Just for Fun... Would Universal ever close Superhero Island?

[Lesley Wake]

Disney would need to shell out a lot of money, like billions to get them to give up the rights. And even then, why would Universal agree to it? They could do a re-theming of the coasters to be in line with only DC characters. But then that would just be changing up old rides while giving Disney the ability to create a whole new land with new rides and drawing more people. Lose-lose for Universal.

And I don't think WDW needs Marvel. The only place it would make sense is DHS; I know some rumors put it in Epcot, but that just seems out-of-place (of course that wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing it). And DHS will be crowded enough once Toy Story and Star Wars open. Let DCA have Marvel land. Disney has enough IP to create attractions without resorting to superheros.

 

[Liljo22]

Billions? That is a little overboard. A couple of hundred million is a closer number.

 

[Gillbob316]

If Disney starts mixing other characters in with The Avengers, they too will be covered by the Orlando contract. That also hurts Disney a bit.

It's this kind of speculation I always take issue with when this topic comes up, because it's clearly not that cut and dry.

Disney clearly feels they have the wiggle room to use characters that aren't flagship Avengers. We've seen the likes of the Guardians and Dr. Strange show up in the parks. And lest anyone forget, Big Hero 6 is based on a Marvel comic also, and you can still hug Baymax on a daily basis at Hollywood Studios (but he tends to slip people's minds because Big Hero 6 was animated)

Funnily enough, two Big Hero 6 members from the comics, Sunfire and the Silver Samurai did NOT appear in the movie, because those two characters are commonly associated with the X-Men, and I believe Disney couldn't legally use them due to Fox's X-Men movie rights. Despite the fact they were Big Hero 6 characters, they were also X-Men characters... and that took them out of the movie, as is my understanding

See, I don't claim I know more about this contract than anyone else, but I do think I question the finer points of it than some often do. I come at this not only as a huge fan of the Universal and Disney parks, but as a huge fan of Marvel comics. I feel I often frequent boards where one or the other exist, but not so often both. Most comic fans care more about the movie rights, and couldn't give a fig what's going on in themeparks. Most themepark fans only know the broad strokes they see in the movies, and don't know the 50+ year history most of these characters have in comics. And as a fan of both, what a lot of theme park fans don't seem to understand (in my observation) is... Marvel has ALREADY mixed ALL their characters together. In a hundred ways too numerous for me to memorize or list. Making the whole comic universe a huge blur of a grey area.

The marvel comic book universe, is very much ONE universe (or more correctly, one multiverse, but that's a level of comic-nerd nitpicking I won't bore you with). These characters all interact with one another ALREADY. They all appear in eachother's books far more often than they do in eachother's movies.

All these characters can and do already mix with one another in the pages of comic books. Spider-Man, Wolverine, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage, Rogue and 100 other characters NOT in the movie Avengers lineup have all been Avengers in comic books. On the flipside of that coin, your average movie goer doesn't know it, but Iron Man (the Avenger), Kitty Pryde (the X-Man) and The Thing (of the Fantastic Four) have ALL been members of the Guardians of the Galaxy. That is to say, the comic book Guardians of the Galaxy. Wolverine, Storm, Spider-Man and Hulk have been part of the Fantastic Four at points in the past. Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver have played strong roles in both X-Men and Avengers lore (which is a grey area we've seen make its way to Fox's X-Men Movies vs. Disney's Avengers Movies as well.)

Dr. Strange and Star-Lord will clearly be appearing in future Avengers movies, but will that make them Avengers? I dunno. But I bet Disney's lawyers are trying to wrap their head around it.

The Guardians newest movie member, Mantis, has actually also been an Avenger in the comics, come to think of it.

So anyway, having a character mix into one franchise or another clearly does NOT automatically grandfather that character into the contract... I highly doubt that Iron Man is covered by the Guardians of the Galaxy character family. Mantis may or may not be covered by the Avengers character family. Ultimately... As is often said in these discussions "It's a grey area" ... I think a lot of it is based in public perception. The general public thinks of Iron Man as an Avenger. Rogue as an X-Man. Thing as Fantastic Four. And now Mantis as a Guardian. So while Disney/Universal could argue that one or more of these characters should/shouldn't be covered... it would be an uphill legal climb. And probably not worth starting the battle with the other company.

