Marvel in Hollywood Studios?

lebeau

Well-Known Member
So, what you're saying is that Avengers will be in the Studios and Guardians of the Galaxy in Frontierland and they'll have some tough decisions to make about crossover characters? Am I reading the tea leaves correctly?

I'm saying that Disney's lawyers are preparing to argue that Captain America isn't part of the Avengers family because the Avengers aren't really related. A Captain America coaster will open at the same time as Winter Soldier. You heard it here first people!
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
Universal would have no choice but to fight tooth and nail to protect the strictest possible interpretation of the contract. They would go to the matt over something like this because if they give Disney an inch, they will take a mile. You actually explained exactly why (in bold) Universal would have to fight this.

What does Disney have to loose? A lot of money and bad press.

Maybe, but I will opt to not say what Universal would and wouldn't do. I'm not Universal and I don't know how much the rights actually mean to them. They seem far more focused on Harry Potter at the moment. They might maintain the land for a while, but the truth is, they're looking beyond it now. It might take another half century, but eventually, they'll grow tired of the agreement anyway. We're at the beginning of this long relationship, but it's all down from here for them. That doesn't mean they wouldn't fight Disney though, but as time goes, I would say it become less and less likely (keep in mind, that I'm speaking decades in terms of time).

Disney wastes more money on dumber things, believe it or not. They also get worse press on worse things. I will agree that it might not be worth their time, but that's also up to them.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Maybe, but I will opt to not say what Universal would and wouldn't do. I'm not Universal and I don't know how much the rights actually mean to them. They seem far more focused on Harry Potter at the moment. They might maintain the land for a while, but the truth is, they're looking beyond it now. It might take another half century, but eventually, they'll grow tired of the agreement anyway. We're at the beginning of this long relationship, but it's all down from here for them.

Disney wastes more money on dumber things, believe it or not. They also get worse press on worse things. I will agree that it might not be worth their time, but that's also up to them.

It's not a matter of what Universal might be interested in. It would be bad business not to defend their rights. You don't have to be Universal to know they wouldn't let Disney take an action like a GotG ride at WDW lying down. They would absolutely challenge that. If they didn't, Disney would take it as lisence to push farther. And it would weaken Universal's claims when Disney pushed.

I don't know why on earth you would think Universal is looking past Marvel Super Hero Island. There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

If you know anything at all about Disney, they hate bad press more than anything.

Why waste money (and look like the bad guy in the press) when they can use any of their other IPs for free? And use Marvel anywhere else in the world they want to?
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
It's not a matter of what Universal might be interested in. It would be bad business not to defend their rights. You don't have to be Universal to know they wouldn't let Disney take an action like a GotG ride at WDW lying down. They would absolutely challenge that. If they didn't, Disney would take it as lisence to push farther. And it would weaken Universal's claims when Disney pushed.

I don't know why on earth you would think Universal is looking past Marvel Super Hero Island. There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

If you know anything at all about Disney, they hate bad press more than anything.

Why waste money (and look like the bad guy in the press) when they can use any of their other IPs for free? And use Marvel anywhere else in the world they want to?

I agree with you, I'm just saying they could. Maybe that's a silly statement, but it's still true.


Say what you want about Universal being more focused on other projects, but, last time I checked, Spider-Man and Hulk were still featured prominently in the latest ads for Universal Orlando. At one time, Spider-Man was arguably the greatest theme park attraction in the world. It is a staple of IOA; in a sense, it is fixture in that park in the same way that the Haunted Mansion is a fixture in the MK. They just redid all of the animation in that ride. Universal is not giving up on Marvel Island anytime soon.


As I said, I'm talking over decades. They just upgraded Spider-man last year, the land isn't going anywhere for a really long time. However, in terms of major new investments, they're done with Marvel. Harry Potter expansion (albeit more for the studios) is next. I'm hearing a Jurassic Park overhaul is coming and maybe a new addition to Suess Landing. Marvel's still in the park, but all the new and exciting things coming won't include it. They'll maintain it and might make upgrades to Hulk, Stormforce, Dr. Doom, and Spider-man, but don't expect anything new to push marketing forward. Ten years from now, it'll still be The Hulk and Spider-man as their main attractions in the land.

Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Seuss Landing, and Toon Lagoon (which I'm hearing might be completely replaced for reasons I don't know or understand) are all likely to receive more of Universal's attention. Years into the future, once all these areas are booming (if it ever happens) Universal might look at terminating its contract with Marvel. I'll probably have grand kids in this day (I'm in my 20's and have no children right now), but still, I see it happening eventually.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
I agree with you, I'm just saying they could. Maybe that's a silly statement, but it's still true.

They could do a lot of things. They could announce a Spider-man ride tomorrow. Universal would sue Mickey's pants off. So they probably won't. They probably won't even attempt to build anything Marvel in Orlando either. Not unless something major changes.

It's not a matter of what is possible. It's what is likely. There is no reasonable argument for any kind of Marvel at WDW and dozens of strong arguments against it.
 

Cosmic Commando

Well-Known Member
What incentive does either company have to do this?
If Disney buys straight up buys some obscure characters, Uni would get money for characters that they probably wouldn't use, anyway. Disney would get to synergize some of their upcoming Marvel projects for a lot less money than trying to buy the entire theme park rights back.

If Uni took a settlement to agree to a list of characters that Disney could use, if Disney came up with the right list of characters, it would simply be paying money to avoid a long, costly legal fight. Disney would also get some clarity in what is a fairly confusing situation right now (i.e. who is part of a "family"). Uni would benefit from this, too, as long as Disney didn't reach too far with their list. Uni's best-case scenario in a legal fight over some of the more obscure characters is that they pay their lawyers $$$ to retain rights to characters that they will likely never use in their land in any substantive way. Taking a settlement gives them extra money for avoiding a court case that they have x% chance of losing. Again, it would depend on what was on the list.

Edit: I think both scenarios are possible, depending on which characters Disney gets and for how much money. Just buying Uni's theme park rights altogether is straight up crazy, but I'm envisioning payments in these scenarios could be pretty cheap.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Seuss Landing, and Toon Lagoon (which I'm hearing might be completely replaced for reasons I don't know or understand) are all likely to receive more of Universal's attention. Years into the future, once all these areas are booming (if it ever happens) Universal might look at terminating its contract with Marvel. I'll probably have grand kids in this day (I'm in my 20's and have no children right now), but still, I see it happening eventually.
Marvel is too good of a deal for it to naturally float to the top of Universal's "tired of" licenses.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
If Disney buys straight up buys some obscure characters, Uni would get money for characters that they probably wouldn't use, anyway. Disney would get to synergize some of their upcoming Marvel projects for a lot less money than trying to buy the entire theme park rights back.

If Uni took a settlement to agree to a list of characters that Disney could use, if Disney came up with the right list of characters, it would simply be paying money to avoid a long, costly legal fight. Disney would also get some clarity in what is a fairly confusing situation right now (i.e. who is part of a "family"). Uni would benefit from this, too, as long as Disney didn't reach too far with their list. Uni's best-case scenario in a legal fight over some of the more obscure characters is that they pay their lawyers $$$ to retain rights to characters that they will likely never use in their land in any substantive way. Taking a settlement gives them extra money for avoiding a court case that they have x% chance of losing. Again, it would depend on what was on the list.

Edit: I think both scenarios are possible, depending on which characters Disney gets and for how much money. Just buying Uni's theme park rights altogether is straight up crazy, but I'm envisioning payments in these scenarios could be pretty cheap.

The contract was written the way it was written because Universal doesn't want another Marvel theme park in its backyard. They would have to be crazy to give Disney the rights to any Marvel character they own. No matter how obscure. And Disney would have to be crazy to pay top dollar for any character Univeral would willingly part with.

Plus, why would Disney want to pay for obscure Marvel characters when they have so many unused or underused IPs they can use for free? And when they can use the best Marvel characters everywhere else in the world?
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
Marvel is too good of a deal for it to naturally float to the top of Universal's "tired of" licenses.

It's a great deal now, but I don't know if that'll always be the case. Eventually the land won't be as appealing to guests as the rest of the lands. When that eventually happens, and Universal realizes they're really stuck creatively, it won't be as good of a deal. I suppose if Pirates can operate at Magic Kingdom for as long as it has, The Hulk could be the same at IoA, but Disney seems to have more patience than Universal does. No one really thought Jaws would get the boot at Universal, but it happened. It could eventually happen to the Marvel section too, but that's a long way off. Everything at Universal eventually reaches an end, at least that is what history has taught us. IoA is still very young right now.
 

Cosmic Commando

Well-Known Member
The contract was written the way it was written because Universal doesn't want another Marvel theme park in its backyard. They would have to be crazy to give Disney the rights to any Marvel character they own. No matter how obscure. And Disney would have to be crazy to pay top dollar for any character Univeral would willingly part with.

Plus, why would Disney want to pay for obscure Marvel characters when they have so many unused or underused IPs they can use for free? And when they can use the best Marvel characters everywhere else in the world?
Why go to Avatar for DAK expansion when you have so much IP available and imagineers who can create original environments? Why go to Lucasfilm back in the day?

I honestly think Uni and Disney could sit down like adults and work out a deal agreeing that certain characters are not covered by the current contract. If Sony could give Disney Spidey movie merch rights for the "right" to make fewer Spider-Man movies, I think Uni and Disney could theoretically sit down and talk about what an existing contract between them actually means. With a little money to grease Uni's pockets. Buying a character like Ant-Man would make less sense, I agree, but it was just a brain dropping.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
It's a great deal now, but I don't know if that'll always be the case. Eventually the land won't be as appealing to guests as the rest of the lands. When that eventually happens, and Universal realizes they're really stuck creatively, it won't be as good of a deal. I suppose if Pirates can operate at Magic Kingdom for as long as it has, The Hulk could be the same at IoA, but Disney seems to have more patience than Universal does. No one really though Jaws we get the boot at Universal, but it happened. It could eventually happen to the Marvel section too, but that's a long way off. Everything at Universal eventually reaches an end, at least that is what history has taught us. IoA is still very young right now.
The more apt comparison would be The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man. If the land reaches a point where it has lost its appeal, then its not going to be an appealing proposition for Walt Disney World. Another possibility is that massive inflation causes the licensing fee to skyrocket, but that's another scenario where things won't be well for Walt Disney World either.
 

Bparso87

Well-Known Member
Almost every character has been a avenger no exception. There is also different avengers like west coast avengers and Great Lake avengers. So when it comes down to it there will be no more marvel for either place Disney will not let uni expand and uni will not let Disney take a lesser property. But do we really want a squirrel girl ride?
 

Captain Chaos

Well-Known Member
As for the Guardians, right from Marvel's website:

They encountered another citizen of Earth-616 when Thor traveled to their future to stop the menace of Korvac the Enemy. The Guardians helped Thor, even to the point of journeying with him to the 20th Century. They hoped to protect Vance Astro’s counterpart, Vance Astrovik, who was a likely target, and the Guardians soon joined the Avengers in confronting Korvac. During their stay, the Guardians were all granted honorary Avengers membership. They continued their stay in the 20th Century for some time, joining other heroes such as the Thing and Spider-Man in various adventures. Also during this time, Astro took the opportunity to unleash his younger self's latent psionic powers, thus ensuring that the boy would not grow up to make the same mistakes he made, despite the protest of his teammates who were loath to alter the timeline in such a manner. They soon returned to the 31st Century, realizing they only truly belonged in this era.

Now, is honorary membership good enough to be considered part of the family? That would be up to others to decide in any arbitration case (if one were to come up)...

As for Thanos, I would say he would be offlimits... Again, on the Marvel website:
Thanos made himself unto a god, and he easily fought back Captain Marvel and the Avengers.
He was an Avengers villain, thus he falls into the "family".
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
That's quite an assumption to make. Right now, Universal is occupied with other areas of their resort, but, in the long term, no one can say for sure what they will do with Marvel. After they finish one of their current projects, Universal could build more Marvel rides if they felt like it. Heck, if the timing was right with the Cinematic Universe and the characters were still popular, they could build an Avengers ride if they wanted to.

I don't believe they can. From what I've understood of the contract, they would have to get Marvel's approval to build a new attraction. I don't think Disney would approve it. Which is why I say, the deal might not be as appealing then.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Almost every character has been a avenger no exception. There is also different avengers like west coast avengers and Great Lake avengers. So when it comes down to it there will be no more marvel for either place Disney will not let uni expand and uni will not let Disney take a lesser property. But do we really want a squirrel girl ride?

Squirrel Girl was an Avenger. Try again. ;)
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
I don't believe they can. From what I've understood of the contract, they would have to get Marvel's approval to build a new attraction. I don't think Disney would approve it. Which is why I say, the deal might not be as appealing then.

They can. Disney can't disapprove unless Universal is trying to use the character inappropriately. They would have to have a great argument to refuse. If Univeral wanted to make a ride where Captain America was a communist, Disney could say no. Short of that, Disney can throw up road blocks. But that's about it.
 

Captain Chaos

Well-Known Member
I don't believe they can. From what I've understood of the contract, they would have to get Marvel's approval to build a new attraction. I don't think Disney would approve it. Which is why I say, the deal might not be as appealing then.
Wrong... Refusal has to be "within reason"... Just saying WE OWN MARVEL isn't within reason...
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom