Western way park/5th gate

[Cosmic Commando]

Except that Guardians of the Galaxy is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase II, the follow up set of films to The Avengers that are setting up The Avengers 2. That is a big, public wrench in such thoughts.

Like I said, they fight Thanos. That is their likely role in the build-up to The Avengers 2. There has been speculation online that the Guardians will be kept further away from the other characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, because of how "out there" the concept is. It includes an alien, anthropomorphic raccoon for those who are unfamiliar. I certainly don't think they'll be on the SHIELD helicarrier with Iron Man and Cap in The Avengers 2. I think they'll be used to show how bad Thanos really is. So they could figure into the story, while still remaining somewhat separate.

 

[Prock3]

The important term is REASONABLE approval. Disney can't go "All ur Spider-Manz are belong to us. You can't paint ur queue railings!"

Yes Im aware of that, but it could also allow Disney to say, well we don't like the direction you're taking with the storyline of this attraction, or even the look of this attraction (Marvel has started to drift away from the comic book look and feel that Super Hero Island represents), we feel that it doesn't represent the direction we are trying to take (franchise name here) at this time. Now this won't come up for quite some time unless they decide to refurb Hulk, which there isn't really anything to refurb other than repainted and some train work, or fear fall. But if they decide to redo the general appearance of the land Disney would have a say in the final approval of it.

Honestly Disney should incorporate their name into the Marvel logo, how much would it irk Uni for it to say on the map Disney's Marvel super hero island.

 

[Tim_4]

Like I said, they fight Thanos. That is their likely role in the build-up to The Avengers 2. There has been speculation online that the Guardians will be kept further away from the other characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, because of how "out there" the concept is. It includes an alien, anthropomorphic raccoon for those who are unfamiliar. I certainly don't think they'll be on the SHIELD helicarrier with Iron Man and Cap in The Avengers 2. I think they'll be used to show how bad Thanos really is. So they could figure into the story, while still remaining somewhat separate.

To be clear, Rocket Raccoon is Yoda with automatic weapons.

 

[PeterAlt]

Yes Im aware of that, but it could also allow Disney to say, well we don't like the direction you're taking with the storyline of this attraction, or even the look of this attraction (Marvel has started to drift away from the comic book look and feel that Super Hero Island represents), we feel that it doesn't represent the direction we are trying to take (franchise name here) at this time. Now this won't come up for quite some time unless they decide to refurb Hulk, which there isn't really anything to refurb other than repainted and some train work, or fear fall. But if they decide to redo the general appearance of the land Disney would have a say in the final approval of it.

Honestly Disney should incorporate their name into the Marvel logo, how much would it irk Uni for it to say on the map Disney's Marvel super hero island.

That is the smartest thing I've heard in a long time! Seriously.

 

[lego606]

And like a previous commenter stated, Why doesn't disney change the Marvel logo to incorporate the Disney name in it, then forcing Uni to change every mention of Marvel in its theme parks, merchandise, and advertising to have the Disney name on it.

The different contracts, from what I understand, are what prevents that. It's the same reason that Marvel movies have the Paramount logo at the beginning.

 

[Tim_4]

That is the smartest thing I've heard in a long time! Seriously.

The comic fanboys would throw a fit, and the wrath of the comic fanboy is a dagger. Disney is mainstream enough to risk the wrath of their OWN fanboys but fanboys are the bread and butter of the comics universe.

 

[Prock3]

The different contracts, from what I understand, are what prevents that. It's the same reason that Marvel movies have the Paramount logo at the beginning.

That was because Paramount co produced the movies with Marvel studios before disney bought them. The Avengers was the first one fully produced under the disney umbrella so it didn't have the paramount logo

 

[CJR]

Like I said, they fight Thanos. That is their likely role in the build-up to The Avengers 2. There has been speculation online that the Guardians will be kept further away from the other characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, because of how "out there" the concept is. It includes an alien, anthropomorphic raccoon for those who are unfamiliar. I certainly don't think they'll be on the SHIELD helicarrier with Iron Man and Cap in The Avengers 2. I think they'll be used to show how bad Thanos really is. So they could figure into the story, while still remaining somewhat separate.

Here is what the contract says, regarding "family": "For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing."

So, you're saying that the Guardians fight Thanos (I'm not familiar with it enough to know myself, to be honest with you). I don't think that would take away from Guardians being defined as their own family, as other than that, they wouldn't be linked to The Avengers. However, it could put into debate as to what family Thanos is in. Given everything I've now read about the Thanos, it would be hard to argue that he is not a part of The Avengers family. I think the line, given from description in the contact, would be drawn at direct core members. So all of the labels in the Avengers, plus the villains. If one of them crossed into another universe or "family", they would still be considered apart of their parent family and would be like a "guest" in the other.

So, given my experience with law, I don't think there would really be much to argue in terms of whether Guardians is in The Avengers family, given the language of the contract. At best, Universal could attempt it to simply delay any of Disney's plans. A good lawyer, which Disney has plenty of, would be able win this one, imo of course.

