Bloody Mary (Agana) debacle

[pumpkinbot343]

For those unaware; Bloody Mary is an… icon? She originated in 2008 for the Reflections of Fear event and was basically a female version of 2002’s Caretaker. Thanks due to the fact that her name is trademarked from a makeup artist named Bobbie Weiner (who as of 2020 has not forgotten her involvement with HHN); Mary has not made an appearance in any HHN event afterwards.

Which is weird. I mean Universal specializes in ips ALL THE TIME. The New Line Trio, SAW, CHUCKY, My Bloody Valentine, The Walking Dead, Silent Hill, From Dust Till Dawn, the Exorcist, etc. Why won’t Uni just license the character like they do everything else? Maybe it’s a popularity thing; but I’m not quite sure Trick R’ Treat and Killer Klowns from Outer Space are what counted as “popular” and those two debuted as mere Scarezones.

Secondly; there’s the whole “Dr. Agana” thing. I don’t think that will cause a breach in contract; why not use the mad doctor? I guess you could say that Mary Agana is only known to the die-hards, they would be confusing to the general public… except all the icons minus Jack are only known to the die-hards and are confusing to the general public. Is it a design thing? Well they should redesign her. The icons in general suffer from uninspired design choices (minus Jack and his marvelous hair) but Mary takes the cake. She’s basically the Ring girl if she was goth and an adult.

So… thoughts?

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

Maybe it’s a popularity thing

There's your answer. Klowns and TrT are likely still more popular. If what we've been lead to believe about Icons Captured is true, though, that will suffice for me.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

There's your answer. Klowns and TrT are likely still more popular. If what we've been lead to believe about Icons Captured is true, though, that will suffice for me.

Are they though? I’m recently going through a superhero phase so I’m a little out of touch with the horror community but I’m pretty sure Killer Klowns and Trick r’ Treat are only known in a “cult” sense. Certainly not to the level of Freddy and Jason. Bloody Mary is more “famous” in a urban legend sense.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

And again it still doesn’t explain why they didn’t use the “Mary Agana” aspect. As I said before; its something only really known by die-hards and not the GP… just like every icon sans Jack. And that’s just because of the Killer Clown shtick. And Mary needs a redesign badly.

 

[Legacy]

So, they stopped using graphical representations of “Bloody Mary” because the character was trademarked. While proving the issues with an urban legend being trademarked in any capacity is questionable, and Universal could have easily disputed it, that would have required legal costs and risks that, frankly, Universal had no reason whatsoever to take on. They have other characters to market the event, and can come up with more. Why litigate something you don’t need.

To your question about why they don’t use the Mary Agana persona in marketing, it’s easy. Mary Agana isn’t marketable. Either you have to completely separate her character from “Bloody Mary” to avoid potential trademark disputes, or you have to explain why random doctor is scary without calling her Bloody Mary. It’s too needlessly complicated. Throw in the fact that icons are no longer a focus of marketing the event in general, and there’s no reason to really bother with it anymore.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

So, they stopped using graphical representations of “Bloody Mary” because the character was trademarked. While proving the issues with an urban legend being trademarked in any capacity is questionable, and Universal could have easily disputed it, that would have required legal costs and risks that, frankly, Universal had no reason whatsoever to take on. They have other characters to market the event, and can come up with more. Why litigate something you don’t need.

To your question about why they don’t use the Mary Agana persona in marketing, it’s easy. Mary Agana isn’t marketable. Either you have to completely separate her character from “Bloody Mary” to avoid potential trademark disputes, or you have to explain why random doctor is scary without calling her Bloody Mary. It’s too needlessly complicated. Throw in the fact that icons are no longer a focus of marketing the event in general, and there’s no reason to really bother with it anymore.

Oh I should been more clear with what I wrote in the original post. Sorry. Let me elaborate:

1. I didn’t mean that Universal to go to court for this at all. I meant more in the lines of; well Universal is doing license deals with various companies for their event, so why don’t they just come to Bobbie Weiner and ask her if they can bring the character back, and pay her. For a while I thought “eh maybe Bloody Mary isn’t popular enough” so that might be the reason they won’t do another licensing deal, but then they did license deals for Killer Klowns and Trick R’ Treat. Again I’m a little out of touch with horror now, but I don’t think these two properties really were on par with the popularity of Freddy and Jason. Plus they both totally started as just scarezones, not houses until the following years. So I’m not quite sure it’s a matter of popularity.

2. I also wasn’t really thinking of marketing per se. I meant more like the event itself. They could have gotten her a house (not necessarily making her an icon) or even a scarezone for any year; just don’t refer to Bloody Mary. It’s like the Gorewood Forest and other ilk, just plain ol fanservice. What really makes me curious about this is that they can’t even give her a cameo in the houses or streets. The Icons house as a scene with mirrors and lights flashing… so why not just shove Mary in her doctor form there? I don’t think that should cause a breach in contract right?

3. I’m also weirded out by the whole Icons thing. I think to 2017’s event; where the creative team wanted to put the Caretaker as icon but marketing wouldn’t allow it. Alright… so why didn’t the creative team just do it like 2009 where the IPS are in the spotlight but there is a “main villain” who controls everything with a simplistic story and they still have their own house despite not being the icon (technically). I don’t know too much about A&D but I’m pretty sure they like Icons, they know their die-hards love icons, they’re really into storytelling so… what gives? I wonder if TJ Mannarino or whoever really despised the Usher and didn’t want something like that again.

Again going back to the Mary topic, maybe they could have done something like that again, just don’t market her at all. And as for the “separating the Bloody Mary aspect” well like I said it’s a die-hard thing, like Eddie. I think the reason Mary resonated with fans was solely on the backstory alone. And the whole “Doctor Agana” backstory really didn’t make much sense being there with the Bloody Mary aspect so.

 

[Legacy]

Oh I should been more clear with what I wrote in the original post. Sorry. Let me elaborate:

1. I didn’t mean that Universal to go to court for this at all. I meant more in the lines of; well Universal is doing license deals with various companies for their event, so why don’t they just come to Bobbie Weiner and ask her if they can bring the character back, and pay her. For a while I thought “eh maybe Bloody Mary isn’t popular enough” so that might be the reason they won’t do another licensing deal, but then they did license deals for Killer Klowns and Trick R’ Treat. Again I’m a little out of touch with horror now, but I don’t think these two properties really were on par with the popularity of Freddy and Jason. Plus they both totally started as just scarezones, not houses until the following years. So I’m not quite sure it’s a matter of popularity.

2. I also wasn’t really thinking of marketing per se. I meant more like the event itself. They could have gotten her a house (not necessarily making her an icon) or even a scarezone for any year; just don’t refer to Bloody Mary. It’s like the Gorewood Forest and other ilk, just plain ol fanservice. What really makes me curious about this is that they can’t even give her a cameo in the houses or streets. The Icons house as a scene with mirrors and lights flashing… so why not just shove Mary in her doctor form there? I don’t think that should cause a breach in contract right?

3. I’m also weirded out by the whole Icons thing. I think to 2017’s event; where the creative team wanted to put the Caretaker as icon but marketing wouldn’t allow it. Alright… so why didn’t the creative team just do it like 2009 where the IPS are in the spotlight but there is a “main villain” who controls everything with a simplistic story and they still have their own house despite not being the icon (technically). I don’t know too much about A&D but I’m pretty sure they like Icons, they know their die-hards love icons, they’re really into storytelling so… what gives? I wonder if TJ Mannarino or whoever really despised the Usher and didn’t want something like that again.

Again going back to the Mary topic, maybe they could have done something like that again, just don’t market her at all. And as for the “separating the Bloody Mary aspect” well like I said it’s a die-hard thing, like Eddie. I think the reason Mary resonated with fans was solely on the backstory alone. And the whole “Doctor Agana” backstory really didn’t make much sense being there with the Bloody Mary aspect so.

1. Again, why? Why pay any licensing fees for a single character that shouldn’t be trademarked in the first place? They don’t need the character. It’s not tied to any actual media with quantifiable popularity. Paying the licensing fee is just rewarding bad behavior over something that wouldn’t actually benefit ROI. (This is especially more important considering 2008 was a lower attended year between two IP-forward years).

