• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

New MARVEL attractions to Disney Parks

WDWmazprty

Well-Known Member
This whole conversation has gotten me thinking about themes. Do they really matter? Would I like Tower of Terror more or less if it had a different theme?

I think a beloved theme can enhance an experience. But ultimately, I don't think Disney or Universal is going to live or die based on the theme park rights they have. Even HP wasn't a sure thing. Universal's success with HP is a result of execution combined with a popular franchise.

Of the two, I think execution is more important. A great ride will attract a following even if it is based on something no one has heard of. A lousy ride based on a popular movie will eventually die out.

So, even as popular as Marvel characters currently are and likely will continue to be, neither Disney nor Universal NEEDS them to survive.


Yeah, I agree. Both Disney and Uni won't be going out of business anytime soon. They're both powerhouses in the entertainment industry. Of course, anything that can boost that popularity, profit, etc. is always good. Marvel, whether you hate them or not, is big and has many fans. Anyone who can get them on 'their side' so to speak would have a winner on their hands.

Right now it seems like both Disney and Uni are benefitting from Marvel and thats great.
But is it the worst thing in the world that Marvel rides won't be at WDW? no. Disney will continue to make butt loads of money while being the number #1 vacation destination in the world (at least for now anyway).
 

DisneyWales

Member
Why do people keep stating this as though it is a fact? Has this been established anywhere? I don't believe this is a fact at all. It may be true, but I don't believe it has been factually established. If it has, please provide some back-up. I am very interested if there is a definitive answer out there somewhere. I have been looking and I can't find one.

I may have misread the contract, to me it seemed that they had a set amount of time to propose any expansions, after that is was unto Marvel to agree or not, which we all know if they wanted to, Disney's Army of lawyers could find a reason to veto anything they wanted, drawing out any design, long enough of Disney to decide if they wanted to build something to counteract it.

Also if they wanted to, they could to some extent put pressure on Universal to update the characters, if Marvel felt that the versions of the characters do not fit in the with new Comic version they could claim they want the characters to reflect the new 2012+ Marvel characters.

Honestly I feel neither side cares enough to plough enough cash into a legal battle to push the boat either way. We all know an Avengers E-ticket could be reworked to the Incredibles if it turned out popular without a massive rethinking thinking to bring it to WDW (think Tower of Terror Japan vs Everywhere else).

Disney at the end of the day gets a nice sum of cash from Universal for every face painting, comic, DVD, T-shirt and Toy sold at USF, for doing nothing.

Even if USF closed Superhero Island tomorrow, I don't think Disney would rush ahead with a WDW Marvel section just down to the general publics association to Universal.

Both sides win at the moment, Uni get marketing from the movies doing well, which costs them nothing, and Disney gets royalties from Universal without having to spend millions on attractions and running costs, theres no need for either to rock the boat.

Disney would be better minded to invest in getting more out of Star Wars and other franchises, rather then replicating something thats been long established in Florida as it is.
 

sublimesting

Well-Known Member
^ One of the things I think non-lawyers don't get--you can't just arbitrarily decide you want to screw over someone you have a contract with. There's an implied obligation of good faith. Even if Disney has veto rights, it would have to be a reasonable veto, based on protecting the brand.

Due to this I would think it could be reasonable that Disney has attractions "in development" for all popular Marvel characters just so they could veto anything Universal comes up with based on: It conflicts with a project we have already had in development prior to this court case.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
That's pretty much how I read that too.

Universal requests to build a big e-ticket Avengers ride that blows away anything Disney has built in the last 20 years. Disney gives them a knee-jerk "no". Universal sues. Judge says, "What is your objection?" Disney's answer can't be "because this would be good for our competition". They have to have some reasonable objection.

Now, if Universal is unwilling to go to court, Disney can just shut them down. But I think Universal knows this. So if they really want to build an expansion, they know they will likely need to go to court to do so.

The flip side is, I think Disney would be embarassed to go to court and be painted as unreasonable bad guys. I can see the headlines proclaiming the Mouse to be like Dr. Doom. Disney hates bad press. So, maybe they play nice (relatively speaking.)

My point is, I do think Universal could eventually expand if they were interested enough to do so. For the present, I think they are content with the popular franchises they can use without resorting to legal action. Building more HP first makes the most sense. And Transformers seems obvious.

Somewhere down the line though, I could easily see Universal pursuing a Marvel expansion of some kind. And I don't really think Disney could stop them. At best, I think they put up road blocks.
The contract has a clause stating that disputes will not be taken to court, but will instead be handled in New York through binding arbitration. Marvel though seems plenty content to work with Universal, thus the new costumes for the walk around characters and the upgrades to the Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man.

That said, it is funny how people are jumping up and down on how Universal has to expand Marvel Super Hero Island when how many areas of Walt Disney World have gone years without expansion? Marvel Super Hero Island still works pretty well.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
The contract has a clause stating that disputes will not be taken to court, but will instead be handled in New York through binding arbitration. Marvel though seems plenty content to work with Universal, thus the new costumes for the walk around characters and the upgrades to the Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man.

That said, it is funny how people are jumping up and down on how Universal has to expand Marvel Super Hero Island when how many areas of Walt Disney World have gone years without expansion? Marvel Super Hero Island still works pretty well.

Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out!

Definitely true. As it stands, Super Hero Island is nowhere near as stale as a lot of lands at WDW. And Universal has shown a willingness to invest in updates. Whether or not they add new attractions, there is no reason to think it will feel dated any time soon.

For those interested in the arbitration clause:

In the event any dispute, claim or difference arises out of this Agreement as to the rights and liabilities of the parties hereunder, the breach or invalidity of any covenants hereunder or in connection with the construction of this Agreement (each such event, a “Dispute”), the parties shall settle the Dispute by binding arbitration. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Section J, the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in effect as of the date of commencement of the arbitration. The arbitration shall be held in New York, New York, unless the parties mutually agree to have the arbitration held elsewhere. The arbitration panel shall have the authority to order travel, as part of a proceeding, to the site of any Universal Theme Park or other physical location, the viewing of which the panel believes is useful in determining facts relevant to resolution of the dispute. Judgment upon the award made in any arbitration proceeding hereunder may be entered by any court having jurisdiction thereof; provided, however, that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed to limit or preclude a party from bringing any action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the United States for injunctive or other provisional relief to compel another party hereto to comply with its obligations under this Agreement during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.


A party may commence arbitration by giving written notice to the other party, which shall include the contention of the party requesting arbitration, the factual circumstances giving rise to the dispute, the provisions of the Agreement which are alleged to have been breached or violated and the name and address of the arbitrator the party has appointed from a list of arbitrators who have been pre-approved by the parties. The parties shall in good faith appoint arbitrators to the list with experience in the entertainment business and intellectual property rights. Within ten (10) days following receipt of such notice, the other party shall appoint a second arbitrator from the same list and provide the name and address to the other party. In the event both parties appoint the same arbitrator, he shall be the only arbitrator to decide the Dispute. In the event each party appoints a different arbitrator, the parties shall appoint a third arbitrator from the list. If within five (5) days the parties cannot agree upon a third arbitrator, they shall so notify the two appointed arbitrators within 24 hours. Within ten (10) days of appointment of the second arbitrator, the two arbitrators appointed shall choose a third arbitrator from the list and shall notify the parties as to their choice. The arbitrators shall be empowered to grant such injunctive relief as they deem appropriate. In the event a party believes that expedited arbitration proceedings are necessary, such party may request an expedited arbitration proceeding. In such event, the arbitrators shall have the power to order all discovery to proceed on an expedited basis, the arbitration shall proceed on an expedited basis and the arbitrators shall render their decision within five (5) business days after concluding all evidentiary proceedings. Either party may request the arbitration panel to assess the costs of the arbitration and/or the prevailing party’s legal fees against the party which loses the arbitration. The arbitrators shall exercise their discretion in deciding if, upon receiving such request and rendering their decision, one party properly should be assessed the costs of the arbitration and/or the legal fees incurred by the prevailing party.

So, basically, Marvel has to play nice.
 

Jimmy Thick

Well-Known Member
Ok, this thread has now become nothing more than a migrane.


Long story short:

Disney owns marvel, Universal has Marvel theme park rights, if Disney wants them Disney will have to pay through the nose to get them, but its not impossible, just not practical.


/end


Jimmy Thick-Moving to another thread to kick-start...
 

fosse76

Well-Known Member
Due to this I would think it could be reasonable that Disney has attractions "in development" for all popular Marvel characters just so they could veto anything Universal comes up with based on: It conflicts with a project we have already had in development prior to this court case.

That would also violate the terms of the contract. Why is Disney planning an attraction on characters they can't use because of the contract? Even if you argue that the development is for a non-Florida park, it still doesn't carry any weight, because they would have to prove that they actually plabnned on building the attraction. And even then, I'm not sure the argument would hold up.
 

ctxak98

Well-Known Member
I don't understand the mindset of "Disney has to crush Universal". Both resorts are there for your entertainment, and I don't mind giving my money to either as long as they put on a good show. Guests benefit from the competition between the two resorts, including those that don't want to visit anything but WDW when they are in the Orlando area. Disney could probably use a swift kick in the pants anyway, creatively speaking. Everest was their last brand new, non-replacement marquee attraction, and most of its effects do not work anymore. I'm glad Universal is doubling down on their Harry Potter success (though I am sad it comes at the expense of Jaws :cry:).

Furthermore, Disney does not need their big rides to have a franchise theme to draw people in. People have always lined up in big numbers for Disney's non-franchise E-Tickets.

I am not trying to say Disney HAS to crush Universal...but with where the theme Parks are headed and with Uni getting another Potter area... I do feel Disney adding either Avatar or Marvel would benefit. I dont need both even though both to me would be cool. I am a huge fan of Regular Disney rides but Most of Disney is geared towards little Kids and I know thats its main focus but I do think Teens feel a little left out!...And Marvel would add something that would draw teens to the park more. Again just my opinion I am not saying its right:)
 

misterID

Well-Known Member
None of those characters are iconic. Most people haven't heard of them. Kids know Static Shock and Cyborg from cartoons. Some people remember the cr@ppy Spawn movie. There hasn't been a character on par with Superman, Batman, Spider-man or Wolverine in decades. Certainly no one you would base a theme park attraction on.

SPAWN was the greatest comic cartoon series ever. HBO. Late at night. All kinds of awesome.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
SPAWN was the greatest comic cartoon series ever. HBO. Late at night. All kinds of awesome.

I have a widescreen copy on VHS. Watched it through once.

I'll give it credit for being the greatest cartoon series adapted from a Todd McFarlance cartoon ever to run on HBO late at night.

My recollection of it is hazy. But I don't remember it being any better than the comic book. Which had all kinds of appeal to 12 year olds. The appeal diminished as you matured beyond that point. As someone in my early 20s, I wondered what all the fuss was about.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE
As part of THE SECOND GATE, within a separate environment designated under the banner of 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.

In developing and implementing THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, MCA will follow and be consistent with The Official Handbook of The Marvel Universe, Marvel’s Style Guide and such other descriptive design/style materials as may be provided by Marvel. This Marvel-themed complex would be designed in coordination with Marvel, and all major elements and themes would be subject to Marvel’s reasonable approval. As set forth in Section IV(A)(1)
I think the second paragraph tells us what constitutes reasonable approval. Marvel has codified what it expects of the Marvel characters in The Official Handbook of The Marvel Universe and Style Guide. Those documents, or their successors, in all likelihood stil exist to continue guiding Marvel's work.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Ok, this thread has now become nothing more than a migrane.


Long story short:

Disney owns marvel, Universal has Marvel theme park rights, if Disney wants them Disney will have to pay through the nose to get them, but its not impossible, just not practical.


/end


Jimmy Thick-Moving to another thread to kick-start...

Too bad you went away wrong. :wave:

Uni has limited rights to use Marvel IP. And they have to keep to certain standards and color inside very defined lines. If Uni wants to expand the use of Marvel they likely would have to renegotiate the contract and pay out the nose to do so.

Disney, on the other hand, just has to sit back and collect 'royalties'.

So it seems the reality is pretty much the opposite of what you believe.

What is hilarious though is that you are in agreement with your harshest critics. And verse vice-a! Heh Heh. :D
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Too bad you went away wrong. :wave:

Uni has limited rights to use Marvel IP. And they have to keep to certain standards and color inside very defined lines. If Uni wants to expand the use of Marvel they likely would have to renegotiate the contract and pay out the nose to do so.

Disney, on the other hand, just has to sit back and collect 'royalties'.

So it seems the reality is pretty much the opposite of what you believe.

What is hilarious though is that you are in agreement with your harshest critics. And verse vice-a! Heh Heh. :D
Have you read the contract?
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Too bad you went away wrong. :wave:

Uni has limited rights to use Marvel IP. And they have to keep to certain standards and color inside very defined lines. If Uni wants to expand the use of Marvel they likely would have to renegotiate the contract and pay out the nose to do so.

Disney, on the other hand, just has to sit back and collect 'royalties'.

So it seems the reality is pretty much the opposite of what you believe.

What is hilarious though is that you are in agreement with your harshest critics. And verse vice-a! Heh Heh. :D

If you have been reading the thread or the contract, you would realize that this is not an acurate representation of the situation.

I won't go so far as to say you are wrong. But you definitely aren't right.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom