So, Mission Breakout is themed to a gothic SciFi powerplant? You know what they make at a powerplant?
ENERGY!
ENERGY!
Guardians of the Galaxy Disney Attraction?
- Thread starter quinnmac000
- Start date
-
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.
This part of the contract I would think is fairly key in any GOTG attraction coming to Orlando (should it happen):
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.
Along with this:
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)
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.
Along with this:
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)
New Spirit thread. Apparently Mission: BREAKOUT isn't totally off the table yet. The Epcot concept also hasn't seen the green light yet and apparently was purposely leaked in order to gain favor for that idea over ToT.
Exactly what BriMan & Test Track have been saying for a few weeks.
:thumbsup:No, they've been saying it's not real/not happening/they can never do it/blah blah blahExactly what BriMan & Test Track have been saying for a few weeks.
It is a plan but just hasn't seen the green light. If the ToT thing happens it probably wouldn't be until after Toy Story opens because they can't afford the lost capacity.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,522
- 48,490
Sigh. Yes originally I said it was probably not happening but based on new info prior to announcement we've changed our view. What we're saying BUILDING IT WILL NOT HAPPEN, not that it isn't being designed. We have clearly, numerous times stated we think there are Imagineers working on it, we just do not see any way it gets a green light.
Guardians of the Galaxy Disney Attraction? | Page 43 | Orlando United Forums
Guardians of the Galaxy Disney Attraction? | Page 49 | Orlando United Forums
Last edited by a moderator:
You aren't taking into account the man in charge. Chapek is incredibly eager to get GotG into WDW and apparently the only reason DCA got Mission: Breakout was because he had to be convinced that DHS couldn't afford to lose capacity.
Ok, I missed that, but either way, his comparison's in the post were a bit misleading in a way. He was referring back to a time when Tom Staggs or even Jay Rasulo ran the Parks division. Chapek is running the parks much differently than either of them ever dreamed and pushing IP much harder, much cheaper and much quicker. It all leads back to his expertise, which is merchandising/marketing.Yes he did.
I'm just saying you can't just look at all of this and basically roll your eyes. At least yet.
Well, yea; not fair to compare since everyone manages differently. He was merely pointing out that this type of situation is not unheard of, if this happens to end up being the case.
Either way, we've gone from "Hey, they're saying this is green-lit" to now "Well, it's not green-lit; it was leaked to test waters" so....
I originally came out of thread retirement because of this, because this is making my stance realllly "black and white", when I've stated several times this was a complicated rumor to understand based on everything.
Never said it wasn't real (even stated "hey, they create stuff all the time, doesn't mean it's a go); said per my intel it's not happening (but did say one source said it was possible if discussions were to be had), and stated (paraphrasing here) "They can never do it based on my understanding of the contract, but hey... I'm no laywer.".
Blah blah blah
Sorry to jump on you guys, no hard feelings. It's just that these are people I've trusted for years. To be fair I believe Martin was the first one to say it had a green light and I think Spirit trusted his info like many others until he heard differently.
Last edited:
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,522
- 48,490
No big deal dude, just want us all to be very clear as my Midwest-isms tend to use pronouns and generalizations a lot.
In addition to what Brian said (thanks boo :-* ) I don't know if Chapek fully know or care about the contract. All it takes is one meeting with lawyers and some risk management analysis to determine if they drop money into it.
Remember this is the same company who fired DVC execs because they couldn't calculate annual dues to maintain the resort. Aulani Problems Lead to Firings | The DIS Disney Discussion Forums - DISboards.com
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes lawyers could easily shut something down, but we don't know about that aspect. Maybe they've already cleared with lawyers on the situation, maybe not. We simply don't know.
Makes me really wish we got something WDW related at SDCC to just put an end to it. Knowing Disney now we probably have to wait until D23 to know for sure :bang:
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,522
- 48,490
Bob Iger has said they have no interest in acquiring the marvel rights and Universal has said they will not sell. I've been told in private they will enforce the contract. Still doesn't stop rumors.
What you are saying means nothing in accordance to the rumors.
As far as everything is being said, Disney has no need to consult with Universal should they want to build GotG in WDW.
Of course they don't. But if they use Drax and Universal can prove he was an Avengers villain, they will get sued. If they advertise the ride within 300 miles of Orlando, they will get sued.
TestTrack's point is that a cursory reading of the contract may make this look ok. A more thorough vetting by the lawyers once it starts going forward may have uncovered previously undiscussed issues (e.g. that advertising band) that kill it in its tracks.
Of Course they will. But if they also know that there's a contract with such huge legal ramifications on the line, they are no doubt going to check with some of the most qualified lawyers they can get.
They aren't going to give a green light to something or start a costly project KNOWING that there's a contract *potentially* preventing them legally without knowing if they can or not. I would think that would be the biggest of red flags that someone like Chapek could get.
Executives don't always ask for or pay heed to lawyer's opinions. Often they'll just tell the lawyers to make it happen. There's a lot of big ego's in those positions. I wouldn't take anything for granted in this situation.
Oh I know. I wouldn't put it past Disney to completely screw up, but then comes the point where Comcast sues. They can't wait until construction is done, can they? I would understand a defense of "The attraction wasn't open yet", but Disney could fire back and say it had been announced in plenty of time for them to file suit.
Of course that's all just a speculatory situation and guessing on certain situations.
I understand executives wanting to say "Get it done", but this Marvel contract is a dicey thing and they're playing with fire if a lawyer comes back and says it's a no go, they should listen. There's certain situations where you can say to make things happen and then there's those that you can't. This is one of those that you can't.
