Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Well, whatever gets you through the day.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Marvel in Hollywood Studios?
- Thread starter A1st
- Start date
CJR
Well-Known Member
Where did Disney announce this? I've never heard that. They had plans to start another shared universe with Guardians, but I never read anywhere they they would be apart of The Avengers. Given the lack of association with The Avengers in the comics, I would be shocked to see Disney ruin a potential gig in their own theme parks.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
In numerous places actually. Most recently, Kevin Fiege did a detailed interview where he covered every movie in Phase 2. GotG is in there.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/05/02/iron-man-3-marvel-phase-two/
CJR
Well-Known Member
Building up to The Avengers 2 and being a part of the movie will be two different things though. The article didn't say they would become Avengers. They are making a Guardians movie, but my guess is The Avengers 2 will be a followup to the first movie rather than an expansion. Guardians of the Galaxy aren't Avengers.
EDIT: If you look at it, it never mentions anything Avengers related in the Guardians description. I have heard that Thanos will be in both movies, but since Universal does not use Thanos in their parks, that would not impact Guardians. Disney wouldn't be able to use Thanos because of The Avengers, but unless the members of Guardians all become Avengers, the Guardians family is almost unaffected. They can even share the same screen and still not be in the same family, it depends on the labeling. For example, when Mickey and Bugs were on screen together in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Mickey didn't become a permanent Looney Tunes star. I've heard no reports of them sharing a spot in The Avengers 2 though, just that a standalone Guardians movie is coming.
Well, that explains why half this forum thinks the Marvel rides will fall into disrepair at some point.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
CJR
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't though. The family only includes the direct members and the villains. If Guardians aren't considered Avengers, they would be their own family. The line would be drawn at direct heroes and villains, not everything they touch.
What family are you suggesting that Guardians belong to? What member is actively in IoA? None of them are that I know of. Guardians are their own family by definition. If one of their members are also a part of The Avengers, it would prohibit Disney from using that character, but unless that character is in IoA, Guardians would not be affected (aside from the characters attached to The Avengers).
lebeau
Well-Known Member
That's where you are drawing the line. I'm sure Universal's lawyers would draw the line elsewhere. And when they show up with a stack of interviews in which the head of Marvel Studios refers to Guardians of the Galaxy as part of the Avengers film franchise, I think the arbitor would likely agree with them,
I don't think Disney is likely to risk a costly and embarassing legal battle so they can build a ride with a space raccoon.
CJR
Well-Known Member
Being a part of the franchise does not make them a part of a family. You're confusing a franchise with a family. Mickey's not a Looney Toon just because he appeared in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Guardians will still be a part of the Guardians family.
I also haven't seen Guardians referred to as part of The Avengers franchise in any interviews. The one someone posted didn't do that. It said it was coming as a Marvel film, not an Avengers (albeit, building up to The Avengers, but that doesn't make it a family member).
lebeau
Well-Known Member
I'm not confusing anything. The term "family" is loosely defined. If Disney and Marvel ever entered arbitration, it would be up to the arbitor to decide whether or not being part of the Avengers film franchise made the Guardians part of the Avengers family. I think that's a pretty compelling argument. I'm sure there are plenty of other comic book connections Universal's lawyers would bring up as well.
Disney could win. But why subject themselves to that? It's a big expensive gamble with a small pay off.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I rest my case.
Well everyone, this should be enough proof. No Guardians of the Galaxy for WDW.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
It should be. But it won't be.
CJR
Well-Known Member
I agree with you here. My point is Disney COULD do it, possibly. Yes, it is definitely loosely defined. I don't see much for Disney to lose in the matter. There's nothing for Universal to gain other than a potential victory (or loss) against Disney to spite them, but ultimately, it would result in business as usual. I mean, if Disney had a budget for a Guardians ride, it would just be used on something else, so Universal will still face competition either way.
So there would be issues that both sides would have too think about. Universal would be "is it worth it?", Disney would be "Can we win?" My guess would be a "possibly", but if Universal were to find it not worth it, then Disney might find it to be since they wouldn't go to court. It would kind of be like a poker game. Now, if Universal were to not take action, that would make if fun if the land was successful and then they were like "wait a second..." Regardless, I find the subject interesting despite people wishing this thread would close.
I'm honestly confusing myself by writing this, so I'll bow out here. The point is, Disney can argue what a family is and possibly win. Will they? If they want to, but it would have to be worth it. If they were to win, they could move forward with other things as well in WDW parks, so it would probably depend on the volume of attractions being considered over the long-term future.
Have a great night everyone!
TP2000
Well-Known Member
And here I thought I was the only one.
All of these comic book guys all seem the same to me, and while I can count on one hand the "characters" that I know (Hulk, Spiderman, Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman), I have no idea which one belongs to which company or who all the others are. And I'm okay with that.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
I agree with you here. My point is Disney COULD do it, possibly. Yes, it is definitely loosely defined. I don't see much for Disney to lose in the matter. There's nothing for Universal to gain other than a potential victory (or loss) against Disney to spite them, but ultimately, it would result in business as usual. I mean, if Disney had a budget for a Guardians ride, it would just be used on something else, so Universal will still face competition either way.
So there would be issues that both sides would have too think about. Universal would be "is it worth it?", Disney would be "Can we win?" My guess would be a "possibly", but if Universal were to find it not worth it, then Disney might find it to be.
I'm honestly confusing myself by writing this, so I'll bow out here. The point is, Disney can argue what a family is and possibly win. Will they? If they want to, but it would have to be worth it. If they were to win, they could move forward with other things as well in WDW parks, so it would probably depend on the volume of attractions being considered over the long-term future.
Have a great night everyone!
Universal would have no choice but to fight tooth and nail to protect the strictest possible interpretation of the contract. They would go to the matt over something like this because if they give Disney an inch, they will take a mile. You actually explained exactly why (in bold) Universal would have to fight this.
What does Disney have to loose? A lot of money and bad press.
So, what you're saying is that Avengers will be in the Studios and Guardians of the Galaxy in Frontierland and they'll have some tough decisions to make about crossover characters? Am I reading the tea leaves correctly?
CJR
Well-Known Member
I could argue it, but as a courtesy to you, I won't. It's not worth it.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend!