New MARVEL attractions to Disney Parks

[Ignohippo]

:brick:
history would indicate that Marvel will not create any popular new characters outside of their existing franchises. If they could, they would have done so many times over. But it's just not a realistic expectation.

The problem is, there isn't a vehicle these days to introduce a new character to the public. Comic books aren't nearly as popular as they used to be and, unless it's a cartoon, tv has completely abandoned superheroes.

A film like The Avengers would have been the perfect way to get new characters introduced. To the mass public, Hawkeye and Black Widow (and even Nick Fury to some extent) are new characters. That's why I'm surprised, given that he doesn't resemble the comic version at all, that Hawkeye wasn't named something different – not so there'd be a "Hawkeye ride" at DHS someday, but to begin the process of getting new characters out there.

I could see a Hawkeye and Black Widow movie being very popular now. If they then added characters to go along with them, Marvel could have a whole new team (or family/brand).

 

[GLaDOS]

That's why I'm surprised, given that he doesn't resemble the comic version at all, that Hawkeye wasn't named something different – not so there'd be a "Hawkeye ride" at DHS someday, but to begin the process of getting new characters out there.

He resembles the Ultimate version of Hawkeye. And they didn't call him something else to stay away from the wrath of the fanboys.

 

[lebeau]

The problem is, there isn't a vehicle these days to introduce a new character to the public. Comic books aren't nearly as popular as they used to be and, unless it's a cartoon, tv has completely abandoned superheroes.

A film like The Avengers would have been the perfect way to get new characters introduced. To the mass public, Hawkeye and Black Widow (and even Nick Fury to some extent) are new characters. That's why I'm surprised, given that he doesn't resemble the comic version at all, that Hawkeye wasn't named something different – not so there'd be a "Hawkeye ride" at DHS someday, but to begin the process of getting new characters out there.

I could see a Hawkeye and Black Widow movie being very popular now. If they then added characters to go along with them, Marvel could have a whole new team (or family/brand).

But if you introduce a new character the the Avengers movie, surely they would be considered part of the Avengers family, no?

Creating new characters that can be used at WDW is not a priority. Disney can use the characters all they want just about anywhere else in the world. And there are plenty of other things Disney can build in Orlando without ever needing to worry about Marvel.

You guys keep putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Disday]

I guess I'll have to go elsewhere to find out about the actual contract. I'll put this out there as a "rumor" so feel free to flame it or be sarcastic about it. When the Marvel deal was announced, there was a wide spread rumor that the contract would end in 2012. This was quickly followed by the Universal campaign of "We have them forever and ever!" Anyway, I heard that the contract does in fact end by the end of the year. However, Disney is said to allow Universal to keep the island until they have a replacement (The Transformers). The timetable for this would be about 5 years, after the Harry Potter expansion into the studio park. I thought at first that this would end Universal's exclusivity, but Disney may still have to abide by the contract.

 

[Ignohippo]

Why would Universal base a marketing campaign around Disney's summer movie? There is virtually no overlap. I suspect if HP wasn't the runaway success that it is, Universal would probably feature Spider-man more prominently in their ads to tie into Amazing Spider-man. But even with the new film, HP is the star.

It's not an indication of something deeper. It's just understanding the market.

Well, because The Avengers is going to be the most successful movie of the year, and probably of all-time and Universal is the only park in America that has them. It's a major, major draw and easily more popular than even HP at the moment.

Why would't they want to take advantage of that?

The only reason they wouldn't plan a marketing campaign around it is if they don't see Marvel as a part of their future. As you've said, why would they promote a Disney property especially if they don't know how long they'll be keeping the rights?

I completely agree there isn't anything happening now, but I see all of this as an indicator that they think something will happen at some point and don't see Marvel in their long-term plans. I'm sure they're hoping Disney will eventually make them a deal they can't refuse and don't want to spend millions advertising something that will eventually be in the competitors park.

 

[Ignohippo]

I guess I'll have to go elsewhere to find out about the actual contract. I'll put this out there as a "rumor" so feel free to flame it or be sarcastic about it. When the Marvel deal was announced, there was a wide spread rumor that the contract would end in 2012. This was quickly followed by the Universal campaign of "We have them forever and ever!" Anyway, I heard that the contract does in fact end by the end of the year. However, Disney is said to allow Universal to keep the island until they have a replacement (The Transformers). The timetable for this would be about 5 years, after the Harry Potter expansion into the studio park. I thought at first that this would end Universal's exclusivity, but Disney may still have to abide by the contract.

Your timetable sounds plausible and the TF taking over Superhero Island makes sense, but the contract is there for everyone to read and there isn't anything about it ending.

Also, why would Uni spend a mil to re-do the SM movie if their contract ends this year?

 

[GLaDOS]

The only reason they wouldn't plan a marketing campaign around it is if they don't see Marvel as a part of their future. As you've said, why would they promote a Disney property especially if they don't know how long they'll be keeping the rights?

Even if they did market the parks with the movie, it wouldn't mean spit for their future plans. They could still take advantage of the film this year and get rid of them the next if they wanted to.

I think you're reading into something you want to see, rather than looking at the facts. The fact is Spider-man is heavily featured in Universal's "Because" marketing campaign, second only to Harry Potter. The fact is the contract Universal has gives them the characters in perpetuity as long as they want them, and Universal Creative members have constantly been quoted as saying they love having Marvel in the park. The fact is that Bob Iger said 2 days ago Marvel won't be coming to WDW.

I think people are desperate for a crack to form here, and so far there's absolutely no sign of that happening. Could it? Sure, maybe. But there;s no evidence at this time.

 

[lebeau]

I guess I'll have to go elsewhere to find out about the actual contract. I'll put this out there as a "rumor" so feel free to flame it or be sarcastic about it. When the Marvel deal was announced, there was a wide spread rumor that the contract would end in 2012. This was quickly followed by the Universal campaign of "We have them forever and ever!" Anyway, I heard that the contract does in fact end by the end of the year. However, Disney is said to allow Universal to keep the island until they have a replacement (The Transformers). The timetable for this would be about 5 years, after the Harry Potter expansion into the studio park. I thought at first that this would end Universal's exclusivity, but Disney may still have to abide by the contract.

I'm not trying to flame you. But let's just apply the "common sense" test. If the contract expired in 2012, why would Disney "allow" Universal to continue using Marvel (a very valuable asset) for 5 more years?

That makes no sense.

Universal's lawyers were all over Disney for the Avenger-rail. Do you think that would be the case if they only had Marvel due to Disney's extraordinary generosity? Do you think they would have invested in upgrading Spider-man if Disney could yank Spidey away at any time after 2012?

No. What you are suggesting just doesn't make any sense at all.

It also runs contrary to what any reliable source has said. I'd ask for a link to your source, but who cares. If anyone actually said that, they are clearly unreliable.

 

[lebeau]

Well, because The Avengers is going to be the most successful movie of the year, and probably of all-time and Universal is the only park in America that has them. It's a major, major draw and easily more popular than even HP at the moment.

Why would't they want to take advantage of that?

Except all they have is a green roller coaster that has been there for a long time now, some walk-around characters and a diner.

If they had a brand new Avengers ride, sure. I would agree with you. But that's not the case. Basing their ad campaign around the Avengers would help Disney's movie more than it would their theme park.

The only reason they wouldn't plan a marketing campaign around it is if they don't see Marvel as a part of their future.

:brick:

No. Wrong.

:hammer:

As you've said, why would they promote a Disney property especially if they don't know how long they'll be keeping the rights?

It's a Marvel property. The fact that Disney owns it doesn't make it stop being profitable.

And they know how long they will keep the rights. For as long as they want to.

I completely agree there isn't anything happening now, but I see all of this as an indicator that they think something will happen at some point and don't see Marvel in their long-term plans. I'm sure they're hoping Disney will eventually make them a deal they can't refuse and don't want to spend millions advertising something that will eventually be in the competitors park.

I think you are mostly wrong. Everything I see indicates Marvel are part of Universal's long term plans. Do they have contingency plans? I'm sure they do. But plan A is to continue using Marvel for the forseeable future.

They would be stupid to do otherwise.

 

[wm49rs]

I'm not trying to flame you. But let's just apply the "common sense" test. If the contract expired in 2012, why would Disney "allow" Universal to continue using Marvel (a very valuable asset) for 5 more years?

That makes no sense.

Universal's lawyers were all over Disney for the Avenger-rail. Do you think that would be the case if they only had Marvel due to Disney's extraordinary generosity? Do you think they would have invested in upgrading Spider-man if Disney could yank Spidey away at any time after 2012?

No. What you are suggesting just doesn't make any sense at all.

It also runs contrary to what any reliable source has said. I'd ask for a link to your source, but who cares. If anyone actually said that, they are clearly unreliable.