 

[lego606]

That was because Paramount co produced the movies with Marvel studios before disney bought them. The Avengers was the first one fully produced under the disney umbrella so it didn't have the paramount logo

I thought Avengers was still Paramount? but either way, I there's some kind of legal something that prevents them from putting a Disney-Pixar type thing on Marvel.

 

[danlb_2000]

Yes Im aware of that, but it could also allow Disney to say, well we don't like the direction you're taking with the storyline of this attraction, or even the look of this attraction (Marvel has started to drift away from the comic book look and feel that Super Hero Island represents), we feel that it doesn't represent the direction we are trying to take (franchise name here) at this time. Now this won't come up for quite some time unless they decide to refurb Hulk, which there isn't really anything to refurb other than repainted and some train work, or fear fall. But if they decide to redo the general appearance of the land Disney would have a say in the final approval of it.

Honestly Disney should incorporate their name into the Marvel logo, how much would it irk Uni for it to say on the map Disney's Marvel super hero island.

The question is, and I honestly don't know the answer to this, can Disney legally approve an attraction, Hulk for example, and then turn around and take that approval away since Disney is taking the Hulk in a different direction that conflicts with the ride? I would think that once Disney/Marvel signed off on something as long as Uni maintains it, Disney couldn't change their mind and suddenly find it unacceptable.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Does Disney want Marvel in their theme parks?

My personal gut feeling is, of course they do. Why? Simple, they appear to be a license to print money as all the recent Marvel films are becoming. Disney lurves to make money. By the monorail load. lots of it. Bay lake filled with greenbacks.

Is Disney making money with Marvel at Universal? Sure. Are they making as much as Universal, I don't know, but Iam sure Marvel is in Universal's books and if Universal was making significant revenue more than Disney, Disney would do something about it. Don't believe that? Then apparently you don't see just how smart Iger really is, and lets face it, the guy has turned Disney into a magic mountain of cash that is the talk of the stock world.

Now if Disney really wanted Marvel in all their theme parks, they would have to pay Universal. Contract or not, if Disney wanted it, they would get it. Will they? In our lifetimes I believe so.

How?

Can Universal make an Avengers ride? Not without Disney approval. Think that would happen? Nah.
Can Universal make anything new featuring Marvel characters? Not without Disney approval. Think that will happen? Nah.

Long story short, in my opinion, Universal will outgrow the Marvel license long before Disney has to buy them out simply from the fact the rides will eventually get stale, or Universal will need the land for a license they can either control or an original property they need that land for.

This topic is interesting and I don't think it will ever die, but father time rules all.


Jimmy Thick- Marvel before Carsland at DHS?

 

[Tim_4]

Here is what the contract says, regarding "family": "For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing."

So, your saying that the Guardians fight Thanos (I'm not familiar with it enough to know myself, to be honest with you). I don't thank that would take away from Guardians being defined as their own family, as other than that, they wouldn't be linked to The Avengers. However, it could put into debate as to what family Thanos is in. Given everything I've now read about the Thanos, it would be hard to argue that he is not a part of The Avengers family. I think the line, given from description in the contact, would be drawn at direct core members. So all of the labels in the Avengers, plus the villains. If one of them crossed into another universe or "family", they would still be considered apart of their parent family and would be like a "guest" in the other.

So, given my experience with law, I don't think there would really be much to argue in terms of whether Guardians is in The Avengers family, given the language of the contract. At best, Universal could attempt it to simply delay any of Disney's plans. A good lawyer, which Disney has plenty of, would be able win this one, imo of course.

With respect to your legal expertise, your lack of comic knowledge is faulty. Characters aren't limited to one family. For example, Wolverine has been 100% a member of both the X-Men and the Avengers. If Universal had ONE Wolverine attraction and nothing else, it would effectively block both franchises from Disney.

 

[CJR]

With respect to your legal expertise, your lack of comic knowledge is faulty. Characters aren't limited to one family. For example, Wolverine has been 100% a member of both the X-Men and the Avengers. If Universal had ONE Wolverine attraction and nothing else, it would effectively block both franchises from Disney.

Nope. Yes, it would keep Disney from using Wolverine, but no, it would not keep Disney from using other members of the X-Men.

Now, Universal does have an X-Men ride, so in actuality, Disney cannot use it. However, just because Thanos was in Guardians of the Galaxy does not make all the guardians Avengers. It comes down to the individual character and that's the point I was trying to make. My apologizes if I wasn't clear.

EDIT: To further expand, for the remaining characters, that would make them free for Disney to use. To what degree? That is up to them. My guess is that most would end up on parade floats and that's it. I wouldn't wright off a Guardians ride though, given Disney's investment in the franchise. I personally think Big Hero 6 is more likely to end up in a WDW park in the near term anyway (I think that is actually why Disney chose them to be an animated film).

 

[Captain Chaos]

Nope. Yes, it would keep Disney from using Wolverine, but no, it would not keep Disney from using other members of the X-Men.

Now, Universal does have an X-Men ride, so in actuality, Disney cannot use it. However, just because Thanos was in Guardians of the Galaxy does not make all the guardians Avengers. It comes down to the individual character and that's the point I was trying to make. My apologizes if I wasn't clear.

Um, Disney would be blocked from using X-Men and Avengers simply because Wolverine is in both.. That family clause is a killer...

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Here is what the contract says, regarding "family": "For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing."

So, you're saying that the Guardians fight Thanos (I'm not familiar with it enough to know myself, to be honest with you). I don't thank that would take away from Guardians being defined as their own family, as other than that, they wouldn't be linked to The Avengers. However, it could put into debate as to what family Thanos is in. Given everything I've now read about the Thanos, it would be hard to argue that he is not a part of The Avengers family. I think the line, given from description in the contact, would be drawn at direct core members. So all of the labels in the Avengers, plus the villains. If one of them crossed into another universe or "family", they would still be considered apart of their parent family and would be like a "guest" in the other.

So, given my experience with law, I don't think there would really be much to argue in terms of whether Guardians is in The Avengers family, given the language of the contract. At best, Universal could attempt it to simply delay any of Disney's plans. A good lawyer, which Disney has plenty of, would be able win this one, imo of course.

I think it could possibly be possible that WDW could use the Guardians characters, but definitely not Thanos in an attraction. Like I said, "family" is just a terribly confusing way to think about things that sounds good on the surface.

 

[lego606]

I think it could possibly be possible that WDW could use the Guardians characters, but definitely not Thanos in an attraction. Like I said, "family" is just a terribly confusing way to think about things that sounds good on the surface.

I agree. The term "family" is a bit messy in today's very connected Marvel universe.

 

[Tim_4]

Rocket Raccoon, along with the other members of the Guardians, appeared in issues #4-8 of Avengers Assemble,[6] a series intended as a jumping-on point for fans of the film The Avengers.

Drax the Destroyer (Arthur Douglas) is a fictional character appearing in comic books published byMarvel Comics. Created by writer Mike Friedrich and writer/artist Jim Starlin, the character first appeared in Iron Man #55 (February 1973).

Groot first appeared in Tales to Astonish vol. 1 #13 (November 1960), and was created by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Dick Ayers. He appeared again, 16 years later, in The Incredible Hulk Annual #5 (November 1976), alongside five of the other monsters from the early Tales to Astonish issues. 21 years later, inSensational Spider-Man #-1 (July 1997), Groot was featured in a nightmare that the young Peter Parkerhad.

 

[PeterAlt]

The comic fanboys would throw a fit, and the wrath of the comic fanboy is a dagger. Disney is mainstream enough to risk the wrath of their OWN fanboys but fanboys are the bread and butter of the comics universe.

Fear of upsetting people should never be the reason for any decision. Decisions should be based on logic, weighing the pros and cons. In this case, the wrath would be temporary. Once the decision bears fruit, the wrath would have ended and the cause of that wrath forgotten about.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Yes Im aware of that, but it could also allow Disney to say, well we don't like the direction you're taking with the storyline of this attraction, or even the look of this attraction (Marvel has started to drift away from the comic book look and feel that Super Hero Island represents), we feel that it doesn't represent the direction we are trying to take (franchise name here) at this time. Now this won't come up for quite some time unless they decide to refurb Hulk, which there isn't really anything to refurb other than repainted and some train work, or fear fall. But if they decide to redo the general appearance of the land Disney would have a say in the final approval of it.

Honestly Disney should incorporate their name into the Marvel logo, how much would it irk Uni for it to say on the map Disney's Marvel super hero island.

Kinda sorta, but also not really. I haven't had the good fortune of riding Uni's Spider-Man ride, but my understanding is that the plot is pretty much going around NYC and fighting Doc Ock, Hobgoblin, Electro, etc. That is ALWAYS going to be a valid Spider-Man storyline. I could kinda maybe see Disney forcing updated signage and graphic representation of characters, but there are tons of Spider-Man (just for example) suits and different interpretations by different artists and different Spider-Man continuities even. I don't even know that Disney could force Uni to change; if Uni uses a version of Spider-Man that is "valid" today, I think it would be very, very difficult for Disney to argue that it is not "valid" tomorrow. The Hulk coaster with the gamma ray tunnel is ALWAYS going to relate to that character.

Spider-Man looks like this quite often now... does that render every red and blue suit obsolete? No. There are many many different versions of characters existing concurrently.

 

[CJR]

Um, Disney would be blocked from using X-Men and Avengers simply because Wolverine is in both.. That family clause is a killer...

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but that would be up to the court to decide. By definition of "family" given in the contract, Wolverine is a member of X-Men who crossed over, but is ultimately an X-Men member, especially in the eyes of the average person in public today. It would be a complicated fight, but there would be arguments to support both ends. I would personally find it very interesting to watch, although it'll never happen.

However, I will agree that X-Men are complicated. Guardians of the Galaxy is not quite as complicated. Thanos, is clearly more known as an Avengers villain (looking at his appearances in the comics). This situation would be as simple as not using him in the theme parks. From what little I've read about the film, he won't be a part of the new film either (which makes sense). This would make it more ripe for Disney to go after and would definitely not be as complicated as Wolverine.