Marvel's Next Step

[SleepingMonk]

Walking Dead ride? Try Walking Dead Land! aka Zombieland!

Rule #1

Cardio

 

[flavious27]

Attractions typically spend years in development. If Disney owned Marvel when the deal was made then that means Marvel Super Heroes 4D had an incredibly fast development cycle of less than a year.

Behind the scenes video

They stated that they started development in sept of 09, right after the marvel purchase was announced. There is site prep but all this attraction is is a 9 minute 3d animated film.

 

[AEfx]

Wow, surprised at some of the comments. Especially since I'd bet good money that a) no further development will go into Marvel Island, and b) we certainly won't see an "Iron Man" attraction, I'm surprised at the amount of people arguing with me, but here goes.

Uni never owned Marvel anyway, so they're not losing anything. A new Iron Man ride would bring people in. Marvel Universe will basically be around forever, there's no shelf life to it. The rides are based more on the comics than the movies, anyway. Anything that brings people into UNI is a good thing for them.

And Thor is a hit. There's no chance of it being a bomb. And, I'm sorry, but one bad comic film isn't going to cripple the Comic book-movie landscape. There have already been plenty of bombs, and comic book films are still surviving pretty darn well. Also, Marvel and DC comics don't just revolve around Superheros.

Let's start here.

1) The only "ride" at Universal based on a comic book is Spiderman. The rest are off-the-shelf rides that have a certain color paint or signage that makes them "Marvel-themed".

2) When I was referring a to film that may bomb, that would be Green Lantern. We don't know yet, but it's gotten horrible advance word and looks pretty silly. And "Green Lantern" isn't exactly an A-lister. But, we will see.

You are correct, one comic book movie doesn't kill the entire genre, BUT the genre, since it's invention, has gone through tremendous ups and downs. If this summers crop doesn't wow-them, then we could be down for another decline once the final Nolan Bat-film happens. It ebbs and flows, like any genre.

In any case, Marvel and DC may have non-superhero characters, but ask anyone but a comic fan to name a few. Comics = superheroes in the zeitgeist.

AE, Thor has made 145 million so far... I suspect Green Lantern will make over 100 million, so will Captain America.... And Six Flags Great Adventure The Green Lantern stand up coaster is pretty sweet!!!!!

If Green Lantern only makes $100M, it's a failure. Superman Returns made $391M worldwide and it was considered a bomb.

Isn't that exactly the strategy behind every Universal park?

Allow me to rephrase : "It's not smart for Universal to invest in properties owned by the competition."

Having said that, the commercial tie in is driven by marketing and merchandise. If Carsland had a generic Route 66 theme but was still as immersive, it wouldn't move the merchandise that it would move with the Cars tie in. Comparitively, it would be a tougher sell without that tie in as well.

True, but when talking Pixar it's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Just like Harry Potter. Sure, some franchises can pull people in just for that fact, but lesser comic book characters, like Iron Man and Thor, aren't going to drag people to Orlando on name alone.

The fact that they are upgrading the Spiderman ride suggests they are not getting out of the Marvel business.

Actually it could suggest quite the opposite. They are changing the projection systems - to digital. Making it even easier to switch over later when they change the theme of the ride from Spiderman. It makes it cheaper to do the eventual re-theme by doing some of the infrastructure work now.

I don't think they would be stupid at all to build new Marvel attractions. It's just not the priority right now. I'd be kind of surprised if 10 years from now there isn't some kind of Avengers themed attraction.

And conversely, I'll be surprised if 10 years from now Marvel Island exists at all.

I don't see anyone saying, we need to go see that new Hulk movie because the Hulk coaster in Orlando was awesome! If anything, Marvel is doing more for Universal than Universal is doing for Marvel/Disney.

At this moment, maybe. But the fact is, the characters are now owned by Disney. Universal may be playing it cool now, but don't think plans aren't in place to completely get rid of Marvel in the mid-term.

Some people do. What you are suggesting is that anyone would be stupid for buying the Marvel lisence. That the Marvel lisence adds no value. Of course if that is true, Disney definitely overpaid for Marvel.

No, but Disney didn't buy a Marvel license - they bought the company. Big difference.

It's really not the foregone conclussion you make it out to be. Marvel Super Hero Island may be at Universal for a long, long time.

It may be, but I find it highly doubtful.

Also, you just made a point of how easily Universal could retheme the whole island to another property if they had to. Kind of defeats your whole argument.

On the contrary, it supports it. It would be very easy for them to retheme what is there, as I said. But it makes little sense for them to make a huge capital investment in an Iron Man ride just to have to retheme it later.

Universal must be stupid then because they keep doing exactly that. Guess you should tell them what a dumb investment the Harry Potter lisence was!

As I said above, I should have been more clear by adding a word - investing in characters owned by the competition. It just makes no sense, and is in no one's best interest. There is already a great deal of confusion regarding the separation of Disney and Universal as park entities with the general public, and this certainly doesn't help.

We can sit and come up with "well it benefits so-and-so right now because..." but the truth is, we have two competitors. Because of a twist in fate, one place now features products that are owned by the competitor. Don't kid yourself - everyone wants out of that situation as soon as possible. That may be 5 years down the line, but don't think plans haven't been already drafted as to how to pull down Marvel Island and retheme it when the time does come.

Wow. Just wow.

Thor's a big hit already. If X-Men fails, it will likely only effect that franchise. If Cap fails, the Avengers franchise will still go on. We just won't get a Cap 2. The stakes are highest on GL. I think GL will be a hit, but if it's not the outlook for othe DC movies outside of Batman and Superman might not be so good.

You seem to have forgotten Avengers, Spider-man and Superman. The big stuff is still coming. 2011 is just warm-up.

And you seem to have forgotten that a) tent pole films (like comic book movies) are planned and scheduled years ahead of time, and b) that merchandising is as big, if not bigger, a factor than box office for the studios. Pretty much any comic book movie will make back it's budget once you get to video sales, and other ancillaries - but what the studio's want are those films that will make them another billion in toys and merchandise.

In this case, what happens in 2011 can very well affect the plans they make for 2013. And merchandising wise, things don't look great this year. For example, a lot of the planned Green Lantern stuff was cut back or cancelled altogether already because merchants weren't ordering it.

I wasn't saying comic book movies are going to die, but they do ebb and flow, and this summer is going to say a lot about 2013 and beyond. As to the titles you mentioned for 2012, that's a whole other message board - but there is a LOT riding on all three of those. Two are reboots - both completely unnecessary IMHO, but again, another message board - and Avengers...well, I love Joss, so I do hope it does well. But it could also be a big mess with studio interference. Only time will be able to tell on that one.

All that said, the base of the discussion stays the same - Universal will not be making any capital investments in Marvel properties in the future. I'm willing to bet a Wishes Cruise on it.

(Apologies, quote-happy syntax fixed)

 

[cheezbat]

Talking about superhero movies...

You mentioned Avengers Superman and Spiderman all being big movies next year...but you forgot what more than likely will be the biggest of all...the third Batman movie in Nolan's trilogy: the Dark Knight Rises.

All superhero films CAN produce income for the compaines...with all of the tie-ins. Even if the movie doesn't do amazing, they always seem to do enough thru tickets, dvd/blu-ray sales, and merchandise. 2011 may not be the best year for the superhero franchises, but I say look forward to 2012 for the big time profits.

As for the whole Marvel deal...well, it's all a matter of time. Obviously. Disney owns it, so I'm sure Universal wants out of it soon...but they want something for it - not just lose the island and spend hundreds of millions on a retheme and get nothing for it. I'm sure Disney wants to be able to place Marvel in their parks too. Why not? Superheroes are a huge draw to kids! Another moneymaker for them!
I just hope to see in the next five years or so, Disney offering a buyout to Universal good enough for them to change out Marvel Superhero Island out to DC Universe or something, and see Disney bring some type of Marvel attractions to DHS.

 

[JT3000]

Allow me to rephrase : "It's not smart for Universal to invest in properties owned by the competition."

As I said above, I should have been more clear by adding a word - investing in characters owned by the competition. It just makes no sense, and is in no one's best interest.

Yeah, because Universal just builds theme parks. It's not like they own a movie studio or anything. That's why they have no problem promoting the output of WB, Paramount, etc in their parks.

Oh wait...

And conversely, I'll be surprised if 10 years from now Marvel Island exists at all.

Yep. I'm sure they're perfectly willing to give Spider-Man an expensive overhaul just so they can scrap it in a few years. As you said, that's exactly why they're installing new projectors and REMAKING THE ENTIRE RIDE FILM.

In the words of a certain villain from that film, you're in for a shock.

 

[lebeau]

Wow, surprised at some of the comments. Especially since I'd bet good money that a) no further development will go into Marvel Island, and b) we certainly won't see an "Iron Man" attraction, I'm surprised at the amount of people arguing with me, but here goes.

I think the number of people who disagree with you may be an indication that you are not entirely on the mark.

2) When I was referring a to film that may bomb, that would be Green Lantern. We don't know yet, but it's gotten horrible advance word and looks pretty silly. And "Green Lantern" isn't exactly an A-lister. But, we will see.

It may bomb. Reaction to the early footage was pretty mixed to negative. I've heard mostly positive reactions to the later footage with completed effects.

I think it's a safe bet GL will make boatloads on money. WB won't loose their shirts on it. It may break out and be the biggest movie of the year. I think it's a very shrewd and calcualted risk. If it pays off, WB can use it as a springboard to launch several franchises as Marvel has done.

If it fails, it makes WB less likely to take risks on similar properties like The Flash, etc. And that would be a shame. But GL's fate is really only tied to that one studio. And WB's super hero output really has never been that strong in terms of quantity. So, it shouldn't have much impact on the genre as a whole.

Also, WB is already committed to 2 more higher-profile super hero movies. The success or failure of the Superman relaunch is more imprtant to the studio and the health of the genre than GL is.

You are correct, one comic book movie doesn't kill the entire genre, BUT the genre, since it's invention, has gone through tremendous ups and downs. If this summers crop doesn't wow-them, then we could be down for another decline once the final Nolan Bat-film happens. It ebbs and flows, like any genre.

Sure, the popularity of any genre ebbs and flows. Right now, super hero movies are at an all time high. And we have several more releases already scheduled regardless of the success of this year's crop. There's really nothing to indicated that the genre is going anywhere any time soon.

My only concern for the health of the genre is saturation. Back when I was a kid, you might get a Superman movie every 3 years. And even if it was bad (like Superman 3) you went to see it because that was all you were going to get. These days, with a new super hero movie coming out every other month, audiences have choices. A super hero movie is no longer an event by nature of being a rarity.

If the overall quality of these movies is high, audiences will keep lining up. If several of these movies don't connect with audiences, we may see a drop off. But even if every single super hero remaining this summer bombed, I don't think it would have nearly the impact on the genre that you're predicting.

In any case, Marvel and DC may have non-superhero characters, but ask anyone but a comic fan to name a few. Comics = superheroes in the zeitgeist.

True. But are you talking about comic book movies or super hero movies? Because they are not the same thing. People watch movies and TV based on non-super hero comic books all the time without even realizing it. With Hollywood jumping at any existing property they can find, I don't think comic book movies are going anywhere.

And again, super hero movies are as healthy as they have ever been.

If Green Lantern only makes $100M, it's a failure. Superman Returns made $391M worldwide and it was considered a bomb.

Superman Returns wasn't a bomb. It was a disappointment. Also, different expectations. A GL movie isn't expected to gross what a Superman movie does. If GL grosses around $400 mil world wide, I expect WB will be pleased.

Yes, if GL grosses only $100 mil domestic, that would be a failure. But that doesn't seem likely. I guess we'll see soon enough.

Allow me to rephrase : "It's not smart for Universal to invest in properties owned by the competition."

The fact that Disney and Universal have competing theme parks doesn't matter as much as a lot of fans think it does in the grand scheme of things. These are huge corporations with lots of different divisions. The theme park divisions are relatively small potatoes. Entertainment companies like Disney, Universal and Warner Brothers may be competitors on a lot of front, but they also have a very long history of working together in ways that are mutually beneficial.

It would be foolish of Disney or Universal to jeopardize a revenue stream just because they both orperate theme parks in the same town.

True, but when talking Pixar it's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Just like Harry Potter. Sure, some franchises can pull people in just for that fact, but lesser comic book characters, like Iron Man and Thor, aren't going to drag people to Orlando on name alone.

Does Thor have the drawing power of Harry Potter? No. But I'd say that the Marvel Universe has as much or more drawing power than Cars.

Actually it could suggest quite the opposite. They are changing the projection systems - to digital. Making it even easier to switch over later when they change the theme of the ride from Spiderman. It makes it cheaper to do the eventual re-theme by doing some of the infrastructure work now.

It could suggest that. But I think most people agree that it is more likely that Universal is investing in Spider-man because they intend to continue operating Marvel Super Hero Island in the long terms (as they have said publically). It's a pretty big stretch to say they are making the investment in a Marvel-themed attraction for the express purpose of making it easier to change to an unspecified theme at some undetermined point in the future.

And conversely, I'll be surprised if 10 years from now Marvel Island exists at all.

Again, I guess time will tell. But it seems most people looking at the situation as it exists today (including every theme park or legal expert I have read in any article on this topic) does not share your opinion.

At this moment, maybe. But the fact is, the characters are now owned by Disney. Universal may be playing it cool now, but don't think plans aren't in place to completely get rid of Marvel in the mid-term.

