Major Rumor Marvel in ToT update page 25

[Halloweenqueen]

I understand about Universal and Marvel, but I could see Disney buying the rights back.

 

[rteetz]

I understand about Universal and Marvel, but I could see Disney buying the rights back.

Not right now no. Maybe in a decade or longer. Neither company wants to buy or sell the rights right now. Universal is currently redoing it's hulk attraction.

 

[ErinTwinmom]

Not right now no. Maybe in a decade or longer. Neither company wants to buy or sell the rights right now. Universal is currently redoing it's hulk attraction.

In a decade I doubt they need to. While marvel/Disney started with avengers which they can't use in wdw, they have already branched out with big hero 6 and GotG, I bet in a decade there are plenty of popular marvel characters that are not on Universal's roster.

 

[rteetz]

In a decade I doubt they need to. While marvel/Disney started with avengers which they can't use in wdw, they have already branched out with big hero 6 and GotG, I bet in a decade there are plenty of popular marvel characters that are not on Universal's roster.

I don't think they need too currently either.

 

[DanBoris]

The contract doesn't specifically mention the guardians of the Galaxy but I believe it mentions the avengers. If the gaurdians cross into that avengers realm that's where they would be considered part of that I think. I'm not big into comics though.

It's unclear from the contract whether the list of characters families was set at the time the contract was made, or whether it can change in the future. It's also unclear exactly what constitutes being a part of the family of a character. So it's possible Jim Hill is correct, but a case cannot be made 100% either way from just what the contract says.

 

[eXo]

Jim Hill is completely wrong if he said GoG can't be used once it "shares an umbrella with Avengers".

Here is how it works in Orlando.

Universal has rights to characters they had in the parks AT THE TIME Disney acquired Marvel. Universal can not add any new characters to IoA (or USF for that matter). Now, when I say characters they currently have in the parks, that is more than just rides. This includes M&G's and decor as well (such as Namor over the restrooms).

Disney on the other hand can use any character in the Marvel universe that was not already in use at Universal. Universal does not have all encompassing rights to any/all Marvel characters. They have a specific list of licenses they can use. Guardians is not on this list, and even if Disney made a movie where the Guardians and the Avengers got together and had super hero babies, Universal would not suddenly have rights to this (or their avenger guardian babies).

Jim Hill doesn't seem to grasp this, and consider he is making the licensing deal a part of his outlook, suggests that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

 

[Eoghann]

Actually - I don't know much about the animated TV shows, but I've seen enough of the trailers to know that GotG have already showed up on the Avengers TV show. I also agree that the Jim Hill comment that as soon as they show up in the Avengers movie they are now Avengers doesn't make a damn lick of sense, but again that's Jim Hill.

So for the movie licenses it was families of characters "X-Men Family, Spider-Man family, Fantastic Four family" and a cross-over wouldn't have an impact the character would have to have had a regular role in the comics. Appearance in the movies is irrelevant.

I also thought that the Universal contract stipulated specific characters though.

 

[LSLS]

Have we seen the actual contract? I'd be curious what the exact language actually says.

 

[rteetz]

Have we seen the actual contract? I'd be curious what the exact language actually says.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

 

[skier_pete]

Jim Hill doesn't seem to grasp this, and consider he is making the licensing deal a part of his outlook, suggests that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

I've been saying this for years. I repeats rumors he's heard elsewhere and then makes up stuff to fill it out.

 

[eXo]

For those interested, here are the parts of the contract which support my previous statements:

* "East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]"

This is the part that specifies they can't use any character already in use at Universal. Based on current characters/ character families in use at Universal, this includes:
X-Men (Including villians, Magnetoc/Mr. Sinister/etc)
Fantastic Four / Dr. Doom
Hulk
Original Avengers
Spider-Man and his villains
Namor... lol

 

[LSLS]

Could be interesting. I think the question is what if a character is added in the future to the family, and what constitutes the family. I wonder if this is why they have been hesitant to really bring anything into WDW.

 

[adam.adbe]

Could be interesting. I think the question is what if a character is added in the future to the family, and what constitutes the family. I wonder if this is why they have been hesitant to really bring anything into WDW.

I don't think that's a argument Universal or Disney have any interest in starting. It's pretty clear what Uni thinks is it's property with respect to Theme Park rights. Right now, both parties are held in a mutual benefit arrangement. Universal don't want Disney to damage the core brand, which Disney could do at will (with some cost to themselves of course). Similarly, Disney doesn't want Universal to hamstring them on currently unexploited IP, when it's Disney doing the marketing and shouldering the risk, which in theory Uni could do.

As such, if both parties stick to the script, there's no reason Disney can't use GotG.

 

[eXo]

Could be interesting. I think the question is what if a character is added in the future to the family, and what constitutes the family. I wonder if this is why they have been hesitant to really bring anything into WDW.

In the first 2 years of opening Marvel Island they had the worldwide exclusive option to open parks in other areas or use any character owned or acquired by marvel. After that 2 year period passed, things changed. At that point, they had exclusive rights, east of the Mississippi to characters currently in use in the park. To use other characters required Marvel's sign-off. An example of this would have been in 2002 Halloween Horro nights when they moved the event to IOA and utilized Carnage as a primary badguy/host of the show. One of the mazes showed all the super heroes dead along the way, . Once Marvel become aware of this they revoked the license to use Marvel characters in their Halloween event, and they weren't allowed to show the good guys dead in any capacity.

Rowling has a similar clause in the Wizarding World contract which protects all of her characters from appearing. They also had a clause preventing holiday retheming of the area, however there are heavy rumors they are adding a winter festival to the area in this coming year, which suggests they amended the contract.

Anyways, back on topic, at this point if Universal wanted to add a character in some capacity (new ride, M&G, etc), they would have to get marvel's approval *unless* it was a totally original character that was specifically added to the Fantastic Four or X-Men families. However marvel would never do this for a few reasons.

A: They don't have movie rights to either of those franchises
B: They don't have orlando theme park rights to those franchises

So why spend time and money pushing new characters they don't have full rights too.

Marvel/Disney has not been shy about devaluing the comics they don't have full rights to while simultaneously mining untapped storylines/characters (Guardians, Inhumans, etc) for full license profits.

 

[eXo]

I don't think that's a argument Universal or Disney have any interest in starting. It's pretty clear what Uni thinks is it's property with respect to Theme Park rights. Right now, both parties are held in a mutual benefit arrangement. Universal don't want Disney to damage the core brand, which Disney could do at will (with some cost to themselves of course). Similarly, Disney doesn't want Universal to hamstring them on currently unexploited IP, when it's Disney doing the marketing and shouldering the risk, which in theory Uni could do.

As such, if both parties stick to the script, there's no reason Disney can't use GotG.

Universal can not use any characters they don't currently have nor can they do anything with the characters they do have which is considered damaging to the brand. Anything considering damaging to the brand is one of the few escape clauses built into the contract. The rest expired when the park opened on time and met capacity, spending, and revenue projections. There really is nothing Universal can do to hurt Disney at this point without Jeopardizing their license. The best they can do is hold on to what they have and attempt to expand and hope they get the all-clear. Disney can't really turn down a new marvel ride in good faith if there is nothing about it that is harmful to the character. So if Universal wants an iron Man ride, Disney would have to try *really* hard to find problems with it if they wanted to prevent it.

On the flip side, Disney can, and has, damaged properties they don't have a stake in. Rightbefore Fox released their latest Fantastic Four movie, Marvel canceled the Fantastic Four comic. They have also killed Wolverine, another character they lack movie/park rights too. Both of these can be seen as damaging to Universal through the lens of a comic fan, but the reality is, 99% of the people going to the park know of these characters based on their movie and 90's cartoon legacies. Heck, all of Marvel Super Hero island feels like it was recreated from the old X-Men cartoon, in style and substance. Killing Wolverine in the comics doesn't devalue Wolverine nearly as much as some of the poor movies Fox has released, such as Wolverine: Origins.

So ya, Disney can, and has, tried to devalue characters they don't have rights to... but it doesn't make much difference when the general public doesn't follow the comics anyways. And even the people who do follow comics don't suddenly hate Wolverine just because he is dead.

edit:
In regards to suggestions that Disney would just outright buy Universal out of the contract, I think the people floating this idea don't quite understand how much that contract is worth. It's ironclad and airtight. Disney has no leverage here.

First, in the short term, you have to consider that they are cutting back like crazy due to the huge financial drain that Shanghai is costing them.

Second, in the long term, Disney isn't going to drop a couple of billion (the minimum to buy them out) on a license when they don't have an immediate place to take advantage of them in. They don't fit in MK or AK at all. DHS has a pretty packed building schedule at this point with a ton of rumors for a phase 3 floating around. If Disney had the money to buy out Marvel and wanted to slot that for a phase 3, then that would make the most sense location-wise, but it doesn't make much sense financially. Star Wars alone will be enough of a draw for the next 5-10 years. Toy Story rounds out the park and adds a draw of its own. Disney would have to justify the cost expense of acquiring the rights AND building the land. Would all that time and expense really draw more people to a park that already has 2 brand new lands? Doubtful. Their other option is Epcot... which would be a very awkward fit... but is technically possible. Iron Man's Energy Adventure anyone? Hehe, but seriously, that's a lot of money to spend on re-themeing a ride or two.

As it stands they get an annual license fee from Universal as well as merch sales kickback. Not to mention any non-Universal merch being peddled is going right back to them as well. So they ARE making money off the deal right now. So they would have to have a road map that covers the acquisition fees, the merch/licenseing dues they currently get, and the construction costs that shows they could drop all that cash and make a profit within a few years.

I honestly don't see that happening.

At that rate, they are better off wrapping up the current Marvel licensees that Universal has, and moving their movie division on to all new or unknown licenses. Meanwhile, Universal is a call back to the old super heroes while Disney saves several billion bucks and does things at their own pace.

 

[LSLS]

In the first 2 years of opening Marvel Island they had the worldwide exclusive option to open parks in other areas or use any character owned or acquired by marvel. After that 2 year period passed, things changed. At that point, they had exclusive rights, east of the Mississippi to characters currently in use in the park. To use other characters required Marvel's sign-off. An example of this would have been in 2002 Halloween Horro nights when they moved the event to IOA and utilized Carnage as a primary badguy/host of the show. One of the mazes showed all the super heroes dead along the way, . Once Marvel become aware of this they revoked the license to use Marvel characters in their Halloween event, and they weren't allowed to show the good guys dead in any capacity.

Rowling has a similar clause in the Wizarding World contract which protects all of her characters from appearing. They also had a clause preventing holiday retheming of the area, however there are heavy rumors they are adding a winter festival to the area in this coming year, which suggests they amended the contract.

Anyways, back on topic, at this point if Universal wanted to add a character in some capacity (new ride, M&G, etc), they would have to get marvel's approval *unless* it was a totally original character that was specifically added to the Fantastic Four or X-Men families. However marvel would never do this for a few reasons.

A: They don't have movie rights to either of those franchises
B: They don't have orlando theme park rights to those franchises

So why spend time and money pushing new characters they don't have full rights too.

Marvel/Disney has not been shy about devaluing the comics they don't have full rights to while simultaneously mining untapped storylines/characters (Guardians, Inhumans, etc) for full license profits.

I think the confusing thing is how a character is defined as in use at Universal. A character is in use if any member of that family is in use according to that subsection. Hence I think it could be an interesting play as to what constitutes a member of that family (though I don't think that will ever come up). I do find it curious though that WDW hasn't done more with other Marvel characters. Anyways, just an interesting topic to me for whatever reason. And you are right, I knew absolutely nothing about the stuff you stated happened in the comics.

