Guardians of the Galaxy Disney Attraction?

[captainmoch]

I briefly researched GotG and it seems there might be a way Disney could do this if Universal's Marvel contract has a date clause beginning in 97/98. While the IP's title dates from 1969 comics, it was apparently completely rewritten with new characters in 2008. The movie characters are based on the 2008 space version. It only becomes dicey with the title itself perhaps, but otherwise, not sure what to say.

So don't ever think I don't research an argument against myself.

They've already appeared in WDW multiple times; the Villains Unleashed meet and greet and the movie preview being the most prominent. So they definately can use GOTG.

 

[Scott W.]

They've already appeared in WDW multiple times; the Villains Unleashed meet and greet and the movie preview being the most prominent. So they definately can use GOTG.

Was there not something where they wanted to show previews of the film at EPCOT with '4D' seats bit this would be classified as a ride and it couldn't be done? Thinking about that, it could have been for another Marvel film.

Here's the contract for anybody wanting a refresher:

Marvel Agreement between MCA Inc. and Marvel Entertainment Group

 

[Mad Dog]

I briefly researched GotG and it seems there might be a way Disney could do this if Universal's Marvel contract has a date clause beginning in 97/98. While the IP's title dates from 1969 comics, it was apparently completely rewritten with new characters in 2008. The movie characters are based on the 2008 space version. It only becomes dicey with the title itself perhaps, but otherwise, not sure what to say.

So don't ever think I don't research an argument against myself.

I could see you in a courtroom. First you're the prosecuting attorney, then you walk into the back room, change your suit coat and put a false mustache on, and come back out as the defense attorney.... Teebin multi tasking.

 

[GadgetGuru]

DCA - I could see this happening. It's valuable real estate near the rumored Marvel land.
DHS - I really can't. Just because Rock N' Roller Coaster has a far more outdated theme, would work better, and because there isn't a RRC in DCA. Plus, all of a sudden we have unique attractions on either coast and Disney gets to show that they aren't notorious for clones.

 

[Mad Dog]

Just finished reading the Magic thread. 11 pages last night and 13 more now. It's a tough read because there's so much hostility voiced, and deservedly so. Two things. Spirit, though I don't particularly care for some of his antics & ways, is usually pretty right on with Disney info (though his Universal track record is quite poor). And most important his info on this is basically backed up by Marni, a very respected Insider with a good track record on both Disney & Universal. My guess is this info was released to them by WDW execs. that can see what a poor decision it is, and want to get the word out before finalization (just my guess on this though). Kind of summarizing with some of today's more recent quotes, Spirit said, "This is not Blue Sky. This is in the development pipeline....this is a Chapek project and comes from his desire to get Marvel product in the parks as quickly as possible". Marni said, "I had heard the knives were out on Sunset (Blvd.) Either Tower or RnRC".....and here's Marni's best quote "Nothing more to add then what's been said. It could happen. Lunatics are running the asylum. Sad. Sad. Sad"........And remember, Chapek's background is in retail, so that makes his position with Marvel product even more believable. He's not a theme park guy. In fact, I'd be interested in if how many times he's been in a park without an official entourage. And this is all tied in with all of those other cost cutting moves going on that we've talked about in that other thread, according to Spirit.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Just finished reading the Magic thread. 11 pages last night and 13 more now.

Pleases, you're among friends here, don't do this to yourself.

 

[Mad Dog]

Pleases, you're among friends here, don't do this to yourself.

It's the masochism in me. I flail my back with barbed leather straps after reading one of Spirit's or Photo Dave's threads.

 

[graspthesun]

From my understanding of how things have gone down, Disney can use GotG and market it as "Guardians of the Galaxy", but they are barred from marketing it as "Marvel's Guardian's of the Galaxy."

 

[WAJAS]

Also, law normally pertains to groups and organizations as they were at the time the legalize was written. As in, the Marvel-Universal contract mentions Marvel, but that only applies to Marvel properties existing prior to the time the contract was written.

This may be adding more muck to the pile but hope this adds something.

 

[fryoj]

The contract specifically gives Uni rights to future Marvel characters. It also ties rights to characters to hero families and villains. GOTG has been involved with X-men, spiderman, and avengers in comics. They are clearly looking to tie them to the Avengers in the upcoming movies. Granted, the legal issues have some vagueness to them, but I just don't see how they can use GOTG at WDW if Uni says no.

 

[ynnoj]

Is it April 1 already? :saywhat:

 

[ThreePack Shagur]

So after seeing these rumor posts this morning I decided to give one of my friends at the house that Jack and Stan built a call so we could laugh it off.

He wasn't laughing. This has legs.

Seems to be rooted in Disney wanting to end payments to Viacom as a cost-cutting measure. Their licensing deal gives them a cut of gate admissions and once these expansions are done they don't want to give them a dime of it. Take that as you will.

 

[Mad Dog]

Marvel constantly through the years has added, cancelled, re born, redone characters & books/titles and interspersed them through the universe in myriad ways. It's been so confusing at times in the past that sometimes new writers would misrepresent the character's previous history. That said, grasp the sun's post seems closest to the situation the GOTG are in, though there might be a character whose use is argued over.

 

[Mad Dog]

So after seeing these rumor posts this morning I decided to give one of my friends at the house that Jack and Stan built a call so we could laugh it off.

He wasn't laughing. This has legs.

Seems to be rooted in Disney wanting to end payments to Viacom as a cost-cutting measure. Their licensing deal gives them a cut of gate admissions and once these expansions are done they don't want to give them a dime of it. Take that as you will.

Yeah, that point was mentioned on that thread also. I love that Marvel reference, the House that Jack and Stan built. Though I'd think Stan Lee (also writing as Larry Leiber sometimes) would strongly object to his name being posted second to Kirby's. And, the way Disney operates now, their philosophical penny wise pound foolish solution sounds somewhat feasible.

 

[JungleSkip]

So after seeing these rumor posts this morning I decided to give one of my friends at the house that Jack and Stan built a call so we could laugh it off.

He wasn't laughing. This has legs.

Seems to be rooted in Disney wanting to end payments to Viacom as a cost-cutting measure. Their licensing deal gives them a cut of gate admissions and once these expansions are done they don't want to give them a dime of it. Take that as you will.

Throwing away dollars to chase pennies

 

[Mad Dog]

Throwing away dollars to chase pennies

Wow, we posted the same comment simultaneously.

 

[Brian G.]

Well this is certainly a lot to digest...

GotG is the only the Marvel property Disney could possibly take advantage of and they want to waste it with a overlay on what's considered a top 3 attraction? Not to mention they'll have a very similar IP with Star Wars right down the block....

I just can't.

I would laugh it off as a farce, but others are saying it's a substantial claim. Wonder if it's a leak flush?

 

[Hockeyman55]

Uncovered some early concept artwork for Guardians of the Galaxy Tower of Terror layover.

 

[IzzyB]

So after seeing these rumor posts this morning I decided to give one of my friends at the house that Jack and Stan built a call so we could laugh it off.

He wasn't laughing. This has legs.

Seems to be rooted in Disney wanting to end payments to Viacom as a cost-cutting measure. Their licensing deal gives them a cut of gate admissions and once these expansions are done they don't want to give them a dime of it. Take that as you will.

So they want the current IP to go away. Fine, but I could see a thousand different ways to go on this one that don't involve an IP that has nothing to do with hotels or elevators. Change it, but don't go this direction. This is just silly and makes zero sense. I am hoping they see this backlash and decide a new direction.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

It's my understanding CBS/Viacomm doesn't get a cut of the gate. Also an understanding that if this does happen then Universal will step in (at WDW of course). I imagine this is a rumor flush and/or hasn't been passed by legal yet.