I'm sure they have made contingency plans should the need arise. I can only take them at their word that they plan to continue operating Marvel Super Hero Island so long as it benefits them to do so. And really, there's little to no downside for Universal. And while I'm sure Disney would like to own the rights themselves, there's no real downside to them either.

I can't stress this enough. This is the kind of mutually beneficial win-win situation that these companies engage in all the time. Don't think some fanboy theme park fued is going to enter into the picture.

On the contrary, it supports it. It would be very easy for them to retheme what is there, as I said. But it makes little sense for them to make a huge capital investment in an Iron Man ride just to have to retheme it later.

You seem to be under the assumption that Universal has already made the decision to discontinue using the Marvel license which they own. I'm not sure why they would do such a thing. What has lead you to this conclussion? It seems completely unsupported by facts.

If Universal had a date on a calendar on which the knew they were going to give up a license which is financially beneficial to them, then sure. You're right. Under those conditions, it would be silly of them to continue to invest in Marvel.

But since they were able to negotiate the terms of the contract at a time when they were in a better bargaining position, they would have to be kind of crazy to give it up. They've got a good thing going and they know it! So the central assumption of your entire argument is flawed.

As I said above, I should have been more clear by adding a word - investing in characters owned by the competition. It just makes no sense, and is in no one's best interest. There is already a great deal of confusion regarding the separation of Disney and Universal as park entities with the general public, and this certainly doesn't help.

You're so wrong here. The competition you're referring to matters more to fan boys than it does to business men. This is exactly a mutually beneficial situation. Yes, I'm sure Disney wishes it could renegotiate the deal or cancel it entirely. But they can't. And they are still benefitting from a revenue stream. So, they don't have too much incentive to upset the apple cart.

And the benefits to Universal are obvious.

Yeah, it leads to some degree of brand confusion. But as you pointed out, that has existed for a long time. This may not help. But no one's going to pull the plug on a mutually beneficial arrangement just because of slight brand confusion that already existed.

Besides, the average person doesn't associate Disney with Marvel. Most people who do, probably know the difference between Disney and Universal as well.

We can sit and come up with "well it benefits so-and-so right now because..." but the truth is, we have two competitors.

You see really hung up on this and while it's true in the sense that they are rival studios that own rivel theme parks, it does not matter nearly as much as you seem to think it does.

Rival studios work together all the time. It is standard operating procedure.

Because of a twist in fate, one place now features products that are owned by the competitor. Don't kid yourself - everyone wants out of that situation as soon as possible.

Not true. At all. Don't kid yourself. Universal probably wasn't thrilled with the Marvel purchase. But they aren't looking to get out of the situation either.

That may be 5 years down the line, but don't think plans haven't been already drafted as to how to pull down Marvel Island and retheme it when the time does come.

I don't doubt they have a contingency plan. I would be very suprised to see Universal initiate a move to end the agreement voluntarily. They have no reason to do so.

And you seem to have forgotten that a) tent pole films (like comic book movies) are planned and scheduled years ahead of time, and b) that merchandising is as big, if not bigger, a factor than box office for the studios. Pretty much any comic book movie will make back it's budget once you get to video sales, and other ancillaries - but what the studio's want are those films that will make them another billion in toys and merchandise.

In this case, what happens in 2011 can very well affect the plans they make for 2013. And merchandising wise, things don't look great this year. For example, a lot of the planned Green Lantern stuff was cut back or cancelled altogether already because merchants weren't ordering it.

While I won't argue that merchandising isn't important, this is your argument? Really?

It's called "secondary income" for a reason. It is secondary to the box office.

I wasn't saying comic book movies are going to die, but they do ebb and flow, and this summer is going to say a lot about 2013 and beyond. As to the titles you mentioned for 2012, that's a whole other message board - but there is a LOT riding on all three of those. Two are reboots - both completely unnecessary IMHO, but again, another message board - and Avengers...well, I love Joss, so I do hope it does well. But it could also be a big mess with studio interference. Only time will be able to tell on that one.

Yeah, I sense that conversations from other message boards are drifting in here. The fact that 2012 is going to be an even bigger year for super hero movies than 2011 seems to suggest that 2011 isn't all that important to the future of super hero movies. And the fact that Thor was a hit leads me to believe one or two disappointments out of the remaining 3 releases won't have that great of an impact.

I mean, if Thor can be the basis of a hit movie, pretty much any established character can be if well executed and well marketed. That's the message.

564-93-9251
All that said, the base of the discussion stays the same - Universal will not be making any capital investments in Marvel properties in the future. I'm willing to bet a Wishes Cruise on it.
[/QUOTE]

It's possible they won't. I certainly don't expect it any time soon. They just have too much going on. And maybe it will never be a priority.

But I will bet that Marvel Super Hero Island will still exist at Universal 10 years from now barring Disney finally deciding to pony up for a buy out or some other corporate shenanigans.

Universal isn't going to just walk away from the property.

 

[lebeau]

Regarding the whole "Disney and Universal are rivals and rivals never work together" argument that comes up every time someone discusses Marvel Super Hero Island since the Disney purchase, let's take a look at an example of rival studios working together.

Universal, Disney and Warner Brothers are all three rival studios. However, they all have a piece of the Harry Potter pie.

Warner Brothers has the lucrative film rights. Universal has the theme park rights and partnered very closely with Warner Bros. So much so that the WB-released DVD for the last HP movie includes a lengthy behind-the-scenes commercial for the WWoHP at Universal.

Meanwhile, Disney owns the TV rights to the HP films and runs them frequently on the cable stations like ABC Family. If you tune into ABC family and watch one of the frequent marathon's of WB produced HP films, expect to see commercials for Universal theme parks at least once per hour.

They may be rivals. But they won't pass up a buck even if it means a rival benefits as well.

And theme park rivalries are a lot less important to these big companies than studio rivalries.

 

[Captain Chaos]

lebeau, great posts....

Let us not forget Iger himself said Disney will honor the contract as is... Not like they have a choice... Both sides have to keep their end of the contract up or be in breach... I don't think either side wants that... As you said, it is mutually beneficial for both parties...

I don't recall Disney ever rebranding Marvel as Disney's Marvel or Disney Marvel, did they??? If not, then Universal is only promoting Marvel characters... Think the average person knows Disney now owns Marvel??? Outside of Fanboyland, I am willing to bet the average person has no clue of Disney's ownership... So, to Universal, even though Disney may now own the Marvel characters, they truly aren't promoting Disney characters... The word Disney is not on the labels... If Disney ever rebranded Marvel to say Disney Marvel, then maybe Universal will have an issue putting an official Disney product on their shelves... Then again, if they can make some money off the items, maybe they wouldn't care...

I was on the fence before, but now, I am glad Marvel Super Hero Island is staying put in Universal... While I think more could have been done, I also think Universal has done a decent job with the area... Oh and Spiderman ride is all kinds of awesome.. Easily my favorite ride in the Orlando area... (No, I haven't experienced Forbidden Jorney yet)

 

[Wilt Dasney]

They may be rivals. But they won't pass up a buck even if it means a rival benefits as well.

This has basically been my view since Disney bought Marvel. For people who believe that the theme park rivalry between Disney and Universal spells the end of Marvel Island...while it can't be disproven, I just don't feel like that view holds up well.

On the one hand, you have what appears to be a demonstrably profitable scenario for both companies in the status quo.

On the other hand, you have a vague sense of Disney and Universal being "enemies" based on past marketing campaigns and geographic proximity.

It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm reminded of the old rivalry between Nintendo and Sega. Back in the '90s, the Super Nintendo and the Sega Genesis were the top 16-bit video game consoles. Sega tried to attract a loyal following by depicting their games as more edgy and "cool", while depicting Nintendo as a dinosaur appealing only to kids.

Meanwhile, Nintendo used their reservoir of traditionally beloved franchises and reputation for family entertainment as their main selling point. (Sound familiar to a certain theme park rivalry?)

The main corporate mascots were Mario the plumber and Sonic the hedgehog, and as a teenager who read video game magazines every month back then, there was a very clear distinction between the two brands in my mind.

These days, Sega has dropped out of the hardware business and sold its character rights to Nintendo, so modern gamers have Mario and Sonic appearing together in Olympic games. This would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.

Before anyone jumps on the example, I already noted it's not perfectly applicable, since both Disney and Universal remain very much in the theme park business. But it does seem to show how under certain situations, corporations who were thought of as bitter rivals can work together to their mutual benefit. That's what I see happening here.

 

[sublimesting]

They do publish other stuff. DC's Vertigo imprint is a major player. Even Marvel has some non-super hero product.

Also, comics don't revolve solely around Marvel and DC. The success of the Walking Dead shows that.

Yeah I know but I'd venture to say that Marvel and DC are the top dogs in comics and they pretty much revolve around superheroes...at least that is what people think of when they think "comics".

 

[juniorthomas]

Walking Dead ride? Try Walking Dead Land! aka Zombieland!

