Can the East Coast Marvel Problem Really Be Solved? (Discussion)

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
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.

Thank you.

As Martin said, the ride development rumor was true, the part about use of the MCU was not.
 

champdisney

Well-Known Member
As Martin said, the ride development rumor was true, the part about use of the MCU was not.
Understood. I was recalling back when the rumor made its rounds on here. You must remember the huge debate on whether or not the MCU characters would be in use, for that was rumored to be the case.

The folks with this bit of information confirmed it up and down that it would be happening at some point into the future. I do believe that the desired in-ride technology was complicated, I just never stumbled upon it because the conversation about the said attraction had abruptly came to a close and everyone involved moved on to talk about the other 10,000 rumored attractions Universal has lined up.

Seeing your interactions discussing what styled Marvel characters are feasible for Universal to use reminded me of that rumor.
 

WeWantsTheRedHead

New Member
It's quite simple, actually. But an idea that makes complete sense in a world of suits and lawyers coming to fruition is another matter entirely. Comcast acquires DC Comics and populates Batman/Gotham City, Superman/Metropolis and Justice League at all Universal theme parks worldwide. The arrangements with Six Flags are terminated and a simple gentleman's agreement gives Disney the freedom to have Marvel anywhere. It would be a win-win for Comcast and Disney.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
It's quite simple, actually. But an idea that makes complete sense in a world of suits and lawyers coming to fruition is another matter entirely. Comcast acquires DC Comics and populates Batman/Gotham City, Superman/Metropolis and Justice League at all Universal theme parks worldwide. The arrangements with Six Flags are terminated and a simple gentleman's agreement gives Disney the freedom to have Marvel anywhere. It would be a win-win for Comcast and Disney.

How would that be a win for Comcast? They'd be giving a competitor something for nothing. Disney having the Marvel rights would hurt them.
 

WeWantsTheRedHead

New Member
How would that be a win for Comcast? They'd be giving a competitor something for nothing. Disney having the Marvel rights would hurt them.

Assuming that Comcast could clear the AT&T hurdle, mergers, acquisitions and takeovers require additional legal hurdles. Comcast would obviously have to divest use of any Marvel properties. The vast amount of DC properties that Comcast could then put into their parks would greatly increase revenue through the turnstiles. Instead of the fairly limited existing Marvel land, which will not increase annual visitors, Epic Universe could add Gotham City and Metropolis – instead of lands involving Universal monsters, Kung Fu Panda, etc. Comcast already acquired the rights to Nintendo, DC Comics aligns with the teen/adult demographic that Universal Orlando caters to. Orlando attracts many different demographics to the region, and not strictly for WDW.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Assuming that Comcast could clear the AT&T hurdle, mergers, acquisitions and takeovers require additional legal hurdles. Comcast would obviously have to divest use of any Marvel properties. The vast amount of DC properties that Comcast could then put into their parks would greatly increase revenue through the turnstiles. Instead of the fairly limited existing Marvel land, which will not increase annual visitors, Epic Universe could add Gotham City and Metropolis – instead of lands involving Universal monsters, Kung Fu Panda, etc. Comcast already acquired the rights to Nintendo, DC Comics aligns with the teen/adult demographic that Universal Orlando caters to. Orlando attracts many different demographics to the region, and not strictly for WDW.

Batman is a very valuable property, and Superman is pretty valuable, but as a whole, DC isn't even remotely as valuable as Marvel right now.

A DC for Marvel trade would be a huge loss for Universal both in terms of the property value itself and in terms of allowing Disney to leverage what is currently their biggest IP in WDW. There's no way that would be beneficial to Universal.

Comcast likely wouldn't have to divest themselves of Marvel rights if they acquired DC, although I don't see that happening. There shouldn't be any anti-trust issues there.
 
Last edited:

celluloid

Well-Known Member
The incident today with Chris Evans is the type of example, besides remakes and iterations of Characters, why a specific actor tie in to many major attractions is not the wisest idea when the character itself is iconic and profitable.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Yes, they can, because those are different then what is in the comic style guide.

That's really been my curiosity - could Uni use imagery from the MCU in their land? I would think if they could have done so, they would have modified at least some of the land to reflect the popular films (even smaller stuff like modifying the costumes of their Captain America and Spider-Man M&Gs to reflect the MCU look).

It makes sense to me that they aren't able to use those styles (or other references to the MCU) especially since the films came out after the contract.

Separate issue/question I've had is whether they could use new characters. The contract to me seems to indicate they can only use the characters they've already been "substantially" using (while it limits Disney from using many characters, it doesn't necessarily that Uni can use them). So, for example, I wouldn't think that Uni could make an attraction with Iron Man or or Thor or Black Panther or Captain Marvel. But then I'd wonder how they would do an "Avengers" attraction without additional characters. I'm curious as to how that works.

Because if they could use (say) Iron Man in the parks, why haven't they added him as at least a walk around/M&G.
 

SunsetLament

Well-Known Member
That's really been my curiosity - could Uni use imagery from the MCU in their land?

They cannot.

Separate issue/question I've had is whether they could use new characters. The contract to me seems to indicate they can only use the characters they've already been "substantially" using (while it limits Disney from using many characters, it doesn't necessarily that Uni can use them). So, for example, I wouldn't think that Uni could make an attraction with Iron Man or or Thor or Black Panther or Captain Marvel. But then I'd wonder how they would do an "Avengers" attraction without additional characters. I'm curious as to how that works.

Because if they could use (say) Iron Man in the parks, why haven't they added him as at least a walk around/M&G.

On day one, Marvel Super Hero Island had tons of murals prominently displayed that featured just about every Marvel character you could think of. There is no question in my mind that this was intentional and put in place by the lawyers. It's so Universal can claim that the park has always used almost every character in Marvel's library.

Examples (these are all over the place) ...

DtwiPJDUwAE6o3y.jpg
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
They cannot.



On day one, Marvel Super Hero Island had tons of murals prominently displayed that featured just about every Marvel character you could think of. There is no question in my mind that this was intentional and put in place by the lawyers. It's so Universal can claim that the park has always used almost every character in Marvel's library.

Examples (these are all over the place) ...

View attachment 497324

Those aren’t “substantial use” those, just “incidental”. I’m under the impression that the only characters they have the rights to are those featured in attractions, M&Gs, and locations (like restaurant themes). I don’t think they have the rights to use Iron Man, Thur, etc just because they are depicted in murals
 

SunsetLament

Well-Known Member
Those aren’t “substantial use” those, just “incidental”. I’m under the impression that the only characters they have the rights to are those featured in attractions, M&Gs, and locations (like restaurant themes). I don’t think they have the rights to use Iron Man, Thur, etc just because they are depicted in murals

They do; particularly if Marvel signed-off on the murals (and they did).
 

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

Top Bottom