演员穿帮、吓哭小朋友，奥特曼舞台剧毁了小朋友的梦

Core Insights - The article discusses the high prices and poor quality of children's performances based on the Ultraman IP, highlighting consumer dissatisfaction and potential legal implications for misleading advertising [2][4][8]. Group 1: Performance Quality and Consumer Experience - Parents are willing to pay high prices for children's performances, but many report disappointing experiences, including false advertising regarding promised perks [2][4]. - The quality of the performances is criticized, with reports of inadequate production values, such as poor lighting and sound, leading to children being frightened during the show [6][8]. - Legal experts suggest that consumers may have grounds for claims under consumer protection laws due to misleading advertising and unmet expectations [8][12]. Group 2: Licensing and Authorization Issues - The Ultraman IP has multiple licensing entities, leading to significant discrepancies in performance quality and pricing, with some performances being authorized at much lower costs [10][11][14]. - The core copyright holder, New Chuanghua, has not authorized cinema performances, raising questions about the legitimacy of some shows claiming to be officially licensed [11][13]. - Historical licensing issues stemming from a 1976 contract have resulted in a fragmented and confusing authorization landscape for the Ultraman brand in China [14][16]. Group 3: Market Potential and Economic Impact - The Ultraman IP is recognized as a highly valuable asset, with significant potential for revenue generation through various channels, including merchandise and performances [17][20]. - Companies leveraging the Ultraman IP have seen substantial financial success, with examples of significant revenue contributions from related products [17][18]. - The article emphasizes the importance of proper IP management and the potential long-term financial losses due to historical licensing mistakes [19][20].