2. They’ve given Agana cameos before. She was a doctor in Echoes of Shadybrook. And the moment in icons is a “cameo” this year. There are a number of fans that have theories giving canonical reasons why Mary and Fear shouldn’t appear “together.” Maybe this is part of that. Maybe the designers didn’t want to bother when there are already *three* fan service houses.

3. Regarding why the creative team didn’t “just do it like 2009.” Because it wasn’t 2009. Prior to Comcast buying Universal, A&D pretty much had carte blanche over how HHN was marketed. The Marketing department could advise, but it was A&D’s baby. After the purchase, Comcast started relying on Marketing to take more of a lead in developing the marketing campaign until 2012, when Marketing became the primary developer of advertising and A&D took on the advisory role. It’s not the creative team’s decision on how stuff is marketed. The general belief is that, apart from Jack, icons aren’t a necessity.

The value that “die hards” put into minor aspects of HHN lore doesn’t make the event money. Die hards make up a fraction of a percent of the total attendance to the event. Rightfully, while the design team throws the fans bones quite often, everyone else is focused of making money.

Basically, everything surrounding Bloody Mary isn’t a debacle; it’s just business.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

1. Again, why? Why pay any licensing fees for a single character that shouldn’t be trademarked in the first place? They don’t need the character. It’s not tied to any actual media with quantifiable popularity. Paying the licensing fee is just rewarding bad behavior over something that wouldn’t actually benefit ROI. (This is especially more important considering 2008 was a lower attended year between two IP-forward years).

2. They’ve given Agana cameos before. She was a doctor in Echoes of Shadybrook. And the moment in icons is a “cameo” this year. There are a number of fans that have theories giving canonical reasons why Mary and Fear shouldn’t appear “together.” Maybe this is part of that. Maybe the designers didn’t want to bother when there are already *three* fan service houses.

3. Regarding why the creative team didn’t “just do it like 2009.” Because it wasn’t 2009. Prior to Comcast buying Universal, A&D pretty much had carte blanche over how HHN was marketed. The Marketing department could advise, but it was A&D’s baby. After the purchase, Comcast started relying on Marketing to take more of a lead in developing the marketing campaign until 2012, when Marketing became the primary developer of advertising and A&D took on the advisory role. It’s not the creative team’s decision on how stuff is marketed. The general belief is that, apart from Jack, icons aren’t a necessity.

The value that “die hards” put into minor aspects of HHN lore doesn’t make the event money. Die hards make up a fraction of a percent of the total attendance to the event. Rightfully, while the design team throws the fans bones quite often, everyone else is focused of making money.

Basically, everything surrounding Bloody Mary isn’t a debacle; it’s just business.

I don’t know too much about licensing but isn’t it entirely within Bobbie Weiner’s right to trademark the name Bloody Mary? I don’t get the bad behavior bit. Unless there’s some bad stuff about Bobbie Weiner that I don’t know of.

I think Bloody Mary is popular in the way the Slender Man character used to be.

HHN didn’t need quite a few IPS. Think back to 2012, they made a LOT with just the Walking Dead alone on both coasts, Silent Hill wasn’t really needed and I don’t know if Alice Cooper is popular nowadays (then again, I just didn’t care to research the guy). And going back to Trick R’ Treat and Killer Klowns yet again; the former was licensed just for a single scarezone (they didn’t make the house until the next year) and Killer Klowns… they had Stranger Things. That was also a HUGE deal. And it also started as just a single scarezone.

While I said before that A&D is really into storytelling, I also know that they play fast and loose with canon (there wasn’t an explanation for Jack’s return in 25) so I’m pretty sure it’s not a manner of storytelling. And if it is then it’s really dumb. Also no. There’s no good reason why she wasn’t given a physical form cameo as a doctor for Icons Captured. It boggles the mind. And as for the Shadybrook cameo; I swear I remembered a comment on the old HHN forum regarding the validity of the supposed cameo, so I looked and found a comment on it made by… you:

“No, it's has been officially stated by Aiello that it is NOT Mary Agana. The costume is an old Bloody Mary costume with a white doctor jacket. The scaracter just happens to have dark hair. One of the corpses at the end of Catacombs wears an old Bloody Mary costume, but that doesn't mean they are suppose to be Bloody Mary.
Everyone saying that it is her, I believe, are fans just so desperate to see her back.”