And they can have CMs in Woody Harrelson suits. It's perfect.

 

[lebeau]

lebeau, great posts....

Thanks!

Let us not forget Iger himself said Disney will honor the contract as is... Not like they have a choice... Both sides have to keep their end of the contract up or be in breach... I don't think either side wants that... As you said, it is mutually beneficial for both parties...

Yep.

I don't recall Disney ever rebranding Marvel as Disney's Marvel or Disney Marvel, did they??? If not, then Universal is only promoting Marvel characters... Think the average person knows Disney now owns Marvel??? Outside of Fanboyland, I am willing to bet the average person has no clue of Disney's ownership...

Disney knows if they rebrand Marvel in any way, it will defeat the purpose of purchasing them in the first place. The sceond Marvel becomes associated with Disney in the eyes of its target audience, it will become less cool.

So, to Universal, even though Disney may now own the Marvel characters, they truly aren't promoting Disney characters... The word Disney is not on the labels... If Disney ever rebranded Marvel to say Disney Marvel, then maybe Universal will have an issue putting an official Disney product on their shelves... Then again, if they can make some money off the items, maybe they wouldn't care...

I think if Universal could find a way to make a buck off of Mickey Mouse plushes in their parks, they would. Branding be damned.

I was on the fence before, but now, I am glad Marvel Super Hero Island is staying put in Universal... While I think more could have been done, I also think Universal has done a decent job with the area... Oh and Spiderman ride is all kinds of awesome.. Easily my favorite ride in the Orlando area... (No, I haven't experienced Forbidden Jorney yet)

I'd love to see what Disney would do with Marvel. But it's not likely to happen any time soon, so I don't invest a lot of thought into it.

My guess is whatever they did it would be less impressive than Marvel Super Hero Island and the Spider-man ride. My guess is if they attempted a "land" it would be like Pixar Place. Big area for future development. One actual ride.

This has basically been my view since Disney bought Marvel. For people who believe that the theme park rivalry between Disney and Universal spells the end of Marvel Island...while it can't be disproven, I just don't feel like that view holds up well.

On the one hand, you have what appears to be a demonstrably profitable scenario for both companies in the status quo.

On the other hand, you have a vague sense of Disney and Universal being "enemies" based on past marketing campaigns and geographic proximity.

Fanboys tend to make more of this "rivalry" than is really there. I imagine the theme park divisions may feel competitive sometimes. But even there, no one at Universal has any illusions about ever overtaking the Disney parks. They are out there to siphon off as much business for themselves as they can, not to compete directly.

As theme park fans, we tend to look at everything through the lens of how it impacts the theme parks. As WDW fans, we get even more narrowly focused on Orlando. But it's really a relatively small piece of the puzzle. Disney knew there was little to no chance of using Marvel properties in FL when they bought Marvel. That wasn't their priority. And Uni's not about to scrap an arrangement that was beneficial to them just because of a perceived rivalry.

Anyone who thinks Universal is just itching to get out of its Marvel deal, look at it this way. This has been a good arrangement for Universal since they signed the deal. They negotiated it at a time when Marvel needed the cash. So they got more or less everything they wanted.

Since then, Marvel properties have only become more valuable with the success of the movies. Disney has been promoting the characters with more cartoons and video games, etc. The Marvel deal has only sweetened as far as Universal is concerned.

If Universal were to try to negotiate a similar deal today, forget it. It would never happen! Disney would never consider it. WB isn't in a position to. Even if Uni came to some kind of deal with Six Flags and WB, they are not going to get as good of a deal as they got from Marvel back when the IoA deal was signed.

And while they have some inhouse properties they could develop, none are as versatile and long-terms as Marvel. Marvel will never feel dated. Tranformers, for example, will likely feel dated in 10 years or less. And there's nothing to stop Universal from developing the properties it owns and keeping Marvel as well.

So, without mentioning rivalries, can someone please explain to me why on earth Universal would want to end the current agreement?

And they can have CMs in Woody Harrelson suits. It's perfect.

The best part will be the dark ride through Bill Murray's house.

 

[SleepingMonk]

And they can have CMs in Woody Harrelson suits. It's perfect.

Better stock the parks with Twinkies.

 

[lebeau]

Better stock the parks with Twinkies.

Nope. You get one Twinkie at the end of your visit. All the Snowballs you can eat though.

 

[AEfx]

Yeah, because Universal just builds theme parks. It's not like they own a movie studio or anything. That's why they have no problem promoting the output of WB, Paramount, etc in their parks.

Oh wait...

LOL, geesh. Some of you guys are too funny.

