Inside Universal Forums

Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.

Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind - General Discussion

Likelihood that the UoE dinosaurs get moved to our own Primeval World diorama on the MK railroad?

Or maybe some get new homes on CTX at Animal Kingdom?

Or they just throw them all away?
 
Here's the section of the presentation where they talk about the Guardians ride (for those who are interested in hearing the exact quotes):



Tom Fitzgerald claims the ride will still be "very rooted in an Epcot story." We'll see.

They're trying to say the right things, but they need to execute. If this turns out to be nothing but pretty shameless dishonesty (as I'm expecting), I'm going to be angry. I'd much prefer they just be open about changing the direction of Epcot; I wouldn't be happy about it, but at least I'd respect the honesty.
 
Anyone else think maybe interactive darkride parts..?
Martin has said there will be darkride elements before the coaster parts.

Likelihood that the UoE dinosaurs get moved to our own Primeval World diorama on the MK railroad?

Or maybe some get new homes on CTX at Animal Kingdom?

Or they just throw them all away?
It's cheaper just to trash the dinosaurs than to haul them across property, especially in their current state.
 
I am very interested to now know if Universal and Disney made an agreement for a revision of the contract or not.

I have no idea if there has been but I doubt it. Because there is no need for Guardians of the Galaxy. One of the sections of the contract that is frequently overlooked is the "shrinkage" section.

I will quote the relevant sections from the contract which allows for this attraction. If you read the contract you will see that Universal had a 2 year period after IoA opened to decide if they wanted to expand Marvel to other parks. If they did not build anther park the rights were subject to shrinkage.

a. After such 2 year period, MCA’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows:

1. If no action is taken by MCA, such exclusivity shall be limited as follows:

i. 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; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]

ii. West of The Mississippi - any other theme park may use any Marvel characters whether or not used by MCA.

iii. East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

iv. East or West of The Mississippi - The foregoing permitted uses will be subject to the following marketing restrictions:

(a)
If the particular character is used by MCA (as defined above), such character will not be advertised or promoted East of The Mississippi, except by means of national Network buys of television, within printed materials such as brochures, or by print advertisements in periodicals directed to readers more than 300 miles from Orlando; and with regard to any of the foregoing permitted marketing, if the marketing is for a group of theme parks located both East and West of The Mississippi, the marketing shall make abundantly clear that the character only appears in the parks West of The Mississippi and shall not be subject to confusion on such point (such as would occur by visual inclusion of the character in a generic, multipark advertisement subject to a small print explanation of the parks where the character is present).

(b) If the particular character is not used by MCA, such character will not be advertised or promoted by means of (x) spot television buys, billboards, personal appearances, or print advertisements which are (y) viewed, located or primarily directed to persons within 300 miles of Orlando. In other words, regional (i.e. covering a multi-state geographic region) or national television or print media buys, or brochures would not be prohibited within such 300 mile radius.

Basically because Universal failed to build another Marvel world they lost exclusive rights to any character families not being used by IoA. So Disney cannot use Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Avengers, or X-Men. But everything else is fair game. Disney is still prohibited from using the name Marvel.

Plus there are some marketing limitations on Disneyland and Disney World. Disneyland cannot market properties used by Universal Orlando east of the Mississippi except by national advertising. Which should have zero effect on Disneyland since the only marketing they do east of the Mississippi is national.

Disney World cannot do local marketing of any Marvel properties within 300 miles of Orlando. They can do regional marketing covering multiple states, national, etc but they are prohibited from buying billboards in Orlando, and local commercials.
 
From what I understand, Disney and Universal did have talks, but the contract wasn't changed. What was done was clarifying the gray areas and agreeing on who can use what. From what I've heard, both parties walked away quite pleased with the results of the talks.

I'm sure Disney must be pleased if they're building a GOTG ride in Orlando. I wonder what Universal is getting out of it.
 
I'm sure Disney must be pleased if they're building a GOTG ride in Orlando. I wonder what Universal is getting out of it.
My Magic 8 Ball says:
5918be02940dd229d8d7b447f859bbcf.jpg
 
Basically because Universal failed to build another Marvel world they lost exclusive rights to any character families not being used by IoA. So Disney cannot use Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Avengers, or X-Men. But everything else is fair game. Disney is still prohibited from using the name Marvel.

Almost all of the Guardians characters have appeared in Avengers stories, so fall into the Avengers family. Thats where a lot of the uncertainty of this comes from. I don't think there was ever a question of whether Disney could use the "Guardians of the Galaxy" name. Well until they use it in the Infinity War movie. It's how do they do a GOTG ride if they can't use the individual characters. Other posters have said this has been resolved, but it was never an open and shut case.
 
I love this idea. Please make it a RnRc-level coaster. The exterior looks kinda lame, but it has to fit in to the area so I'm fine with it.

Just don't go too far to make the experience "fit in" to EPCOT in order to cater to the people who are holding on to some concept that will never come to fruition. Just make a great ride.

GOTG is a fantastic property and it will be a hit with nearly everyone.
 
Tom Fitzgerald claims the ride will still be "very rooted in an Epcot story." We'll see.

My eyes rolled out of my head and onto the floor on that one. Being meta and using the history of the park as a justification for GotG is lame.

From what I understand, Disney and Universal did have talks, but the contract wasn't changed. What was done was clarifying the gray areas and agreeing on who can use what. From what I've heard, both parties walked away quite pleased with the results of the talks.

I heard something happened too but no specifics.
 
From what I understand, Disney and Universal did have talks, but the contract wasn't changed. What was done was clarifying the gray areas and agreeing on who can use what. From what I've heard, both parties walked away quite pleased with the results of the talks.

This is the best case scenario. Disney win. Universal win. We win. The lawyers lose since they don't get to battle this out for years.
 
Top