Guardians of the Galaxy Disney Attraction?

[rioriz]

You mean when nothing has happened by then?

Future World West will be under heavy construction by then...and the Galaxy could be expanding for a 3rd attraction....

Epcot's own SWL

 

[Viator]

...

Future World East will be under heavy construction by then...and the Galaxy could be expanding for a 3rd attraction....

Say's who.

Epcot's own SWL

Look, I am not trying to make fun of what you are saying; but GOtG isn't an IP that is as of right now, not qualified to justify saying.

 

[rioriz]

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.

Patronizing was not the intent as I am sure those clamoring down the rumors with certainty mean no true harm to those who believe it.

Simply stating what seems to be the plan and intended finish date for this "Rumored project".

What we know is Epcot was originally earmarked 350 Million (I believe) in the DHS Re-brand package. Until recently there was little talk about where that money would go. And uncharacteristically, the wallet has opened

Marni and a slew of other trusted people chimed on this out of no where and the info has come Fast and Furious. I trust them but I trust even more in the fact that contractors on Pandora have already been approached about set design on the Epcot Projects as they close out the work in AK. This could explain some of the accelerated (for Disney) construction time.

Either way it turns out I personally find it fun to look back and see how attractions develop and change as info rolls in and changes. Take a look at HTF old Kong thread...

 

[rioriz]

...



Say's who.





Look, I am not trying to make fun of what you are saying; but GOtG isn't an IP that is as of right now, not qualified to justify saying.

I know your humor and the skepticism is expected

In Epcot's own SWL I am comparing the land and attraction count....not the IP's...Of course Star Wars is the King to Guardians Squire status. If rumored full Fledged Phase 2 comes from rumor to Green then technically, at that time, that would be Epcot's only land with multiple rides and attractions based on 1 IP...hence the SWL reference

Personally I aint buying Guardians expansion will happen at all unless Mix Tape 2.0 blows away all expectations. Even then, we know how Phase 2's work at Disney...

 

[Ultranel]

This is the usual case of someone that chooses to buy a cat and expect it to behave like a dog, or those who begin a serious relationship with another person thinking "He/She is amazing, although I really don't this or that about him/her, but I know he/she can change". No! they won't! So putting comic books and superheros personal lifestyle aside, Let's talk about real life human contracts. If you were Disney and you are about to sign a Marvel buyout contract that states CLEARLY!!! that due to current active contract between Marvel/UOR in Florida, the use of any characters within a 300mi radius of Orlando FL, by any other company than UOR will be a breach of contract's rules. SO!!! Anywhere in the world but Orlando FL. Then can someone please help me understand why are we even talking about this today? What would be the RATIONAL explanation for Disney to even try or mention anything about bringing some Marvel to Orlando? Because it sound to me that these rumors are on purpose. Whether it's pride or just simply to be a pain in the rear end, I don't see a reason to be on the side of Disney on this issue. They knew about it, they signed knowing about it, and now they are looking for asterisks to not comply... Please help me understand (without talking about Stan Lee's creation, just the paper contract signed by Disney vs the law)

 

[Scott W.]

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?

Denial is certainly strong. ixie:

 

[Nick]

Future World East will be under heavy construction by then...and the Galaxy could be expanding for a 3rd attraction....

Epcot's own SWL

Goodness you are stretching. I believe there are big plans for Energy at the moment, but 2018 with plans for a THIRD RIDE? No, not happening.

Let's put things in perspective. Star Wars Land is currently rubble (LMA is down now), yet it's not expected to open until late 2019/early 2020-ish.

Universe of Energy is still in operation and even those that are saying this is likely to happen like Martin or Lee say UoE isn't likely to close until NEXT September. There's no way this ride opens in 2018 and it may be a stretch it even opens before SWL. The goal from what is being said is 2020/2021.

 

[Nick]

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?

None of that means Disney can't use GOTG. As @brianlo has said, what may be blurred to us is perfectly clear to Disney. They know exactly what rights they have.

 

[SeventyOne]

Well, all this talk sent me back to the contract, and here's my latest take--they can use the Guardians (except maybe Drax, for reasons @BriMan pointed out), but they can't advertise them locally.

First, why StarLord and Gamora (and maybe others) are clear:

East of The Mississippi - 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.]

Sounds like you had to be a full member or a villain. So if Gamora or Rocket were just an ally to the Avengers, probably cool. Also clears WDW to open an Aunt May ride (or, less snarkily, could probably have set up an Agent Carter meet & greet in DHS).

BUT ...

East or West of The Mississippi - ... Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

Hence "Super Hero Store." And guessing the Stark Exhibit at DLR didn't have a Marvel logo either.

And the real kicker ...

East or West of The Mississippi - The foregoing permitted uses will be subject to the following marketing restrictions:

If the particular character is not used by MCA, such character will not be advertised or promoted by means of (x) spot television buys, billboards, personal appearances, or print advertisements which are (y) viewed, located or primarily directed to persons within 300 miles of Orlando. In other words, regional (i.e. covering a multi-state geographic region) or national television or print media buys, or brochures would not be prohibited within such 300 mile radius.

This means even if WDW builds a StarLord/Gamora ride they can't call it "Marvel," and they can't put up billboards or do local TV buys in Florida. Probably can't invite Good Day Orlando out for a live remote either. Print ads in the Sentinel and other Florida papers definitely out, possibly online ads on those websites out as well. Even brochures/mailings--if targeted to locals (say that 3-day deal), can't mention the new ride at all. That's a lot of restrictions on promotion of a new ride.

I was already dubious, but now fairly convinced this isn't happening, unless Disney Legal flat out dropped the ball. Too many limitations on marketing.

 

[Nick]

I was already dubious, but now fairly convinced this isn't happening, unless Disney Legal flat out dropped the ball. Too many limitations on marketing.

If it's only Orlando marketing then that's not a huge problem. Normally you want to go out-of-market like up north.

Local advertisement not being allowed would be a bit of a damper for them, but if they are dead set on it, then that won't hold them back. Online advertisement goes a long way. Nothing in the contract says they can't advertise online on the Parks Blog... which then hits Twitter, facebook, etc.

Once people are in Florida for vacation, they already have their park tickets normally anyway. A Billboard isn't going to make an incredible difference.

 

[Ultranel]

Well, all this talk sent me back to the contract, and here's my latest take--they can use the Guardians (except maybe Drax, for reasons @BriMan pointed out), but they can't advertise them locally.

First, why StarLord and Gamora (and maybe others) are clear:

East of The Mississippi - 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.]

Sounds like you had to be a full member or a villain. So if Gamora or Rocket were just an ally to the Avengers, probably cool. Also clears WDW to open an Aunt May ride (or, less snarkily, could probably have set up an Agent Carter meet & greet in DHS).

BUT ...

East or West of The Mississippi - ... Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

Hence "Super Hero Store." And guessing the Stark Exhibit at DLR didn't have a Marvel logo either.

And the real kicker ...

East or West of The Mississippi - The foregoing permitted uses will be subject to the following marketing restrictions:

If the particular character is not used by MCA, such character will not be advertised or promoted by means of (x) spot television buys, billboards, personal appearances, or print advertisements which are (y) viewed, located or primarily directed to persons within 300 miles of Orlando. In other words, regional (i.e. covering a multi-state geographic region) or national television or print media buys, or brochures would not be prohibited within such 300 mile radius.

This means even if WDW builds a StarLord/Gamora ride they can't call it "Marvel," and they can't put up billboards or do local TV buys in Florida. Probably can't invite Good Day Orlando out for a live remote either. Print ads in the Sentinel and other Florida papers definitely out, possibly online ads on those websites out as well. Even brochures/mailings--if targeted to locals (say that 3-day deal), can't mention the new ride at all. That's a lot of restrictions on promotion of a new ride.

I was already dubious, but now fairly convinced this isn't happening, unless Disney Legal flat out dropped the ball. Too many limitations on marketing.

and that is why I think it's time for them to drop the "thought of" and start working on something else.... What's the fracking point? but then you have pride knocking at their door :saywhat:

 

[Brian G.]

This means even if WDW builds a StarLord/Gamora ride they can't call it "Marvel," and they can't put up billboards or do local TV buys in Florida. Probably can't invite Good Day Orlando out for a live remote either. Print ads in the Sentinel and other Florida papers definitely out, possibly online ads on those websites out as well. Even brochures/mailings--if targeted to locals (say that 3-day deal), can't mention the new ride at all. That's a lot of restrictions on promotion of a new ride.

I was already dubious, but now fairly convinced this isn't happening, unless Disney Legal flat out dropped the ball. Too many limitations on marketing.

This is the biggest reason from the contract as to why I don't see it happening.

If it's only Orlando marketing then that's not a huge problem. Normally you want to go out-of-market like up north.

Local advertisement not being allowed would be a bit of a damper for them, but if they are dead set on it, then that won't hold them back. Online advertisement goes a long way. Nothing in the contract says they can't advertise online on the Parks Blog... which then hits Twitter, facebook, etc.

Once people are in Florida for vacation, they already have their park tickets normally anyway. A Billboard isn't going to make an incredible difference.

Well it'd be 300 radius miles of Universal, so pretty much nothing in Florida and almost half of Georgia.

I don't know about the Internet clause though. When the contract was written, the internet was barely a thing - let alone anyone thinking it would be what it is now. I wonder if they'd classify it as "print media".

 

[Viator]

WDWNT is reporting that GOtG for both DLR and WDW will be announced at Saturday's SDCC Marvel Studio's panel.

RUMOR: Guardians of the Galaxy Attractions for Disney Parks to Be Announced at San Diego Comic Con? | WDW News Today

...And yes, I don't buy it.

 

[Ultranel]

If it's only Orlando marketing then that's not a huge problem. Normally you want to go out-of-market like up north.

Local advertisement not being allowed would be a bit of a damper for them, but if they are dead set on it, then that won't hold them back. Online advertisement goes a long way. Nothing in the contract says they can't advertise online on the Parks Blog... which then hits Twitter, facebook, etc.

Once people are in Florida for vacation, they already have their park tickets normally anyway. A Billboard isn't going to make an incredible difference.

I'm sorry man but that's not the way marketing works, and local advertisement is VERY important. I understand many fans want GOTG here but unfortunately the law comes before wishes, unless they try to do something under the table and I am pretty sure UOR will not allow that to happen. Just let California to be the lucky one on this subject.

 

[Ultranel]

I wonder if they'd classify it as "print media".

That's a great point. Technically IT IS the new media, so yeah... you have a strong point there.

 

[JungleSkip]

I don't buy it, but hey, who knows.

 

[shiekra38]

Awkward moment when GotG become part of the Avengers

 

[rioriz]

Goodness you are stretching. I believe there are big plans for Energy at the moment, but 2018 with plans for a THIRD RIDE? No, not happening.

Let's put things in perspective. Star Wars Land is currently rubble (LMA is down now), yet it's not expected to open until late 2019/early 2020-ish.

Universe of Energy is still in operation and even those that are saying this is likely to happen like Martin or Lee say UoE isn't likely to close until NEXT September. There's no way this ride opens in 2018 and it may be a stretch it even opens before SWL. The goal from what is being said is 2020/2021.

You are correct in the fact it won't be done in 2018. I was meaning to respond to the fact that Future World will be in construction mode come late 2018. A 2019 opening has been mentioned by some and would be very aggressive.

As far as attraction count, if we are going by what has been rumored then a show and a ride to start. It was also mentioned expansion plans for an additional E could be greenlit to go into WoL as a second phase not long after. Personally I don't see it based on their reputation for second phases. That wallet that has opened can close quickly

All I know is what was told to me this morning; that bids may be going out soon for contracting on these projects in IPCOT

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I was already dubious, but now fairly convinced this isn't happening, unless Disney Legal flat out dropped the ball. Too many limitations on marketing.

Thanks for validating the OU article.

Also I've been lead to believe that Disney thinks they can get away with it despite the agreement. Universal will then sue. Remember this is the company that had to stop selling time shares in for their new expensive Hawaii property for awhile because they didn't register/whatever to sell. The head of DVC was then fired.

You are correct in the fact it won't be done in 2018. I was meaning to respond to the fact that Future World will be in construction mode come late 2018. A 2019 opening has been mentioned by some and would be very aggressive.

As far as attraction count, if we are going by what has been rumored then a show and a ride to start. It was also mentioned expansion plans for an additional E could be greenlit to go into WoL as a second phase not long after. Personally I don't see it based on their reputation for second phases. That wallet that has opened can close quickly

All I know is what was told to me this morning; that bids may be going out soon for contracting on these projects in IPCOT

Happy for your confidence.


Also remember WDWNT's "LOTR TO WDW!" post y'all.

 

[tyro]

If Universal is going to sue. Would they do it when the ride is first announced or wait until the ride is completed?