How Disney can get Marvel for WDW

[danlb_2000]

Universal has a perpetual license to all of the Marvel characters currently in use, and as long as they continue to refresh and maintain the attractions they will be able to hang onto them for eternity.

Pretty much the only condition for keeping the license is: "Each THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall be operated and maintained in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the theme park industry "

There is some debate as to whether this simply means keeping what they have now in good condition or if it implies upgrades.

 

[LAKid53]

Pretty much the only condition for keeping the license is: "Each THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall be operated and maintained in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the theme park industry "

There is some debate as to whether this simply means keeping what they have now in good condition or if it implies upgrades.

And that would be the mechanism Disney could use to claim breech. But yes, that statement is open to interpretation. Can't see it happening.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And that would be the mechanism Disney could use to claim breech. But yes, that statement is open to interpretation. Can't see it happening.

Disney explored it in 2010 and didn’t pursue it. Unless conditions really change it seems doubtful Disney would try again.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

And that would be the mechanism Disney could use to claim breech. But yes, that statement is open to interpretation. Can't see it happening.

They really can’t...because they only would have to run destitute attractions for them to even make a case.

They’d never win a breach suite over chipped paint on the hulk coaster...which I remind was 100% replaced by B&M a couple years ago.

There are 4 rides...2 are simple, 1 was replaced, the other is a slow track simulator ride

 

[LAKid53]

Storm has a ride, so the X-Men are Universal’s.

Trading X Men, then, wouldn't be an advantage to Disney. Nor would they give up something Iger was quoted as saying, “makes sense for the the Marvel Cinematic Universe to absorb the X-Men franchise. There shouldn't be two Marvels”

 

[LAKid53]

Disney explored it in 2010 and didn’t pursue it. Unless conditions really change it seems doubtful Disney would try again.

That would be one long, nightmarish litigious action that would cost both companies not just $$$$, but bad PR. Not something I see Disney wanting to do in the foreseeable future.

 

[Tom P.]

From a purely fan perspective, it would be nice if Disney could trade Alien for Marvel in terms of theme park rights. Marvel would do better at Disney because they could use the MCU iterations of the characters rather than the comic books. And although I love Alien and Aliens, there is absolutely nothing even potentially family-friendly in that series. Disney will never use it in the parks. But Universal could.

From a business perspective, however, I know this would be a ridiculously bad deal for Universal and one they would never pursue. The Alien franchise simply has nowhere near the value of the Marvel franchise. It would not make any business sense at all for Universal to make that trade.

 

[Paper straw fan]

I could only see Uni doing a deal for one thing- an absolute boat load of money. Money that they could use to build their Nintendo land where their Marvel land is, and probably expand on their Harry Potter areas. Like others have said, it’s probably as much to keep Disney from having it to use against them as it is to keep it themselves.

It’s unfortunate, as, while the Spider-Man ride is excellent, the area is getting a bit dated, or at least would be likely better as their planned Nintendo world, and with Disney able to expand on it, they could take the Marvel IP to some really cool places too.

 

[HauntedPirate]

*wonders out loud why he clicks on some of these threads...*

 

[LAKid53]

*wonders out loud why he clicks on some of these threads...*

As do I, as do I....

 

[Kingoglow]

Seems like Disney missed their window.
I wouldn't advise buying the rights now. Phase 4 of Marvel is looking really really bad compared to Phase 1-3. Any buy out or trade for the right would just be a waste when the movies don't bring in the audience.

 

[SpoiledBlueMilk]

Pretty much the only condition for keeping the license is: "Each THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall be operated and maintained in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the theme park industry "

There is some debate as to whether this simply means keeping what they have now in good condition or if it implies upgrades.

I think you can make a layman's argument that the quality of the Marvel IP in the Universal parks aren't up to snuff with what Marvel is doing in their film properties. Everything in Universal screams cheap 90's low-budget crap. Disney is building a whole Stark expo in DL and in Asia, their Marvel rides are glossy affairs right out of the movies. At some point in the near future, the two visions of the brand - the sparkly new MCU focused Disney content, and the 90's pastel campy Universal content, are going to pull apart. There won't be any brand unity. At that point, an argument for breach of contract could be made that Universal is no longer keeping its IP up to standards. I doubt Universal wants to invest serious $$ in upgrading everything since they have Nintendo in line to be their next big thing...

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think you can make a layman's argument that the quality of the Marvel IP in the Universal parks aren't up to snuff with what Marvel is doing in their film properties. Everything in Universal screams cheap 90's low-budget crap. Disney is building a whole Stark expo in DL and in Asia, their Marvel rides are glossy affairs right out of the movies. At some point in the near future, the two visions of the brand - the sparkly new MCU focused Disney content, and the 90's pastel campy Universal content, are going to pull apart. There won't be any brand unity. At that point, an argument for breach of contract could be made that Universal is no longer keeping its IP up to standards. I doubt Universal wants to invest serious $$ in upgrading everything since they have Nintendo in line to be their next big thing...

No, Marvel cannot suddenly revoke approval on the concept after 20+ years of approval. Calling warehouse “glossy affairs” is also quite a stretch.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

No, Marvel cannot suddenly revoke approval on the concept after 20+ years of approval. Calling warehouse “glossy affairs” is also quite a stretch.

Plus it does fit the book based theme the entire Islands represent from comics, childrens books and fiction.

 

[Disorbust]

Isn't the Uni announcement August 1 the Nintendo park?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Isn't the Uni announcement August 1 the Nintendo park?

It’s not a Nintendo park.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think you can make a layman's argument that the quality of the Marvel IP in the Universal parks aren't up to snuff with what Marvel is doing in their film properties. Everything in Universal screams cheap 90's low-budget crap. Disney is building a whole Stark expo in DL and in Asia, their Marvel rides are glossy affairs right out of the movies. At some point in the near future, the two visions of the brand - the sparkly new MCU focused Disney content, and the 90's pastel campy Universal content, are going to pull apart. There won't be any brand unity. At that point, an argument for breach of contract could be made that Universal is no longer keeping its IP up to standards. I doubt Universal wants to invest serious $$ in upgrading everything since they have Nintendo in line to be their next big thing...

You can make a layman’s argument...but the layman gets beat in court every time.

There’s no angle here: there’s no reason to fight over marvel.

Now - purely hypothetical: if Comcast built 2 parks on the I-4 property, 6 hotels and a convention center - and linked them all up...Pulling 35% market share...then maybe you have an angle

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It’s not a Nintendo park.

I’m very interested to see what this is...will they plow through and completely change the face of USO?

I bet some people in Burbank would be tuned in.

 

[danlb_2000]

I think you can make a layman's argument that the quality of the Marvel IP in the Universal parks aren't up to snuff with what Marvel is doing in their film properties. Everything in Universal screams cheap 90's low-budget crap. Disney is building a whole Stark expo in DL and in Asia, their Marvel rides are glossy affairs right out of the movies. At some point in the near future, the two visions of the brand - the sparkly new MCU focused Disney content, and the 90's pastel campy Universal content, are going to pull apart. There won't be any brand unity. At that point, an argument for breach of contract could be made that Universal is no longer keeping its IP up to standards. I doubt Universal wants to invest serious $$ in upgrading everything since they have Nintendo in line to be their next big thing...

But Marvel did not license the brand to Universal they licensed the comic book representations of characters. There is no way Disney could call Universal for breach of contract because they didn't update the attractions to look like something they are expressly forbidden to use.

 

[drizgirl]

I think you can make a layman's argument that the quality of the Marvel IP in the Universal parks aren't up to snuff with what Marvel is doing in their film properties. Everything in Universal screams cheap 90's low-budget crap. Disney is building a whole Stark expo in DL and in Asia, their Marvel rides are glossy affairs right out of the movies. At some point in the near future, the two visions of the brand - the sparkly new MCU focused Disney content, and the 90's pastel campy Universal content, are going to pull apart. There won't be any brand unity. At that point, an argument for breach of contract could be made that Universal is no longer keeping its IP up to standards. I doubt Universal wants to invest serious $$ in upgrading everything since they have Nintendo in line to be their next big thing...

Was there some sort of clause in the contract requiring attractions of a certain quality?