Western way park/5th gate

[TP2000]

Disney is not allowed to build pretty much anything Marvel-related in WDW. Disney, however, is welcomed to do whatever they want with Marvel in California at the Disneyland Resort.

Sums it up perfectly, raven. The legal contract Disney has with Marvel specifically mentions that Disney can't build anything Marvel-related in any Disney theme park that is "East of the Mississippi River".

And that's also the reason why a snazzy Iron Man Tech, Presented by Stark Industries interactive exhibit just opened last month at Disneyland's Innoventions in Tomorrowland, but a similar offering won't be seen this year at any WDW park.

 

[Captain Chaos]

In actuality, I hear the plans for the 5th gate are "EPCOT II: 32% more EPCOTness than EPCOT I"...it will feature all the good rides that have been gutted from the park. It is a plan that might work, but it is also the reason the BAH is being moved. Every park needs an icon.

Disney just bought the Wiggles and Teletubbies... The 5th park will be an all kiddie park based on these two IPs...

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

Here's the Marvel/Uni contract if you feel like reading it: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

 

[PeterAlt]

This advice has been proffered and will never be taken. I think Mr. Alt thinks that he can annoy Uni and Disney into having a Marvel 5th gate built at WDW. At first, I thought he was crazy, but he's really good at his chosen tactic..............

Holy crépe! You've blown my cover!

 

[Sully83]

Plus, honestly what is the incentive for disney to get them back if universal is most likely going to ask for the farm. If universal owned the rights for everywhere then yes, I think disney would be more inclined to try and get the rights. We all love WDW and yes major areas within the resort need major love and marvel would be a great fit, but it is only one resort in disneys opinion and they have other IP's now that they can use in its place at WDW. They can still build in cali, shanghai, hong kong, tokyo and paris. Plus I truely believe they are eventually going to put a park in Brazil since that is an up and coming major player in the world with up and coming new wealth and the popularity for disney down there. I bet disney inquired about it because it would be poor business not to, universal most likely asked for something beyond crazy, disney politely gave them the finger and then their attorneys all went out for drinks afterwards

 

[lebeau]

Okay, your first statement is true and I agree 100% with. Second, I didn't say Uni should let their attractions rot. There will be a point some time in the future (and I don't know when) that they will need to fork up big money for an extensive rehab. This happens all the time for any attraction at any theme park. Do they use that money on rehab and keep the current theme, as it is unclear if this rehab would last the life-cycle of owned rights, or do they use that money to re-theme the area with wholly-owned under-exploited Uni IP?

You are thinking of how Disney operates. Let it rot and to the bare minimum after it breaks down. Universal has shown it will invest in its attractions even when they are working just fine. See Spider-man refurb.

As to Spider-Man, I'm with you on that one. Seeing how Disney decided to let Sony have the film rights, there's no need for Disney to own the theme park rights in that. Maybe Disney can let Uni have that one, or let them have it in a new deal extension or revision.

I had typed more, but I finally realized I am wasting my time and deleted the rest of my response. Reason and facts are clearly of no importance to you. Believe what you want to believe.

 

[lebeau]

Plus, honestly what is the incentive for disney to get them back if universal is most likely going to ask for the farm. If universal owned the rights for everywhere then yes, I think disney would be more inclined to try and get the rights.

B-I-N-G-O

 

[PeterAlt]

You are thinking of how Disney operates. Let it rot and to the bare minimum after it breaks down. Universal has shown it will invest in its attractions even when they are working just fine. See Spider-man refurb.



I had typed more, but I finally realized I am wasting my time and deleted the rest of my response. Reason and facts are clearly of no importance to you. Believe what you want to believe.

Of course they are! Where have I ignored facts?

 

[PeterAlt]

B-I-N-G-O

Sully does make a good point there...

 

[lebeau]

Of course they are! Where have I ignored facts?

 

[wm49rs]

The "Search" function is such an overlooked utility......

 

[wm49rs]

Of course they are! Where have I ignored facts?

The better question is when have you actually used them?

 

[DaveN1996]

I would imagine once the contract is up that Disney will get rolling with Marvel and Universal will find... DC maybe? (I know DC has agreements with Six Flags, but there is no Six Flags park in Florida)

 

[danlb_2000]

In actuality, I hear the plans for the 5th gate are "EPCOT II: 32% more EPCOTness than EPCOT I"...it will feature all the good rides that have been gutted from the park. It is a plan that might work, but it is also the reason the BAH is being moved. Every park needs an icon.

I heard the new park was going to be called "EPCOT II: Electric Boogaloo"

 

[Californian Elitist]

I would imagine once the contract is up that Disney will get rolling with Marvel and Universal will find... DC maybe? (I know DC has agreements with Six Flags, but there is no Six Flags park in Florida)

There isn't really a time limit in the contract.

 

[luv]

Disney didn't need Marvel. I wish they would stop spending money on stuff they don't need and start investing in cleaner, prettier, better maintained parks with good rides.

I don't know what Disney and Uni think about the contract...just what I think about it.

 

[Sully83]

The "Search" function is such an overlooked utility......

holy s--t, please tell me this same topic is not actively being discussed on two different boards.....I am glad i joined this is all kind of entertaining

 

[Hakunamatata]

I would imagine once the contract is up that Disney will get rolling with Marvel and Universal will find... DC maybe? (I know DC has agreements with Six Flags, but there is no Six Flags park in Florida)

I would imagine that in 37 years when the contract is up, the popularity will be a bit lower.

 

[CDavid]

99.8% of Marvel characters are or were Avengers at some point. As long as Universal features ONE Avenger, Disney is basically blocked from the entire Marvel universe.

I am not a lawyer, nor would I want to be, but I'm wondering that if there is any wiggle room at all in what seems to be a solid contract, it's here. Exactly what defines being a member of the same character "family" (Avengers, Fantastic Four, etc.)? If a lesser known hero merely appeared in the Avengers for a few issues twenty years ago, for instance, can we still interpret that to make them a member of the Avengers family just as much as Thor or Iron Man? This isn't precisely defined in the contract; Are we talking characters used over the lifetime of the Avengers book or just contemporary members?

But it really doesn't matter much anyway, since only lesser-known, obscure characters would be made available by even the most favorable ruling. Disney creating a Spider-Woman ride (or whatever) would look a poor effort compared to more famous Spider-Man over at Universal.

Incidentally, though, what is Ant Man's history? I'm not familiar with him, there is a movie due out, so what "family" group does he belong to?

 

[litaljohn]

The "Search" function is such an overlooked utility......

Lose lose. You bring up a topic already discussed everyone says you should use the search. You respond to an older topic and idiots don't look when posts were created and start trying to argue with something people said ten years ago. It's just as bad.