The epic Marvel debate massive

[PeterAlt]

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.

I have no disagreement with that. I'm hoping the new management will see things differently.

 

[wm49rs]

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.

Reasonable people (including the ones that drew up the contract) understand east of the Mississippi River is referring to the continental United States. But again, that's reasonable people....

 

[Californian Elitist]

I'm hoping the new management will see things differently.

Why?

 

[danlb_2000]

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.

Disney acquired Marvel almost 4 years ago, if this statement is true why have we heard any official announcements of Marvel attractions for the other parks? If exploiting the theme park rights to Marvel was so important to Disney, don't you think we would see Marvel attractions under construction already?

 

[PeterAlt]

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).

She's the one who chose JJ Abrams. If she makes these kinds of decisions if she's the new Disney CEO, I trust she will do the right thing.

Hiring JJ Abrams as director of Star Wars 7 makes perfect sense in the same way that putting Marvel back together does.

 

[PeterAlt]

Disney acquired Marvel almost 4 years ago, if this statement is true why have we heard any official announcements of Marvel attractions for the other parks? If exploiting the theme park rights to Marvel was so important to Disney, don't you think we would see Marvel attractions under construction already?

For the same reason why we probably won't hear about new Star Wars rides or sections in the parks for another 4 years or so. It takes an average of 5 years for a project to go from design to construction.

 

[PeterAlt]

Reasonable people (including the ones that drew up the contract) understand east of the Mississippi River is referring to the continental United States. But again, that's reasonable people....

That won't uphold in court.

 

[wm49rs]

That won't uphold in court.

Seems to be holding up just fine so far.

But since you're such an expert, give it a shot....

 

[PeterAlt]

Why?

Why is strictly my opinion and I did explain why I feel this why. See the post where I discuss ROI.

 

[PeterAlt]

Seems to be holding up just fine so far.

But since you're such an expert, give it a shot....

There you go again, saying things I didn't say. Where do I say I'm an expert? Show me, please.

And how is holding up? State your case number!

 

[danlb_2000]

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.

The contract says that 2 years after the opening of IOA, Universal looses exclusivity in each region unless they agree to build a "Marvel Universe" in a park in that region . Since they didn't build a Marvel Universe in a park Europe or Asia, they loose the exclusivity in those regions. Since they didn't add Marvel to another US park they lost US exclusivity except for East of the Mississippi.

 

[wm49rs]

There you go again, saying things I didn't say. Where do I say I'm an expert? Show me, please.

And how is holding up? State your case number!

You claim it won't hold up in court, how do you know if you're not an expert?

And how many challenges to the contract has there been? How many times has "east of the Mississippi" been used as a legal challenge to this deal? You're the one claiming it won't hold up, you show the facts and figures for once. You seem to be bereft in that area, no matter what the discussion.

 

[PeterAlt]

The contract says that 2 years after the opening of IOA, Universal looses exclusivity in each region unless they agree to build a "Marvel Universe" in a park in that region . Since they didn't build a Marvel Universe in a park Europe or Asia, they loose the exclusivity in those regions. Since they didn't add Marvel to another US park they lost US exclusivity except for East of the Mississippi.

You have 100% credibility in my mind and trust what you just said is correct...

THEREFORE, I was WRONG in that regard...

(Still doesn't mean I'm wrong with the whole Marvel thing, though)

 

[danlb_2000]

That won't uphold in court.

A dispute wouldn't go to court, the contract specifies that disputes are handled through binding arbitration.

 

[PeterAlt]

You claim it won't hold up in court, how do you know if you're not an expert?

And how many challenges to the contract has there been? How many times has "east of the Mississippi" been used as a legal challenge to this deal? You're the one claiming it won't hold up, you show the facts and figures for once. You seem to be bereft in that area, no matter what the discussion.

Because my dad has a law degree and he's always telling us what will or won't hold up in court. I also took some law classes myself.

As for the Mississippi thing, read my previous message to see how untrue what you just said is.

 

[PeterAlt]

A dispute wouldn't go to court, the contract specifies that disputes are handled through binding arbitration.

Ok, I stand corrected.

 

[danlb_2000]

You have 100% credibility in my mind and trust what you just said is correct...

THEREFORE, I was WRONG in that regard...

(Still doesn't mean I'm wrong with the whole Marvel thing, though)

Well, you're just wrong on those subjects. Time has always proved me right and will again prove me right. I want to be wrong. It's kinda boring being right all the time!

Just sayin'....

 

[wm49rs]

Because my dad has a law degree and he's always telling us what will or won't hold up in court. I also took some law classes myself.

As for the Mississippi thing, read my previous message to see how untrue what you just said is.

To the first, right.....

To the second, I'll instead read danlb's posts, which you admitted we're correct and again you were not.....

 

[wm49rs]

MODERATORS - please lock this thread and let it die peacefully!

I don't know. I'm not Kathleen Kennedy.

The two accurate statements you have made tonight....

 

[Hakunamatata]

I also took some law classes myself.

Practicing law without a license to do so is illegal, even on the Internet.