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

Bob Harlem

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

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
Advertisement
Hmmmmm could a new land for the Marvel characters be a possibility or even a 5th gate?
Not going to be a 5th park in the next decade, probably Much longer
 

danlb_2000

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

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

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.

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.
 

celluloid

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

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)
 

ChrisFL

Premium Member
The current stuff coming to DCA with Marvel looks really underwhelming so far, so I don't think Disney is even planning to do a lot with it. GOTG in Epcot being the exception and that seems to be just a budget that went out of control?
 

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.
 

JIMINYCR

Well-Known Member
With all the clamoring over Marvel characters... for the life of me I cant understand why Disney doesnt promote their own superhero. Its a goldmine waiting to be tapped. Lets request an amazing Super Goof thrill park.

super-goof.jpg
suprgoof.jpg
 

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.
 

Jon81uk

Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone has anything to gain by the rights passing to Disney.

But I do think after 20 years it is overdue for another superhero attraction to be added at IoA.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not overly skilled at reading through legal contractual passages, but doesn't article V discuss merchandising fees, plus an annual fee? there appears to be designated 10,000 square foot area dedicated to Marvel inside the parks for merchandise, that MCA has to buy, or at least meet an undisclosed amount each year or pay the differences?

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.
 

Attachments

  • Universal Contract redacted.pdf
    204.7 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium 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

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

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.

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
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.

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
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.
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
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.

Ah, yeah. What I meant was basically anything MCU related that Disney can use in Orlando.
 

djkidkaz

Well-Known Member
The current stuff coming to DCA with Marvel looks really underwhelming so far, so I don't think Disney is even planning to do a lot with it. GOTG in Epcot being the exception and that seems to be just a budget that went out of control?

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
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?
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.
 

Snake

Member
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.
 
Top Bottom