How much control does Warner Bros have over the content at Movie World?

[latterature]

I'm wondering if anybody has any insight:

My understanding is the park is operated by Village Roadshow, who have the exclusive Australian rights to utilise Warner Bros properties and characters within the park.

How much say does WB have in regard to the use of these properties?

For example, if there's a new Warner Bros movie the studio is hoping to advertise, could they instruct Village to install a new attraction based on this property, or are these decisions left entirely up to Village? Are Village operating at the behest of WB, or can they pick and choose which properties to use and when?

Any explanations would be helpful, thanks.

[REGIE]

Hopefully someone with more insight then me can comment but how I think it works is WB do some filming at the studio next to MW sometimes so WB get the studio and Village get to pick and choose what properties to use and when. But they probably have to go through WB first and get them to approve of it.  A lot of Warner bros parks are set up similarly though so there is a chance village was the first and the other WB parks followed them or WB designed the park originally and copy pasted the main park layout. Not sure but right now Village get to pick what properties the use and when with WB’s approval. I mean I can’t see WB ringing up and going ‘hey village can you park a area themed to 30+ yr old movie that we don’t profit off much anymore?”

[Slick]

 

2 hours ago, latterature said:

Are Village operating at the behest of WB, or can they pick and choose which properties to use and when?

Yes and no. Let me explain.

Firstly, what you're asking is essentially about Intellectual Property Licensing Agreements and all of those contracts are commercial in confidence - and there'd be a lot of contracts, causes and stipulations. So instead of putting numbers to these things, i'll put it another way.

Say a park wants to have cartoon characters that kids see on TV in their park because the research tells the park that it'll bump revenue by at least 20% if they pick the right characters. So the park looks around and talks to a well-known cartoon character owner. Now, this cartoon character owner is a business a hundred times the size of the park and thus, has the controlling power in any deal made. So eventually the character owner says if you want a bunch of characters to walk around the park, it'll cost you X amount per year in licensing fees. Want toys made of those characters? Then pay the character owner a royalty % of the toy's profit. Want to name a ride after a character? That'll cost the park another licensing fee. Want to name the park after the character owner's brand? That's another fee. So on and so forth for everything the park and the character owner does together in partnership.

And the best bit is that in order to ensure the park is upholding a reasonable standard of quality and doesn't tarnish the reputation of the cartoon characters, the cartoon character owners get the final say on everything.

Now, like everything in life, none of this is black and white. My own experiences have been that some brands really keep tight leashes on the final product (I remember Dreamworks having creative guidelines for how costume characters should be photographed) whilst others less so (Dreamworld itself couldn't really ever figure out if it was Wipeout or WipeOut internally). You can also imagine that if an "IP Holder" representative came town, anything that was non-compliant or unapproved gets hidden and almost every single physical asset, right down to the stitching on costumes gets a once over.

 

2 hours ago, latterature said:

if there's a new Warner Bros movie the studio is hoping to advertise, could they instruct Village to install a new attraction based on this property,

No. 

 

[TBoy]

4 hours ago, latterature said:

For example, if there's a new Warner Bros movie the studio is hoping to advertise, could they instruct Village to install a new attraction based on this property, or are these decisions left entirely up to Village? Are Village operating at the behest of WB, or can they pick and choose which properties to use and when?

Any explanations would be helpful, thanks.

If a new movie comes out, its up to Village to make a new ride, not Warner Bros. Only two coasters themed to a movie that comes out at the same time have been made, Green Lantern in 2011 and Scooby Doo Spooky Coaster in 2002. In fact the latter was filmed next door and IIRC some of the props from the movie were used in the coaster.

[REGIE]

Are there any original props left on scooby doo or were they all ripped out when it became “next gen”? Damn this new generation sucks why theme a ride to it

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

top of my head i'm not sure (they've still got the skull mirror ball, don't they?) but there are also loads of props around calypso beach in WNW.

[REGIE]

Scoob props or just movie props in general?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

You asked about Scooby props, so - yes. scooby props.

[Levithian]

Warner Bros don't own shares in anything to do with village roadshow theme parks anymore, so everything is based on a licencing agreement as already said. 

It's also worth noting that Warner Bros have also parted company with Roadshow Films, signing a new agreement with Universal, so Village Roadshow no longer distribute Warner Bros films/production in Australia and New Zealand.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Levithian

[REGIE]

Is village roadshow films the same company as village roadshow theme parks? Or our they under the same roof but not really the same company. Like if they wanted to expand the park into where the studio is would it be the theme parks choice or would they have to consult the films side of the company 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Nobody is expanding the park into the studios anymore than it already is. period.

[Levithian]

4 hours ago, REGIE said:

Is village roadshow films the same company as village roadshow theme parks? Or our they under the same roof but not really the same company. Like if they wanted to expand the park into where the studio is would it be the theme parks choice or would they have to consult the films side of the company 

Village Roadshow Limited is the parent company. Everything else are divisions, ie separate entities owned and operated by the parent company, VRL. This includes Village Roadshow Theme Parks, Roadshow Studios (the studios next to Movieworld), Roadshow films, Australian Theatres/Event Cinemas, and about a dozen other companies they are invested in. 

People need to get away from this idea that the studios and theme parks are one and the same just because they are next to each other. They are separate entities and run as such. It's not like the old days of the park when you could just cross into the studios area like when on the studio tours or use the studio commissary because they had vastly better food. They are very much defined and fenced off. You won't see the studios lose facilities due to park expansion. A bit of land here or there to accommodate something is one thing, but they aren't going to lose offices, production buildings, facilities or studios for the sake of a new attraction at Movieworld. 

All decisions ultimately rest with Village Roadshow Limited board. They own/control everything. It's their choice what happens where and when. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Levithian

[REGIE]

I am not saying “expand into the studio” but just wondered if they “could” I don’t want them to and they really shouldn’t I just wanted to know how it works.

20 hours ago, Levithian said:

Village Roadshow Limited is the parent company. Everything else are divisions, ie separate entities owned and operated by the parent company, VRL. This includes Village Roadshow Theme Parks, Roadshow Studios (the studios next to Movieworld), Roadshow films, Australian Theatres/Event Cinemas, and about a dozen other companies they are invested in

This is what I was looking for thanks

[franky]

1 hour ago, REGIE said:

I am not saying “expand into the studio” but just wondered if they “could” I don’t want them to and they really shouldn’t I just wanted to know how it works.

It's absolutely possible. It would just require agreement from both 'companies'. It happens all the time elsewhere in the world.

Might be unlikely, but it's possible.