All that said, Disney is obviously testing the boundries of what Universal can and can't stop them from doing... and I think it's obvious to all of us that they're doing it with characters that aren't commonly perceived by the public as mainstream Avengers/X-Men/Marvel Universe heroes. Dr. Strange clearly stood in Hollywood Studios, despite the fact he WAS an Avenger and Universal's contract covers Avengers.

I just don't think we know enough to say things like, "Well if Star-Lord is in the next Avengers movie, then Disney can't use him." ... it's obviously not that simple. I don't pretend to know the details of the contract... but... grey grey grey... is what it seems to me.

It doesn't surprise me that Disney is selectively choosing which characters they bring into the parks and IF they open a ride in Orlando, it won't surprise me if it's Guardians. I will be EXTREMELY curious to see if Mantis makes an appearance in said ride.

The future will be lots of one company pushing, and seeing if the other is willing to push back, is my guess.

I personally wish they'd just have a sit-down and see if they could come to terms on both using the characters in a way that mutually benefits both sides (much the way Disney did with Sony over Spider-Man's movie rights)... BUT... that seems unlikely.

 

[Amelia :)]

We did Spider-Man meet and greet at DLP once! I'm not really sure where this fits into the conversation/contract discussion but I just found it interesting they were allowed to have a meet and greet with him in Paris.

 

[DisBabe94]

It's this kind of speculation I always take issue with when this topic comes up, because it's clearly not that cut and dry.

Disney clearly feels they have the wiggle room to use characters that aren't flagship Avengers. We've seen the likes of the Guardians and Dr. Strange show up in the parks. And lest anyone forget, Big Hero 6 is based on a Marvel comic also, and you can still hug Baymax on a daily basis at Hollywood Studios (but he tends to slip people's minds because Big Hero 6 was animated)

Funnily enough, two Big Hero 6 members from the comics, Sunfire and the Silver Samurai did NOT appear in the movie, because those two characters are commonly associated with the X-Men, and I believe Disney couldn't legally use them due to Fox's X-Men movie rights. Despite the fact they were Big Hero 6 characters, they were also X-Men characters... and that took them out of the movie, as is my understanding

See, I don't claim I know more about this contract than anyone else, but I do think I question the finer points of it than some often do. I come at this not only as a huge fan of the Universal and Disney parks, but as a huge fan of Marvel comics. I feel I often frequent boards where one or the other exist, but not so often both. Most comic fans care more about the movie rights, and couldn't give a fig what's going on in themeparks. Most themepark fans only know the broad strokes they see in the movies, and don't know the 50+ year history most of these characters have in comics. And as a fan of both, what a lot of theme park fans don't seem to understand (in my observation) is... Marvel has ALREADY mixed ALL their characters together. In a hundred ways too numerous for me to memorize or list. Making the whole comic universe a huge blur of a grey area.

The marvel comic book universe, is very much ONE universe (or more correctly, one multiverse, but that's a level of comic-nerd nitpicking I won't bore you with). These characters all interact with one another ALREADY. They all appear in eachother's books far more often than they do in eachother's movies.

All these characters can and do already mix with one another in the pages of comic books. Spider-Man, Wolverine, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage, Rogue and 100 other characters NOT in the movie Avengers lineup have all been Avengers in comic books. On the flipside of that coin, your average movie goer doesn't know it, but Iron Man (the Avenger), Kitty Pryde (the X-Man) and The Thing (of the Fantastic Four) have ALL been members of the Guardians of the Galaxy. That is to say, the comic book Guardians of the Galaxy. Wolverine, Storm, Spider-Man and Hulk have been part of the Fantastic Four at points in the past. Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver have played strong roles in both X-Men and Avengers lore (which is a grey area we've seen make its way to Fox's X-Men Movies vs. Disney's Avengers Movies as well.)