I’m really not trying to go into the whole marketing business. Just the creative. To Give an example to what I mean, here’s how I would have done the Caretaker in 27:

Just give him a house. Put him in his own zone and have him to the whole opening ceremony announcement. Have his voice blare over the speakers like Chance in 2016. Maybe I would add in a projection system where his visage occasionally shows up on the walls of the buildings on the streets and maybe give him a hidden cameo in every house and zone. Perhaps I could give some hidden easter eggs about a story going on; which would make for some fun stories at the Behind the scenes tours. And as his role for marketing and media: don’t care. Not my problem. Let the marketing team gird themselves. He doesn’t need to be mentioned in the advertising one single bit.

Forgive me if I still sound confusing. Don’t forget we have 2004 where the marketing heavily revolves around a mental insanity theme and that NOTHING to do with the actual event. And I hear 2004 was pretty cool although I myself don’t know if it was actually a good year.

This goes off topic; but why do you think A&D refused to allow Bone to be an actual icon. His character design is awesome and kicks the tar out of any of the Icons sans Jack.

 

[kingcooger]

This goes off topic; but why do you think A&D refused to allow Bone to be an actual icon. His character design is awesome and kicks the tar out of any of the Icons sans Jack.

A&D in 2017: we want to make The Caretaker the icon this year

Marketing: no, icons are not popular and don’t sell merch. Outside ofJack, nobody cares about the icon

MONTHS PASS

Marketing: hey, we created an icon named Bone for you and want you to weave him into the event somehow

A&D: nope, we are not going to be involved. He gets a zone at best and we aren’t even acknowledging his name

 

[pumpkinbot343]

A&D in 2017: we want to make The Caretaker the icon this year

Marketing: no, icons are not popular and don’t sell merch. Outside ofJack, nobody cares about the icon

MONTHS PASS

Marketing: hey, we created an icon named Bone for you and want you to weave him into the event somehow

A&D: nope, we are not going to be involved. He gets a zone at best and we aren’t even acknowledging his name

That doesn’t really explain why A&D were against him though. Fear and Luck were also Marketing creations yet they’re acknowledged as icons. Also screw them; Bone has a hell of a more imaginative and interesting look he deserved to be in the Icon house.

 

[kingcooger]

That doesn’t really explain why A&D were against him though. Fear and Luck were also Marketing creations yet they’re acknowledged as icons. Also screw them; Bone has a hell of a more imaginative and interesting look he deserved to be in the Icon house.

I mean, to me it does

First, look at the timeline of when Marketing took over. According to @Legacy it was around 2012 (which tracks). That means Luck and Fear, while the brainchild of Marketing, were at least accepted by A&D and allowed to be fully fleshed out. They were allowed to offer input in the process of both

Now imagine houses like TWD being forced on you for years, to the point where you make a dead horse joke in one of your designs, but still have to do TWD again

Now imagine planning an icon Renaissance with Jack, Chance, and the Caretaker as your figureheads

You then plan an event around The Caretaker and are told icons are irrelevant

Right up until Marketing tells you, hey WE DESIGNED an icon for you

That reads like a slap in the face to me

 

[Legacy]

Bloody Mary is a centuries-old urban legend. It’s the equivalent of trademarking a snipe. When I talk about the questionable aspects of trademarking “Bloody Mary,” I literally mean the character was a common usage character that shouldn’t have been trademarked.

You can’t equivocate what HHN is now with what it was in the aughts. That’s where your confusion is coming from. In the aughts, A&D (the creative team) was responsible for developing every aspect of the event: houses, zones, marketing campaigns, websites, everything. They developed houses and events with the icon-focused marketing in mind. That’s how lore was relayed to the fans. The same people designing the houses were making the websites.

That started changing in 2010 and really took effect in 2012. Now, A&D is only focused on the actual event (inside the gates). Marketing develops the website, press, ad campaigns, etc. The event has seen drastic success through marketing multiple IPs each year. Years without IPs have, historically, had lower attendance. So there are multiple IPs each year. It’s a business decision.

