The terms are in the contract. Disney doesn’t get as much as you seem to think.I don't know for sure if this is accurate, but isn't it true, that though Disney cannot build any Marvel property east of the Mississippi (that Universal is currently using), they still are able to be profiting directly from their competition, in terms of merchandise sales in their greatest competitors own parks? Everytime a Spider-Man doll (or Bart Simpson doll) is sold in Universal, I would think Disney gets some of that, if not even possibly a share of overall profits, or a users fee for using the property. Realistically, we all know how timid Disney is at times in terms of building projects, or cutting budgets for projects, but with this they actually generate income with no expenses what-so-ever with the upkeep employee, and building fees falling on Universal. I would think the deal also allows Disney influence in Universal in ways that normally they never would have had.
The terms are in the contract. Disney doesn’t get as much as you seem to think.
Let’s be honest with ourselves. Disney would have not allowed it. Period.
Universal has done their part keeping Spider-Man and Hulk up to date with their refurbs and redos. Then again, it is a must for Universal to do so if they do not wish to get penalized by Disney for breaking any of the contractual agreements.
Except they’re not. Many of the depictions are rooted in the animated television shows of the 90s. The language is that they must conform to the style guides and character designs have changed.
The updates to The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man and the walk around characters do not look like the 90s. It makes no sense for Marvel to force a licensee into outdated imagery, especially with a perpetual deal.The question is, do they need to be continuously updates to match changes in the style guide, or the designs locked in to whatever the style guide said at the time things were originally designed?
The updates to The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man and the walk around characters do not look like the 90s. It makes no sense for Marvel to force a licensee into outdated imagery, especially with a perpetual deal.
That is exactly what I was trying to tell @marni1971. The rumor was that Universal was developing an Avengers attraction featuring the MCU versions of the characters and how TWDC would almost certainly not allow for that to transpire.Yes, they can, because those are different then what is in the comic style guide.
I said nothing about the MCU characters.