Avengers Campus - Reactions / Reviews

[Disney Irish]

So you know this for a fact?

Do I have the contract in front of me to confirm, no. But neither do you.

So you expect me to believe that Disney would spend multiple years and Millions working on an attraction. An attraction where the main character is effectively controlled by another company. Announce it the same year that same character has their own movie in the MCU, give out concept art, descriptions, and tying it back to the MCU and not have the deal already in place? Come on, I know we think Chapek and Iger are not theme park savvy. But this would be business, and despite what we think of Chapek and Iger, they are both very business savvy.

 

[THE 1HAPPY HAUNT]

This is where everyone gets confused, and I blame click-bait article titles and sloppy writing. Spidey is still part of the MCU as of Far from Home, that is still an MCU film. He just has no future appearances because the Sony/Marvel deal hasn't been extended, that is what is being negotiated now (if reports are true that they are still talking).

I get all that i am saying if a deal does not work out, which i dont think it will, my point still stands

 

[THE 1HAPPY HAUNT]

We've had this discussion before. Any theme park attraction appearance would have been worked out as part of the original deal. Again that deal didn't end, its still in place today. What is being negotiated is future appearances in the MCU, basically extending the existing deal.

so if a deal does not get worked out, once the current deal ends they will have to close the spider-man ride and built it for nothing then is what I am getting from your reply.

 

[Disney Irish]

so if a deal does not get worked out, once the current deal ends they will have to close the spider-man ride and built it for nothing then is what I am getting from your reply.

How does that even make sense? The current deal was for x number (5 or 6 depending on who you ask) of appearances in the MCU. Its not like that deal never existed, it still exists. Again that deal has absolutely no effect on the theme park attraction and whether they can use the Spider-Man character in the attraction.

In fact thanks to the Wikileaks dump of all Sony contracts I can confidently say that Marvel/Disney has ALL the rights to Spider-Man for use in Theme Park experiences. The question is whether Holland can lend his voice or not. And its my belief that that voice appearance deal would have been worked out as part of the 2015 MCU appearance deal.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If Holland reprised his role as Spider-Man without a deal between Sony and Disney, I do believe Sony would have the right to sue as it's use of their character, just as they would if Disney had Maguire or Garfield in the role.

That Universal acquired the global Marvel theme park rights after the deal for the film rights that were eventually acquired by Sony is rather strong evidence that Sony's deal does not contain any theme park rights. There is no exception in the Universal deal for attractions developed by others based on the movies.

 

[Ismael Flores]

I'm just going to throw this out there because I don't think anyone mentioned it. But this piece of concept art was shown at D23 for the preshow of the Spider-Man attraction:

View attachment 404707

What I'm wondering is if the Spidey that I've circled will be an AA. I know everyone will be quick to say it'll just be screens. But think about it for a second, they are doing AAs in a lot of preshows now. Just like how we got Rocket for the GotG preshow and Hondo for MF:SR preshow.

So what do we think are the chances of it being an AA?

I would think the cost of A Spiderman AA shouldn't be as high as some of the others. There isn't much face movement except for the mouth area and skin and costume wise it would only be the one piece suit. They should be able to add at least one AA

 

[drod1985]

If Holland reprised his role as Spider-Man without a deal between Sony and Disney, I do believe Sony would have the right to sue as it's use of their character, just as they would if Disney had Maguire or Garfield in the role.

From all of the info we have this is incorrect. Sony exclusively owns Spider-man film rights. If it were otherwise then Disney would've never been able to use Spidey in the parks unless it was worked out in the film deal. But Universal also using Spidey makes it much more likely that the film and park rights are separate and distinct.

So hiring Holland to voice Peter Parker for the Avengers Campus ride shouldn't be an issue - it's not a film appearance, so it's not part of the rights that Sony owns. That said - they likely don't need to go through this as while the the Marvel Parks Universe is heavily influenced by the Marvel Cinematic Universe they are not meant to be one in the same.

 

[TROR]

From all of the info we have this is incorrect. Sony exclusively owns Spider-man film rights. If it were otherwise then Disney would've never been able to use Spidey in the parks unless it was worked out in the film deal. But Universal also using Spidey makes it much more likely that the film and park rights are separate and distinct.

So hiring Holland to voice Peter Parker for the Avengers Campus ride shouldn't be an issue - it's not a film appearance, so it's not part of the rights that Sony owns. That said - they likely don't need to go through this as while the the Marvel Parks Universe is heavily influenced by the Marvel Cinematic Universe they are not meant to be one in the same.

Tom Holland's Spider-Man is owned by Sony. Sony has full rights to their interpretation of the character unless the contract states otherwise, which we don't know.

 

[drod1985]

Tom Holland's Spider-Man is owned by Sony. Sony has full rights to their interpretation of the character unless the contract states otherwise, which we don't know.

Spider-man is owned by Sony. Tom Holland is under contract to portay Spider-man for Sony for two more films. A specific iteration of the character isn't owned by a studio, the production and distribution rights are.

 

[TROR]

Spider-man is owned by Sony. Tom Holland is under contract to portay Spider-man for Sony for two more films. A specific iteration of the character isn't owned by a studio, the production and distribution rights are.

I don't see any reason for this to be true. If a book is in the public domain and a studio makes a movie based off that book, the studio is in full rights to their interpretation of those characters and story. How different is this situation?

 

[planodisney]

IMO, there is absolutely NO WAY they don’t come to an agreement on this. It’s serves both sides to have this agreement in some form, and when that’s the case, 90% of the time, if not more, agreements are reached. Sometimes after arduous negotiations.

 

[Disney Irish]

Tom Holland's Spider-Man is owned by Sony. Sony has full rights to their interpretation of the character unless the contract states otherwise, which we don't know.

From the Wikileaks dump of the Sony Contracts, this is what the overall Sony/Marvel contract states for Theme Park rights under the Section labeled "Marvel's Reserved Rights":

5.c. Theme Parks, Etc. The exclusive right to license, construct and operate theme park attractions (including any and all location-based attractions and outdoor amphitheater shows), restaurants and arena shows (including ice shows and other touring shows) based on the Property.

This states that Marvel has the right to created and operate theme park attractions based on the "Property", the property in this case is Spider-Man. It doesn't state which specific version of Spider-Man, just based on the property. So that indicates that Holland can lend his voice unless the MCU deal states otherwise.

 

[drod1985]

I don't see any reason for this to be true. If a book is in the public domain and a studio makes a movie based off that book, the studio is in full rights to their interpretation of those characters and story. How different is this situation?

Because Holland is simply hired to portray that particular interpretation of a character that Sony owns the license to. Sony doesn't own film license to interpretations of the character, it owns the film license to the character entirely. The Avengers Campus Spidey-suit is clearly based on the MCU (Sony produced films) suit, so if Sony had any claim to that they could certainly act upon it. But as @Disney Irish just posted, they don't. Film vs. Theme Park rights are indeed separate.

 

[Mike S]

This contract must be very different to the Harry Potter one for Universal. I remember reading they had to go to Rowling for the IP and then WB for the rights to base it on the movies. You could say WB had very good foresight to have theme park rights to the movies they were making.

 

[BrianLo]

Too bad it won't be Tom Holland's voice. Gonna be weird having a Spider-Man ride for a hero who no longer will have any adventures in the mcu and seeing that same Spidey that won't be voiced by Tom Holland even though it is supposed to be Tom Holland's Spider-Man. They should just scrap the Spidey ride and make it an Iron Man ride

Erhm, this is ironic considering Iron Man isn’t part of the Marvel Universe technically anymore AND RDJ doesn’t voice the existing attraction.

At least you have a chance Tom will, RDJ would not.


The theme park Universe forms its own technical canon.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

At least they got Paul Rudd to be in the Ant Man ride.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I get why he wasn't the star of his own attraction in Hong Kong or Paris, but I think it was a missed opportunity not to have a Captain America focused experience at DCA. GotG, Spider-Man, Dr. Strange and Black Panther are all nice, but could America's First Avenger not have something in the one American Avengers Land?

The rumor at one point for the coaster was to have him be its star, but I think the box office success of Black Panther changed their minds.

 

[D.Silentu]

Erhm, this is ironic considering Iron Man isn’t part of the Marvel Universe technically anymore AND RDJ doesn’t voice the existing attraction.

Historically speaking Disney likes to use mimics for their park iterations of characters and I can only think of a few exceptions to this. As pointed out by Ismael Flores, Spiderman will likely be costumed in all of his appearances, so there isn't much need for Tom Hollands involvement. A sound alike will do.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This contract must be very different to the Harry Potter one for Universal. I remember reading they had to go to Rowling for the IP and then WB for the rights to base it on the movies. You could say WB had very good foresight to have theme park rights to the movies they were making.

Universal’s deal is only with Warner Bros. The original deal between Universal Orlando Resort and Warner Bros. is available online.

Theme Park License between Warner Bros. Consumer Products, Inc.

Paramount and a Sony are also involved in Transformers and Men in Black.

 

[BrianLo]

Historically speaking Disney likes to use mimics for their park iterations of characters and I can only think of a few exceptions to this. As pointed out by Ismael Flores, Spiderman will likely be costumed in all of his appearances, so there isn't much need for Tom Hollands involvement. A sound alike will do.

Totally agree, it was the posters lamenting the MCU-Sony division. Shouldn't make much difference.