Disney buying Marvel!
Joe Ramirez
Spider-Man to team up with Mickey as company acquires 5,000 characters
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32626135/ns/business-media_biz/
I don't know the terms of the licensing agreement between Marvel and
Universal for the Marvel Superhero Island at Islands at Adventure, but
it's clear that a weird new complication in that relationship has just
emerged.
Rudeney
That's very interesting. It looks like a pretty good deal for Marvel
shareholders. My guess is that it won't have any immediate effect for
Universal as I am sure their licensing agreements was written to survive
a buyout. In fact, it may even be written in such a way that would
prevent Disney from using any Marvel characters in their parks until the
expiration of an exclusive licensing agreement.
--
- RODNEY
Next WDW Vacation?
Who knows!
Need to know more about RADP (rec.arts.disney.parks)?
Derek Janssen
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> Pow! Disney to buy Marvel for $4 billion
>> Spider-Man to team up with Mickey as company acquires 5,000 characters
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32626135/ns/business-media_biz/
>>
>> I don't know the terms of the licensing agreement between Marvel and
>> Universal for the Marvel Superhero Island at Islands at Adventure, but
>> it's clear that a weird new complication in that relationship has just
>> emerged.
>
> That's very interesting. It looks like a pretty good deal for Marvel
> shareholders. My guess is that it won't have any immediate effect for
> Universal as I am sure their licensing agreements was written to survive
> a buyout. In fact, it may even be written in such a way that would
> prevent Disney from using any Marvel characters in their parks until the
> expiration of an exclusive licensing agreement.
Universal has a license to park-market only the comic versions of the
characters as opposed to the movies (eg. Rogue, Green Goblin), seeing as
the pre-Iron Man movies are scattered among different studios anyway.
That license will still probably be in effect for a while, and Universal
will probably still renew their hire-out license, rather than both
companies spending too much money to tear down/build new park exposure.
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Joe Ramirez
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > Pow! Disney to buy Marvel for $4 billion
> > Spider-Man to team up with Mickey as company acquires 5,000 characters
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32626135/ns/business-media_biz/
>
> > I don't know the terms of the licensing agreement between Marvel and
> > Universal for the Marvel Superhero Island at Islands at Adventure, but
> > it's clear that a weird new complication in that relationship has just
> > emerged.
>
> That's very interesting. It looks like a pretty good deal for Marvel
> shareholders. My guess is that it won't have any immediate effect for
> Universal as I am sure their licensing agreements was written to survive
> a buyout. In fact, it may even be written in such a way that would
> prevent Disney from using any Marvel characters in their parks until the
> expiration of an exclusive licensing agreement.
If I had been planning IOA back in the 1990s, I would not have
proceeded without a license from Marvel for at least 25 years, and
certainly exclusivity for Florida at least. But who knows ... I expect
that before too long some Marvel characters will start appearing in
Disney parks, although presumably not those featured at IOA, until ...?
Lisa Cubbon
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> Pow! Disney to buy Marvel for $4 billion
>> Spider-Man to team up with Mickey as company acquires 5,000 characters
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32626135/ns/business-media_biz/
>>
>> I don't know the terms of the licensing agreement between Marvel and
>> Universal for the Marvel Superhero Island at Islands at Adventure, but
>> it's clear that a weird new complication in that relationship has just
>> emerged.
>
> That's very interesting. It looks like a pretty good deal for Marvel
> shareholders. My guess is that it won't have any immediate effect for
> Universal as I am sure their licensing agreements was written to survive
> a buyout. In fact, it may even be written in such a way that would
> prevent Disney from using any Marvel characters in their parks until the
> expiration of an exclusive licensing agreement.
>
of tea but I do see that as a demographic (you know, young and old
thrill seekers. I don't do Mission:Space!) that Disney is
missing. I also read that Disney owns part of some NBC/Universal
TV channels too. This could get messy.
Lisa
Joe Ramirez
Yes, because Spider-Man in particular in not just the theme for an
attraction at Universal the way Popeye and Jimmy Neutron are. More
than any other character, I think, Spider-Man is the face of Universal
Orlando. He appears in virtually all the advertising for the resort
(not just for IOA), usually as the most prominent character featured.
If/when the public starts associating Spider-Man with Disney, even if
primarily in the realm of movies and television, some brand overlap
between Walt Disney World and Universal Orlando inevitably will
develop. Yes, potentially very messy.
--Fizzie
> Pow! Disney to buy Marvel for $4 billion
>
> I don't know the terms of the licensing agreement between Marvel and
> Universal for the Marvel Superhero Island at Islands at Adventure, but
> it's clear that a weird new complication in that relationship has just
> emerged.
I may be in the minority, but I don't like the idea.
Although I love Marvel comics, and even collected them well into my
adulthood, it just doesn't seem to be the right venture for Disney.
They should have grabbed Harry Potter and let Universal continue the
super job they do with the Marvel characters.
Is Disney planning to use this as a way to eventually squeeze
Universal out of the theme park market. Boo hiss.
-Fizzie
aksco33
>
> I don't know the terms of the licensing agreement between Marvel and
> Universal for the Marvel Superhero Island at Islands at Adventure, but
> it's clear that a weird new complication in that relationship has just
> emerged.
Well there goes IOA as we all know it--It will become one big Giant
Harry Potter Land. What could the Hulk and Spiderman Rides become
since this is one of the draws of the park. Like someone said maybe a
5th park coming--comic book land.
Erwin M.
> In fact, it may even be written in such a way that would
> prevent Disney from using any Marvel characters in their parks until the
> expiration of an exclusive licensing agreement.
And this is assuming that Disney has plans to incorporate Marvel
characters into their parks (existing or future) at all. They could just
be after the revenue stream from the movies and their associated
merchandise.
Rudeney
to its corporate portfolio, sand Marvel gains a strong studio alliance,
sort of like the original deal with Miramax. Marvel characters may
never end up in the parks.
Joe (Owner, Dream Come True Vacations)
or maybe just a minimal presence like the Muppets....
Joe Ramirez
It seems pretty clear, based on news reports, that movies, TV, and
merchandising were the impetus for the deal; theme park impact was
probably a minor factor. BUT Disney is known for pursuing synergy in
order to extract as much "value" as possible from its assets, and
Marvel is nothing if not rich in assets. It would be very surprising
to me if some Marvel characters -- those not already subject to
exclusivity agreements elsewhere -- didn't eventually find their way
into Disney parks.
Either way, however, I believe the "brand overlap" phenomenon
eventually will occur. Disney may not install Spider-Man as a greeter
at the Magic Kingdom, but Disney *will* want to make a lot of money by
exploiting Spider-Man. They may someday reclaim the film rights from
Sony, or they may launch a new TV series, or they may open a chain of
Spider-Man restaurants, but it would be insane to neglect the
character. Spider-Man may not ever be presented to the world with a
Disney "TM" attached, but many people will come to understand that
he's Disney property as well as Universal Orlando's mascot.
scalemaster34
> You know, this could be a simple financial transaction where Disney adds
> to its corporate portfolio, sand Marvel gains a strong studio alliance,
> sort of like the original deal with Miramax. Marvel characters may
> never end up in the parks.
>
> --
>
> - RODNEY
>
I could see them at Hollywood Studios, but in a very limited way.
As you indicated this is probably more for the Production portion of
the business and not for the Theme Parks.
Four Billion sound like a good price... condsidering Marel has been
involved in some of the biggest summer mony marker...but I'm not sure
what is left in the Marvel vaults. Most of the more popular
characters have been done or under contract or optioned-out. And lets
face it, it take much more the popular character to make a profitable
move (ie. Superman the Return).
-
Keith
Joe Ramirez
> On Aug 31, 1:26 pm, Rudeney <rude...@mickeypics.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, this could be a simple financial transaction where Disney adds
> > to its corporate portfolio, sand Marvel gains a strong studio alliance,
> > sort of like the original deal with Miramax. Marvel characters may
> > never end up in the parks.
>
> > --
>
> > - RODNEY
>
> I could see them at Hollywood Studios, but in a very limited way.
Here's an update from the Orlando Sentinel that was not part of the
original coverage of this news:
"Without naming Universal directly, Iger did address the theme park
question on CNBC earlier today.
"'Marvel characters have already proven to be strong in terms of theme
park attraction and we believe there are a lot of opportunities around
the world, not in every one of our parks because there are some
existing agreements that we obviously have to honor, but in a number
of places for us to use the Marvel characters to basically help us
grow our theme park business and better entertain people,' Iger said.
"Universal Orlando said Marvel characters will remain a staple at its
parks.
"'Marvel Super Hero Island at Universal's Islands of Adventure and the
Marvel characters are a beloved and important part of the Universal
Orlando experience. They will remain so,' said Tom Schroder, a
Universal spokesman. 'Our guests are going to get to meet Spider-Man
and all our other Marvel characters. We believe our agreement with
Marvel stands and that the Disney/Marvel deal will have no impact on
our guest experience.'"
Derek Janssen
> >
> "Universal Orlando said Marvel characters will remain a staple at its
> parks.
>
> "'Marvel Super Hero Island at Universal's Islands of Adventure and the
> Marvel characters are a beloved and important part of the Universal
> Orlando experience. They will remain so,' said Tom Schroder, a
> Universal spokesman. 'Our guests are going to get to meet Spider-Man
> and all our other Marvel characters. We believe our agreement with
> Marvel stands and that the Disney/Marvel deal will have no impact on
> our guest experience.'"
To wit:
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/shocker-disney-buying-marvel/
----
Universal has just updated its earlier statement to me to say this,
"Marvel Super Hero Island at Universal�s Islands of Adventure and the
Marvel characters are an important part of the Universal Orlando
experience. They will remain so. Our agreement with Marvel stands for as
long as we follow the terms of our existing contract and for as long as
we want there to be a Marvel Super Hero Island." So privately Universal
execs tell me they've got the Marvel characters "until the end of time
if we want them" and use phrases like "in perpetuity". But here's the
rub: a Universal insider tells me the studio only retain the existing
characters it's already made use of. Sure there are Spider-Man and Hulk
attractions, but what about all the other characters? Do those revert to
Disney?
---
Compare this, for example, the Great Movie Ride staying at the former
MGM Studios, but don't expect any new MGM movies to be added to it...
Derek Janssen (as long as they keep the Spiderman ride and a M&G Rogue,
I'm happy) :)
eja...@verizon.net
Joe Ramirez
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
> > "Universal Orlando said Marvel characters will remain a staple at its
> > parks.
>
> > "'Marvel Super Hero Island at Universal's Islands of Adventure and the
> > Marvel characters are a beloved and important part of the Universal
> > Orlando experience. They will remain so,' said Tom Schroder, a
> > Universal spokesman. 'Our guests are going to get to meet Spider-Man
> > and all our other Marvel characters. We believe our agreement with
> > Marvel stands and that the Disney/Marvel deal will have no impact on
> > our guest experience.'"
>
> To wit:http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/shocker-disney-buying-marvel/
> ----
> Universal has just updated its earlier statement to me to say this,
> "Marvel Super Hero Island at Universal’s Islands of Adventure and the
> experience. They will remain so. Our agreement with Marvel stands for as
> long as we follow the terms of our existing contract and for as long as
> we want there to be a Marvel Super Hero Island." So privately Universal
> execs tell me they've got the Marvel characters "until the end of time
> if we want them" and use phrases like "in perpetuity". But here's the
> rub: a Universal insider tells me the studio only retain the existing
> characters it's already made use of. Sure there are Spider-Man and Hulk
> attractions, but what about all the other characters? Do those revert to
> Disney?
> ---
>
> Compare this, for example, the Great Movie Ride staying at the former
> MGM Studios, but don't expect any new MGM movies to be added to it...
Universal must have certain rights to the Marvel characters on which
major IOA rides are not based, since these other characters appear in
costume on the streets of Marvel Superhero Island and on signage, but
these secondary rights might be nonexclusive and/or limited in time
compared to the Spider-Man/Hulk/Dr. Doom rights.
Anyway, brand overlap will be inevitable when you can shake hands with
Spidey at IOA in Florida and then do the same thing with French Spidey
at Disney Studios Paris or Chinese Spidey at Hong Kong Disneyland.
Brand overlap will be seriously confusing if you can shake hands with
Spidey and the Hulk at IOA and then do the same with Thor or Captain
America at Disney Studios in Orlando. :)
Patricia Barber
> You know, this could be a simple financial transaction where Disney adds
> to its corporate portfolio, sand Marvel gains a strong studio alliance,
> sort of like the original deal with Miramax. Marvel characters may
> never end up in the parks.
I sure hope you are right. I wouldn't like this at all. There are
Disney movies and characters and then there are cartoons. Big
difference to me. I say let them stay at Universal.
Charlie Foxtrot
My thoughts, exactly, when I heard it on the radio a little bit ago.
While the surface reason is the lucrative movie franchise rights,
there's a part of me that thinks an underlying motive was revenge on
Universal for outbidding Disney on Harry Potter.
Kind of a dick move on Disney's part because (as I'm sure they have
figured out, taking many sighs of relief) Harry Potter is never going
to be as immortal as iconic Marvel characters. Twenty years from now,
everyone will know Spider-Man, Woverine and Hulk. I don't think we'll
be able to make the same claim for Harry Potter.
Foxtrot
If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
>You know, this could be a simple financial transaction where Disney adds
>to its corporate portfolio, sand Marvel gains a strong studio alliance,
>sort of like the original deal with Miramax. Marvel characters may
>never end up in the parks.
LOL! It shocks everyone when I tell them that Kevin Smith's movies
were made by a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney.
Imagine wandering through Disney Hollywood Studios and coming across a
mock of of the Quik Stop with Jay and Silent Bob face characters
leaning against the wall!
Derek Janssen
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:26:46 -0500, Rudeney <rud...@mickeypics.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You know, this could be a simple financial transaction where Disney adds
>> to its corporate portfolio, sand Marvel gains a strong studio alliance,
>> sort of like the original deal with Miramax. Marvel characters may
>> never end up in the parks.
>
> LOL! It shocks everyone when I tell them that Kevin Smith's movies
> were made by a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney.
Except for those who 9_9 that every time Miramax made a *good* film,
headlines would say "The Weinsteins grab the Oscars again!", and every
time they made a controversial film, "Look what DISNEY did now!"
Derek Janssen (well, which *is* it??)
eja...@verizon.net
Darrell Jefress
> Twenty years from now,
> everyone will know Spider-Man, Woverine and Hulk. I don't think we'll
> be able to make the same claim for Harry Potter.
Well, Charlie, you're off the boat on this one. (Heck, I don't know
what Wolverine is *now*.)
We're still reading Twain, Dickens, Hugo, and Austen, and kids still
want their picture taken with Mickey Mouse. In the same way, Austin's
grandkids will be reading "Goblet of Fire", and if IoA is still there,
those kids will still want their photo taken with Hagrid and Dumbledore.
"DJJ" (wink)
Derek Janssen
> Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> Twenty years from now,
>> be able to make the same claim for Harry Potter.
>
> Well, Charlie, you're off the boat on this one. (Heck, I don't know
> what Wolverine is *now*.)
We know the point you're trying to make, but in this instance...you're
missing out:
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/X-Men/60000890
Derek Janssen (who will spot Hugh Jackman ONE spot in the
mass-comic-identification pantheon, so long as he doesn't run it into
the ground like last summer's movie)
eja...@verizon.net
Patty Winter
In article <7jio95pknfg3fb6gs...@4ax.com>,
Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Imagine wandering through Disney Hollywood Studios and coming across a
>mock of of the Quik Stop with Jay and Silent Bob face characters
>leaning against the wall!
Hey, I like the idea of putting Miramax characters in the Disney
parks! How about a "Shakespeare in Love" Globe Theatre with live
performances? A "Sling Blade" murder-evil-people interactive ride?
A "Chocolat" candy shop? :-)
Patty
David Stinson
@rudeney.motzarella.org:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> Pow! Disney to buy Marvel for $4 billion
>> Spider-Man to team up with Mickey as company acquires 5,000
characters
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32626135/ns/business-media_biz/
>>
>> I don't know the terms of the licensing agreement between Marvel and
>> Universal for the Marvel Superhero Island at Islands at Adventure,
but
>> it's clear that a weird new complication in that relationship has
just
>> emerged.
>
> That's very interesting. It looks like a pretty good deal for Marvel
> shareholders. My guess is that it won't have any immediate effect for
> Universal as I am sure their licensing agreements was written to
survive
> a buyout. In fact, it may even be written in such a way that would
> prevent Disney from using any Marvel characters in their parks until
the
> expiration of an exclusive licensing agreement.
>
Thats the intention according to the further info provided during the
day. NPR did point out something though. Disney/Marvel gets to collect
money from the competition in license fees and profits for projects like
IRON MAN, WOLVERINE and such.
Rudeney
>
> Hey, I like the idea of putting Miramax characters in the Disney
> parks! How about a "Shakespeare in Love" Globe Theatre with live
> performances?
Sure!
> A "Sling Blade" murder-evil-people interactive ride?
Ummmmmm...yep. Complete with a fried taters cart by the exit.
> A "Chocolat" candy shop? :-)
As long as Juliette Binoche is serving it!
Now, I'd have to draw the line at the "Pulp Fiction" streetmosphere.
Derek Janssen
>
> Thats the intention according to the further info provided during the
> day. NPR did point out something though. Disney/Marvel gets to collect
> money from the competition in license fees and profits for projects like
> IRON MAN, WOLVERINE and such.
Only the Marvel half--
Marvel Productions produced "Iron Man" and Paramount still has the
sequel rights in their contract, but Fox still has their lock on
anything Mutant-related.
(Since "Iron" and the second Hulk movie are the only "official"
Marvel-made movies so far....The key words being "so FAR".)
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Patty Winter
In article <h7htbq$4bn$1...@rudeney.motzarella.org>,
Rudeney <rud...@mickeypics.com> wrote:
>Patty Winter wrote:
>
>> A "Chocolat" candy shop? :-)
>
>As long as Juliette Binoche is serving it!
And Johnny Depp is playing guitar by the river. ;-)
>Now, I'd have to draw the line at the "Pulp Fiction" streetmosphere.
Yeah, I purposely didn't mention Miramax's Quentin Tarantino films.
No thank you...
Patty
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
I don't know "Darrell." I'm just not seeing the Potter books and/or
movies having a multi-generational life. Austin was all about the
books and movies but never read the final book and refused to see this
summer's movie installment. Amongst the various movie fans I come in
contact with, not one of them bothered with this summer's Potter
movie, either, and all of us had seen every movie up until now.
So it may be anecdotal but I'm already seeing a trend towards fading
regarding Harry Potter.
The thing with the comics is that new material is being produced all
the time. Without "new" marketing for the Harry Potter books and
movies I don't really see them being relevent to anyone being born
around now come 2030.
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
>Now, I'd have to draw the line at the "Pulp Fiction" streetmosphere.
Ah but the possibilities... Like at Universal, where the Blues
Brothers drive around in the Blues Mobile, we could have Vince and
Jules drive around the studios in a car with blood splattered all over
the inside!
And another interactive restaurant... A diner where a man and woman
rob everyone while Jules visits the restroom.
Maybe a horror attraction where the Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames
characters are in the backroom of that pawn shop...
Too bad Residential Street is no more. They could have one of the
houses that DOES have a sign in front of it that reads "Dead N-----
Storage" as an inside joke.
And, of course, on property McDonald's could have the Royalle with
Cheese.
Paul Lalli
> Pow! Disney to buy Marvel for $4 billion
I've been having a lot of fun over the past 24 hours watching the
Twitterverse explode with rantings and ravings. They seem to be
primarily broken into two categories:
Disney Fans: "OMG This is awesome! Marvel-themed rides in WDW!!!!"
(no, Universal still has geographic exclusivity on the Marvel cast)
Marvel Fans: "OMG This is terrible! Disney's gonna water down Marvel
comix!!!"
(no, Disney's going to let Marvel run as a separate entity, like
they're doing for Pixar)
From what I can tell, the only noticeable difference we're going to
see is more Marvel-based merchandising. Other than that, this seems
to me to be a strictly financial decision - Marvel's profits to boost
Disney's bottom line.
Paul Lalli
Steve Russo
>
> Maybe a horror attraction where the Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames
> characters are in the backroom of that pawn shop...
>
Somehow, that just doesn't scream "Disney" to me ;-) (but I loved the
movie).
Charlie Foxtrot
<Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:26:31 -0500, Rudeney <rud...@mickeypics.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Now, I'd have to draw the line at the "Pulp Fiction" streetmosphere.
>
>Ah but the possibilities... Like at Universal, where the Blues
>Brothers drive around in the Blues Mobile, we could have Vince and
>Jules drive around the studios in a car with blood splattered all over
>the inside!
>
>And another interactive restaurant... A diner where a man and woman
>rob everyone while Jules visits the restroom.
Ooops! Late night and tired when I wrote that... Should have been
"while Vince visits the restroom."
Darrell Jefress
"Charlie Foxtrot" <Benne...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:vqkp95dcr0n9ctl5e...@4ax.com...
> So it may be anecdotal but I'm already seeing a trend towards fading
> regarding Harry Potter.
>
> The thing with the comics is that new material is being produced all
> the time. Without "new" marketing for the Harry Potter books and
> movies I don't really see them being relevent to anyone being born
> around now come 2030.
Well Charlie, the thing is, it may well be that Potter does not continue as
a "pop culture" phenomenon the way the Marvel characters have, but it *will*
continue as literature. That's why I referenced Dickens, Hugo, and Austen,
with whom the books have a lot in common. In that area, I have no doubt
that the series will outlive all of us. (Of course, it won't take much to
outlive me - you, on the other hand, will be with us long enough to annoy
all sorts of people!)
"DJJ"
NY Teacher
"Darrell Jefress" <eve...@tokyo.com> wrote in message
news:h7jhl0$hts$1...@aioe.org...
Of course the Potter series will continue to live on as literature. But it
won't work as an attraction at a theme park once it is no longer "pop."
I can't rmember the gate numbers for Dickens World, Hugo Land, and the
Austen Kingdom, can you?
NYT
Darrell Jefress
"NY Teacher" <nyte...@goschool.com> wrote in message
news:h7jo19$475$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Of course the Potter series will continue to live on as literature. But
> it won't work as an attraction at a theme park once it is no longer "pop."
Wouldn't you want to go to a character breakfast with Valjean, Javert, and
Eponine?
Or ride the dark ride where you get to shoot real high-power lasers at that
annoying little git Gavroche?
When kids (not to mention their parents) no longer want to meet Mickey
Mouse, then I'll believe they no longer want to meet Dumbledore. There will
continue to be new generations who discover these characters and are drawn
in by them for reasons they can't explain.
Derek Janssen
>
> "NY Teacher" <nyte...@goschool.com> wrote in message
> news:h7jo19$475$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>
>> Of course the Potter series will continue to live on as literature.
>> But it won't work as an attraction at a theme park once it is no
>> longer "pop."
>
> Wouldn't you want to go to a character breakfast with Valjean, Javert,
> and Eponine?
What's WRONG with a Victor Hugo-land? They could have a whole section
on "Hunchback of--"...oh, wait. ;)
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Joe Ramirez
> "Darrell Jefress" <eve...@tokyo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h7jhl0$hts$1...@aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/parks/magic-kingdom/attractions/tom-sawyer-island/
--Fizzie
> > > Of course the Potter series will continue to live on as literature. But it
> > > won't work as an attraction at a theme park once it is no longer "pop."
I place Harry Potter in the same genre as Alice in Wonderland, Peter
Pan, and The Wizard of Oz. Each is as well known by today's kids as
the previous generations and each has a popular theme park attraction.
I don't know if the Marvel appeal is as universal (no pun intended) as
those classics.>
I personally feel like there should be a line in the pixie dust when
it comes to Disney claiming Marvel characters and superheroes.
However, maybe Disney has a plan? Little girls have the
princesses.... could it be that Disney is going to develop a whole
wanna-be character list for little boys from the Marvel line-up? Is
Jack Sparrow a lttle too dainty for today's young males?
-Fizzie
Who has tickets to see the one night, nationwide big screen showing of
The Wizard of Oz in a few weeks. An event I'll be sharing with my
kids, my grandkids, and my 80 year old Mommy.
MarkF
of
The Wizard of Oz in a few weeks. >>
Me too! Can't wait.
Mark
Rudeney
>
>
> Who has tickets to see the one night, nationwide big screen showing of
> kids, my grandkids, and my 80 year old Mommy.
It will be interesting to see if they crop it from its original 1.33:1
aspect ratio to a wide-screen a 1.85:1 aspect like they did with the two
previous theatrical re-releases. And as much as I like watching movies
fill my big screen TV, I don't want a cropped Wizard of Oz on Blu-Ray.
Call me a movie snob, but I want to see it the way the director intended
without anything taken away.
NY Teacher
>
> "NY Teacher" <nyte...@goschool.com> wrote in message
> news:h7jo19$475$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>
>> Of course the Potter series will continue to live on as literature. But
>> it won't work as an attraction at a theme park once it is no longer
>> "pop."
>
> Wouldn't you want to go to a character breakfast with Valjean, Javert, and
> Eponine?
I would yes, but because of the musical, not the book. Would it be
profitable? I highly doubt it.
> Or ride the dark ride where you get to shoot real high-power lasers at
> that annoying little git Gavroche?
I do hope you are being sarcastic?
>
> When kids (not to mention their parents) no longer want to meet Mickey
> Mouse, then I'll believe they no longer want to meet Dumbledore. There
> will continue to be new generations who discover these characters and are
> drawn in by them for reasons they can't explain.
As I said, they will be drawn to it...as literature. A theme park built
around it will not fair well once the "fad" rubs off the books and they
become older.
I, personally, would plotz for a Lord of the Rings theme park, and - at one
time - it would have been a profitable park. It would have likely
experienced a renewal when the movies were released. But over time, as the
books original publishing becomes more distant, the parks would decline and
die. One reason is that Aragorn and Gandalf (who, by the way, would
absolutely annihilate Dumbledore and Voldemort together) do not
change...neither will Harry. Mickey, on the other hand, is constantly
re-invented and re-introduced to the public.
So, we need to agree to disagree. I think there is no way that Harry Potter
Land is profitable 10 years after the last book/movie...and no way in
business 10 years after that. The books will still be read and enjoyed, but
the "fad" will be gone.
NYT
CEO Boom
"Paul Lalli" <mri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffbbcd8d-829e-401e...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 31, 9:49 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> Pow! Disney to buy Marvel for $4 billion
Disney Fans: "OMG This is awesome! Marvel-themed rides in WDW!!!!"
(no, Universal still has geographic exclusivity on the Marvel cast)
From what I can tell, the only noticeable difference we're going to
see is more Marvel-based merchandising. Other than that, this seems
to me to be a strictly financial decision - Marvel's profits to boost
Disney's bottom line.
Paul Lalli
Paul,
Universal does not have geographic exclusivity on the Marvel cast - they
have 'theme park' exclusivity in the U.S.A on a handfull of characters
(maybe two handfulls) and World Wide merchandising "rights" on just a few.
The exclusivity has a limited scope as well but if Universal keeps the
contract alive we'll all be dead before it runs out (I read 75 years in the
sketchy memo we received a couple of weeks ago).
I have heard that another Spiderman movie is in the works and that Spidey
will be fighting the evil Emporer Zurg at the Magic Kingdom and ... ok, only
kidding - For quite a while, the unit will operate as a independent, with,
as you point out, some merchandise showing up in the parks. Disney does have
it's eye on bringing some of the characters to the Studios, perhaps for a
comix book week, character meals and/or the parade. The whole pirate thing
just hasn't caught on with the younger male guests ....
On the other hand, we have seen conceptual drawings and models floating
around backstage for some time now that might suggest a theme for another
'land' (not in the MK) or maybe even another 'park' (more likely a waterpark
or shopping area than the 5th gate). I suppose eventually news will get out
about a deal or two that failed before this one succeeded - proving that
this and other character oriented purchases have been in the works since Bob
took office (I do believe that Bob has also been looking for a potential
vehicle for taking the Disney characters back into the comic book world,
assuming that would sell).
As you point out, the deal was mostly financial and for the IP, but I can't
help but think about how much beer $4 Billion would have bought - enough for
my whole department, all of RADP and then some ...
Boom
Patty Winter
In article <Kzmnm.734630$jp1.1...@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com>,
CEO Boom <thisisabadaddr...@boom.com> wrote:
>
>Disney does have
>it's eye on bringing some of the characters to the Studios, perhaps for a
>comix book week, character meals and/or the parade. The whole pirate thing
>just hasn't caught on with the younger male guests ....
I was thinking about that earlier today. The Marvel characters will be
a great alternative for market segments who don't care about princesses.
Patty
Glenn Holliday
>
> I was thinking about that earlier today. The Marvel characters will be
> a great alternative for market segments who don't care about princesses.
How long before She-Hulk joins the Disney Princesses
in a stage show at the Castle?
--
Glenn Holliday holl...@acm.org
Paul
news:Kzmnm.734630$jp1.1...@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com:
> Universal does not have geographic exclusivity on the Marvel cast
> - they have 'theme park' exclusivity in the U.S.A on a handfull of
> characters (maybe two handfulls) and World Wide merchandising
> "rights" on just a few. The exclusivity has a limited scope as
> well but if Universal keeps the contract alive we'll all be dead
> before it runs out (I read 75 years in the sketchy memo we
> received a couple of weeks ago).
Do you think there will be any Disney influence on the Marvel Dubai
theme park announced a few years ago?
--
Paul in NH (PSS) - Looking forward to Sept. 13-19 - BLT
p s s a w y e r at c o m c a s t dot n e t
Ginny Favers
>
> I, personally, would plotz for a Lord of the Rings theme park
>
> NYT
>
>
That's called the south island of New Zealand. ;-)
~Amanda
Ginny Favers
The whole pirate thing
> just hasn't caught on with the younger male guests ....
See, the "whole pirate thing" was about women wanting to do naughty
things to Johnny Depp while he's dressed up as a pirate with all that
eye makeup. I could have told you that, and saved you all some money.
My son likes the Marvel characters a lot, but his obsessions lie with
the Japanese game/tradingcard/merchandise/tvshow/movie combos, like Pokemon.
He's afraid Disney will change the Marvel characters, now, make them
less edgy. And I don't think he wants to see them at Disney or in
conjunction with Disney characters. He'd prefer those "worlds" to
remain separate.
> As you point out, the deal was mostly financial and for the IP, but I can't
> help but think about how much beer $4 Billion would have bought - enough for
> my whole department, all of RADP and then some ...
