When did the IP idea really start?

[Disney Irish]

Understanding it from a business side would mean actually fixing the business’ huge problem regarding project delivery. Guardians of the Galaxy —Mission: BREAKOUT! and Pixar Pier are about Chapek doing what Lasseter could not (attractions opening with movies), and getting “new” projects completed faster and cheaper without having to actually address those problems.

The issues with WDI taking forever with projects is well known. It shouldn't take 5+ years on a project, which has been the standard with WDI for years. So yeah from the business side its understandable why some decisions were made to get some quick projects into DCA to refresh it. Its understandable why the fan boards don't like the projects due to perceived quality issues. But DCA needed some help injected into it and Disney provided that. Now whether it helps DCA overall we'll see. But so far it appears to be working. Marvel Super Hero Land should be the counterbalance to SW:GE when its completed in a couple years. Then DCA should be a full day park. Now I hope they don't stop there and add more, like replace Goofy's and the add a dark ride into the other side of the pier. But that we'll have to wait and see if that happens.

Team Disney Orlando was not running Disneyland Resort until recently nor was there any issue with Universal.

No one said anything about running DLR day-to-day operations. But from what I understood and read TDO had been made decisions for large Capex projects and the "One Disney" projects for both DLR and WDW (giving us the Disney Parks merch) since the late 90s/early 00s. It wasn't until earlier this year with the reorg and Catherine Powell's taking over the "Western Parks", that decisions for Capex and park marketing/merch was made out of TDA. The rumors had been that Chapeak found that TDO was slow and inefficient compared to TDA which is the reason why Powell will be out of TDA and Burbank offices instead of Orlando.

The issues with the Marvel/Universal contract are WELL known. So to say there were not problems is just plain wrong. WDW is very limited with the characters they could use. And since Disney wanted to use the MCU as a jumping off point for the parks experiences. They couldn't just say lets build Iron Man because the contract wouldn't allow them to in WDW. I wouldn't be surprised if Kevin Feige was part of the decision to find a set of characters that could be use in the parks, and then he added them into the MCU. Anyways the point is that the UNI contract delayed things a lot in terms of adding Marvel into the domestic parks.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The issues with WDI taking forever with projects is well known. It shouldn't take 5+ years on a project, which has been the standard with WDI for years. So yeah from the business side its understandable why some decisions were made to get some quick projects into DCA to refresh it. Its understandable why the fan boards don't like the projects due to perceived quality issues. But DCA needed some help injected into it and Disney provided that. Now whether it helps DCA overall we'll see. But so far it appears to be working. Marvel Super Hero Land should be the counterbalance to SW:GE when its completed in a couple years. Then DCA should be a full day park. Now I hope they don't stop there and add more, like replace Goofy's and the add a dark ride into the other side of the pier. But that we'll have to wait and see if that happens.

There was no need beyond opening a cheap “new” attraction near the same time as a movie hit theaters.

No one said anything about running DLR day-to-day operations. But from what I understood and read TDO had been made decisions for large Capex projects and the "One Disney" projects for both DLR and WDW (giving us the Disney Parks merch) since the late 90s/early 00s. It wasn't until earlier this year with the reorg and Catherine Powell's taking over the "Western Parks", that decisions for Capex and park marketing/merch was made out of TDA. The rumors had been that Chapeak found that TDO was slow and inefficient compared to TDA which is the reason why Powell will be out of TDA and Burbank offices instead of Orlando.

One Disney was not about Team Disney Orlando making capex decisions. The only time in recent years where Team Disney Anaheim reported to someone in Florida was when Meg Crofton was placed above Team Disney Anaheim and Team Disney Orlando in a scheme similar to the one you are now praising. In both cases neither woman was/is the one making such large capex decisions.

The issues with the Marvel/Universal contract are WELL known. So to say there were not problems is just plain wrong. WDW is very limited with the characters they could use. And since Disney wanted to use the MCU as a jumping off point for the parks experiences. They couldn't just say lets build Iron Man because the contract wouldn't allow them to in WDW. I wouldn't be surprised if Kevin Feige was part of the decision to find a set of characters that could be use in the parks, and then he added them into the MCU. Anyways the point is that the UNI contract delayed things a lot in terms of adding Marvel into the domestic parks.

The contract is completely irrelevant to the Disneyland Resort.

 

[Disney Irish]

There was no need beyond opening a cheap “new” attraction near the same time as a movie hit theaters.

It goes beyond just opening a cheap attraction at the same time a movie hits the theaters. Its also about being able to complete projects quickly and under budget, two things WDI has been notoriously not able to do.

One Disney was not about Team Disney Orlando making capex decisions. The only time in recent years where Team Disney Anaheim reported to someone in Florida was when Meg Crofton was placed above Team Disney Anaheim and Team Disney Orlando in a scheme similar to the one you are now praising. In both cases neither woman was/is the one making such large capex decisions.

I never said One Disney was about Capex, you're trying to conflate what I said. I said it was an example of a project that TDO shoved to all domestic parks. The Capex under TDO control has been discussed on many boards like this one for years. So I don't know what to say, if you have something that shows different I'd be happy to look it over. But again my understanding based on many different board discussions on the topic is that P&R budgets for Capex for both US resorts has run out of TDO for a long time. I'm happy to change my opinion on that given the right data.

The contract is completely irrelevant to the Disneyland Resort.

However the contract does apply to the entire P&R. P&R isn't going to just put a major money maker like Marvel in just DLR without a larger plan. I know the focus of this forum is DLR, but DLR is not the only park under P&R. I agree they should have done something in DLR a long time ago with Marvel, which was Chapek's complaint. But again P&R large projects Capex is decided not at the park level but higher up. So DLR can't just say hey lets put a Marvel attraction in, that not how it works at the domestic parks.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Its also about being able to complete projects quickly and under budget, two things WDI has been notoriously not able to do.

An issue that remains and continues to get worse.

I never said One Disney was about Capex, you're trying to conflate what I said. I said it was an example of a project that TDO shoved to all domestic parks. The Capex under TDO control has been discussed on many boards like this one for years. So I don't know what to say, if you have something that shows different I'd be happy to look it over. But again my understanding based on many different board discussions on the topic is that P&R budgets for Capex for both US resorts has run out of TDO for a long time. I'm happy to change my opinion on that given the right data.

One Disney was not a Team Disney Orlando project, it was a Rasulo project. I don’t know where you’ve been reading such stuff but you’re asking for proof of a negative. People from Team Disney Orlando have been the last few Presidents of the Disneyland Resort and Meg Crofton was previously the head of the US and Europe but that isn’t Team Disney Orlando controlling Anaheim.

Edit to Add: I think you may be confusing Walt Disney World’s unwillingness to co-finance attractions with Disneyland Resort. That isn’t control and decision making, and it’s not something that has changed. If Disneyland Resort isn’t offered sole funding then it needs a co-financer and as stated below Disney has nobody but themselves to blame for souring their relationships in Asia, especially their Golden Goose in Tokyo.

However the contract does apply to the entire P&R. P&R isn't going to just put a major money maker like Marvel in just DLR without a larger plan. I know the focus of this forum is DLR, but DLR is not the only park under P&R. I agree they should have done something in DLR a long time ago with Marvel, which was Chapek's complaint. But again P&R large projects Capex is decided not at the park level but higher up. So DLR can't just say hey lets put a Marvel attraction in, that not how it works at the domestic parks.

The only part of the contract that applies outside of Walt Disney World is the use of the Marvel name in the US. That is it. Disney soured the relationships with their Asian partners who could have co-financed attractions but that had nothing to do with Universal.

 

[Disney Irish]

An issue that remains and continues to get worse.

We shall see when new project like Marvel start in DCA.

Edit to Add: I think you may be confusing Walt Disney World’s unwillingness to co-finance attractions with Disneyland Resort. That isn’t control and decision making and it’s not something that has changed. If Disneyland Resort isn’t offered sole funding then it needs a co-financer and as stated below Disney has nobody but themselves to blame for souring their relationships in Asia, especially their Golden Goose in Tokyo.

And this maybe, I'm willing to admit that it maybe a misunderstanding of that situation. However the point still is the same that DLR can't just do it on their own because Capex is not given outright for a large scale project unless partnered with another source. So in effect its still WDW/TDO controlling DLRs future. Since Asia is a different market I wouldn't put blame on the Asian partners like OLC to not share budgets.

The only part of the contract that applies outside of Walt Disney World is the use of the Marvel name in the US. That is it. Disney soured the relationships with their Asian partners who could have co-financed attractions but that had nothing to do with Universal.

As Universal has a Japan site where they opened a Spider-Man attraction in 2004 that part of the contract also applied. No Marvel attractions using the same characters or family of characters already in use by Universal in Orlando and Japan. So that cutouts OLC as a funding source.

Again this goes back to the point above, if WDW can't get a Marvel attraction they aren't going to share the funding. Hence controlling DLRs future with Marvel.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Everyone who says Disney is engaged in the best course of action is supporting that view, Disney’s view. You can’t say Disney is right but then deny support of their strategy when it is spelt out.

Now I know you just want to be argumentative. Nothing new there.

 

[Robbiem]

We shall see when new project like Marvel start in DCA.



And this maybe, I'm willing to admit that it maybe a misunderstanding of that situation. However the point still is the same that DLR can't just do it on their own because Capex is not given outright for a large scale project unless partnered with another source. So in effect its still WDW/TDO controlling DLRs future. Since Asia is a different market I wouldn't put blame on the Asian partners like OLC to not share budgets.



As Universal has a Japan site where they opened a Spider-Man attraction in 2004 that part of the contract also applied. No Marvel attractions using the same characters or family of characters already in use by Universal in Orlando and Japan. So that cutouts OLC as a funding source.

Again this goes back to the point above, if WDW can't get a Marvel attraction they aren't going to share the funding. Hence controlling DLRs future with Marvel.

Does anyone know if the uni contract in Japan covers all the characters used in florida or just spiderman as the only character used in Japan?

 

[lazyboy97o]

And this maybe, I'm willing to admit that it maybe a misunderstanding of that situation. However the point still is the same that DLR can't just do it on their own because Capex is not given outright for a large scale project unless partnered with another source. So in effect its still WDW/TDO controlling DLRs future. Since Asia is a different market I wouldn't put blame on the Asian partners like OLC to not share budgets.

Being a different market doesn’t matter. Seven Dwarfs Mine Train was co-financed by Shanghai Disneyland and Magic Kingdom. Shanghai Disneyland financed the bulk of the new Soarin’ for the US parks and soon Japan. Toy Story Land was co-financed between Hong Kong Disneyland and Walt Disney Studios Park.

As Universal has a Japan site where they opened a Spider-Man attraction in 2004 that part of the contract also applied. No Marvel attractions using the same characters or family of characters already in use by Universal in Orlando and Japan. So that cutouts OLC as a funding source.

Again this goes back to the point above, if WDW can't get a Marvel attraction they aren't going to share the funding. Hence controlling DLRs future with Marvel.

Have you read the contract? There is no part of the contract that applies to Orlando and Japan, they are two completely separate deals.

 

[Disney Irish]

Being a different market doesn’t matter. Seven Dwarfs Mine Train was co-financed by Shanghai Disneyland and Magic Kingdom. Shanghai Disneyland financed the bulk of the new Soarin’ for the US parks and soon Japan. Toy Story Land was co-financed between Hong Kong Disneyland and Walt Disney Studios Park.

Those are examples of co-financing where all parks involved got the same attraction or land.

There is no example that I'm aware of where park A financed a project for park B where park A wasn't getting the same project. So again I wouldn't blame the Asian parks for not ponying up money for a projects where they aren't getting it.

Have you read the contract? There is no part of the contract that applies to Orlando and Japan, they are two completely separate deals.

Yes I have read it, have you? If you have then you missed the section that clearly talks about expansion and exclusivity rights.

With regard to the second and subsequent Universal Theme Parks in the areas specified below, MCA’s exclusivity shall be as follows:

a. Second U.S. Park - all of U.S.

b. Any of Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mainland China, Taiwan, North or South Korea, Vietnam, or Thailand, exclusivity will apply to all others.

c. Europe Park - all Europe, including Turkey, but excluding any areas that were part of the former USSR.

This section above in the contract clearly states Japan. And last I checked Tokyo Disneyland was in same Japan where Universal operates Universal Studios Japan. One where they wholly own and operate it I might add.

Didn't you ever wonder why TDL was the only non-US Disney Park to not receive some Marvel attraction in the recent announcements? They don't even have a M&G as far as I know, if they do I'd like to see it.

 

[Disney Irish]

Does anyone know if the uni contract in Japan covers all the characters used in florida or just spiderman as the only character used in Japan?

Based on the contract any characters used in Florida also applies to any other Universal park where they have a Marvel presence, including Japan.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Those are examples of co-financing where all parks involved got the same attraction or land.

There is no example that I'm aware of where park A financed a project for park B where park A wasn't getting the same project. So again I wouldn't blame the Asian parks for not ponying up money for a projects where they aren't getting it.

Who said anything about parks financing attractions they would not get?

Yes I have read it, have you? If you have then you missed the section that clearly talks about expansion and exclusivity rights.

This section above in the contract clearly states Japan. And last I checked Tokyo Disneyland was in same Japan where Universal operates Universal Studios Japan. One where they wholly own and operate it I might add.

Didn't you ever wonder why TDL was the only non-US Disney Park to not receive some Marvel attraction in the recent announcements? They don't even have a M&G as far as I know, if they do I'd like to see it.

“[E]xclusivity will apply to all others.” If that applied there would be no Marvel in Hong Kong Disneyland or Shanghai Disneyland. The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man is a single ride in New York, not a dedicated Marvel land.

 

[Disney Irish]

Who said anything about parks financing attractions they would not get?

For one OLC is not going to pay for Marvel attractions they can't get. Second, at this point we don't know how the Marvel attractions are being paid for. Since they are all unique to the parks they will be in with regards to the characters, will they be different unique ride systems? We don't know yet. So we'll have to wait and see. But if each is a unique ride systems, why would Shanghai pay for anything going into DLR or vice-versa.

“[E]xclusivity will apply to all others.” If that applied there would be no Marvel in Hong Kong Disneyland or Shanghai Disneyland.

No because these shrinkage rules kicks in:

Within 2 years after opening of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE in Orlando, MCA may retain its worldwide exclusivity for up to 5 additional years by designating another location where it intends to develop THE MARVEL UNIVERSE as part of a theme park, and by paying an option fee of $*** per year. Provided such second theme park opens within such 5 year period, MCA shall maintain worldwide exclusivity for an additional two year period after such opening, and thereafter its rights will be subject to the “shrinkage” or “expansion” concept described above (in the manner described below).

......

With regard to subsequent Universal Theme Parks in areas other than as described in (i) above, the parties will in good faith agree upon comparable geographic provisions to the “East of the Mississippi” provisions applicable to the Orlando Universal Theme Park. Thereafter, the above “shrinkage” or “expansion” provisions shall continue to apply to all such future Universal Theme Parks described in this subsection (ii). If after opening any subsequent Universal Theme Park MCA does not institute the option payments within 2 years, continue the option payments, and open such newly designated subsequent Universal Theme Park within 5 years thereafter, its rights shall be permanently “shrunk”, and it will have no further right to build any new THE MARVEL UNIVERSE.

Which means that Disney can build Marvel attractions in any park outside of Japan.

The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man is a single ride in New York, not a dedicated Marvel land.

The contract does not stipulate that Uni must build a full dedicated themed land. Just that it has usage to the characters. And as long as Marvel and Uni agree to it the contract applies.

 

[lazyboy97o]

For one OLC is not going to pay for Marvel attractions they can't get. Second, at this point we don't know how the Marvel attractions are being paid for. Since they are all unique to the parks they will be in with regards to the characters, will they be different unique ride systems? We don't know yet. So we'll have to wait and see. But if each is a unique ride systems, why would Shanghai pay for anything going into DLR or vice-versa.

Oriental Land Company is not Disney’s only Asian partner.

No because these shrinkage rules kicks in:

Which means that Disney can build Marvel attractions in any park outside of Japan.

First sentence, “in areas other than as described in (i) above.” That clause does not pertain to the region of Asia listed in (i)b.

The contract does not stipulate that Uni must build a full dedicated themed land. Just that it has usage to the characters. And as long as Marvel and Uni agree to it the contract applies.

Yes, it does. That is THE MARVEL UNIVERSE that Universal must build or declare its intention of building. It’s right there at the start of Section B.2. from which you are quoting.

”As used throughout this agreement, any subsequent THE MARVEL UNIVERSE must cost at least $*** (calculated in the manner described previously), must appear in a Universal Theme Park, and Marvel’s representation therein will be of at least comparable proportion and like quality to its representation (including as to the retail exposure and promotional efforts of MCA) within THE SECOND GATE at Universal City Florida.”

 

[Disney Irish]

Oriental Land Company is not Disney’s only Asian partner.

True, which is why I said we don't know yet how Marvel attractions are being paid for, meaning who's budgets they are coming out of. But one thing is for sure since OLC isn't getting a large Marvel attraction, so they aren't going to split any costs.

First sentence, “in areas other than as described in (i) above.” That clause does not pertain to the region of Asia listed in (i)b.

However you missed the other part, the beginning of that entire section:

"Within 2 years after opening of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE in Orlando, MCA may retain its worldwide exclusivity for up to 5 additional years by designating another location where it intends to develop THE MARVEL UNIVERSE as part of a theme park, and by paying an option fee of $*** per year. Provided such second theme park opens within such 5 year period, MCA shall maintain worldwide exclusivity for an additional two year period after such opening, and thereafter its rights will be subject to the “shrinkage” or “expansion” concept described above (in the manner described below)."

Yes, it does. That is THE MARVEL UNIVERSE that Universal must build or declare its intention of building. It’s right there at the start of Section B.2. from which you are quoting.

”As used throughout this agreement, any subsequent THE MARVEL UNIVERSE must cost at least $*** (calculated in the manner described previously), must appear in a Universal Theme Park, and Marvel’s representation therein will be of at least comparable proportion and like quality to its representation (including as to the retail exposure and promotional efforts of MCA) within THE SECOND GATE at Universal City Florida.”

Break that down:

A. Must cost at least $... Since we don't know what $... since its not part of the SEC filing we can't say Spider-Man in Japan didn't fit that.
B. Must appear in a UTP. Check that applies.
C. Marvel's representation therein must be of at least comparable portion and like quality.....Florida. How much is Marvel representation in terms of total size in IOA compared to the rest of IOA vs how much is Marvel represented total size in Japan compared to the rest of the park. And the quality is comparable.

Point is it doesn't specifically say an actual full themed land must be built. Just that the Marvel representation must be comparable to the proportion of Marvel used in IOA. So for example let's say Marvel represents 10% of IOA (I don't know these numbers for a fact its just an example), then any Marvel representation in another park needs to also be 10%. Note also this doesn't apply to just attractions, it applies to all retail, restaurants, marketing, etc.

Edit: Just a point of correction, TDL is getting something Marvel related just not in the grand scale and nothing based on the characters from MCU like the other parks. Its a Big Hero 6 spinner attraction like Mater, which is a little known Marvel property. I had forgotten that was announced in 2016. But its not being billed as Marvel, its being billed as Disney Animation.

 

[The_Mesh_Hatter]

Splash Mountain triggered the IP idea. It wasn't the first IP centric attraction; rather the design process of the attraction paved the way for every other IP centric attraction that followed.

 

[lazyboy97o]

True, which is why I said we don't know yet how Marvel attractions are being paid for, meaning who's budgets they are coming out of. But one thing is for sure since OLC isn't getting a large Marvel attraction, so they aren't going to split any costs.



However you missed the other part, the beginning of that entire section:

"Within 2 years after opening of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE in Orlando, MCA may retain its worldwide exclusivity for up to 5 additional years by designating another location where it intends to develop THE MARVEL UNIVERSE as part of a theme park, and by paying an option fee of $*** per year. Provided such second theme park opens within such 5 year period, MCA shall maintain worldwide exclusivity for an additional two year period after such opening, and thereafter its rights will be subject to the “shrinkage” or “expansion” concept described above (in the manner described below)."



Break that down:

A. Must cost at least $... Since we don't know what $... since its not part of the SEC filing we can't say Spider-Man in Japan didn't fit that.
B. Must appear in a UTP. Check that applies.
C. Marvel's representation therein must be of at least comparable portion and like quality.....Florida. How much is Marvel representation in terms of total size in IOA compared to the rest of IOA vs how much is Marvel represented total size in Japan compared to the rest of the park. And the quality is comparable.

Point is it doesn't specifically say an actual full themed land must be built. Just that the Marvel representation must be comparable to the proportion of Marvel used in IOA. So for example let's say Marvel represents 10% of IOA (I don't know these numbers for a fact its just an example), then any Marvel representation in another park needs to also be 10%. Note also this doesn't apply to just attractions, it applies to all retail, restaurants, marketing, etc.

Edit: Just a point of correction, TDL is getting something Marvel related just not in the grand scale and nothing based on the characters from MCU like the other parks. Its a Big Hero 6 spinner attraction like Mater, which is a little known Marvel property. I had forgotten that was announced in 2016. But its not being billed as Marvel, its being billed as Disney Animation.

The very beginning of the contract also describes THE MARVEL UNIVERSE as “a separate environment designated under the banner of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (or similar designation approved by Marvel) MCA will construct a complex of attractions, stores and food venues heavily themed around the Marvel properties.”

One ride in a non-Marvel land is nothing close to comparable to [originally] two rides, multiple dining venues and multiple stores all set up as a distinct Marvel environment.

 

[Disney Irish]

The very beginning of the contract also describes THE MARVEL UNIVERSE as “a separate environment designated under the banner of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (or similar designation approved by Marvel) MCA will construct a complex of attractions, stores and food venues heavily themed around the Marvel properties.”

One ride in a non-Marvel land is nothing close to comparable to [originally] two rides, multiple dining venues and multiple stores all set up as a distinct Marvel environment.

Since they aren’t building a large scale Marvel Land at TDL at this time it doesn’t matter. My feeling is it’s because the contract.