The State of Epcot

[Ryan]

I don't think anyone has doubted that the Guardians would be in Infinity War. I know I certainly have expected it since announced.... and yet I still think GotG has a chance at Epcot. We have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors and we also aren't the best legal analysts in the business. Maybe Disney has reason to believe that the movie doesn't matter.

Literally the only way for this attraction to exist now is for Disney to have made a deal with Universal. That's literally it, if you've read the contract.

And I'm not going to hop on that long-chugging conspiracy train just because someone at Magic says so.

I say this because many people are jumping on immediately saying this is the theme of the attraction and guiding their opinions as such. I've had a lot of people tell me while the coaster is true, the IP is not. Take that for what you will, but it makes more sense than Disney trying to broker a deal for GotG in a perputity rights contract. The IP is not that massive.

 

[Nick]

Literally the only way for this attraction to exist now is for Disney to have made a deal with Universal. That's literally it, if you've read the contract.

And I'm not going to hop on that long-chugging conspiracy train just because someone at Magic says so.

I say this because many people are jumping on immediately saying this is the theme of the attraction and guiding their opinions as such. I've had a lot of people tell me while the coaster is true, the IP is not. Take that for what you will, but it makes more sense than Disney trying to broker a deal for GotG in a perputity rights contract. The IP is not that massive.

And that's totally believable.

I've never 100% believed GotG is coming (i'm actually very skeptical - basically i'd believe it when I see it). I can definitely see the coaster part being true and just not the IP with it.

 

[SeventyOne]

We have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors

Uhm, if we don't, and publicly traded companies are making backroom deals and not disclosing them, then a lot of people from TWDC and Comcast will be going to jail.

and we also aren't the best legal analysts in the business.

Speak for yourself, amirite @ReelJustice?

 

[SeventyOne]

Literally the only way for this attraction to exist now is for Disney to have made a deal with Universal. That's literally it, if you've read the contract.

Whether or not the Guardians appear in Avengers:Infinity War or not is immaterial--the ride can exist either way. The movies have no effect on the contract. [Excepting the whole issue of Drax, who's the odd duck here. So let's just assume Drax is left out of the ride.]

However, whether or not they appear in a movie, Disney still cannot (1) use the word "Marvel" in naming it or (2) advertise the ride anywhere from Atlanta to Miami. THAT is the major stumbling block here.

 

[Nick]

Uhm, if we don't, and publicly traded companies are making backroom deals and not disclosing them, then a lot of people from TWDC and Comcast will be going to jail.



Speak for yourself, amirite @ReelJustice?

I was simply speaking with the assumption that GotG won't be going into Epcot, but not counting it out completely.

I don't ever like to 100% discount something from being a possibility.

Whether or not the Guardians appear in Avengers:Infinity War or not is immaterial--the ride can exist either way. The movies have no effect on the contract. [Excepting the whole issue of Drax, who's the odd duck here. So let's just assume Drax is left out of the ride.]

However, whether or not they appear in a movie, Disney still cannot (1) use the word "Marvel" in naming it or (2) advertise the ride anywhere from Atlanta to Miami. THAT is the major stumbling block here.

I've always understood that the movies don't effect the contract as well, which is why I still think there is a chance that small chance it happens.

 

[Ryan]

Whether or not the Guardians appear in Avengers:Infinity War or not is immaterial--the ride can exist either way. The movies have no effect on the contract. [Excepting the whole issue of Drax, who's the odd duck here. So let's just assume Drax is left out of the ride.

Time to bring out the article: That Darn Marvel Contract - What Rights Does Universal and Disney Own « Orlando United

"East of The Mississippi – any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility;"

The contract never actually states that only the comic books matter. Marvel films did exist, albiet in rare form, back in the 90s so I can't possibly imagine any lawyer actually stating this only applies to certain aspects. Once you dip your chip into the Avengers "family" (by joining them), that's it. No Guardians in Epcot.

