Guardians of the Galaxy Disney Attraction?

[Mike S]

A poster and film clip are a far cry from a full blown attraction.

So is a simple advertisement on a Monorail. Or a poster of any of the other Marvel movies that have only ever appeared outside the parks, never inside. Now tell me, why would the Guardians be the only exception?

 

[Stitch_101]

So is a simple advertisement on a Monorail. Or a poster of any other Marvel movie that have only ever appeared outside the parks, never inside. Now tell me, why would the Guardians be the only exception?

Ummmm... I clearly stated in that post you quoted one line from how it could be the exception.

 

[Brian G.]

The point is - it is not so cut and dry as some of you are making it out to be. I've heard some new chatter regarding all this. Can't share yet, but.... it's not that cut and dry.

 

[Mike S]

Ummmm... I clearly stated in that post you quoted one line from how it could be the exception.

I know. I wanted to focus on that one part though, maybe should've just bolded it. What you said otherwise is exactly what was once explained on the "other site." They went over the contract and Disney clearly has the rights to use them. The reason they haven't made an attraction yet should be obvious to anyone.

Spoiler

They're cheap

 

[Stitch_101]

I know. I wanted to focus on that one part though, maybe should've just bolded it. What you said otherwise is exactly what was once explained on the "other site." They went over the contract and Disney clearly has the rights to use them. The reason they haven't made an attraction yet should be obvious to anyone.

First, I'll refer you to BriMan's post.

Second, show me proof that such a thing happened beside hearsay from someone on a forum. Even the best insiders aren't always right.

 

[Clive]

Did we also forget that Guardians of the Galaxy had a preview in the former Sounds Dangerous theater? For months?

They just couldn't brand it as "Marvel."

 

[Nick]

Show me solid facts besides "Spirit says so" and "they had a LIMITED meet and greet," and I'll concede. But that's the thing, you don't have anything beside that. You are pointing out hearsay and circumstantial evidence at best. What I'm pointing out is a LEGALLY binding contract. See the difference?

Like BriMan said before, there are plenty of other insiders that doubt Disney has the rights to use them as well.

I can agree with you on the last part. I sure hope this never happens in WDW. It would be travesty.

Martin and Lee also seem convinced that GotG can be used and both (esp. Marni) are reputable sources.

 

[Nick]

The point is - it is not so cut and dry as some of you are making it out to be. I've heard some new chatter regarding all this. Can't share yet, but.... it's not that cut and dry.

Well, yeah, Universal isn't just going to lay down and watch Disney build a Marvel attraction in Orlando. It also doesn't mean they'd win a court case either.

We'll have to see how this plays out, but if WDW really does get to do a GotG ride, lets all hope that this ToT rumor is bogus.

 

[Scott W.]

Disney say they want GOTG to replace one of their most loved rides, Universal jump at the chance because it could make Disney look bad, Disney then have the rights to use GOTG as a ride no problem and decide to keep TOT and build a stand alone ride.

 

[deathcab4cutie]

The thing is i haven't seen universal have any guardians stuff so maybe they fall outside of the universal contract.Just like how fox has dead-pool and x-men and Sony has spider-man but Disney owns marvel.

 

[SeventyOne]

A reminder that it's entirely possible Disney Legal believe in good faith they have a right to use the GotG characters in WDW ... and Universal Legal has a genuine good faith belief they don't.

Similarly, it's possible Universal suits don't feel like spending money to challenge a one-off meet & greet when they have less than solid legal grounds. The possibility of a full-on ride may make them think differently--at least enough to spend $$ to research obscure comic book history further. Or maybe they're too concerned with Nintendo to care.

Outside of Spidey and Hulk, nothing is cut-and-dried with this contract. When it was drafted, neither side in their wildest dreams imagined a situation like this. If they had, it would have been malpractice not to list out the characters included. Any answer will only come after hours of research and testimony about the comic book industry and the intent of the parties. In other words, there is no definitive right/wrong answer as to whether WDW can build a GotG ride. It's more a game of chicken--will the benefits outweigh the potential cost of being sued and losing?

 

[Nick]

The thing is i haven't seen universal have any guardians stuff so maybe they fall outside of the universal contract.Just like how fox has dead-pool and x-men and Sony has spider-man but Disney owns marvel.

Uni 100% doesn't have Guardians as they were created (the team) after the purchase. However, the individual characters that make up the GotG do have some ties to The Avengers. Not huge in almost every case (except for the villains), but enough for Uni to put together a case. Would they win? eh, I think there would have to be some compromise involved when it really came down to it, and I do think Disney would be able to build a ride in the end.

 

[Nick]

A reminder that it's entirely possible Disney Legal believe in good faith they have a right to use the GotG characters in WDW ... and Universal Legal has a genuine good faith belief they don't.

Similarly, it's possible Universal suits don't feel like spending money to challenge a one-off meet & greet when they have less than solid legal grounds. The possibility of a full-on ride may make them think differently--at least enough to spend $$ to research obscure comic book history further. Or maybe they're too concerned with Nintendo to care.

