New MARVEL attractions to Disney Parks

[wm49rs]

Everyone is discussing the possibility of Marvel coming to Walt Disney World (and the other Disney parks). It's not going to happen in Florida, but it may very well take place in Disneyland and some of the overseas parks.

 

[RSoxNo1]

He's an X-Man villain...

Is that the guy from Habit Heroes?

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Marvel's Jimmy Thick - coming to a theater near you.

:lookaroun

Now thats a movie I would pay to see.


Jimmy Thick-*Flex*

 

[lebeau]

Is that the guy from Habit Heroes?

lol :ROFLOL:

 

[Tod&BigMamaOdie]

In theory they could do this, but if you don't use characters what would be in it and would it be any fun? As has been discussed in the last few pages of this thread not only are major characters taken, but the majority of the minors ones fall into either the Avengers of X-Men famalies so they also cannot be used.

Thanks. To me, it's a chicken vs egg type, "which comes first: the attraction or the movie", scenario. Possibly. I was just thinking: get the Marvel name in the park (DHS), tied to an attraction, creating a new character (or not). If the attraction is done well enough, it would (I believe) at least be a good supplement to what is currently there. Maybe it does well enough to spark a movie (Pirates, anyone?). Maybe it does well enough to open the door to renegotiations about the usage rights.

I don't know... Again, just a thought.

 

[Tod&BigMamaOdie]

Maybe it forces Universal to deal with the Marvel name being used in WDW...

 

[lebeau]

Maybe it forces Universal to deal with the Marvel name being used in WDW...

I doubt they can use the Marvel name on an attraction even if they don't use a restricted character.

East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

 

[Captain Neo]

One important thing to note that I mentioned earlier is that just like any changes/additions to Harry Potter land must be approved by J.K.Rowling and WB any changes/additions to Marvel Superhero Island must be approved by Marvel/Disney and they have already used there power to block any new attractions being created on the island.

In my opinion Marvel SHI has about ten years left and then a deal will happen. Either Disney will give Universal a payday or Universal will sign a new deal with DC comics or someone else to do a new overlay on the existing infrastructure. They could easily repaint Hulk coaster black and add some new props and change it to a Batman ride, Spiderman can eventually become Superman (just replace Daily Bugle with Daily Planet) and Dr.Doom's Freefall can become Appokolips Freefall. The Restuarant can be redone as the Super Hero Resturant from Alex Ross's Kingdom Come.

 

[Tod&BigMamaOdie]

I doubt they can use the Marvel name on an attraction even if they don't use a restricted character.

Thanks, Lebeau. I spoke from ignorance and have not yet felt compelled to look at the SEC filing in full. I just get excited when I think I have a thought...

 

[lebeau]

One important thing to note that I mentioned earlier is that just like any changes/additions to Harry Potter land must be approved by J.K.Rowling and WB any changes/additions to Marvel Superhero Island must be approved by Marvel/Disney and they have already used there power to block any new attractions being created on the island.

In my opinion Marvel SHI has about ten years left and then a deal will happen. Either Disney will give Universal a payday or Universal will sign a new deal with DC comics or someone else to do a new overlay on the existing infrastructure. They could easily repaint Hulk coaster black and add some new props and change it to a Batman ride, Spiderman can eventually become Superman (just replace Daily Bugle with Daily Planet) and Dr.Doom's Freefall can become Appokolips Freefall. The Restuarant can be redone as the Super Hero Resturant from Alex Ross's Kingdom Come.

That's possible. But I don't think it's as likely as you do. Especially the DC deal. DC and Looney Tunes are already owned by Six Flags. I know originally Univeral wanted to do a Batman theme. But I think that ship has sailed.

Also, do we really know what Disney/Marvel has shut down? For every rumor I have read that indicates Disney shot down an Iron Man attraction, I have seen 2 or 3 people say that is a bs internet rumor.

One interpretation I have seen is that Disney/Marvel can only deny an "unreasonable" use of their characters. Like if Universal wanted to put Spider-man in drag or something. But if Universal was being reasonable, Disney would have a heck of a time preventing them from moving forward.

Don't know if that's true. I suspect it would have to be tested in court and I doubt Universal is itching to do so while there's still HP to build. But I wouldn't rule out Universal updating MSI some day in the distant future.

Thanks, Lebeau. I spoke from ignorance and have not yet felt compelled to look at the SEC filing in full. I just get excited when I think I have a thought...

