Avengers attractions planned?

[chartle]

I have seen Iron Man and Thor merchandise inside the parks, not sure if that means anything. Those two might be available. It's really a weird situation for both Disney and Universal, one keeps the money from the movies while the other profits from the rides.

I believe the deal in place now allows Disney to sell any marvel merchandise they want so you shouldn't read anything into that. Also the relationship is really not that weird. It's just the way the contract was written. Also when US profits so does Disney.

 

[dzneelvr]

My interest is in Marvel merchandise being sold or will be sold by December in any of the parks in Florida? DS is a huge fan and I'd like to surprise him with a few items when we go in December. Any locations, and if so, what is being offered?

 

[jason10mm]

If you include USO then they have a pretty big Marvel store. All sorts of comics, trades, and graphic novels there, as well as a good number of posters and figures.

As for WDW, you'll have to rely on folks who have been there more recently than I.

 

[pilferk]

Does anyone know when the Marvel/Universal contract expires??

Basically...never.

The contract is worded so that it is, in essence, in perpetuity. Universal has to maintain the rides and attractions to a certain set of standards, make them available for inspection, and pay their annual licensing and merchandising fees as laid out in the contract. Provided they do that...the deal doesn't expire and Universal Orlando has exclusive use east of the Mississippi.

Disney could try to buy the contract out..but it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.

One other note: From having read the contract, the "ban" on character use east of the Mississippi ONLY pertains to specific characters, their affiliated "groups", and their ancillary characters and villains. It does NOT apply to the entire Marvel universe.

However, since characters like Hulk (Avengers), Storm (X-men), Dr. Doom (The Fantastic 4),Spider-man and others are covered under the contract...it wouldn't leave much left for Disney to do in Orlando.

 

[pilferk]

The way I understood it was Disney couldn't use the characters Universal is using/have under contract until that contract is up. So no Hulk, Spiderman, Dr. Doom or X-men(just no Storm maybe?)? But Ironman, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye should all be free not to mention Vision, Dare Devil, ***********, Black Panter, War Machine maybe Wolverine and Beast and the rest of the X-men since the X-men ride is Storms? So there are a lot of unused characters and that isn't even a quarter of them thats just the main ones most people know.

Affiliated "groups" (like the Avengers) and their membership are likewise off limits according to the contract language...which cuts off a significant portion of the Marvel Universe.

 

[pilferk]

Considering Avengers has about $750,000,000 (probably near $800,000,000 tomorrow ), I would assume Disney would buy the rights.

Don't be so sure.

First up...not all of that money is going into Disney's piggy bank. A hefty chunk, for sure, but not all. And some of it is assuredly going to need to offset earlier studio losses (John Carter of Mars, for example).

But, even with a hefty cash infusion....Disney can't force Universal to sell the contract. Universal, in essence, has to WANT to sell. They'd likely make Disney cover costs for redevelopment of Superhero Island into whatever they wanted to switch it too, cover lost opportunity $$ since they've branded IOA so heavily around those characters, cover any potential revenue loss they thought MIGHT occur AND pay a princely premium on top, just for fun.

A billion might get them to consider it. 500 million probably would not.

And then Disney has to justify that expenditure to their shareholders (not just the money to Universal but the expense of now developing a number of attractions in the parks, too)...as opposed to just sitting back and taking Universal's checks every quarter/year.

I don't think we're going to see much in the way of Marvel at WDW any time soon.

 

[pilferk]

There is zero chance of Universal selling those rights. They just sunk a huge chunk of change into Spiderman as an "in your face" kind of move. I LOVE the Spiderman ride. It is an incredible experience that I am not sure Disney would have pulled off. You will see plenty of Avengers in areas outside of Florida. Avengers 2 is already in the works as well.
Funny, Disney had first shot at Harry Potter too and they lost it.

1) Not much of a "in your face" move...since Disney has to approve any and all upgrades to the Marvel attractions at IOA(or, rather, Marvel does, according to the contract...which is functionally the same thing). They could have said no.....but obviously they didn't.

2) Given the reported demands that Rowling made of Disney (but did NOT make of Universal), I'm not sure them passing on the deal was a "loss".

 

[pilferk]

I am sure Disney's is working on getting control of all of their characters from Universal. They know that the Marvel characters are hot now and want to profit from them. Seriously, Universal has not done a good job marketing those characters. Right now they are only interested in pushing Harry Potter. Disney is going to make some serious money from The Avengers movie and they will probably use allot of that money to not only get the characters back from Universal but also try to secure the movie rights. I know that last year they got back The Punisher and I think Ghost Rider movie right, which isnt saying much. If the upcoming Amazing Spiderman movie doesnt do well, they have a good chance of getting the Spiderman movie rights back, mostly do to the fact that SONY reported a $6 billion dollar loss last year and it sound like SONY is being pressured to get rid of their movie production company, which contributed to the loss. The Fantastic Four and Daredevil movies did not do that well and might be obtainable. Most difficult movie rights for them to get will be the X-Men.

Movie rights are different animals. They're much easier to get back...largely because there is contractual timelines, penalties and payments that HAVE to be made, film or no, profit or no. If you can't produce a film with the time line, the rights revert back. If, as a studio, you know you can't make a film that covers the licensing fees....you negotiate the rights back rather than lose money. If the rights holder offers you more money than you know you can make on a film, you take the profit and sell the rights back. THAT is how Disney got some of the film rights back, last year. Disney had leverage with the studios.

NONE of that is pertinent with Universal. They have an existing product already up and running, making them money. They don't have to produce anything else. The licensing fees are not overly taxing on them. The attractions are not so old that maintenance costs are burdensome. The attractions are not so old that they need significant refreshing/changing. The product draws people to their parks. THEY don't have any reason to sell. Combine that with the fact they don't want to COMPETE with same characters popping up across town...and you're in a place that puts UNIVERSAL in the leverage position, not Disney.

Oh, and tell Tim McCarver I said "Hi"....

 

[pilferk]

Doesn't that infer that the Avengers are off limits since Captain America is being used as a costumed character on a regular basis?

The walk around characters have been a subject of much debate. It's a separate contract and the exclusivity, outside of THAT contract, and how it pertains to the master IOA contract, has been much discussed.

However, given Hulk is an Avenger....it's a moot point. All the Avengers are off limits, anyway.

 

[pilferk]

I think the entire Avengers is off limits as there is an Incredible Hulk ride it very clearly says that if one character of the Avengers is being used they all are being used. They actually used the "Avengers" in the example of the contract. I bet you start seeing a lot more of the Avengers in Universals park and maybe even a ride to start development. If I were heading up Universal I would use this as an opportunity to promote my park. They would then have Harry Potter and what is almost sure to be another one of the most profitable movie franchises in the years to come. With how quick Universal does things they could almost certainly have a ride up and running before Disney even breaks ground.

Universal can not develop any new attractions, based on anything Marvel, without Marvel (aka Disney) approval. They can't even make significant changes or upgrades to existing attractions without approval from Marvel (aka Disney).

And while I doubt Disney would stop them from upgrading an existing attraction (witness Spiderman), I have NO doubt they'd kabosh any new attractions based on those properties.

"Exclusive use" does not mean carte blanche use.

 

[pilferk]

There is only 1 Islands of Adventure but there are also Universal Studios parks in Hollywood, Singapore and Japan.

Right now, 2 of those parks are gearing up for a Harry Potter expansion. So Marvel would be a ways off if they build there at all.

They can't build anywhere new without Marvel (aka Disney) approval. The existing contract really only covers IOA. I think the chances of Marvel granting that approval is zero.

It, initially, held "options" for Universal to build in other areas, but they've long since expired (as you can see by reading the contract posted earlier). Since construction never started, those rights expired.

 

[pilferk]

What makes you think Universal wont try to capitalize on the success of this film too? I would be willing to bet that after the opening weekend they have a group of people getting together to discuss it.

They can feature some of the characters as walk arounds/strollers.

They can sell some merchandise.

They can promote the Hulk ride.

That would be about the extent of their ability to capitalize.

 

[pilferk]

My interest is in Marvel merchandise being sold or will be sold by December in any of the parks in Florida? DS is a huge fan and I'd like to surprise him with a few items when we go in December. Any locations, and if so, what is being offered?

I've already seen Marvel Merch at WDW. I picked up a Spidey shirt last time we were down there, and saw some other character merch, too. Not a ton..but some. That was last October.

 

[WebmasterMike]

from the Q2 2012 WDC earnings call

...the company's theme-park engineers have "ramped … up" design work on Marvel-based attractions for parks in California and overseas, though none is likely to be added at Walt Disney World because Universal Orlando holds exclusive theme-park rights to key Marvel properties on the U.S. East Coast.

 

[wmharley]

The way I understood it was Disney couldn't use the characters Universal is using/have under contract until that contract is up. So no Hulk, Spiderman, Dr. Doom or X-men(just no Storm maybe?)? But Ironman, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye should all be free not to mention Vision, Dare Devil, ***********, Black Panter, War Machine maybe Wolverine and Beast and the rest of the X-men since the X-men ride is Storms? So there are a lot of unused characters and that isn't even a quarter of them thats just the main ones most people know.

that's what I thought.

they censored "quick silver" for some reason put the two words into one ***********? Thats his name all one word and they censor it?

I remember when Quick Draw McGraw was termed offensive for various reasons on the name.

This is also what I have heard from reliable insiders on other boards. WDW has no interest in trying to get the rights away from Universal to put attractions in WDW. Once you figure in the cost of buying Universal out of the contract, and the cost of building the new attractions it just doesn't make business sense. As for Universal, they have absolutely no incentive to give up the contract.

As for Disneyland and over-seas, that's another story entirely.

Add to the fact Disney won't do a thrill ride coaster, and the need for Marvel area would ultimately be watered down if it was ever built.

I'm showing my "nerd" here but Storm and Spider-Man are also Avengers. That may reinforce Universals exclusive use of all Avengers family characters.

There are several Xmen who were Avengers. The Beast is another, so I wonder if that counts as a double whammy

 

[DanBoris]

Universal can not develop any new attractions, based on anything Marvel, without Marvel (aka Disney) approval. They can't even make significant changes or upgrades to existing attractions without approval from Marvel (aka Disney).

And while I doubt Disney would stop them from upgrading an existing attraction (witness Spiderman), I have NO doubt they'd kabosh any new attractions based on those properties.

"Exclusive use" does not mean carte blanche use.

The contract say "reasonable approval" which to me indicates that Disney/Marvel could not get away with flat out denying Universal permission to build a new attraction.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The contract say "reasonable approval" which to me indicates that Disney/Marvel could not get away with flat out denying Universal permission to build a new attraction.

It would be highly unlikely that any new marvel attraction will go into IOA...

Disney is making money at IOA..they are ok that universal is making it too
Universal is making money at IOA...they are ok paying part to disney
disney is getting play for its licensed movies at a competitors parks....and then those people go to WDW
Universal is getting free advertising for its attractions through materials disney is paying for....and people are coming to its parks from WDW

If there is a better definition to "synergy" in business...i'd like to hear it

 

[pilferk]

The contract say "reasonable approval" which to me indicates that Disney/Marvel could not get away with flat out denying Universal permission to build a new attraction.

Legally, "reasonable approval" means Universal can't build anything new without Disney/Marvel approval (which they won't grant). It simply means the process through which Universal submits the request has to be reasonable (in both terms and duration). It does NOT mean that any "reasonable" request gets approved. There's a big difference between the two.

 

[XGrumpy1]

Good for California Adventure, first Cars Land, now maybe Marvel Land. It will be one go to park!

 

[Kronk N Tink]

One wonders if maybe Disney's best move would be to offer a cash payout for a rewriting of the rights portion of the contract. Let them keep Spiderman and X-Men for the time being and just buy back the Captain America and Hulk names with permissions to use the Avengers name in the East Coast parks but not the full Marvel name. Then give Universal permissions to re-theme with maybe the FF or additional Spidey/X-Men attractions.

Considering the Spidey reboot coming out and the popularity of First Class last year could be a nice win-win for both sides. Would also let both sides get a little free advertising in each others parks and establish a good workign relationship for the gradual re-aquiring of rights for Disney shoudl they ever want to take it abck in full. Probobly never happen though.