Should Marvel have it’s own theme park

aliceismad

Well-Known Member
I know Marvel is a lot of IP, but dedicating any park to one IP, is an awful idea. And really so many of the greatest rides have no IP. I'd prefer a park with a coherent theme or set of themes, which frankly isn't even really the case at most of the existing WDW parks.
 

aliceismad

Well-Known Member
OK .
Marvel is a Fad
Repurpose existing space for Marvel
Universal has rights to Marvel IP East of the Mississippi
So no Marvel Theme Park CHECK
Maybe Disney should sell Marvel since that IP kind of doesn’t fit in but Marvel has made more money than LucasArts.
I vote for less or no Marvel and LucasArts.
I don't understand what you mean by selling Marvel. Disney already doesn't have rights to Marvel east of the Mississippi, so obviously they can't sell those rights again. In other areas, Marvel is getting lands in Disney's California Adventure, Hollywood Studios Paris, and Disneyland Hong Kong. Also Disney is utilizing the Marvel characters that they have rights to in WDW by making a Guardians coaster in Epcot.

Disney has already developed Star Wars lands in Hollywood Studios at WDW and Disneyland, not to mention the in-progress immersive Star Wars hotel at WDW. So how/why would they sell LucasArts rights to something they've already used?

Do you mean sell off Marvel and LucasArts entirely? You also have to remember that the profits from parks is only a small percentage of the picture. Disney makes money from movies, t-shirts, toys, video games, books, etc.
 

aliceismad

Well-Known Member
Got it.
If they sell the franchises that are not performing or the fans have created strong negative reactions to that will provide them with cash and no controversy.
I was thinking that before Iger bought Marvel and LucasArts the need to cram those IPs into Disney Theme Parks was unnecessary and in the case of EPCOT well we are not fans of the changes.
At EPCOT there was the demolition of the Universe of Energy to make way for Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy indoor coaster. How can they do that considering East of the Mississippi ban by Universal (uh Guardians is new IP?).
If you love Marvel and the Disney Star Wars that is perfectly OK.
Out with old fans and in with the new . . . Forward!
Guardians are not new. Their first appearance in comic books was 1969. But they are apparently not considered part of "the Avengers" which Universal owns rights to. Honestly I do not understand it all, but there are some very good threads here and resources online that explain it.

I guess I don't understand what you mean in your original post by keeping the parks "on mission." Star Tours has featured Star Wars characters in Disney since the late 80s, and I believe the Indiana Jones show opened at Disney World around the same time. Aerosmith is in a ride in Hollywood Studios but has no real link to Disney. Avatar -- which I thought was a horrible choice of IP to make a land for -- has generated one of Disney's best rides. What about all the Pixar-related entertainment and rides? Would they be "on mission"? How about Roger Rabbit in Disneyland?

There is a lot of discussion on these boards regarding whether "cramming IP into the parks" is a good step or a bad one (e.g., Frozen rather than Maelstrom, adding Coco to the Gran Fiesta Tour, the Nightmare overlay to Haunted Mansion in DL during the Halloween-Christmas time, adding Disney characters to small world in DL during Christmas). I'm sure Disney has it's reasons to make changes, and Epcot changes in particular seem polarizing to Disney fans. I can certainly appreciate those who believe that current leadership has lost site of the original vision for Epcot.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Got it.
If they sell the franchises that are not performing or the fans have created strong negative reactions to that will provide them with cash and no controversy.

Marvel definitely doesn't fall into that category, it's making Disney a ton of money.

I was thinking that before Iger bought Marvel and LucasArts the need to cram those IPs into Disney Theme Parks was unnecessary and in the case of EPCOT well we are not fans of the changes.
At EPCOT there was the demolition of the Universe of Energy to make way for Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy indoor coaster. How can they do that considering East of the Mississippi ban by Universal (uh Guardians is new IP?).
If you love Marvel and the Disney Star Wars that is perfectly OK.
Out with old fans and in with the new . . . Forward!

Most of the Guardians characters in the movies were created for the 2008 team, well after the Universal contract was made.
 

Bob Harlem

Well-Known Member
Got it.
If they sell the franchises that are not performing or the fans have created strong negative reactions to that will provide them with cash and no controversy.
I was thinking that before Iger bought Marvel and LucasArts the need to cram those IPs into Disney Theme Parks was unnecessary and in the case of EPCOT well we are not fans of the changes.
At EPCOT there was the demolition of the Universe of Energy to make way for Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy indoor coaster. How can they do that considering East of the Mississippi ban by Universal (uh Guardians is new IP?).
If you love Marvel and the Disney Star Wars that is perfectly OK.
Out with old fans and in with the new . . . Forward!

The contract is complicated regarding families of characters, Guardians, with the exception of Drax, is not tied directly to the Avengers. So it's a loophole in the contract. So it's very likely that Drax will be missing from the new ride. Dr. Strange is mixed, and Black Panther is definitely out. There's absolutely no sane reason for Universal to give up these rights (they had the agreement with Marvel well before Disney got involved). I consider the Guardians ride at Epcot the educational "Law pavilion" because of how much they are stretching the boundaries of the contract there.
 

Giss Neric

Well-Known Member
But what measure was Frozen "as big as Marvel"? If you go by box office, the two Frozen movies made just about as much as Avengers Endgame alone made.
meaning not just box office. The demand for the franchise in terms of merchandise. Remember the time that there was a shortage of Elsa and Anna costumes for kids cause they were so in demand. Maybe not as big litterally but big of an impact.
 

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
I think Marvel deserves its own theme park. While the Marvel Cinematic Universe may not last forever, the Marvel characters themselves have proven to have stood the test of time. And Marvel has much more diversity of settings and characters than Star Wars. So think of it less as "a theme park based around one IP" and instead a theme park based upon thousands of IPs that happen to be under the Marvel name.

If done right (with proper planning and a gigantic budget) it could be a very immersive experience.

The most extensive land could be New York City. This area would be the equivalent of Main Street in Disneyland, where you could have restaurants and shops and iconic Marvel locations such as the Daily Bugle. New York could include the Avengers Campus (like Disney California Adventure) and rides themed around Spider-man and the Fantastic Four. Other New York-based Marvel characters like Daredevil, Jessica Jones and Luke could also appear. Maybe there could be an interactive experience where you help Jessica Jones solve a mystery.

Adjacent to New York, you could have SHIELD Headquarters where you could meet Nick Fury, Black Widow, Maria Hill, Agent Carter and Hawkeye. SHIELD could recruit you on a mission in which you ride in the SHIELD helicarrier and have to fight a foe in the sky (it could be a very immersive experience like Rise of the Resistance.)

You could also have Xavier’s Mansion (aka the X-mansion), where you could meet all of the X-men and (through a simulator ride) train to fight Sentinal robots in the Danger Room.

Asgard could be where Disney goes all out with the fantasy aspects of the MCU, featuring mythical creatures. Characters like Thor, Loki, Hela, Valkyrie, and Odin can appear here. There could be dueling roller coasters where one group is Team Thor, and the Other is Team Loki. Another ride could have guests battle the Frost Giants, go to the Dark World, or fight a mythical foe not yet featured in the Thor movies. You can have a Viking-themed dining restaurant. Leading up to Asgard and Thor’s Kingdom is the rainbow-colored Bifrost Bridge, guarded by Heimdall. The bridge could connect to other areas of the Marvel Theme park. I think this land could move way beyond the MCU and feature mythical beings from the comics. Asgard could be the closest to “Fantasyland’ that we get in The Marvel Theme Park.

Of course, there should also be a Wakanda land, where guests can ride a monorail or a tame roller coaster throughout the city and travel through Mount Bashenga, where the vibration is stored. Disney will need to spend A LOT of money to do this land justice, but it could be the most stunning section of the park. A simulated ride featuring giant screens and 3D technology could involve you trying to protect Wakanda (I believe such an attraction has been proposed for Disney’s California Adventure). You could also dine inside the Royal Palace with King T’Challa and meet the Dora Milaje and Shuri. There could also be a stage show centered around Warrior Falls, where we witness a battle for the throne. Maybe a dark ride could tell the story of Wakanda’s history, featuring advanced animatronics.

There could also be a ride in which you enter an advanced-submarine-like vehicle and travel to Atlantis, where Namor reigns. Think a more impressive version of the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea ride, with all of the advantages of modern technology.

There should be a space-themed section of the park, with thrill rides, restaurants, and interactions with space-based or cosmic marvel characters like the Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain Marvel, the Skrulls, Thanos, Silver Surfer, Galactus, the Watchers etc.

There could also be an area of the park that deals with magic users and the supernatural. For example, you could have a magic show and a trippy thrill ride with Doctor Strange in the Sanctum Sanctorum. Wanda/Scarlet Witch could have a 50s diner (a nod to Westview in the Wandavision show) that appears to glitch (as it’s all an illusion in Wanda’s mind). There could be a ride where you join Ghost Rider on a motorcycle-like roller coaster (similar to the Tron attraction in Shanghai). Finally, there could be a horror-like attraction where you come across demonic characters like Mephisto, Blackheart and Nightmare. Other characters that could be featured include Agatha Harkness, Blade, Moribus, Moon Night, and Werewolf by Night. This land would emphasize thrills and be a bit edgier than the rest of the park.

And Finally, there should be a Villain land, which features many thrill rides and roller coasters. If they do Dr. Doom justice in the MCU, I’d say they could have the villain land centered around his castle in Latveria. There could be a spectacular stunt-filled show in this land where Spider-man has to defeat the Sinister Six.

I know something like this would probably never happen, but I just think there’s so much more potential for the Marvel brand than the relatively small Avengers Campus in California.
 

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
meaning not just box office. The demand for the franchise in terms of merchandise. Remember the time that there was a shortage of Elsa and Anna costumes for kids cause they were so in demand. Maybe not as big litterally but big of an impact.
Still wrong. The MCU has changed how films are made and marketed, how a cinematic universe works, and has had multiple 'touchstone' releases that have been bigger than just a movie (Black Panther tops that list). And BP made more money than Frozen at the box office, FYI.

Merch is harder to quantify because Marvel sells non-MCU merch, but as a franchise the Marvel merch is a much bigger market than Frozen. I would bet in 2013 and 2014, sure, Frozen did better in terms of merch, but every single other year, Marvel sells more.

Frozen is a fine kids film, but to say it had more impact than the MCU is just silly.
 

rawisericho

Well-Known Member
This is the weirdest "I hate IP" thread I've come along in a long time.

"Marvel is just a trend." Yes, a 13 year trend that has grown and grown over time and pretty much owns most box office and merchandising records. Pokemon Go was a trend. Pogs were a trend. Marvel is a cultural institution.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Still wrong. The MCU has changed how films are made and marketed, how a cinematic universe works, and has had multiple 'touchstone' releases that have been bigger than just a movie (Black Panther tops that list). And BP made more money than Frozen at the box office, FYI.

Merch is harder to quantify because Marvel sells non-MCU merch, but as a franchise the Marvel merch is a much bigger market than Frozen. I would bet in 2013 and 2014, sure, Frozen did better in terms of merch, but every single other year, Marvel sells more.

Frozen is a fine kids film, but to say it had more impact than the MCU is just silly.

Yeah, but y'see, in Frozen's case, Disney didn't have to buy an entire company and franchise in order to make movies about it. In terms of costs vs. profit, I wonder if Frozen is indeed more profitable...
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Still wrong. The MCU has changed how films are made and marketed, how a cinematic universe works, and has had multiple 'touchstone' releases that have been bigger than just a movie (Black Panther tops that list). And BP made more money than Frozen at the box office, FYI.

Merch is harder to quantify because Marvel sells non-MCU merch, but as a franchise the Marvel merch is a much bigger market than Frozen. I would bet in 2013 and 2014, sure, Frozen did better in terms of merch, but every single other year, Marvel sells more.

Frozen is a fine kids film, but to say it had more impact than the MCU is just silly.
You know what franchise used to sell ALOT of merch? Before their new owners ruined it with bad stories/characters 😎
 

rawisericho

Well-Known Member
Yeah, but y'see, in Frozen's case, Disney didn't have to buy an entire company and franchise in order to make movies about it. In terms of costs vs. profit, I wonder if Frozen is indeed more profitable...

LOL what? Disney bought Marvel for 9 billion. Box office receipts have been 23 billion with (in Lama Su voice) many more on the way. That doesn't account for merchandise, rental, VOD, licensing, or incentivizing D+ subscriptions.

I think Frozen was very profitable, but it's not in the same stratosphere as the MCU or Marvel as a whole.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom