More Marvel at Disney

[crvetter]

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

The very last part of the sentence says "exclusivity will apply to all others" See Section IV.B.2 of the link I posted. It specifically says if during the right to expand time period (which was extendable based on payments up to a certain point) they could build other lands and if they do so the exclusivity would apply based on that section (instead of the East/West of Mississippi for the US that we currently have).

Also they didn't build a land at Osaka which this agreement is for. They just added a Spider-Man ride in the New York land, which seems out of scope for this Agreement that is in regards to an exclusive Marvel Land.

 

[BrianL]

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.

I can't recall, but Drax was a member of "The Infinity Watch" at the time and some of those characters may have been depicted. As far as I know, if they even show up on a mural in a gift shop, they are off limits. Drax looked very different than he does now, but if he was shown then that'll do it. Those characters may have been in one of the 90's cartoons, which would explain it (this would have included Adam Warlock, Drax, Moondragon, actually Gamorra too). Those cartoons were heavily used as the models for how the characters would appear at Universal (and they were quite popular). I found it surprising that Dr. Strange was not included since he did appear once or twice on the 90's Spider-Man cartoon.

 

[crvetter]

I can't recall, but Drax was a member of "The Infinity Watch" at the time and some of those characters may have been depicted. As far as I know, if they even show up on a mural in a gift shop, they are off limits. Drax looked very different than he does now, but if he was shown then that'll do it. Those characters may have been in one of the 90's cartoons, which would explain it (this would have included Adam Warlock, Drax, Moondragon, actually Gamorra too). Those cartoons were heavily used as the models for how the characters would appear at Universal (and they were quite popular). I found it surprising that Dr. Strange was not included since he did appear once or twice on the 90's Spider-Man cartoon.

I believe the character (or it's family members, Fantastic Four, Avengers) would have to be used in more than an incidental element for the exclusivity clause. I'm not sure a mural in a gift shop counts as more than incidental unless its the character's gift shop. But if they use the Infinity Watch characters in a more than incidental way he would be off as you suggest. But I don't recall any of them in the park or advertisement for the park since that counts too (if the character shows up in costume at the park).

 

[ChrisFL]

I can't recall, but Drax was a member of "The Infinity Watch" at the time and some of those characters may have been depicted. As far as I know, if they even show up on a mural in a gift shop, they are off limits. Drax looked very different than he does now, but if he was shown then that'll do it. Those characters may have been in one of the 90's cartoons, which would explain it (this would have included Adam Warlock, Drax, Moondragon, actually Gamorra too). Those cartoons were heavily used as the models for how the characters would appear at Universal (and they were quite popular). I found it surprising that Dr. Strange was not included since he did appear once or twice on the 90's Spider-Man cartoon.

I'm still thinking about the lawyer's reaction when the Avengers themed monorail was going to the front of the Magic Kingdom on that loop and how it probably, for legal reasons, couldn't have been on the Epcot loop.

 

[BrianL]

I believe the character (or it's family members, Fantastic Four, Avengers) would have to be used in more than an incidental element for the exclusivity clause. I'm not sure a mural in a gift shop counts as more than incidental unless its the character's gift shop.

Well, I don't know about that. I mean, if it were only the characters with attractions, that would limit it pretty well. Like, Captain America doesn't have a big presence there, nor does Iron Man. I mean, it's been a while since I've been, but all I can recall for them is the cut-out decorations. They weren't big characters at the time, so it makes sense.

 

[crvetter]

Well, I don't know about that. I mean, if it were only the characters with attractions, that would limit it pretty well. Like, Captain America doesn't have a big presence there, nor does Iron Man. I mean, it's been a while since I've been, but all I can recall for them is the cut-out decorations. They weren't big characters at the time, so it makes sense.

Yeah but there is a Captain America Diner which rules him out and because he is an Avenger it rules out Iron Man too. There might be other ways they are rules out too such as Hulk which belongs to the Avengers too.

 

[rteetz]

Yeah but there is a Captain America Diner which rules him out and because he is an Avenger it rules out Iron Man too. There might be other ways they are rules out too such as Hulk which belongs to the Avengers too.

The character fall under different umbrellas and basically the main avengers are out the window for Disney to use. Guardians and Strange obviously appear with the Avengers but they aren’t under that umbrellas. There are definite grey areas in this where things get confusing.

