Uni waiting for Marvel Buyout from Disney?

[marni1971]

The Frozen argument is more about putting an attraction where it isn't suitable, further ruining an existing park despite having a perfect area to build it elsewhere, and then shoehorning it into somewhere with a butchered budget that's an insult for what could be one of their most popular IPs for decades.

And @Matt_Black you know Comcast can't actually add anything new Marvel wise as per the contract, right? They can only maintain and upgrade what they have? Like the awesome Spider-man refurb? That kind of rains on your argument over the previous pages.

 

[marni1971]

Yeah, they wound up getting the rights to Hagar the Horrible and Heathcliff! That'll get the youngsters into the parks! And people criticize the Avatar deal....

The Universal parks have pretty much a reputation for a more mature crowd. Given the ever increasing profits it seems to be a model that's working.

But, to accommodate the family crowd certain posters seem to want, the next new multi million dollar E Ticket currently being built in IOA will have no height limit.

 

[maxairmike]

The Frozen argument is more about putting an attraction where it isn't suitable, further ruining an existing park despite having a perfect area to build it elsewhere, and then shoehorning it into somewhere with a butchered budget that's an insult for what could be one of their most popular IPs for decades.

And @Matt_Black you know Comcast can't actually add anything new Marvel wise as per the contract, right? They can only maintain and upgrade what they have? Like the awesome Spider-man refurb? That kind of rains on your argument over the previous pages.

Hold the horses here. Now, I greatly respect you, but I really want to know where some people seem to be getting this idea. There's nothing in the original contract that would bar them from creating a new attraction for the Marvel island, so unless there's a new addendum or second contract that happened recently that I'm not aware of, this is a kind of misleading statement. They're not prohibited from adding anything new, but Disney would probably throw up as many roadblocks as they can to dissuade Universal from doing so. However (and this is the big sticking point), Marvel (Disney) cannot be unreasonable in doing so, and would likely drop the argument as soon as Universal pushed it into arbitration.

However, Universal has other priorities right now, and evidently grand plans for Toon Lagoon, which would be the direction that MSHI would expand in anyway. Also, any new addition for MSHI they would develop would have to be styled after the comics, not the movies, which likely greatly reduces the desire for a new attraction, as the public would be expecting a new attraction to be based on the movies instead of the comics.

 

[mahnamahna101]

What's the Uni equivalent of "pixie-dusters"? Because I think quite a few have been in this thread.

People criticize Disney for not immediately having plans for a Frozen ride, whereas Uni has done nothing to capitalize on the MCU films for six years and counting and the rebuttal is dismissive non-answers like, "They don't wanna" and "Coming up with innovative superhero attractions is HARD!"

Um, it's called "Universal can't add any Marvel characters/franchises who aren't already featured in the area or base their attractions on the movies"? Captain America and Hulk are the only Avengers they could use. S.H.I.E.L.D. doesn't have any real presence in the island, while Iron Man is non-existent and Thor nowhere to be seen.

Based on the pace Comcast is taking with its new additions, we would have had an Avengers ride open alongside Diagon this year possibly (Comcast might be crazy enough to do that)

Why advertise another company's stuff anyways when you have other areas that need addressing (empty Toon Lagoon theater/carnival games area, Thunder Falls plot - soon to be Kong, Trikes plot, Dragon Challenge's lack of theming outside the queue which doesn't fit the rest of Hogsmeade, what to do with Lost Continent & Toon Lagoon, nighttime show, and the plot next to Cat in the Hat)? Marvel is the most complete, well-rounded island in IOA. Hulk and Spidey are two of the three most popular rides there (FJ obviously being the other). No real reason to add anything aside from refurbs/upgrades to existing attractions

Frozen is too much of a phenomenon to NOT have something ready by 2015/2016. And I'm sure Disney's Star Tours 1980s flight simulators with an Iron Man overlay will certainly be cutting edge

 

[lazyboy97o]

What's the Uni equivalent of "pixie-dusters"? Because I think quite a few have been in this thread.

People criticize Disney for not immediately having plans for a Frozen ride, whereas Uni has done nothing to capitalize on the MCU films for six years and counting and the rebuttal is dismissive non-answers like, "They don't wanna" and "Coming up with innovative superhero attractions is HARD!"

Name calling is always a sign of a good argument.

And @Matt_Black you know Comcast can't actually add anything new Marvel wise as per the contract, right? They can only maintain and upgrade what they have? Like the awesome Spider-man refurb? That kind of rains on your argument over the previous pages.

I am going to have to second what @maxairmike said and point out that nothing in the contract prohibits additions. They would just be limited to utilizing the characters to which they already have the rights.

 

[seascape]

There are some Universal fans who read the contract with universal colored glasses, their version of pixie dust. They can't understand that when a contract says when the resort is complete it will have 2 parks and a 3rd shopping area, it means that.. They think that means nothing but that Disney has to allow whatever they want. They can't have it both ways. The contract means exactly what it says. It is iron clad and as long as universal maintains what they have in the first rate manner they set with Harry Potter Disney can't get the rights back and Universal has to keep up what they promised and the park can't be bigger than what the contract states. A finished park is a finished park. A 2 gate park.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Um, it's called "Universal can't add any Marvel characters/franchises who aren't already featured in the area or base their attractions on the movies"? Captain America and Hulk are the only Avengers they could use. S.H.I.E.L.D. doesn't have any real presence in the island, while Iron Man is non-existent and Thor nowhere to be seen.

Universal has the rights to the entire family of characters they have utilized. They get Iron Man and Thor because they have Captain America and the Hulk.

There are some Universal fans who read the contract with universal colored glasses, their version of pixie dust. They can't understand that when a contract says when the resort is complete it will have 2 parks and a 3rd shopping area. They think that means nothing but that Disney has to allow whatever they want. They can't have it both ways. The contract means exactly what it says. It is iron clad and as long as universal maintains what they have in the first rate manner they set with Harry Potter Disney can't get the rights back and Universal gas to keep up what they promised and the can't be bigger than what the contract states. A finished park is a finished park.

You're making things up again. An ongoing project being complete is not a cap on building more. You're just wrong and spreading lies.

 

[marni1971]

@seascape ....We understand what you're saying. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

 

[marni1971]

Hold the horses here. Now, I greatly respect you, but I really want to know where some people seem to be getting this idea. There's nothing in the original contract that would bar them from creating a new attraction for the Marvel island,
.

I understood and was told differently. Thank you.

 

[draybook]

Why are people still replying to Ji.....I mean @seascape?

 

[seascape]

@seascape ....We understand what you're saying. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

I was reading some of you posts about universal and their rides. I especially liked how you excuse any universal problems and only seem to express negative views towards disney. As for your saying everyone knows my point of view you are incorrect. The other thread was on the universal section. This is the Disney section. The Disney fans should have the right to fully express their views here just like universal fans are the majority over their. You do have the right and are welcome to your views but please do not insult or gripe about others. Thanks.

 

[marni1971]

As for your saying everyone knows my point of view you are incorrect. .

@seascape - Please do tell me where I said that. Please.

You've not obviously been here long enough to read that I pay credit where its due to WDW parks. I found the 2007 Haunted Mansion, and the last HoP and Splash Mountain refurbs to be excellent.

Even if one had to be done to save a lot more money further down the road.

 

[seascape]

Please do tell me where I said that. Please.

Oh, it's "there". Not "their".

Over on the universal section concerning the mummy ride. You said it was not working and rather than just saying universal would fix it which they did you has to throw in cracked about Disney. You can't seem to help but complain about disney. I feel sorry for you. I even gave universal a complement above but you probably did not even get it.

 

[marni1971]

You can't seem to help but complain about disney. I feel sorry for you. I even gave universal a complement above but you probably did not even get it.

No, I probably didn't pay much attention to it.

Thanks for feeling sorry me though. It's the people I know. They tell me the truth.

PM me if you want. That'll avoid clogging up the forum any more.

 

[maxairmike]

Universal has the rights to the entire family of characters they have utilized. They get Iron Man and Thor because they have Captain America and the Hulk.


You're making things up again. An ongoing project being complete is not a cap on building more. You're just wrong and spreading lies.

The bolded is a major point with the contract, and something that Universal was smart to utilize in a way that ties up most any major Marvel character even if they're not currently represented except incidentally (as Thor and Iron Man are used incidentally, but they retain rights to those characters as they're part of the Avengers family). It is an exceptionally wide rights situation.

 

[wm49rs]

Why are people still replying to Ji.....I mean @seascape?

Wrong initials....

 

[ChrisFL]

But, to accommodate the family crowd certain posters seem to want, the next new multi million dollar E Ticket currently being built in IOA will have no height limit.

Wait, we're talking about the big hairy ape right? no height limit seems odd for that kind of IP

 

[marni1971]

Wait, we're talking about the big hairy ape right? no height limit seems odd for that kind of IP

That's what I thought too.

 

[Sassagoula-Rvr]

I'm not sure if this is referring to my comment specifically or in general. But, I for one enjoy Disney. It is a place I feel emotionally attached to. I think that many of us here feel some emotionally attachment to Disney. And sometimes, when we feel that the things that made us love Disney are being taken away, it bothers people.
I went to Disney for the first time years ago at age 4 and so I don't remember the "good ol'" days that many users speak of. But I know that without a doubt, Disney was known for being innovative, having amazing customer service, and providing immersive experiences that take guest to the "world of tomorrow".
For quite sometime now, we have seen other theme parks come forward with technology that surpasses Disney.
We've seen a number of stories of rude CMs (don't get me wrong, I've seen plenty of rude guest too.)
We've now reached a point where technology is invading our "vacations" (referring to MDE.)
Where a commercial business (Starbucks) is now sitting on main street USA.

Disney has definitely put more focus on profits than ever before. They are not the same company they once were.
They have put a significant focus on catering to young children lately, forgetting that Disney is supposed to be fun for everyone. That is why so many people are asking when we will see another E-ticket!

I read on another forum that parents who have large age gaps in children (5+ years apart), should make it clear to the older children that Disney is more for the younger children than them. That it doesn't matter how bored the older children are as long as the younger kids have fun.

Where is the Disney that all ages could enjoy?
I did make a statement that Disney hasn't done enough with Star Wars and I stand by that 100%.
I love Disney World but sometimes I question the choices of the company. I know that whatever they build, it will be beautiful but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
What you call "bashing" is like tough love. We are hard on Disney sometimes because we know they can do better.

I could not disagree more with the bold statement in my opinion. Maybe I'm different, but like you...I grew up going to Disney...and never once did I think "This is lame"...stressful? maybe a few times here and there...exhausting? sure...I love thrill rides as much as anyone...but Disney rides, in general, should be able to be experienced by everyone, ages 1-101 (I know with height restrictions it is not quite that inclusive...but just about anyone can ride Splash, or Big thunder...or the Mine Train).

I guess I'm a little confused by what some people refer to as an "E-Ticket" experience...To me, the mine Train looks like a solid "D-Ticket" and if it was a bit longer would be in the "E-Ticket" category. But I'm not sure if rides like that would "thrill" the older children enough to satisfy some people. And also, are Disney trips not what you make of them?

To be clear as well, wasn't replying to your post specifically either on my first one! Just in general!

I will say the whole "one parks" initiative, while good from an operations management stand point...kind of sucks when it comes to merchandise...or attractions being built...but that is for a different thread. This will probably be my last post related to this since I don't want to further side track the thread...but the "Acountaneering Disney" articles are a good read on a related topic over on some other site! I love WDI as much as the next person...but it is kind of ridiculous sometimes relating to their cost...they are the best in the business...but that overhead...yikes. No wonder the "Bean counters" make them spread it out over so many quarters like they did with FLE

 

[wm49rs]

There are some Universal fans who read the contract with universal colored glasses, their version of pixie dust. They can't understand that when a contract says when the resort is complete it will have 2 parks and a 3rd shopping area, it means that.. They think that means nothing but that Disney has to allow whatever they want. They can't have it both ways. The contract means exactly what it says. It is iron clad and as long as universal maintains what they have in the first rate manner they set with Harry Potter Disney can't get the rights back and Universal has to keep up what they promised and the park can't be bigger than what the contract states. A finished park is a finished park. A 2 gate park.

And again, so what? Neither party is going to move on this contract....