If Viacom never sold the Paramount Parks

[Pineracer]

This "What if" pertains to if Viacom has any control of Power Rangers besides distribution. If Viacom still owned Kings Dominion (for example), could they use Power Rangers in their parks or (since they don't own Saban) this would be not allowed.

 

I've only heard about the contract between Saban and Toei: no pre-Zyuranger Sentai adaption (technically broken by Super Megaforce),  don't skip sentai (Go-busters, TOQger, and most likely Zyuohger skipped), and i forget the third (didn't deal with the amusement park industry, i can say that much). 

[Lemur]

On 10/24/2017 at 4:58 PM, Pineracer said:

This "What if" pertains to if Viacom has any control of Power Rangers besides distribution. If Viacom still owned Kings Dominion (for example), could they use Power Rangers in their parks or (since they don't own Saban) this would be not allowed.

 

I've only heard about the contract between Saban and Toei: no pre-Zyuranger Sentai adaption (technically broken by Super Megaforce),  don't skip sentai (Go-busters, TOQger, and most likely Zyuohger skipped), and i forget the third (didn't deal with the amusement park industry, i can say that much). 

 

It would depend entirely on the contract between the two parties and if there are any clauses regarding use of IP for theme parks and without seeing the contract it'd be difficult to speculate and any combination of stipulations could be employed.  It's not beyond the bounds of credulity that both parties could have agreed directly or as a Right of First Refusal Clause or if Saban could have made it clear that Power Rangers IP was off the table from the jump.  That's one of the things about owning IP,  you can slice and dice as what parts gets licensed to whom provided the other party is amenable.  There's also the issue of whether or not the contract novates in the event of merger or acquisition, the famous example being Marvel's ride licensing being held by Universal despite Disney now owning Marvel.  When Marvel was an independent entity, they licensed the certain IP for theme park rides to Universal Orlando.  The stipulations of the deal are that the rights stay with Universal despite any M&A action but are only for the geographic region East of the Mississippi and only concerning certain characters, not the entire Marvel lineup of characters.  Had Marvel not been so desperate for a capital infusion or had a crystal ball and could have foreseen the mega-hit The Avengers would become, they may have stipulated various expiration terms or other event-driven clauses such as the rights reverting back to Marvel in the event a ride is removed or after a period of time, or if certain other performance benchmarks are not met.  In short, there's no standard answer.

[Pineracer]

I doubt it ever crossed either of their minds at the time, but if the Paramount London project had gone through, then it would be on the table.

However, i think there's a project where there are separate Saban and Nick areas (name escapes me), so that would have to come into play.

[harry2004]

the reason the paramount parks are sold because of the 2005 viacom cbs split, cbs gets the paramount parks and viacom gets paramount, but cbs dont want the parks so they sold it to cedar fair