>
> Boom
>
>
Hey, if corporate can find some revenue stream other than sucking Parks
and Imagineering dry, that would be great.
~Amanda
Ginny Favers
> Patty Winter wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking about that earlier today. The Marvel characters will be
>> a great alternative for market segments who don't care about princesses.
>
> How long before She-Hulk joins the Disney Princesses
> in a stage show at the Castle?
>
Now THAT I would pay to see.
~Amanda
--Fizzie
Markstein which shows the castle with a sign stating "Magic Kingdom"
with a giant 4 in the sky being written by a a flying figure of
fire. There is a family out front and the boy asks "Why is it called
the Magic Kingdom" to which the dad replies, "Becaise Disney got all
of Marvel's superheroes for four billion...."
It's going to be very interesting to see how all of this plays out.
-Fizzie
Patty Winter
In article <h7lu1t$pfh$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Ginny Favers <ginny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>CEO Boom wrote:
>
>The whole pirate thing
>> just hasn't caught on with the younger male guests ....
>
>See, the "whole pirate thing" was about women wanting to do naughty
>things to Johnny Depp while he's dressed up as a pirate with all that
>eye makeup. I could have told you that, and saved you all some money.
LOL! Maybe it's just because I don't have any young boys in my
circle, but I, too, have noticed much more interest in the PotC
films by grown women. :-)
--Fizzie
> In article <h7lu1t$pf...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Ginny Favers <ginnyfav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >CEO Boom wrote:
>
> >The whole pirate thing
> >> just hasn't caught on with the younger male guests ....
>
> >See, the "whole pirate thing" was about women wanting to do naughty
> >things to Johnny Depp while he's dressed up as a pirate with all that
> >eye makeup. I could have told you that, and saved you all some money.
>
> LOL! Maybe it's just because I don't have any young boys in my
> circle, but I, too, have noticed much more interest in the PotC
> films by grown women. :-)
I have one seven year old young man in my family circle who would love
to see Godzilla rip Jack Sparrow to bloody shreds. That's where his
head is.
It's my young lady daughter and myself who swoon when we watch Pirates
I,II,III and (hopefully) IV.
Young man's six year old sister is a princess in training with all the
costumes, accessories and essential dolls.
-Fizzie
Darrell Jefress
"--Fizzie" <BlueCas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:747bfd74-48c5-4335...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> I place Harry Potter in the same genre as Alice in Wonderland, Peter
> Pan, and The Wizard of Oz. Each is as well known by today's kids as
> the previous generations. I don't know if the Marvel appeal is as
> universal (no pun intended) as those classics.
Your comparison is a better one than mine for explaining why the Potter
characters will continue to be successful *in a theme park setting*. There
are some stories, and some characters, which prove to be timeless, not
subject to momentary fads. Hence, Snow White and Cinderella remain as
popular as they have ever been - in the latter case, in spite of the recent
Cinderella "sequel", not because of it. By comparisons, "Goosebumps" was
more of a "flavor of the month", as successful as it was at the time.
(Interestingly, I understand that the books themselves actually remain
popular.)
In the same way, the Potter characters will retain their interest *despite*
the movies, not because of them. Much of the allegorical and anagogical
aspect of the original stories doesn't make it into the movies, or doesn't
translate well to an on-screen, visual medium. Nonetheless, it is those
aspects of the story, which we may experience only subconsciously, that are
a big reason for the story's popularity.
My comparisons to Hugo and Dickens are better suited to an explanation of
why the books will endure as part of the literary canon. Thanks for the
better examples of why they will succeed in a more popular arena.
DJJ
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
>Patty Winter wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking about that earlier today. The Marvel characters will be
>> a great alternative for market segments who don't care about princesses.
>
>How long before She-Hulk joins the Disney Princesses
>in a stage show at the Castle?
You know that just made me think... Fantasmic, re-imagined to feature
the Marvel heros and villains instead of Disney's could be pretty damn
entertaining.
SamToto
BIG waste of $4Billion
Keane
wrote:
That's why buying Marvel seems to be a good move by Disney.
They have *nothing* to offer that would attract teen boys. Well,
maybe Miley Cyrus, but not the movies she's in...
I can say I'm going to laugh out loud the first time I see a souvenir
at Universal that says (c)Disney...
Keane
--
When stars are born, They possess a gift or two,
One of them is this, They have the power to make a wish come true...
-- Wishes
Visit my site: http://keanespics.com
Keane
<thisisabadaddr...@boom.com> wrote:
>I suppose eventually news will get out
>about a deal or two that failed before this one succeeded - proving that
>this and other character oriented purchases have been in the works since Bob
>took office
Teasing again, Boom.
Anyone know what the failed acquisitions were?
(The Marvel buy out was a surprise to me, but I wasn't paying
that much attention...)
Keane
wrote:
>--Fizzie wrote:
>>
>>
>> Who has tickets to see the one night, nationwide big screen showing of
>> The Wizard of Oz in a few weeks. An event I'll be sharing with my
>> kids, my grandkids, and my 80 year old Mommy.
>
>It will be interesting to see if they crop it from its original 1.33:1
>aspect ratio to a wide-screen a 1.85:1 aspect like they did with the two
>previous theatrical re-releases. And as much as I like watching movies
>fill my big screen TV, I don't want a cropped Wizard of Oz on Blu-Ray.
>Call me a movie snob, but I want to see it the way the director intended
>without anything taken away.
The blu and DVD versions are being released in 4:3. Don't know what
they're going to show in the theaters. Nothing to stop them from
cropping out the top and bottom to fit their screens...
Keane
wrote:
>On Aug 31, 9:49?am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> Pow! Disney to buy Marvel for $4 billion
>> Spider-Man to team up with Mickey as company acquires 5,000 charactershttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32626135/ns/business-media_biz/
>>
>> I don't know the terms of the licensing agreement between Marvel and
>> Universal for the Marvel Superhero Island at Islands at Adventure, but
>> it's clear that a weird new complication in that relationship has just
>> emerged.
>
>Well there goes IOA as we all know it--It will become one big Giant
>Harry Potter Land. What could the Hulk and Spiderman Rides become
>since this is one of the draws of the park. Like someone said maybe a
>5th park coming--comic book land.
While Universal won't lose their licenses, I do have one word:
"Transformers." I'd be surprised if Universal doesn't do something
with it. They have close ties to Spielberg, and that toy line has
been around for decades...
jt august
<9ee88d48-3496-4528...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
aksco33 <aks...@aol.com> wrote:
> Like someone said maybe a
> 5th park coming--comic book land.
Oh, isn't it obvious? The fabled 5th park is Universal. Disney is
jockeying to ultimately take it over.
jt
Darrell Jefress
> Oh, isn't it obvious? The fabled 5th park is Universal. Disney is
> jockeying to ultimately take it over.
Along with the fabled monorail expansion??
jt august
wrote:
Well, isn't it obvious?
jt
Darrell Jefress
If WDW expands to include IOA and "Disney Studios Northern Annex", then
they'll need Disney transportation to get there, plus the transportation
to get the guests from "Disney's Portofino Bay Resort" and "Disney's
Hard Rock Hotel" to the parks on the "southern campus".
Hence, the monorail expansion is indeed obvious!
jt august
wrote:
So, then there would be a need for a northern RADP Pavillion. You up to
the challenge, Guido?
jt
Keane
wrote:
>If WDW expands to include IOA and "Disney Studios Northern Annex", then
>they'll need Disney transportation to get there, plus the transportation
>to get the guests from "Disney's Portofino Bay Resort" and "Disney's
>Hard Rock Hotel" to the parks on the "southern campus".
If you look close, it's mostly lake and swamp between the two.
Dig the waterway, and high speed boats would do just fine...
Loews (no, it's not lowes) would never give up those hotels. (And you
forgot the Royal Pacific...)
Just sayin'...
Darrell Jefress
>
> Loews (no, it's not lowes) would never give up those hotels. (And you
> forgot the Royal Pacific...)
. . . . . remembered the hotel, wasn't sure I remembered the name
correctly. (even though it's the one I would be most likely to stay in
if I ever stay at Uni.)
Disney Wizard the Fantasmic!
fold a $20 bill into their palm and lean on the wall with them.
Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:26:46 -0500, Rudeney <rud...@mickeypics.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>You know, this could be a simple financial transaction where Disney adds
>>to its corporate portfolio, sand Marvel gains a strong studio alliance,
>>sort of like the original deal with Miramax. Marvel characters may
>>never end up in the parks.
>>
>>
>
>LOL! It shocks everyone when I tell them that Kevin Smith's movies
>were made by a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney.
>
>Imagine wandering through Disney Hollywood Studios and coming across a
>mock of of the Quik Stop with Jay and Silent Bob face characters
>leaning against the wall!
>
>Foxtrot
>
>If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
>
>If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
>
>
--
All larders in the Temple of the Forbidden Eye rung a bakers dozen true.
There are thirteen steps to the tallows, firing square or salivation.
The first step is dental... Don't be bamboo skewered:
Secrets of the Temple of the Forbidden Eye revealed!
Indiana Jones(tm) Discovers The Jewel of Power!
visit --(o=8> http://disneywizard.com/ <8=o)-- visit
Vully
> While Universal won't lose their licenses, I do have one word:
> "Transformers." I'd be surprised if Universal doesn't do something
> with it. They have close ties to Spielberg, and that toy line has
> been around for decades...
>
Actually, that is closer than you think. The "supposed" reality is
that, out here in LaLa land of Hollyweird and the original Universal
Theme Park/Studio Experience - BACKDRAFT has (or is about to) closed
and is under redevelopment as a TRANSFORMERS themed attraction using
Spiderman technology. Supposedly Universal Studio California's next
big draw...
Vully
TDC Jungle River Guide and Adventurer-at-Large
Keane
Between that and the improvements at DCA, will I have to plan another
trip to Calilfornia in 2013? :-)
Mrs Irish Mike
>
> Of course the Potter series will continue to live on as literature. But it
> won't work as an attraction at a theme park once it is no longer "pop."
>
> I can't rmember the gate numbers for Dickens World, Hugo Land, and the
> Austen Kingdom, can you?
>
> NYT-
Nothing says fun like taking the family to tour the 1800's slums of
London.
http://www.dickensworld.co.uk/
Ginny Favers
Holy... I'm emailing that to my Dad, the Dickens (and other English
literature) scholar. He'll be so appalled, it will be hilarious. I
love goading him.
~Amanda