Theme Park Marvel Licensing Status?

[tjkraz]

They may want better terms, but that does not negate the money they do get for zero investment.

Trying to renegotiate free money would be like ABC turning down advertising for Universal or Comcast. WDW and Universal studios theme parks are competitors, but on the grand scheme their parent companies are both competitors and suppliers to each other, they may even be partners at some level.

Disney bought marvel to make movies, the Themeparks were an afterthought to that purchase. As long as they keep getting a check from Universal for doing nothing I think they will be happy.

The ONLY reason this contract exists is because it pre-dated Disney's purchase of Marvel.

If the licensing agreement were not already in place, Disney would not have given those characters to Universal. Similarly, Disney still owns Marvel rights on the west coast, yet they obviously have not licensed them to Universal, Knotts Berry Farm, Magic Mountain or any other entity. Same conditions would exist: free money, no capex, control over character use, people would keep coming to Disneyland.

Disney will never create a theme park attraction around every character in its vault, but SOP is to leave those properties dormant--available for future use--rather than license to the highest bidder.

 

[OldsDr]

The ONLY reason this contract exists is because it pre-dated Disney's purchase of Marvel.

If the licensing agreement were not already in place, Disney would not have given those characters to Universal. Similarly, Disney still owns Marvel rights on the west coast, yet they obviously have not licensed them to Universal, Knotts Berry Farm, Magic Mountain or any other entity. Same conditions would exist: free money, no capex, control over character use, people would keep coming to Disneyland.

Disney will never create a theme park attraction around every character in its vault, but SOP is to leave those properties dormant--available for future use--rather than license to the highest bidder.

Last things first, I think the entire WDW property will eventually be contracted to the highest bidder and run by third parties.

If Disney had bought marvel before IOA had the Marvel section would the deal have been made? Probably not, no argument. BUt most likely Disney would have wanted too much from the agreement to make it beneficial. More than likely the subject never would have been broached.

However, The agreement does exist. It is there, it is active and it is making Disney free money. What is the ROI on buying universal out, then building all brand new rides to sell the same merchandise that was already being sold at an established location a few miles down the road before the property changed ownership?

Or

Why would one buy out a contract that is making free money to have the property simply sit dormant waiting for future use?

 

[jknezek]

Disney isn't going to approach Universal to buy out the contract. I completely believe that. I actually believe it is likely that Universal will, over quite a long time, rebrand away from Marvel characters. The disincentive is actually theirs. They are paying a direct competitor for the rights. They are working off someone else's IP, and they have to live with the popularity of the IP. If Disney wears it out with the movies, kind of like Sony has done with Spiderman, Universal is the one with a less popular property.

Now does any of that apply right now? No. Arguably Marvel characters are at an all-time high, and with Sony possibly allowing Marvel some creative control over Spiderman he could be reborn again. But as the rides age, I think it's possible Universal will decide the risk and hassle isn't worth it. Whether Disney can reclaim the properties then is tied up in the contract. Universal owns the rights in perpetuity unless they aren't doing certain things. I could see Universal doing the minimum to keep the contract while asking Disney to buy the rights back 10-20 years down the line.

 

[tjkraz]

If Disney had bought marvel before IOA had the Marvel section would the deal have been made? Probably not, no argument. BUt most likely Disney would have wanted too much from the agreement to make it beneficial. More than likely the subject never would have been broached.

However, The agreement does exist. It is there, it is active and it is making Disney free money. What is the ROI on buying universal out, then building all brand new rides to sell the same merchandise that was already being sold at an established location a few miles down the road before the property changed ownership?

Agree with this, but you're making it overly complex. Despite all of the supposed contributing factors (no capex, it's easy money, people will still come to DL/WDW without those characters), Disney has no track record of licensing its properties to competing amusement venues.

I see no reason for Disney to aggressively terminate the Universal deal, but there is also no indication that they will pursue new deals of this nature. The ONLY reason this particular licensing deal exists is because it predated the Marvel purchase.