Marvel at WDW

[BlakeW39]

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.)

As a DAK fan:

1. Pandora is not ridiculous, it is breathtakingly well themed and it the absolute perfect fit for DAK. I hated it before I went but now that I have, it is so ecology focused and creates the feels of a loving world.

2. Animal Kingdom is the absolute worst place for Wakanda, Wakanda features wild animals extensively in film once, and they are not accurate to real white rhinos. It is Zootopia level bade for DAK. It is as bad as a Guardians miniland at Epcot. No relation whatsoever.

3. They can't use Black Panther and without him, a Wakanda land would be an extremely unlikely decision, even in right park (DHS, aka the assorted themes theme park).

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

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

We're not talking about style guides. There are operational items, signage, how the Marvel logo is to displayed etc that they do have guidelines and a style guide and are set forth in the contract.

We're not talking about putting up a sign up in Superhero Island saying "Restrooms this way". We're talking about making alterations to an existing attraction or building a new one.

This Marvel-themed complex would be designed in coordination with Marvel, and all major elements and themes would be subject to Marvel’s reasonable approval. - That is outside of any "style guide".

There is an arbitration clause in the contract so in this instance it would go before an arbitration panel whose decision would be binding. Each party can seek injunctive relief through the court while arbitration is pending.

 

[lazyboy97o]

We're not talking about style guides. There are operational items, signage, how the Marvel logo is to displayed etc that they do have guidelines and a style guide and are set forth in the contract.

We're not talking about putting up a sign up in Superhero Island saying "Restrooms this way". We're talking about making alterations to an existing attraction or building a new one.

This Marvel-themed complex would be designed in coordination with Marvel, and all major elements and themes would be subject to Marvel’s reasonable approval. - That is outside of any "style guide".

There is an arbitration clause in the contract so in this instance it would go before an arbitration panel whose decision would be binding. Each party can seek injunctive relief through the court while arbitration is pending.

Style guides cover more than just graphics and branding, named right before the sentence you quoted is The Handbook of The Marvel Universe. Approval is flat out a non-issue. Universal has the information and even if not required would still seek input and approval throughout the design and construction processes.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

As a DAK fan:

1. Pandora is not ridiculous, it is breathtakingly well themed and it the absolute perfect fit for DAK. I hated it before I went but now that I have, it is so ecology focused and creates the feels of a loving world.

2. Animal Kingdom is the absolute worst place for Wakanda, Wakanda features wild animals extensively in film once, and they are not accurate to real white rhinos. It is Zootopia level bade for DAK. It is as bad as a Guardians miniland at Epcot. No relation whatsoever.

3. They can't use Black Panther and without him, a Wakanda land would be an extremely unlikely decision, even in right park (DHS, aka the assorted themes theme park).

I don't want to extend the Avatar discussion but I will clarify that I didn't say Pandora the land was ridiculous, I said using the theme of Avatar is ridiculous but just because the movie is bad. Yes, they did an amazing job on the land considering they had so little to work with, I will agree. And Wakanda makes about as much sense for Animal Kingdom as Avatar does, but this isn't about that. I just wanted to know about Black Panther and Wakanda and a few people answered that and cited an interesting article. So I understand now.

 

[MisterPenguin]

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.

As I mentioned above and highlighted in my easier-to-read version of the contract posted above... it would go to arbitration. Lots of paragraphs in the contract about what is reasonable and not reasonable for Marvel to do in regard to oversight of Universal.

I suggest a careful reading of the contract for everyone.

 

[MisterPenguin]

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.

No and no.

Black Panther is off limits as a founding member of the Avengers.

Shuri, Wakanda, and all the characters therein are part of Black Panther's family.

People keep forgetting that even if a 'family member' hasn't been used, it's off limits if it's part of a family of an in-use character.

 

[imperius]

No and no.

Black Panther is off limits as a founding member of the Avengers.

Shuri, Wakanda, and all the characters therein are part of Black Panther's family.

People keep forgetting that even if a 'family member' hasn't been used, it's off limits if it's part of a family of an in-use character.

True true

 

[danlb_2000]

No and no.

Black Panther is off limits as a founding member of the Avengers.

Shuri, Wakanda, and all the characters therein are part of Black Panther's family.

People keep forgetting that even if a 'family member' hasn't been used, it's off limits if it's part of a family of an in-use character.

At the risk of nit-picking, the contract only seems to cover characters, so in theory Disney could use Wakanda as long as they don't use any of the characters, not that I think they would ever happen.

 

[Kenny Hensley]

Cool opinion, bro.

Truly the hawtest of hawt takes.

 

[Kenny Hensley]

You're reaching for paper straws here. Okay they get the "unused" amphitheater. Now what?

Fixed

 

[asianway]

​

Thank you for all of this. I am admittedly not well-versed in the specifics of the contract, so I was hoping you could clarify a couple items that put up a red flag for me.

1. Captain Marvel, Dr. Strange, Drax, and some of the Defenders could easily be considered part of the Avengers "family," based on the comics. Could this halt the use of those characters in WDW? I really don't see them wanting anything to do with any of the Defenders, but the other three could have some appeal, especially Drax with the GotG ride being built.

2. I was going to ask how League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fit into this, but then I remembered that Fox owns the movie rights currently, so nevermind.

Again, thank you for simplifying this.

Dr Strange did not become an Avenger until after the contract was signed.

Good luck with Carol Danvers, she was an Avenger as Ms Marvel waaaaay back

 

[Kenny Hensley]

Read the Guardians of the Galaxy ride thread. No firm numbers are given but @marni1971 has indicated that it's costing serval 100 million dollars and climbing. If Disney were to shell out the money to get the rights back from Universal, they would have to make more then one new another box office smash Marvel ride movie at WDW to justify the cost.

Fixed.

 

[danlb_2000]

Fixed.

Sorry, your joke doesn't make sense. They can make a 100 hit Marvel movies, but they don't pay back the cost of the contract unless they drive a lot more revenue at the parks.

 

[Kenny Hensley]

Sorry, your joke doesn't make sense. They can make a 100 hit Marvel movies, but they don't pay back the cost of the contract unless they drive a lot more revenue at the parks.

Come on . You've seen the box office numbers, right? One hit movie's BO take, plus maybe another Fox IP to sweeten the deal, could likely more than cover whatever Universal might ask for the theme park rights.

It would definitely be for more than one ride.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Come on . You've seen the box office numbers, right? One hit movie's BO take, plus maybe another Fox IP to sweeten the deal, could likely more than cover whatever Universal might ask for the theme park rights.

It would definitely be for more than one ride.

Marvel Studios isn’t going to give money to Walt Disney World.

 

[danlb_2000]

Come on . You've seen the box office numbers, right? One hit movie's BO take, plus maybe another Fox IP to sweeten the deal, could likely more than cover whatever Universal might ask for the theme park rights.

It would definitely be for more than one ride.

You are missing the point, it's not a question of whether Disney has the money or not, it's a question of how you earn back the investment. If Disney plans to give $1 billion to Universal for the Marvel theme parks rights, then they need to be sure that those rights will bring in more then an extra $1 billion in revenue to WDW.

 

[Kenny Hensley]

You are missing the point, it's not a question of whether Disney has the money or not, it's a question of how you earn back the investment. If Disney plans to give $1 billion to Universal for the Marvel theme parks rights, then they need to be sure that those rights will bring in more then an extra $1 billion in revenue to WDW.

Never said it was without risk...just like going all-in on Star Wars was when they bought Lucasfilm.

 

[Kenny Hensley]

Marvel Studios isn’t going to give money to Walt Disney World.

One ring to rule them all...

 

[lazyboy97o]

One ring to rule them all...
View attachment 298743

Then you clearly do not understand how The Walt Disney Company operates.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Look this comes down to Disney being able to use the word “Marvel” inside of Disney theme parks. Obviously with a couple of rides to boot. You can call it Marvel Land, Marvel Corner, or Marvel Place. It doesn’t matter. Disney is going all in with Marvel. They are in California, they are in Tokyo, and they are in Paris.

Right now in Florida they are prohibited due to the rights that Uni has based on current agreement. That being said, the Marvel presence is growing in Orlando (even without being able to display or say the “M” word).

Too many of you just blindly recite: “Well there’s a contract, and the contract says this, the contract says that. - Uni’s not going to give up those rights because of how inexpensive they were to attain vs the current margin they are getting.” I get your point. I just disagree with it. Contracts can be amended.

You have to realize there is war going on right now for control of content. ATT with Time Warner, Comcast with Universal, Disney with Fox – on and on. There’s consolidation happening. And it will continue. And it will evolve…like it is with Disney’s Streaming Service getting ready to launch. There will be more acquisitions over the next few years – by all the parties. (Disney will soon own controlling interest in Hulu because of the stake Fox owns.)

This is a much bigger picture than just a contract Universal has with Marvel for theme park rights. Yeah..I know: “but there is a contract. And the contract says….”

Comcast, Disney, ATT are going to have some very interesting negotiations in the very near future. Negotiations around streaming rights and access to movies, streaming rights and access to television programs, subscription services and many, many other things. Things that are completely outside “The Marvel/Uni contract”.

As in all negotiations, you give and you get. Sometimes you give things that you don’t want to, in order to get something you feel is important. Everything will be on the table.

I can see a point in the next 10 years where Comcast/Univeral says with a shrug: “Okay fine, Disney…if you give into my request for XYZ – you can use the word “Marvel” in your parks.”