Dr. Strange and Star-Lord will clearly be appearing in future Avengers movies, but will that make them Avengers? I dunno. But I bet Disney's lawyers are trying to wrap their head around it.

The Guardians newest movie member, Mantis, has actually also been an Avenger in the comics, come to think of it.

So anyway, having a character mix into one franchise or another clearly does NOT automatically grandfather that character into the contract... I highly doubt that Iron Man is covered by the Guardians of the Galaxy character family. Mantis may or may not be covered by the Avengers character family. Ultimately... As is often said in these discussions "It's a grey area" ... I think a lot of it is based in public perception. The general public thinks of Iron Man as an Avenger. Rogue as an X-Man. Thing as Fantastic Four. And now Mantis as a Guardian. So while Disney/Universal could argue that one or more of these characters should/shouldn't be covered... it would be an uphill legal climb. And probably not worth starting the battle with the other company.

All that said, Disney is obviously testing the boundries of what Universal can and can't stop them from doing... and I think it's obvious to all of us that they're doing it with characters that aren't commonly perceived by the public as mainstream Avengers/X-Men/Marvel Universe heroes. Dr. Strange clearly stood in Hollywood Studios, despite the fact he WAS an Avenger and Universal's contract covers Avengers.

I just don't think we know enough to say things like, "Well if Star-Lord is in the next Avengers movie, then Disney can't use him." ... it's obviously not that simple. I don't pretend to know the details of the contract... but... grey grey grey... is what it seems to me.

It doesn't surprise me that Disney is selectively choosing which characters they bring into the parks and IF they open a ride in Orlando, it won't surprise me if it's Guardians. I will be EXTREMELY curious to see if Mantis makes an appearance in said ride.

The future will be lots of one company pushing, and seeing if the other is willing to push back, is my guess.

I personally wish they'd just have a sit-down and see if they could come to terms on both using the characters in a way that mutually benefits both sides (much the way Disney did with Sony over Spider-Man's movie rights)... BUT... that seems unlikely.

Wow!! You have a wealth of knowledge!

I agree, I'd love to see them come to some type of solid agreement on the specific characters and when/how they may be used. And sooner rather than later, as you've pointed out the vast intricacies of how these characters are "classified" and what franchises they belong to is very much a fluid state.

I just see this as this messy messy situation and I have a feeling it will come to a head in one way or another. I almost see it unfolding as a type of power struggle, first Disney will introduce a Marvel attraction into WDW, and then Universal will add some new tech to Super Hero Island (a PP mentioned some new patents?), and back and forth. (Much to the benefit of the guests!!)

It is truly strange. This is my Disney bias I am sure, and obviously Super Hero Island was there first, but with Disney producing such hits with Marvel and if Disney does expand Marvel into WDW and it becomes a success as Mission Breakout has, I almost see Universal holding on to it as a kind of "Hey look at us! We're here too!" kind of move. I'm having a hard time conveying my thoughts towards this!!! It's almost like Super Hero Island is a relic, or a novelty type of thing.

Have you heard about Marvel Theme Park Universe (MTPU) ?? What are your thoughts? To me it seems like Disney drawing a clear line in the sand between Marvel in their theme parks across the world and Marvel in any other theme park. I think they are trying to specifically target Super Hero Island by them not being included in MTPU, making a clear differentiation, like a "you can't sit with us" and kind of undermining the "legitimacy" of Marvel in their park.

 

[Liljo22]

We did Spider-Man meet and greet at DLP once! I'm not really sure where this fits into the conversation/contract discussion but I just found it interesting they were allowed to have a meet and greet with him in Paris.

The contract only covers "East of the Mississippi" for character use so Spiderman is fair game. Interestingly enough, the contract says that West of the Mississippi, the use of the name Marvel for a Land is not allowed. If DCA gets a land, it can't use the Marvel name.

 

[cschaaf]

It's this kind of speculation I always take issue with when this topic comes up, because it's clearly not that cut and dry.