(for the record, I'm glad this discussion is actually occuring rather than the blind, non-skeptical faith of some other forums)

EDIT: what insane timing, Robert Niles is here to chime on our discussion as well! Can Walt Disney World really make a Guardians of the Galaxy theme park ride?

 

[Mr. EPCOT]

Yeah, that was kind of what Innoventions was and I enjoyed it periodically. But I take it that they have shut most of that down now? :saywhat:

And it's really only even been Innoventions in name only since about 2005 or so when they obviously started accepting any sponsor who was willing to foot the bill for exhibit space, when we started getting things like Where's the Fire, the Great Piggy Bank Adventure, and Habit Heroes.

I always thought the Epcot attractions were designed so they could be updated for future stuff. Almost all the original pavilions followed the same basic storyline - past, present and then the future. Usually the past/present was fleshed out with AAs and sets, but the future stuff was either film (Energy, Seas) or exhibits (Motion, Lans). The exception were Imagination (not really about the future) and Horizons, which used AAs and sets for the future sequences. So the updates basically would have consisted of updating a film or swapping out exhibits.

Exactly! That was the plan. I think there was unfortunately just a perfect storm of problems in the 1990s, that shifted the park away from that plan, like the company's ever-increasing fetishes for celebrities, thrill rides, and IPs, Eisner getting burned by EuroDisney and losing his ambition for the parks division, the huge leap in computer technology all at once, etc. I honestly believe if they had just stuck to their guns on the plan, it would have worked out great.

 

[ReelJustice]

EDIT: what insane timing, Robert Niles is here to chime on our discussion as well! Can Walt Disney World really make a Guardians of the Galaxy theme park ride?

I am actually shocked that he is taking this stance. Death knell IMO.

 

[ReelJustice]

Speak for yourself, amirite @ReelJustice?

:thumbsup:

 

[brianlo]

So we're not going to mention this again? Guardians of the Galaxy will crossover with Avengers in Infinity War | News | Culture | The Independent

Let me guess: the WDW Magic folks are crying loophole or some other BS?

Maybe, I dunno, this is just me: it's not GotG?

It is not retroactive. If Disney decides to add Luke and Rey to Infinity Wars 2.0 through some magical Iger Synergy extravaganza... they don't lose the theme park rights to Star Wars, nor can Universal add Jedi to the Spiderman ride.

What Disney is doing with the Marvel Cinematic Universe today has no bearing on the contract Marvel made with its Cinematic Action Universe 20 years ago.

That's not to say you can't be right about the ultimate outcome! However, I just want to illustrate this particular development doesn't add anything for or against the rights.

 

[Ryan]

It is not retroactive. If Disney decides to add Luke and Rey to Infinity Wars 2.0 through some magical Iger Synergy extravaganza... they don't lose the theme park rights to Star Wars, nor can Universal add Jedi to the Spiderman ride.

What Disney is doing with the Marvel Cinematic Universe today has no bearing on the contract Marvel made with its Cinematic Action Universe 20 years ago.

That's not to say you can't be right about the ultimate outcome! However, I just want to illustrate this particular development doesn't add anything for or against the rights.

What are you talking about? Disney OWNS Star Wars, not the rights. They can do whatever the hell they want with it now! The difference is that nobody else owns the theme park rights, and that Star Wars did not originate as a Marvel property.

As for the contract, it is retroactive because the contract is not saying they own the rights to Marvel "to date", but all in "perpetuity". That means forever, and anything that Marvel produces, Universal has the theme park rights to east of the Mississippi no matter who owns it. If the MCU didn't apply, don't you think they would be all over the parks in WDW? They're not because Disney can't.

 

[brianlo]

What are you talking about? Disney OWNS Star Wars, not the rights. They can do whatever the hell they want with it now! The difference is that nobody else owns the theme park rights, and that Star Wars did not originate as a Marvel property.

As for the contract, it is retroactive because the contract is not saying they own the rights to Marvel "to date", but all in "perpetuity". That means forever, and anything that Marvel produces, Universal has the theme park rights to east of the Mississippi no matter who owns it. If the MCU didn't apply, don't you think they would be all over the parks in WDW? They're not because Disney can't.

