-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Marvel at WDW
- Thread starter MJ6987
- Start date
Not sure what that means....but....Hogamwad (I'm assuming Hogsmeade)....Tony can't interact with Harry. He can't interact with the velociraptors either.
Look I have an AP to Uni. I like Uni. Uni has a lot to offer. But they would be better served letting go of Marvel. Now, I get it - it's a financial decision. And Uni will try to be compensated for that.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Yes, Hogsmead (didn’t catch the auto correct). By your nonsense definition that a new ride in an existing land doesn’t count as a new ride, then the next new rides going into Islands of Adventure somehow don’t count as new rides.
You still haven’t established how Universal benefits from dropping a cheap license that remains popular.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
It's a signfianctly better contract now then when it was signed, and it continues to stay great with every new Marvel blockbuster that is released.
Universal has been very successful building rides based on things someone else owns. They did it with Potter and are getting ready to do it again with Nintendo just to name a few. The bottom line is, if you could create an equation that expresses IP popularity vs licensing cost you wouldn't find anything that comes anywhere near what the would look like for the Marvel deal.
Does the "new" ride expand the land? We're talking about a Marvel expansion at Uni. Swapping out a ride, cramming another ride into the existing infrastructure.....is what it is. Marvel Superhero Island will not expand, not get bigger, not occupy new space....other than what is already there. Sure Let's have Hulk this year...turn it into Dr Doom Death Coaster next year...call it Peter Parker's Awakening the next. It's the same footprint. You think Uni gains from that?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They’re going to keep building Potter and that deal is now with AT&T. I don’t think it’s a reach to think that Comcast considers AT&T to be a big competitor in many industries.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You already dismissed expansion of the land boundaries as somehow not counting (the amphitheater). And yes, putting a new ride into an existing land benefits as it layers in experiences. Every new attraction should not sit on some isolated plot of land, it should be part of an integrated environment, a land. Renaming attractions is your own made up nonsense scenario that nobody else has mentioned.
This is not Potter. Uni cannot build "Tony Stark's Lab" at Universal and have a ride connect them to it from IOA. They are limited in what they can do with Marvel. Uni is capped. Great..... swap out rides, cram in rides, put an additional elevator on top of Hulk and create the another Spidey Ride. There is not infinite space. Uni is just hanging on with this. Sure they are still making money. But eventually it will cost them money to continue hanging on.
You're just hanging on to something that is just not there.
Darth Figment
Well-Known Member
By the time Disney get to use marvel the suoer hero phase will be gone, but disney will build a super hero land anyway
danlb_2000
Premium Member
The point I was trying to make with Potter is that Universal doesn't have a huge stable of their own IP's to drawn on, so having they have to pay other companies for a lot of the stuff they use. If they licensed something else right now to replace Marvel it could end up being something that is half as popular and cost them twice, if not more, as much to license.
It probably won't start costing them money until we reach a point where the popularity of Marvel starts to drop considerably.
I get that....but if Disney offered some IP's (plus a boatload of cash) in return for Marvel...say Predator, Kingsman, Planet of the Apes.....those are things that could easily fit in a Uni environment that would make an imprint in their parks. I think this thread spiraled a bit. All I'm trying to say is that eventually Disney is going to get Marvel from Uni. Can't say when...but I'll stick with - within the next 10 years (probably sooner).
Otherwise I'll owe @marni1971 a drink at Bunny's.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Whatever Disney offers, cash or franchises, would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if not north of one billion dollars. That would all be before anyone starts work on new attractions that themselves individually would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The numbers don’t work for Disney. They can’t justify multiplying the already high cost of attractions.
Well....they spent 4 Billion for Star Wars....now didn't they. Building SWL in 2 parks wasn't free. Disney will manage.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They paid $4 billion for everything Star Wars and are able to monetize that acquisition through various avenues, not just attractions at Walt Disney World. Even Galaxy’s Edge is a project co-financed by Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World. You’re proposing another Galaxy’s Edge for twice the cost, but not twice the content, paid for only by Walt Disney World.
Are you saying that Disney will pay more for the Marvel rights and subsequent development than they paid for SW and it's development in the parks?
Just trying to understand your position here.......
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I’m saying Disney won’t built a $2 billion Marvel land with only $1 billion worth of actual content. Disney’s attraction costs are already too high. That is the reason the first Marvel ride in the US was not a new build. Disney cannot justify attractions that just cost a few hundreds of millions more than they already cost.
An attraction is not going to cost a few hundred million. A land, or a couple of lands spread across multiple parks...maybe.
We're just going to disagree on this...which is fine. Let's just wait and see how it all plays out.