Ok, PA....
-
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
danlb_2000
Premium Member
We have all read the contract, it's just that no one else agrees with your interpretation of it. If the description section was meant to be legally binding I would have to wonder why it is written in such vague terms where everything else in the contract is very detailed and explicit.
You are reading it through you universal colored glasses just like some Disney fans who think Disney can waive a magic wand and get out of the contract. It is binding on both companies as described on section I. Learn ti live with it just as the Disney fans gave to.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Then why is there not a section on the place of the second land in the other park?
It is section I of the contract. It talks about both parks. Both parties are stuck with this contract. Accept it as it is or agree to end it. If I were Disney I May To Make Universal Live By it And Never Expand Without Buying There Way out.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I am talking about the second Marvel Super Hero Island (Marvel Universe) not Islands of Adventure. Why are there not details on how much it is to be part of where it was to be built?
Last edited:
danlb_2000
Premium Member
No "universal colored glasses" here, I enjoy both resorts. My last trip was a split trip as is my next one. I am just evaluating the facts as I see them. I really don't think the first paragraph is meant to be legally binding, it's just not written in precise enough legal terms for that.
But you're not.
So let those who are and know what they're doing handle it.
Rest assured they know what they're doing more than you do. That's what they get paid a lot of money for. One thing both sides are good at are legal issues.
No one seems to have an issue with it except you. Don't get upset when others don't agree with you. With respect.
TubaGeek
God bless the "Ignore" button.
Look, chief, you're entire argument stems from YOUR misinterpretation of a contract that is WAY over your little head. Meanwhile, you hide behind this baseless assumption to dodge legitimate points and examples of how wrong you are. If you feel like persuing the matter further, please just send a letter to Disney and/or Uni. Maybe Disney will see what they missed and add Marvel to DHS. It'll be the first thing they do with the park in "yeqrs".
Until then:
I never insulted anyone on this or any website. No one should. Web sites like this one are to share information and have fun. What I do find interesting is there are those who say a Disney fans are under the influence of pixie dust but can't accept that a contract they have said can't be broken can't be by either party.
The issue here is if an expanded 3 gate park is materially different than the description of the development and Marvrl roll in the expanded park. If it is and Marvel is not compensated then it can be litigated to see if they are harmed. That is a legal matter. Universal has not violated this yet in anyway so how or why could Marvel take Universal to court now or anytime unless Universal announced an expansion or started construction? Please there is no need for any name calling here or insults. This is an issue that can be brought up and litigated. Is it possible that Disney could bring the case and lose, yes, but I think they would win unless Universal in the arbitration offered more money and a participation in the third gate.
The issue here is if an expanded 3 gate park is materially different than the description of the development and Marvrl roll in the expanded park. If it is and Marvel is not compensated then it can be litigated to see if they are harmed. That is a legal matter. Universal has not violated this yet in anyway so how or why could Marvel take Universal to court now or anytime unless Universal announced an expansion or started construction? Please there is no need for any name calling here or insults. This is an issue that can be brought up and litigated. Is it possible that Disney could bring the case and lose, yes, but I think they would win unless Universal in the arbitration offered more money and a participation in the third gate.
maxairmike
Well-Known Member
I wonder if this is his new way of saying "Universal can't possibly expand" after his original argument of not having the land and having nowhere to expand to got thoroughly explained away? Seems like desperation to find a reason that Universal can't expand, which is rather odd to me.
And just so we're clear, I'm not a Universal fanboi. My screen name should be enough to clue one in to that fact, since it has nothing to do with Disney or Universal.
And just so we're clear, I'm not a Universal fanboi. My screen name should be enough to clue one in to that fact, since it has nothing to do with Disney or Universal.
Who said anyone is upset with this contract, besides you? Quite frankly, both sides of the equation seem to be fine with the way things are....
danlb_2000
Premium Member
For someone who claims to have read the contract you keep making this incorrect statement about going to court. This will never go to court because the contract stipulates that all disputes are to be resolved through binding arbitration not jury trial.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
At this point you are not sharing information, but deliberately disseminating misinformation. The only part of the Project Description that is binding is the Second Gate. You cannot say how Marvel is guaranteed to be so big when there is no discussion of what else will be in the Second Gate. You cannot say what size the resort had to be either. You just keep going back to repeating a hunch, but contracts are based on what is written and not hunches.
TubaGeek
God bless the "Ignore" button.
Okay, this malarkey has gone on long enough. There's no reason for this to work, but I want to use one of my all time favorite quotes on this forum:
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
My brain is bleeding from reading this thread.
jensenrick
Well-Known Member
Where's Big Al when you need him...instead, here's Tiki Shrug.
OMG, that's so awesome, I'm totally stealing Tiki Shrug.
And speaking of awesome, I just LOVE the Marvel M&G characters. Don't you? I think the Captain America and Spiderman in particular, have been some of the most enjoyable guest interactions that I've ever been witness to. Truly positive and dynamic.
First I would be interested in this even if it had nothing to do with Universal and Disney. I love cases like this.
Now the question of advertising rides and attractions on an international level has not been an issue because Disney does not have any rides and attractions based on Marvel yet. The question is what happens when they do? When the Marvel is at Tokyo Disney do you think Universal will be allowed to advertize the Marvel Rides in Japan? I seriously doubt it. I also doubt anywhere in Europe Disney will allow Universal to advertize Marvel rides there. China is the same. Anywhere Disney owns the rights to the charachters and rides they have the right to control their use. Universal's rights and the contract is only valid in the United States. This is clearly an interesting case and not something that says my company is better than your company. If you read my posts I have stated that Universal set the high standards that have to be maintained for their Marvel rides. I think they have done a great job of it. This is just a legal question concerning legal issues and is interesting to people who follow business and the law. I could see a possible add universal could use which would talk about the rides but not be able to use any of the pictures. In other words they could show all the other attractions and mention they have a spiderman ride but because they can't show Spiderman because he is in a Disney Park in that part of the world.
These and other issues will most likely be worked out by Disney in a fair and reasonable way with a new contract. It is not in either companies interest to publicly fight over this. They have too many other areas they have to work together on. Please lets discuss this without attacking each other and maybe we can find this a very interesting and educational.
Now the question of advertising rides and attractions on an international level has not been an issue because Disney does not have any rides and attractions based on Marvel yet. The question is what happens when they do? When the Marvel is at Tokyo Disney do you think Universal will be allowed to advertize the Marvel Rides in Japan? I seriously doubt it. I also doubt anywhere in Europe Disney will allow Universal to advertize Marvel rides there. China is the same. Anywhere Disney owns the rights to the charachters and rides they have the right to control their use. Universal's rights and the contract is only valid in the United States. This is clearly an interesting case and not something that says my company is better than your company. If you read my posts I have stated that Universal set the high standards that have to be maintained for their Marvel rides. I think they have done a great job of it. This is just a legal question concerning legal issues and is interesting to people who follow business and the law. I could see a possible add universal could use which would talk about the rides but not be able to use any of the pictures. In other words they could show all the other attractions and mention they have a spiderman ride but because they can't show Spiderman because he is in a Disney Park in that part of the world.
These and other issues will most likely be worked out by Disney in a fair and reasonable way with a new contract. It is not in either companies interest to publicly fight over this. They have too many other areas they have to work together on. Please lets discuss this without attacking each other and maybe we can find this a very interesting and educational.