Marvel Land

[Tonka's Skipper]

There is also the possibility that Disney and Comcast have agreed on some changes in the original contract.

AKK

 

[quikah]

Interesting points. But where would a California themepark go? There is no room there for them to put it. I guess they could buy up property (expensive) or put it in one of the many parking lots but there really isnt much room to insert a new park there.

The toy story parking lot, believe it is used for cast parking currently. Pretty large area.

https://goo.gl/maps/LinRq

 

[tjkraz]

The toy story parking lot, believe it is used for cast parking currently. Pretty large area.

https://goo.gl/maps/LinRq

They've actually been using it for guest parking for some time now. Buses shuttle guests from that lot to the drop-off point on Harbor Blvd.

It's sort of a myth that Disneyland doesn't have any room for expansion. It isn't blessed with space like WDW but there's plenty of room for more hotels, Downtown Disney expansion and there are many nooks and crannies where attractions can be added to the parks.

And yes, that Toy Story lot is eventually earmarked for a 3rd theme park. Disney would need some sort of transportation system to move guests around since that space is up the block. But they are already working with Anaheim officials to design long-term changes to public transit in the resort area.

Parking is an issue at Disneyland but they have space to essentially double the current Mickey & Friends parking structure. There's a surface lot next to the garage where they could build a duplicate. But concrete isn't cheap and that second garage would cost hundreds-of-millions with no immediate ROI.

Still, the garage is pretty much the first domino to fall when (if) Disney gets serious about another theme park. Rumors about the 3rd gate are completely baseless until they add more parking.

 

[JB2K]

Actually, from the reading I've done on the subject, Universal has the rights to the characters they presently use. Disney can use any other character.

The Marvel/Disney relationship, as certain rights go, is something that warrants digging deeper into:

The Marvel deal with Universal was made back in the days, when Marvel was struggling (and for a time, was in bankruptcy). Any deal was a good deal. Fast forward to the Disney acquistion, and Bob Iger, himself, said they would honor all existing contracts, including the one for Universal Studios Florida.

As Universal goes, they have rides/theming based on Marvel's most "core" characters, which is interesting in itself, since many of the big-screen adaptations are "locked-in for many years" by studios other than Disney, such as Universal (Hulk), Sony (Spider-Man), or Fox (X-Men, Fantastic Four).

I'm guessing those big-screen rights has a lot to do with why Disney doesn't buy their way out of the contract.

Quite frankly, if it's a geography thing, this could be the perfect situation for Anaheim, except for the fact there's not a whole lot of room to expand the current parks, or to establish a third gate without getting into some outlandish deals with the park's neighbors...

 

[wiigirl]

There's bound to be a fight coming on the use of charcters. At some point either Disney allows Uni to expand or Disney will have to pay up for the rights. I dont see them not capitalising on Marvel in their parks especially the Florida resort.

Your probably right.

 

[JB2K]

I agree. Hopefully we will see some promotion of Guardians of the Galaxy and Big Hero 6 at WDW.

Expect it -- as GotG is a franchise casual Marvel fans are unfamiliar with (heck, I remember them from my "nerd" days back in the 1970s, but I understand the group is completely different, today). Expect a Monorail wrap -- maybe a little more than that...

As for Big Hero 6 - Disney went "all-in" on this one, slapped their logo (not Marvel's) on it, and christened it their 54th animated feature (putting it in the same echelon with their greatest creations). Expect heavy marketing in Florida on this one (since most folks are also unfamiliar with this group).

 

[JB2K]

Universal the former owner of marvel already had rides in their park. They did not want to change the rides or build new ones. Therefor they had this contract formed.

Are you stating that Universal was the former owner of Marvel?

That's never been the case -- the closest thing was way back in the late 1970's when Universal produced a few TV movies/series for Marvel based on some of their characters -- most famous among them was the CBS series "The Incredible Hulk" with Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno, which was a pretty big deal for network TV, at the time.

That deal must've held-up over the years, since Universal was the studio behind the two most recent "Hulk" films.

 

[tjkraz]

Quite frankly, if it's a geography thing, this could be the perfect situation for Anaheim, except for the fact there's not a whole lot of room to expand the current parks, or to establish a third gate without getting into some outlandish deals with the park's neighbors...

Disneyland already has land for a 3rd theme park. It's the former Strawberry Fields on Harbor and Katella which is currently home to the Toy Story parking lot.

Online estimates put the size of that land between 50-80 acres. For the sake of comparison, Disney California Adventure was 55 acres before Cars Land was added, now 67 acres.

In other words, the Toy Story lot is plenty of room for a third theme park. Problem is DL needs it for parking right now. Before they could build a park, they need to either add to the Mickey & Friends lot or build a garage on the Pumba lot.

As I said in another post, that's how you'll know Disney is getting serious about another park--when they take steps to solve their parking issues long-term.

Transportation would need to be addressed with the city because this site is about a block away from DL and DCA, and not terribly close to any of the DL parking. But Anaheim is typically amenable to working with a company that generates so much local revenue. They won't be bullied by Disney, but they also aren't going to thumb their noses at a project which would add thousands of jobs and millions of dollars annually to the local economy.

 

[rteetz]

Are you stating that Universal was the former owner of Marvel? That's never been the case -- the closest thing was way back in the late 1970's when Universal produced a few TV movies/series for Marvel based on some of their characters -- most famous among them was the CBS series "The Incredible Hulk" with Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno, which was a pretty big deal for network TV, at the time. That deal must've held-up over the years, since Universal was the studio behind the two most recent "Hulk" films.

they own the ride rights and yes I am aware they have produced marvel movies

 

[babybartione]

I know both areas you are talking about used to work at Disneyland and parked in the cast member area a lot and the other parking area off of Harbor (Overflow lot) your talking about. The issue is not the area but how to get guests from the main park to a park a half mile or so away, or the mile or so away at the cast member parking. The other issue is where do they add parking for the additional cast members and guests if they open a new park in the parking lots.

 

[old lady]

Universal owns the contract for marvel in their Orlando theme parks disney could do something at Disneyland or over seas but your not going to see any marvel anything in any disney Orlando theme park.

If Universal owns the ride rights, they could make a ride based on the Avengers and Iron man? Disney owns only the movie rights?

 

[yitbos96bb]

You will not see a marvel character in a WDW theme park period. You could see theme on a monorail only on the resort line, you could see them in a resort, or in a store outside a theme park. You will not see a marvel character that currently exists in a WDW theme park. Disney could create their own characters and out those in the theme parks tho but they would need to have a great deal of success before that happens.

Well again, that may or not be true. Guardians of the Galaxy would not actually be under that ban... The characters and the group are not part of any of the character families Universal uses.... So don't say never.... But they may not want to deal with the mix of can and can't here and just stay consistent.

So while the most well known characters won't show up due to that contract, there are some Disney can legally use. Shield would be on my questionable list... I'm not sure if they would be considered in the Avengers family or Spider-man families, or just ancillary characters. The Punisher is another one but not sure how'd that work at a theme park. I guess it depends on how one interprets the contract... If you show up in a single comic of Spidy, Avengers, etc. are you in that family? Or do you need to be a long time part of a team. If it's the former then yes pretty much all characters are verboten. If it's the latter, then characters like Dr Strange, Luke Cage, Nighthawk, blade, and maybe Daredevil (not sure if he shares a family). Lots of gray lines here that Disney will decide if it is worth the effort or not. I think the monorail wrap for Guardians will tell us a lot.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Universal the former owner of marvel already had rides in their park. They did not want to change the rides or build new ones. Therefor they had this contract formed.

Universal did not and has not EVER owned Marvel. They licensed characters for the park, just as other companies like Sony licensed characters for film.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Actually Marvel and Disney have the rights to Make and produce Hulk Movies. Universal gave up production rights after the Ang Lee travesty. Marvel Studios made the Ed Norton Hulk Movie, Universal Distributed. Universal still has distribution rights to my knowledge.

The Marvel/Disney relationship, as certain rights go, is something that warrants digging deeper into:

The Marvel deal with Universal was made back in the days, when Marvel was struggling (and for a time, was in bankruptcy). Any deal was a good deal. Fast forward to the Disney acquistion, and Bob Iger, himself, said they would honor all existing contracts, including the one for Universal Studios Florida.

As Universal goes, they have rides/theming based on Marvel's most "core" characters, which is interesting in itself, since many of the big-screen adaptations are "locked-in for many years" by studios other than Disney, such as Universal (Hulk), Sony (Spider-Man), or Fox (X-Men, Fantastic Four).

I'm guessing those big-screen rights has a lot to do with why Disney doesn't buy their way out of the contract.

Quite frankly, if it's a geography thing, this could be the perfect situation for Anaheim, except for the fact there's not a whole lot of room to expand the current parks, or to establish a third gate without getting into some outlandish deals with the park's neighbors...

 

[yitbos96bb]

If Universal owns the ride rights, they could make a ride based on the Avengers and Iron man? Disney owns only the movie rights?

I believe Disney has to approve future attractions. Disney owns all of Marvel but pre-purchase license deals were in place like the Universal one.

 

[rteetz]

Universal did not and has not EVER owned Marvel. They licensed characters for the park, just as other companies like Sony licensed characters for film.

I meant theme park rights sorry I wasn't clear

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

There's bound to be a fight coming on the use of charcters. At some point either Disney allows Uni to expand or Disney will have to pay up for the rights. I dont see them not capitalising on Marvel in their parks especially the Florida resort.

[This reply is edited from a something I posted in 2013.]

When Disney acquired Marvel in December 2009 for $4.2 billion in cash and stock, Disney knew that Universal had the theme park rights east of the Mississippi for all the top Marvel characters and heroes and villains related to them.

If Disney had owned Marvel back in the 1990s, it's doubtful there would now be a Marvel Super Hero Island at IoA, but the status quo of having Marvel Super Hero Island at IoA works well for Marvel (Disney) and Universal (NBCUniversal, a part of Comcast).

Universal invested a lot of money in 1998 and 1999 to build Marvel Super Hero Island. That investment has been paying off ever since. Although Harry Potter is now the "star" at IoA, the Marvel Super Hero Island helps to make IoA a full-day park with highly repeatable attractions.

Universal continues to have a top-notch immersive attraction in the form of The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man ride, which was upgraded to digital 3-D projection. In addition, Marvel Super Hero Island also has timeless thrill rides that appeal to guests who like that sort of thing: Doctor Doom's Fearfall, The Incredible Hulk Coaster, and Storm Force Accelatron. IoA's Marvel section continues to be a popular themed land. And let's not forget the revenue from dining and merchandise.

Marvel (Disney) earns licensing income and merchandise revenue from the deal. It's a steady stream of pure profit for Marvel (Disney), without having to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build something new. (Disney likes deals that provide pure profit.) It also keeps the characters in front of guests, helping to build an audience for new Marvel Studios movies.

If Universal wants to expand or update Marvel Super Hero Island with a new attraction, Marvel (Disney) must act in good faith to approve or deny such a plan based on the terms and conditions of the contract, not based on who owns what. Anything Universal would do would be based on the comic versions of the Marvel characters, not on the successful movies (and the stars of those movies) of recent years. For example, if Universal wants to replace the Captain America Diner at IoA with a Captain America attraction and that attraction is true to the comic book version of Captain America, then Universal could do so subject to Marvel's (Disney's) input and sign-off.

If Disney wants to invest substantial capital in its own Marvel attractions, Disney (with its international partners) can do so at Disney parks California, France, Japan, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and future international Disney parks.

Universal is required to sell Marvel merchandise at IoA. What a great deal for Disney! It means that Disney makes money off IoA guests.

It's good business for Universal to keep the status quo.

It's good business for Disney to keep the status quo.

Disney buying out Universal's east-of-the-Mississippi theme park rights to Marvel characters remains very unlikely.

 

[rag10576]

Does anyone think Universal has plans to add any new Marvel attractions? Or do they have any replacement plans for Marvel? Since Universal is upgrading their parks one would think they would be looking to keep the area upgraded .

 

[Fantaluminishes]

I haven't been to Universal Orlando, so I don't know how my opinion would work out there. But when Paramount was in the theme park business, they had some attractions named after their movies. They weren't very immersive or heavily themed. Some of those attractions still exist (California's Great America), with new names.

I'm wondering if some of the Marvel attractions at Universal Orlando could be renamed (rethemed) IF Disney was able to acquire Marvel theme park rights.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Does anyone think Universal has plans to add any new Marvel attractions? Or do they have any replacement plans for Marvel? Since Universal is upgrading their parks one would think they would be looking to keep the area upgraded .

I'm not sure Universal really wants to put a lot of money into Marvel Super Hero Island.

The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man ride was upgraded to digital 3D from film-based 3D a few years ago. The other attractions are like regional theme park rides, decorated to go with the Marvel theme. They're timeless and repeatable -- and Universal paid for them a long time ago, so now Universal only has the cost of operating and maintaining them.

The restaurants at Marvel Super Hero Island are kind of sad. Marvel art on the ceiling does not provide an immersive show atmosphere for Universal guests -- especially for guests who have been spoiled by the Three Broomsticks restaurant at the Wizarding World Harry Potter and the Simpsons-themed food court at the adjacent Studios park. So I can imagine an investment in one or more of the restaurants before investing in new attractions.

Universal has other areas at its two Florida theme parks that need more attention than Marvel Super Hero Island. Also, increasing the profile of Marvel Super Hero Island promotes Marvel, which is, of course, owned by arch-rival Disney. Marvel Super Hero Island goes back to the opening of IoA, but it's not "broken." For these reasons, I think Universal will stick with the status quo for the foreseeable future.