Marvel at WDW

[Model3 McQueen]

You want a WDW Marvel 'land'? This can happen...

1. Tower of Terror gets a Doctor Strange overlay.​

2. Rock n' Roller Coaster becomes an Incredicoaster​

3. Theater of the Stars becomes a larger Awesome Mix Tape concert​

4. Fairfax gets bulldozed for a clone of Flight of Passage riding Baymax instead of a Banshee.​

​

​

 

[TP2000]

They can start taking over attractions based on cartoon characters that only senior citizens have ever heard of.

Hey, I heard that!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Well, not at the moment, but surely at some point they are going to buy Universal out of that contract, probably at the point at which Universal is ready to replace their Marvel land with Nintendo or whatever else. I would think that Universal are probably stuck in a sort of time warp with that land anyway, not able to develop or update.

Why would they do that?

Management wouldn’t like free money anymore?

 

[MJ6987]

Does Disney have control over what Universal does with the Marvel IP in their Parks? I know this is far fetched but as extreme examples, say Universal decided to throw in some “adult” scenes into the Spider-Man ride or had Spidey die at the end of the ride, or whatever?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Does Disney have control over what Universal does with the Marvel IP in their Parks? I know this is far fetched but as extreme examples, say Universal decided to throw in some “adult” scenes into the Spider-Man ride or had Spidey die at the end of the ride, or whatever?

Yes, Uni must adhere to standards of the comic book version of the characters in consultation with Marvel. If they can't agree, it goes to arbitration.

 

[FettFan]

On his last podcast, Lou Mongello described the acquisition of Marvel as being possibly the most significant event in Disney history!

Further, in his New Year look back at 2017 he seemed to spend half the airtime talking about Marvel (mainly the movies)

Now, I get that Lou was already a comic book fan as well as being a massive Disney fan, but I would have thought that this intersection of the Venn diagram would be pretty small?

I have a feeling that once Disney get the full green light on putting Marvel into WDW we're going to go into a period of several years where almost every WDW major announcement will involve Marvel going into the parks. I’m not looking forward to this as I’m not really a Marvel fan.

Is this just me?

1. As long as Universal has a Marvel area, the main Marvel character families are off limits to any Disney theme parks east of the Mississippi River.


2. This deal does not include Cosmic Marvel characters, which is why Dr. Strange and the Guardians of the Galaxy pop up from time to time as meet-and-greets at DHS.....and why the Guardians are now infecting Epcot Center like herpes.

Pictured: Famously Huge Turds.

3. The deal only includes characters INSIDE the parks themselves, which is how Disney can put wraps on monorails to advertise Marvel movies, as long as the Marvel-rail trains only stay on the Magic Kingdom/Resort line.

They cannot be used on the Epcot line because it goes INTO the park.

4. Because the deal only includes Disney parks on the mainland USA east of the Mississippi, Disney is free to use Marvel's entire library of characters in every other park outside of Orlando....and on any offshore Disney properties. Which is why you can find Marvel characters on the Disney Cruise Lines.

 

[marni1971]

Does Disney have control over what Universal does with the Marvel IP in their Parks? I know this is far fetched but as extreme examples, say Universal decided to throw in some “adult” scenes into the Spider-Man ride or had Spidey die at the end of the ride, or whatever?

The rides can’t be drastically altered from their original design. But they can be upgraded as Spidy and Hulk have been - upgrades that went above and beyond what was required.

 

[phillip9698]

@scorp16 , even though Universal is limited to any new Marvel attractions on Superhero Island, there is nothing in the contract that prevents Superhero Island from expanding.

Can you shed more light on exactly what Universal isnt allowed to build? Can they not build new attractions at all or do you mean limited by current space?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Can you shed more light on exactly what Universal isnt allowed to build? Can they not build new attractions at all or do you mean limited by current space?

Limited by space. They can only use Marvel on Superhero Island.

Limited also by what characters they have chosen to use (and their family members). Since they chose the Avengers, they can add an Iron Man ride, e.g.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Can you shed more light on exactly what Universal isnt allowed to build? Can they not build new attractions at all or do you mean limited by current space?

I'm sure you could get a different interpretation of the contract by many different lawyers. But as a lay person the way I read it is Uni has the rights to the Comic Book Universe not the Cinematic Universe.

Meaning, sure they could build an Iron Man ride but they can't draw from elements of the movies for that ride. Meaning no J.A.R.V.I.S - there can however be a butler called Jarvis.

Universal can look to modernize the characters at IOA provided they get approval from Marvel/Disney, for which approval can't be unreasonably withheld. (for which I'm sure there are equally as many different interpretations - but I wouldn't think Disney would allow them to cross over into the movie universe). I don't think Universal can develop anything around the movie story lines, or elements unique to the movies. I think they are capped with the comics for that.

 

[World_Showcase_Lover007]

No it’s not just you...I dislike comic book characters and feel they are not truly Disney characters. I’m not excited at all for Marvel. It’s like bringing in a hired gun. I feel the same way about Star Wars. It brings down the uniqueness of Disney, as WDW is now not a land of their own. It is a hodgepodge of acquired properties.

 

[imperius]

I'm sure you could get a different interpretation of the contract by many different lawyers. But as a lay person the way I read it is Uni has the rights to the Comic Book Universe not the Cinematic Universe.

Meaning, sure they could build an Iron Man ride but they can't draw from elements of the movies for that ride. Meaning no J.A.R.V.I.S - there can however be a butler called Jarvis.

Universal can look to modernize the characters at IOA provided they get approval from Marvel/Disney, for which approval can't be unreasonably withheld. (for which I'm sure there are equally as many different interpretations - but I wouldn't think Disney would allow them to cross over into the movie universe). I don't think Universal can develop anything around the movie story lines, or elements unique to the movies. I think they are capped with the comics for that.

I mean the movie storylines are basically just old comic storylines so that really isn’t anything important. Only issue is not using the MCU likeness but even that is highly overrated.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Does Disney have control over what Universal does with the Marvel IP in their Parks? I know this is far fetched but as extreme examples, say Universal decided to throw in some “adult” scenes into the Spider-Man ride or had Spidey die at the end of the ride, or whatever?

Marvel has reasonable approval rights, which despite what some claim is a rather well established concept. Marvel has established guidelines that are not limited to just Universal.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

I’m an old lady so I’m not up on all the characters and their relationships to what ... and sorry if this has already been asked or answered but how does Black Panther fit into all of this? Would he and Wakanda be off limits to Walt Disney World?

I want to know if my dream of one day getting rid of that ridiculous Avatar theme and changing Pandora into Wakanda could ever come true? (PS I know it won’t even if the rights were available but a girl can dream.)

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Marvel has reasonable approval rights, which despite what some claim is a rather well established concept. Marvel has established guidelines that are not limited to just Universal.

Never said it wasn't a well established concept. What constitutes withholding consent unreasonably is what is up for interpretation.

That clause is there so Marvel/Disney can't just arbitrarily say "No". They can still say "No" but would have to have a basis for withholding.
Unless Uni is trying to do something well outside it's licensing rights (or something that would cause irreparable damage), Disney/Marvel would probably consent. But again if Uni was really trying to stretch things, more than likely it'd lead to negotiation, or in an extreme case court, where it would then be decided.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

I’m an old lady so I’m not up on all the characters and their relationships to what ... and sorry if this has already been asked or answered but how does Black Panther fit into all of this? Would he and Wakanda be off limits to Walt Disney World?

I want to know if my dream of one day getting rid of that ridiculous Avatar theme and changing Pandora into Wakanda could ever come true? (PS I know it won’t even if the rights were available but a girl can dream.)

Maybe....maybe not.

Is Universal's Marvel contract enough to keep Black Panther's Wakanda out of Epcot?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Never said it wasn't a well established concept. What constitutes withholding consent unreasonably is what is up for interpretation.

That clause is there so Marvel/Disney can't just arbitrarily say "No". They can still say "No" but would have to have a basis for withholding.
Unless Uni is trying to do something well outside it's licensing rights (or something that would cause irreparable damage), Disney/Marvel would probably consent. But again if Uni was really trying to stretch things, more than likely it'd lead to negotiation, or in an extreme case court, where it would then be decided.

You literally just described why reasonable approval is an established concept.

Nothing would end up in court.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

You literally just described why reasonable approval is an established concept.

Nothing would end up in court.

Again. I never said it was not an established concept. Go ahead re-read my posts. The interpretation of unreasonable consent is open (which is what I said). Why do you think in most lawsuits both the prosecution and defense have "expert" witnesses. If they are "experts" in their field shouldn't they be in agreement? Well, in court they never are. They take opposing viewpoints. In the unlikely event Disney withheld consent, both Disney and Uni would parade their experts into court and these "experts" would parrot the respective company poisition.

You think there is a Chinese menu of things for Uni to chose from?

"Here are the 25 things you can do / Here are the 25 things you can't." Doesn't work that way.

They're not going to pick up the phone and call Marvel/Disney and say: "Hey, we're gonna overhaul Dr. Doom, you cool with that? Okay, buh-bye."

They need to get approval of what they are going to overhaul and how they are going to overhaul it. These types of cases can, and have gone to court.

As I said in my previous post - More than likely, if a situation like this did occur, it would lead to some type of negotiation. But to state "Nothing would end up in court" has absolutely no basis in fact.

 

[imperius]

I’m an old lady so I’m not up on all the characters and their relationships to what ... and sorry if this has already been asked or answered but how does Black Panther fit into all of this? Would he and Wakanda be off limits to Walt Disney World?

I want to know if my dream of one day getting rid of that ridiculous Avatar theme and changing Pandora into Wakanda could ever come true? (PS I know it won’t even if the rights were available but a girl can dream.)

Wakanda could probably be used and Shuri, but Panther himself is offlimits unless an agreement is made.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Again. I never said it was not an established concept. Go ahead re-read my posts. The interpretation of unreasonable consent is open (which is what I said). Why do you think in most lawsuits both the prosecution and defense have "expert" witnesses. If they are "experts" in their field shouldn't they be in agreement? Well, in court they never are. They take opposing viewpoints. In the unlikely event Disney withheld consent, both Disney and Uni would parade their experts into court and these "experts" would parrot the respective company poisition.

You think there is a Chinese menu of things for Uni to chose from?

"Here are the 25 things you can do / Here are the 25 things you can't." Doesn't work that way.

They're not going to pick up the phone and call Marvel/Disney and say: "Hey, we're gonna overhaul Dr. Doom, you cool with that? Okay, buh-bye."

They need to get approval of what they are going to overhaul and how they are going to overhaul it. These types of cases can, and have gone to court.

As I said in my previous post - More than likely, if a situation like this did occur, it would lead to some type of negotiation. But to state "Nothing would end up in court" has absolutely no basis in fact.

Marvel has style guides. Not going to court comes right from the contract.