Guardians of the Galaxy Disney Attraction?

[Brian G.]

Testtrack, I believe, was referring to Bob's comments in the 2016 Annual Shareholders Meeting on March 3rd, in which he said: "The rights that we do not have to Marvel east of the Mississippi and prevent us from doing certain things in Orlando with the Marvel characters and franchises are I believe in perpetuity. There is nothing imminent and there isn't an expiration date." The question Bob was answering asked solely about developments with the Marvel contract, nothing more, nothing less. I'm referring to Bob's interview at the 3rd Annual MoffettNathanson Media and Communications Summit on May 18, 2016 (a more recent date than the comments testtrack was referring to) a transcript as well as audio of the interview is available on the Walt Disney Company Investor Relations website.

He never specifically mentioned Orlando at all during the May 18th conference. Just said "We have concepts for Marvel in our Domestic Parks". Could mean both, could mean one.

As far as the ASM statement, that's looking a bit much into the "certain things" comment.

I'm not saying it's proof it isn't happening, just saying it's not proof that it is.

 

[Brian G.]

Also, online advertising is definitely out. Remember Vinylmation? Disney couldn't use "Marvel's Avengers Box Set" last year to sell the vinyls, it was called "Super Hero Box Set".

 

[DoubleJ]

He never specifically mentioned Orlando at all during the May 18th conference. Just said "We have concepts for Marvel in our Domestic Parks". Could mean both, could mean one.

As far as the ASM statement, that's looking a bit much into the "certain things" comment.

I'm not saying it's proof it isn't happening, just saying it's not proof that it is.

Not saying it's proof either. Just another pointer in the direction. That said, wouldn't domestic parks in the plural be reference to both parks. In context, that "certain" does mean a lot though. Besides, the question asked by the analyst was specifically referring to developments with the contract, not developments in the theme parks.

 

[DoubleJ]

Also, online advertising is definitely out. Remember Vinylmation? Disney couldn't use "Marvel's Avengers Box Set" last year to sell the vinyls, it was called "Super Hero Box Set".

I'm not familiar with it. What does this have to do with online advertising?

 

[Brian G.]

Not saying it's proof either. Just another pointer in the direction. In context, that "certain" does mean a lot though. Besides, the question asked by the analyst was specifically referring to developments with the contract, not developments in the theme parks.

It doesn't point in any direction.

Certain things could mean all they can do is "a Marvel movie preview" or a "Monorail wrap". It also could mean they have plans for Big Hero 6 which everyone agrees is no issue at the parks.

I'm not familiar with it. What does this have to do with online advertising?

It's from an earlier convo whether Disney could advertise online based on contract restrictions. Based on history, they can't.

 

[DoubleJ]

It doesn't point in any direction.

Certain things could mean all they can do is "a Marvel movie preview" or a "Monorail wrap". It also could mean they have plans for Big Hero 6 which everyone agrees is no issue at the parks.

The "certain" comment doesn't matter a great deal, he was simply tempering what the contract entails, like a CEO would do. The word "certain" means that Marvel is not wholly exclusive to Universal, to what extent is debatable. The analyst asked about changes/expiration of the contract, to which Iger said there have been no developments. It certainly seems as though Disney feels that GOTG is within their rights, otherwise legal would have shut this down before you could say "Guard...". (I would know :faintTherefore, if you of the opinion, as I am, that GOTG isn't covered by the MCA-Marvel contract (which I know you're not), these rumors appear to be highly plausible.

 

[Mike S]

Also, online advertising is definitely out. Remember Vinylmation? Disney couldn't use "Marvel's Avengers Box Set" last year to sell the vinyls, it was called "Super Hero Box Set".

Is that how it was advertised online and did it still show all the characters in the set?

 

[SeventyOne]

Therefore, if you of the opinion, as I am, that GOTG isn't covered by the MCA-Marvel contract (which I know you're not), these rumors appear to be highly plausible.

I am of the opinion that most, if not all, of the GotG are not covered by the provisions prohibiting use in theme park attractions.

However, I don't see any reading where they would not be classified as Marvel characters not currently used in IoA, so that any attraction would be subject to severe limits on its marketing. If you disagree, what is your (textual) justification? Or do you believe TDO would open an attraction they cannot promote in Florida/Georgia or to APs living in those states?

 

[Bobharlem]

What I can't figure out is Is this some new attraction with Guardians as the headliner, or a new attraction that happens to have some Guardians in it? (The legal stuff makes me think it'll be more of the latter)

Loophole: the attraction?

 

[Ultranel]

In what crazy backwards world is the butchering of Tower of Terror "lucky?"

You are 110% right, good thing I'm in Orlando :clap:

 

[misterID]

If Disney can (maybe?) use Star Lord, could they say, just being hypothetical, they take the TRON coaster and name it Star Lord's Escape without ever mentioning MARVEL?

 

[Nick]

I am of the opinion that most, if not all, of the GotG are not covered by the provisions prohibiting use in theme park attractions.

However, I don't see any reading where they would not be classified as Marvel characters not currently used in IoA, so that any attraction would be subject to severe limits on its marketing. If you disagree, what is your (textual) justification? Or do you believe TDO would open an attraction they cannot promote in Florida/Georgia or to APs living in those states?

The thing is though, I don't see much advertisement for Disney on TV anyway. The most advertisement I see is when i'm along I-4. I actually see much more advertisement online than anywhere, which I still believe is potentially open to them.

Right now if I see a Disney commercial, it's almost always for Disney Springs. Nothing to promote Frozen - it promotes itself online.

If Disney can (maybe?) use Star Lord, could they say, just being hypothetical, they take the TRON coaster and name it Star Lord's Escape without ever mentioning MARVEL?

Well mentioning or promoting with the brand "MARVEL" in any sense is off the table already.

 

[Nick]

What I can't figure out is Is this some new attraction with Guardians as the headliner, or a new attraction that happens to have some Guardians in it? (The legal stuff makes me think it'll be more of the latter)

Loophole: the attraction?

Interesting thought. I don't see how the Guardians wouldn't be the main attraction, but would the name "Universe of Energy - An Intergalactic Journey" be going against the contract? It's not advertising that there's Marvel characters, but they would be there and people would find out through word of mouth and things like reddit.

 

[SeventyOne]

The thing is though, I don't see much advertisement for Disney on TV anyway. The most advertisement I see is when i'm along I-4. I actually see much more advertisement online than anywhere, which I still believe is potentially open to them.

But there are billboards all over town. And the AP newsletter. And any ads for those "Play 3 day" tickets couldn't show the ride. Likely Stacey couldn't even put it in her top 7 (that's broadcast solely within the Orlando market). Just keeping track of all the restrictions would be annoying. I think this is a huge handicap.

 

[DoubleJ]

I am of the opinion that most, if not all, of the GotG are not covered by the provisions prohibiting use in theme park attractions.

However, I don't see any reading where they would not be classified as Marvel characters not currently used in IoA, so that any attraction would be subject to severe limits on its marketing. If you disagree, what is your (textual) justification? Or do you believe TDO would open an attraction they cannot promote in Florida/Georgia or to APs living in those states?

Contrary to what many seemed to have hooked onto, Disney is open to market this a ton. First, without even paying attention to the contract, Disney has substantial clout in the news media and could get this in the public eye very quickly. Secondly, the contract doesn't forbid any company from advertising within the 300 mile radius. "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."

As long as the marketing campaign is directed at a national or multi-state audience (say the East Coast), not just locally in the Orlando/Florida market, the 300 mile radius means little.

 

[Nick]

But there are billboards all over town. And the AP newsletter. And any ads for those "Play 3 day" tickets couldn't show the ride. Likely Stacey couldn't even put it in her top 7 (that's broadcast solely within the Orlando market). Just keeping track of all the restrictions would be annoying. I think this is a huge handicap.

I'm not ignoring the facts or your point. But if Disney is dead set on this ride, they'll figure something out. Normally rides sell themselves anyway if they are good enough and will generate their own buzz. The biggest markets that travel to WDW (Brazil, UK, Northeast US) would all still be in play, too.

Again, it would kill WDW marketing that they would be so restricted on marketing in the south, but i'm sure if you get a good lawyer to look at it, they'd be able to find some loophole to at least be able to let people know there's a new ride.

 

[Brian G.]

Is that how it was advertised online and did it still show all the characters in the set?

Yup, and yup.

Contrary to what many seemed to have hooked onto, Disney is open to market this a ton. First, without even paying attention to the contract, Disney has substantial clout in the news media and could get this in the public eye very quickly. Secondly, the contract doesn't forbid any company from advertising within the 300 mile radius. "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."

As long as the marketing campaign is directed at a national or multi-state audience (say the East Coast), not just locally in the Orlando/Florida market, the 300 mile radius means little.

Yeah. We haven't argued that they can't do it nationally. They still can't use Marvel name though, which impacts it very little.

But such a big restriction on a local market seems... Silly to go through with. Not saying they can't ignore it, but just doesn't make sense.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

 

[Brian G.]

Forgive my skepticism; but this has been the story since 2009. Every year, there's that ONE BIG RUMOR about Disney finally bringing Marvel into the parks. Yes, this one has the most noise out of all of them, but until it happens... I'll always be in "Camp Nope".

Remember last year? There were sure a lot of people saying Disney was buying the Marvel Rights from Universal, and the Hulk Re-Do was the "sign" that they are making it into something else - thus "proving" the rumor true?

That was fun.

 

[Nick]

Forgive my skepticism; but this has been the story since 2009. Every year, there's that ONE BIG RUMOR about Disney finally bringing Marvel into the parks. Yes, this one has the most noise out of all of them, but until it happens... I'll always be in "Camp Nope".

Remember last year? There were sure a lot of people saying Disney was buying the Marvel Rights from Universal, and the Hulk Re-Do was the "sign" that they are making it into something else - thus "proving" the rumor true?

That was fun.

Anyone who believed Disney was buying the rights (or more to the point, Universal giving up the rights), was out of there mind.

Everything with this is adding up so far imo. And clearly something is being budgeted for the time being seeing as there were height test balloons. And those balloons make a lot of sense with what @Marni1971 has said, in that the building will be extended and possibly seen from guest view.

And yes, I know test balloons doesn't = Green light.