Halloween Horror Nights 2020 Speculation Thread

DJIndy49

Rookie
Jul 10, 2017
209
Two things I will never believe no matter how many people say that they are true:

1. HHN was going to get Game of Thrones and 2. Universal pulled The Conjuring because they were afraid of the lawsuit.

Edit: If John tells me to my face or writes it in a reputable publication... then I will beleive it and admit I was wrong.
 

DJIndy49

Rookie
Jul 10, 2017
209
...he's openly tweeted about it
I am a pretty regular follower of both Johns twitter acccounts and can't recall ever seeing him say 1. Yes The Conjuring was pulled because of a lawsuit and 2. Yup we could have had Game of Thrones.

Post the tweets and I will gladly fall in line.
 

Chris Galindo

Veteran Member
Feb 22, 2015
2,141
LA
I am a pretty regular follower of both Johns twitter acccounts and can't recall ever seeing him say 1. Yes The Conjuring was pulled because of a lawsuit and 2. Yup we could have had Game of Thrones.

Post the tweets and I will gladly fall in line.
In reference to the Conjuring, hes never been open about GoT though. I believe it was something along the lines of them having the opportunity but it was snatched at the last minute.
 

DJIndy49

Rookie
Jul 10, 2017
209
In reference to the Conjuring, hes never been open about GoT though. I believe it was something along the lines of them having the opportunity but it was snatched at the last minute.
And then when pressed about why it was snatched he has always said the answer is "boring". I don't doubt that the Conjuring was on the slate. I think at the last minute WB decided to do their own thing and wanted the Conjuring as part of it.
 
Oct 9, 2016
673
And then when pressed about why it was snatched he has always said the answer is "boring". I don't doubt that the Conjuring was on the slate. I think at the last minute WB decided to do their own thing and wanted the Conjuring as part of it.
I mean that theory would hold water if Nightmare on Elm Street was also pulled from our event, since it was a part of theirs, especially since Nightmare on Elm Street was part of what replaced Conjuring to begin with.
 

rageofthegods

Veteran Member
Sep 10, 2017
1,669
I mean that theory would hold water if Nightmare on Elm Street was also pulled from our event, since it was a part of theirs, especially since Nightmare on Elm Street was part of what replaced Conjuring to begin with.
I think that had more to do with us still owning the license to Freddy v. Jason for a little while. Notice that in the Titans of Terror trailer, all the clips for Freddy were from FvJ.

My impression was that that was a long term contract (like, 3 years), hence why it showed up for three years in a row. The license for the rest of the franchise was still lying around for Warner to use.

Though if we're being fair, I also vaguely recall IT being brought up as a possible replacement to the Conjuring, and that's another Warner property.
 

Legacy

Veteran Member
Jul 27, 2015
5,303
Two things I will never believe no matter how many people say that they are true:

1. HHN was going to get Game of Thrones and 2. Universal pulled The Conjuring because they were afraid of the lawsuit.

Edit: If John tells me to my face or writes it in a reputable publication... then I will beleive it and admit I was wrong.
And then when pressed about why it was snatched he has always said the answer is "boring". I don't doubt that the Conjuring was on the slate. I think at the last minute WB decided to do their own thing and wanted the Conjuring as part of it.
Universal received a Cease and Desist from using the Conjuring, that stemmed from the lawsuit filed against Warner Bros.
 

Brian G.

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 21, 2008
19,755
Orlando, FL
And then when pressed about why it was snatched he has always said the answer is "boring". I don't doubt that the Conjuring was on the slate. I think at the last minute WB decided to do their own thing and wanted the Conjuring as part of it.
Yeah, that's not how agreements work. Universal and WB have a very good working relationship. WB pulling out like that would give Universal a lot of ammo to sue them for breach of contract.
 

DJIndy49

Rookie
Jul 10, 2017
209
Yeah, that's not how agreements work. Universal and WB have a very good working relationship. WB pulling out like that would give Universal a lot of ammo to sue them for breach of contract.
Universal received a Cease and Desist from using the Conjuring, that stemmed from the lawsuit filed against Warner Bros.
One way or another if it was pulled AFTER the contract was signed WB is in breach.

A cease and desist that would hold water can only come from two parties, the rights holders (WB) or the plaintiffs in the case. The plaintiffs would have no reason to send a cease and desist, let the rights be used and then tack any potential lost income on to the lawsuit. If WB sent the cease and desist then why would they then use the property at their own event?
 

Legacy

Veteran Member
Jul 27, 2015
5,303
One way or another if it was pulled AFTER the contract was signed WB is in breach.

A cease and desist that would hold water can only come from two parties, the rights holders (WB) or the plaintiffs in the case. The plaintiffs would have no reason to send a cease and desist, let the rights be used and then tack any potential lost income on to the lawsuit. If WB sent the cease and desist then why would they then use the property at their own event?
Different years.

2017 - Universal has an agreement to use Conjuring. During the summer, the lawsuit is filed resulting in the Cease and Desist. Usage would only be for 2017.
2018 - WB uses Conjuring at their own event, preventing licensing to third parties (Universal).
2019 - WB doesn't license out their "big" IPs when Universal typically locks their properties (Q1-Q2) because of the uncertainty surrounding HMH.
2020 - ????
 

DJIndy49

Rookie
Jul 10, 2017
209
Different years.

2017 - Universal has an agreement to use Conjuring. During the summer, the lawsuit is filed resulting in the Cease and Desist. Usage would only be for 2017.
2018 - WB uses Conjuring at their own event, preventing licensing to third parties (Universal).
2019 - WB doesn't license out their "big" IPs when Universal typically locks their properties (Q1-Q2) because of the uncertainty surrounding HMH.
2020 - ????
Wrong. The Conjuring WAS used at Horror Made Here 2017.
 

Brian G.

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 21, 2008
19,755
Orlando, FL
One way or another if it was pulled AFTER the contract was signed WB is in breach.

A cease and desist that would hold water can only come from two parties, the rights holders (WB) or the plaintiffs in the case. The plaintiffs would have no reason to send a cease and desist, let the rights be used and then tack any potential lost income on to the lawsuit. If WB sent the cease and desist then why would they then use the property at their own event?
You're just assuming the plaintiff wouldn't because it "anchors" your point. C&D is essentially a warning. The plaintiff felt he owned the rights to Ed and Lorraine Warren's story and their experiences dealing with the paranormal - aka what The Conjuring Universe was doing. Universal was a third party and their involvement was incidental. Plaintiff sends the C&D to back off and you're off the hook.

As far as a breach is concerned - A breach wouldn't occur if WB felt Universal intended to create a notably inferior product; or misrepresent the property. Another out is a mutual agreement between the 2 parties. In this case, it was an ongoing legal battle. WB is already involved in the legal suit, so using it in 2017's event is just house money at that point. Universal would have more to lose if they got involved, C&D or not, so they cut their losses and pivoted to Hive/Titans of Terror.

Wrong. The Conjuring WAS used at Horror Made Here 2017.
He never stated it wasn't. The difference is that 2017 was a smaller scale, walkthrough attraction - more akin to a showcase; whereas 2018 was WB's attempt to come to bat as actual competition. Agreements usually tend to go year to year, so when 2018 came around, WB said 'Nope".

You don't allow a good-standing partner to invest all this time, money, and resources to create a quality product of your property to turn around and say "You know what? Nevermind. We're doing our own thing". A good-standing partner also wouldn't let that fly. Considering WB and Universal still work together and continue to add new experiences (Death Eaters, Creepshow) and seeing how there's been nothing about any pushback, lawsuit, etc between the two, it stands to reason your thought process about the situation is not exactly sound.
 

DJIndy49

Rookie
Jul 10, 2017
209
Reread Legacy's timeline, he most assuredly said the cease and desist and WB's use of The Conjuring at their event were different years. 2017 and 18's version of The Conjuring were damn near identical.
 
Oct 9, 2016
673
For the record, Universal dropping it because of a C&D also makes a lot of sense considering Universal is infamously really scared of getting sued, even though in this case they likely would have been ok since WB was ok when using it at Horror Made Here that year, but because universal was so scared of being sued they chose to drop it rather than taking the risk.
 

Legacy

Veteran Member
Jul 27, 2015
5,303
Reread Legacy's timeline, he most assuredly said the cease and desist and WB's use of The Conjuring at their event were different years. 2017 and 18's version of The Conjuring were damn near identical.
Universal's usage was only 2017. It's WB's property. They don't need usage limited usage rights because they're owned in perpetuity.