some type of BP presence at WoL.

 

[lazyboy97o]

$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.

It is just Walt Disney World revenue that would have to justify the cost because only Walt Disney World benefits from the expense. Whether or not you personally like that doesn’t matter, it is how Disney operates and there is no indication of sudden change.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

It is just Walt Disney World revenue that would have to justify the cost because only Walt Disney World benefits from the expense. Whether or not you personally like that doesn’t matter, it is how Disney operates and there is no indication of sudden change.

No it's not just about WDW. It's about the word "Marvel". Disney can't use the "M" word in any park. That includes California, Paris, Tokyo, and Shanghai.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No it's not just about WDW. It's about the word "Marvel". Disney can't use the "M" word in any park. That includes California, Paris, Tokyo, and Shanghai.

Nope. That restriction only extends to Disneyland Resort.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Nope. That restriction only extends to Disneyland Resort.

You are correct in that it is DL. But that makes it more than just WDW.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You are correct in that it is DL. But that makes it more than just WDW.

Disneyland Resort is already dealing with the limitation and moving forward. It’s a minor part of the deal that would represent an even more minor part of the cost of buying out the contract. So Disneyland Resort may have to contribute a small portion of the return on investment but not enough to alter the math regarding the costs incurred by Walt Disney World. It also doesn’t change your flawed premise that the responsibility for that return would be spread well beyond the parks impacted by the change.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Disneyland Resort is already dealing with the limitation and moving forward. It’s a minor part of the deal that would represent an even more minor part of the cost of buying out the contract. So Disneyland Resort may have to contribute a small portion of the return on investment but not enough to alter the math regarding the costs incurred by Walt Disney World. It also doesn’t change your flawed premise that the responsibility for that return would be spread well beyond the parks impacted by the change.

And WDW is dealing with their limitations and moving forward. Any acquisition or permission of use given from Uni, is more than likely going to be a part of a bigger deal. Being able to market "Marvel" is going to lead to incremental revenue outside of the theme parks themselves. You want to fashion that the return would not spread outside the parks. I say, Yes it would. We can argue as to the amount of return being generated but there will be return.

Let me ask you: Did the Incredibles Expo help to generate any "out of park" revenue for Disney? What about retheming Pirates a decade ago for the inclusion of Jack Sparrow? Why do you think those things are done? Solely for in-park revenue? They're done for visibility and marketing - and the return is not exclusive to the parks.

Putting a couple of Johnny Depp animatronics is didn't lead to pilgrimages of people being turned away from the gate because they just had to see the Jack Sparrow animatronic. People didn't make special vacation plans just to visit just for that refurb (maybe some did).

It was done for marketing. If you don't think it was I would love to see you explain the rationale behind Depp dressed as Jack appearing in DL prior to Pirates 5. Was that done exclusively for the park? Or do you think the B.O. had a little to do with it?

 

[lazyboy97o]

And WDW is dealing with their limitations and moving forward. Any acquisition or permission of use given from Uni, is more than likely going to be a part of a bigger deal. Being able to market "Marvel" is going to lead to incremental revenue outside of the theme parks themselves. You want to fashion that the return would not spread outside the parks. I say, Yes it would. We can argue as to the amount of return being generated but there will be return.

Let me ask you: Did the Incredibles Expo help to generate any "out of park" revenue for Disney? What about retheming Pirates a decade ago for the inclusion of Jack Sparrow? Why do you think those things are done? Solely for in-park revenue? They're done for visibility and marketing - and the return is not exclusive to the parks.

Putting a couple of Johnny Depp animatronics is didn't lead to pilgrimages of people being turned away from the gate because they just had to see the Jack Sparrow animatronic. People didn't make special vacation plans just to visit just for that refurb (maybe some did).

It was done for marketing. If you don't think it was I would love to see you explain the rationale behind Depp dressed as Jack appearing in DL prior to Pirates 5. Was that done exclusively for the park? Or do you think the B.O. had a little to do with it?

It doesn’t matter how many hypotheticals you can talk about. It’s not how Disney operates. That’s it.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Well, this is entertaining.

The MARVEL rights are like a pea under Disney fans mattress.

 

[slappy magoo]

My 2 cents...
I'm sure both Disney and Universal are Blue Sky-ing around Marvel. Disney's planning Marvel themed attractions that might never see the light of day (like many of the Blue Sky sessions) on the off chance they're ever able to wrest the Marvel rights back from Uni. Those sessions are probably also retro-fitting other IPs or mythology on those attractions, in case someone decides the attraction ought to be made but can't be made with Marvel theming because the Uni contract is still in place.

Meanwhile, Uni will have meetings every so often about "what if our Marvel themed attractions weren't Marvel themed anymore, what could they be?" I'm sure every action movie or animated movie has in development, there's at least one meeting with theme park guys where the question is asked: "what if this movie becomes a huge hit, a franchise even, could we retro-fit this in to our Marvel Super Hero Island?"

It's extremely possible nothing will ever come of any of this brainstorming. But just as some people prep for Doomsday because hey, it could happen, it would be negligent not to have some plans in the hopper for such a contingency, just as both parks probably mull over theme park tie-ins for every franchise or potential franchise in their catalog.

But at some point - probably not in the not-too-distant future but I'd bet within most of our lifespans - there will be a harmonic convergence. Uni will have a franchise it would like to exploit in the parks, a franchise so red hot it would be ridiculous NOT to exploit it in the parks. And some Uni exec will decide that Marvel Island is looking long in the tooth especially since the Marvel characters have to look like the comic books and not the movies. Meanwhile, Disney will have an idea for a Marvel Land that they really want to pursue, they'll offer Uni a buttload of money, money that Uni can use to make the changes to MSHI and make it something based off of one of their properties. It will be a mutually beneficial arrangement. So the deal will be made.

But UNTIL/UNLESS all of that happens, where it's indeed mutually beneficial, it won't happen.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

It doesn’t matter how many hypotheticals you can talk about. It’s not how Disney operates. That’s it.

Disney just completed a structural re-org of it's business in March of this year - for the purpose of: You guessed it - to change the way Disney operates.

 

[Astro_Digital]

Universal has a hit, it is called "Harry Potter" but why not milk Marvel too.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney just completed a structural re-org of it's business in March of this year - for the purpose of: You guessed it - to change the way Disney operates.

Not in a way that validitates your hypotheticals. Walt Disney World would still be responsible for the cost.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Not in a way that validitates your hypotheticals. Walt Disney World would still be responsible for the cost.

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you sit on the board or are intimately involved in the operational goings on with TDC. Maybe you are Iger himself. In which case I would defer to your knowledge of the situation.

My best guess is that you are not. Which render your opinions as "pure speculation" - as are mine.

 

[phillip9698]

$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.

The piece of the puzzle you keep underestimating is that Universal is a direct competitor to Disney in the theme park business. George Lucas wanted to sell the rights to Star Wars, when someone wants to make a deal with you its a lot easier to get something done. Universal does not want to sell the Marvel rights to Disney as that would both held Disney and hurt Universal's Park division bottom line.

If Disney opened negotions with Universal for those rights what happens when Universal says "OK, I looked at your profit potential if you open a 5th park using these IP and it comes to 2 billion a year (made up number), we want 100 billion dollars (your profit for the next 50 years) for those rights". What happens? No executive would sign off on that and a shareholder board wouldn't approve it because none of them would be around when they could turn a profit off that deal.

 

[NormC]

Disney/Marvel collects a check from Universal for the license and is content to do so for the time being. Things may change but not in the near future.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you sit on the board or are intimately involved in the operational goings on with TDC. Maybe you are Iger himself. In which case I would defer to your knowledge of the situation.

My best guess is that you are not. Which render your opinions as "pure speculation" - as are mine.