 

[crvetter]

The character fall under different umbrellas and basically the main avengers are out the window for Disney to use. Guardians and Strange obviously appear with the Avengers but they aren’t under that umbrellas. There are definite grey areas in this where things get confusing.

Yeah agreed, characters (and any family/umbrella) they belong too is off limits if used in more than an incidental way. I believe for the families (what you call umbrellas) Marvel (comic book side not the MCU which doesn't count for this agreement) has maintained a list of those affiliations for each character. I was trying to say the same thing just not that eloquent, and mostly replying to the post I quoted.

 

[BrianL]

Yeah but there is a Captain America Diner which rules him out and because he is an Avenger it rules out Iron Man too. There might be other ways they are rules out too such as Hulk which belongs to the Avengers too.

Shows how long it's been since I've been there. I only remember a Fantastic Four diner.

I really need to go back!

 

[crvetter]

Shows how long it's been since I've been there. I only remember a Fantastic Four diner.

I really need to go back!

I don't know how long. I've only been to Universal twice and just this past November noticed it. The first time I was much younger and didn't go into IOA

 

[BrianL]

I don't know how long. I've only been to Universal twice and just this past November noticed it. The first time I was much younger and didn't go into IOA

No, I mean, it was there as they have made very few changes, I just don't remember it. The theming, while cool for the time, is miles behind the kinds of things they do today. I actually like though that it is very much about comic books, not the movies or anything. I appreciate that.

 

[cmwade77]

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.

Yep; however, Disney has some major leverage, even now with the Simpsons, because they can simply say they won't even consider renewing unless Universal allows Disney to use the Marvel characters now.

Also, one point here is incorrect, Disney has been allowed to us the word Marvel for marketing at the Disneyland Resort and they do indeed do so, a lot.

It is also entirely possible that once Disney bought Fox, all of the rights for the Marvel characters defaulted back to Marvel, which means Disney and this would essentially null and void the contract that Universal has, but that is something for all the lawyers to get into, just stating it is possible.

 

[cmwade77]

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

And this is why Disney has announced other plans for Tokyo and all parks that are getting a Marvel area that tie all of the Marvel areas together with an overarching storyline.

 

[The Pho]

It is also entirely possible that once Disney bought Fox, all of the rights for the Marvel characters defaulted back to Marvel, which means Disney and this would essentially null and void the contract that Universal has, but that is something for all the lawyers to get into, just stating it is possible.

Purchasing Fox only got them movie rights back. Fox did not own Marvel characters.

But those type of contracts do exist in the theme park world already. Such as if Disney or Universal purchases Six Flags, they’d lose the DC rights, but other companies would not if they purchased.

 

[skeeter31]

Drax has deeper ties to the Avengers than the other guardians, so that could be what precluded Drax from being part of the new ride.

 

[Ponderer]

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.

I wish they could make a deal to use a character like they did with their Spider-Man Sony deal, because I would LOVE a new Adventures Through Inner Space with an Ant-Man twist.

I would never stop riding that.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

The character fall under different umbrellas and basically the main avengers are out the window for Disney to use. Guardians and Strange obviously appear with the Avengers but they aren’t under that umbrellas. There are definite grey areas in this where things get confusing.

Such as Quicksilver being able to appear in both X-Men and MCU.

 

[maltdizzy]

Also, one point here is incorrect, Disney has been allowed to us the word Marvel for marketing at the Disneyland Resort and they do indeed do so, a lot.

Have they? They usually word around it ..."Summer of Super Heroes," "Super Hero HQ", Avengers, or use character names. If you scour the Parks blog, you see in some Disneyland posts, they use "Marvel" only in directly reference to the movies or Disneyland Hong Kong. They never use "Marvel" when to Disneyland Resort is the subject of a sentence. I actually talked to the content managers who promote park events about this subject this past Winter when I ran into them at DLP.

 

[wendlle]

I must be the only person who doesn't like Marvel. I am not into the movies at all and can care less about any of the attractions. I'm so bummed they demolished Bugs Land in DCA because it was such a fun place for little kids, and the rides were awesome for families (Chew Chew Train and flicks Fliers in particular)
So I'm so glad Universal has them, they can keep them!

 

[rstevens333]

I'm that person, except Pixar is completely wasted on me.

Still think they need to work some Wakandans who are not Black Panther into EPCOT. Shuri's workshop!