Marvel coming to WDW???!!!!

[Yellowstonetim]

They can't?....

That's interesting! Didn't see that when I was there. Do they sell the Disney dolls and toys?

 

[wallrock]

Doom is terrible. My young adult son said it was the worst ride he'd ever been on, it was so lame. Worse than other drop rides. Hulk is just a coaster. With green theming. Whoopee..

Doesn't this sound a tad negative? Or does colorful criticism only apply to Disney's competitors?

The quote and other quotes do not say if. Disney has made it clear Star Wars is coming and it is big. It just makes sense and cents.

There is the possibility that a deal could be struck between Universal and Disney that turns Marvel back over to Disney and is beneficial to both.

Why? Because the more successful Marvel is for Disney, the more Disney is associated with the Marvel characters and the more Disney’s version of the characters become the cultural norm... the more this is less valuable to Universal.

Universal has rights to the Marvel characters but not anything related to the movies themselves or the movie version of the characters. Disney’s version of Thor is the Thor most people in our culture relate to now. Universal cannot use a representation of the actor, they must use the comics. Same with other characters. The bigger Avengers get, the less Universal will want to support Disney’s Marvel and the more valuable those characters would be to have at WDW. At some point the two differing views will reach common ground and a deal will be struck.

Not only does Universal have to pay Disney for every profit they make from Marvel, they are fighting an uphill battle against the cultural zeitgeist. And their Marvel presence isn’t all that great except for Spiderman. But Spidy is not directly Disney’s like Avengers, even though he will appear in some Disney movies. I could see spidy staying and all the other Avengers leaving Universal.

It is no more impossible than Spiderman being in an Avengers movie. When the situation and money is right, it will happen. Especially if Universal can run with other good properties that don’t support Disney. They are searching and may have found some already.

Maybe to some it is realism, but to most of us it is bashing. Once you've been here a while you can see who is constantly negative in every single thread about every single thing. There are people here that never say one thing positive. NEVER. It is depressing after a while. I have no doubt it has driven people away. Who wants to go to a club about something you love where some people do nothing but complain? Where there is lots of negativity! Everybody is entitled to their opinion and it is certainly ok to think some things Disney does is wrong and to be upset. But when it is nothing but negativity in every single post in every single thread to the point of ridiculousness, it gets distressing. Here we are because we love the happy place of Disney and this place is so darn negative. People who love something want to get together with other like minded people to share their love. When someone says they love, too, but then does nothing but speak negatively about what they are supposed to love, well, it isn't fun. I have seen a few negative people ruin a number of online boards. I don't like to hang with friends who say nothing but negative things about their wives and children. Why people feel so negative, I don't know. I stick around to encourage the positive and answer some of the ridiculous negativity. To each his own. It is a free place and an open forum. I just hope positivity can grow, it is much more fun.

I'm wondering how it's negative to point out the obvious or the factual. Disney has not stated anything specific around Star Wars' crashing through the gates or which park may get something. It's a simple fact. That said, in a rather ironic twist Iger was more than happy to announce specifically that Force Friday is on its way come September 4, and that the merchandising flood gates will open wide. Sounds like something that we 'haters' have pointed out in the past.

Is it wrong to point out that Iger's statements are vague in nature when it comes to Star Wars in the parks? You would think that anyone who is so against The Mouse would in fact enjoy the apprehension or neutrality in Iger's remarks regarding the biggest franchise in film history as they laugh at Disney's inability to take advantage. To call him to the table to either 'fess up and put the carrot away or stop the commentary sounds like a Disney fan who's tired of being led around. If we're considered 'bashers' because of that demand then so be it, especially since the devoted don't seem to be too interested in pushing.

Is it wrong to call them to the table when they regularly raise prices while cutting back on services?
Is it wrong to call them to the table when they let buildings that once held great attractions decay and do nothing with them?
Is it wrong to question why repackaging of existing activities and charging what amounts to a full day's admission for them seems to be the new trend?

The response from the devoted to these 'accusations' presented up by the 'haters club' is always 'Disney's a business, and they're going to do what's necessary to make a profit'. That doesn't sound like a battle cry from a group who think Disney is dedicated to their loyal customer base. It sounds like an excuse and a reason to evade a practice that suggests anything other than preserving customer loyalty. Aren't the devoted followers always wanting to expose newbies to the magic of Disney? What would the devoted tell the newbies when they ask why buildings are empty? Or why they read Disney history (I've never met a Disney historian hobbyist who isn't a devotee) about attractions that no longer exist and are devoid of replacements? How would the devoted explain the rotting corpse of River Country? It's because Disney is a business that has to make a profit. Don't worry about it. Great things are coming. Just hang in there and I promise you'll love Disney forever.

And yes, I'm fully aware that River Country has been closed for some time and two water parks are in its place, but does that justify not cleaning up the mess? Kinda hard to maintain the illusion of a happy place and touting immersive environments with something that looks like remnants of a collapsed society staring you in the face every time you go by in a boat.

We bashers want what's best - that's what defined Disney in the beginning. We want people to enjoy the parks so much that they'll come back for more. Is it a negative to want something you like to be the best it can be? How often do you tell someone you care about that they can do better when they do something subpar, especially when you know they've done so much better in the past? It seems to me that we bashers seem to be a bit more dedicated to Disney than the devoted are.

 

[rteetz]

Doesn't this sound a tad negative? Or does colorful criticism only apply to Disney's competitors?



I'm wondering how it's negative to point out the obvious or the factual. Disney has not stated anything specific around Star Wars' crashing through the gates or which park may get something. It's a simple fact. That said, in a rather ironic twist Iger was more than happy to announce specifically that Force Friday is on its way come September 4, and that the merchandising flood gates will open wide. Sounds like something that we 'haters' have pointed out in the past.

Is it wrong to point out that Iger's statements are vague in nature when it comes to Star Wars in the parks? You would think that anyone who is so against The Mouse would in fact enjoy the apprehension or neutrality in Iger's remarks regarding the biggest franchise in film history as they laugh at Disney's inability to take advantage. To call him to the table to either 'fess up and put the carrot away or stop the commentary sounds like a Disney fan who's tired of being led around. If we're considered 'bashers' because of that demand then so be it, especially since the devoted don't seem to be too interested in pushing.

Is it wrong to call them to the table when they regularly raise prices while cutting back on services?
Is it wrong to call them to the table when they let buildings that once held great attractions decay and do nothing with them?
Is it wrong to question why repackaging of existing activities and charging what amounts to a full day's admission for them seems to be the new trend?

The response from the devoted to these 'accusations' presented up by the 'haters club' is always 'Disney's a business, and they're going to do what's necessary to make a profit'. That doesn't sound like a battle cry from a group who think Disney is dedicated to their loyal customer base. It sounds like an excuse and a reason to evade a practice that suggests anything other than preserving customer loyalty. Aren't the devoted followers always wanting to expose newbies to the magic of Disney? What would the devoted tell the newbies when they ask why buildings are empty? Or why they read Disney history (I've never met a Disney historian hobbyist who isn't a devotee) about attractions that no longer exist and are devoid of replacements? How would the devoted explain the rotting corpse of River Country? It's because Disney is a business that has to make a profit. Don't worry about it. Great things are coming. Just hang in there and I promise you'll love Disney forever.

And yes, I'm fully aware that River Country has been closed for some time and two water parks are in its place, but does that justify not cleaning up the mess? Kinda hard to maintain the illusion of a happy place and touting immersive environments with something that looks like remnants of a collapsed society staring you in the face every time you go by in a boat.

We bashers want what's best - that's what defined Disney in the beginning. We want people to enjoy the parks so much that they'll come back for more. Is it a negative to want something you like to be the best it can be? How often do you tell someone you care about that they can do better when they do something subpar, especially when you know they've done so much better in the past? It seems to me that we bashers seem to be a bit more dedicated to Disney than the devoted are.

Very well said

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Doesn't this sound a tad negative? Or does colorful criticism only apply to Disney's competitors?



I'm wondering how it's negative to point out the obvious or the factual. Disney has not stated anything specific around Star Wars' crashing through the gates or which park may get something. It's a simple fact. That said, in a rather ironic twist Iger was more than happy to announce specifically that Force Friday is on its way come September 4, and that the merchandising flood gates will open wide. Sounds like something that we 'haters' have pointed out in the past.

Is it wrong to point out that Iger's statements are vague in nature when it comes to Star Wars in the parks? You would think that anyone who is so against The Mouse would in fact enjoy the apprehension or neutrality in Iger's remarks regarding the biggest franchise in film history as they laugh at Disney's inability to take advantage. To call him to the table to either 'fess up and put the carrot away or stop the commentary sounds like a Disney fan who's tired of being led around. If we're considered 'bashers' because of that demand then so be it, especially since the devoted don't seem to be too interested in pushing.

Is it wrong to call them to the table when they regularly raise prices while cutting back on services?
Is it wrong to call them to the table when they let buildings that once held great attractions decay and do nothing with them?
Is it wrong to question why repackaging of existing activities and charging what amounts to a full day's admission for them seems to be the new trend?

The response from the devoted to these 'accusations' presented up by the 'haters club' is always 'Disney's a business, and they're going to do what's necessary to make a profit'. That doesn't sound like a battle cry from a group who think Disney is dedicated to their loyal customer base. It sounds like an excuse and a reason to evade a practice that suggests anything other than preserving customer loyalty. Aren't the devoted followers always wanting to expose newbies to the magic of Disney? What would the devoted tell the newbies when they ask why buildings are empty? Or why they read Disney history (I've never met a Disney historian hobbyist who isn't a devotee) about attractions that no longer exist and are devoid of replacements? How would the devoted explain the rotting corpse of River Country? It's because Disney is a business that has to make a profit. Don't worry about it. Great things are coming. Just hang in there and I promise you'll love Disney forever.

And yes, I'm fully aware that River Country has been closed for some time and two water parks are in its place, but does that justify not cleaning up the mess? Kinda hard to maintain the illusion of a happy place and touting immersive environments with something that looks like remnants of a collapsed society staring you in the face every time you go by in a boat.

We bashers want what's best - that's what defined Disney in the beginning. We want people to enjoy the parks so much that they'll come back for more. Is it a negative to want something you like to be the best it can be? How often do you tell someone you care about that they can do better when they do something subpar, especially when you know they've done so much better in the past? It seems to me that we bashers seem to be a bit more dedicated to Disney than the devoted are.

Couldn't be more correct…not one bit.

And i blame me…i will saddle the burden of all consumers who have been BAD consumers.

That's right…i'm eduardo from Sao Paulo, Paul from Liverpool, Dominic from Hoboken, Lacy from Austin - mother of princess DDs Brittany and Kaitlin, and Rosa from Ocala….
And i've been a bad, bad consumer. Repeated trips at higher prices for what is status quo on the whole and in some places - epcot and studios - a net loss of what i used to pay $45 a day for…
And i'm still going in those restaurants…for the same food at double the price. But you know…the price of oil and all…its costs money. It's not like we're pumping it out of the ground at will or anything.

I'm joking…but i'm not. We have been bad. We're letting our belief in the idea of wdw screen the fact that this group of characters (not in the princess queues…in the dwarf building) are wise to it, they know their endgame/exit strategy, and they're not married to what they run to the point they won't sacrifice the long for the short term.

So eventually we'll be going to the "good disney parks" once every few years…probably in tokyo or shanghai…

bring your respirator

 

[wallrock]

Couldn't be more correct…not one bit.

And i blame me…i will saddle the burden of all consumers who have been BAD consumers.

That's right…i'm eduardo from Sao Paulo, Paul from Liverpool, Dominic from Hoboken, Lacy from Austin - mother of princess DDs Brittany and Kaitlin, and Rosa from Ocala….
And i've been a bad, bad consumer. Repeated trips at higher prices for what is status quo on the whole and in some places - epcot and studios - a net loss of what i used to pay $45 a day for…
And i'm still going in those restaurants…for the same food at double the price. But you know…the price of oil and all…its costs money. It's not like we're pumping it out of the ground at will or anything.

I'm joking…but i'm not. We have been bad. We're letting our belief in the idea of wdw screen the fact that this group of characters (not in the princess queues…in the dwarf building) are wise to it, they know their endgame/exit strategy, and they're not married to what they run to the point they won't sacrifice the long for the short term.

So eventually we'll be going to the "good disney parks" once every few years…probably in tokyo or shanghai…

bring your respirator

I'll go ahead and blame you too...

And I really don't want to fly across the Pacific again. My knees are getting tired of being crunched.

Nevertheless you're correct. The must see's in the Disney arena will be on the far reaches of the Pacific Rim in the future.

On a related note, I was digging through my old National Geographic Traveler magazines today (today has been a slow day at the hacienda) and pulled out the November 1991 issue that I intentionally saved. In there is an article on the still somewhat new Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park. Other highlights were Mount Rainier National Park, Barcelona, the Caribbean, the Smithsonian Institution and the French Alps. I don't get National Geographic anymore, but I wonder how many times since then the magazine has covered something about Disney in this way (I see the occasional article online on a few minor points but never a theme park as a whole) and including it in the same publication as significant historical and geographical locations around the world.

 

[ChrisFL]

So eventually we'll be going to the "good disney parks" once every few years…probably in tokyo or shanghai…

bring your respirator

I go to Tokyo...for the true Disney quality experience, the ironic part is that Disney doesn't own it, but these non-Disney parks do Disney better than Disney does....no respirator required

Next trip: November

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Time will tell.....

A Contract is nothing but words on a page that with the right agreement of change of words and exchange of money or properties , anything can happen and often does happen.

AKK

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Time will tell.....

A Contract is nothing but words on a page that with the right agreement of change of words and exchange of money or properties , anything can happen and often does happen.

AKK

If anybody is gonna break that contract...it's gonna be Comcast.

Disney has shown little desire to do significant additions to the park offerings in Orlando...which means they arent eager to get the shovels going.

And by "significant"...I mean of sufficient quality and frequency befitting the name on the marquee...not rationed and with an upcharge

 

[Planogirl]

I go to Tokyo...for the true Disney quality experience, the ironic part is that Disney doesn't own it, but these non-Disney parks do Disney better than Disney does....no respirator required

Next trip: November

I worry that Universal is doing Marvel better right now than Disney Orlando would. And that is with a firm belief that Universal could do a lot better themselves.

But then I'm picking on poor old Disney again...

 

[gsimpson]

I doubt the Universal/Marvel contract will change anytime soon, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind, while Disney doesn't have to invest much to make the royalties, they also have a desire to simply clone attractions across their parks instead of investing in a unique attraction, not being able to spread the R & D across more parks is a hit. Universal also seems to like to clone attractions both at its Hollywood park as well as its international outposts (Simpsons, Kong, Harry Potter...), guess what, can't clone a Marvel attraction at any of those so they can't amortize any of those expenses across multiple properties. They are locked into a single property while Disney is locked out of a single property. From what has been printed in business mags Comcast doesn't pay a huge amount in royalties for the attractions, but the bulk of the profits from merchandise goes to Disney in the form of royalties, which the Comcast CEO doesn't much like. Other than Spider-man when was the last time Uni invested in a Marvel attraction? It seems to me that Spider-man was built around 2005/6. They don't seem all that interested in expanding their Marvel Super Hero Island. As far as exchanging billions of dollars, a number which would be ludicrous, there are other transactions that could be brought into the equation. Comcast's main cash cow is their cable TV business, other Disney properties (ESPN, Disney Channel, and all the other channels that Disney owns outright of a portion of) could be used as bargaining chips for a "mutually acceptable" winding down of the Universal/Marvel relationship. If it were to ever end, I can't imagine it would just go away over night, they would probably rehab the rides over a period of time into other comparable themes. I am not saying any of this is happening or happening soon but in all likelyhood neither company is thrilled with the arrangement and at some point they will want to disentangle their financial goals from one another.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I worry that Universal is doing Marvel better right now than Disney Orlando would. And that is with a firm belief that Universal could do a lot better themselves.

But then I'm picking on poor old Disney again...

indeed…remember that vivendi's management of UOR was horrid starting immediately after the opening of IOA. It was shameful…nothing like what we've seen from comcast. Comcast seems to be taking a "oh yeah…we can play" type mentality. And i wonder how things would look if they both had to start now - from scratch - with the same amount of land. I think what would be built honestly wouldn't be that close. But history has given an advantage to the empire that will not/never be overcome.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

If anybody is gonna break that contract...it's gonna be Comcast.

Disney has shown little desire to do significant additions to the park offerings in Orlando...which means they arent eager to get the shovels going.

And by "significant"...I mean of sufficient quality and frequency befitting the name on the marquee...not rationed and with an upcharge

Pl


My criend, I agree with everything you siad.......but times change.....who knows......maybe Iger is ready to cut the leashs and start doing what needs to be done........Disney is certainly able....is iger willing now?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I doubt the Universal/Marvel contract will change anytime soon, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind, while Disney doesn't have to invest much to make the royalties, they also have a desire to simply clone attractions across their parks instead of investing in a unique attraction, not being able to spread the R & D across more parks is a hit. Universal also seems to like to clone attractions both at its Hollywood park as well as its international outposts (Simpsons, Kong, Harry Potter...), guess what, can't clone a Marvel attraction at any of those so they can't amortize any of those expenses across multiple properties. They are locked into a single property while Disney is locked out of a single property. From what has been printed in business mags Comcast doesn't pay a huge amount in royalties for the attractions, but the bulk of the profits from merchandise goes to Disney in the form of royalties, which the Comcast CEO doesn't much like. Other than Spider-man when was the last time Uni invested in a Marvel attraction? It seems to me that Spider-man was built around 2005/6. They don't seem all that interested in expanding their Marvel Super Hero Island. As far as exchanging billions of dollars, a number which would be ludicrous, there are other transactions that could be brought into the equation. Comcast's main cash cow is their cable TV business, other Disney properties (ESPN, Disney Channel, and all the other channels that Disney owns outright of a portion of) could be used as bargaining chips for a "mutually acceptable" winding down of the Universal/Marvel relationship. If it were to ever end, I can't imagine it would just go away over night, they would probably rehab the rides over a period of time into other comparable themes. I am not saying any of this is happening or happening soon but in all likelyhood neither company is thrilled with the arrangement and at some point they will want to disentangle their financial goals from one another.

you have a point…but i would counter that the marvel island attractions are not anything mind blowing with the exception of spiderman - at that is really just recognition of the ingenuity - not a once in a lifetime thrill. So why would they wish to clone these? Hulk was awesome in 1999…but it more in the pack as a straight scream machine now.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Pl


My criend, I agree with everything you siad.......but times change.....who knows......maybe Iger is ready to cut the leashs and start doing what needs to be done........Disney is certainly able....is iger willing now?

ok…stop, take a deep breath, and read what you wrote…

why would an overtanned sitcom guy who is being lauded as a genius and who's stock is through the roof have a "change of heart"? and who's going to "retire"…which is supposed to be a couple years away - but i feel like the parachute could be pulled at the first sign of trouble and loss of equity in his tax free options.

 

[ChrisFL]

I doubt the Universal/Marvel contract will change anytime soon, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind, while Disney doesn't have to invest much to make the royalties, they also have a desire to simply clone attractions across their parks instead of investing in a unique attraction, not being able to spread the R & D across more parks is a hit. Universal also seems to like to clone attractions both at its Hollywood park as well as its international outposts (Simpsons, Kong, Harry Potter...), guess what, can't clone a Marvel attraction at any of those so they can't amortize any of those expenses across multiple properties. They are locked into a single property while Disney is locked out of a single property. From what has been printed in business mags Comcast doesn't pay a huge amount in royalties for the attractions, but the bulk of the profits from merchandise goes to Disney in the form of royalties, which the Comcast CEO doesn't much like. Other than Spider-man when was the last time Uni invested in a Marvel attraction? It seems to me that Spider-man was built around 2005/6. They don't seem all that interested in expanding their Marvel Super Hero Island. As far as exchanging billions of dollars, a number which would be ludicrous, there are other transactions that could be brought into the equation. Comcast's main cash cow is their cable TV business, other Disney properties (ESPN, Disney Channel, and all the other channels that Disney owns outright of a portion of) could be used as bargaining chips for a "mutually acceptable" winding down of the Universal/Marvel relationship. If it were to ever end, I can't imagine it would just go away over night, they would probably rehab the rides over a period of time into other comparable themes. I am not saying any of this is happening or happening soon but in all likelyhood neither company is thrilled with the arrangement and at some point they will want to disentangle their financial goals from one another.

Here's a catch though....Universal Osaka has a Spiderman attraction

 

[rteetz]

Here's a catch though....Universal Osaka has a Spiderman attraction

That's a different contract from what I understand and I believe that one does have an expiration date that is approaching. That could be something that disney and OLC look into.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

ok…stop, take a deep breath, and read what you wrote…

why would an overtanned sitcom guy who is being lauded as a genius and who's stock is through the roof have a "change of heart"? and who's going to "retire"…which is supposed to be a couple years away - but i feel like the parachute could be pulled at the first sign of trouble and loss of equity in his tax free options.

Lol...I am just a optimist.....

ok…stop, take a deep breath, and read what you wrote…

why would an overtanned sitcom guy who is being lauded as a genius and who's stock is through the roof have a "change of heart"? and who's going to "retire"…which is supposed to be a couple years away - but i feel like the parachute could be pulled at the first sign of trouble and loss of equity in his tax free options.

I am just being a optimist my friend.....your right is what your saying...ige4 has disappoint us soany times during the last few years I am just hoping




AKK

 

[DanBoris]

That's a different contract from what I understand and I believe that one does have an expiration date that is approaching. That could be something that disney and OLC look into.

I have heard that the Japan contract runs out sometime in the 2020's, haven't found anything more specific. Japan only has the Spiderman ride and not a whole area themed to Marvel, so they could easily re-theme the ride if the contract doesn't get renewed.

 

[Shamus]

....... Disney has NO REASON to break that Marvel contract…none. There's just no way to explain this in terms that are anymore clear. .....

So anchoring or co-anchoring a Resort or a 5th Gate around the Marvel theme would not be a reason?

Note: I am not saying that such expansions do or do not make sense and cents, but rather that there are reasons I could see them wanting the rights.

 

[wallrock]

So anchoring or co-anchoring a Resort or a 5th Gate around the Marvel theme would not be a reason?

Note: I am not saying that such expansions do or do not make sense and cents, but rather that there are reasons I could see them wanting the rights.

Getting a fifth park makes sense from a guest’s perspective but not from Disney’s. We all want to see new and cool things in the parks, or even a brand new park, but as long as the money is flowing in there’s no motivation to build it.

Remember it’s always about the money, which we all know drives change – for better or worse – in the parks. It’s the one and only reason that is used to make any decision.

To do what you propose involves a substantial cost. They would have to go through whatever hoops are present to get Comcast out of the agreement, and most likely have them replace their Marvel related material because there can’t be any competition from the folks up the highway. And that has to be done before you can even break ground on the foundation.

The reason would kick in if attendance and revenue started to drop, but right now they can close an attraction, thereby cutting operational expenses, and still charge the same price with people knocking down the door to get in. Until that changes there's no reason to disrupt the status quo.