Bob Harlem
Well-Known Member
That "crash site" thing in the middle of the land across from the spiderman entrance is exactly why it's there. It represents all the characters Universal has rights to. It's not considered incidental.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Can the East Coast Marvel Problem Really Be Solved? (Discussion)
- Thread starter SteamboatJoe
- Start date
That "crash site" thing in the middle of the land across from the spiderman entrance is exactly why it's there. It represents all the characters Universal has rights to. It's not considered incidental.
KaliSplash
Well-Known Member
Not going to be a 5th park in the next decade, probably Much longer
danlb_2000
Premium Member
from the contract:
" [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facilit "
So a character that just appears in a mural is not enough to give Universal exclusivity. Even though Iron Man and Thor are not used in the land Universal still has exclusivity to them since they are part of the Avengers family. The contracts mentions a separate document that lists all the characters Universal has the rights to but that document has never surfaced on the internet.
The "family" cause has always been a tricky one due to the way the comics interconnect. It's hard to come up with a character that doesn't in some way connect to Spiderman, Fantastic Four, X-Men or Avengers.
Interestingly, they had a life size MCU Thor statue in one of the shops. They got away with this since it had a price on it so was considered merchandise.
Last edited:
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I don't think the fact that there are on that crash site gives them the rights, I think it is the other way around, they put everything on the mural that the contract gave them the rights to.
Anyone who has been in The Avengers umbrella pre MCU, which over the course of the decades has been just about everyone.
(Sorry redundant. Posted above already)
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
It seems like everyone looks at this as a problem except Disney and Universal. Disney is happy with the agreement. They get a boatload of money from Universal every year to use that part of the franchise and the can use them on the west coast anyway. It isn't unlike Disney to have something on one side of the continent and not on the other. So for them it is a win, win as a way to draw for Disneyland Resort and they still get to use the non-mentioned characters on the east coast if they want. Universal gets what has been a strong draw for them for quite a few years now, they lose nothing at all unless they decide that the franchise is done and they give up the rights. Win, Win for everyone except for those that get their pantaloons in a knot because they have to go two places, 12 miles apart, to see their favorite characters.
Paper straw fan
Well-Known Member
I’d say it’s an unfortunate stalemate. Disney probably doesn’t want to pay Uni a gazillion dollars for the rights, even if it opens up a lot of options at their parks. They’d rather find loopholes like using GOTG, and occasionally have a Dr Strange character in the parks but not come out and say who it is (I’ve seen this at HS) and the like. I’m sure they’ll try and push more characters that Uni doesn’t have rights to in movies, and then use those characters in future rides, experiences, character meets, etc.
And on the flip side, Uni doesn’t want to hand over rights to something Disney could use in a surge of new park rides, experiences, etc. Also whatever money they’d get, a lot of that would have to go into having to completely redo a section of their park, when they are already have to fill Ep Universe with IP’s. Also Uni has held on to some of their IP park stuff far too long as it is (there’s still a Barney show for &@$* sake) so leaving up an aging marvel area isn’t exactly out of character.
Someone who’s read thru the legal docs- can Uni actually ADD any more rides based on Marvel characters? Like I’m gonna guess if they wanted to make ‘Thanos’ flying infinity gems’ (a ride I just made that’s like Aladdin Flying carpet but with red gems) Disney and/or their contract would prevent it. But could they do the (Venom, Adam Warlock, or um...Silver Surfer) coaster?
guess my summation, neither seems too eager to do anything, Universal’s Marvel is still somewhat popular but nothing compared to what WDW could do with it, but outside of upgrades, the Marvel area at IOA is exactly what it’s going to be, today, in 2025, and in 2030. And that’s kinda a bummer.
And on the flip side, Uni doesn’t want to hand over rights to something Disney could use in a surge of new park rides, experiences, etc. Also whatever money they’d get, a lot of that would have to go into having to completely redo a section of their park, when they are already have to fill Ep Universe with IP’s. Also Uni has held on to some of their IP park stuff far too long as it is (there’s still a Barney show for &@$* sake) so leaving up an aging marvel area isn’t exactly out of character.
Someone who’s read thru the legal docs- can Uni actually ADD any more rides based on Marvel characters? Like I’m gonna guess if they wanted to make ‘Thanos’ flying infinity gems’ (a ride I just made that’s like Aladdin Flying carpet but with red gems) Disney and/or their contract would prevent it. But could they do the (Venom, Adam Warlock, or um...Silver Surfer) coaster?
guess my summation, neither seems too eager to do anything, Universal’s Marvel is still somewhat popular but nothing compared to what WDW could do with it, but outside of upgrades, the Marvel area at IOA is exactly what it’s going to be, today, in 2025, and in 2030. And that’s kinda a bummer.
Attached is a more plain-language version of the contract that I edited with commentary.
The usual point of contention is "family" of characters. And as I'm wont to point out, just about every Marvel character served time in the Avengers or X-Men... it's like superhero jury duty. But if "family" is defined too expansively, then the idea that there are characters that Universal could lose through lack of use is meaningless.
Anyhoo, an insider has told us there's an addendum which clarifies what Uni has rights to and what WDW can't use... and we don't have the text to that addendum. So, arguments about such things based on this public document are pretty much useless.
Last edited:
And all of those fall into one of the families that Uni has exclusive rights to: Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Avengers, and X-Men.
Supers from the MCU that can be used in WDW so far are: Guardians of the Galaxy (possibly minus Drax) and Doctor Strange. We know that because they've already appeared in WDW.
Upcoming MCU supers that can be used in WDW are the Eternals, Shang-Chi, and Blade (which would be unlikely since it's likely to be R-Rated).
Other supers and related characters that might be eligible for the parks but might have problems due to lack of popularity or from the 'small screen' or 'too adult' are Agents of Shield, Cloak and Dagger, Runaways, New Mutants, Defenders, Helstrom, Punisher, Blazing Skull.
Other supers not entagled with the MCU continuity that can be used: Big Hero Six and Incredibles.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
There doesn't appear to be anything in the contract that would prevent Universal from building more Marvel rides in Island of Adventure.
Also, Guardians wasn't a loophole. The MCU guardians is based on the version of the comic that started in 2008, long after the contract was made, so they are clearly outside the group of characters Universal has the rights to.
Trackmaster
Well-Known Member
That's an interesting way of looking at it. But I still think that WDW is the crowl jewel where they'd really like to have a strong MCU/Avengers land. There are really only two American resorts, and while the MCU is a global phenomenon, let's face it, its just a bigger IP in America. And while DLR is right up there with MK, WDW as a whole is the resort that Disney really wants to build up, as it has more more parks, more hotels, and more space to work with. I also imagine that Disney would like to put major MCU attractions at multiple resorts to get more bang for the buck.
In a sense, I think its a lose-lose for the fans. The idea that the superheroes are separate is an early 2000s and 20th century idea. People want the Avengers. With the re-tracking of the Hulk, it doesn't look like Universal is interested in making their Marvel land any better or updated, and I don't even know if they could if they wanted to. While Spiderman is great, who knows if it won't feel dated soon... and you're still watching a cartoon, and not Tom Holland. Dr. Doom is very unpopular and gets poor guest satisfaction ratings. The X-Men flat ride is nothing to write home about. The Hulk is great as a ride, but it doesn't really do much with the story. That land is basically standing in the way of a modern MCU land somewhere.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I don't think that there are as many die hard fans than you are imagining. There are a lot, true, but there are many of us that go to these attractions because the attractions are fun not because they are some special genre. I have never in my life seen one Marvel movie, comic book (graphic novel) or anything else connected to the Hulk or Spiderman and so on. If they are fun adventures then I ride them but I would never have decided to go to either Universal or Disney because they had a Marvel attraction. As much as I have enjoyed some of the Marvel based attractions I have enjoyed them without ever giving one single thought as to whether they are born of Marvel or not. I think that if the getting back those character was that important to Disney, than that would have been the deal breaker for them. As it is, it is easy money in the bank, doesn't change even one person from attending WDW instead of Universal and visa versa. Just my opinion.
Paper straw fan
Well-Known Member
Ah, yeah. What I meant was basically anything MCU related that Disney can use in Orlando.
djkidkaz
Well-Known Member
Anyone know what is the cost of Rise of the Resistance compared to Guardians? And how comparable will Guardians be at EPCOT compared to "WOW factor" of Rise?
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
What little I know about Guardians is that it is primarily a coaster type ride. Rise is part of a intricately themed land and a story, with lots of twists and turns. I don't see how Guardians could begin to compete with it. Note: I am not a fan of either property, but I really have been impressed with Rise and Smugglers.
Honestly universal should want to get rid of its marvel rides, they are promoting the competitions properties! So they should be motivated. Universal should offer the marvels rights back in returned for funds to help them buy DC an remake marvel hero island into DC island, an make new DC movies as well. They'd be fools not to.