I'm not sure how I managed to lose you so much.

But I've highlighted the point I was trying to make. Star Wars did not originate as a Marvel property, did GotG originate as an Avengers property? That's the only question that matters. Not did it become an Avengers property the MCU, but did it originate as one.

 

[Ryan]

It originated as a Marvel property, that's all that matters, because Universal owns the rights to those within those families. Once GotG joins The Avengers, that suddenly becomes a Marvel property that is part of that "family", as the legal language designates. The MCU is totally fair game and able to be used by Universal, and thus that counts.

I don't see how this is so hard? Why do people really want a Guardians ride at Epcot this much to search for any loopholes?

 

[Nick]

It originated as a Marvel property, that's all that matters, because Universal owns the rights to those within those families. Once GotG joins The Avengers, that suddenly becomes a Marvel property that is part of that "family", as the legal language designates. The MCU is totally fair game and able to be used by Universal, and thus that counts.

I don't see how this is so hard? Why do people really want a Guardians ride at Epcot this much to search for any loopholes?

Not many people want a GotG ride at Epcot at all. In fact, if you go to the thread over at Magic which you seem to reference a lot, they are pretty damn down on the idea of GotG in FW and harp on how much it would ruin theme.

Just because someone is looking through the contract and trying to see if it is or is not possible (which isn't a crazy thing to do given rumors) doesn't mean that they are pixie dusters. It means they want to try and gather facts before coming to a conclusion.

I guarantee GotG won't see the light of day in Epcot, but as long as there are rumors, people will talk.

 

[SkiBum]

Not many people want a GotG ride at Epcot at all. In fact, if you go to the thread over at Magic which you seem to reference a lot, they are pretty damn down on the idea of GotG in FW and harp on how much it would ruin theme.

Just because someone is looking through the contract and trying to see if it is or is not possible (which isn't a crazy thing to do given rumors) doesn't mean that they are pixie dusters. It means they want to try and gather facts before coming to a conclusion.

I guarantee GotG won't see the light of day in Epcot, but as long as there are rumors, people will talk.

I really hope that you're right but I also hope that Disney develops a plan for the park rather than letting it stagnate. While many reason exist for the lowered attendance, I still believe that a stagnant park status is one of those reasons. Giving me a MagicBand doesn't reward me enough to keep coming back. Also, the Brazilian economy won't be getting better anytime soon.

The funny thing about most of this is that Disney does not care about the fans of Disney, who make up a minority set. If WDW management thinks that it will sell tickets, they will implement it but not without first stripping it down to its barest bones, allowing WDI to go way over budget, having massive delays, and finally rolling out a substandard product that can't handle the lines. Based on various comments, I could see them taking UoE out and installing a wine-tasting booth with a meet-n-greet with an actor wearing a grape costume. They will then get sued by Fruit of the Loom.

 

[rioriz]

unfortunately its looking like Chappie wants GotG in WDW come hell or high water and I'd rather it be in Epcot over the other alternative.....

 

[SkiBum]

unfortunately its looking like Chappie wants GotG in WDW come hell or high water and I'd rather it be in Epcot over the other alternative.....

"It belongs in a museum" <Indiana Jone>. Actually, it belongs in DHS. I want EPCOT to start being updated but this is just such a square peg/round hole fit. Although, if you use a heavy enough hammer, you can make it fit.

I've already stated how I think that they should rebuild EPCOT. To ease the costs, they could plan on opening a new ride in FW every two years. After the first two to three rides go in, they can review attendance figures and rider counts to determine if it is working. They could then decide whether to keep going. Plan, Do, Check, Adjust.

If I were WDW, I'd have everyone scan their Magic Bands when boarding a ride, regardless of FP+. Then, I'd know which rides were popular and re-rides. They may already have this capability through some sensing device that I don't know about.

 

[Ryan]

Not many people want a GotG ride at Epcot at all. In fact, if you go to the thread over at Magic which you seem to reference a lot, they are pretty damn down on the idea of GotG in FW and harp on how much it would ruin theme.