DISNEY is a competitor to Universal in the THEME PARK business.

It does not make any sense for Universal to want to expand on a brand owned by their arch rival theme park nemesis seven miles down the road.

Yep. I'm sure they're perfectly willing to give Spider-Man an expensive overhaul just so they can scrap it in a few years. As you said, that's exactly why they're installing new projectors and REMAKING THE ENTIRE RIDE FILM.

In the words of a certain villain from that film, you're in for a shock.

That's exactly why they are doing it.

The infrastructure will benefit it should it be turned into a Transformers ride, as previously rumored.

As to the ride film, it's already 3-D animation, they are not "remaking" anything - it would simply be a process of re-processing the original digital files which assuredly still exist. They are not starting a new film from scratch which is what "remaking" would be. They are "remastering", which is a far lesser process.

I love the Spiderman ride. I think it's amazing. I don't want to have to go to Japan to ride it - and I won't, LOL. I wish it would stay. I just don't think it's going to be around forever, especially since it's been long rumored that it will be revamped to the Transformers ride as the R&D will already be done, the projection systems fully updated, then it's just a matter of adding the sets and the already-done film from the Japan version.

I think the number of people who disagree with you may be an indication that you are not entirely on the mark.

Or it's an indication that a few Marvel/Universal fans want to really believe that the best and greatest from Marvel Super Hero Island is yet to come. The tone of some of them are downright offended at my posts, which smacks of emotion versus rational thought. I don't dislike MSI at all, I just don't see any further capital investments or development.

While I won't argue that merchandising isn't important, this is your argument? Really?

It's called "secondary income" for a reason. It is secondary to the box office.

LOL well technically it's "ancillary", but regardless, the profit on merchandise is often far higher than the films themselves when all is told. But again, that's a totally separate message board.

It's possible they won't. I certainly don't expect it any time soon. They just have too much going on. And maybe it will never be a priority.

But I will bet that Marvel Super Hero Island will still exist at Universal 10 years from now barring Disney finally deciding to pony up for a buy out or some other corporate shenanigans.

Universal isn't going to just walk away from the property.

Just walk away? No, but drift away - yes.

We can argue all day about what benefits whom and how, but the facts of the matter are, Marvel's time at Universal is ticking. It could be ticking more slowly or more quickly, but it's ticking.

Marvel Island could be so easily re-themed, everything except Spiderman, so quickly it's not even funny. It's all just signage and facades. If they pre-fab it elsewhere, that could be done very quickly.

I just don't see them making any further investment in a property owned by the company who operates the rival theme park down the road. You and a few others disagree - but since neither of us are privy to the actual plans the companies have I guess we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Actually, I been hearing the rumor would be Transformers, if added, would be to the Studios, not IOA... they need a balance now.... over 100 minute waits for Spiderman and Potter in IOA, while everything at USO are walk ons...

But, I don't have any connections, so I may be readig bad info too...

 

[Krack]

Or it's an indication that a few Marvel/Universal fans want to really believe that the best and greatest from Marvel Super Hero Island is yet to come. The tone of some of them are downright offended at my posts, which smacks of emotion versus rational thought. I don't dislike MSI at all, I just don't see any further capital investments or development.

I'm not offended, I just don't think your premise has any logical foundation. Universal has a contract in place. Every time Marvel does something with the intellectual property, the value of Universal's side of the contract becomes more valuable. Marvel is in the process of putting out a series of films that are increasing the popularity of the intellectual property (the characters) and, in turn, increasing the value of Universal's side of the contract astronomically. All Universal has to do is sit and do nothing and their asset (the contract and Marvel Superhero Island) becomes more valuable and more valuable. There's no freaking way they are going to just toss that asset because they don't like doing business with Disney.

Further, if Disney ever wants to use their own intellectual property in WDW, they will have to pay Universal an obscene amount of money to buyout the contract. What possible reason would Universal have to remake the island (voiding the one-sided, profitable and increasing in value contract) and allowing Disney to benefit?

None of your premise makes sense.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I'm not offended, I just don't think your premise has any logical foundation. Universal has a contract in place. Every time Marvel does something with the intellectual property, the value of Universal's side of the contract becomes more valuable. Marvel is in the process of putting out a series of films that are increasing the popularity of the intellectual property (the characters) and, in turn, increasing the value of Universal's side of the contract astronomically. All Universal has to do is sit and do nothing and their asset (the contract and Marvel Superhero Island) becomes more valuable and more valuable. There's no freaking way they are going to just toss that asset because they don't like doing business with Disney.

