Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout

[GaryDis]

I've always found it to mean the same characters limited by the provision I cited. It seems most interpret it that way.

Obviously the author of that article disagrees.

I have no opinion. I suspect Disney and Comcast would negotiate in private rather than litigate it, so we may never know what a court would rule. Indeed, if Disney were to open such a ride, and Comcast remained silent, we might not even learn if behind the scenes negotiations took place.

But I've learned the hard way not to let wishful thinking influence legal predictions.

 

[ChrisFL]

They have?

Yep, after 2015 they didn't renew their contract.

 

[rteetz]

Yep, after 2015 they didn't renew their contract.

Thanks I didn't realize that.

 

[PuppyJonathan]

Yep, after 2015 they didn't renew their contract.

Oh is that why it just got a new post-show?

 

[atricks]

One part of the Universal contract worth mentioning is that no rides/lands or marketing can use the word "Marvel" in it to describe the attraction, anywhere.. .not just Florida. Disney will likely twist itself into knots over this at points. So that's why you have "Super Hero HQ" stores at both costs instead of Marvel, and why the Breakout doesn't have a mention of Marvel in it, nor the parks blog and video doesn't mention Marvel in relation to the attraction. The marketing thing is really the biggest restriction.

 

[DanBoris]

FWIW, this article discusses relevant excerpts of the Marvel/MCA contract. I read it as saying that nothing Marvel (in the way of rides or attractions, not merchandise or movies) can go into WDW because of the 60 mile limit. But the East of Misssissippi limit would allow Marvel characters not being used by Universal to go into an east coast park away from the greater Orlando area.

An important thing to note about this article is that we do not know if the author has an legal credentials, so without knowing this the statements in the article have no more credibility then those made by people on these message boards.

I do not agree with the "60 mile limit" assertion. In the contract this applies to a retail concept that Marvel was going to develop. This would have allowed Marvel to build a retail space that had simulators rides using characters that Universal had exclusivity to East of the Mississippi as long as they were not within 60 miles of a Universal park. This does not in any way apply to a theme park using the characters that Universal doesn't have exclusivity on.

 

[BriarRabbit]

An important thing to note about this article is that we do not know if the author has an legal credentials, so without knowing this the statements in the article have no more credibility then those made by people on these message boards.

I do not agree with the "60 mile limit" assertion. In the contract this applies to a retail concept that Marvel was going to develop. This would have allowed Marvel to build a retail space that had simulators rides using characters that Universal had exclusivity to East of the Mississippi as long as they were not within 60 miles of a Universal park. This does not in any way apply to a theme park using the characters that Universal doesn't have exclusivity on.

Disney has the money to just divert the Mississippi River to the Atlantic. Problem solved.

 

[Reckoner]

I'm thinking it will be summer of 2018. A 6 month rurnaround for a re theme on a complex ride structure is wishful thinking on their part! Guess we will just have to wait and see.

I truly hope they don't do this to DHS's version.

I should've quoted every version of this post, but I just picked one.

It is a 6 month turnaround for the re-theming of the inside of the ride. The ride system is barely (barely barely) changing, and the exterior work will be well along by the time 2017 rolls around.

Just because a ride isn't "closing forever" until January 2017, doesn't mean it can't have scaffolding all over it for the next 4 months.