Disney clearly feels they have the wiggle room to use characters that aren't flagship Avengers. We've seen the likes of the Guardians and Dr. Strange show up in the parks. And lest anyone forget, Big Hero 6 is based on a Marvel comic also, and you can still hug Baymax on a daily basis at Hollywood Studios (but he tends to slip people's minds because Big Hero 6 was animated)

Funnily enough, two Big Hero 6 members from the comics, Sunfire and the Silver Samurai did NOT appear in the movie, because those two characters are commonly associated with the X-Men, and I believe Disney couldn't legally use them due to Fox's X-Men movie rights. Despite the fact they were Big Hero 6 characters, they were also X-Men characters... and that took them out of the movie, as is my understanding

See, I don't claim I know more about this contract than anyone else, but I do think I question the finer points of it than some often do. I come at this not only as a huge fan of the Universal and Disney parks, but as a huge fan of Marvel comics. I feel I often frequent boards where one or the other exist, but not so often both. Most comic fans care more about the movie rights, and couldn't give a fig what's going on in themeparks. Most themepark fans only know the broad strokes they see in the movies, and don't know the 50+ year history most of these characters have in comics. And as a fan of both, what a lot of theme park fans don't seem to understand (in my observation) is... Marvel has ALREADY mixed ALL their characters together. In a hundred ways too numerous for me to memorize or list. Making the whole comic universe a huge blur of a grey area.

The marvel comic book universe, is very much ONE universe (or more correctly, one multiverse, but that's a level of comic-nerd nitpicking I won't bore you with). These characters all interact with one another ALREADY. They all appear in eachother's books far more often than they do in eachother's movies.

All these characters can and do already mix with one another in the pages of comic books. Spider-Man, Wolverine, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage, Rogue and 100 other characters NOT in the movie Avengers lineup have all been Avengers in comic books. On the flipside of that coin, your average movie goer doesn't know it, but Iron Man (the Avenger), Kitty Pryde (the X-Man) and The Thing (of the Fantastic Four) have ALL been members of the Guardians of the Galaxy. That is to say, the comic book Guardians of the Galaxy. Wolverine, Storm, Spider-Man and Hulk have been part of the Fantastic Four at points in the past. Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver have played strong roles in both X-Men and Avengers lore (which is a grey area we've seen make its way to Fox's X-Men Movies vs. Disney's Avengers Movies as well.)

Dr. Strange and Star-Lord will clearly be appearing in future Avengers movies, but will that make them Avengers? I dunno. But I bet Disney's lawyers are trying to wrap their head around it.

The Guardians newest movie member, Mantis, has actually also been an Avenger in the comics, come to think of it.

So anyway, having a character mix into one franchise or another clearly does NOT automatically grandfather that character into the contract... I highly doubt that Iron Man is covered by the Guardians of the Galaxy character family. Mantis may or may not be covered by the Avengers character family. Ultimately... As is often said in these discussions "It's a grey area" ... I think a lot of it is based in public perception. The general public thinks of Iron Man as an Avenger. Rogue as an X-Man. Thing as Fantastic Four. And now Mantis as a Guardian. So while Disney/Universal could argue that one or more of these characters should/shouldn't be covered... it would be an uphill legal climb. And probably not worth starting the battle with the other company.

All that said, Disney is obviously testing the boundries of what Universal can and can't stop them from doing... and I think it's obvious to all of us that they're doing it with characters that aren't commonly perceived by the public as mainstream Avengers/X-Men/Marvel Universe heroes. Dr. Strange clearly stood in Hollywood Studios, despite the fact he WAS an Avenger and Universal's contract covers Avengers.

I just don't think we know enough to say things like, "Well if Star-Lord is in the next Avengers movie, then Disney can't use him." ... it's obviously not that simple. I don't pretend to know the details of the contract... but... grey grey grey... is what it seems to me.

It doesn't surprise me that Disney is selectively choosing which characters they bring into the parks and IF they open a ride in Orlando, it won't surprise me if it's Guardians. I will be EXTREMELY curious to see if Mantis makes an appearance in said ride.

The future will be lots of one company pushing, and seeing if the other is willing to push back, is my guess.

