Marvel coming to WDW?!?!

[Filby61]

... I am a tourist, a consumer, I have no allegiance to any particular brand of entertainment provider, I just want to be entertained....

Well, see, right there's yer problem, mate. The sorry result of swallowing a red pill sometime in the past, more likely than not. Quick fix: run, don't walk, to your nearest dispensary of DisneyDust, and chaw yerself down a blue pill.

Once you have returned to the righteous path of Brand Loyalty, you'll find that everything will become... well... happier.

 

[Quinnmac000]

This solidifies a few things. The question is, what does Marvel consider top notch? if Universal has to play to Marvel's approval, they might end up bringing the attraction down from an E ticket type ride to something small, yet "reasonable" by contract standards.

It probably could never be downsized just upsized. In the contract it states the goal of the Marvel Universe was to have MCA which now has in its place is Comcast, create things to make the public want to buy the merchandise. A downsized ride doesn't tend to warrant a gift shop as you get off it and Comcast could easily agree you that. "Reasonable" only refers to the story line of the ride and would it tarnish Marvel reputation not so much how much will this hurt our parent company.

Heck it can even be argued that if Comcast wanted to create a Marvel themed hotel they could based on this as long as they sold Marvel merchandise.

The various Marvel properties and merchandise will also be used throughout the destination resort including within the hotels (if operated by MCA or an MCA Corporately Related Company; or if operated by a third party MCA will encourage such use), and Marvel theming and merchandise will be featured in any airport stores operated by MCA in Los Angeles or Orlando. Uses of Marvel theming in MCA operated stores other than within the resort property or within the aforesaid MCA operated airport stores will require specific Marvel approval.

The contract only benefits Disney monetarily with the more merchandise being sold, the bigger the paycheck to Marvel later on.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This solidifies a few things. The question is, what does Marvel consider top notch? if Universal has to play to Marvel's approval, they might end up bringing the attraction down from an E ticket type ride to something small, yet "reasonable" by contract standards.

Marvel has clearly approved work on two major attractions. Universal hasn't pushed through a new ride because they felt like doing other projects first. That's it. No other reasons necessary. Not doing something is not proof that there is some sort of hindrance.

 

[Cesar R M]

Hmm... where have I heard that sentiment before?

that hilarious thread about one "concerned mother" who said the haunted house was too scary for her "precious" and thus needed to be replaced by something more "cheery" ?

 

[ford91exploder]

Well, see, right there's yer problem, mate. The sorry result of swallowing a red pill sometime in the past, more likely than not. Quick fix: run, don't walk, to your nearest dispensary of DisneyDust, and chaw yerself down a blue pill.

Once you have returned to the righteous path of Brand Loyalty, you'll find that everything will become... well... happier.

We'll done Agent Filby as that's the sound of inevitability...

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Im typing this slowly so the hard of thinking can understand. I am a tourist, a consumer, I have no allegiance to any particular brand of entertainment provider, I just want to be entertained. I say what I like and what I don't like regardless of ownership, its just personal opinion, OK its more valid than most because its mine but we cant all be me.
Your slavish devotion to one mega corporation is dully noted, but I think you are letting the frustrations' you are suppressing as a fan boy of comic books, and Disney's failure to quench your thirst for mouse created attractions, eradicate any rational thought as to how a multinational corporate monster may please its shareholders before dealing with the whims a niche section of fans. If they are getting profit from no outlay why would they even consider spending?
Its fantastic that something so banal generates such passion in one so young, but sadly its just a little misplaced as many many people are trying to tell you. Its all about the money and Disney are getting a whack from a competitor whos success is mutually beneficial for both organisations and all for no costs. Yep theyll be desperate to shred those agreements and splash out on a twenty year building plan of one spinner two meet n greets and a couple of shops n eateries. Cha fuggin Ching.

I already made a post about why Disney shouldn't change the contract

Yes, It costs Disney nothing, but the cheapest, bare bones overlay or even just a Star Wars weekends or Frozen Summer Fun type deal would end up making them more money. Not only would Disney making money on exclusive Marvel merchandise, food, and beverages, but it brings in a whole new group of paying customers to come to their park where they could possibly buy other merchandise, food, and beverages. If DHS were to have something like this, it would only increase the likelihood of these people staying at one of their resorts so they can visit the other 3 parks where they can buy even more merchandise, food, and beverages. Its not just about the Marvel profit, but the overall profit. So while I'm sure Disney is fine with mooching off Universal with the deal as is, they certainly don't want to create a situation in which Universal takes the overall profit and attendance away from them. From what I've heard, Disney has taken the buzz about Potter to heart when it comes to making SWL. So much so that they even got one of the designers on Potter to lead it. Like you, I know that corporations aren't black and white and can always work together. The hypothetical situation we speak of here, however, seems highly unlikely since it would ultimately end up detracting from Disney's overall product in a much bigger way than Potter did. I also think that it would be just as unlikely that re-negotiations that would work in Disney's favor since it would detract from Universal's overall product in big way. This is the reason why I'm going against these theories and believe that the contract will remain unchanged.

Secondly, To assume that I'm a pixie duster who exclusively consumes Disney produced entertainment is a harsh jump to conclusion. I grew up with Marvel and Lucasfilm properties and my opinion of them was generally unaffected by the Disney buyouts. If you were to look at my posts in other threads, you can see that I can be rather critical of the Disney company. However, I will be the first to admit that I have a preference towards Disney on the theme park front, but I made my conclusions on that based on personal experience. My family and I took a Universal side trip on our WDW trips while I was growing up, and while we thought the parks had a quite a few attractions that lined up with our interests, the Universal experience as as whole just didn't have the same appeal to us that the Disney experience does even now so we eventually grew disinterested and stopped going. That being said, I would never tell anyone here who enjoys the Universal parks not to enjoy them. I was just pointing out how discussion about Universal on these boards can reach pixie duster level heights and how bringing it down to earth just a little bit would make their judgement less clouded. Now, I know that not every argument I've made today has been the best stated, but others on this board, especially @Quinnmac000, have since helped me become more knowledgable a about Universal's plans and better informed my perspectives. But I still think Universal bias created at least part of the back and forth in this discussion, and I've been happy to offer points that not everything goes Universal's way in every situation. Both sides of the contract argument have had good points and bad points, I just believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Marvel has clearly approved work on two major attractions. Universal hasn't pushed through a new ride because they felt like doing other projects first. That's it. No other reasons necessary. Not doing something is not proof that there is some sort of hindrance.

What's the second attraction rumored to be? Just curious. Reading the other posts, I have been reminded that Universal had other attractions in USO that needed to be replaced asap. But I still have some questions as to why they didn't immediately resort to Marvel for one of the less urgent changes if their corporate strategy is to ultimately be seen on par with Disney in the public eye. Its just that if you're a corporation that exist to make money, you should know that going all out on Marvel will most likely make you the most money and therefore want to put it ahead of all the other less urgent additions.

 

[Quinnmac000]

What's the second attraction rumored to be? Just curious. Reading the other posts, I have been reminded that Universal had other attractions in USO that needed to be replaced asap. But I still have some questions as to why they didn't immediately resort to Marvel for one of the less urgent changes if their corporate strategy is to ultimately be seen on par with Disney in the public eye. Its just that if you're a corporation that exist to make money, you should know that going all out on Marvel will most likely make you the most money and therefore want to put it ahead of all the other less urgent additions.

Actually the assured moneymaker is Potter. I get how you are thinking but with Harry Potter you have not just merchandise but it also hugely boosts food, beverage, and ticket sales. Simpsons brings in a huge increase to food and beverage. With Marvel, there is no clear line of increase profits in other sectors, it may be in tickets but they don't have any unique merchandise you can't buy at target. All the stuff is licensed things you can find at most places that sell Marvel stuff. Add in the fact they lose a cut of what they make to Marvel, it would justify that it would be lower priority compared to other things.

With Jurassic Park and the Raptor Encounter, Kong, Tonight Show, and Fast and Furious, there are no licensing fees involved as they own these properties so when they make attractions and stores, it goes directly to them. Yea if some licenses include a cut of the revenue from tickets yea they will lose out a little but all the merchandise, food, etc is Comcast's.

Also despite them only having Marvel in Florida and it is a huge money maker. Comcast has two other parks outside of Orlando that they own and have to make attractions for Universal Studios Japan as of September last year and Universal Studios Hollywood while at the same time designing a 3.3 billion dollar park in China and providing attractions for Universal Studios Korea which as of last December is back on.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

It probably could never be downsized just upsized. In the contract it states the goal of the Marvel Universe was to have MCA which now has in its place is Comcast, create things to make the public want to buy the merchandise. A downsized ride doesn't tend to warrant a gift shop as you get off it and Comcast could easily agree you that. "Reasonable" only refers to the story line of the ride and would it tarnish Marvel reputation not so much how much will this hurt our parent company.

Heck it can even be argued that if Comcast wanted to create a Marvel themed hotel they could based on this as long as they sold Marvel merchandise.



The contract only benefits Disney monetarily with the more merchandise being sold, the bigger the paycheck to Marvel later on.

Right, they'd probably want to have a gift shop. But the merchandising that Disney already benifits from aside, isn't there in house concerns that Universal could be a threat to WDW's market dominance? I mean that's a big part of the reason why DAK and DHS are getting the quality of land's that they're getting, so that IoA and USF don't blow past them in attendance? Would allowin the expansion of a smaller revenue stream merrit the negative affects it would have on a larger revenue stream? I know this isn't the current administration, but Eisner was frustrated with the OLC and Swan and Dolphin deals the previous administration made because the deals didn't fully benifit Disney.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What's the second attraction rumored to be? Just curious. Reading the other posts, I have been reminded that Universal had other attractions in USO that needed to be replaced asap. But I still have some questions as to why they didn't immediately resort to Marvel for one of the less urgent changes if their corporate strategy is to ultimately be seen on par with Disney in the public eye. Its just that if you're a corporation that exist to make money, you should know that going all out on Marvel will most likely make you the most money and therefore want to put it ahead of all the other less urgent additions.

The Incredible Hulk is being rebuilt right now. The new queue, on-board audio and other changes all had to be approved by Marvel.

You keep completely glossing over the fact that new attractions take years to develop. Even at Universal they take years and your big proof of inability is in development regardless of how little you have personally heard about it. Marvel Super Hero Island already makes Universal money, already sells Marvel merchandise and also already includes one of the most well regarded attractions in the world. Not to mention that such a project would be exclusive to Orlando so there would be no cloning potential.

Right, they'd probably want to have a gift shop. But the merchandising that Disney already benifits from aside, isn't there in house concerns that Universal could be a threat to WDW's market dominance? I mean that's a big part of the reason why DAK and DHS are getting the quality of land's that they're getting, so that IoA and USF don't blow past them in attendance? Would allowin the expansion of a smaller revenue stream merrit the negative affects it would have on a larger revenue stream? I know this isn't the current administration, but Eisner was frustrated with the OLC and Swan and Dolphin deals the previous administration made because the deals didn't fully benifit Disney.

That is not a legitimate reason to withhold approval. It does not matter how much Walt Disney Parks and Resorts does not like the situation. If Disney could do anything don't you think they would have stopped the next Marvel land to open?

 

[Quinnmac000]

Right, they'd probably want to have a gift shop. But the merchandising that Disney already benifits from aside, isn't there in house concerns that Universal could be a threat to WDW's market dominance? I mean that's a big part of the reason why DAK and DHS are getting the quality of land's that they're getting, so that IoA and USF don't blow past them in attendance? Would allowin the expansion of a smaller revenue stream merrit the negative affects it would have on a larger revenue stream? I know this isn't the current administration, but Eisner was frustrated with the OLC and Swan and Dolphin deals the previous administration made because the deals didn't fully benifit Disney.

