I don't argue any of what you just said. Refer back to my Eisner-Pixar analogy.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The epic Marvel debate massive
- Thread starter PeterAlt
- Start date
- Status
If Disney is worried about losing market share, Marvel is not the only answer. And there is no guarantee that Disney would do Marvel better than Universal has already done it as far as Florida is concerned.
disneysince71
Well-Known Member
It is because they paid a premium for Marvel that working something out with Comcast is the right thing to do. Just like how Comcast paid a premium for Uni and then bought out the other 50% of USO.
Refer back to where I said that the two situations are not similar.
Current management doesn't have a clue. I'm hoping Kathleen Kennedy is elected and takes care of this.
It's not just Marvel. It's all these lingering ends put together. Disney not responding to Comcast's $1.5 billion Uni commitment is a big part of it.
It doesn't matter how much Disney paid for Marvel. It is not the right thing to do. I have already explained why; I won't waste time typing it again.
See my divorce explanation for reasons why they are.
The same argument can be made for Pixar during Eisner's last years...
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Yes, they paid a lot of Marvel and are easily getting a return on that that investment without using Marvel in any theme parks at the moment. ROI from a theme park attraction takes a long time, ROI on a movie is much faster. If they had to pay $1 billion to get the rights back from Uni, how long would it take to pay back that investment?
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Probably yes. I don't think that would be a violation of the agreement. They could also probably dock in on the east coast since it's not technically a theme park.
WDW is the company's flagship property. Flagships bring in a faster ROI. Stockholders want maximum ROI. Exploitation of IP at all properties bring in maximum ROI.
See how ridiculous this could get. Comcast could claim that HKDL is east of Mississippi. Then what?
Your divorce analogy makes no sense. There is nothing that Comcast wants so badly from Disney that they would agree to end the current arrangement.
You ascribe Disney's lack of desire to negotiate for the Florida Marvel rights to the failures of current management. What makes you think that Kathleen Kennedy or whoever is in charge next would think that it is a good idea to pay an exorbitant amount for those rights? I hate to break it you, but the next person in charge of Disney is probably not going to try to get the Florida Marvel rights either for the same reasons I've explained (over and over again).
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
What would that matter?
Disney doesn't care that they're restricted with their use of Marvel on the east. Like @danlb_2000 said, they're making plenty of money off of Marvel without it even having a presence in the parks. Why go through a hassle just so Marvel can be used in Florida? It's a waste of time and money.
Now you're being ridiculous. The contract defines a specific geographic region over which Universal has exclusive Marvel theme park rights. It is not arbitrary.
It's clear that you are not interested in dealing with facts - only half-baked analogies, wishful thinking, and conspiracy theories. So this is where I shall stop for tonight.
If you have a headache from all of this, we collectively sympathize....
I am interested in dealing with facts. Support what you just said. I read the contract and it says east of Mississippi and does not define what that means. If I'm in error, show me and I will actually say I'm wrong in this regard.
- Status