Houses start getting developed 15 to 18 months before the event. So, when you say “give the Caretaker a house” for 27, the decision to NOT give him a house was made before HHN 26 had started (Why? It doesn’t matter. Their event. Their decision.) The initial decision to “use” Caretaker again was likely made during 26 by Marketing. However, because Chance wasn’t as profitable as Jack, it’s likely the decision was made to not use an older character anymore. Because the numbers would indicate “they aren’t profitable.” Except Jack.

Bone (with Blood) was an A&D creation for the Hollywood zone. From my understanding, because Marketing’s stance was “icons aren’t profitable,” A&D’s stance became, “then you can’t use our characters as icons.” It was politics. It was two departments throwing their weight around.

Again, business.

I didn’t recall the post about the nurse. Things blur after 30 years of following the event, but I remember it now. The point around Mary remains: they don’t use her because, for whatever reason, they don’t want to (“They” being Universal as corporate entity). Maybe they don’t want to risk/pay for litigating something that would not be worth it. Maybe they don’t want to revisit a character so closely tied to former employees. Maybe the character is considered “tainted” because 2008 was a poorly attended event.

There are business reasons for it. And those business reasons are more important than any story reasons to bring her back. And now, unlike the aughts, those business reasons reign.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

@Legacy I’m confused. So basically it was Marketing who originally wanted to reuse the Caretaker, not the other way around?

“Maybe they don’t want to revisit a character so closely tied to former employees.”

Could you PM me about this. If it’s what I think you’re talking about, I just want to know if the rumors are true (and I may have to cancel an order…). Thanks by the way.

 

[Legacy]

@Legacy I’m confused. So basically it was Marketing who originally wanted to reuse the Caretaker, not the other way around?

“Maybe they don’t want to revisit a character so closely tied to former employees.”

Could you PM me about this. If it’s what I think you’re talking about, I just want to know if the rumors are true (and I may have to cancel an order…). Thanks by the way.

Don’t know who initially wanted Caretaker. The rumor was just that was the original plan.

I’m referring to Roddy. I have my beliefs about what is true and what isn’t, but my beliefs aren’t important.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

Don’t know who initially wanted Caretaker. The rumor was just that was the original plan.

I’m referring to Roddy. I have my beliefs about what is true and what isn’t, but my beliefs aren’t important.

You know I like to download videos featuring the HHN Creators as mp3 and listen to them as podcasts, and then get actual podcasts from the web. It’s a shame I’m probably gonna have to junk most of them since most of them feature Roddy. I’m tired of learning some of my favorite actors/directors/whatever were pretty terrible people and it’s depressing to learn that not even theme parks are immune to this.

Didn’t Roddy create Usher tho? He’s still making appearances. Actually when it comes to the Icons Jack, Caretaker, Mary and Usher who really deserves the title of “Creator” or is it more a joint effort between all of A&D. From what I understand Roddy directed the in-park video with Mary and Usher, but Aiello wrote the backstories which for the former is pretty big (even if Mary is basically Caretaker) and T.J. Mannarino did some things involved with them.

 

[Legacy]

You know I like to download videos featuring the HHN Creators as mp3 and listen to them as podcasts, and then get actual podcasts from the web. It’s a shame I’m probably gonna have to junk most of them since most of them feature Roddy. I’m tired of learning some of my favorite actors/directors/whatever were pretty terrible people and it’s depressing to learn that not even theme parks are immune to this.

Didn’t Roddy create Usher tho? He’s still making appearances. Actually when it comes to the Icons Jack, Caretaker, Mary and Usher who really deserves the title of “Creator” or is it more a joint effort between all of A&D. From what I understand Roddy directed the in-park video with Mary and Usher, but Aiello wrote the backstories which for the former is pretty big (even if Mary is basically Caretaker) and T.J. Mannarino did some things involved with them.

You don’t *have* to junk them. You can appreciate what was created while acknowledging the problems with the creator (I say as I watch Deathly Hallows). Junking it is your prerogative.

Again, I don’t know *why* they don’t use Mary. Roddy was heavily involved in most of the event stories and lore through the aughts. So, obviously, his stuff isn’t taboo. My reference to him was simply a random possibility.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

Random question out of curiosity; if an overseas park like Singapore or Japan were to use the Bloody Mary character for a HHN and they base it on Orlando’s take; would Bobbie Weiner still have to be involved somehow. Since her license covers the U.S.