Just because someone is looking through the contract and trying to see if it is or is not possible (which isn't a crazy thing to do given rumors) doesn't mean that they are pixie dusters. It means they want to try and gather facts before coming to a conclusion.

I guarantee GotG won't see the light of day in Epcot, but as long as there are rumors, people will talk.

But there is an ironclad contract. That's law, and something that has been slaved over quite a bit.

So let's cut thru the BS: you guys trust Marni and don't think he would lie, and are sticking up for his word. And I don't think he's lying! He's just most likely getting half-correct information, he even said this was a possibility on Magic. But contract law does not lie: unless there is a deal with TWDC and Comcast about GotG theme park rights, which due to them being publicaly traded companies we would hear about, there is no way this specific attraction can exist. Could this happen? Yeah, I think it might but the deal would be quite significant for something as possibly flimsy as the Guardians IP, which has been only popular in its exact state for 2 years.

Now you can argue against that, but the contract itself has been long dissected and would take a lot of legal pummeling and twisting to get anything out of it. It's easier just to make a deal, it's that solid. If they could twist things around then things would've sprung up at WDW long ago. Instead there's proof of the opposite: Big Hero 6 was fully separated from Marvel Studios and in look and concept. You can immediately make the argument that this is "Disney's Big Hero 6" and not "Marvel's Big Hero 6", which is a "separate" property. But GotG is "Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy", no getting around that. And they're joining "Marvel's The Avengers" in 2 years. So with BH6, Disney made a concious effort to separate it and that's why the Baymax M&G exists. Hell, what if BH6 was the coaster? (totally unfounded speculation here)

That would be a legal, easy way to take advantage of a "Marvel" property that ties into the theme of Future World. Hell, Chapek can even have a nice big gift shop full of sellable Baymax plush. That's way easier than GotG. Not sure why Disney would even bother.

 

[Nick]

But there is an ironclad contract. That's law, and something that has been slaved over quite a bit.

So let's cut thru the BS: you guys trust Marni and don't think he would lie, and are sticking up for his word. And I don't think he's lying! He's just most likely getting half-correct information, he even said this was a possibility on Magic. But contract law does not lie: unless there is a deal with TWDC and Comcast about GotG theme park rights, which due to them being publicaly traded companies we would hear about, there is no way this specific attraction can exist. Could this happen? Yeah, I think it might but the deal would be quite significant for something as possibly flimsy as the Guardians IP, which has been only popular in its exact state for 2 years.

Now you can argue against that, but the contract itself has been long dissected and would take a lot of legal pummeling and twisting to get anything out of it. It's easier just to make a deal, it's that solid. If they could twist things around then things would've sprung up at WDW long ago. Instead there's proof of the opposite: Big Hero 6 was fully separated from Marvel Studios and in look and concept. You can immediately make the argument that this is "Disney's Big Hero 6" and not "Marvel's Big Hero 6", which is a "separate" property. But GotG is "Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy", no getting around that. And they're joining "Marvel's The Avengers" in 2 years. So with BH6, Disney made a concious effort to separate it and that's why the Baymax M&G exists. Hell, what if BH6 was the coaster? (totally unfounded speculation here)

That would be a legal, easy way to take advantage of a "Marvel" property that ties into the theme of Future World. Hell, Chapek can even have a nice big gift shop full of sellable Baymax plush. That's way easier than GotG. Not sure why Disney would even bother.

I agree with you!

Hell, I even put enough stock into what you said about no GOTG that I asked Martin over there and he said he hadn't heard it but it would make sense with what he's heard.

It's indisputable that even if WDW was somehow able to get away with it, they are toeing a very, very grey line. My point was mostly that rumors are abound. Just because someone is looking at every angle doesn't mean they WANT it to happen, but that they are trying to make sense of it.

 

[Ryan]

unfortunately its looking like Chappie wants GotG in WDW come hell or high water and I'd rather it be in Epcot over the other alternative.....

Chapek needs to have a nap and get over not getting his bottle then