Well, it never made sense to me that converting ToT would be done for financial reasons. Doing nothing is cheaper than doing something and is the correct thing to do in Orlando (or both coasts). That's one of the lingering mysteries that hasn't been answered in this thread, especially when budget cuts are apparent everywhere else. As you pointed out, Disney LOVES to do nothing. How do you reconcile this? It's not just the monetary cost; it's the opportunity cost of having the park's icon closed for refurb while there isn't much else operating. I find it much more plausible, however unfortunate, that they'd simply replace the intro movie to remove the Twilight Zone reference and save on having to pay the license.
Maybe you're right that it's all about reinforcing the Marvel franchise, despite Guardians itself not being a large mover of merchandise, according to my n-of-2 sample size of having two disinterested boys. But that brings us to the real question here.
Is Jim right about Disney's interpretation of the Marvel licensing agreement, meaning that any installation in Orlando would be necessarily temporary? That would make the financials all the more impractical if true but your timeline suggests that Disney believes Jim's interpretation is false. This is really the most interesting question in this thread- does Disney lose the theme park rights to "minor" Marvel characters (such as Guardians) as soon as they're tied into the Disney's cinematic universe? The contract seems ambiguous to me in Disney's favor.
I don't think anyone would disagree about the the state of Space Mountain in the Magic Kingdom, but that seems like a whole different discussion and the refurb was, as you said, killed during Crofton. I bet we'd all love to see this ToT budget go toward a Space Mountain refurb to establish parity with Disneyland's hardware.
In fairness, the first half of the podcast was very critical of the new after dark party at the Magic Kingdom in addition to all the other price increases (they laughed at the "crazy" dinner-for-lunch pricing at Ohana and Crystal Palace) as well as the related debacle of Shanghai. (He's expecting a tiered opening.) Plus, good intentions or not, it's hardly positive to bring attention to the ToT proposition blowing up in his face, even if done respectfully. Damage control? Perhaps. But as the folks posting earlier have noted, elsewhere Disney (Steven Donaldson) has taken the policy of deny, deny, deny.
