Major Rumor Marvel in ToT update page 25

[skier_pete]

I'm curious how popular tower is at DCA since I've never been. Obviously, particularly with half of DHS behind walls it has more significance, but I know the Florida one is always drawing a healthy crowd

IDK how popular it is - but just rode it for the first time this February. As others have said - it is less impressive ride than the Florida one. Others mentioned no forward movement, but there is also no randomized drops - just a standard drop pattern, so the ride is the same every time you ride it. The "overall theme-ing" is similar - my most recent post in my DLR trip report shows the theme-ing of the queue and boiler room if anyone is interested.

When we went in 2013 - there was a massive wait, but we were told that TWO of the THREE drop shafts were down for repairs, one long-term. In Feb 2016, I observed the wait to be moderate (30-40 minutes).

As far as how upset Californians will be about this...I am sure there will be SOME push-back, but being as it is in DCA, I doubt it will be significant. They seem to reserve most of their ire towards Disney for any changes that come to the Disneyland park. Even with the addition of Carsland, I don't think anyone has developed the "you can't change this place" attitude on that side of the plaza. (There was a lot of anger over pulling the Aladdin show, but I suspect that was as much due to the replacement with a Frozen show as it was for the Aladdin show - which indeed was a GREAT show - but I suspect if they had said they were going to go with a Tangled stage show for instance I bet there would've been a lot more acceptance.)

 

[MN96]

I am not sure if this is a rumor or just someone's fan theory, but I read something about the guardians of the Galaxy being in part two of the next avengers movie, it would make sort of make sense with the infinity stones being in both movies. If this happened would that mean the guardians ToT wouldn't be allowed at WDW? Sorry not really sure how the contract works

 

[doconeill]

I am not sure if this is a rumor or just someone's fan theory, but I read something about the guardians of the Galaxy being in part two of the next avengers movie, it would make sort of make sense with the infinity stones being in both movies. If this happened would that mean the guardians ToT wouldn't be allowed at WDW? Sorry not really sure how the contract works

None of us are sure either, but I would think the "family" clause applies to the characters from the comics, and/or as they were at the execution of the contract. If the GotG have never been part of the Avengers, then they may be available regardless of appearing in one of the movies. But they have not yet made any appearance in the parks, so it is possible they aren't available, or Disney doesn't feel like a legal test of the contract in that regard.

I believe the plan is only for Starlord to appear in Infinity War at this point.

 

[MN96]

None of us are sure either, but I would think the "family" clause applies to the characters from the comics, and/or as they were at the execution of the contract. If the GotG have never been part of the Avengers, then they may be available regardless of appearing in one of the movies. But they have not yet made any appearance in the parks, so it is possible they aren't available, or Disney doesn't feel like a legal test of the contract in that regard.

I believe the plan is only for Starlord to appear in Infinity War at this point.

I could be wrong but I think at the villain thing at DHS they had a gotg meet, hope someone can confirm or deny. Thank you for the info, that's what I was wondering, it would definitely make sense if it was based on comits and not movies. Also didn't know it was just star lord, interesting, thanks!

 

[doconeill]

I could be wrong but I think at the villain thing at DHS they had a gotg meet, hope someone can confirm or deny. Thank you for the info, that's what I was wondering, it would definitely make sense if it was based on comits and not movies. Also didn't know it was just star lord, interesting, thanks!

They could add more...Gamora would make sense too...but the more you grow the cast the less screen time they will get. But Starlord is all I heard about originally.

You are correct about Villains Unleashed...Starlord and Gamora did make an appearance. I forgot about that. So I think that confirms that they are open game at this point, at least as Disney believes. And I'm sure they checked the contract.

 

[MN96]

They could add more...Gamora would make sense too...but the more you grow the cast the less screen time they will get. But Starlord is all I heard about originally.

You are correct about Villains Unleashed...Starlord and Gamora did make an appearance. I forgot about that. So I think that confirms that they are open game at this point, at least as Disney believes. And I'm sure they checked the contract.

That'd be very interesting, I'd love to see rocket raccoon in it too but that's very true, the more characters the less time each gets. I'm glad they likely have the rights, but I don't like the idea of tower of terror changing, so hopefully that only happens at DCA, I'm headed to DLR in August, so just ahead of ToT closing out west it sounds like. From what I've read the DCA version is the lesser of the two anyway.

 

[rteetz]

I am not sure if this is a rumor or just someone's fan theory, but I read something about the guardians of the Galaxy being in part two of the next avengers movie, it would make sort of make sense with the infinity stones being in both movies. If this happened would that mean the guardians ToT wouldn't be allowed at WDW? Sorry not really sure how the contract works

It's unclear if they were involved in infinity wars that they wouldn't be able to be used at WDW. It doesn't seem to be a proboes since the overlay at WDW is being discussed.

 

[rteetz]

I could be wrong but I think at the villain thing at DHS they had a gotg meet, hope someone can confirm or deny. Thank you for the info, that's what I was wondering, it would definitely make sense if it was based on comits and not movies. Also didn't know it was just star lord, interesting, thanks!

The GOTG characters were at a private event at MK in tomorrowland I don't believe they were at the villains event.

 

[doconeill]

The GOTG characters were at a private event at MK in tomorrowland I don't believe they were at the villains event.

Yup, they were:

 

[DanBoris]

I am not sure if this is a rumor or just someone's fan theory, but I read something about the guardians of the Galaxy being in part two of the next avengers movie, it would make sort of make sense with the infinity stones being in both movies. If this happened would that mean the guardians ToT wouldn't be allowed at WDW? Sorry not really sure how the contract works

It all comes down to what constitutes a character being part of another "family" of characters. GotG has already had a relationship with the Avengers in the comics, so if that isn't enough to make them part of the Avengers family, simply appearing in a movie with them might not either.

 

[Indy #1 Fan]

Marvel Rumor Update!

A DCA Tower of Terror refurbishment is starting to show up on planning calendars. Closing Sepetember 19th, 2016 reopening in May 2017.

A big pre-show and exterior refurb are on the plans for the project. The financial green light is set to happen in July purposely after Shanghai opens.

A WDW version is still in limbo due to operational and logistical problems so it may not happen.

Not happening at all, ignore that rumor. Tower of Terror is NEVER changing out here in California.

 

[rteetz]

Not happening at all, ignore that rumor. Tower of Terror is NEVER changing out here in California.

Never say never. It very well could happen. Things change all the time for good and for worse.

 

[Eoghann]

It all comes down to what constitutes a character being part of another "family" of characters. GotG has already had a relationship with the Avengers in the comics, so if that isn't enough to make them part of the Avengers family, simply appearing in a movie with them might not either.

I have to assume there's a tighter definition than "characters who have crossed over" because that's basically every marvel super hero. I mean Iron Man was a member of the GotG not so long ago in the comics and currently The Thing is.

 

[doconeill]

I have to assume there's a tighter definition than "characters who have crossed over" because that's basically every marvel super hero. I mean Iron Man was a member of the GotG not so long ago in the comics and currently The Thing is.

If there is a better definition, it's not in the SEC filing. That only referenced characters belonging to a "family". Depends on who is doing the interpretation, but I'd say a crossover does not necessarily induct one into a family. If one had a stint as one of the Avengers, say, that would be different.

 

[Eoghann]

If there is a better definition, it's not in the SEC filing. That only referenced characters belonging to a "family". Depends on who is doing the interpretation, but I'd say a crossover does not necessarily induct one into a family. If one had a stint as one of the Avengers, say, that would be different.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't a concrete definition, otherwise it's an absurd loophole in the contract. There must be in the region of 100 characters who at one time or another have been considered members of the Avengers (not just a crossover).

It's weird that the term "family" isn't defined in the document itself. Unless there is a secondary document that's not part of the SEC filing or some generally understood legal definition of the term. I refuse to believe it's left up to individual interpretation.

 

[doconeill]

The SEC filing isn't the contract itself, but details some of the features of the contract. The contract could have more exact definitions. But then again, it was likely written by lawyers with little understanding of comic book characters and "families" of characters, and well before it became a competitive issue.

 

[Eoghann]

The SEC filing isn't the contract itself, but details some of the features of the contract. The contract could have more exact definitions. But then again, it was likely written by lawyers with little understanding of comic book characters and "families" of characters, and well before it became a competitive issue.

My experience of dealing with lawyers (and negotiating contracts is something I do on a regular basis) is they don't approve stuff unless the terms are defined. The very fact that when referenced "family" is in quotes makes me think there's a definition being referenced.

 

[DanBoris]

I'd be astonished if there wasn't a concrete definition, otherwise it's an absurd loophole in the contract. There must be in the region of 100 characters who at one time or another have been considered members of the Avengers (not just a crossover).

It's weird that the term "family" isn't defined in the document itself. Unless there is a secondary document that's not part of the SEC filing or some generally understood legal definition of the term. I refuse to believe it's left up to individual interpretation.

The contract does mention that Marvel will provide a list of the current character. We don't have access to the document but it might have the breakdown of the families in it.

 

[lovetotraveltx]

Good friends who are super Disney Fans were over last night and told me Tower of Terror is closing this November. Have searched online all different ways and can't find any mention, only of the one in Disneyland closing.

Please tell me, there is no truth to this. This is up there with my favorite rides in all 4 parks.

Thank you!

 

[stinkpickle]

I hope not. Unless the ride is about to fall apart, HS needs to get a few more attractions online, first.