One doesn’t have to be a top-level executive to know how the company operates. The basic concept of divisions and subsidiaries of a larger company operating distinctly with their own books is quite normal.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

The piece of the puzzle you keep underestimating is that Universal is a direct competitor to Disney in the theme park business. George Lucas wanted to sell the rights to Star Wars, when someone wants to make a deal with you its a lot easier to get something done. Universal does not want to sell the Marvel rights to Disney as that would both held Disney and hurt Universal's Park division bottom line.

If Disney opened negotions with Universal for those rights what happens when Universal says "OK, I looked at your profit potential if you open a 5th park using these IP and it comes to 2 billion a year (made up number), we want 100 billion dollars (your profit for the next 50 years) for those rights". What happens? No executive would sign off on that because none of them would be around when they could turn a profit off that deal.

I get that Uni is going to want a boatload. I also get that Comcast doesn't necessarily want to make a deal. Undisputed. This thread is all speculation on what may/may not happen and the positions Disney and Comcast may find themselves in.

But let me turn your analogy around a bit and say Disney retorts to Universal's $100 billion dollar offer and says:
Okay, We've run the revenue projections for ESPN, the various Disney Channels, ABC, (so basically Comcast: you can't show much football - outside of whatever NBC and CBS have) and we've forecasted what streaming rights and On Demand rights would generate for you via your InDemand Service, cable service, and other avenues and we feel you will generate $100 Billion (completely made up number) over the next 5 or 10 years. We would like 90% of that revenue please. And, we really don't want to give this to you because we plan to make it exclusive to our streaming service. But....if you want it....that's what it's going to take. There's negotiating strength on both sides.

Now - this thread has spiraled a bit. But if you look back at my first post on this thread - I merely formulated an opinion that eventually Disney and Uni would come to some type of deal on this.

Then, out of the woodwork they came: "The contract says..", "Never", "That's not how Disney operates..", "You're delusional" so on and so forth. Amazing how many on this board are in lock step with Disney's operating philosophy.

 

[phillip9698]

I get that Uni is going to want a boatload. I also get that Comcast doesn't necessarily want to make a deal. Undisputed. This thread is all speculation on what may/may not happen and the positions Disney and Comcast may find themselves in.

But let me turn your analogy around a bit and say Disney retorts to Universal's $100 billion dollar offer and says:
Okay, We've run the revenue projections for ESPN, the various Disney Channels, ABC, (so basically Comcast: you can't show much football - outside of whatever NBC and CBS have) and we've forecasted what streaming rights and On Demand rights would generate for you via your InDemand Service, cable service, and other avenues and we feel you will generate $100 Billion (completely made up number) over the next 5 or 10 years. We would like 90% of that revenue please. And, we really don't want to give this to you because we plan to make it exclusive to our streaming service. But....if you want it....that's what it's going to take. There's negotiating strength on both sides.

Now - this thread has spiraled a bit. But if you look back at my first post on this thread - I merely formulated an opinion that eventually Disney and Uni would come to some type of deal on this.

Then, out of the woodwork they came: "The contract says..", "Never", "That's not how Disney operates..", "You're delusional" so on and so forth. Amazing how many on this board are in lock step with Disney's operating philosophy.

And now you've reached the point where Disney would need to blackmail Comcast by removing their tv content from millions of subscribers just to break a contract they don't like. Something like that would surely get the attention of Congress and kick off investigations and lawsuits. It's way outside the realm of possibility where the rest of us have been giving you realistic scenarios as to why Disney is not getting those rights back.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

And now you've reached the point where Disney would need to blackmail Comcast by removing their tv content from millions of subscribers just to break a contract they don't like. Something like that would surely get the attention of Congress and kick off investigations and lawsuits. It's way outside the realm of possibility where the rest of us have been giving you realistic scenarios as to why Disney is not getting those rights back.

I just turned your hypothetical "blackmail" response around and now you want to spout Anit-Trust and Congressional Oversight? Alrighty then.

It's all a negotiation - and it's not going to go they way either you, I, or anyone on this board thinks it will. But to assume that both parties don't have leverage - okay, you can keep assuming. You all get awfully defensive when your views are challenged. Makes the board fun.