Marvel in Hollywood Studios?

[Bparso87]

Squirrel Girl was an Avenger. Try again.

Yes I know was a part of Great Lake avengers and the regular avengers. That was my point that ever character has been an avenger.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Any hero that has never been an Avenger is probably a jerk, anyway. Who wouldn't want to fight the biggest baddies and save the multiverse?

 

[Bparso87]

I am calling it now thanos will not be in avengers to. It will be the masters of evil thanos will be in three.

 

[doctornick]

Disney could try and establish a precedent to see just how much it can get away with in regard to meet & greets or hotels or restaurants outside the parks too, but why would they want to give essentially free advertising for the competitors park up the street? I can't think of a more effective way to get more WDW resort guests to head up I-4 than that.

I don't really think so. If someone is inclined to see Marvel stuff in a theme park, they will make plans to go to IOA. It's not like someone is going to show up at WDW, see an Iron Man M&G and say "hey, let's spend a day at Universal to see more Marvel stuff instead of going to Animal Kingdom". I just don't see that as plausible really, because either (1) the person already knew and considered IOA and was going to go there or (2) the person is ignorant of IOA and having some Marvel M&G at WDW isn't going to educate the person.

WDW already has had the Avengers and Iron Man wraps on the monorail, which would be just as inspiring to go to IOA as a M&G IMHO.

Anyhow, I do think a Marvel store (certainly allowed by the contract) with an attached M&G (likely to be allowed) at DTD would make sense for Disney. Especially if they geared the M&G to whatever Marvel film is currently in theaters or being sold on DVD. So, Iron Man right now, Thor later this year, etc. Then it's basically advertisement for the film division -- they love that synergy -- while also adding a little something to DTD.

Was a Marvel store on the list of potential retail places for Disney Springs? I feel like it was.

 

[Bparso87]

Also GOTG will be held 20 years in the future this has already been confirmed. they will time travel at some point in the movie I expect.

 

[CJR]

Wrong... Refusal has to be "within reason"... Just saying WE OWN MARVEL isn't within reason...

True, but I doubt they would do that. They could definitely say why it would be within reason.

A new attraction would provide competition to Disney, which with the right lawyer team, could be determined to do harm to the Disney brand. Thus, it's possible for them to block any major new attractions. Would they be successful, I honestly don't know, but they're not helpless. Also, like how Universal could stop Disney (at least temporarily) this is way for Disney to put a hold on Universal and at least slow down a possible addition to their competition and gain important details as to how Universal is wanting to invest in their park.

Which, when you think about it, it's believable. Instead of investing in their own property, I could actually see Disney trying to prevent Universal from investing in theirs. Also, if you were Universal, would you want your biggest competition to know the ins and outs of a attraction you are planning (as in not even started construction)?

 

[Bparso87]

I really don't think Disney cares about this anyways. They got the movie rights and merchandise. They will make over 4 billion dollars in phase two movies alone. How long will it take for them to make that with attractions. They will have that in two years and that is just movies.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Also GOTG will be held 20 years in the future this has already been confirmed. they will time travel at some point in the movie I expect.

Go read the story of the Guardians on the Marvel page... They are set in the 31st century, but come back to the 20th century and team with the Avengers..

 

[lebeau]

True, but I doubt they would do that. They could definitely say why it would be within reason.

A new attraction would provide competition to Disney, which with the right lawyer team, could be determined to do harm to the Disney brand. Thus, it's possible for them to block any major new attractions. Would they be successful, I honestly don't know, but they're not helpless. Also, like how Universal could stop Disney (at least temporarily) this is way for Disney to put a hold on Universal and at least slow down a possible addition to their competition.

Which, when you think about it, it's believable. Instead of investing in their own property, I could actually see Disney trying to prevent Universal from investing in theirs.

They would be laughed out of the hearing if that was the argument. Universal has to use the character in a way that violates the way the character is presented in the comics. Which gives Universal a LOT of leeway.

 

[lebeau]

I really don't think Disney cares about this anyways. They got the movie rights and merchandise. They will make over 4 billion dollars in phase two movies alone. How long will it take for them to make that with attractions. They will have that in two years and that is just movies.

EXACTLY!

 

[Captain Chaos]

True, but I doubt they would do that. They could definitely say why it would be within reason.

A new attraction would provide competition to Disney, which with the right lawyer team, could be determined to do harm to the Disney brand. Thus, it's possible for them to block any major new attractions. Would they be successful, I honestly don't know, but they're not helpless. Also, like how Universal could stop Disney (at least temporarily) this is way for Disney to put a hold on Universal and at least slow down a possible addition to their competition and gain important details as to how Universal is wanting to invest in their park.

Which, when you think about it, it's believable. Instead of investing in their own property, I could actually see Disney trying to prevent Universal from investing in theirs. Also, if you were Universal, would you want your biggest competition to know the ins and outs of a attraction you are planning (as in not even started construction)?

Doesn't matter if it is competition.. That is not within reason.. Other than Universal wanting to make Captain America an Al Qaeda terrorist, Disney cannot say no...

I would love to see Disney argue competiton... UM IF WE ALLOW UNIVERSAL TO BUILD A NEW MARVEL ATTRACTION, PEOPLE MAY WANT TO VISIT IOA EVEN MORE... I MEAN, ISN'T IT ENOUGH HARRY POTTER KICKED OUR ? YOU HAVE TO RULE IN FAVOR FOR US MR. ARBITOR...

Yea, Disney would be laughed out of court and be the laughing stock on the theme park industry...

And in case you are unaware of how the theme park industry works, EVERYONE in the industry knows the ins and outs of each others' attractions, built and planned...

 

[Bparso87]

Go read thr story of the Guardians on the Marvel page... They are set in the 31st century, but come back to the 20th century and team with the Avengers..

Yes I know they will not be in the avengers if they are the movie will be crazy. With the original team plus scarlet witch and quicksilver which have been confirmed plus the team of the GOTG.

 

[CJR]

Exactly how could a ride that acts as free advertising for movie characters owned by a Disney subsidiary be damaging to the Disney/Marvel brand?

That's not my case to prove, but I'm just showing how it could be argued. Regardless if you think I would win or lose, it wouldn't be up to me or you. It would also delay Universal from putting a large new attraction that would draw tourists away from Disney property.

Exactly how could a ride that acts as free advertising for movie characters owned by a Disney subsidiary be damaging to the Disney/Marvel brand?

Are you really asking why Disney wouldn't want people to go to Universal Orlando instead of Walt Disney World?

And in case you are unaware of how the theme park industry works, EVERYONE in the industry knows the ins and outs of each others' attractions, built and planned...

Sorry, but I don't believe that. They might try to know, but there is no evidence that everyone knows. Most of it is speculation at best.

 

[Captain Chaos]

That's not my case to prove, but I'm just showing how it could be argued. Regardless if you think I would win or lose, it wouldn't be up to me or you. It would also delay Universal from putting a large new attraction that would draw tourists away from Disney property.

Well, Disney cannot stop them from building Potter, which is single handedly pulling people off property..

 

[lebeau]

That's not my case to prove, but I'm just showing how it could be argued. Regardless if you think I would win or lose, it wouldn't be up to me or you. It would also delay Universal from putting a large new attraction that would draw tourists away from Disney property.

The contract is quite specific on the reasons Marvel can disapprove something Universal wants to do. Competition is not a valid reason. Harming the Disney brand is not a valid reason. They can only disapprove something that uses Marvel characters inappropriately. Which, if you read Marvel comics, is pretty hard to do. Anything goes in the funny books.

They could probably throw up some delays. But why would they want to. Eventually, they would lose. If they act in bad faith, it will hurt them in the press and in future disputes.

 

[Bparso87]

The contract is quite specific on the reasons Marvel can disapprove something Universal wants to do. Competition is not a valid reason. Harming the Disney brand is not a valid reason. They can only disapprove something that uses Marvel characters inappropriately. Which, if you read Marvel comics, is pretty hard to do. Anything goes in the funny books.

Except the stupid twist in IM3 they screwed that up pretty bad from the comics lol.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I really don't think Disney cares about this anyways. They got the movie rights and merchandise. They will make over 4 billion dollars in phase two movies alone. How long will it take for them to make that with attractions. They will have that in two years and that is just movies.

Exactly!

 

[lebeau]

Except the stupid twist in IM3 they screwed that up pretty bad from the comics lol.

My review of IM3 (in case anyone is interested):

http://lebeauleblog.com/2013/05/03/review-iron-man-3/

 

[CJR]

They could probably throw up some delays. But why would they want to. Eventually, they would lose. If they act in bad faith, it will hurt them in the press and in future disputes.

So you're asking, why wouldn't Disney take an opportunity (that they have) to keep tourists from going to Universal Orlando? I don't really see how that would result in bad press. Disney owns Marvel and does have the right to act in its best interest even if the agreement was in place before they purchased it. I doubt Disney would go in trying to lose a case, but that would be the worst that would happen. Either way, they would keep Universal from building a huge attraction at their park either permanently or temporarily.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That's not my case to prove, but I'm just showing how it could be argued. Regardless if you think I would win or lose, it wouldn't be up to me or you. It would also delay Universal from putting a large new attraction that would draw tourists away from Disney property.

But why would DIsney try to stonewall an addition? At best, they go to arbitration and somehow are able to argue that the refusal is reasonable. That is still a cost to Disney, all for maintaining the status quo. A new attraction would likely increase merchandise sales, of which Marvel gets a cut of the profits and is the only way that the amount paid year to year can really increase.

Second, Disney was not able to stop the park in Dubai. That project was pretty much dead, but its now moving forward at a reduced scale. If Disney can't get out of that deal, which is likely much less one sided, I doubt they're going to be able to get out of one backed by Comcast.

Third, the decision to give reasonable approval is not made by anybody at Walt Disney World or Walt Disney Parks & Resorts. The decision power still falls to Marvel Entertainment, which as of now still has an invested and entrenched leadership team that is not overly interested in meddling from the Mouse. Their books look better when they get hired to consult with Universal Creative and merchandise sales at Islands of Adventure improve.