Comcast and Marvel

[Lewisc]

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

Looked at by whom? Lucas didn't make Disney expand Star Wars or Indian Jones. Do you think Disney can make Universal expand Marvel?

There is room as per PP. Should Universal see the need they could expand in the area near Jurassic park, might need a walkway. They could shrink Toon Town. Could also add Marvel in the Studios.

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.

Having book or even movie rights doesn't automatically mean they have theme park rights. The first Narnia movie did 3X the gross of Percy Jackson. Plus the underlying super powers are that of the parents. Zeus Poseidon etc. Those characters are in the public domain and are already part of IoA.

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?

Stick to marvel. OK. Universal has the rights.

Many of us think Spiderman and the Forbidden Jorney are both superior to any any recent Disney attraction. Disney buying the rights from Universal, aside from being very unlikely, might not even be an improvement

 

[rag10576]

Spiderman is good. Marvel has so much potential under Disney. With the small area in Uni being called IOA just isnt enough for such a large brand.

 

[dadddio]

Spiderman is good. Marvel has so much potential under Disney. With the small area in Uni being called IOA just isnt enough for such a large brand.

It is what it is. Universal is unlikely to abandon the Marvel characters and they are unlikely to be able to expand them further. I imagine that the licensing agreement requires Disney approval for any new attractions. That is unlikely to happen.

I doubt that Disney is bothered much by the inability to use those characters in their parks. They can always expand using the Star Wars franchise or any or all of the Pixar movies or any of their other properties. They also have done a pretty good job creating rides and attractions that aren't based on any of the above.

 

[rag10576]

There are other charcters that could be used. We will see uf that ever happends.

 

[doconeill]

There are other charcters that could be used. We will see uf that ever happends.

We're three years in to Disney owning Marvel, and nothing yet.

Universal got the rights to all the character families that people are most familiar with.

We're more likely to see something at Disneyland than anything at WDW, unless Disney can really break out some of the other character families with a big hit movie, beyond possible promotional appearances.

 

[rag10576]

It does take a while to make movies which disney is doing. Guardians of the galaxy, Big Hero 6 upcoming. Lets hope the movies are succesful and disney can use these properties.

 

[JB2K]

The most likely scenario I envision is Comcast/Universal eventually adopting the DC line of heroes (Superman, Batman, etc.) and using them instead of the Disney/Marvel characters.

To support the argument, Warner Bros. is the parent company/movie license holder for those heroes, as well as the Harry Potter movie franchise, which obviously, translated the most successful set of attractions in the recent history of Central Florida.

Like Disney/Marvel, Warner/DC has had some pretty big films with their costumed characters (the "Dark Knight" franchise, and this summer's "Man of Steel").

Currently, most of those characters are licensed to Six Flags, but given the state of many of their parks (and the fact that Warner no longer has any ownership interest in SF), it would be easy to retheme those older attractions.

 

[JB2K]

I think if Disney were to work on anything Marvel-related in Orlando, it might be related to their current money-making franchises, such as "Iron Man" and those members of "The Avengers" not currently held by Universal Orlando.

As for "Spider-Man", it gets a bit tricky, as Marvel sold-off those movie rights to Sony (back in the days before Marvel got in the movie production biz). Same applies to the successful "X-Men" franchise, which was farmed-out to 20th Century Fox.

The Incredible Hulk, OTOH, might well stay put at Universal, since that character has a long history with them (Universal produced the 1970's TV series and also had a hand in the 2 movies over recent years).

 

[doconeill]

I think if Disney were to work on anything Marvel-related in Orlando, it might be related to their current money-making franchises, such as "Iron Man" and those members of "The Avengers" not currently held by Universal Orlando.

This is where the "character family" clauses make things tougher. They already use several Avengers characters. That could make ANY Avengers characters verboten for WDW.

As for "Spider-Man", it gets a bit tricky, as Marvel sold-off those movie rights to Sony (back in the days before Marvel got in the movie production biz). Same applies to the successful "X-Men" franchise, which was farmed-out to 20th Century Fox.

The movie business is a bit separate, but it creates a hazy area. Spider-Man was not "sold off" - Sony just has a pretty extensive contract with regards to producing and distribution of movies based on the character.

And production and distribution are two different things (I think it has to do with avoiding monopoly problems). Marvel is often the sole producer or the major partner (distributors often get some production credit since they are helping fund). Sony/Columbia is the Distributor.

With Iron Man 3 and The Avengers, Paramount was the distributor - but Disney purchased the distribution rights from Paramount so now Disney will distribute.

The Incredible Hulk, OTOH, might well stay put at Universal, since that character has a long history with them (Universal produced the 1970's TV series and also had a hand in the 2 movies over recent years).

Similar relationship at this point. Universal was the distributor of the two Hulk movies.

Now, distribution contracts can also contain additional items, like merchandising, theme park rights, etc. but that all depends on what is negotiated. As for Universal Studios and Marvel, that was negotiated outside of any movie rights/contracts.

As an example, the Captain America movie was distributed by Paramount, but the character appears at IOA.

(And Disney will distribute the sequel...)

 

[Lewisc]

It does take a while to make movies which disney is doing. Guardians of the galaxy, Big Hero 6 upcoming. Lets hope the movies are succesful and disney can use these properties.

Disney has both Pixar and Lucas properties to work with. Disney also has Avatar.

Universal has Harry Potter. Universal is rumored to be considering Lord of the Rings.

Neither Disney nor Universal has any pressing need for more Marvel.

I'm more interested in the quality of the attraction then on what movie/character is used. You don't have to be a fan of the Twilight Zone to enjoy the Tower of Terror.

 

[yitbos96bb]

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.

Success? A minor one maybe. Mediocre reviews, didn't break even domestically (international saved it). It was profitable to do a sequel but not to invest in brand building ala Pirates, Star Wars, Avengers, Harry Potter, LOTR, etc.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Plus there is no Orlando 6 Flags either, so that could come in play.

Look
Disney didn't buy any of these properties for the theme park rights. It's a minor aspect when comparing price to profit. They bought Marvel for the Film rights and the merchandise. They are win win on Universal's agreement just as they are win win with Sony for Spiderman, Fox for Xmen etc. they get their cut of the pie and if things fail, they can relaunch. It's golden for them.

Avengers made over a billion gross just in box office and props up numerous films. That's what Iger wanted, sustainable income with Brands. Same with Star Wars....
Merchandise and new films (5 announced so far... Trilogy and 2 standalones) that will make a ton of money. Theme parks are already profitable and if they need to grow, Star Wars sits in the back pocket.

The most likely scenario I envision is Comcast/Universal eventually adopting the DC line of heroes (Superman, Batman, etc.) and using them instead of the Disney/Marvel characters.

To support the argument, Warner Bros. is the parent company/movie license holder for those heroes, as well as the Harry Potter movie franchise, which obviously, translated the most successful set of attractions in the recent history of Central Florida.

Like Disney/Marvel, Warner/DC has had some pretty big films with their costumed characters (the "Dark Knight" franchise, and this summer's "Man of Steel").

Currently, most of those characters are licensed to Six Flags, but given the state of many of their parks (and the fact that Warner no longer has any ownership interest in SF), it would be easy to retheme those older attractions.

 

[DanBoris]

Plus there is no Orlando 6 Flags either, so that could come in play.

Look
Disney didn't buy any of these properties for the theme park rights. It's a minor aspect when comparing price to profit. They bought Marvel for the Film rights and the merchandise. They are win win on Universal's agreement just as they are win win with Sony for Spiderman, Fox for Xmen etc. they get their cut of the pie and if things fail, they can relaunch. It's golden for them.

Avengers made over a billion gross just in box office and props up numerous films. That's what Iger wanted, sustainable income with Brands. Same with Star Wars....
Merchandise and new films (5 announced so far... Trilogy and 2 standalones) that will make a ton of money. Theme parks are already profitable and if they need to grow, Star Wars sits in the back pocket.

Exactly this! Can you imaging how long it would take a new Marvel attraction to make 1 billion dollar impact on the bottom line of a theme park? Not to mention that that sort of impact is very hard to measure, whereas profits from a movie are very easy to show to shareholders.

As for Universal giving up Marvel, I don't think they will have any incentive to do that until Marvel has dropped to a point in popularity where Disney wouldn't even want to build an attraction for it.

 

[doconeill]

Success? A minor one maybe. Mediocre reviews, didn't break even domestically (international saved it). It was profitable to do a sequel but not to invest in brand building ala Pirates, Star Wars, Avengers, Harry Potter, LOTR, etc.

It did make more than double its budget on box office receipts, plus another $30M+ in home sales. Probably not a blockbuster by today's standards. But it had a real strong opening for a fantasy film, second to "Valentine's Day", which did very well but I don't even remember anything about that movie. Not sure what it may have been up against in the following weeks. But as you say, the international box office was quite high for it. It was actually mostly a Canadian production.

I'm still surprised that the sequel was green lit, and I hope it doesn't suffer a fate similar to Narnia. It seems they've cut down on the cast of Gods (only Sean Bean is confirmed to return as Zeus, Hermes has been replaced with Nathan Fillion - a plus I think - and Stanley Tucci also raises the bar as Dionysus, but Pierce Brosnan is not returning, being replaced by Anthony Head, who I like but is very different...) Poseidon, Percy's father, isn't even listed.

Anyways...back on topic - I still think it is far from being theme-worthy, less so than just a Greek-myth theme - which Universal already has.

And more on topic -A Disney park IS finally getting some Marvel superheroes - but it's going to cost a bit more to see it:

http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/Television_and_Film/Marvel_characters_coming_to_Hong_Kong_Disneyland.htm

Hong Kong Disneyland will be getting them first. And the article points out - you may not see them in the U.S. at all - Disneyland could use them but have no real room for them, while WDW is locked out due to the contract with Universal (beyond exceptions as discussed).