I wouldn't worry about his line of argument. It's been brought up before, and usually ended up going nowhere. :shrug:

 

[Ignohippo]

But if you introduce a new character the the Avengers movie, surely they would be considered part of the Avengers family, no?

Creating new characters that can be used at WDW is not a priority. Disney can use the characters all they want just about anywhere else in the world. And there are plenty of other things Disney can build in Orlando without ever needing to worry about Marvel.

You guys keep putting the cart before the horse.

It could be argued that any new characters introduced into The Avengers weren't part of The Avengers family at the time of the contract, so they wouldn't be included in the exclusivity.

The Avengers "Family" is really the killer of that contract. That clause seemingly includes any B-list character of any worth from the Marvel catalog. My questions is, just because a character appears WITH The Avengers, does that really make them part of The Avengers?

 

[lebeau]

Even if they did market the parks with the movie, it wouldn't mean spit for their future plans. They could still take advantage of the film this year and get rid of them the next if they wanted to.

I think you're reading into something you want to see, rather than looking at the facts. The fact is Spider-man is heavily featured in Universal's "Because" marketing campaign, second only to Harry Potter. The fact is the contract Universal has gives them the characters in perpetuity as long as they want them, and Universal Creative members have constantly been quoted as saying they love having Marvel in the park. The fact is that Bob Iger said 2 days ago Marvel won't be coming to WDW.

I think people are desperate for a crack to form here, and so far there's absolutely no sign of that happening. Could it? Sure, maybe. But there;s no evidence at this time.

Every word of this post is accurate.

Every word.

 

[lebeau]

I wouldn't worry about his line of argument. It's been brought up before, and usually ended up going nowhere. :shrug:

You're right. I should stop responding

It could be argued that any new characters introduced into The Avengers weren't part of The Avengers family at the time of the contract, so they wouldn't be included in the exclusivity.

That is not my understanding of how it works. If Marvel introduces a new character as part of the Avengers family, I believe Universal has the rights regardless of when the character was created. That is, I believe, the entire point of the family clause.

That is open to interpretation of course.

The Avengers "Family" is really the killer of that contract. That clause seemingly includes any B-list character of any worth from the Marvel catalog. My questions is, just because a character appears WITH The Avengers, does that really make them part of The Avengers?

That would have to be decided in court. But if a character is a card carrying member (and who isn't or hasn't been?) I think you have a hard time arguing otherwise.

Also, which borderline Avengers characters are members of the Spider-man, X-Men or Fantastic Four families? Maybe Luke Cage? Would anyone care if Disney went to court to open a Heroes for Hire ride?

 

[GLaDOS]

Also, which borderline Avengers characters are members of the Spider-man, X-Men or Fantastic Four families? Maybe Luke Cage? Would anyone care if Disney went to court to open a Heroes for Hire ride?

Sweet Christmas! :lol:

 

[Ignohippo]

Except all they have is a green roller coaster that has been there for a long time now, some walk-around characters and a diner.

If they had a brand new Avengers ride, sure. I would agree with you. But that's not the case. Basing their ad campaign around the Avengers would help Disney's movie more than it would their theme park.



:brick:

No. Wrong.

:hammer:

It's easy to minimize things to make your argument but Marvel is a major portion of that park – easily the second most popular "island" there. You don't need something "new" to promote. Just having the characters and entire area themed for them is enough to get families to make the trip.

The argument that advertising their presence at the parks would help the movie more is ludicrous. Are they advertising Potter to get dvd sales or to try to get people to come to their park? It may be the biggest movie of all time and they should be promoting the fact that they have those characters in their park.

 

[misterID]

Disney acquired Marvel for their benefit, not Marvel's. Marvel is a very successful movie studio and have been for a while. They don't need Disney screwing that up, and that's the only help Disney could provide creatively, or even "managerial" wise. Disney doesn't know how to make films anymore and they certainly don't know how to market them.

I don't think Disney is going to have the influence some people here think they will. Trust me, for Marvel to agree to this, they got a sweetheart deal.

And I haven't seen any evidence that Disney even cares Marvel is at UNI. Just like it doesn't seem like TDO cares that Potter is in UNI... Even though TDA very much cares Potter is going to USH soon. They're making some nice cheese on merch sales. UNI is making money off that success. And no, they don't care profits are going back to Disney, just like they didn't care those same profits were going directly to Marvel, they're still making TONS of money, and you can even say they're doing it off Disney's own work.

 

[lebeau]

The argument that advertising their presence at the parks would help the movie more is ludicrous. Are they advertising Potter to get dvd sales or to try to get people to come to their park? It may be the biggest movie of all time and they should be promoting the fact that they have those characters in their park.