No big. I could be misintrpreting anyway.

 

[jt04]

:brick:

Do you have ANY idea how these things work? At all?

It was never a management issue. It's not even a creative issue. If it were, someone at either DC or Marvel would have been successful in creating a popular new character who wasn't affiliated with an established character or franchise some time in the last decade or so.

Do you even read comics?



I see Pixar as a Disney brand. I have no idea what you are talking about or how it is relevant to Marvel.



Do you have any evidence to support your opinion. Because 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.

Two points. I use Pixar as an example because when Disney bought out Pixar many (and I mean many who will not admit it now) said it would not work. They said that Disney and Pixar were just too different. Now nobody says that. Then people were saying the same about Marvel. I contend that they will be utterly wrong again. As for new Marvel characters, it was Iger hisownself that said Marvel will be creating entirely new content and characters. But I guess you know more what is happening behind closed doors at Disney than the CEO. :lol::wave:

First of all, Marvel is "under new management". They're owned by Dinsey, but the management is the same.

Second, Pixar has always been distributed by Disney and has always been considered a part of Disney by most people.

As for new characters, I agree with you. I'm still really surprised Marvel didn't introduce a new character in The Avengers. It would have been the perfect opportunity (especially since Hawkeye doesn't really have much in common with the character from the comics).

In the end, I think it really speaks to Disney's overall apathy to getting the Marvel characters into WDW.

The last thing they would do is create new characters that would be in the same "family" as those at IoA. That would keep them from using them at WDW. Expect entirely new content. Unexpected content. Skies the limit content. JMHO.

 

[lebeau]

Two points. I use Pixar as an example because when Disney bought out Pixar many (and I mean many who will not admit it now) said it would not work. They said that Disney and Pixar were just too different. Now nobody says that. Then people were saying the same about Marvel. I contend that they will be utterly wrong again. As for new Marvel characters, it was Iger hisownself that said Marvel will be creating entirely new content and characters. But I guess you know more what is happening behind closed doors at Disney than the CEO. :lol::wave:



The last thing they would do is create new characters that would be in the same "family" as those at IoA. That would keep them from using them at WDW. Expect entirely new content. Unexpected content. Skies the limit content. JMHO.

1. I don't remember anyone saying Pixar wouldn't work. I remember a few people saying they overpaid. I wasn't one of them, but it was not outside the realm of possibility given what we knew at the time.

2. Iger says a lot of things. I'm sure he would like Marvel to churn out some popular new characters. I'm sure Marvel will. Just not ones that are separate from the existing franchises.

3. The folks at Marvel could really give a rat's behind whether or not a character can be used at a Disney park. They are concerned with selling comic books. And they sell a lot more comics with an Avenger than they do with a blank slate. It has always been such. I see no reason for that to change.

Please describe what form this new content will take. I can only assume you are talking about something outside of comics. Or you're talking out your rear.

 

[jt04]

1. I don't remember anyone saying Pixar wouldn't work. I remember a few people saying they overpaid. I wasn't one of them, but it was not outside the realm of possibility given what we knew at the time.

2. Iger says a lot of things. I'm sure he would like Marvel to churn out some popular new characters. I'm sure Marvel will. Just not ones that are separate from the existing franchises.

3. The folks at Marvel could really give a rat's behind whether or not a character can be used at a Disney park. They are concerned with selling comic books. And they sell a lot more comics with an Avenger than they do with a blank slate. It has always been such. I see no reason for that to change.

Please describe what form this new content will take. I can only assume you are talking about something outside of comics. Or you're talking out your rear.

I don't know if you know this or not but Iger's family has some connection to Marvel from way back in the day so I imagine it is near and dear to his heart. So if he says he wants new content I am inclined to believe it will happen.

Jim Hill was one of the major but far from the only person who thought Disney and Pixar would fail. After the sale he began writing about how the Pixar films were doing worse with each successive release. Others were carrying the water on this particular take. This was not the only attempt to make the case the deal was a mistake.

As for what projects Marvel might come up with I have no idea but I have very high expectations. There is amazing potential there. Think Pixar quality and worlds like Tron or Avatar. The only limit is the imagination.

~memory like an elephant~

 

[lebeau]

I don't know if you know this or not but Iger's family has some connection to Marvel from way back in the day so I imagine it is near and dear to his heart. So if he says he wants new content I am inclined to believe it will happen.

Jim Hill was one of the major but far from the only person who thought Disney and Pixar would fail. After the sale he began writing about how the Pixar films were doing worse with each successive release. Others were carrying the water on this particular take. This was not the only attempt to make the case the deal was a mistake.

As for what projects Marvel might come up with I have no idea but I have very high expectations. There is amazing potential there. Think Pixar quality and worlds like Tron or Avatar. The only limit is the imagination.

~memory like an elephant~

Elephants don't have the best memories from what I understand.

Don't really care about who did or did not argue that Pixar would fail. Maybe Jim Hill did. I didn't read about it, if that's the case. Regardless, I don't see any relevance to what we're discussing here.

Here's the thing. Marvel makes comic books. That's what they do. They don't have much success venturing beyond their tried and true super hero properties. The only way I could see them succeeding outside of their wheelhouse would be if they suddenly started creating content outside of comics. But, why would you want them to do that? They have no expertise to draw upon. Surely, Disney's animation division would be better suited to such creations.

A big part of what makes Marvel Marvel is the shared universe. You take that away and it ceases to be Marvel.

 

[71jason]

Any new character that Marvel creates, that exists on its own, outside of the Avengers or any other Uni controlled property, can be used in any way Disney sees fit.
If they create...say, Super Mouseman this week they could put him in a film at any time and use him freely in WDW.

I expect this to happen at some point. (Not Super Mouseman, but some original character.)

The problem is the comic book industry is, for all intents and purposes, dead to the general public. $3+ books sold only through direct marketing channels are not ending up in the hands of kids. There's a reason there hasn't been a truly iconic superhero created since the 70s (Wolverine, and even then, not all that kid-friendly).

If Marvel could just create a new "theme park ride worthy" superhero out of thin air, they would have done so two decades ago just to cash in on the toys and movies.

 

[jt04]

Elephants don't have the best memories from what I understand.

Don't really care about who did or did not argue that Pixar would fail. Maybe Jim Hill did. I didn't read about it, if that's the case. Regardless, I don't see any relevance to what we're discussing here.

Here's the thing. Marvel makes comic books. That's what they do. They don't have much success venturing beyond their tried and true super hero properties. The only way I could see them succeeding outside of their wheelhouse would be if they suddenly started creating content outside of comics. But, why would you want them to do that? They have no expertise to draw upon. Surely, Disney's animation division would be better suited to such creations.

A big part of what makes Marvel Marvel is the shared universe. You take that away and it ceases to be Marvel.

I'd say we are at the point where we have to agree to disagree. We are very far apart on this issue and will never agree. Only time will prove who is right and who is wrong.

It has been fun. But I have nothing left to say on the matter. I am going to see how much more Avengers made today.

Have a good day. :wave:

 

[lebeau]

I'd say we are at the point where we have to agree to disagree. We are very far apart on this issue and will never agree. Only time will prove who is right and who is wrong.

It has been fun. But I have nothing left to say on the matter. I am going to see how much more Avengers made today.

Have a good day. :wave:

Funny, I was going to say the same thing.

 

[cooleo]

I'm not upset. It's just a waste. We all know what the deal is.

Everyone knows what the deal is, but yet takes the time to read & post in threads they say the don't want to see. Why even bother. Just asking.

 

[Duckfan]

From what I've read in interviews with no less an authority than Kevin Feige himself, the next phase of Marvel films(other than sequels to the Avengers characters' films) will include Dr. Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy, neither of which fit into the "families" in use at Universal(as far as I know). I realize that these films are not being put into pre-production simply in hopes that the characters catch on with the public so that the properties can be used at WDW, but it is interesting in the context of the discussion here so far.

Although I gotta say that it would be pretty amazing to have a Rocket Raccoon meet and greet in Tomorrowland...

 

[lebeau]

From what I've read in interviews with no less an authority than Kevin Feige himself, the next phase of Marvel films(other than sequels to the Avengers characters' films) will include Dr. Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy, neither of which fit into the "families" in use at Universal(as far as I know). I realize that these films are not being put into pre-production simply in hopes that the characters catch on with the public so that the properties can be used at WDW, but it is interesting in the context of the discussion here so far.

Although I gotta say that it would be pretty amazing to have a Rocket Raccoon meet and greet in Tomorrowland...

Dr. Strange has very strong ties to the Avengers. In fact, he is one.