Further, if Disney ever wants to use their own intellectual property in WDW, they will have to pay Universal an obscene amount of money to buyout the contract. What possible reason would Universal have to remake the island (voiding the one-sided, profitable and increasing in value contract) and allowing Disney to benefit?

None of your premise makes sense.

I'm sure Disney's bean counters have already determined spending the money to buy the rights wouldn't make sense... They don't hire those MBAs for nuttin... Also, I don't see Transformers being a huge enough franchise to warrant an entire land.. A ride, heck yea.. but an entire land?? No...

**note, I'm on the verge of becoming one of those MBAs, just not working for Disney LOL

 

[AEfx]

I'm not offended, I just don't think your premise has any logical foundation. Universal has a contract in place. Every time Marvel does something with the intellectual property, the value of Universal's side of the contract becomes more valuable. Marvel is in the process of putting out a series of films that are increasing the popularity of the intellectual property (the characters) and, in turn, increasing the value of Universal's side of the contract astronomically. All Universal has to do is sit and do nothing and their asset (the contract and Marvel Superhero Island) becomes more valuable and more valuable. There's no freaking way they are going to just toss that asset because they don't like doing business with Disney.

Again, I guess we just have to disagree.

I don't believe any capital investments will further occur with Marvel characters. Universal has much bigger fish to fry. As has been pointed out, Marvel Island has little to do with films and mostly to do with the characters in their animated forms.

Universal has available to them much bigger franchises and themes to go for, then a genre with such limited appeal. Marvel tends to cater to adolescent through mid-30's males, and although to fans the films are tied together (and will be more so in a limited way once Avengers is completed) again the Marvel Island is themed over the comic characters and not the films. That demographic isn't exactly the one who plans Orlando vacations for families.

I'm sure Disney's bean counters have already determined spending the money to buy the rights wouldn't make sense... They don't hire those MBAs for nuttin... Also, I don't see Transformers being a huge enough franchise to warrant an entire land.. A ride, heck yea.. but an entire land?? No...

**note, I'm on the verge of becoming one of those MBAs, just not working for Disney LOL

I don't think anyone has said it would be a Transformers "land", but the ride system for Spiderman is the same as they will be using for Transformers in Japan. Transformers doesn't have any wider audience than Marvel, but the area could have many themes and still have a Transformers ride. As was said earlier, I don't believe people go to Universal to ride a Spiderman ride, they go because it's an incredible ride that happens to be themed to Spiderman. It's doubtful that Universal's data shows that a large amount of people come to Universal just to go to Marvel Island for the theme, especially since the theme is mostly signage and flat backdrops.

 

[JT3000]

LOL, geesh. Some of you guys are too funny.

DISNEY is a competitor to Universal in the THEME PARK business.

It does not make any sense for Universal to want to expand on a brand owned by their arch rival theme park nemesis seven miles down the road.

As someone previously mentioned, you seem obsessed with the idea that Disney and Universal are cut throat rivals just because they happen to own theme parks in the same city. You can't see the forest for the trees. These companies are not even resort operators first and foremost, they're media companies. I'm starting to think you care more about this than they do. It's a little odd.

By the way, those studios I mentioned? They operate amusement parks too. They happily lend their intellectual properties to Universal even though they're competitors in the same fields.

That's exactly why they are doing it.

The infrastructure will benefit it should it be turned into a Transformers ride, as previously rumored.

As to the ride film, it's already 3-D animation, they are not "remaking" anything - it would simply be a process of re-processing the original digital files which assuredly still exist. They are not starting a new film from scratch which is what "remaking" would be. They are "remastering", which is a far lesser process.

I have a very simple response to this -- you're wrong. They are not remastering the old film, they're making a brand new one with the same scenes. It's a completely different format that REQUIRES a new film, and even new glasses that are incompatible with the current attraction. Why did you think it would take so long? They aren't waiting until 2012 to install the new film just for giggles.

I love the Spiderman ride. I think it's amazing. I don't want to have to go to Japan to ride it - and I won't, LOL. I wish it would stay. I just don't think it's going to be around forever, especially since it's been long rumored that it will be revamped to the Transformers ride as the R&D will already be done, the projection systems fully updated, then it's just a matter of adding the sets and the already-done film from the Japan version.

Revamping Spider-Man into a cheap version of Transformers is their Plan B, in case Disney finds a loophole in the contract. You seem convinced it's Plan A. It is not. Universal has zero intention of voluntarily giving up Marvel. They want to put the proper version of Transformers elsewhere, and this is the only thing holding them back.

And yes, if Spider-Man does get converted into Transformers, it will be the cheap version. They're not as similar as you all think.