Do you think people are going to go to Universal to see the brand new HP themed land everyone is talking about or to have lunch at the Captain America Diner and pose for a picture with Iron Man?

Yes, the movie is a big hit. Maybe if Universal had known how big in advance, they would have marketed things differently. But even then I doubt it. Because the movie doesn't really have much to do with what's at Islands of Adventure.

If anything, tying into the movie would set people up for disappointment when they get down there and see almost nothing related to the movie.

Also, if they wanted to tie into a Marvel movie, Amazing Spider-man is a much better fit.

 

[Ignohippo]

Even if they did market the parks with the movie, it wouldn't mean spit for their future plans. They could still take advantage of the film this year and get rid of them the next if they wanted to.

I think you're reading into something you want to see, rather than looking at the facts. The fact is Spider-man is heavily featured in Universal's "Because" marketing campaign, second only to Harry Potter. The fact is the contract Universal has gives them the characters in perpetuity as long as they want them, and Universal Creative members have constantly been quoted as saying they love having Marvel in the park. The fact is that Bob Iger said 2 days ago Marvel won't be coming to WDW.

I think people are desperate for a crack to form here, and so far there's absolutely no sign of that happening. Could it? Sure, maybe. But there;s no evidence at this time.

Except that, if I'm a Uni exec (even if I'm going to keep Marvel in my Orlando park for hundreds of years), I'm not going to spend millions promoting something that I know Disney will be bringing to their parks (Cali) in the near future – that will probably end up being head and shoulders above what I'm offering in my park (if for no other reason, it will be newer and using newer technology). You don't spend the kind of money we're talking about for just one year – you spend that kind of money hoping it will have returns for years to come.

Listen, I'm not going to die on this hill. I've kept the argument up because I absolutely hate the "we're right, you're wrong" attitude that has come up.

In the end, we're talking semantics here. I completely agree with you that no deal is in place or even imminent.

I'm simply saying that it seems Uni isn't spending the money they would be otherwise (or have in the past) to promote Marvel at Uni Orlando which seems odd given the fact that they own the theme park rights to what is currently the biggest franchise around.

 

[misterID]

Except that, if I'm a Uni exec (even if I'm going to keep Marvel in my Orlando park for hundreds of years), I'm not going to spend millions promoting something that I know Disney will be bringing to their parks (Cali) in the near future – that will probably end up being head and shoulders above what I'm offering in my park (if for no other reason, it will be newer and using newer technology). You don't spend the kind of money we're talking about for just one year – you spend that kind of money hoping it will have returns for years to come.

Listen, I'm not going to die on this hill. I've kept the argument up because I absolutely hate the "we're right, you're wrong" attitude that has come up.

In the end, we're talking semantics here. I completely agree with you that no deal is in place or even imminent.

I'm simply saying that it seems Uni isn't spending the money they would be otherwise (or have in the past) to promote Marvel at Uni Orlando which seems odd given the fact that they own the theme park rights to what is currently the biggest franchise around.

But lebeau's argument is pretty sound. He's not saying, "I'm right an you're wrong", just that it wouldn't make sense for UNI to promote something that isn't in their parks. They would basically be promoting someone elses movie. It'd be false advertising, and at the least, disingenuous, to make people think you have something in your park that you don't.

"I'm not going to spend millions promoting something that I know Disney will be bringing to their parks (Cali) in the near future – that will probably end up being head and shoulders above what I'm offering in my park"

That made me laugh, though. That's one thing UNI doesn't have to worry about. :lol:

 

[Ignohippo]

Do you think people are going to go to Universal to see the brand new HP themed land everyone is talking about or to have lunch at the Captain America Diner and pose for a picture with Iron Man?

Yes, the movie is a big hit. Maybe if Universal had known how big in advance, they would have marketed things differently. But even then I doubt it. Because the movie doesn't really have much to do with what's at Islands of Adventure.

If anything, tying into the movie would set people up for disappointment when they get down there and see almost nothing related to the movie.

Also, if they wanted to tie into a Marvel movie, Amazing Spider-man is a much better fit.

Once again, you're minimizing the land to fit your argument. It's still a themed land dedicated to the characters that just happen to be in the biggest movie of the year AND the only place in the country where Little Johnny can meet those characters in person.

Yes, Spider-Man would be a better tie-in, except for the fact that Spider-Man won't be nearly the blockbuster The Avengers is.