Outside of Spidey and Hulk, nothing is cut-and-dried with this contract. When it was drafted, neither side in their wildest dreams imagined a situation like this. If they had, it would have been malpractice not to list out the characters included. Any answer will only come after hours of research and testimony about the comic book industry and the intent of the parties. In other words, there is no definitive right/wrong answer as to whether WDW can build a GotG ride. It's more a game of chicken--will the benefits outweigh the potential cost of being sued and losing?

Yup.

Basically it's up to Disney to risk announcing a ride that may end up being contested and taken to court. At that point, it's just time to break out the popcorn and watch it all go down opcorn:

 

[Stitch_101]

Uni 100% doesn't have Guardians as they were created (the team) after the purchase. However, the individual characters that make up the GotG do have some ties to The Avengers. Not huge in almost every case (except for the villains), but enough for Uni to put together a case. Would they win? eh, I think there would have to be some compromise involved when it really came down to it, and I do think Disney would be able to build a ride in the end.

The best chance Universal has of arguing they're control of characters in GoTG universe is The Collector, Drax and Groot. Drax was a major player in the Silver Surfer comic in the early 1990's, Groot was a villain for Hulk, and The Collector's entire history is based in the Avengers which in my mind leaves little doubt that Universal would win that one. Current rumor holds that the attraction would be based on The Collector's base, and if that holds true, that would be Universal's best argument for stopping the retheme.

Yup.

Basically it's up to Disney to risk announcing a ride that may end up being contested and taken to court. At that point, it's just time to break out the popcorn and watch it all go down opcorn:

It'll be interesting, that's for sure!

 

[Nick]

The best chance Universal has of arguing they're control of characters in GoTG universe is The Collector, Drax and Groot. Drax was a major player in the Silver Surfer comic in the early 1990's, Groot was a villain for Hulk, and The Collector's entire history is based in the Avengers which in my mind leaves little doubt that Universal would win that one. Current rumor holds that the attraction would be based on The Collector's base, and if that holds true, that would be Universal's best argument for stopping the retheme.

From what you're saying, it seems like The Collector played the biggest role beforehand. However, since GotG wasn't a thing when Disney purchased Marvel, they could easily argue to just give up the rights to The Collector and do something with everyone else, no?

 

[Stitch_101]

From what you're saying, it seems like The Collector played the biggest role beforehand. However, since GotG wasn't a thing when Disney purchased Marvel, they could easily argue to just give up the rights to The Collector and do something with everyone else, no?

Depending on how confident Universal is in their rights to the other characters as well, it's possible. Like I said earlier, it wouldn't surprise me if we see a trade off between Universal and Disney that benifits them both as far as Marvel is concerned. Universal gives Disney free reign on GoTG (which, when paired with BH6 gives them a nice mini Marvel area of their own that doesn't conflict with IOA) as well as maybe give up the solo Hulk film rights, and in return Disney gives Universal approval to update MSHI to bring it in line with MCU, something that has been rumored for a bit but I've always wondered how Disney/Marvel would ever OK something like that.

 

[deathcab4cutie]

im thinking when uni did the contract they went after the big names.So if that is true then gotg would be allowed in Disney also if true you may see a squirrel girl movie coming.Which would be awesome.

 

[Mike S]

The best chance Universal has of arguing they're control of characters in GoTG universe is The Collector, Drax and Groot. Drax was a major player in the Silver Surfer comic in the early 1990's, Groot was a villain for Hulk, and The Collector's entire history is based in the Avengers which in my mind leaves little doubt that Universal would win that one. Current rumor holds that the attraction would be based on The Collector's base, and if that holds true, that would be Universal's best argument for stopping the retheme.



It'll be interesting, that's for sure!

That's the only argument I see having some real weight here for Uni to use: The Collector. I remember when we first discussed the possibility of GotG in WDW on the "other site" it was made clear that both Ronan and Thanos are definite no go's. If The Collector is as well then that means the only plausible way to redress ToT even though it's still stupid goes out the window as well.

I still believe the fact that Disney was able to actually advertise GotG in the parks extensively unlike any other MCU film has some ground as well.

 

[Stitch_101]

That's the only argument I see having some real weight here for Uni to use: The Collector. I remember when we first discussed the possibility of GotG in WDW on the "other site" it was made clear that both Ronan and Thanos are definite no go's. If The Collector is as well then that means the only plausible way to redress ToT even though it's still stupid goes out the window as well.

I still believe the fact that Disney was able to actually advertise GotG in the parks extensively unlike any other MCU movie has some ground as well.

Well, if such a compromise between Disney and Universal has a chance of being a reality, perhaps in already is reality? I mean, many people are pointing at aspects of the Hulk redo and speculating that it could reflect the MCU when it reopens this year. If it is, that could be a big indicator that Disney has made concessions with Universal over the rights, and could explain Disney's confidence in being able to use GotG in the Orlando parks. This is all just speculation on my part, but it makes some sense.

 

[Nick]

Personally I don't believe this Tot/GotG rumor for one second. Do I think Disney may be angling for a GotG ride at DHS? yes. But I think this was just something released by an imagineer that carries little weight or to try and squash it before it got off the ground.