MSHI Expansion?

[Imperius]

The contract has no weight in California and it never ones stipulates screen dependence.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

A classic ride with just screens sounds really boring and does not well with the audience. More importantly, the 1994 contract disallows any Marvel character that is featured in a simulator ride in Japan and United States east and west of the Mississippi River by any other theme parks that are within the designated legal distances of any Universal theme park, since after all, screens are always used for simulator rides just because they're cheap and less innovative. A Marvel ride at any Disney park that falls under the restricted geographic clause must be consisted of practical sets and animatronics with screens only adding to the story rather than having the guests partaking in the action.

Um... there's nothing that says anything about screens, and Disney can do whatever they want in California with Marvel.

 

[darkridelover]

I would be fine with this. Disney doesn't rely on screens as a creative crutch like Uni does. They'll like use screens as a tool to enhance the story rather than focus on just that.

I take complete issue with this statement. It's just not factually accurate. Both places have attractions that are completely screens, attractions that are mixed, and attraction that have none. Disney has more screen based attractions in Epcot alone than in all of Universal Orlando. And almost every major attraction built in the last decade at Disney relies heavily or completely on projected media. I'm sorry to derail this conversation but I'm not going to sit by and let back handed factually inaccurate comments like this go.

 

[Freak]

I take complete issue with this statement. It's just not factually accurate. Both places have attractions that are completely screens, attractions that are mixed, and attraction that have none. Disney has more screen based attractions in Epcot alone than in all of Universal Orlando. And almost every major attraction built in the last decade at Disney relies heavily or completely on projected media. I'm sorry to derail this conversation but I'm not going to sit by and let back handed factually inaccurate comments like this go.

Here, have a Snickers bar. You're not you when you're hungry.

In all seriousness I'm mainly talking about DLR here. The only recent addition DL has had that involves screens is GotG. Before that was Cars and unless you got the Ramone scene, there were no screens at all. Even with GotG, there's at least a really good AA in the pre show.

In comparison to how DCA and USH uses screens, DCA clearly uses it far more sparingly. That's my point.

 

[Imperius]

But this is an IOA thread.

 

[Freak]

But this is an IOA thread.

My mistake. But even then, at least Disney relies more on practical than screens when it comes to their stuff. Compare Frozen to Gringotts. Compare River Journey to Kong. Compare Flight of Passage's queue and loading to Fallon. They use more practical that UO has been recently. Supercharged isn't going to be any better.

 

[Paulio]

The contract has no weight in California and it never ones stipulates screen dependence.

Um... there's nothing that says anything about screens, and Disney can do whatever they want in California with Marvel.

Actually it does per the 1994 Marvel-Universal contract, just as not as restrictive as the ones in Florida and Japan.

• iii. West of The Mississippi - any other theme park may use any Marvel characters whether or not used by [Comcast].

Disney can use whatever Marvel characters they want west of the Mississippi whether it's used by Comcast or not. HOWEVER.....

• 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.

Regardless, this clause also applies to Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure as well. That's the reason why two years ago, when they have Marvel characters expo at Tomorrowland at Disneyland, it's called "Super Hero Headquarters", and Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout ride at Disney's California Adventure has not any mention of the word "Marvel" as part of the ride or marketing. When Guardians of the Galaxy comes to Epcot, it will be the exact same thing.

• Restrictions as to the geographic location of The Marvel Action Universe in areas where [Comcast] has exclusive rights hereunder.....iii.Within the ADI market of the city containing a Universal Theme Park (even to the extent such ADI exceeds a 60 mile radius) there shall not be a Marvel themed simulator ride.

Screens can be used at Tokyo Disney, Disneyland, and Disney World, but they cannot be associated with a simulator rode, as screen are famous to being incorporated into such technology. That means, these Disney parks must not use anything that resembles a simulator ride like Spider-Man ride at IOA and Soaring over the World at DCA and Epcot are.

​

 

[Skubersky]

.

• Restrictions as to the geographic location of The Marvel Action Universe in areas where [Comcast] has exclusive rights hereunder.....iii.Within the ADI market of the city containing a Universal Theme Park (even to the extent such ADI exceeds a 60 mile radius) there shall not be a Marvel themed simulator ride.

Screens can be used at Tokyo Disney, Disneyland, and Disney World, but they cannot be associated with a simulator rode, as screen are famous to being incorporated into such technology. That means, these Disney parks must not use anything that resembles a simulator ride like Spider-Man ride at IOA and Soaring over the World at DCA and Epcot are.

​

I believe the Marvel Action Universe referred to in that clause is a Location-based family entertainment concept Marvel was trying to license, and does not apply to theme parks. The Guardians ride in Epcot can use screen based simulation (just like DCA one does).

 

[Mike S]

Um... there's nothing that says anything about screens, and Disney can do whatever they want in California with Marvel.

Except use the name "Marvel."

 

[Paulio]

I believe the Marvel Action Universe referred to in that clause is a Location-based family entertainment concept Marvel was trying to license, and does not apply to theme parks. The Guardians ride in Epcot can use screen based simulation (just like DCA one does).

Uhhh no, the clauses are really quite clear. In any theme park containing Marvel characters where Comcast has exclusive rights to before Disney purchased Marvel in 2009, Tokyo Disney, Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World are prevented from using any Marvel characters for a simulator ride. The ride must be consisted of practical effects (like the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland) or anything that does not resemble a simulator ride. No one puts a simulator ride in close distances outside theme parks, you want to put them where it's supposed to be in the world of fun and entertainment, with people pay in to go to.

 

[Disneyhead]

opcorn:

 

[quinnmac000]

I guess the argument will be what defines a simulator.

 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

I'm in no way or shape saying both are happening, FWIW. Just speculating. So far nothing fits the alleged sale of an SFX coaster in Orlando

What is SFX?

 

[Viator]

What is SFX?

 

[Paulio]

I guess the argument will be what defines a simulator.

A simulator ride is where guests are shown a screen while their seats or vehicle corresponds to the action on screen. The clear cut example would be the Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man ride at IOA and USJ. When the Electro from the screen attacks the real-life guests with an electric plug, the vehicles shakes uncontrollably when he does that. That's an example of a simulator ride. Think as if the guy from the screen actually does that out of the screen and into real life to attack you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtbO2-qTeMY


Now lets look at Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout at DCA, it's not a simulator, but rather a tower drop that is rethemed from the Hollywood Tower of Terror. You see the Guardians going into action, but the elevator does not correspond with the screen, since you're rarely taking any action in it. You just clearly watch what they do, not partaking any action with the screen.

 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

That looks stunning. True Game changer for any of the Orlando Parks. Awesome.

 

[Skubersky]

Ok, I'm not a lawyer, but if I was one I'd point out that section IV.B.4 of the MCA/Marvel contract defines "The Marvel Action Universe" as a "planned Retail concept which may include interactive elements as a major or minor element" such as "one or more virtual reality and/or simulator ride using Marvel characters". All of the restrictions on simulator usage in the contract (including that they can have a max capacity of 20 guests) are contained within that specific Marvel Action Universe shrinkages clause, and do not apply in any way to Disney's theme parks.

A simulator ride is where guests are shown a screen while their seats or vehicle corresponds to the action on screen. The clear cut example would be the Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man ride at IOA and USJ. When the Electro from the screen attacks the real-life guests with an electric plug, the vehicles shakes uncontrollably when he does that. That's an example of a simulator ride. Think as if the guy from the screen actually does that out of the screen and into real life to attack you.


Now lets look at Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout at DCA, it's not a simulator, but rather a tower drop that is rethemed from the Hollywood Tower of Terror. You see the Guardians going into action, but the elevator does not correspond with the screen, since you're rarely taking any action in it. You just clearly watch what they do, not partaking any action with the screen.

I appreciate your attempt at defining "simulator" but (even if it were applicable) there's nothing in the contract that legally supports your definition.

I would argue that any ride that synchronizes a moving vehicle to a projected image is a simulator. That would cover everything from Star Tours to Gringotts to Guardians, since the gantry moves in sync with the squinching on the screens.

Furthermore, you could narrow the definition of simulator to say that the vehicle must remain within its original footprint and simulate the distance travelled instead of progressing through a show building. Under that definition, Spider Man would be a dark ride with 3D screens, but GotG-M:B would be closer to a true simulator.

 

[Mr. EPCOT]

Spoiler: ???????

huge if true

 

[Paulio]

Ok, I'm not a lawyer, but if I was one I'd point out that section IV.B.4 of the MCA/Marvel contract defines "The Marvel Action Universe" as a "planned Retail concept which may include interactive elements as a major or minor element" such as "one or more virtual reality and/or simulator ride using Marvel characters". All of the restrictions on simulator usage in the contract (including that they can have a max capacity of 20 guests) are contained within that specific Marvel Action Universe shrinkages clause, and do not apply in any way to Disney's theme parks.

I'm afraid I have to agree to disagree with your interpretation. The Marvel Action Universe doesn't say anything about not applying to theme parks, even if it's a retail concept. The Marvel Action Universe may contain a retail concept, as well as the simulator ride contained within a park. The contract says "THE MARVEL ACTION UNIVERSE WILL CONSIST, INTER ALIA, OF THE SALE OF COMIC BOOKS, TRADING CARDS, SOFTWARE, LICENSED OR MARVEL PRODUCED MERCHANDISE, THE USE OF ELECTRONIC GAMES AND/OR PINBALLS OR OTHER COIN OPERATED GAMES, AND MAY INCLUDE ONE OR MORE VIRTUAL REALITY AND/OR SIMULATOR RIDE USING MARVEL CHARACTERS OR OTHER THEMES."

So looking at Marvel Super Hero Island at IOA, it does have a bunch of arcade games, pinballs, a comic book store, and a trading center as well as a simulator ride within Islands of Adventure. The Spider-Man ride at Universal Studios Japan has a store featuring merchandises from dolls to trading cards. So it definitely applies to theme parks, let alone from the Disney ones.

I appreciate your attempt at defining "simulator" but (even if it were applicable) there's nothing in the contract that legally supports your definition.

I would argue that any ride that synchronizes a moving vehicle to a projected image is a simulator. That would cover everything from Star Tours to Gringotts to Guardians, since the gantry moves in sync with the squinching on the screens.

Furthermore, you could narrow the definition of simulator to say that the vehicle must remain within its original footprint and simulate the distance travelled instead of progressing through a show building. Under that definition, Spider Man would be a dark ride with 3D screens, but GotG-M:B would be closer to a true simulator.

A screen isn't enough to support the assertion that it's a simulator ride. Given that reason, one could argue that the Mummy ride and MiB attractions would be simulator rides since they're clearly synchronizes a moving vehicle to a projected image telling you what to do. Look at the videos again, Spider-Man ride is a clear example, your vehicle move to a projected image where villains within the image attacks you outside of it. Guardians of the Galaxy is no simulator ride, since it's just a accelerated drop tower which is not intended to synchronize with the screens, just watch what they do. Hell, one could argue that Tower of Terror itself was a simulator ride since it contains some screens of people disappearing, no you just watch what they do. The way you think about it, it sounds ridiculous and absurd.

 

[Mad Dog]

Seems like we've gone over this thousands of times the last few years. . .:doh: ...Time will tell.