More Marvel at Disney

[Nsaudra]

I was reading that Marvel is coming to Disney world ( and other lands), We are so excited. we have to keep going to the park that shall not be named off Idrive, Cause our son is a huge Spiderman fan. We saw that they are in creation of a web slinger ride that lets you fly through the air like Spiderman.

 

[rteetz]

Only Guardians is coming to WDW.

Nothing else except for Doctor Strange can come to WDW.

Other parks like Disneyland/DCA, and overseas are getting things like Spider-Man.

 

[cisco911]

I thought that the hold for marvel was until 10 years was up and then disney could use all marvel in the parks? Isn't the 10 years up in 2021 or 22?

 

[rteetz]

I thought that the hold for marvel was until 10 years was up and then disney could use all marvel in the parks? Isn't the 10 years up in 2021 or 22?

Nope. There is no expiration for the universal deal in the US.

 

[maltdizzy]

I thought that the hold for marvel was until 10 years was up and then disney could use all marvel in the parks? Isn't the 10 years up in 2021 or 22?

Nope. The '94 contract specifically grants Universal the rights "in perpetuity" (legalese for "forever or they don't want them anymore") while Universal still has a Marvel presence inside their Orlando parks.

This is the breakdown...

• Universal has the theme park rights to most Marvel characters EAST of the Mississippi. There are some exceptions, mostly characters debuted after 1994
  • Characters may be used by any other theme park WEST of the Mississippi
  • Theme park usage of characters used by Universal Studio Orlando are not allowed to be marketed East of the Mississippi
  • Theme park usage of character NOT used by Universal Studio Orlando is allowed to be marketed within 300 miles of Orlando
• Universal owns the word "Marvel" for ALL theme park usage EAST AND WEST of the Mississippi. That means Disney cannot use the the word "Marvel" in theme parks or theme park marketing, even at Disneyland Resort

To re-iterate this last point, Disneyland/DCA will be rolling out a new "super hero" land at DCA with new "super hero" rides, but CANNOT use the word "Marvel."

Universal has the Simpsons rights sewn up until at least 2028, which is the earliest Disney can truly exert pressure on Comcast to trade for Marvel rights. Everyone expects Universal would prefer to keep Springfield over Marvel, the only true Marvel-centric ride at IOA is Spider-Man, everything else is the equivalent of an overlay.

 

[Squirrel29]

Nope. The '94 contract specifically grants Universal the rights "in perpetuity" (legalese for "forever or they don't want them anymore") while Universal still has a Marvel presence inside their Orlando parks.

This is the breakdown...

• Universal has the theme park rights to most Marvel characters EAST of the Mississippi. There are some exceptions, mostly characters debuted after 1994
  • Characters may be used by any other theme park WEST of the Mississippi
  • Theme park usage of characters used by Universal Studio Orlando are not allowed to be marketed East of the Mississippi
  • Theme park usage of character NOT used by Universal Studio Orlando is allowed to be marketed within 300 miles of Orlando
• Universal owns the word "Marvel" for ALL theme park usage EAST AND WEST of the Mississippi. That means Disney cannot use the the word "Marvel" in theme parks or theme park marketing, even at Disneyland Resort

To re-iterate this last point, Disneyland/DCA will be rolling out a new "super hero" land at DCA with new "super hero" rides, but CANNOT use the word "Marvel."

Universal has the Simpsons rights sewn up until at least 2028, which is the earliest Disney can truly exert pressure on Comcast to trade for Marvel rights. Everyone expects Universal would prefer to keep Springfield over Marvel, the only true Marvel-centric ride at IOA is Spider-Man, everything else is the equivalent of an overlay.

Reading the last paragraph sounds like Disney could traded with Comcast. Seeing as the Simpson would never be in a Disney park. Make Simpsons in perpetuity and Marvel contract end in 2028. Probably wont be that some but would be nice.

 

[rteetz]

Reading the last paragraph sounds like Disney could traded with Comcast. Seeing as the Simpson would never be in a Disney park. Make Simpsons in perpetuity and Marvel contract end in 2028. Probably wont be that some but would be nice.

I don't see the Simpsons and Marvel as something that could be just traded. Marvel is much large in scope than the Simpsons.

 

[ChrisFL]

Disney also can't make a Spiderman ride that's too similar to the one at IOA, at any of their parks which is why they're making what appears to be a Toy Story Mania type of ride.

I don't know the specifics of it of the contract, but probably related to a simulator type of ride Disney can't use or something. This is something I just found out recently but it's been substantiated by a few different sources.

 

[rteetz]

Disney also can't make a Spiderman ride that's too similar to the one at IOA, at any of their parks which is why they're making what appears to be a Toy Story Mania type of ride.

I don't know the specifics of it of the contract, but probably related to a simulator type of ride Disney can't use or something. This is something I just found out recently but it's been substantiated by a few different sources.

They could've done better or more than a dark ride shooter.

 

[ChrisFL]

They could've done better or more than a dark ride shooter.

Oh most definitely

 

[The Pho]

I don't see the Simpsons and Marvel as something that could be just traded. Marvel is much large in scope than the Simpsons.

Disney would probably love to trade those rights if Universal was willing. But Universal would be foolish to give their rival access to the currently biggest franchise for something that’s already a reskinned ride of a fading franchise that does at least move some merchandise.

 

[rteetz]

Disney would probably love to trade those rights if Universal was willing. But Universal would be foolish to give their rival access to the currently biggest franchise for something that’s already a reskinned ride of a fading franchise that does at least move some merchandise.

Yep completely agree.

 

[BrianL]

• Universal has the theme park rights to most Marvel characters EAST of the Mississippi. There are some exceptions, mostly characters debuted after 1994

Just a note about this, the notable exceptions are not characters that debuted after 1994, they are just characters that weren't prominent at that time. Dr. Strange, surprisingly is one, and he dates back to the '60s. The Guardians of the Galaxy, while not in a team together, all core members date back to the '70's (and the '60's for Groot). They were just bit characters though and not included in the Universal deal as there was no reason to use them. No characters created after 1994 have been the stars of MCU films, which is what the Disney PArks properties will be based on. Sadly, they hardly ever create great, new, original heroes for the main comic book universes anymore (even since 1994).

 

[hakepb]

With the record-breaking Endgame proceeds, could Disney Route the Mississippi River down I-4 to take over theme park rights?


(I know, construction costs much more than that)

 

[ChrisFL]

Just a note about this, the notable exceptions are not characters that debuted after 1994, they are just characters that weren't prominent at that time. Dr. Strange, surprisingly is one, and he dates back to the '60s. The Guardians of the Galaxy, while not in a team together, all core members date back to the '70's (and the '60's for Groot). They were just bit characters though and not included in the Universal deal as there was no reason to use them. No characters created after 1994 have been the stars of MCU films, which is what the Disney PArks properties will be based on. Sadly, they hardly ever create great, new, original heroes for the main comic book universes anymore (even since 1994).

I've heard that of the Guardians, Drax may be one they can't use at WDW for some reason...I don't know the details.

 

[crvetter]

Disney also can't make a Spiderman ride that's too similar to the one at IOA, at any of their parks which is why they're making what appears to be a Toy Story Mania type of ride.

I don't know the specifics of it of the contract, but probably related to a simulator type of ride Disney can't use or something. This is something I just found out recently but it's been substantiated by a few different sources.

I'm not sure that is true. There was special rules about "The Marvel Action Universe" which were a different concept and not a theme park; the restrictions were with 60 miles of a Universal Park with a Marvel land couldn't have a simulator. However, since Orlando is the only place Universal built a Marvel land they could have built a simulator at DLR if they wanted.

Interestingly Universal could have built Marvel lands at any of their Theme Parks within a certain window and expanded the exclusivity of Marvel to many more locations. They just never did so now the only one that really matters is the east and west of the Mississippi restrictions.

For interest here is the full contract its actually quite simple, surprisingly:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

 

[ChrisFL]

They did build a clone of the Spiderman ride in Osaka, so that may prevent any Spiderman rides in Tokyo Disneyland

 

[rteetz]

They did build a clone of the Spiderman ride in Osaka, so that may prevent any Spiderman rides in Tokyo Disneyland

Tokyo rights have an expiration. I am not sure what that expiration is. I just know its not infinite.

 

[crvetter]

Tokyo rights have an expiration. I am not sure what that expiration is. I just know its not infinite.

I agree, I think this is under a different licensing agreement too. The ride isn't a part of a Marvel Universe, which the agreement is defined as

"...THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (or similar designation approved by Marvel) MCA will construct a complex of attractions, stores and food venues heavily themed around the Marvel properties. Marvel hereby grants MCA a license to use Marvel’s characters for the purposes, on the terms and to the extent set forth herein."

If it was under this agreement then Disney wouldn't have been able to open Marvel rides at Hong Kong because "Any of Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mainland China, Taiwan, North or South Korea, Vietnam, or Thailand, exclusivity will apply to all others."

 

[ChrisFL]

If it was under this agreement then Disney wouldn't have been able to open Marvel rides at Hong Kong because "Any of Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mainland China, Taiwan, North or South Korea, Vietnam, or Thailand, exclusivity will apply to all others."

But I think that's because Universal didn't open anything in Hong Kong? Anyway, I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on the internet either