Of course there is in house concerns. Comcast getting Dreamworks Animation was a direct hit on Disney to show that they are getting into the animation game. Comcast fully buying out Universal Studios Japan was a direct blow at OLC which is probably why they are pushing for expansions now as a few months last year Universal Studios Japan had projected to have sold more tickets than Tokyo Disney Seas. The fact Minions had a higher gross than Toy Story 3 definitely bothered some folks. The fact Universal has Marvel despite how much Iger acts cool about it bothers him knowing that someone else is benefiting from its success.

DAK isn't getting a quality land because of Universal. It's getting a quality land because James Cameron will sue the hell out of Disney if they tried to fully cheap out. Thats the thing with using outside IPs they are levels of standards you must keep which pushes you to actually have to create a decent to great land. As for DHS, TSPL already seemed to have lost some of its flair and I wouldn't be surprised if the scale of SWL got cut so the attraction budgets can stay where they need to be.

However in the end, Disney can't do anything to stop Universal in regards to Marvel and they know it. Any rejection of proposals by Marvel have to have a written justification as to why and give them a cure to solve the problems if thats how I read it. If Disney used Marvel to say you are being too large scale attraction make it smaller and Comcast took that to court, Marvel would get their butt handed to them and be publicly humilated and it would also negatively affect Disney's image for a bit.

There is something they could do to counteract its effects but unfortunately it has been shown they won't do it. They are concerned about Universal being the place to be then Disney will need to say sorry shareholders we will get your money to you in the long run but first things first lets fix our parks and get them top notch again and actually be out there in innovation not making Stark Tours.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Actually the assured moneymaker is Potter. I get how you are thinking but with Harry Potter you have not just merchandise but it also hugely boosts food, beverage, and ticket sales. Simpsons brings in a huge increase to food and beverage. With Marvel, there is no clear line of increase profits in other sectors, it may be in tickets but they don't have any unique merchandise you can't buy at target. All the stuff is licensed things you can find at most places that sell Marvel stuff. Add in the fact they lose a cut of what they make to Marvel, it would justify that it would be lower priority compared to other things.

With Jurassic Park and the Raptor Encounter, Kong, Tonight Show, and Fast and Furious, there are no licensing fees involved as they own these properties so when they make attractions and stores, it goes directly to them. Yea if some licenses include a cut of the revenue from tickets yea they will lose out a little but all the merchandise, food, etc is Comcast's.

Also despite them only having Marvel in Florida and it is a huge money maker. Comcast has two other parks outside of Orlando that they own and have to make attractions for Universal Studios Japan as of September last year and Universal Studios Hollywood while at the same time designing a 3.3 billion dollar park in China and providing attractions for Universal Studios Korea which as of last December is back on.

That is a solid reason why they'd want to do other things first, but why can't they create exclusive Marvel merchandise if they can still add to the land. If they were to create special themed merchandise, it would knock the socks off of Potter. I think it's pretty clear that Marvel is more popular than Harry Potter with today's kids as well.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That is a solid reason why they'd want to do other things first, but why can't they create exclusive Marvel merchandise if they can still add to the land. If they were to create special themed merchandise, it would knock the socks off of Potter. I think it's pretty clear that Marvel is more popular than Harry Potter with today's kids as well.

Throughout THE SECOND GATE, stores will carry a wide range of Marvel produced or licensed products and artwork, Marvel comic books, Fleer trading cards (or cards of such other licensee as may be designated by Marvel), and toys (primarily action figures) manufactured by Toy Biz, Inc. (or such other Marvel licensee as may be designated by Marvel). Additionally, within or adjacent to THE MARVEL UNIVERSE there would be significant retail space dedicated to Marvel publications, software, products, and cards produced or licensed by Marvel. It is anticipated that this exposure to a highly motivated public who have experienced THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, combined with the underlying popularity of the Marvel properties, will result in a level of sale of Marvel manufactured and licensed products, such as would make THE SECOND GATE an extremely lucrative outlet for its properties.

 

[Quinnmac000]

That is a solid reason why they'd want to do other things first, but why can't they create exclusive Marvel merchandise if they can still add to the land. If they were to create special themed merchandise, it would knock the socks off of Potter. I think it's pretty clear that Marvel is more popular than Harry Potter with today's kids as well.

Attractions Disney can't touch, but merchandise isn't made by Universal. It would have to be made by anyone who Disney gives the license to make it which there would be a conflict of interest there especially if Disney wanted to put it in their parks. Marvel may seem popular with kids but teens and young adults are the ones with the money and the disposable income to actually buy things. They grew up with Potter. Marvel wouldn't be able to touch Potter.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Of course there is in house concerns. Comcast getting Dreamworks Animation was a direct hit on Disney to show that they are getting into the animation game. Comcast fully buying out Universal Studios Japan was a direct blow at OLC which is probably why they are pushing for expansions now as a few months last year Universal Studios Japan had projected to have sold more tickets than Tokyo Disney Seas. The fact Minions had a higher gross than Toy Story 3 definitely bothered some folks. The fact Universal has Marvel despite how much Iger acts cool about it bothers him knowing that someone else is benefiting from its success.

DAK isn't getting a quality land because of Universal. It's getting a quality land because James Cameron will sue the hell out of Disney if they tried to fully cheap out. Thats the thing with using outside IPs they are levels of standards you must keep which pushes you to actually have to create a decent to great land. As for DHS, TSPL already seemed to have lost some of its flair and I wouldn't be surprised if the scale of SWL got cut so the attraction budgets can stay where they need to be.

However in the end, Disney can't do anything to stop Universal in regards to Marvel and they know it. Any rejection of proposals by Marvel have to have a written justification as to why and give them a cure to solve the problems of thats how I read it. If Disney used Marvel to say you are being too large scale attraction make it smaller and Comcast took that to court, Marvel would get their butt handed to them and be publicly humilated and it would also negatively affect Disney's image for a bit.

There is something they could do to counteract its effects but unfortunately it has been shown they won't do it. They are concerned about Universal being the place to be then Disney will need to say sorry shareholders we will get your money to you in the long run but first things first lets fix our parks and get them top notch again and actually be out there in innovation not making Stark Tours.

This is definitely more in line to how I thought things worked initially. Some of the rumors here and elsewhere were a bit confusing to me in regards to how things actually worked. Thank you for this as well as your other comments.

 

[danlb_2000]

Right, they'd probably want to have a gift shop. But the merchandising that Disney already benifits from aside, isn't there in house concerns that Universal could be a threat to WDW's market dominance? I mean that's a big part of the reason why DAK and DHS are getting the quality of land's that they're getting, so that IoA and USF don't blow past them in attendance? Would allowin the expansion of a smaller revenue stream merrit the negative affects it would have on a larger revenue stream? I know this isn't the current administration, but Eisner was frustrated with the OLC and Swan and Dolphin deals the previous administration made because the deals didn't fully benifit Disney.

ABC Family (or whatever it is called now), routinely runs the Harry Potter movies with commercials for Universal. Why would Disney accept advertising for one of their competitors? Because it's all about the money.

 

[NobodyElse]

To use a comparison- Chariots of Fire won Best Picture over Raiders of the Lost Ark. When was the last time you heard anyone talk about Chariots of Fire? When was the last time it was on TV? It's not a meaningful film, it's the answer to a question at Trivia Night at your local bar.

I disagree.

 

[Mike S]

Since this thread is partly about ToT l'd like to give a shoutout to Jaclyn (I think that's how she spelled it). One of the best, most energetic, and in character bell hops I've seen at the Tower

 

[Quinnmac000]

This is definitely more in line to how I thought things worked initially. Some of the rumors here and elsewhere were a bit confusing to me in regards to how things actually worked. Thank you for this as well as your other comments.

Anytime.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

ABC Family (or whatever it is called now), routinely runs the Harry Potter movies with commercials for Universal. Why would Disney accept advertising for one of their competitors? Because it's all about the money.

There's a difference between airing a 30 second add and the idea that they would have a say in one of their investments, which they don't.