OS: Disney quarterly profit jumps 21% thanks to parks, TV advertising

[jt04]

It is all about money=business sadly!
I am not so sure that I like the idea of this Disney/Marvel "marriage".
I am getting confused!
I am probably the only one that feels this way

Obviously this is a case of the market providing a product that people want. Don't see the negative there as it creates economic activity, tax revenue and jobs for people who desperately need them.

If that is a bad thing I must be completely out of touch. :veryconfu

 

[Innkeeper's Club]

When I read about this story on the WFTV website I noticed this information which I found interesting.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/walt-disney-world-earns-1-billion-3-months/nNzd2/

Park attendance at Disney World and Disneyland had a profit margin of 7.7 percent, which is the highest since 2008.

Most of that was from international travelers, which now accounts for 22 percent of park business.

Brazilians make up the biggest portion.

I remember reading an article 1 or 2 years ago that said Canadian's were now the highest number of international travelers. So has that changed or is this information about the Brazilians incorrect?

 

[Magenta Panther]

From the original contract between Universal/MCA and Marvel (emphasis added):

Hulk has a whole attraction in IOA and is an Avenger; therefore, none of the characters in the Avengers family can be used in WDW.

GOOD! :sohappy:

 

[RSoxNo1]

When I read about this story on the WFTV website I noticed this information which I found interesting.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/walt-disney-world-earns-1-billion-3-months/nNzd2/

Park attendance at Disney World and Disneyland had a profit margin of 7.7 percent, which is the highest since 2008.

Most of that was from international travelers, which now accounts for 22 percent of park business.

Brazilians make up the biggest portion.

I remember reading an article 1 or 2 years ago that said Canadian's were now the highest number of international travelers. So has that changed or is this information about the Brazilians incorrect?

If this is true, a Brazil pavilion should be a very easy sell to the suits.

 

[bethymouse]

Yes...

Obviously this is a case of the market providing a product that people want. Don't see the negative there as it creates economic activity, tax revenue and jobs for people who desperately need them.

If that is a bad thing I must be completely out of touch. :veryconfu

It is true that it creates jobs, and that is great for our economy, but it's hard to think of Marvel Comics being a part of WDW: sort of like the Power Rangers no longer @ HS ( but now they're back w/ new episodes)...

 

[prberk]

It'll be interesting to see if Disney tries to buy its way out of the Uni Marvel contract. It would take a boatload of money that could never be justified by the actual value of Uni's rights. Certainly Disney could, if they decide to, make Universal an offer that it just couldn't refuse. But on the other hand, Universal could look at the success of the Avengers, and decide to double-down on Marvel themselves -- make an Avengers 3-D movie attraction, or a fly with Iron Man attraction...it'll be interesting to see.

I wonder if, instead of trying to buy its way out of the contract, Disney will work around it but still use the characters at WDW. Maybe a Marvel themed fireworks display at DtD, or meet-n-greets at hotels. Since the Avengerail was eventually OKd, it's possible that as long as they don't charge admission to the Marvel character-based stuff, they can use it.

Wild idea here, but since Universal Orlando owns the rights to Marvel characters east of the Mississippi, why can't Disney just partner with them to build a new Avengers attraction. Here's how I would envision it. It would take a lot of legal wrangling, but basically, Disney develops the attraction, sells or licenses it to Universal Orlando to install and maintain in their park, but retain the rights to also install it in other Disney parks outside of Orlando. Seems like it would be a win-win scenario for everybody. Sure, they might lose a portion of the guests who visit Orlando and choose to go to Universal, but I hardly think it would be enough to hurt WDW. Besides, what they lose in Orlando would likely be made up for elsewhere and then they would still have license and merchandise revenue to boot, plus they might even get some cross-over guests who come to see the Avengers attraction at Uni, but also visit WDW.

I don't know about the ride idea, but I was thinking that in Orlando, Disney already has the best of both worlds. They already define most of the market with their enormous resort; and now they get licensing fees from their main competitor. As long as Univeral continues the Marvel contract, they continue to win on both ends. No need to put Marvel characters in WDW.

