-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Avengers Campus - Reactions / Reviews
- Thread starter BrianLo
- Start date
Model3 McQueen
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I'm still wondering to this day why they took that down.
Shows in their work. Before we know it, DCA will have it's own FnF: Supercharged.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
Watch them create a Marvel Studios Backlot Tour in the north end of Hollywood land where you board tour buses and go into different soundstages and..."OH NO!!!! its a villian! Quick, save us Dr. Spoderman!" *shake bus shake bus* "wooooo 3-D screens!" *woosh woosh* "phew! Sorry about that folks! You never know what can happen in here!"
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Just a point of correction, the Marvel/Universal contract is not limiting Universal's use to only the comics. It applies to any of the family of characters in use. So there is no MCU adjacent, they have full rights. Universal has all the rights to the MCU versions within the family of characters they have access to. So if they wanted to build an Avengers ride with the MCU versions, they could. They just choose not to so as not to promote Disney/Marvel films. Now with that said, I assume Disney/Marvel would put up a fight as to protect the MCU, so would likely use their ability to reject any updates Universal does to the Marvel area in Orlando.
BTW, its more clarifying to say MCU instead of Marvel Studios.
Model3 McQueen
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Maybe Bob Chapek will also make a cameo and save us, while having Spiderman dance in the background. Makes about as much sense as what they're doing to DCA
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
VJ
Well-Known Member
All bark, no bite.
CosmicDuck
Well-Known Member
This is absolutely not true. The MCU falls under Disney's side of the street, Universal can do nothing with the official "looks" of the characters in the MCU. Universal can update and change the looks of their Marvel characters any way they want, as long as it isn't "damaging Marvel's brand or a poor representation of the product", but they most definitely cannot use the looks of the MCU.
The idea that they ever could and just haven't "to avoid promoting Disney films" is absurd, the benefits of having a theme park land directly tied into the most successful film franchise in modern history vastly outweighs any potential "free marketing" for the competitor. If Universal had the ability to use MCU characters they would have before The Avengers even left theaters.
I didn't call it the MCU on purpose in case people weren't familiar with the acronym.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Actually it is true, the contract does not distinguish between the "comic version" and the "movie version", only characters and their family. So while its true that Universal can't use Robert Downey Jr's image as Iron Man in the Orlando due to likeness rights, they can use the Iron Man look from the MCU. So that means if they wanted to update the Iron Man armor in Orlando to look more like the MCU version, they can do so. Same thing with the the rest of the characters within the Avengers family. So for example if they want to update Cap's costume or shield to look more like the MCU version, they can do that.
The use of the MCU acronym is fairly well known in this forum.
CosmicDuck
Well-Known Member
My guy, I can assure you this is not the case.
The contract was drafted in 1994. Marvel Studios was formed in 1996.
Marvel Entertainment consists of the subsidiaries Marvel Comics, Marvel Animation, and Marvel Television, and is itself a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company. Marvel Studios is a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Studios.
Here's an example of what Universal can and cannot do. Universal CAN develop an Iron Man attraction for IOA and hire Robert Downey Jr to provide the voice for it, as long as it doesn't look like his MCU suit. What Universal CANNOT do is develop an Iron Man attraction that looks like his MCU suit, regardless of who does the voice.
However, the grey area here would be if Universal developed an Iron Man attraction where the suit does not look anything like the MCU version, but they hired RDJ to not only be the voice, but also the likeness under the mask. That's actual legal grey area for the contract. Disney would have to prove that the MCU Iron Man is not only the suit, but also RDJs likeness. Which they most likely would win but I obviously can't speculate confidently on that.
Like I said, the only proof you really need is that Universal hasn't done it already. It would make zero business sense for them not to. The only reason Disney can say no to the design of a character is if its "a poor representation of the brand or a misrepresentation of the character". If you head to any of the Marvel shops in IOA you'll see it stocked full of MCU merchandise. Following your logic, they wouldn't have included any of this merchandise in the theme parks if they were afraid of "promoting Disney/Marvel films".
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Actually I'm sorry you are incorrect.
Marvels Studios was founded as Marvel Films which started in 1993, and predates the contract. So it would have been included in the 1994 contract if there was any intention to distinguish between a comic version and movie version of a character.
Also in the contract is provisions for selling of merchandise, no where does it state that it limits the retail aspect to only comic book related items.
The only thing specific in the contract with regards to the look of all the characters is they must meet the standards set in The Official Handbook of The Marvel Universe and in Marvel’s Style Guide, both of which also cover the MCU.
I have a feeling though that if Disney/Marvel are doing anything they are enforcing their rejection right.
CosmicDuck
Well-Known Member
I have no idea where you're getting your information from, from what I can tell you've read the contract and are interpreting that in perpetuity. That isn't how it works at all. The contract is only as good as it can be enforced in the court of law. If Universal re-branded IOA using MCU characters and went to court, there's not a single judge on earth that wouldn't rule in favor of Disney, because the MCU falls under Walt Disney Studios. Universal has an agreement with Marvel Entertainment.
Just because something isn't spelled out in the contract doesn't mean that Universal can do it. Like I've said multiple times before and you haven't refuted in any way, if they could have, they would have.
You also seem to have a fundamental mis-understanding of their right to rejection. Like I've also said multiple times, they can only reject if it is "a poor representation of the brand or a misrepresentation of the character". And even then, they can't just veto it. They actually have to go to court and prove it. Which hasn't happened.
I'm really confused what information you're using to base your argument on. Without divulging too much I'm in somewhat of a position to have a pretty good understanding of this situation and I'm 96% confident what I've stated is correct in broad strokes (I'm sure there's room for error in the nitty gritty). Here's an article that does a pretty good breakdown and even they are stating almost exactly what I said.
https://www.insideuniversal.net/201...ct-what-rights-does-universal-and-disney-own/
"However, Universal’s usage of the characters as they appear in the MCU is not a possibility. Since the films fall under the Disney umbrella, Universal may not use the official look of the films."
"In Layman’s terms, Marvel/Disney has to comply with any reasonable changes, upgrades, or additions unless Universal intends to create a notably inferior product; or misrepresent the characters’ story, powers, appearance, and other basics"
Old Mouseketeer
Well-Known Member
It may be fairly well known, but it's not an acronym (unless you pronounce it "em-cue". It's actually an initialism (as in "em-cee-you").
You can thank your friendly neighborhood techwriter. LOL
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Ok, geez...
Its not that serious, but technically an initialism is a type of acronym.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
You should know by now....
*I kid, I kid*
Hahah funny but so far when it comes to our exchanges (that aren’t merely based on opinion/ subjective) I have been correct. Cough cough the SWL AP blackouts cough cough.
Old Mouseketeer
Well-Known Member
Ok, geez...
Its not that serious, but technically an initialism is a type of acronym.
Yes and no. Merriam-Webster says that initialism is the older term and that acronym dates to the 1940s. It also says (to your point) that most people use acronym to describe both forms of abbreviations. I would suggest that an acronym is a type of initialism. But I think I can't split that hair any finer, even with a microscope. LOL
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Yes and no. Merriam-Webster says that initialism is the older term and that acronym dates to the 1940s. It also says (to your point) that most people use acronym to describe both forms of abbreviations. I would suggest that an acronym is a type of initialism. But I think I can't split that hair any finer, even with a microscope. LOL
I guess it really depends on how initialism was defined prior to the modern age. But its not really that important to me to find out.
Anyways, at this point I hope we can agree acronym is a perfectly fine word to use in the context of the conversation that was being had.