Disney and Universal working on Marvel deal for Florida?

celluloid

Well-Known Member
See, I'm not convinced that the pre-movie incarnations of these characters are as popular or as marketable as everyone seems to think they are.
Do you see a lot of Spiderman T-shirts with Toby Maguire or Andrew Garfield on them? How about Mark as The Hulk? I don't even see Robert Downy Jr's Iron Man on merch as often as the others. Universal is in a better position because in the past Fifteen plus years since IOA has we are on the third actor portrayals of Banner/Hulk Spiderman and many smaller characters in the universe have changed as well(DareDevil X-men, Fantastic Four). Universal's are timeless in comparison and can adapt much faster.
There is also a reason you won't see those film character version on merch...ever. They have to pay or sign for likeness rights. Universal wins in this circumstance.
 

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
Do you see a lot of Spiderman T-shirts with Toby Maguire or Andrew Garfield on them? How about Mark as The Hulk? I don't even see Robert Downy Jr's Iron Man on merch as often as the others. Universal is in a better position because in the past Fifteen plus years since IOA has we are on the third actor portrayals of Banner/Hulk Spiderman and many smaller characters in the universe have changed as well(DareDevil X-men, Fantastic Four). Universal's are timeless in comparison and can adapt much faster.
There is also a reason you won't see those film character version on merch...ever. They have to pay or sign for likeness rights. Universal wins in this circumstance.
Ummm, this is from IOA.

IMG_0333.JPG
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
That only proves the point that they can still sell things related to the movie versions of the characters as well as any version of those characters. I never claimed they can't. I was just explaining that most of the merchandise sold for Marvel is not strictly representative of the movies.
 

bhg469

Well-Known Member
This is nothing against you, just a personal pet peeve of mine - Is anyone else annoyed when anything and everything that's supposed to be bigger and better is described as "such and such... ON STEROIDS!" It's become a cliche way of describing things.
Unless you're describing MLB, because then it would be redundant. :)
 

LieutLaww

Hello There
Premium Member
In the Parks
No
Just a thought, with the recent agreement with Nintendo and Universal. Has anyone thought about IOA becoming a Nintendo central and marvel being handed over to Disney? Just a thought

No, No, No and also No, Marvel is not going anywhere.
 

El Grupo

Well-Known Member
As has been stated, the deal as it exists between Universal and Marvel is basically good for Comcast and TWDC. USO retains rights to a highly recognizable IP that is growing in value while paying a low licensing fee, and Disney can sit back and cash the checks while gaining the promotional exposure for that IP.

Since Disney would probably be slow to fully benefit from these popular Marvel characters by building associated attractions at WDW, they're better off just taking the guaranteed payment instead.

The only way I could see Disney gaining rights for WDW to a few characters from USO would be for TWDC to pay a considerable amount to Comcast or make concessions on the license fees that Comcast pays for ESPN/Disney Channel properties. There really doesn't appear to be any incentive for TWDC to do either.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Just a thought, with the recent agreement with Nintendo and Universal. Has anyone thought about IOA becoming a Nintendo central and marvel being handed over to Disney? Just a thought

A couple reliable sources have said that not only is Marvel not going away, Uni will be adding at least one new Marvel attraction and updating some existing ones.
 

Skipper Dan

Active Member
I'm sorry, I get where the logical statements are coming from, but to me, it makes no sense to spend millions on a property, only to have another company represent it. (And half-a**, I might add) End-Rant.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
I'm sorry, I get where the logical statements are coming from, but to me, it makes no sense to spend millions on a property, only to have another company represent it. (And half-a**, I might add) End-Rant.

Millions? Try Billions. It isn't a big deal for Disney because the big money is coming from the box office on the movies, and merchandising. It would probably take years for Marvel in WDW to make the same kind of money a single Marvel movies makes in a few weeks. It's also not like Disney is building Marvel attractions like gang busters in the other resorts.
 

AndyMagic

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I get where the logical statements are coming from, but to me, it makes no sense to spend millions on a property, only to have another company represent it. (And half-a**, I might add) End-Rant.

The real world and business in general doesn't operate like professional sports where there are "teams" and clear winners and losers. Obviously Disney would prefer to have the theme park rights to Marvel east of the Mississippi but in the end, what good would that do for the consumer?

In a world where Universal didn't have the rights and Disney had full control, we'd probably get an Avengers themed Star Tours clone in Tomorrowland opening in 2042. The current situation allows Marvel to get brand exposure without having to invest money, it allows Universal to play host to groundbreaking attractions that help drive attendance, and it gives consumers access to attractions based on a beloved IP. As far as spending millions of dollars on a property only to have another company "represent it," as you put it, no one but the folks on these boards even understand or give a damn about who owns what. One of Disney's highest rated shows on ABC is Modern Family and it is neither produced nor owned by Disney or its affiliates. It's produced and owned by 20th Century Fox. We live in a global world with a global economy.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom