Comcast and Marvel

[doconeill]

i can't imagine a scenario where Disney would ever be interested in building a park in Russia.

Disney wouldn't build the park. They'd license a Russian company to build and administer it, and collect the license fees and a share of the profits.

And of course, only if they thought it would work.

Pretty much what they did in Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore. I think DLP was a similar arrangement but I want to say that Disney took over that one.

Wasn't there a knockoff "Disneyland" being built in Russia that suddenly stopped construction?

 

[DanBoris]

IOA would have to replace something - I don't think they can expand with what they have right now. And if Disney were to disapprove of something just because they don't want to approve it, or call Universal out on the maintenance clause, all that might result in is a lot of money paid to lawyers. The exact details of those clauses aren't known.

Plus, if Disney is "making a killing on the deal" - and they are obviously making money without doing a thing as it is...why would they not want to continue as-is?

Simply "calling them out on maintenance" would not be enough since the contract says that if Disney/Marvel finds and issue they have to notify Universal and give them the opportunity to resolve it.

 

[doconeill]

Simply "calling them out on maintenance" would not be enough since the contract says that if Disney/Marvel finds and issue they have to notify Universal and give them the opportunity to resolve it.

I was oversimplifying - didn't think I needed to get to all the gory details. Because then it's whether Universal could resolve it to Disney's satisfaction, etc.

 

[rag10576]

So does that mean Disney has the right to monitor the area on a regular basis?

 

[dadddio]

Disney wouldn't build the park. They'd license a Russian company to build and administer it, and collect the license fees and a share of the profits.

And of course, only if they thought it would work.

Pretty much what they did in Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore. I think DLP was a similar arrangement but I want to say that Disney took over that one.

Wasn't there a knockoff "Disneyland" being built in Russia that suddenly stopped construction?

It was in China, not Russia.

The problem with Russia is that the political, economic, and legal environment isn't set. There's no guarantee that any plans wouldn't turn seriously bad.

 

[doconeill]

It was in China, not Russia.

Hmm...maybe that's the one I'm thinking of, but for some reason I've got a different picture in mind than they ones I'm finding for that one.

The problem with Russia is that the political, economic, and legal environment isn't set. There's no guarantee that any plans wouldn't turn seriously bad.

And thus, my "only if it would work" clause.

 

[rag10576]

How do you all feel about the marvel section a universal? I definately feel more could and should be done. Time for more attractions. I just dont see disney allowing it.

 

[Metro West]

How do you all feel about the marvel section a universal? I definately feel more could and should be done. Time for more attractions. I just dont see disney allowing it.

Where would these attractions go? There's no room to expand that area.

 

[rag10576]

Thats the problem. How can the Marvel brand grow and become succesful in the theme park without any growth? This could actually hurt the brand in the long run when there is no room fir growth and I dont see Uni really wanting to do so.

 

[doconeill]

Thats the problem. How can the Marvel brand grow and become succesful in the theme park without any growth? This could actually hurt the brand in the long run when there is no room fir growth and I dont see Uni really wanting to do so.

Disney hasn't hurt the Star Wars brand by only have the one ride, JTA and the occasional Star Wars Weekends any. And now they own it. I don't think there is any danger of "hurting the brand". Even still, the brand does not belong to Universal at all. If the brand goes south, re-theme. It's not Universal's responsibility to grow the brand.

They simply do not have the ability to expand without end. And they have a much more profitable brand to exploit right now.

 

[Metro West]

Disney hasn't hurt the Star Wars brand by only have the one ride, JTA and the occasional Star Wars Weekends any. And now they own it. I don't think there is any danger of "hurting the brand". Even still, the brand does not belong to Universal at all. If the brand goes south, re-theme. It's not Universal's responsibility to grow the brand.

They simply do not have the ability to expand without end. And they have a much more profitable brand to exploit right now.

 

[rag10576]

Eventually Uni may give in. Space is limited and costly. For the time being its profitable to keep Marvel or maybe they break even with the royalties that are being paid. Somehow Disney will get the rights. It might be benifical to cut the ties.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

If Disney had owned Marvel back in the 1990s, it's doubtful there would now be a Marvel Super Hero Island at IoA.

However, the status quo of having Marvel Super Hero Island at IoA works well for Marvel (Disney) and Universal.

Universal invested a lot of money in 1998 and 1999 to build Marvel Super Hero Island. That investment has been paying off ever since. Although Harry Potter is now the "star" at IoA, the Marvel Super Hero Island helps to make IoA a full-day park with highly repeatable attractions.

Universal continues to have a top-notch immersive attraction in the form of The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man ride, which was upgraded to digital 3-D projection. In addition, Marvel Super Hero Island also has timeless thrill rides that appeal to guests who like that sort of thing: Doctor Doom's Fearfall, The Incredible Hulk Coaster, and Storm Force Accelatron. IoA's Marvel section continues to be a popular themed land. And let's not forget the revenue from dining and merchandise.

Marvel (Disney) earns licensing income and merchandise revenue from the deal. It's a steady stream of pure profit for Marvel (Disney), without having to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build something new. (Disney likes deals that provide pure profit.) It also keeps the characters in front of guests, helping to build an audience for new Marvel Studios movies.

If Disney wants to invest substantial capital in its own Marvel attractions, Disney (with its international partners) can do so at Disney parks California, France, Japan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai.

It's good business for Universal to keep the status quo.

It's good business for Disney to keep the status quo.

 

[rag10576]

I totally agree. However there is no room for growth at Uni IOA Marvel area. That needs to be looked at.

 

[dadddio]

I totally agree. However there is no room for growth at Uni IOA Marvel area. That needs to be looked at.

How can they 'look at it'? It's not as if they can create real estate.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I totally agree. However there is no room for growth at Uni IOA Marvel area. That needs to be looked at.

Actually, there's a good-sized expansion opportunity between Marvel Super Hero Island and Toon Lagoon.

All that's currently there is the former Pandemonium Cartoon Circus amphitheater, some game booths, and a lot of landscaping. It's "belongs" to Toon Lagoon, but that really doesn't mean anything. In fact, the area is barely used at all. It currently feels more like a no-man's land than a real part of Toon Lagoon.

There's no reason why Marvel Super Hero Island could not expand into this area -- but only if both Universal and Marvel (Disney) see it as good business for their respective companies.

 

[HeyItsNickCA]

Disney is just going to have to try and be smart and act quick on securing exclusive licensing for the next "Harry Potter" type series

Disney may already have a winner on their hands. I’m not sure if anyone here has heard of the ‘’Percy Jackson’’ series. Basically, it’s about a boy in the modern world who learns he is the Greek god Poseidon son and goes on quests to defeat to defend Olympus from Kronos, the father of the Gods, who was overthrown by Zeus and has risen from the depths of the Underworld to overtake Olympus and destroy the Gods forever. Of course, there is more to the story but that’s a quick explanation of the story.

There has already been one movie, ‘'Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief,’’ which was a success in the box office. However, there are problems because some fans think the movie wasn't good because it wasn't true to the book – the basis of the movie was true but some extras weren't included. There is a second movie coming out that has a new director which will decide the series future considering on how well they do with the movie. I mention the series because Hyperion Books publishes the books and Hyperion Books is a Disney company. The movie however is released by 20th Century Fox but I’m sure that Disney could secure their permission for theme parks. Even if Universal tried to get rights from 20th century fox, I’m not sure they could considering the movies are based on the books and the books belong to Disney.

 

[doconeill]

Percy Jackson was a surprising success I think...although it did better overseas than it did in the U.S. Whether it has the material to be a theme park capable franchise, I don't know.

And it all depends on who has the rights to what at this point. Just because Hyperion is the publisher does not mean they control those rights, or that Disney gets first dibs. The rights are a complicated business, and with a company like Disney (publisher, studio, distribution, TV networks, theme parks, etc.) they have to walk a fine line between corporate synergy and monopoly.

 

[rag10576]

Lets stick to marvel. Also 2014 BIg Hero 6 will be out in theaters. Does anyone know if Disney can use these characters in their parks?

 

[doconeill]

Lets stick to marvel. Also 2014 BIg Hero 6 will be out in theaters. Does anyone know if Disney can use these characters in their parks?

Big Hero 6 must be flying way under the radar...didn't even hear that they were planning a movie, apparently an animated one. Of more visibility is Guardians of the Galaxy, which will be live action. But neither really contain "household name" characters, so unless they take off like crazy, I doubt that they'd get used except for short-term promotion.

But I believe they are free and clear from the Universal contract. They are limited to what they are using and the "family" around them (i.e. I think it would be tough for Disney to use Kitty Pride or Rogue from X-Men, even though they have never been used AFAIK at Universal...)