Besides potentially cutting off their revenue stream from the competitor and incurring the costs to get the deal done, they put Universal in the position of ramping up a completely independent investment (think Potter or Jurassic Park type) that would be good for competition, but bad for Disney.

And by leaving the Universal deal intact, Disney not only contiues to get the revenue stream from Universal, but is also more likely to "plus" its own parks and resorts with new Disney-themed ideas, rather than clones of any Marvel stuff it already has elsewhere. And that would be a good thing. Something new and creative again. What a concept!

 

[jt04]

I don't know about the ride idea, but I was thinking that in Orlando, Disney already has the best of both worlds. They already define most of the market with their enormous resort; and now they get licensing fees from their main competitor. As long as Univeral continues the Marvel contract, they continue to win on both ends. No need to put Marvel characters in WDW.

Besides potentially cutting off their revenue stream from the competitor and incurring the costs to get the deal done, they put Universal in the position of ramping up a completely independent investment (think Potter or Jurassic Park type) that would be good for competition, but bad for Disney.

And by leaving the Universal deal intact, Disney not only contiues to get the revenue stream from Universal, but is also more likely to "plus" its own parks and resorts with new Disney-themed ideas, rather than clones of any Marvel stuff it already has elsewhere. And that would be a good thing. Something new and creative again. What a concept!

I agree with this almost completely. Some claim the contract also gives Disney the right to Uni's ledgers so it seems to me Disney is in a great position. It is good for Uni in that they get to take advantage of the wave created by the success of the Avengers.

 

[fosse76]

Actually, it was produced by Marvel ( which is the same as Pixar now of course ), and the distribution was Walt Disney Pictures.

Marvel and Pixar are NOT the same thing. Marvel is a subsidiary of Disney, which means that although it is owned by Disney, it is still its own company. Pixar is also a subsidiary. Now, Disney does seem to exercise complete control over Pixar, however, it remains to be seen what their involvement with Marvel is.

Paramount was bought out of the Marvel movies starting in 2012, and simply have their logos on the film ( and ugh, 8% total gross). So in a nutshell: it was the first Marvel movie made by Disney from top to bottom (despite the fact Paramount tried to trick everyone )

Paramount had an agreement to DISTRIBUTE the film. They didn't trick anyone, as they techinically "owned" it. When Disney bought Marvel, they had to buy out Paramount to gain distribution rights to the porperty. Paramount agreed to sell, with those conditions you cited. Paramount had as much to do with the making of the film as Disney did (which is nothing at all). Marvel Studios made the film. They would have made it whther or not Disney owned them.

I think Comcast has two options here: Double down and expand Marvel Super Hero's Island ( the recently redone Spiderman really puts the AMAZING in Spiderman, and helps ensure it stays in the top 5 themepark attractions in Orlando), or sell to Disney. No way Universal sells off the Marvel rights to Disney, at any price. It's going to be all or nothing.

Agreed. Anyone who thinks Universal will sell the theme park rights back to Disney is delusional. While Universal is required to pay a percentage of merchandise fees, the actual licensing for theme park use is most likely a flat fee...and probably very minimal at that. It could be a yearly fee, or it may have been a flat fee they paid at the top of the contract. So Universal could care less.

 

[jt04]

Marvel and Pixar are NOT the same thing. Marvel is a subsidiary of Disney, which means that although it is owned by Disney, it is still its own company. Pixar is also a subsidiary. Now, Disney does seem to exercise complete control over Pixar, however, it remains to be seen what their involvement with Marvel is.



Paramount had an agreement to DISTRIBUTE the film. They didn't trick anyone, as they techinically "owned" it. When Disney bought Marvel, they had to buy out Paramount to gain distribution rights to the porperty. Paramount agreed to sell, with those conditions you cited. Paramount had as much to do with the making of the film as Disney did (which is nothing at all). Marvel Studios made the film. They would have made it whther or not Disney owned them.



Agreed. Anyone who thinks Universal will sell the theme park rights back to Disney is delusional. While Universal is required to pay a percentage of merchandise fees, the actual licensing for theme park use is most likely a flat fee...and probably very minimal at that. It could be a yearly fee, or it may have been a flat fee they paid at the top of the contract. So Universal could care less.

Anybody who thinks Disney is interested in buying the rights back from Uni is mistaken IMO. If you think Uni enjoys marketing a Disney brand then why did they remove all the Marvel stuff from their park in California almost immediately after the Disney bought Marvel?

 

[GrumpyFan]

Anybody who thinks Disney is interested in buying the rights back from Uni is mistaken IMO. If you think Uni enjoys marketing a Disney brand then why did they remove all the Marvel stuff from their park in California almost immediately after the Disney bought Marvel?

I don't pretend to know what Disney thinks. But, if I were them (Disney), I would want those rights/licenses back so I could do with them as I please where I choose to do so. As is, they are over a barrel and must be careful about what they use and how they use it, lest they run the risk of being sued for misuse of their own product. I don't know about the properties in California, nor the timing of the removal, but I would suspect it was a money and licensing issue that they just couldn't negotiate at the time. I do recall reading in the contract though about an option to expand the use of Marvel characters elsewhere, but I think it was time dependent, and perhaps they just missed the window.

From a financial standpoint, the current arrangement is probably beneficial, at least for Disney/Marvel, since Universal is paying to advertise and use their product. So, in essence, it's free advertising, actually, it's even better than free. However, the downfall is they (Disney) can't use the products or characters in their own parks, at least not in Florida. And right now, with the movie as big as it was, having those characters in your park, is potentially a big seller!

 

[prberk]

And don't forget that this is very similar to the way that the actual studio operations work in Hollywood. They use each others' production facilities constantly. Many films are produced at rival studios' facilities for a fee -- wherever they can get the deal that best fits what they are doing. Go on a real studio tour in Hollywood (like Paramount or NBC or even the original Universal studios tour), or visit Disney's Golden Oak ranch production website (http://studioservices.go.com/goldenoakranch/index.html) -- which in itself is a cool place which you have seen in HUNDREDs of movies, Disney and non-Disney -- and you will see what I mean. [Think "Little House on the Prairie" AND "Old Yeller" AND the "Ernest" movies.]

The difference here is simply that the theme parks are more public -- you can see a Disney/Marvel product at a Universal resort.

This is an example where the rising tide (of appealing attractions) clearly raises ALL boats. While there is competition, using each others' properties for each to gain is not unusual for the entertainment industry.

 

[flavious27]

Too bad that any money for park development is going to be eaten up by avaland.

 

[ScorpionX]

Money money money makes the WORLD go round

Listen and you'll hear the ka-ching
Of a bank account teeming with cash
See all the retirements killed
When money is playing its game

And feel all the greedy corporate men
Messing with lives old and young
Wall Street won't its secrets
When we really want to hear

Oh money, these are a few of your bad scams
Working in the wrong places
Bringing Hell to our own Earth

Oh money, there is no living without you
We're saving lots of you now
Won't you just give us a break, now?

Oh money, you are profound,
you make the world go 'round and 'round.
You make the world go 'round.
You make the world go 'round.
You make the world go 'round.

 

[jt04]

Too bad that any money for park development is going to be eaten up by avaland.

Proof please.

 

[jt04]

Listen and you'll hear the ka-ching
Of a bank account teeming with cash
See all the retirements killed
When money is playing its game

And feel all the greedy corporate men
Messing with lives old and young
Wall Street won't its secrets
When we really want to hear

Oh money, these are a few of your bad scams
Working in the wrong places
Bringing Hell to our own Earth

Oh money, there is no living without you
We're saving lots of you now
Won't you just give us a break, now?

Oh money, you are profound,
you make the world go 'round and 'round.
You make the world go 'round.
You make the world go 'round.
You make the world go 'round.

The more a person claims to hate all the 'evils of money' the more obsessed with money they become.

There is some scientific principle at work here but I have yet to figure it out enough to be able to reduce it to a set of rules.

But I will. Mark my words.