Guardians of the Galaxy Disney Attraction?

[Brian G.]

Let's ignore if Guardians as a whole can be used by MCU, but who can be used with the families restriction (solely based on comics)?

Star-Lord is fine. No family ties him.

Drax is out. He was part of Iron Man, Avengers, Fantastic Four, and Thanos stories before being part of Guardians.

Thanos is out. Obviously. Same with The Collector, he's an Avenger villain. Ronan is out too, he was a baddie for Avengers and FF. He also is part of the Kree race, which is involved in all comics.

Here's the tricky ones:

Gamora appeared in a few Avengers comics, and is the daughter of Thanos, so they can make a case she can't be used.

Groot and Rocket Racoon were both part of Hulk comics until they joined the Guardians in the 2000's, but they weren't featured a lot. Groot was actually part of a branch of SHIELD (the "Paranormal Containment Unit" before joining Guardians). Their line isn't as clearly drawn though. They could probably be used, but again.... there is some history there that could make them not accessible.

 

[Mike S]

Let's ignore if Guardians as a whole can be used by MCU, but who can be used with the families restriction (solely based on comics)?

Star-Lord is fine. No family ties him.

Drax is out. He was part of Iron Man, Avengers, Fantastic Four, and Thanos stories before being part of Guardians.

Thanos is out. Obviously. Same with The Collector, he's an Avenger villain. Ronan is out too, he was a baddie for Avengers and FF. He also is part of the Kree race, which is involved in all comics.

Here's the tricky ones:

Gamora appeared in a few Avengers comics, and is the daughter of Thanos, so they can make a case she can't be used.

Groot and Rocket Racoon were both part of Hulk comics until they joined the Guardians in the 2000's, but they weren't featured a lot. Groot was actually part of a branch of SHIELD (the "Paranormal Containment Unit" before joining Guardians). Their line isn't as clearly drawn though. They could probably be used, but again.... there is some history there that could make them not accessible.

Which is where the possible trade off of Uni using the MCU for an Avengers ride comes in. Clearing all that up for the actual Guardians team. Any restrictions for the Xandarians? Or Knowhere?

 

[Galaxy Defender]

Which is where the possible trade off of Uni using the MCU for an Avengers ride comes in. Clearing all that up for the actual Guardians team. Any restrictions for the Xandarians? Or Knowhere?

Xandarians come from the Nova comics, part of the mainstream MCU.

 

[Brian G.]

Which is where the possible trade off of Uni using the MCU for an Avengers ride comes in. Clearing all that up for the actual Guardians team. Any restrictions for the Xandarians? Or Knowhere?

They don't need a trade-off. It's clear with the version of the Hulk they are not going with MCU. Also, I have heard there are no talks. If Disney goes thru with this, it's without any discussion with Universal. Of course, this is even if it does happen... God I want this to end.

 

[Scott W.]

They don't need a trade-off. It's clear with the version of the Hulk they are not going with MCU. Also, I have heard there are no talks. If Disney goes thru with this, it's without any discussion with Universal. Of course, this is even if it does happen... God I want this to end.

I'd say until Disney either announce it or flat out say it's not happening, it will never end.

 

[SeventyOne]

Well they could do that I suppose, just as long as there was no Marvel in the name. In fact, that pretty much null and voids any restriction of the "Marvel Action Universe" concept so long as it doesn't have "Marvel".

No Marvel in the name, no simulator ride. But themed to SHIELD HQ, which is probably in the Avengers family (Fury and Cap go back to WWII as I recall), and sold merch of characters clearly covered by the contract.

As I said, "Marvel Action Universe" was a very specific concept. A GotG overlay of an EPCOT pavillion is nowhere near the same thing. That would have to be prohibited by the generic "no Marvel characters in a theme park" section.

 

[Nick]

Let's ignore if Guardians as a whole can be used by MCU, but who can be used with the families restriction (solely based on comics)?

Star-Lord is fine. No family ties him.

Drax is out. He was part of Iron Man, Avengers, Fantastic Four, and Thanos stories before being part of Guardians.

Thanos is out. Obviously. Same with The Collector, he's an Avenger villain. Ronan is out too, he was a baddie for Avengers and FF. He also is part of the Kree race, which is involved in all comics.

Here's the tricky ones:

Gamora appeared in a few Avengers comics, and is the daughter of Thanos, so they can make a case she can't be used.

Groot and Rocket Racoon were both part of Hulk comics until they joined the Guardians in the 2000's, but they weren't featured a lot. Groot was actually part of a branch of SHIELD (the "Paranormal Containment Unit" before joining Guardians). Their line isn't as clearly drawn though. They could probably be used, but again.... there is some history there that could make them not accessible.

So what you're saying is maybe they could do a ride called "Star Lord's Guide to the Galaxy" or something stupid based around Star Lord (+ Friends). They then could add in the individual characters that are usable, but not specifically call them the GOTG?

 

[brianlo]

but not specifically call them the GOTG?

There is nothing wrong with using the name of the group, that comic book series is not explicitly part of any of the four families Universal has the rights to. It's a family all on its own. They just cannot reference Marvel in any way, of course. Likewise Universal cannot build an explicit Guardians of the Galaxy ride.

As per the individual characters, look to Quicksilver for how sometimes different iterations of a character can fall within the rights of two varying familial groups covered by a contract.


I'll say this for the millionth time, IF Disney is moving forward with GoTG (which they are currently in some form...), they know exactly what they can and cannot do. There is no "testing the waters", they don't need to have a conversation with Universal. They will only execute within their legal boundaries, even if that is muddled from our perspective, it will be crystal clear to those making the finalized calls.

 

[Brian G.]

There is nothing wrong with using the name of the group, that comic book series is not explicitly part of any of the four families Universal has the rights to. It's a family all on its own. They just cannot reference Marvel in any way, of course. Likewise Universal cannot build an explicit Guardians of the Galaxy ride.

As per the individual characters, look to Quicksilver for how sometimes different iterations of a character can fall within the rights of two varying familial groups covered by a contract.


I'll say this for the millionth time, IF Disney is moving forward with GoTG (which they are currently in some form...), they know exactly what they can and cannot do. There is no "testing the waters", they don't need to have a conversation with Universal. They will only execute within their legal boundaries, even if that is muddled from our perspective, it will be crystal clear to those making the finalized calls.

And even with Quicksilver being in Avengers and X-Men, Marvel couldn't refer to their version as a "mutant" or refer to his dad, Magneto. It's not that clear cut, but understand your larger point.

 

[GadgetGuru]

I glanced through the Marvel contract for this first time. Something caught my eye. Look at this passage:

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.



i. 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.

14



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

Is this saying that USJ gives Universal exclusivity in Japan? Furthermore, this doesn't say that USJ gives Universal exclusivity throughout most of Asia right (especially with Hong Kong's Iron Man ride)

 

[SeventyOne]

I glanced through the Marvel contract for this first time. Something caught my eye. Look at this passage:

Is this saying that USJ gives Universal exclusivity in Japan? Furthermore, this doesn't say that USJ gives Universal exclusivity throughout most of Asia right (especially with Hong Kong's Iron Man ride)

Can't remember where I read it now, but I think USJ gave up rights to everyone but Spider-Man. I would imagine it was a Japan-only deal.

 

[misterID]

Maybe they can do a Star Lord ride themed to the TRON coaster. See, it all comes full circle.

 

[graspthesun]

I glanced through the Marvel contract for this first time. Something caught my eye. Look at this passage:



Is this saying that USJ gives Universal exclusivity in Japan? Furthermore, this doesn't say that USJ gives Universal exclusivity throughout most of Asia right (especially with Hong Kong's Iron Man ride)

Rights in Japan expired a some point in the last decade. I think Spider-Man is grandfathered because the ride existed at the time of rights reverted back to Marvel, but Universal can't build any new Marvel attractions.

 

[Mike S]

Rights in Japan expired a some point in the last decade. I think Spider-Man is grandfathered because the ride existed at the time of rights reverted back to Marvel, but Universal can't build any new Marvel attractions.

It doesn't matter anyway because I don't think OLC (the people who own TDR) even want Marvel. I mean, they turned down Cars, Avatar, and Star Wars Land. I guess they don't believe in shoving things in for money if it doesn't make sense in the context of the parks theme. Go figure

 

[Scott W.]

Rights in Japan expired a some point in the last decade. I think Spider-Man is grandfathered because the ride existed at the time of rights reverted back to Marvel, but Universal can't build any new Marvel attractions.

This is something I find kind of sad about the whole deal. Universal have a few parks now where they can put a big budget on a ride knowing that it can be absorbed by several parks and they'll all get their own version of the ride but with Marvel, they can't do this which will lead to smaller budgets in the future.

 

[Nick]

Can't remember where I read it now, but I think USJ gave up rights to everyone but Spider-Man. I would imagine it was a Japan-only deal.

From what i've heard, Marvel attractions are restricted to the extent they are at WDW in Japan.

 

[rioriz]

Lord this Thread is gonna be a hoot to read late 2018....

 

[NJBrandon]

You mean when nothing has happened by then?

 

[Brian G.]

Lord this Thread is gonna be a hoot to read late 2018....

No need to be patronizing...

This rumor is such a mess with all the legal crap and everything else that no one deserves to be called out for being wrong. If Lee and Co get it wrong, I know I'm not going to ridicule them.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I'd say until Disney either announce it or flat out say it's not happening, it will never end.

You mean Bob Iger saying they're not going to acquire the rights for Orlando and Universal saying they're not going to sell or negotiate? THAT sort of denial?