Rumor: The Great Movie Ride closing for good?

[HizMinnie2015]

FOX owns the rights to the X-men. Marvel is slowly killing the x-men off because they can't buy the rights back. All X-men illusrrators have been told they aren't allowed not to create new x-men. Fox retains the rights to x-men as long as they produce a new movie every year or so. I have a very close friend who is an illustrator for Marvel.

Universal owns the theme parks rights to "most characters" East of the Mississippi. Disney is not allowed to use any comic hero/villian that is or can be tied to Universal parks.

Therefore, Big 6 and Guardians are as close right now as Disney will get to Marvel characters.

I highly doubt we would ever see Disney buy out Universal.... It would be too much of a loss in a theme park war for Universal; however this is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

 

[doconeill]

Disney can and is using marvel at all of their other parks. Anaheim has meet and greets and Hong Kong is getting an iron man attraction. I'm sure Shanghai will have a marvel presence.

Yup...and on certain DCL sailings as well, but only far enough off the coast. You won't see them while in port at Port Canaveral, for instance.

Universal never exercised their right to use them on the West Coast, so with the Marvel purchase, Disney did gain the rights to use them in Anaheim.

 

[Section106]

The Inhumans are rumored to be the next comic to get made into a movie. They are to replace the X-men. Then there is Dr. Strange and Black Panther. If Marvel doesn't oversaturate the market all at once I imagine there are plenty of franchises that could be made into movies and then get a themepark attraction.

 

[keishashadow]

Fantastic Four is also off the table. And to emphasize the point, Marvel is reportedly postponing/canceling a a new F4 comic series that would have debuted around the same time as the movie reboot from Fox.

Universal is in the drivers seat when it comes to the theme park rights. They are going to want a premium to be bought out, since they'd have to spend a premium to revamp an entire area of IOA including several popular attractions, which would come at a high cost. Disney would certainly have to cover all those costs, plus pay a pretty premium on top of that.

true, but the two giants have 'traded' in the past, swapping Oswald the rabbit for Al Micheals to broadcast for NBC.

Star Wars franchise offers a wealth of heroes, they just need 'a land' to be developed in the realm that used to be called MGM.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Plus Guardians of the Galaxy and Big Hero 6 are going to be proof of the new approach that the Inhumans may continue: You don't need the tried and true Marvel properties. Marvel, with the power and backing of Disney, can make new, or secondary, Marvel characters that rock. GOTG beat Spiderman and X-men this year at the Worldwide box office!! Who would have thunk it a year ago.

 

[doconeill]

true, but the two giants have 'traded' in the past, swapping Oswald the rabbit for Al Micheals to broadcast for NBC.

Star Wars franchise offers a wealth of heroes, they just need 'a land' to be developed in the realm that used to be called MGM.

Not sure what Star Wars has to do with Universal and Marvel - Disney already has the theme park rights to Star Wars.

The thing about Oswald was that Universal owned it, but had no real use for it in any way. They did want Al Michaels though, so they likely got the better of the deal, in that they traded away something that had no value to them.

To trade rights, they'd both have to have something the other would want of relatively equal value. Given the price tag that theme park rights changes would come with, it would have to be something extremely significant.

 

[cmwade77]

Universal owns the theme parks rights to "most characters" East of the Mississippi. Disney is not allowed to use any comic hero/villian that is or can be tied to Universal parks.

This is only true for a couple more years (I think 2016 is the magic year), then Disney can begin using Marvel characters in the parks on the east coast.

Universal will retain the rights to keep existing attractions based on Marvel characters for longer than that though.

 

[doconeill]

This is only true for a couple more years (I think 2016 is the magic year), then Disney can begin using Marvel characters in the parks on the east coast.

Universal will retain the rights to keep existing attractions based on Marvel characters for longer than that though.

Where do you get an expiration date from? All the public information is that Universal has open-ended rights to all the characters (and their "families" - i.e. related characters, which is an interesting gray area with so many crossovers), so long as Universal maintains the properties they are using appropriately.

This is taken straight from one of Universal's 10k filings, albeit from 2010, but after Disney's acquisition (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312511065644/d10k.htm) - first one I found, but I have a bookmark to a far more elaborate description of the rights on another computer:

Marvel
USC has a license agreement with Marvel Characters, Inc. (“Marvel”) pursuant to which UCDP holds a sublicense to use properties and elements owned by Marvel. Marvel receives an annual license fee and a guaranteed annual royalty fee for all merchandise themed with Marvel characters. Pursuant to the license agreement, the Marvel properties are entitled to certain levels of advertising and publicity in connection with the marketing of our theme parks. Our use of the Marvel elements for theming, promotions and other purposes are subject to Marvel’s reasonable approval. We have geographical exclusivity east of the Mississippi River with regard to the specific Marvel characters we utilize. The license for the Marvel properties does not prohibit its assignment and is for the duration of our use of attractions themed around Marvel characters.
On December 31, 2009, the Walt Disney Company acquired Marvel Entertainment. We believe our agreement with Marvel stands and that the transaction will not impact our ability to use characters and attractions currently in use. In addition, we do not expect the transaction to have any impact on our guest experience.
In addition, the applicable NBCU subsidiary executed an agreement with Disney Enterprises, Inc. that maintains the confidentiality of our confidential business information provided pursuant to our and our affiliates’ agreements with Marvel and prevents inappropriate disclosure of our confidential information that could be used by the Parks and Resorts business of The Walt Disney Company, or for any of the theme parks or resorts of The Walt Disney Company (or any of its subsidiaries’ or licensees’), for anticompetitive purposes. After two years, such agreement is terminable by either party on six months notice.

 

[keishashadow]

Not sure what Star Wars has to do with Universal and Marvel - Disney already has the theme park rights to Star Wars.

The thing about Oswald was that Universal owned it, but had no real use for it in any way. They did want Al Michaels though, so they likely got the better of the deal, in that they traded away something that had no value to them.

To trade rights, they'd both have to have something the other would want of relatively equal value. Given the price tag that theme park rights changes would come with, it would have to be something extremely significant.

Both franchises have a wealth of characters. Disney already owns Star Wars. IMO Disney has no need to expend more $ on acquiring 'new' when they haven't fully developed what they already have in hand.

not necessarily, one of them just needs to want something the other has bad enough. As most sports fan will agree, trade value is often in the eye of the beholder.

 

[doconeill]

Both franchises have a wealth of characters. Disney already owns Star Wars. IMO Disney has no need to expend more $ on acquiring 'new' when they haven't fully developed what they already have in hand.

not necessarily, one of them just needs to want something the other has bad enough. As most sports fan will agree, trade value is often in the eye of the beholder.

I was confused as to the context of your statement. But at any rate, Disney already _owns_ Marvel, it just can't use the primary assets in the parks (current or future) unless Universal wants to give them up.

My statement on trading was in relation to the Oswald vs. Al Michaels trade, which is an example of what you stated. But this is something much larger...for Universal to "trade" the Marvel characters back to Disney, Universal would need something that it thought would more than cover the cost of not only giving up the rights to something that is a draw (albeit ont nearly as big as Harry Potter right now), but the expense that goes with re-theming a whole land. What does Disney have that they could want that bad? And that Disney is willing to give up? Now that Disney owns Lucasfilm, there isn't really a product that Disney simply licenses for them to give up.

 

[truck1]

Yup...and on certain DCL sailings as well, but only far enough off the coast. You won't see them while in port at Port Canaveral, for instance.

I have pictures of Capt America standing on the bridge wing of the Magic, while she was tied to the pier in Port Canaveral, from the Fantasy.

 

[doconeill]

I have pictures of Capt America standing on the bridge wing of the Magic, while she was tied to the pier in Port Canaveral, from the Fantasy.

Interesting...I was under the impression that the Port was still within the restricted use radius from Universal that forbid the use of the characters for most purposes outside theme parks...

 

[truck1]

Not sure. I thought it may have had something to do with advertising. I know that Disney cant advertise in its parks, which is why the wrapped monorails, (which was done poorly. You can tell what color they used since they didn't carry it into the door frames) like Avengers, could not be used on the Epcot line. It had to stay on either the resort line or express. I don't know all of the details of that complex agreement, so I could be way off to. It could also have something to do that the ships are just that. Ships. Not a park.

 

[beer dave]

Where do you get an expiration date from? All the public information is that Universal has open-ended rights to all the characters (and their "families" - i.e. related characters, which is an interesting gray area with so many crossovers), so long as Universal maintains the properties they are using appropriately.

This is taken straight from one of Universal's 10k filings, albeit from 2010, but after Disney's acquisition (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312511065644/d10k.htm) - first one I found, but I have a bookmark to a far more elaborate description of the rights on another computer:

So what is with the part that says after 2 years either one of the agreements can be terminated by either party with 6 months notice? I believe there are only 2 agreements in this snip.....

 

[doconeill]

So what is with the part that says after 2 years either one of the agreements can be terminated by either party with 6 months notice? I believe there are only 2 agreements in this snip.....

That was specifically regarding a confidentiality agreement signed after the Disney takeover, between Disney and Universal, regarding information that could potentially be used in an anti-competitive nature. Presumably it is because Disney is in the same business as Universal in this regard, whereas Marvel wasn't.

 

[keishashadow]

I was confused as to the context of your statement. But at any rate, Disney already _owns_ Marvel, it just can't use the primary assets in the parks (current or future) unless Universal wants to give them up.

My statement on trading was in relation to the Oswald vs. Al Michaels trade, which is an example of what you stated. But this is something much larger...for Universal to "trade" the Marvel characters back to Disney, Universal would need something that it thought would more than cover the cost of not only giving up the rights to something that is a draw (albeit ont nearly as big as Harry Potter right now), but the expense that goes with re-theming a whole land. What does Disney have that they could want that bad? And that Disney is willing to give up? Now that Disney owns Lucasfilm, there isn't really a product that Disney simply licenses for them to give up.

good question, I got nothing . however, it is past precedent and could happen in the future, even if just a remote possibility. Disney could swap out a new franchise or just plain cash for all the Marvel rights, but I don't see Disney doling big bucks out when they haven't developed Star Wars yet.

I love Universal, especially the Spiderman ride, but the rest of the area is getting a bit long in the tooth imo. The technology could be re-tooled and still keep the ride, although i'd hate to see Spidey disappear. Hulk could easily be re-branded as they did with several attractions for HP. Kong is coming further up that side of IoA, the parks have to keep things fresh to keep the crowds coming.

Not sure. I thought it may have had something to do with advertising. I know that Disney cant advertise in its parks, which is why the wrapped monorails, (which was done poorly. You can tell what color they used since they didn't carry it into the door frames) like Avengers, could not be used on the Epcot line. It had to stay on either the resort line or express. I don't know all of the details of that complex agreement, so I could be way off to. It could also have something to do that the ships are just that. Ships. Not a park.

I know this one the agreement states X number of miles (can't remember specific #) from Orlando. If a ship is out of range, it's fair game to trot them out.