I personally wish they'd just have a sit-down and see if they could come to terms on both using the characters in a way that mutually benefits both sides (much the way Disney did with Sony over Spider-Man's movie rights)... BUT... that seems unlikely.

I certainly can't question your character knowledge! I'm not even a 'superhero' movie fan, so most of the characters you listed went way over my head lol I've been dragged to most of the movies, so I have some general knowledge - even if it was obtained against my will.

There is a good rundown of the contract on an Orlando-based blog. Not sure if I can post the link but with some simple Googling, you should be able to find it.

The main restrictions seem to be around any Fantastic Four or Avengers characters and the word 'Marvel'. Disney is certainly testing the waters with the Guardians stuff. No doubt Universal is keeping a close eye on it.

At this point, Universal probably feels it's just additional free advertising. If Disney starts building a ride in Orlando, then we'll see what Universal does.

 

[TommyJK]

I just see this as this messy messy situation and I have a feeling it will come to a head in one way or another. I almost see it unfolding as a type of power struggle, first Disney will introduce a Marvel attraction into WDW

But Disney can't. The Contract is very explicit in this point. They really can't do anything in WDW from an attraction or themed area standpoint using anything from Marvel.

It is truly strange. This is my Disney bias I am sure, and obviously Super Hero Island was there first, but with Disney producing such hits with Marvel and if Disney does expand Marvel into WDW and it becomes a success as Mission Breakout has...

Mission breakout is about at the very edge of what they can do legally, west of the Mississippi. You'll notice they aren't using the word "Marvel" in the name of the attraction anywhere, nor could they create a themed area using the name Marvel as per the contract.

The only thing that might come to a head is if Disney steps an inch over what they're allowed to do per the contract, for which Universal would order a cease and desist or sue them.

If Disney starts building a ride in Orlando, then we'll see what Universal does.

Disney wouldn't even start planning a ride in Orlando because they can't. So why would they drop money even into planning such a thing?

 

[Liljo22]

NM

 

[DisBabe94]

But Disney can't. The Contract is very explicit in this point. They really can't do anything in WDW from an attraction or themed area standpoint using anything from Marvel.



Mission breakout is about at the very edge of what they can do legally, west of the Mississippi. You'll notice they aren't using the word "Marvel" in the name of the attraction anywhere, nor could they create a themed area using the name Marvel as per the contract.

The only thing that might come to a head is if Disney steps an inch over what they're allowed to do per the contract, for which Universal would order a cease and desist or sue them.



Disney wouldn't even start planning a ride in Orlando because they can't. So why would they drop money even into planning such a thing?

Okay, so, then where are all the rumors coming from? Hopeful guests? Or Disney testing the waters perhaps?

 

[damo]

Okay, so, then where are all the rumors coming from? Hopeful guests? Or Disney testing the waters perhaps?

People who don't realize that there is a contract.

 

[BobHarlem]

Mission breakout is about at the very edge of what they can do legally, west of the Mississippi. You'll notice they aren't using the word "Marvel" in the name of the attraction anywhere, nor could they create a themed area using the name Marvel as per the contract.

The name for the California Adventure area I heard was most likely is "Superhero City"

 

[Gillbob316]

I always see people say that Disney isn't allowed to use the word "Marvel" anywhere in the parks, but that's clearly not the case, as this sign in front of the Star-Lord & Groot meet and greet at Hollywood Studios says "(C) 2017 Marvel" on the bottom (right above the word minutes)...

I'm sure they're very limited in their use. Probably can't use the actual red logo, or Marvel Branding. But they can clearly use the word in some contexts.

ANYWAY... moving on...

The continued previews & character appearances for things like Dr. Strange, Guardians and Big Hero 6 show they're obviously willing to test the waters in Orlando, if nothing else. As I said in an earlier post, I think the future is going to be a lot of one company pushing, and seeing if the other is willing to push back.

Now... I'm not saying Disney can make a ride in Orlando per say. I honestly don't know. As has been mentioned a great deal... Marvel Character families are fluid, and verymuch a grey area. But IF they COULD make a ride in Orlando (and we all know dang well they're looking into exploring the idea, whether they ultimately can or can't pull the trigger)... I'd say the Guardians are conceivably their best way in.

