Marvel coming to WDW?!?!

[yoda_5729]

It probably will just be ignored, or the top of the tower could remain similar, even themed to Guardians, but the Tower has to keep some aspects to it's original design intact, because it can be seen from inside Epcot. When you stand in Mexico and look at Morocco in the World Showcase, the Tower of Terror is quite prevalent behind the pavilion. Though I understand since Swan and Dolphin, they could always ignore this, but since Morocco in particular has devoted artisans to it's pavilion, the country might actually have some clout over the matter. You're basically seeing the backside of it, when you see the Tower from Mexico, but it would probably have to keep the sandy color, and possible even the roof design to properly blend in with the World Showcase pavilion.

 

[Suspirian]

If they really need Marvel in that space, I really think they should consider waiting to see how Dr. Strange turns out as it seems to involve similar themes as the current attraction.

 

[yoda_5729]

Also,for what it's worth, I really don't like the idea of the Collector's Museum.

To begin with, I hate the concept of changing the Tower of Terror. Of all the things that need to happen, that is not even remotely on the agenda. That being said though, I see more problems with the Collector;s Museum.

What exactly is he collecting. The cool factor of the Collector's Museum was that it could reference and be easter eggs for other Marvel properties. Properties that will likely be off limits due to the Universal deal. The only reason Guardians may be okay is because it was so obscure in the Marvel Universe, Universal didn't use them. So, they are now planning a Collectors Museum in which it is a museum of stuff so obscure, even the most seasoned of Marvel readers will barely be familiar with? I should note as well, the Collector's Museum is based off of a character that is not currently scheduled to even appear in the sequel for Guardians (but, Benicio will be in the next Star Wars). That's another thing as well, as people called Guardians when it came out, this generations Star Wars. To have that, trying to share the same theme park, with Star Wars to me is a stretch.

They should, if they want to make the Collector's Museum, make it a restaurant for Disney Springs. That way, it can delve into any comics it wants (since it's outside a theme park), and could serve as a Marvel version of Planet Hollywood.

If they were so hellbent on making an attraction based on a Marvel comic, they should base one off of the Figment comic book.

 

[Mike S]

Also,for what it's worth, I really don't like the idea of the Collector's Museum.

To begin with, I hate the concept of changing the Tower of Terror. Of all the things that need to happen, that is not even remotely on the agenda. That being said though, I see more problems with the Collector;s Museum.

What exactly is he collecting. The cool factor of the Collector's Museum was that it could reference and be easter eggs for other Marvel properties. Properties that will likely be off limits due to the Universal deal. The only reason Guardians may be okay is because it was so obscure in the Marvel Universe, Universal didn't use them. So, they are now planning a Collectors Museum in which it is a museum of stuff so obscure, even the most seasoned of Marvel readers will barely be familiar with? I should note as well, the Collector's Museum is based off of a character that is not currently scheduled to even appear in the sequel for Guardians (but, Benicio will be in the next Star Wars). That's another thing as well, as people called Guardians when it came out, this generations Star Wars. To have that, trying to share the same theme park, with Star Wars to me is a stretch.

They should, if they want to make the Collector's Museum, make it a restaurant for Disney Springs. That way, it can delve into any comics it wants (since it's outside a theme park), and could serve as a Marvel version of Planet Hollywood.

If they were so hellbent on making an attraction based on a Marvel comic, they should base one off of the Figment comic book.

He obviously collects the tears of fans of Tower of Terror.

 

[Quinnmac000]

He obviously collects the tears of fans of Tower of Terror.

Lol thats already the theme for Dr. Doom Fearfall. Collecting the fear of those who ride for the ultimate doom weapon.

 

[imperius]

If they really need Marvel in that space, I really think they should consider waiting to see how Dr. Strange turns out as it seems to involve similar themes as the current attraction.

Dr. Strange is owned by Universal for theme park rights.

Also, GOTG 3 was announced recently so that doesn't help this rumor not happening.

 

[cheezbat]

So many profanities I want to use if Disney goes through with this.

Stop being so dang cheap and build NEW attractions! Leave our beloved ones alone!

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

I'm starting to think I need to stop reading this thread.

This overlay/replacement idea is making me ill.

 

[Mike S]

Dr. Strange is owned by Universal for theme park rights.

Also, GOTG 3 was announced recently so that doesn't help this rumor not happening.

How about finishing up the second one first?

 

[imperius]

How about finishing up the second one first?

Gunn is working on it now. Added Mantis to the cast which is exciting.

 

[Cesar R M]

Gunn is working on it now. Added Mantis to the cast which is exciting.

oh man, I love her!
Wishing they could also add Bug! (bug is the equivalent of nightcrawler sans bamfs on GOTG).
Also, I wonder if they will add Adam Warlock as well.
He is back on the comics.

 

[danlb_2000]

Dr. Strange is owned by Universal for theme park rights.

Also, GOTG 3 was announced recently so that doesn't help this rumor not happening.

I think Dr Strange falls into the grey area. I am no comic expert but it appears he became part of the New Avengers in 2010 which was after the contract was made. So this goes back to the question of whether the families were locked in at the time of the contract or allowed to change.

 

[WDWBear84]

Why can't we get something like this instead of a horrible retheme of ToT.

http://kotaku.com/disney-theme-park-designer-imagines-a-totoro-ride-1771971600

 

[Matt_Black]

Gunn is working on it now. Added Mantis to the cast which is exciting.

oh man, I love her!
Wishing they could also add Bug! (bug is the equivalent of nightcrawler sans bamfs on GOTG).
Also, I wonder if they will add Adam Warlock as well.
He is back on the comics.

They better have the dog, that's all I got to say.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think Dr Strange falls into the grey area. I am no comic expert but it appears he became part of the New Avengers in 2010 which was after the contract was made. So this goes back to the question of whether the families were locked in at the time of the contract or allowed to change.

It makes no sense for the families to be locked. The style guides are the listed reference and those must change. This contract was for Marvel's global theme park presence and they were desperate, they wanted Universal to stay involved forever.

 

[imperius]

oh man, I love her!
Wishing they could also add Bug! (bug is the equivalent of nightcrawler sans bamfs on GOTG).
Also, I wonder if they will add Adam Warlock as well.
He is back on the comics.

Warlock will not be in 2 sadly.

 

[danlb_2000]

It makes no sense for the families to be locked. The style guides are the listed reference and those must change. This contract was for Marvel's global theme park presence and they were desperate, they wanted Universal to stay involved forever.

If that is the case, then Guardians of the Galaxy can't be used either.

 

[Rodan75]

If that is the case, then Guardians of the Galaxy can't be used either.

Exactly. The fact that GOTG has been used, indicates that the families are not tied to where they first appeared or had a major story line.

During the Sony hack, we saw that the way that the families were managed for the Sony deal was sloppy making some unrelated characters part of the Spidey-Verse and not including others that clearly could/should have been (I believe Spider-Woman is technically outside of the Sony film rights) and that there was a reconciliation process for determining character film rights, we've seen similar with Fox and Marvel (Quicksilver). The Universal/Marvel contract could be similarly not concrete and since they didn't take the global expansion, it could be more limited than we are assuming.

The boards have made a lot of assumptions on the family management and style guide. The truth is we don't have all of those details and it is hard to infer the details because Universal has done little to update character designs or costumes to show what they have access to.

The only thing we know for sure is that Disney can clearly use GOTG and BH6 in FL without Marvel Branding and Universal has the rights to the characters they are currently using in theme parks east of the Mississippi in perpetuity (potentially with modern Style Guides, potentially with locked 90's style guides)

 

[Matt_Black]

During the Sony hack, we saw that the way that the families were managed for the Sony deal was sloppy making some unrelated characters part of the Spidey-Verse and not including others that clearly could/should have been (I believe Spider-Woman is technically outside of the Sony film rights)

Well, why would she have been? She's never been all that strongly connected to Spider-Man.

 

[seascape]

It makes no sense for the families to be locked. The style guides are the listed reference and those must change. This contract was for Marvel's global theme park presence and they were desperate, they wanted Universal to stay involved forever.

Characters that existed prior to the contract and were not part of it should be available for Disney to use even if they are now added to family. However other characters that did not exist and were added to the family would not be available for Disney to use. But then for either company to be able to use newly developed characters in the family would require an amendment to the existing contract.