Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34
  1. #1

    • ...TWO BITS!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Disneyland, USA
    Posts
    3,247

    USH- Property Licenses Question

    In regards to only Universal Studios Hollywood losing license to use Marvel walk-around characters (apparently they will sell off their remaining Marvel merchandise & keep the Marvel Mania store for now)...

    The Florida park seems to have more property licenses than Hollywood... such as Harry Potter, Men in Black, Ghostbusters, Beetlejuice, Barney, Madagascar, etc.

    So do most of the above licenses only apply for Florida, like how Harry Potter can only be in IOA and not USH. Because I'm wondering why USH doesn't bring in characters like Men in Black & Ghostbusters to the park. Beetlejuice usually only appears during the peak season.... SOMETIMES... I should have asked the actor backstage why he infrequently appears as Beetlejuice in the park. Almost as infrequent as the Madagascar characters.

    Also, why was the decision made for Curious George to replace the themeing on Nickeoldeon Blast Zone??

    USH just seems to be turning to ash since mid-2000. Early 2000 they tried quite a few things. Now there's not much going on. I saw the USH president couple times (I think he's had that position since 1999), I probably should have talked to him more as well.

    "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" -Back to the Future

    "With this place, I wanted to give them something real, something that wasn't an illusion, something they could see and touch. An aim devoid of merit."
    -Jurassic Park

  2. #2

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,774

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by filmfreak11 View Post
    In regards to only Universal Studios Hollywood losing license to use Marvel walk-around characters (apparently they will sell off their remaining Marvel merchandise & keep the Marvel Mania store for now)...

    The Florida park seems to have more property licenses than Hollywood... such as Harry Potter, Men in Black, Ghostbusters, Beetlejuice, Barney, Madagascar, etc.

    So do most of the above licenses only apply for Florida, like how Harry Potter can only be in IOA and not USH. Because I'm wondering why USH doesn't bring in characters like Men in Black & Ghostbusters to the park. Beetlejuice usually only appears during the peak season.... SOMETIMES... I should have asked the actor backstage why he infrequently appears as Beetlejuice in the park. Almost as infrequent as the Madagascar characters.

    Also, why was the decision made for Curious George to replace the themeing on Nickeoldeon Blast Zone??

    USH just seems to be turning to ash since mid-2000. Early 2000 they tried quite a few things. Now there's not much going on. I saw the USH president couple times (I think he's had that position since 1999), I probably should have talked to him more as well.
    USF, no longer uses Ghostbusters. The deal expired in 2004, I believe. As for Nick, I am guessing Universal might get rid of their ties to Viacom(Nick).
    Goodbye, Me Bizarro is not Monkey Joe. Me Bizarro hates Disney parks so much. Hello

  3. #3

    • MiceChat Moderator
    • Starcruiser.. crash crash
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles & Orange County
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by filmfreak11 View Post
    In regards to only Universal Studios Hollywood losing license to use Marvel walk-around characters (apparently they will sell off their remaining Marvel merchandise & keep the Marvel Mania store for now)...

    The Florida park seems to have more property licenses than Hollywood... such as Harry Potter, Men in Black, Ghostbusters, Beetlejuice, Barney, Madagascar, etc.

    So do most of the above licenses only apply for Florida, like how Harry Potter can only be in IOA and not USH. Because I'm wondering why USH doesn't bring in characters like Men in Black & Ghostbusters to the park. Beetlejuice usually only appears during the peak season.... SOMETIMES... I should have asked the actor backstage why he infrequently appears as Beetlejuice in the park. Almost as infrequent as the Madagascar characters.

    Also, why was the decision made for Curious George to replace the themeing on Nickeoldeon Blast Zone??

    USH just seems to be turning to ash since mid-2000. Early 2000 they tried quite a few things. Now there's not much going on. I saw the USH president couple times (I think he's had that position since 1999), I probably should have talked to him more as well.



    Curious George is an actual Universal property. Even a parking structure is named off him.

    As for why Men in Black and Ghostbusters (both columbia pictures releases), it has to be a special deal. The Men in Black ride is in Florida, not Hollywood... so i'm sure it has to do with fees that Hollywood would need to pay for characters that don't even have a ride.

    I think one of Universal's main problems is that the theme park really isn't "universal" enough. Universal as a movie studio isn't as well remembered for what movies they're attached to as Disney or even Warner Bros is.

    There's only a few recent movies that identify to me as "universal" and those are Back to the Future, E.T., Jaws, King Kong, Mummy, Jurassic Park, and the American Tale films. (actually, there are a few more but nothing that are theme park worthy).

    The film version of Hulk is a Universal property... I wonder if they can do anything with that? Hellboy2 is Universal pictures release.


    Visit my mice chat toy shop!
    http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

    Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
    http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

  4. #4

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    495

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Coheteboy View Post
    I think one of Universal's main problems is that the theme park really isn't "universal" enough. Universal as a movie studio isn't as well remembered for what movies they're attached to as Disney or even Warner Bros is.
    Universal is known for single-handedly popularizing an entire genre of film. Not many studios that can make such a claim. They could probably create an entire park based on their own film library, but that isn't always what's best for business. If another franchise is popular, it only makes sense to snatch it. Disney is guilty of doing the same thing.
    Last edited by JtnOrl; 01-16-2008 at 04:43 PM.

  5. #5

    • ...TWO BITS!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Disneyland, USA
    Posts
    3,247

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey joe View Post
    USF, no longer uses Ghostbusters. The deal expired in 2004, I believe.
    I did not know that. Haha. Thanks.

    "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" -Back to the Future

    "With this place, I wanted to give them something real, something that wasn't an illusion, something they could see and touch. An aim devoid of merit."
    -Jurassic Park

  6. #6

    • MiceChat Moderator
    • Starcruiser.. crash crash
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles & Orange County
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by JtnOrl View Post
    Universal is known for single-handedly popularizing an entire genre of film. Not many studios that can make such a claim. They could probably create an entire park based on their own film library, but that isn't always what's best for business. If another franchise is popular, it only makes sense to snatch it. Disney is guilty of doing the same thing.


    Well you're right that Universal's own properties might not be the best for business, but isn't it the job of the studio to make films that will be?

    but all in all, I think using its own library would be GREAT business if the attractions themselves were executed to perfection. It would also help keep the Universal brand stronger in people's minds than its now to confuse them with other studios.

    The only franchises that Disney reached out for in their theme parks are lucasfilm properties, and even had Lucas help create some original attractions for Disney.


    Visit my mice chat toy shop!
    http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

    Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
    http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

  7. #7

    • ...TWO BITS!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Disneyland, USA
    Posts
    3,247

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Coheteboy View Post
    Well you're right that Universal's own properties might not be the best for business, but isn't it the job of the studio to make films that will be?

    but all in all, I think using its own library would be GREAT business if the attractions themselves were executed to perfection. It would also help keep the Universal brand stronger in people's minds than its now to confuse them with other studios.
    People walked out of USH thinking Universal made the Spider-Man movies, but Sony actually did it. I know it's not uncommon.

    People walked out of Waterworld and thinking of even renting or buying the DVD.

    So, I guess I'm saying the things they do are hits & misses.

    But the biggest miss is they don't merchandise very well in their stores.

    "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" -Back to the Future

    "With this place, I wanted to give them something real, something that wasn't an illusion, something they could see and touch. An aim devoid of merit."
    -Jurassic Park

  8. #8

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    495

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Coheteboy View Post
    The only franchises that Disney reached out for in their theme parks are lucasfilm properties, and even had Lucas help create some original attractions for Disney.
    I think you're forgetting about Pixar. Outside of the Pirates franchise, they've been the real workhorse of "Disney films" for a while now, and up until recently, they weren't even owned by Disney. Can you imagine what the Disney landscape would have been like without them for the past decade? They'll probably continue to make 90% of the films worth watching, because the actual Disney Pictures brand is in the dumps.

    As for Universal, I actually thought it was a shame when BTTF closed. Not because I liked the attraction, because I rarely ever rode it. I just didn't like seeing the Universal brand weakened. I'm still waiting for a new Kong attraction (based on their version.) If there's one property not currently in a theme park that deserves to be in one, that's it.
    Last edited by JtnOrl; 01-18-2008 at 03:13 PM.

  9. #9

    • ...TWO BITS!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Disneyland, USA
    Posts
    3,247

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    ^ The only version of their Kong (I think it was released Dec 2005?), was the big Kong prop from the New York premiere that was infront of BTTF for photo op. Then some genius thought of moving it to the backlot. Right after the studio tour's parting of the red sea/ Kong's ship miniature & set piece. People try hard to get a good picture of the balding beast.

    But I guess they wanted room on the Upper Lot to redo BTTF to Simpsons... I don't know. I think they should have kept the Kong prop where people could still take photos... but clean him up a bit first.

    "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" -Back to the Future

    "With this place, I wanted to give them something real, something that wasn't an illusion, something they could see and touch. An aim devoid of merit."
    -Jurassic Park

  10. #10

    • This space for rent
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    653

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Coheteboy View Post
    The only franchises that Disney reached out for in their theme parks are lucasfilm properties, and even had Lucas help create some original attractions for Disney.
    You seem to be forgetting they reached out to MGM for it's properties in the Great Movie Ride, and Tower of Terror, and also reached out to Henson too for the Muppets as well as TMNT characters and show, well before they owned Henson. I don't believe Aerosmith is a Disney franchise or property either. They've also used characters from SNL in Cranium Command in at WoL at Epcot.

  11. #11

    • MiceChat Moderator
    • Starcruiser.. crash crash
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles & Orange County
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by upov View Post
    You seem to be forgetting they reached out to MGM for it's properties in the Great Movie Ride, and Tower of Terror, and also reached out to Henson too for the Muppets as well as TMNT characters and show, well before they owned Henson. I don't believe Aerosmith is a Disney franchise or property either. They've also used characters from SNL in Cranium Command in at WoL at Epcot.


    Ah yes. You're right. They did get a bit loose with MGM Studios. I was thinking more in particular about Disneyland.

    But with the Muppets, you can say that Disney did release a few of those Muppet movies (Treasure Island 1996 and Christmas Carol 1992). Muppet Vision debut in 1991 when a deal with Disney was already struck.

    With Pixar, they had a partnership with Disney to release the feature films right from the get go. Disney didn't have to "reach out" to make theme park attractions as it was already part of the deal.


    You're absolutely right about TMNT, SNL characters as well as MGM licenses (including Twilight Zone which nobody knows is a CBS property).


    But my main point is that Universal is partnering with studios that don't really have anything to do with Universal all too frequently. Shrek is strictly Dreamworks. Nickelodeon is strictly Paramount. Simpsons is strictly 20th Century Fox. Men in Black is Sony. Twister is Warner Bros (but at least presented by Universal). Terminator is all over the map but never Universal. Harry Potter is Warner Bros.

    Branding is important and I think universal is losing it's brand.


    Visit my mice chat toy shop!
    http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

    Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
    http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

  12. #12

    • Freakster
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    108

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Coheteboy View Post
    Ah yes. You're right. They did get a bit loose with MGM Studios. I was thinking more in particular about Disneyland.

    Branding is important and I think universal is losing it's brand.
    Indiana Jones? Star Tours? Definitely not Disney films - either in their release or in their content.

    Other than the traditional "Disney" branded films, no studio has a brand that is recognizable to the general public. They don't really care or know that Harry Potter was Warner Brothers, etc. Other than Disney, no other studio generates film that have that consistent brand & tone. A studio's films are all over the place.

    For the parks, the Universal "brand" is about bringing Hollywood experiences to life. Debatable how well they've done that, but the public doesn't care if it's a Universal film or not as long as they're succeeding in delivering the experience.

  13. #13

    • MiceChat Moderator
    • Starcruiser.. crash crash
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles & Orange County
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by ekester View Post
    Indiana Jones? Star Tours? Definitely not Disney films - either in their release or in their content.

    Other than the traditional "Disney" branded films, no studio has a brand that is recognizable to the general public. They don't really care or know that Harry Potter was Warner Brothers, etc. Other than Disney, no other studio generates film that have that consistent brand & tone. A studio's films are all over the place.

    For the parks, the Universal "brand" is about bringing Hollywood experiences to life. Debatable how well they've done that, but the public doesn't care if it's a Universal film or not as long as they're succeeding in delivering the experience.

    Good lord. The thread isn't that long. Catch up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coheteboy View Post
    The only franchises that Disney reached out for in their theme parks are lucasfilm properties, and even had Lucas help create some original attractions for Disney.
    And since that above quote, I have been corrected that MGM Studios has included MGM properties, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Aerosmith, Twilight Zone, and others.



    The Universal "brand" as you have described is what it has become: random Hollywood. I'm arguing that Universal COULD potentially take their own properties and make it worth while in a theme park and thus making "Universal" stronger in movie-goers minds as Disney has done for itself.

    But one could also argue that Universal is including other studios in hopes that they don't team with Disney? Quite possible as even Disney was seen trying to hook up with the Harry Potter franchise.


    Visit my mice chat toy shop!
    http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

    Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
    http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

  14. #14

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Riverside Ca
    Posts
    1,445

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    If they had the room, they could make a Dawn of the Dead attraction based off the remake. An Indy style attraction with guests riding in the built up buses, careening through the ravaged streets, avoiding zombies and the military. Of course, they could do many attractions with King Kong.
    Even through it's paramount, I'd love to see a Cloverfield ride. Guests riding in suspended helicopters trying to escape the city, avoiding gunfire, missles, and of course, the monster.

  15. #15

    • Freakster
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    108

    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Coheteboy View Post
    Good lord. The thread isn't that long. Catch up.


    The Universal "brand" as you have described is what it has become: random Hollywood. I'm arguing that Universal COULD potentially take their own properties and make it worth while in a theme park and thus making "Universal" stronger in movie-goers minds as Disney has done for itself.

    But one could also argue that Universal is including other studios in hopes that they don't team with Disney? Quite possible as even Disney was seen trying to hook up with the Harry Potter franchise.
    My bad. I missed that. But I consider Star Wars a Fox film and Indy a Paramount film, not Lucas. But that gets into producer/distributor discussions which add even more complexity... so... moving on.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Question] Disney Property Question
    By judino28 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-06-2009, 08:51 PM
  2. What WB property would you use for Six Flags?
    By Coheteboy in forum Six Flags
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-29-2009, 05:42 AM
  3. Hallmark licenses 99 Walt Disney films
    By merlinjones in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-11-2008, 12:54 PM
  4. Liquor Licenses in RCID?
    By lazyboy97O in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-12-2007, 04:29 PM
  5. Will Autopia Ever Get Rid of the Drivers' Licenses???
    By VeganPrincess in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-31-2006, 12:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •