I'm not feeling this at all. And I wonder what will happen to Marvel Superhero Island at IOA?!

Disney to Pay $4 Billion for Comic Giant Marvel

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: August 31, 2009

The Walt Disney Company said Monday that it would buy the comic book giant Marvel Entertainment for about $4 billion.

Under the terms of the deal, Marvel shareholders will receive a $30 a share in cash plus about 0.745 Disney shares for each Marvel share they own. The boards of both companies have approved the deal, which was valued at $50 a share.

With the acquisition, Disney will acquire more than 5,000 Marvel characters, including Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk and the X-Men.

“We believe that adding Marvel to Disney’s unique portfolio of brands provides significant opportunities for long-term growth and value creation,” the chief executive of Disney, Robert A. Iger, said in a statement.

Ike Perlmutter, Marvel’s chief executive, said: “Disney is the perfect home for Marvel’s fantastic library of characters given its proven ability to expand content creation and licensing businesses. This is an unparalleled opportunity for Marvel to build upon its vibrant brand and character properties by accessing Disney’s tremendous global organization and infrastructure around the world.”

Mr. Perlmutter will oversee the Marvel properties, and will work directly with Disney’s global lines of business to build and further integrate Marvel’s properties.

The acquisition comes as Disney, with its vast theme park operations and television advertising business, has been struggling because of soft advertising sales at ABC and ESPN and drooping consumer spending at theme parks. Disney’s profit in the third quarter, which ended June 27, dropped 26 percent.

Over all, Disney’s net income fell to $954 million, or 51 cents a share, from $1.28 billion, or 66 cents a share, in the year-ago period. Revenue fell 7 percent, to $8.6 billion. Earnings per share for the current quarter included a one-cent restructuring charge related to an accounting gain. Excluding that charge, Disney narrowly beat Wall Street’s expectations.

Wow. Marvel is NOT what I would call "disney style" at all. What a low blow to IOA if they can't keep the license!

Last thing we need is for Spiderman to be swingin' around with talking woodland creatures.

-Josh

This article (click link below) explains a bit more about Universal's current situation with Spielberg which is what probably led to why Marvel slipped through their hands. In my mind, Marvel must have gone to Universal and told them that Disney was interested (and had the cash to take them on), but in the end Universal's financial hands were tied and now this will most likely lead to a full re-theming of Marvel Superhero Island unless the heads at NBC/Universal are willing to pay Disney (an ABC company) royalties for the usage of the brands.

Obviously this is not a big deal with the coaster or towers, but the Spiderman attraction would be a huge mess. Ironic that a branded area (Marvel) might have to go generic and a perfectly themed generic area (Lost Continent) has gone branded (Harry).

Disney now has yet another major asset for their film divisions, but on top of that is basically pissing all over Universal Orlando Resort as brands that are no use to Disney in their theme parks (with maybe the exception of DHS) are now their's and Universal (who had the foresight to use the brands in IOA and some of their other parks) are now SOL.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-universal-spielberg-cover-story-083109,0,7742737.story

Yikes! This brings up all kinds of questions. What happens if Universal loses both Marvel and Spielberg? Would Universal follow Paramount Busch and try to get out of the theme park business altogether? Throw Six Flag's insolvency into the mix and it isn't looking very good for the business.

I've read the discussion on this site and others I think being theme park fans we are forgetting about the many different business units that make up the Walt Disney Company.

This deal really appears to be for the film and television studio not the theme parks. In fact, I'll be surprised if we see any of the Marvel creative in their existing theme parks. I see Disney keeping Marvel under its own well established brand.

Creative licensing isn't new to Disney. They currently licenss their creative properties for various uses, so I don't see Disney having any problem with continuing the agreement with Universal. In my opinion, this is a win for Disney since their newly purchased creative will now be in use in theme parks other than their own. Their basically getting a piece of the action at Universal.

Therefore, I don't think the future of Hulk, Spiderman, Marvel Superhero Island or Dr. Doom's Fearfall are in jeopardy. Marvel includes many characters that are currently not in use at theme parks. If Disney were to develop a Marvel themed attraction they've got plenty of choices besides the characters that are currently in use.

I also don't see where the Marvel characters fit into Disneyland, Magic Kingdom, Animal Kingdom or EPCOT. Yes, Disney's Hollywood Studios is a possibility, but I think Disney-Pixar characters have a better chance for inclusion over Marvel in the future.

Marvel is not associated with Disney, but yet the Pixar characters are very much so. That's why I don't see this deal having much effect on their theme parks.

* This Post Has Been Modified *

Maybe you guys can enlighten me on this. I was under the impression that when a theme park purchased rights for a particular name/character they had that right for life. If the company who issued the license is sold, then is that agreement void? That's a pretty risky investment then with the pricetag some of the parks pay for some of them. For example, If Time Warner was sold, would Great Adventure (Six Flags) lose the right to their characters and have to re-design the names/areas if a new agreement was not made with the new owners? Does the owner of the character/name get an annual payment as well? This is crazy if there is not some sort of protection for the license - it could cost millions to overhaul multiple parks/rides after paying millions for the name itself.

It seems to me unless the company that owns the name/character also owns the park (Disney), that's a pretty big gamble, especially in this day and age when nothing seems permanent.

Now, referring to the article with Spielberg, if he does opt out of his contract, would that affect the rides already in place or just sever ties for creative input/naming future attractions? Would he continue to recieve the percentage of revenue each year or would that also cease? If they agreed to the annual percentage for life that's insane.

This gets really complicated when you think about it and I have no idea if what I'm thinking is even true or not. I'm quite confused on this topic and I get enough of that in school, so please help unconfuse me! ;~)

Jen

When you license the rights for creative or characters you usually do it for a designated period of time. For a theme park attraction that is likely going to be for a period of no less than 10 years. For a show it may be for a couple of years. Companies like Marvel or Time Warner aren't going to license their characters on a forever basis. You might be able to pull that stunt with an unknown character or desperate artist.

Some important points to note are the following:

- The value of a character will vary over time. If a particular character is popular, the rights to use that character will cost more, which is an advantage to the company that owns the creative.

- The licensee may want to cease to use the creative at some point in the future. There is no point for a theme park to pay for something you no longer want to use.

- If the creative is no longer as popular the cost to license it will be less. This is an advantage to the theme park.

I don't view the change of ownership as risky at all. Part of the appeal of buying Marvel are the licensing contracts. Those generate revenue for Marvel.

Licenses may have renewal clauses and limits on how much the license fee can increase or decrease. Typically, the cost to renew a license is much less than the initial upfront cost.

Most licenses will require the payment of annual royalties which may be tied to park attendance, gate revenue, food & beverage and/or merchandise sales. There are many ways to structure a deal.

Keep in mind there are more than 5,000 characters owned by Marvel. There is opportunity for Disney to create attractions with Marvel characters that are currently not in use at a theme park.

> Now, referring to the article with Spielberg, if he does
> opt out of his contract, would that affect the rides
> already in place or just sever ties for creative
> input/naming future attractions? Would he continue to
> recieve the percentage of revenue each year or would that
> also cease? If they agreed to the annual percentage for
> life that's insane.

If Speilberg decides he wants to be bought out of his contract his percentage of the annual park revenue would stop. Also, I'm not exactly sure what happens to the attractions, but I suspect that the contract will allow Universal to use the currently in place themes for an extended period.

I do not think Disney bought Marvel for their theme parks. They are not short on creative for the parks and the Marvel characters do not make sense in the current parks. Marvel makes sense for their film and television studio, interactive (games) and consumer product divisions.

Thank for the explanation Eric!

I wasn't necessarily referring to Disney but license agreements in general. I agree with you that it doesn't fit them (except maybe a new ride in MGM at some point). I was just in the dark as to how these deals actually work.

Jen

I stopped reading comic books a LONG time ago, but the thing that gets me:

Marvel has over 5000 characters? I figured about 7-800!

Mike

> I stopped reading comic books a LONG time ago, but the
> thing that gets me:

> Marvel has over 5000 characters? I figured about 7-800!

> Mike

Marvel easily has 5000 characters and that may be a modest number.

Take the Phoenix from X-Men as an example.

The Phoenix Force first possessed Jean Grey. After that she became evil and became the Dark Phoenix. And much later in the series she again possessed Jean Grey and Cyclops daughter Rachel Summers. She also possessed about 10 or so other mutants in the comics.

Here's an idea of the amount of characters in the Marvel Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Comics_mutants

Thats just a list of mutants. Cosmic entities like the Phoenix and Galactus are not listed there. Nor are the Alien races.

As a WDW cast member, this was a huge source of discussion at Disney today. I was actually in an office at the time it broke, and boy did it set off a round of shock, surprise, and questions.

Orlando Sentinel has a great article giving some more details on it:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-bk-disney-marvel-entertainment-083109,0,2559631.story

Here's what it's saying:

Universal/ IOA essentially has a lifetime/ perpetuity agreement on the characters in IOA already, and has them exclusively in parks east of the Mississippi river. So as long as they want to have Marvel Superhero Island you won't be seeing Hulk, Spidey, X-Men or a few others cropping up into any Disney parks in Florida. However, that does seem to leave a lot of other characters that could potentially be used there, and it certainly leaves them open to be used in the parks in California, Paris, Tokyo, China, etc.

There are movie agreements in place for several of those characters in place with other studios. Those also will remain unchanged.

New projects, though, and characters that haven't been used in movies or other things can certainly be done. And I wouldn't be surprised to see things like some Marvel cartoons popping up on Disney's cable channels (my son told me a couple were already on XD, but I'm not sure on that)

My own speculation and thoughts- I can certainly see areas in Hollywood Studios in particular that could use the Marvel Characters, maybe in some new ways. It would make a fitting redo for the Streets of America. Also, if GM does have to drop sponsorship on Test Track that could make for some fun retheming to fit something Marvel. But those are solely my thoughts- there is nothing factual in them at all!

Should be interesting to see how it all develops.

> I stopped reading comic books a LONG time ago, but the
> thing that gets me:

> Marvel has over 5000 characters? I figured about 7-800!

> Mike

Like June said, there are tons of minor Marvel Characters that could get all the "comic book guys" drooling at the mention of their name. But does a park (Disney or other) really want to theme a multi-million dollar attraction after them? Storms Torential Teacups? Calisto's Morlock Hideaway? Blob's All-You-Can-Eat Buffet? Not likely.

Paul

> New projects, though, and characters that haven't been used
> in movies or other things can certainly be done. And I
> wouldn't be surprised to see things like some Marvel
> cartoons popping up on Disney's cable channels (my son told
> me a couple were already on XD, but I'm not sure on that)

> My own speculation and thoughts- I can certainly see areas
> in Hollywood Studios in particular that could use the
> Marvel Characters, maybe in some new ways. It would make a
> fitting redo for the Streets of America. Also, if GM does
> have to drop sponsorship on Test Track that could make for
> some fun retheming to fit something Marvel. But those are
> solely my thoughts- there is nothing factual in them at
> all!

> Should be interesting to see how it all develops.

Pretty much all the 90s Marvel shows: X-Men*[I think they dropped it now with Evolution airing], Spiderman*[a bunch of different versions: the 90s-if still running, Unlimited, Spectacular Spiderman, Spiderman and friends], Ironman, Fantastic Four, Hulk are on XD. Yeah I know, I watched Toon Disney/XD a lot.

I didn't visit Epcot this year, but GM is still sponsoring Test Track? I'm surprised about that since they've gone bankrupt and had to rebuild things in the company.

> I didn't visit Epcot this year, but GM is still sponsoring
> Test Track? I'm surprised about that since they've gone
> bankrupt and had to rebuild things in the company.

Just because a company files for bankruptcy doesn't mean they have to stop marketing. Stopping your marketing effort during bankruptcy is basically the same as giving up and thus they should file for Chapter 7, liquidation versus 11 or 13.

The assumption that GM would give up Test Track sponsorship is ridiculous.

> Just because a company files for bankruptcy doesn't mean
> they have to stop marketing. Stopping your marketing effort
> during bankruptcy is basically the same as giving up and
> thus they should file for Chapter 7, liquidation versus 11
> or 13.

> The assumption that GM would give up Test Track sponsorship
> is ridiculous.
>

True on the first part, not necessarily on the second. GM's sponsorship contract is up this year and there is a LOT of talk that they are probably not going to renew it due to their financial concerns. While it's a good outlet, their money is tight enough that they are having to reevaluate all of their moneys spent and make sure they get the most out of what they are spending. When they are massively chopping their NASCAR budgets- which gets a far better return for them then Test Track does, to assume they won't cut it- or other sponsorship deals can be a bit naive. Many at Disney are now working under the assumption that GM will be out, and there is a lot of activity in looking for a new sponsor for the ride.

>
> Blob's All-You-Can-Eat Buffet?
>
Dreams CAN come true!

Mike

A change in sponsorship on Test Track would probably be far more of a hit to Epcot itself than the potential sponsor(s). This would require the attraction to close for an extended period and be re-fitted with attributes related to the new sponsor and ultimatly leave the park without one of its most popular attractions (and only thrill attraction).

I am lead to wonder where Disney draws the line between an attraction needing to have a sponsor or just continuing to operate fully funded by Disney due to massive popularity (i.e. Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, Expedition Everest). To me, Test Track is probably the most popular attraction at Epcot from a repeat rider standpoint and offers that greatest crossover in thrills/general experience for multiple demographics. High maintenance- yes. Easty to justify due to massive popularity? Yes.

> I am lead to wonder where Disney draws the line between an
> attraction needing to have a sponsor or just continuing to
> operate fully funded by Disney due to massive popularity
> (i.e. Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, Expedition Everest).
> To me, Test Track is probably the most popular attraction
> at Epcot from a repeat rider standpoint and offers that
> greatest crossover in thrills/general experience for
> multiple demographics. High maintenance- yes. Easty to
> justify due to massive popularity? Yes.

Disney has already shown a willingness to do exactly that. Witness the Space Mountain makeovers- including WDW's which is going on right now. They've done the same with Tower of Terror at Studios, Pirate of the Carribean, Small World, and other major attractions at the other parks.

Test Track is also not the biggest attraction at Epcot. Not even close in my estimation. Soarin' blows it away, and that's easily seen still by the much larger crowds doing that way at park opening. And, believe it or not, Mission Space has been gradually picking up steam over the last 2 years. While it's wait times still aren't Test Tracks, they aren't that far off. And the busiest times for Epcot is actually during it's festivals- food and wine, flower and garden, and Christmas- none of which would really be affected by Test Track being closed. Truthfully, Epcot would do just fine for a while without it if they were doing a makeover.

For those still skeptical, here's the Orlando Sentinel's coverage of the potential loss of sponsorship:

From March
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/attractions/orl-biztesttrack04030409mar04,0,1536282.story

From June:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-disney-epcot-gm-062209,0,7040000.story

While the contract is, as I understand it, almost in a month to month state right now, I do know that Disney is looking for someone else to sponsor it, as well as considering other options if they do lose the sponsorship for good.

I'd argue to say that Soarin's perceived popularity is skewed.

For one, let's talk capacity. Each theatre has a total of 90 seats (three sets of 3x10). The show itself is about 5 minutes in length, and the total load/unload time is probably close to that, so let's say they do six shows per theatre per hour or 1080 pph.

Test Track dispatches a 6 passenger car every 10 seconds. So that is six cars per minute or 360 per hour. That comes out to 2160 pph. That's roughly double the hourly capacity of Soarin'.

Since Test Track tends to skew more towards the thrill-seekers as it is really the only "thrill" in Epcot aside from Mission Space, (even though being a somewhat mellow experience). Soarin' attracts guests of all ages. Since many guests know of Soarin's popularity, they head there first to snag a fastpass which usually end up selling out by 1-3 in the afternoon on most days leaving the stand by line moving at a snail's pace the remainder of the day. Test Track also goes through Fastpasses, but given the park's rather spread out format, I think many guests forget about Fastpass after getting their initial one for Soarin' and just do the rest of the park at their leisure. Also, Test Track has the very handy single rider line which Soarin' needs big time. They have it on the same attraction at DCA and this works great there.

Bottom line is that Test Track (to me at least) would hold its own over Soarin' or any other Epcot attraction in their current format. Soarin' is due to get a new film between now and 2012 which should create even more of a rush for that initial fastpass.

Not sure where I was going with all of this other to say that Soarin's popularity is skewed due to low capacity for a Disney E-Ticket attraction and slow stand-by lines after the Fastpasses are gone and that Epcot would indeed miss having Test Track in operation anytime of year, IMO. It is unique to Epcot and an attraction that has both high levels of repeat ridership and repeat visitation to the park to experience again. Can't say the same for Soarin' as if you show up to Epcot at 5PM, you aren't riding it unless you want to wait in a never moving 60-75 minute stand by line.

* This Post Has Been Modified *

> Test Track is also not the biggest attraction at Epcot. Not
> even close in my estimation. Soarin' blows it away, and
> that's easily seen still by the much larger crowds doing
> that way at park opening.

A little off topic but when I was at Epcot last (2006) I waited over 2 hours for Soarin' and I was homicidal by the time I got off that ride. Horribly overrated and NOT worth a long wait IMHO.

Everytime I've been there Test Track is always down (in 3 or 4 times I've visited since it opened). Don't know if that's normal or not, but I've never even had a chance to ride it.

Jen

> A little off topic but when I was at Epcot last (2006) I
> waited over 2 hours for Soarin' and I was homicidal by the
> time I got off that ride. Horribly overrated and NOT worth
> a long wait IMHO.

Thanks for your take on Soarin... we'll keep that in mind when we return to WDW this fall. Everything I've heard about Soarin had me expecting some mind blowing experience. Boy, I would have been PO'd if we waited like you did. If we go in with lowered expectation, we might actually be impressed by it instead.

> Everytime I've been there Test Track is always down (in 3
> or 4 times I've visited since it opened). Don't know if
> that's normal or not, but I've never even had a chance to
> ride it.

And we can say the same thing about Space Mountain... and this is going back to 1992. In three visits we've waited two hours twice only to have it shut down. And now we already know in advance that it will be closed for "refurbishment" during our 2009 visit. I guess some things just weren't meant to be.

The worst part about Soarin' is that like Toy Story Mania! at WDW, it opened with a single riders line, but it was gone within a few weeks. Why can California make single riders work on Soarin' and TSM and WDW spend the money to build one... to just throw the towel within a month?

Your capacity numbers are about right Sparky, but I'd say Soarin' is usually 7 shows an hour, so capacity would be 1260PPH. Remove the single riders line and you're losing quite a few riders every hour.

Test Track is the true star of Epcot and EVERYONE loves it. Everyone wants to reride it! I worked at Epcot in 2002-2003 and even when new, Mission:Space never had the popularity of Test Track.

The reasons why Test Track break down often:

1- Rain? I hope its nothing more than a drizzle!

2- Those cars each contain the equivalent of a non disney attraction on them and the ride got 100's of blocks. Imagine when a car breaks down or stop communicating with the ride computers. If a car breaks down, you have to evacuate the cars in front of it and maintenance take it back manually to the next maintenance track switch, which can take 5-10 minutes depending on the position of the cars.

To give you an idea of how complicated those cars are, you got the 4 rubber tires and 14 others wheels keeping it stuck to a rollercoaster track under the running surface. You got 2 sets of brakes. It only take one E-stop in the high speed portion to rip the tires to shred and require the car to be slowly returned to the maintenance bay on nearly flat tires.

The cars are so maintenance intensive that shortly after opening, they had to build a 6-7 space pit garage behind the ride along with a chariot on a rail to bring the cars from the small maintenance bay to the garage.

Imagineering did get it right the second time... Journey To the Center of the Earth at Tokyo Disney Sea got the second generation ride system and it works amazingly. Rain still causes it problems, but less than in Florida and the ride system is more reliable. Instead of 2 rows of 3, you got 3 rows of 2 seats with a lap bar, so single riders is not even needed for full cars all the time. Instead of an high speed loop around the building, the ride ends with a high speed upward helix followed by a 50 feet drop down the side of the volcano.

* This Post Has Been Modified *

> A little off topic but when I was at Epcot last (2006) I
> waited over 2 hours for Soarin' and I was homicidal by the
> time I got off that ride. Horribly overrated and NOT worth
> a long wait IMHO.

I totally agree, I don't mind riding it, but I'm not willing to wait that long for it. I'll use my fast pass for it.

> Everytime I've been there Test Track is always down (in 3
> or 4 times I've visited since it opened). Don't know if
> that's normal or not, but I've never even had a chance to
> ride it.

Last year when I was at Epcot, I had the misfortune of going into the building when it was cloudy and by the time I was on the waiting line past the pre-show room, the attraction was shut down due to rain, I tried to wait 50min there, but I gave up in the end and 30min later after leaving I heard the ride was running again. It was just not meant to be for me.

OMG, Toy Story Mania - when I was at Hollywood studios this year [well it was after 3pm], the lines just kept growing and growing. From 120 min to 130 min to I think 145min. It was insane and of course all the Fast Passes were used up.

Now about Test Track - since they changed the Living Seas to be 'The Seas with Nemo & Friends' - I was wondering maybe they'd theme it for Pixar's 'Cars'? I mean it's either that or retheme Magic Kingdom's Tomorrowland Speedway.

Just my thoughts.

Regarding Toy Story Midway Mania, Fastpass was never needed to be implemented on this attraction. It's 950-1000 pph capacity (slightly more than your average Fantasyland Dark Ride due to linked cars) is the reason (much like Soarin') that Fastpass is gone so quickly.

DCA's version (identical in every way to DHS except for queue and station building designs) works great. It has never had Fastpass and even with a full queue (overflowing to the lagoon side of the midway even), it is hardly ever more than 45 minutes. But that is 45 minutes of constantly moving queue.

One of two things should be done with regards to Fastpass- either do not have it at all for attractions with less than 1800-2000 pph capacity, or simply give out fewer tickets which would allow the stand by line to move more. As it is now, some attractions (DHS Toy Story is a good example), the ratio of Fastpass to Stand By riders let in at the merge point is 7-3 in favor of Fastpass. The indoor queue without any Fastpass merge point would be 20-30 minutes MAX. With that horrible merge, from the entrance to the building to the merge point is 90 minutes (timed last September). Add 10 minutes for each temporary switchback outside the building.

> The worst part about Soarin' is that like Toy Story Mania!
> at WDW, it opened with a single riders line, but it was
> gone within a few weeks. Why can California make single
> riders work on Soarin' and TSM and WDW spend the money to
> build one... to just throw the towel within a month?

The problem with the single rider line is simple. People who are not single riders are using it and it grows out of control by itself. Single rider lines work when the stand-by line is still a reasonable wait ( < 60 minutes ).

The difference between California and Florida on Toy Story Mania is FastPass. FastPass screws up Toy Story Mania in a big way. It makes the stand-by line so long that many riders who in California would stay together as a group decide to ride single because they think it will save them time. The single line grows to become a giant mess. Instead of trying to manage one long line they end up with two.

The difference with Soarin' is the demand. The demand for this attraction in Florida is much higher than in California. The stand-by line on most busy days at DCA is still a reasonable 30-60 minute wait. In Florida it will be close to two hours and that significantly increases demand for the single rider line.

If cast members are creative with their seat assignments they can still maximize capacity without a single rider line. For example on Midway Mania if a group of three arrives, then either find a single or another odd number group in the line and pair up the odd balls.

It should be noted that cast members at DCA will shut down the single line on Midway Mania if it grows too long. The same is true with any of the other single lines. On the other attractions they limit availability with a pass system. If they don't have any single passes then you're not riding single.

I totally agree about how the single rider line can be abused. I sometimes saw a mother get on the ride with her child becase she doesn't want him to ride alone. And generally the ride attendants usually lets them both on. And in another case a pair of riders [if they get in the same car] will try to get another person to change their seat so they can sit together.
This is a shame for regular single riders like me who really benefits from the line.

* This Post Has Been Modified *

I love Marvel because of all of the rides including the adventures of Spiderman the ride! I hope Disney makes the Marvel theme park next to Disney!

The Hollywood studios could use some additional attractions. imo. Aside from the Tower of Terror and Rockin' roller coaster on the one side of the park, there's not much else different on the other side.

> The Hollywood studios could use some additional
> attractions. imo. Aside from the Tower of Terror and
> Rockin' roller coaster on the one side of the park, there's
> not much else different on the other side.

Keep in mind, there's a lot of the Marvel characters that they can't use in Orlando due to the already existing contract with Universal.

Oh of course, Spiderman and the Hulk are out, but there's still Iron Man+the avengers and the X-Men [I don't count the storm tea cup ride as that much of the X-Men representation].

Ironman I would envision as a junior flying coaster.
X-Men maybe could be some sort of laser shooter ride like the MIB attraction.

Speaking of attractions, I think it's time to replace the great Hollywood movie ride with something similar to Spiderman and Curse of Darkastle featuring Disney's villains. Sure not going to be a popular idea, but the park could use some more thrill rides.

* This Post Has Been Modified *

> I think it's time to replace the
> great Hollywood movie ride with something similar to
> Spiderman and Curse of Darkastle featuring Disney's villains.

Gaston's Revenge? Curse of Jafar? Maybe Ursula the Sea Witch?
Somehow I don't see Disney's villains being all that scary.

> Oh of course, Spiderman and the Hulk are out, but there's
> still Iron Man+the avengers and the X-Men [I don't count
> the storm tea cup ride as that much of the X-Men
> representation].

Sorry, those are all already being used by Universal. Some of them do meet and greets (x-men, Captain America), and others have pictures of them posted on the streets.

There aren't a whole lot of major characters not being used already by Universal. Most of what's left are the more obscure ones.

> Speaking of attractions, I think it's time to replace the
> great Hollywood movie ride with something similar to
> Spiderman and Curse of Darkastle featuring Disney's
> villains. Sure not going to be a popular idea, but the park
> could use some more thrill rides.

Not anywhere near enough room in that building for it. And you're forgetting- Disney isn't about thrill rides, it's about family experiences.

> Gaston's Revenge? Curse of Jafar? Maybe Ursula the Sea
> Witch?
> Somehow I don't see Disney's villains being all that scary.

It doesn't have to be scary, but I think Disney could use a motion simulator ride similar to the ones Universal and BGE have. Just using Disney characters of course.

* This Post Has Been Modified *

> Sorry, those are all already being used by Universal. Some
> of them do meet and greets (x-men, Captain America), and
> others have pictures of them posted on the streets.

> There aren't a whole lot of major characters not being used
> already by Universal. Most of what's left are the more
> obscure ones.

Yeah I guess you're right, but still I would like them to make some Ironman themed ride.

> Not anywhere near enough room in that building for it. And
> you're forgetting- Disney isn't about thrill rides, it's
> about family experiences.

Yeah, but if there's any ride that can use an updating, it's that one. I mean sure i understand the family experience, but i've seen kids on the ride just dozing off and such. The ride is more geared towards the 'older crowds' that grew up with the movies. Just my opinion.

> if there's any ride that can use an updating,
> it's that one. I mean sure i understand the family
> experience, but i've seen kids on the ride just dozing off
> and such. The ride is more geared towards the 'older
> crowds' that grew up with the movies.

No denying the ride is aging, and this is not to refute anything you're saying but only for the sake of making conversation, but my kids (now in their twenties) remember the Great Movie Ride even better than they remember Thunder Mountain Railway or the Honey I Shrunk the Kids Playland. When they were finally old enough to see some violent movies and watched "Alien" they remembered seeing the Sigourney Weaver scene from that movie ride.

I understand, I know it's not going to be a popular idea to replace that ride. I just wanted to see if anyone here thinks it could use an update.
It's just that I've rode it a few times over the years and it's still the same show[s]. Hijacker comes in from a western set or a mob set and gets turned into bones at the Indiana Jones segment.
The Alien set was my favorite part of the ride, but it's predictable where the aliens are.