As for the Carnage stuff, thanks for the info, that is interesting.

 

[eXo]

I think the confusing thing is how a character is defined as in use at Universal. A character is in use if any member of that family is in use according to that subsection. Hence I think it could be an interesting play as to what constitutes a member of that family (though I don't think that will ever come up).

You're right, it is unlikely any of this would ever come up. That said, it's not very difficult to define. The X-Men family is the most nebulous. The X-Men themselves are the x-men family, as far as theme park rights goes. Fox however has the movie rights on the x-men universe, which is essentially all mutants. But Disney can still find ways around this. EG: Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in Avengers 2 were switched from mutants to "experiments" and Magneto was stripped from being their father.

My understanding is that for a character to be a part of an existing family, they would have to be a core character as defined by the comics. In other words, it has to be more than just a character cross-over. For a character to join a certain "family" they have to be a member of a core team/core story, and long enough that it transcends a crossover and supersedes any individual comic they may have. In other words, it is extremely unlikely for an existing character to join a "family". It applies more towards new IPs. Which goes back to my guess earlier that Marvel won't take the time to establish new characters in "families" they don't have full rights to.

At this point I've drowned this topic with details, but hopefully it helps the few who read it. Most threads, on any site, about Marvel/Disney in themeparks are grossly misinformed. It doesn't help when guys like Jim Hill and other sources that have large audiences parrot bad info.

 

[Aurora0427]

This thread makes me hate Bob Iger. I didn't get to ride ToT in October bc I was pregnant. It better freaking be there next time I go to Disney.

 

[rteetz]

This thread makes me hate Bob Iger. I didn't get to ride ToT in October bc I was pregnant. It better freaking be there next time I go to Disney.

If it happens it won't happen at WDW until probably late 2017-early 2018. DCA would get it first.

 

[DanBoris]

In the first 2 years of opening Marvel Island they had the worldwide exclusive option to open parks in other areas or use any character owned or acquired by marvel. After that 2 year period passed, things changed. At that point, they had exclusive rights, east of the Mississippi to characters currently in use in the park. To use other characters required Marvel's sign-off. An example of this would have been in 2002 Halloween Horro nights when they moved the event to IOA and utilized Carnage as a primary badguy/host of the show. One of the mazes showed all the super heroes dead along the way, . Once Marvel become aware of this they revoked the license to use Marvel characters in their Halloween event, and they weren't allowed to show the good guys dead in any capacity.

Rowling has a similar clause in the Wizarding World contract which protects all of her characters from appearing. They also had a clause preventing holiday retheming of the area, however there are heavy rumors they are adding a winter festival to the area in this coming year, which suggests they amended the contract.

Anyways, back on topic, at this point if Universal wanted to add a character in some capacity (new ride, M&G, etc), they would have to get marvel's approval *unless* it was a totally original character that was specifically added to the Fantastic Four or X-Men families. However marvel would never do this for a few reasons.

A: They don't have movie rights to either of those franchises
B: They don't have orlando theme park rights to those franchises

So why spend time and money pushing new characters they don't have full rights too.

Marvel/Disney has not been shy about devaluing the comics they don't have full rights to while simultaneously mining untapped storylines/characters (Guardians, Inhumans, etc) for full license profits.

You are correct that Marvel/Disney would have to approve new uses, but the contract specifies a very narrow criteria for this approval:

"Whenever Marvel has “reasonable” rights for rejection of approval hereunder, the basic criteria to be used by Marvel may include inconsistency with (i) basic story line, (ii) the powers, (iii) basic personality traits, (iv) physical appearance (including clothing or costume), and/or (v) living habitat or environment relating to such character as portrayed in Marvel’s exploitation of such character in comic books or other products for the particular time period being depicted by MCA."

So Marvel/Disney cannot refuse Universal's request just because they want to.