Marvel on the chopping block?

[Moth]

I am now convinced that Marvel is on the chopping block for IOA. Seemingly, the rights for DC have become available for theme parks in the state of Florida if Six Flag's recent annual report is anything to go by.

https://s204.q4cdn.com/155295784/files/doc_financials/2024/q4/Six-Flags-2025-10-K-Annual-Report.pdf

"The Combined Company holds exclusive long-term theme park usage rights in the U.S. (except for the Las Vegas metropolitan area and the state of Florida),Canada and Mexico to certain Warner Bros. and DC Comics animated characters. The Combined Company also has exclusive amusement and water parkusage rights in the U.S. and Canada to the Peanuts comic strip characters. These license agreements require annual license fees and royalty fees on inventorysold that uses the licensed characters, which are subject to periodic scheduled adjustments, including CPI increases in some cases. The license agreementsalso include rights of the counterparty to terminate the agreements under certain circumstances.".

I am convinced that between the Animation Courtyard rumblings, this rumbling for MSHI (even if the source is dicey), and this new information about the state of DC rights for Florida and Florida specifically, that something is brewing/has been brewed.

There's only a few small issues here

"What does Universal gain outside from a weaker IP in DC, from letting Disney take Marvel? Would Disney give them money?"

"Why are none of the Universal insiders commenting on this?"

"Why Marvel before anything else? What could Disney offer that Uni could not refuse?"

I just find the fact DC is apparently freed up for Florida along with the AC rumblings and hush hush about what the IP (since it's reportedly decided) could be very... interesting.

 

[Streetway Again]

I am now convinced that Marvel is on the chopping block for IOA. Seemingly, the rights for DC have become available for theme parks in the state of Florida if Six Flag's recent annual report is anything to go by.

https://s204.q4cdn.com/155295784/files/doc_financials/2024/q4/Six-Flags-2025-10-K-Annual-Report.pdf

"The Combined Company holds exclusive long-term theme park usage rights in the U.S. (except for the Las Vegas metropolitan area and the state of Florida),Canada and Mexico to certain Warner Bros. and DC Comics animated characters. The Combined Company also has exclusive amusement and water parkusage rights in the U.S. and Canada to the Peanuts comic strip characters. These license agreements require annual license fees and royalty fees on inventorysold that uses the licensed characters, which are subject to periodic scheduled adjustments, including CPI increases in some cases. The license agreementsalso include rights of the counterparty to terminate the agreements under certain circumstances.".

I am convinced that between the Animation Courtyard rumblings, this rumbling for MSHI (even if the source is dicey), and this new information about the state of DC rights for Florida and Florida specifically, that something is brewing/has been brewed.

 

[Agent H]

I am now convinced that Marvel is on the chopping block for IOA. Seemingly, the rights for DC have become available for theme parks in the state of Florida if Six Flag's recent annual report is anything to go by.

https://s204.q4cdn.com/155295784/files/doc_financials/2024/q4/Six-Flags-2025-10-K-Annual-Report.pdf

"The Combined Company holds exclusive long-term theme park usage rights in the U.S. (except for the Las Vegas metropolitan area and the state of Florida),Canada and Mexico to certain Warner Bros. and DC Comics animated characters. The Combined Company also has exclusive amusement and water parkusage rights in the U.S. and Canada to the Peanuts comic strip characters. These license agreements require annual license fees and royalty fees on inventorysold that uses the licensed characters, which are subject to periodic scheduled adjustments, including CPI increases in some cases. The license agreementsalso include rights of the counterparty to terminate the agreements under certain circumstances.".

I am convinced that between the Animation Courtyard rumblings, this rumbling for MSHI (even if the source is dicey), and this new information about the state of DC rights for Florida and Florida specifically, that something is brewing/has been brewed.

That’s great to hear.

 

[Streetway Again]

There's only a few small issues here

"What does Universal gain outside from a weaker IP in DC, from letting Disney take Marvel? Would Disney give them money?"

"Why are none of the Universal insiders commenting on this?"

"Why Marvel before anything else? What could Disney offer that Uni could not refuse?"

I just find the fact DC is apparently freed up for Florida along with the AC rumblings and hush hush about what the IP (since it's reportedly decided) could be very... interesting.

I’d agrue, that the marvel brand that universal has is honestly not that strong.

Yes, it has the recognizable characters in the movies, but they are not the ones that are most prominent. For many, the MCU IS MARVEL to them. Universal does not have that iconic version. The versions of the characters they have are the comic versions, specifically, ones from a time before even the first raimi spider man came out. Like it or not, the land is stuck in a long past era of comic books, and that fact only becomes more and noticeable as time goes on, and as marvel and the MCU become more connected to its competitor, and as marvel super hero island marches on towards needing an update. And remember, the contract states universal can MAINTAIN, but not REMOVE, or majorly alter without disneys approval. And who knows how well that would go. Also they are still promoting the material of a competeor.

Switching to dc allows for greater creative freedom for creating a land than sticking with marvel would. It also would mean working with a company that universal is very friendly with Warner “we hate the looney tunes” Discovery, who have been longtime partners for universal. As opposed to dealing with the main rival in the mouse. Gotham city alone has incredible poetical for a diagon alley/epic universe level themed land. And it would PRINT MONEY. Also you could argue the brand of DC is in a better place. MCU fatigue has greatly set in, with audiences growing tired of the brand and fantastic four and the new avengers movies seeming like a last ditch effort to save a damaged brand that has lost its luster. In contrast, DC is riding high off of the successes of The Batman and The Penguin respectively, and is about to launch a new cinematic universe with the grand return of Superman to the big screen. DC is much more beloved than marvel right now. Also, at the end of the day, it’s Superman and Batman. Even without something like the MCU, those two names alone have INSANE drawing power.

I’d agrue, in alot of ways, ditching Marvel For DC is a pretty smart play for universal.

Marvel was always going to leave universal eventually. I’m just surprised it could be so soon.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk

 

[MisterPenguin]

Either Uni or WDW having Marvel in their parks is a false dichotomy.

They could share. *Both* have Marvel.

Uni would be allowed to update Super Island to the MCU version and be more popular.

WDW could then add Marvel rides based on characters not used in Super Island.

 

[Moth]

Either Uni or WDW having Marvel in their parks is a false dichotomy.

They could share. *Both* have Marvel.

Uni would be allowed to update Super Island to the MCU version and be more popular.

WDW could then add Marvel rides based on characters not used in Super Island.

Yeah but would Disney allow them to update MSHI to be based off the MCU? I thought one of the main things in the contract was the fact they're not allowed to base any part of the land off of the MCU?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah but would Disney allow them to update MSHI to be based off the MCU? I thought one of the main things in the contract was the fact they're not allowed to base any part of the land off of the MCU?

That’s not in the contract. The contract says Universal has to follow the style guides and Marvel has to give reasonable approval. That’s about it.

 

[Moth]

That’s not in the contract. The contract says Universal has to follow the style guides and Marvel has to give reasonable approval. That’s about it.

-From InsideUniversal's write up on the contract.

I've always assumed that, if it has not happened by now, there has to be a legality issue blocking it, especially since both Hulk and the walk-around characters have been updated in a post-MCU world.

 

[JT3000]

I am now convinced that Marvel is on the chopping block for IOA. Seemingly, the rights for DC have become available for theme parks in the state of Florida if Six Flag's recent annual report is anything to go by.

https://s204.q4cdn.com/155295784/files/doc_financials/2024/q4/Six-Flags-2025-10-K-Annual-Report.pdf

"The Combined Company holds exclusive long-term theme park usage rights in the U.S. (except for the Las Vegas metropolitan area and the state of Florida),Canada and Mexico to certain Warner Bros. and DC Comics animated characters. The Combined Company also has exclusive amusement and water parkusage rights in the U.S. and Canada to the Peanuts comic strip characters. These license agreements require annual license fees and royalty fees on inventorysold that uses the licensed characters, which are subject to periodic scheduled adjustments, including CPI increases in some cases. The license agreementsalso include rights of the counterparty to terminate the agreements under certain circumstances.".

I am convinced that between the Animation Courtyard rumblings, this rumbling for MSHI (even if the source is dicey), and this new information about the state of DC rights for Florida and Florida specifically, that something is brewing/has been brewed.

There's only a few small issues here

"What does Universal gain outside from a weaker IP in DC, from letting Disney take Marvel? Would Disney give them money?"

"Why are none of the Universal insiders commenting on this?"

"Why Marvel before anything else? What could Disney offer that Uni could not refuse?"

I just find the fact DC is apparently freed up for Florida along with the AC rumblings and hush hush about what the IP (since it's reportedly decided) could be very... interesting.

How does this tell us anything at all about the status of Marvel at Universal? You're convinced that Universal has a massive IP on the chopping block just because another, similar IP is presumably available? That's a big ol' leap from point A straight to point Z. It's just not logical.

Yeah but would Disney allow them to update MSHI to be based off the MCU? I thought one of the main things in the contract was the fact they're not allowed to base any part of the land off of the MCU?

The contract was written before the MCU even existed, so naturally it's not going to be mentioned.

Can you imagine?

No.

I've always assumed that, if it has not happened by now, there has to be a legality issue blocking it, especially since both Hulk and the walk-around characters have been updated in a post-MCU world.

While an MCU land would arguably be more profitable at this point, the simple fact of the matter is that a retheme to the MCU hasn't happened because that's not the land's intended theme. Also because Disney owns the MCU, yes, but there's still a high chance that no retheme would have occured even if they didn't, which is arguably for the best. You would have to completely change the entire land for any of it to make sense, not just slowly adopt aspects of the MCU here and there, which is unfortunately what probably would have happened.

 

[Moth]

How does this tell us anything at all about the status of Marvel at Universal? You're convinced that Universal has a massive IP on the chopping block just because another, similar IP is presumably available? That's a big ol' leap from point A straight to point Z. It's just not logical.

My point is largely about the rumors about Animation Courtyard being penned for an announcement on the weeks nearby the opening of Epic Universe, with Marvel being a possible IP since both Simpsons and Zootopia have been disqualified by people who seemingly know what the IP chosen for the land is.

The fact this is the first time Six Flags has said that DC and the Looney Tunes IP cannot be used by them in Florida along with the timing of the Animation Courtyard rumors just had my brain going a bit too much and I drew a conclusion I should've sat on more, apologies.

I do not believe that Universal is getting rid of Marvel solely because DC is available for Florida, I think there's a possibility that behind the scenes, Disney-Universal reached a deal regarding Marvel and Disney is putting Marvel into AC, and to replace MSHI at Universal, to maintain a superhero presence, Universal acquired a license for DC.

But, I personally don't see this happening anytime soon because of the amount of work needed elsewhere in IOA alone, without even including the work USF needs. There's no way Universal would even touch MSHI while things like Lost Continent go by with no attractions, Toon Lagoon with a dreadfully dated lineup of characters, and coming fresh off of opening EU pretty soon and sinking $6+ billion into it, Comcast probably doesn't have the money to spend to turn MSHI into "DC Very Cool Awesome Hero Land" alongside fixing things like the stinker that is Supercharged, turning Simpsons into Pokémon, and the Rip Ride Rockit replacement.

I can believe that down the line, it is possible if the DC rights are available and Disney gives Universal the right offer. That DC could replace MSHI at IOA, but as of now, I don't see it unless AC actually is Marvel (and by Marvel I mean including the name, characters like Iron Man, etc, not just sticking to Dr. Strange).

 

[JT3000]

My point is largely about the rumors about Animation Courtyard being penned for an announcement on the weeks nearby the opening of Epic Universe, with Marvel being a possible IP since both Simpsons and Zootopia have been disqualified by people who seemingly know what the IP chosen for the land is.

The fact this is the first time Six Flags has said that DC and the Looney Tunes IP cannot be used by them in Florida along with the timing of the Animation Courtyard rumors just had my brain going a bit too much and I drew a conclusion I should've sat on more, apologies.

I do not believe that Universal is getting rid of Marvel solely because DC is available for Florida, I think there's a possibility that behind the scenes, Disney-Universal reached a deal regarding Marvel and Disney is putting Marvel into AC, and to replace MSHI at Universal, to maintain a superhero presence, Universal acquired a license for DC.

But, I personally don't see this happening anytime soon because of the amount of work needed elsewhere in IOA alone, without even including the work USF needs. There's no way Universal would even touch MSHI while things like Lost Continent go by with no attractions, Toon Lagoon with a dreadfully dated lineup of characters, and coming fresh off of opening EU pretty soon and sinking $6+ billion into it, Comcast probably doesn't have the money to spend to turn MSHI into "DC Very Cool Awesome Hero Land" alongside fixing things like the stinker that is Supercharged, turning Simpsons into Pokémon, and the Rip Ride Rockit replacement.

I can believe that down the line, it is possible if the DC rights are available and Disney gives Universal the right offer. That DC could replace MSHI at IOA, but as of now, I don't see it unless AC actually is Marvel (and by Marvel I mean including the name, characters like Iron Man, etc, not just sticking to Dr. Strange).

I'm not up to speed on what Disney is doing, but if there's any chance that they're putting more Marvel in their parks, that doesn't necessarily mean anything for Universal or MSHI. We have to remember that there are a number of Marvel properties Disney is already free to use. Now, whether or not any those properties outside of Gaurdians are actually worthwhile is another discussion entirely...

But I can pretty much guarantee that no MSHI retheme is imminent, which means Disney getting the rights back to the heavy hitters isn't either.

 

[Stripes]

How does this tell us anything at all about the status of Marvel at Universal? You're convinced that Universal has a massive IP on the chopping block just because another, similar IP is presumably available? That's a big ol' leap from point A straight to point Z. It's just not logical.

If Universal wants to bring Nintendo to Islands of Adventure, they have to offer Marvel the opportunity to be compensated using the same structure as the Nintendo licensing agreement. In the contractually required renegotiation the two parties will need to reevaluate the market value of Marvel’s IP and compare it to Nintendo’s in order to ensure Marvel gets a fair cut.

I’m pretty sure this is not something Universal wants to do.

 

[JT3000]

If Universal wants to bring Nintendo to Islands of Adventure, they have to offer Marvel the opportunity to be compensated using the same structure as the Nintendo licensing agreement. In the contractually required renegotiation the two parties will need to reevaluate the market value of Marvel’s IP and compare it to Nintendo’s in order to ensure Marvel gets a fair cut.

I’m pretty sure this is not something Universal wants to do.

Nintendo would not be the first IP they've added to the park since opening. There's been no such renegotiation of terms before, why would there be one now?

 

[Stripes]

Nintendo would not be the first IP they've added to the park since opening. There's been no such renegotiation of terms before, why would there be one now?

The Nintendo contract was more favorable to Nintendo than the Potter arrangement was to JK and WB…

 

[JT3000]

The Nintendo contract was more favorable to Nintendo than the Potter arrangement was to JK and WB…

Even if that's true (citation?) it still doesn't explain why Marvel would be offered compensation for Nintendo being added to the park. Such an agreement would be favorable to Marvel, not Nintendo, which neither Universal nor Nintendo have any motive for enriching.

 

[Stripes]

Even if that's true (citation?) it still doesn't explain why Marvel would be offered compensation for Nintendo being added to the park. Such an agreement would be favorable to Marvel, not Nintendo, which neither Universal nor Nintendo have any motive for enriching.

MCA agrees that if, as to any Universal Theme Park containing a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, MCA utilizes “characters” not owned by MCA or an MCA Related Company and the financial arrangement between MCA and the owner or licensor of such “characters” (the “third party”) involves the “payment by MCA of sums based on revenues of the Theme Park or a significant portion thereof” (defined below), MCA shall offer to Marvel, the opportunity at Marvel’s option to elect to be compensated for the use of the Marvel license granted herein as it relates to such specific THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, on the same basis as such “third party”. If Marvel so elects then MCA shall receive credit for payments previously made to Marvel to the extent comparable or similar payments were not part of such “third party” deal. In the event such “third party” is required by MCA to invest in the Universal Theme Park where its characters are being utilized, Marvel shall have a comparable obligation if Marvel exercises the option to be compensated based on the Compensation Alternative set forth in this paragraph F.

The “payment by MCA of sums based on revenues of the Theme Park or a significant portion thereof” is intended to encompass “royalty” arrangements or similar arrangements which compensate the “third party” based on net revenues, gross revenues, attendance, or any other standard measuring the economic performance of a particular Universal Theme Park or a significant portion thereof.

 

[JT3000]

MCA agrees that if, as to any Universal Theme Park containing a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, MCA utilizes “characters” not owned by MCA or an MCA Related Company and the financial arrangement between MCA and the owner or licensor of such “characters” (the “third party”) involves the “payment by MCA of sums based on revenues of the Theme Park or a significant portion thereof” (defined below), MCA shall offer to Marvel, the opportunity at Marvel’s option to elect to be compensated for the use of the Marvel license granted herein as it relates to such specific THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, on the same basis as such “third party”. If Marvel so elects then MCA shall receive credit for payments previously made to Marvel to the extent comparable or similar payments were not part of such “third party” deal. In the event such “third party” is required by MCA to invest in the Universal Theme Park where its characters are being utilized, Marvel shall have a comparable obligation if Marvel exercises the option to be compensated based on the Compensation Alternative set forth in this paragraph F.

The “payment by MCA of sums based on revenues of the Theme Park or a significant portion thereof” is intended to encompass “royalty” arrangements or similar arrangements which compensate the “third party” based on net revenues, gross revenues, attendance, or any other standard measuring the economic performance of a particular Universal Theme Park or a significant portion thereof.

How do we know Universal's compensation of Nintendo is based on park revenue, as that's presumably the only thing that would trigger this clause? I haven't seen that contract shared anywhere.

 

[Streetway Again]

I know people are like “universal wouldn’t get rid of marvel so quickly” and all that, but let’s remember this is universal. We’ve seen it jaws, kong, merlinwood, and the many historic buildings on the studio lot for park expansion. Universal is not afraid to take something down, no matter how popular, historic, or beloved if they wanna build it up.

There could be difficulties in the corporate side of marvel deal with Disney that could be annoying to the point of universal wanting marvel to be gone.

Not everything is just theme park rumors and games. Sometimes things happen beyond the parks that necessitate change. Yes the contract, but things could go BEYOND it.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

View attachment 849388

-From InsideUniversal's write up on the contract.

I've always assumed that, if it has not happened by now, there has to be a legality issue blocking it, especially since both Hulk and the walk-around characters have been updated in a post-MCU world.

The only MCU characters that IOA would be prohibited from using are the ones that were created in the MCU (Darcy, Coulson, etc), not the comic books ... with the possible exception of the Guardian of the Galaxy characters and (maybe) the SHIELD characters (like Nick Fury and Maria Hill). They are also prohibited from using likenesses for the actors who played the characters in the films. In other words, they have to be comic accurate, not film accurate.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

That’s great to hear.

It is still a wait and see. That being said, more Marvel in WDW is something people have to be careful with concern. I am saying for 2 reasons starting with Avengers Campus is consider a letdown and that shows Disney has problems using Marvel IPS from a quality standpoint. What I said about Avengers Campus is true for every Avengers Campus in Disney Parks Worldwide. What I am painting is it seems like Disney thinks Marvel attractions are going to be hits despite how the quality of the attraction.

Also the 2nd thing is Disney is capable of putting attractions where they don't belong or get a rid of beloved attractions. Marvel is capable of being put into DHS, MK, and AK by Disney beside what they have in Epcot currently.