-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Marvel characters
- Thread starter seascape
- Start date
Boring Friday night waiting for wife to finish shopping and spending money.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Reading the Marketing section of the contract a little closer it appears that from 2006 on, the amount of Marvel advertising is a fixed dollar amount (which is redacted), not a percentage anymore.
And every time Universal sells a Marvel item, Disney gets its cut. What's your point, caller?
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
My question wasn't directed towards you, but okay.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Retail space dedicated to Marvel is a fixed value, not a percentage, so as long at they are no eliminating a lot of Marvel merch space they are ok:
"Within THE SECOND GATE, a minimum of 10,000 square feet of retail space will be devoted to items licensed or manufactured by Marvel or its related companies
including a minimum of 5,000 square feet of retail space in stores themed around MARVEL properties and devoted virtually exclusively (allowing for minor exceptions such as film, etc., but not competing characters) to the sale of MARVEL items."
Only 5 bags from the mall. Buy retail stocks.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I think it would be hard to argue loss. The contract has a minimum guarantee for merchandise, so even if it doesn't sell well, Disney/Marvel gets the minimum. Disney/Marvel also gets a fixed royalty, whether 10 people come through the gate or 10 million. The contact also specifies a minimum amount of adverting that has to include Marvel. All of these things protect Disney/Marvel from loss in case Universal decides to stop pushing Marvel. If Marvel had been concerned about their representation in the parks they would have dictated a minimum square footage for Marvel attractions like they did for retail space.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
A loss of what? If you cannot give specifics you have nothing.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
More money from his wallet? Perhaps he and other Disney addicts are just bitter about the idea of having to pay extra to go on Marvel rides in Orlando.
You'd better tell them then.
That's actually a great summary of THIS thread. I wonder if it has anything else in common with previous horse beatings...
maxairmike
Well-Known Member
Where's Big Al when you need him...instead, here's Tiki Shrug.
Anyway, there is absolutely nothing that is legally binding or would require going back and renegotiating the contract regarding further expansion of the Universal Orlando Resort. Nothing. The project description at the top of the contract is exactly that, a general project description (that you'll note does not quite accurately reflect the resort as it ended up being built). In fact, if there was as much opportunity for Disney to strike at the validity of the contract, they've had a perfect shot at doing so during promotion for the Avengers. Remember the monorail wrap? There's a reason that it didn't go through EPCOT, Universal pressed them about it. If Disney cared, they could have come right back after the entire contract to press some of the points you've presented. That they didn't indicates two things, and one of them is the correct one. 1) They didn't care enough to push the issue, or 2) there was nothing for them to strike on/at, meaning your points aren't right. I'll let you (and everyone else) decide which point is the correct one.
Anyway, there is absolutely nothing that is legally binding or would require going back and renegotiating the contract regarding further expansion of the Universal Orlando Resort. Nothing. The project description at the top of the contract is exactly that, a general project description (that you'll note does not quite accurately reflect the resort as it ended up being built). In fact, if there was as much opportunity for Disney to strike at the validity of the contract, they've had a perfect shot at doing so during promotion for the Avengers. Remember the monorail wrap? There's a reason that it didn't go through EPCOT, Universal pressed them about it. If Disney cared, they could have come right back after the entire contract to press some of the points you've presented. That they didn't indicates two things, and one of them is the correct one. 1) They didn't care enough to push the issue, or 2) there was nothing for them to strike on/at, meaning your points aren't right. I'll let you (and everyone else) decide which point is the correct one.
If section I of the contract is irrelevant then why would any section be relevant? Also why is it in the contract as section I? It could have just been a statement of what the park would be and then started the rest of the contract with section II being section one. If that were the case you could say it does not matter but it has to because it is section I of the contract. What is so had to understand about that. As for harm to Marvel there is harm if Universal expends to 3 gates without Marvel gaining the same percentage of coverage in what would now be a 3 gate park. Therefore there would have to be a new or amended contract. It should not be hard to understand that the full contract has to be followed by both parties or it can be terminated. No one can just pick the part of a contract they want to follow.
As for why only the issue of gates is important and not that the golf course not be built is there is no harm. I also do not see any harm to Marvel if more than 4000 hotel rooms are built. Harm can only come from being a smaller part of a bigger entertainment complex. Marvel can get out of this contact if Universal expands or reduces if legally entitled space. There is nothing in this contract that allows either side to change as long as it is followed and the other party is not damaged.
Universal can and will expand but they will give up the marvel characters to do it. Read the contract.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It is hard to understand because it is a concept you have invented in your imagination.
That section is there because it is referenced and established important terms, such as Second Gate. It lays out the distinction between a theme park and something like the Marvel Action Universe. There is nothing in the contract that guarantees Marvel a certain square footage presence amongst the theme parks, just a set amount within Islands of Adventure. It does not matter if Marvel intended that set number requirement to translate into a certain percentage. If it is not written as such it is not one of the terms. If there were such terms they would also have had to been spelled out for what percentage the second land was to represent in the other park.