Disney and Universal working on Marvel deal for Florida?

[andysol]

I dont want anything Marvel in the Disney Parks- particularly Disney World. Give me more timeless things at Disney- and let the trendy, popular stuff go to Universal. That's fine by me- its win/win and different demographics in most cases.

Having Hulk and Thor in Hollywood studios just because you can, doesn't make it good. Give me Star Wars and Pixar at HS, Give me 1 table service, 1 quick service, and 1 attraction at each country and bring back the decommissioned pavilions to their former glory with proper updates in Epcot, and give MK the proper repairs while updating Tomorrowland. DAK is fine once Avatar/RoL gets there.
Where does Marvel fit in that equation without looking ridiculously out of place. No thanks. It works perfect at Universal- where they'll give it the proper attraction it deserves (a high level thrill ride with 48"+ ride height requirement)

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If you want a pretend fake Stark Expo installed in Future World with fake cartoon inventions, then that's actually not what Future World should be.

Future World was created as a showcase for American commerce and industry, showcasing how American free enterprise can help improve people's lives and advance society. This concept was hatched 35 years ago, when this country still made most of what it consumed instead of shipping it all over from China. But there's still the ability to have Future World feature American industry in an entertaining way. Test Track 2.0 is a pretty good example. The big legacy companies should still have a place in Future World; GM, GE, IBM, Boeing, etc. But newer American companies should have also been brought in to keep the place fresh and relevant for the 21st century: Apple, Tesla, Google, etc.

"And EPCOT will always be a showcase to the world for the ingenuity and imagination of American free enterprise." - Walt Disney, 1966

A pretend fake Stark Expo might make for a kitschy-fun use for the old Carousel Theater buildings in Anaheim and Orlando, with a catchy theme song. But it has no place in Future World, if Future World and Epcot have any chance of being something worth keeping for a few more decades.

Did I say "pretend fake Stark Expo"? No, I did not.

 

[gmajew]

I dont want anything Marvel in the Disney Parks- particularly Disney World. Give me more timeless things at Disney- and let the trendy, popular stuff go to Universal. That's fine by me- its win/win and different demographics in most cases.

Having Hulk and Thor in Hollywood studios just because you can, doesn't make it good. Give me Star Wars and Pixar at HS, Give me 1 table service, 1 quick service, and 1 attraction at each country and bring back the decommissioned pavilions to their former glory with proper updates in Epcot, and give MK the proper repairs while updating Tomorrowland. DAK is fine once Avatar/RoL gets there.
Where does Marvel fit in that equation without looking ridiculously out of place. No thanks. It works perfect at Universal- where they'll give it the proper attraction it deserves (a high level thrill ride with 48"+ ride height requirement)

You are only asking about 20b for the project.... I agree all that would be real nice but realistic expectations would be better.

How about a master plan for all the parks. Maybe they have one and our experts know about it but don't let us in on them.

 

[Jon81uk]

Marvel to Wicked seems odd.

At least Hulk won't need a repaint!

 

[Christian Fronckowiak]

Marvel to Wicked seems odd.

I guess part of it is that Marvel is a licensed property, while Wicked is a Universal owned IP.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I dont want anything Marvel in the Disney Parks- particularly Disney World. Give me more timeless things at Disney- and let the trendy, popular stuff go to Universal. That's fine by me- its win/win and different demographics in most cases.

Having Hulk and Thor in Hollywood studios just because you can, doesn't make it good. Give me Star Wars and Pixar at HS, Give me 1 table service, 1 quick service, and 1 attraction at each country and bring back the decommissioned pavilions to their former glory with proper updates in Epcot, and give MK the proper repairs while updating Tomorrowland. DAK is fine once Avatar/RoL gets there.
Where does Marvel fit in that equation without looking ridiculously out of place. No thanks. It works perfect at Universal- where they'll give it the proper attraction it deserves (a high level thrill ride with 48"+ ride height requirement)

Lol Disney purist hypocrisy at its finest. You want timeless stuff and then two seconds later you're demanding Star Wars and Pixar.

The first Captain America comic was published when Walt Disney was 40. The Avengers as a team are over 50 years old. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is today what Star Wars was in the 1970s and 1980s. Pixar didn't release a feature film until 1995. "Timeless" my backside.

The argument for "timeless" content is an argument to purposely exclude things that are popular today, only to include them some time in the future when they are no longer popular. No thanks.

 

[doctornick]

It makes sense to me that "other products" would include movies, which would mean that Universal could use MCU or other movie versions of the Marvel characters. However, @marni1971 said earlier that the movie depictions of these characters fall into a bit of a legal gray area, so I won't fully commit to that position at this time.

Let's ignore the MCU for a moment. If Uni wanted to build a new X-Men attraction and have Hugh Jackman in a video as Wolverine, do you think they could do that without Fox's permission? I do not and I'd be very skeptical it would be legally allowed under the terms of the contract between Uni and Marvel for the theme park rights -- Marvel could only "give away" the depictions of characters that they had control over and Fox would have specific rights the works they produced.

Fast forward to today and the MCU movies and I doubt that Uni would have rights to those images and portrayals as well. At the absolute minimum, it would be a legal gray area where the Disney lawyers could hold stuff up.

It could definitely be in everyone's interest to clarify such things and come to an agreement, perhaps something with some concessions on both sides.

 

[marni1971]

It could definitely be in everyone's interest to clarify such things and come to an agreement, perhaps something with some concessions on both sides.

Maybe they have.

Well, 2/3 of them anyway.

 

[khale1970]

It seems to me that both TWDC or Comcast would want full rights to the Marvel IP to use across all their parks. Comcast doesn't want to let the IP go in Orlando and TWDC doesn't seem all that committed to using it anywhere, so which is more likely? TWDC buying out the rights for Orlando or Comcast licensing the rights for other locations? Based on clues in the thread (including TWDC putting the third gate on hold in Anaheim), I'd bet on the latter.

The bigger mystery to me is @marni1971 mentioning IPs being jumbled. What does Comcast or UNI have that TWDC would want to pick up and UNI would be willing to trade in any kind of deal? Or am I missing the meaning of jumbled?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The bigger mystery to me is @marni1971 mentioning IPs being jumbled. What does Comcast or UNI have that TWDC would want to pick up and UNI would be willing to trade in any kind of deal? Or am I missing the meaning of jumbled?

My guess is that Spider Man could be in one place while The Avengers are in another. Or comic book Iron Man is in one place while Robert Downey, Jr. Iron Man is in another. Sounds like a terrible idea if you ask me. Just a fantastic way to confuse the consumer.

 

[khale1970]

Maybe they have.

Well, 2/3 of them anyway.

Assuming the 2/3 are Comcast and Marvel, does the TWDC have veto authority? And if so, would they even want to use it so they can not build attractions in Florida? Just make your third gate in Anaheim Star Wars or Pixar or whatever and license the Marvel rights to Comcast. I'd think Comcast would be willing to pay pretty good fees to be able to use the Marvel IP in other parks. Sounds like a win for both sides if the $s are right

 

[doctornick]

Maybe they have.

Well, 2/3 of them anyway.

Right, thats my thought. I could easily see some concessions along these lines:

From Uni
1. Explicitly state that certain characters allowed in WDW. Maybe GotG, Dr. Strange, Inhumans, Daredevil -- stuff that aren't obviously covered by the current deal and are minor enough to allow. Maybe WDW gets one of the Big guns, like Iron Man (since he's not being used at Uni) in return for expanded uses of Captain America, Thor, etc.
2. Allow Disney to use the term "Marvel" in their theme parks, including being able to promote all MCU films

From Disney
1. Allow for use of MCU versions of characters
2. Advertise for Marvel characters IoA in some mediums (e.g. as part of some of the film promotions on TV/online/print)

Obviously, there could be more stuff but things like this would prohibit both sides from potentially benefiting.

 

[Mike S]

Maybe Uni can give me that Guardians of the Galaxy ride I've been wanting since seeing the movie. Or include them with the Avengers. Very exciting times for the little resort that could

 

[GLaDOS]

2. Advertise for Marvel characters IoA in some mediums (e.g. as part of some of the film promotions on TV/online/print)

FWIW, Marvel runs Superhero Island/IoA adds in its comic books already

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Capt- we typically agree on most things- but you couldn't be more wrong here. Star Wars is as popular as it has ever been and it's 40 years old.

MCU isn't today what Star Wars was in the 70s and 80s because it hasn't proven itself timeless. You know what the Avengers has? A crap-ton of CGI that won't look good at all and dozens of pop culture references that won't be relatable when it's 40 years old. I'm not saying there's no way it won't be popular- but you have no clue if it will be.

And yes- I can watch Finding Nemo or Toy Story- and see that it is instantly a classic. Much like Lion King and to give you a more recent reference- Frozen.
There are movies that define generations- Star wars is one and Frozen absolutely will be as well. In our current Fast and the Furious crap that comes out- I fear the Avengers won't stand up to the test of time.

So yes- Universal can have Transformers, Fast and the Furious, and Marvel.

But you're equating the Marvel movies with MARVEL, and you can't do that. MARVEL has been popular for far longer than Star Wars even if the Marvel movies are relatively new.

 

[doctornick]

Capt- we typically agree on most things- but you couldn't be more wrong here. Star Wars is as popular as it has ever been and it's 40 years old.

MCU isn't today what Star Wars was in the 70s and 80s because it hasn't proven itself timeless. You know what the Avengers has? A crap-ton of CGI that won't look good at all in 40 years and dozens of pop culture references that won't be relatable. I'm not saying there's no way it won't be as popular- but you have no clue if it will be- and that's a complete gamble when it comes to live action/entertainment.

And yes- I can watch Finding Nemo or Toy Story- and see that it is instantly a classic. Much like Lion King and to give you a more recent reference- Frozen.
There are movies that define generations- Star wars is one and Frozen absolutely will be as well.

So yes- Universal can have Transformers, Fast and the Furious, and Marvel.

I'm sorry, but you are severely undervaluing the long term cache of certain Marvel properties -- Spider-Man in particular, which is as timeless as any Disney or Star Wars stuff, but Captain America and the Hulk are up there as well. Iron Man has pretty much entered the public consciousness permanently at this point as well, though is admittedly newer to widespread fame.

 

[Mr. Peabody]

Let's ignore the MCU for a moment. If Uni wanted to build a new X-Men attraction and have Hugh Jackman in a video as Wolverine, do you think they could do that without Fox's permission? I do not and I'd be very skeptical it would be legally allowed under the terms of the contract between Uni and Marvel for the theme park rights -- Marvel could only "give away" the depictions of characters that they had control over and Fox would have specific rights the works they produced.

Fast forward to today and the MCU movies and I doubt that Uni would have rights to those images and portrayals as well. At the absolute minimum, it would be a legal gray area where the Disney lawyers could hold stuff up.

It could definitely be in everyone's interest to clarify such things and come to an agreement, perhaps something with some concessions on both sides.

All good points. I'm glad I added the caveat to my post. In retrospect, I feel stupid for overlooking the other movie studios' rights in all this (e.g. Sony, Fox). D'oh!

However, maybe the point is moot:

Maybe they have.

Well, 2/3 of them anyway.

The plot thickens...Perhaps the 2/3 refers to Sony and Fox? EDIT: Never mind, I was mistaken.

 

[MichWolv]

Assuming the 2/3 are Comcast and Marvel, does the TWDC have veto authority?

TWDC owns, I believe 100% of the voting stock in Marvel. Marvel doesn't "agree" on its own, but only with the OK from TWDC, unless somebody is going off the reservation.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Eh- so where is the "Peanuts" section of Universal. How about "The Bible" section of Disney. These theme parks in question are made off of movie IPs- so I figured that was the relevant part of the discussion. I didn't know we were discussing all forms of media consumption.

The Marvel characters at Universal are not the movie versions. Most (all?) of those attractions predate the MCU entirely.

FWIW, I think this was the one blunder made by Universal regarding Harry Potter. They shouldn't have used the film version of everything but rather done a fresh interpretation of the books. Reason? Harry Potter will prove to be timeless. Daniel-Radcliffe-as-Harry-Potter not so much.

 

[GLaDOS]

The plot thickens...Perhaps the 2/3 refers to Sony and Fox?

I read it as: "Universal and Marvel have come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial to both."