These characters weren't prominent before the movie, and were very likely overlooked by any prior contracts with Universal. Most of them (save Mantis) don't have strong ties to the X-Men, Avengers, Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, which is where most of Universal's contractual pull lies.

I think it's at least *conceivable* that by removing the "Marvel" logo from the franchise... Disney had found a solid loophole for making a ride. The rumors certainly support the notion. BUT... at the end of the day, rumors are still rumors.

They may not be able to legally make any sort of Marvel ride in Orlando. Or maybe, they've found a backdoor in the contract that allows for it. I don't know, you don't know, only Disney's lawyers and Imagineers know at this point.

We shall see, is ultimately all I can say conclusively on the matter.

 

[jeffbeardreams]

People who don't realize that there is a contract.

This, but even amongst people who understand that there is a contract I see an awful lot of speculation being passed off as gospel.

In truth there's a lot of gray area in that contract and not a lot of people outside the two companies seem to have a very good handle on the details. As a consumer I think it's safest just to sit back and see what happens. Disney will add as many Marvel features to their various parks as they can ... and no more. Because there's absolutely no way Disney gets stuck with a cease and desist from their biggest theme park competitor. Talk about bad optics ... that would be nearly criminal mismanagement. I know one thing for certain. If Disney files for a permit to build something Marvel related at a park, then they'll have done their legal due diligence beforehand.

 

[StrawberryChan]

^^ yeah they can probably use it for trademarking purposes but not the actual logo or name in any attractions. note that they don't use the "marvel studios" logo

^ disney's lawyers have probably looked it over more closely than universal has, tbh. i should note that marvel superhero island was selling guardians of the galaxy vol. 2 and dr. strange merchandise the last time i was there, which seems odd since they're basically giving disney free marketing... i guess they're mutually benefiting from this deal in some way

 

[TommyJK]

I always see people say that Disney isn't allowed to use the word "Marvel" anywhere in the parks, but that's clearly not the case, as this sign in front of the Star-Lord & Groot meet and greet at Hollywood Studios says "(C) 2017 Marvel" on the bottom (right above the word minutes)...

I'm sure they're very limited in their use. Probably can't use the actual red logo, or Marvel Branding. But they can clearly use the word in some contexts.

Sorry, in my replies I should have been more clear, based on what I see in the contract. To your point in the bottom, the contract notes that it can't be used from a Marketing perspective:

West of The Mississippi – any other theme park may use any Marvel characters whether or not used by MCA.

iii. East or West of The Mississippi – permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

ANYWAY... moving on...

The continued previews & character appearances for things like Dr. Strange, Guardians and Big Hero 6 show they're obviously willing to test the waters in Orlando, if nothing else. As I said in an earlier post, I think the future is going to be a lot of one company pushing, and seeing if the other is willing to push back.

Now... I'm not saying Disney can make a ride in Orlando per say. I honestly don't know. As has been mentioned a great deal... Marvel Character families are fluid, and verymuch a grey area. But IF they COULD make a ride in Orlando (and we all know dang well they're looking into exploring the idea, whether they ultimately can or can't pull the trigger)... I'd say the Guardians are conceivably their best way in.

These characters weren't prominent before the movie, and were very likely overlooked by any prior contracts with Universal. Most of them (save Mantis) don't have strong ties to the X-Men, Avengers, Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, which is where most of Universal's contractual pull lies.

I think it's at least *conceivable* that by removing the "Marvel" logo from the franchise... Disney had found a solid loophole for making a ride. The rumors certainly support the notion. BUT... at the end of the day, rumors are still rumors.

They may not be able to legally make any sort of Marvel ride in Orlando. Or maybe, they've found a backdoor in the contract that allows for it. I don't know, you don't know, only Disney's lawyers and Imagineers know at this point.

We shall see, is ultimately all I can say conclusively on the matter.

This is where I think ultimately a judge would need to decide things.

West of the Mississippi, what they did with Guardians is clearly legal per the contract.

East of the Mississippi, especially in Orlando, it will come down to the interpretation of what characters could fall under the "families" of the noted 4 main properties in use. I am by no means a Marvel Comic Historian, but my guess is that there have been enough prominent cross-over stories of characters in various Avengers, X-Men, Spiderman and Fantastic Four comics, that it would leave Disney with very little left that it could feasibly try to make an attraction on, without violating the contract.

 

[TommyJK]

Here's a very interesting article that could muddy the waters even further as it relates to Gurdians in WDW.....

http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201608/5222/

 

[Gillbob316]

This is where I think ultimately a judge would need to decide things.

West of the Mississippi, what they did with Guardians is clearly legal per the contract.

East of the Mississippi, especially in Orlando, it will come down to the interpretation of what characters could fall under the "families" of the noted 4 main properties in use. I am by no means a Marvel Comic Historian, but my guess is that there have been enough prominent cross-over stories of characters in various Avengers, X-Men, Spiderman and Fantastic Four comics, that it would leave Disney with very little left that it could feasibly try to make an attraction on, without violating the contract.

I agree whole heartedly that finding prominent characters outside the Avengers, X-Men, Spider-Man or Fantastic Four character families would leave Disney very little to work with.

But AS someone with a fair knowledge of comic books... I feel The Guardians pretty much fall right into that narrow niche. To my knowledge, none of the main 5 Guardians have ever been Avengers, X-Men or Fantastic Four members, nor were any of them prominent Marvel Universe characters in general before the movie (which was released well after Marvel Super Hero Island was built). They all existed prior to the IoA contract, but none of them was a desirable character until after.

So again... grey area. Haha.

Like I said, I'm not saying Disney definitely CAN make a ride, by any means... but if it were conceivable that they did do the legal research, and find a loophole which allowed them to make one in Orlando... I could easily see where the Guardians would be the characters to facilitate that loophole (as the rumors suggest) because those characters DON'T have strong ties to the Universal-Owned Character families. Iron Man has been a Guardian, but Star-Lord has never been an Avenger.

*Shrug* We shall see in the coming years. I think Jeff's post above kinda hit the nail on the head.

 

[TommyJK]

I agree whole heartedly that finding prominent characters outside the Avengers, X-Men, Spider-Man or Fantastic Four character families would leave Disney very little to work with.

But AS someone with a fair knowledge of comic books... I feel The Guardians pretty much fall right into that narrow niche. To my knowledge, none of the main 5 Guardians have ever been Avengers, X-Men or Fantastic Four members, nor were any of them prominent Marvel Universe characters in general before the movie (which was released well after Marvel Super Hero Island was built). They all existed prior to the IoA contract, but none of them was a desirable character until after.

So again... grey area. Haha.

Like I said, I'm not saying Disney definitely CAN make a ride, by any means... but if it were conceivable that they did do the legal research, and find a loophole which allowed them to make one in Orlando... I could easily see where the Guardians would be the characters to facilitate that loophole (as the rumors suggest) because those characters DON'T have strong ties to the Universal-Owned Character families. Iron Man has been a Guardian, but Star-Lord has never been an Avenger.

*Shrug* We shall see in the coming years. I think Jeff's post above kinda hit the nail on the head.

I did a quick google search and have found instances of The Guardians teaming up with the Avengers in the comics, so again a grey area but who knows.

That all being said, the article I posted just above your post seems to bring up some interesting points on if or if not the Guardians will be in the next Avengers movie, and it may play into all of this.....

 

[jeffbeardreams]

I did a quick google search and have found instances of The Guardians teaming up with the Avengers in the comics, so again a grey area but who knows.

That all being said, the article I posted just above your post seems to bring up some interesting points on if or if not the Guardians will be in the next Avengers movie, and it may play into all of this.....

Yeah ... down the ages there have been several Avengers/Guardians mashups in the books, and they absolutely will be both play a part in the upcoming Infinity Wars films. But that gets to the heart of my point on this issue ... there's a lot more gray area than a lot of people act like there is. Clearly legal minds will resolve these matter, not message boarders like us.