Haymarket2008
Well-Known Member
100000% not on board for any of that. Horrible, horrible, horrible.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Rumor Wonders of Life getting an attraction soon?
- Thread starter Bacon
- Start date
100000% not on board for any of that. Horrible, horrible, horrible.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Having a character is artwork alone is NOT enough to give Universal exclusivity, the contracts states this pretty clearly. The problem with Black Panther is that he has a very strong connection to the Avengers in the comics which would give Universal exclusive use of the character.
Bender123
Well-Known Member
Because, despite his issues with predicting the future, he definitely has a grasp of the past and still can get info. The problem with Jim is that he is more of a fire hose than a filtered source of information. I have no doubt that that much of the things he discusses were actually talked about, but the problem is if its still a valid conversation or how far along the line the internal process is. We know from sources here, that WDW execs seem to change their mind frequently and the ideas don't always end up as fact. We even have the ladder joke to reference that, here.
I would be amazed if Disney wasn't trying to work around the contract to get BP in a park in any way they can....It would just not make sense to have a property like that and do no research into how to get it into a park, even if there are insane legal hurdles. This is where Jim falls...From idea to reality is where the rubber hits the road.
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Black Panther in WOL, you can't make this kind of stuff up... oh wait, yes he can
matt9112
Well-Known Member
I agree maybe I'm in the minority but Disney to me growing up was the parks not the movies and cartoons.i really wish the parks were there own foundation still. something unique and seperate from the movies and cartoons. things you couldn't see anywhere else.
matt9112
Well-Known Member
I think it is more an issue of those flipping the bill want a sure thing and proven properties have more success than new ones. It is an issue that can be seen throughout the entertainment industry.
You want a sure fire way to limit creativity...add an ROI column.
Bender123
Well-Known Member
Guardians of the Galaxy in Universe of Energy...You cant make that stuff...up...
...Oh no...
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Big difference, WDW can use GotG, they can't use BP.
Bender123
Well-Known Member
That's for the lawyers to figure out...remember the original GotG preview movie at WDW did not include motion theater effects, while the Disneyland version, did. Black Panther may be part of the Avengers "family", but it would amaze me if Disney lawyers aren't looking at ways to claim he isn't being properly utilized at IOA in a way that satisfies the contract language.
Do I think it will happen? No. Do I think the internal talk has occurred to discuss options to legally wrangle BP back? You would have to be crazy not to assume that has happened.
Anybody can read the contract, but the part that is always hidden from view is the addendum that lays out the definitions of character families and their requirements in parks to be considered as used. Im not entirely sure if anybody here has ever seen that language, and if they did, if it would even make layman sense. There is a giant chunk of knowledge we aren't aware of.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
To be fair, would you have ever expected Guardians in Epcot?
But yeah they likely can't use Black Panther so it doesn't matter, but still, if they could use it, would it really be a surprise now that Guardians are invading?
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
No I wouldn't have. My statement was more in the vain of that Disney has legal right to use BP whereas GotG they did, so there was always a chance. BP, there is never a chance unless the lawyers figure a way to work with Uni.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
c
I can't see it but who knows?
Universal isn't exactly leveraging them in IOA at the moment, but they probably get a slight delight in keeping it from appearing in WDW.
I can't see it but who knows?
Universal isn't exactly leveraging them in IOA at the moment, but they probably get a slight delight in keeping it from appearing in WDW.
Bender123
Well-Known Member
Up until two years ago, Disney "Didn't own the rights to use any Marvel franchise in the Parks"...that was the common knowledge. The common knowledge was wrong and Disney managed to find some loopholes to get GotG out. We don't know what the addendum with the character families looks like (or how rock hard that is). That, to my knowledge, isn't available.
The idea that it is a known fact that Disney has no options isn't really a valid argument. Disney now has 2 meet and greets that are "Marvel" or "Marvel Based" in the parks. Big Hero 6 and GotG. Whatever "lock" there was on all Marvel doesn't seem to be as solid as we were all lead to believe.
Not saying they CAN use him, but they would be stupid to not even make the attempt, based on two previous wins.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
It wasn't common knowledge, it was common myth, anyone who read the contract understood that it did not cover every Marvel character. GoTG was NOT a loophole, it was a group of characters not part of the contract.
SteamboatJoe
Well-Known Member
My guess (and it is just a total guess) is any character that hasn't currently or previously been used in a Universal ride, show, decoration, or ad is fair game. Before their movies, GotG and Big Hero 6 were obscure to mainstream audiences and even some casual comic fans so chances are they were never used by Universal in any capacity.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
From the contract...
"any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [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.]"
Haymarket2008
Well-Known Member
I can’t believe I’m even remotely defending Guardians in Epcot, but it fits infinitely more than Black Panther would. At least you could say Guardians is a spiritual successor to Captain EO. Panther has zero to do with the park.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
Contracts are contracts for a reason but people act as if something can't be negotiated or attempted. Many of us have no idea the discussions had. And there may be none.
That's a broad brush to paint all the characters under in that contract that opens itself up to loopholes (IMO). What they need is a contract that specifies exactly which characters can and can not be used. Not some "well if they're considered family" ....
That's a broad brush to paint all the characters under in that contract that opens itself up to loopholes (IMO). What they need is a contract that specifies exactly which characters can and can not be used. Not some "well if they're considered family" ....