Marvel's Next Step

[lebeau]

We can argue all day about what benefits whom and how, but the facts of the matter are, Marvel's time at Universal is ticking. It could be ticking more slowly or more quickly, but it's ticking.

But you see, it's not a fact. It's an opinion.

Marvel Island could be so easily re-themed, everything except Spiderman, so quickly it's not even funny. It's all just signage and facades. If they pre-fab it elsewhere, that could be done very quickly.

That is true. But just because Universal can retheme it doesn't mean they are planning to.

I just don't see them making any further investment in a property owned by the company who operates the rival theme park down the road. You and a few others disagree - but since neither of us are privy to the actual plans the companies have I guess we will just have to wait and see.

But you see, we've laid out pretty clear and logical arguments as to why Universal would want to continue the current agreement whereas your entire argument consists of:

1. You can't see them working with a rival - in spite of the fact they have frequently done so in the past and are currently doing exactly that

2. It would be relatively easy for them to do.

When faced with all the counter arguments, yours seem weak. But it is a matter of opinion. So you're entitled to yours even if you don't defend it very well.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't believe any capital investments will further occur with Marvel characters. Universal has much bigger fish to fry. As has been pointed out, Marvel Island has little to do with films and mostly to do with the characters in their animated forms.

Universal is under no obligations to invest beyond maintenance in Marvel Super Hero Island. They are well within their rights to just allow the land to remain while focusing elsewhere in their Resort (Transformers, Wondersea Island, mini golf, Wizarding World of Harry Potter expansion). Why should they rush to redo a rather locked-in land when they could just wait until Disney offers to pay for that, if that is decided?

Transformers is not a case like the Indiana Jones Adventure and Dinosaur. The same ride system does not mean the same ride layout, same size showbuilding, etc. It's almost like saying "it's a small world" could be remade into Pirates of the Caribbean.

 

[Skip]

I'm not going to bother trying to quote everything, but I would like to agree with Krack and JT3000's recent comments and rebukes on AEFx's fantasies. This is just getting silly.

The new Spider-Man film requires COMPLETELY NEW ANIMATION - they're just mirroring the original plot, characters, and movements. I believe the only thing remaining is the voice acting. There is no reason they would be investing this capital (which you claim they aren't doing...) and hyping this upgrade unless they plan to stand by Marvel.

As for Transformers, I had heard that was an attraction that would be built at the Studios to offset the increasing dominance of Islands of Adventure at Universal Orlando... specifically the MASSIVE plot between Simpsons & MIB. JT3000 refers to a "cheap" version of Transformers that could replace Spidey - the original plans for Transformers that are being built in Hollywood & Singapore call for a ride track that moves about 2 separate floors. The Spider-Man building, to my understanding, is not capable of that, and would thus receive a downgraded, 1 floor experience. However, unless the Marvel contract is somehow voided, looks like we'll be getting the full Transformers in the World Expo...

Universal has no motivation to change Marvel Island. It remains a pivotal part of their advertising and appeal to the parks. And I would consider it a family property, AEFx - Spider-Man is a universally loved and renowned character, and the ride has only a moderate intensity, allowing it to be enjoyed by most (case in point - my mother, who despises coasters, loves Spidey!) And while the Marvel Super Hero Island characters are based on their comic book iterations, the public doesn't really care - they just know Spider-Man, Hulk, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. They don't care what medium of the character they're seeing, they just want to see that set of characters, whose personalities and scenarios are pretty consistent genre wide. The more Disney does for Marvel, the greater degree of popularity Universal will see for its island of their crucial characters. No reason at all for Universal to sell. They're financially benefitting, they don't care that Marvel now "belongs" to Disney - hardly anyone besides us and movie aficionados are consciously aware that Disney now owns Marvel anyway.

Oh, and one more thing - no more capital investments, eh? A rumor that Universal has set out to update and replace its dated Marvel costumes seems to be quite true. The Green Goblin has just received a new (fantastic-looking, IMO) costume.

http://brandonstruve.posterous.com/green-goblin-has-an-updated-costume

 

[Mouse Detective]

I agree with everyone here except AEfx. And I've said this before: Universal is in the driver's seat when it comes to the contract with Marvel and they're NOT going to give it up. Nor is Disney going to shell-out the huge sums of money it would take to buy out the contract when they have so many other needs for that capital. The talk of the demise of Marvel at IOA is nonsense!

 

[Captain Chaos]

I'm not going to bother trying to quote everything, but I would like to agree with Krack and JT3000's recent comments and rebukes on AEFx's fantasies. This is just getting silly.

The new Spider-Man film requires COMPLETELY NEW ANIMATION - they're just mirroring the original plot, characters, and movements. I believe the only thing remaining is the voice acting. There is no reason they would be investing this capital (which you claim they aren't doing...) and hyping this upgrade unless they plan to stand by Marvel.

As for Transformers, I had heard that was an attraction that would be built at the Studios to offset the increasing dominance of Islands of Adventure at Universal Orlando... specifically the MASSIVE plot between Simpsons & MIB. JT3000 refers to a "cheap" version of Transformers that could replace Spidey - the original plans for Transformers that are being built in Hollywood & Singapore call for a ride track that moves about 2 separate floors. The Spider-Man building, to my understanding, is not capable of that, and would thus receive a downgraded, 1 floor experience. However, unless the Marvel contract is somehow voided, looks like we'll be getting the full Transformers in the World Expo...

Universal has no motivation to change Marvel Island. It remains a pivotal part of their advertising and appeal to the parks. And I would consider it a family property, AEFx - Spider-Man is a universally loved and renowned character, and the ride has only a moderate intensity, allowing it to be enjoyed by most (case in point - my mother, who despises coasters, loves Spidey!) And while the Marvel Super Hero Island characters are based on their comic book iterations, the public doesn't really care - they just know Spider-Man, Hulk, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. They don't care what medium of the character they're seeing, they just want to see that set of characters, whose personalities and scenarios are pretty consistent genre wide. The more Disney does for Marvel, the greater degree of popularity Universal will see for its island of their crucial characters. No reason at all for Universal to sell. They're financially benefitting, they don't care that Marvel now "belongs" to Disney - hardly anyone besides us and movie aficionados are consciously aware that Disney now owns Marvel anyway.

Oh, and one more thing - no more capital investments, eh? A rumor that Universal has set out to update and replace its dated Marvel costumes seems to be quite true. The Green Goblin has just received a new (fantastic-looking, IMO) costume.

http://brandonstruve.posterous.com/green-goblin-has-an-updated-costume

Well put Skip... Yes, it is true new costumes are coming for the characters in Super Hero Island... and I read the same as you about Transformers going into the Studios and NOT Islands of Adventure... I also read Avatar will be replacing Terminator and King Kong may possibly be replacing the old Earthquake attraction... Of course, all rumors...

People just need to face the facts that Marvel, despite being now owned by Disney, is not leaving IOA...

 

[Captain Chaos]

I agree with everyone here except AEfx. And I've said this before: Universal is in the driver's seat when it comes to the contract with Marvel and they're NOT going to give it up. Nor is Disney going to shell-out the huge sums of money it would take to buy out the contract when they have so many other needs for that capital. The talk of the demise of Marvel at IOA is nonsense!

Just need to remember, Blakstone's selling of their portion of the park ownership could trigger the loss of some of the licenses... While I am skeptical this will happen to ANY of the licenses, it still remains a possibilty, though slight as it may be... I just don't see any potential owner allowing the loss of lucrative licenses to happen.... No way... No how...

But, let's just say Universal gave up Marvel... Are we confident TDO would allow anything of the same scale in WDW?? I think we already know the answer... NO.

Let IOA keep Marvel... Disney keeps cashing in on the license fees... and We are all happy...

 

[SJN1279]

I for one would love to see an Iron Man 3D attraction take the place of the very dated Captain EO show in Epcot. Stark Expo would fit very well in Epcot and it is a character not at all used in Universal.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I for one would love to see an Iron Man 3D attraction take the place of the very dated Captain EO show in Epcot. Stark Expo would fit very well in Epcot and it is a character not at all used in Universal.

Iron Man might not have an attraction, but Universal most definitely has the theme park rights to the character.

 

[Disday]

Universal may hold the theme park rights to Iron Man (for now), but they will never have an Iron Man attraction unless Disney buys Universal Florida.l

 

[Skip]

Iron Man might not have an attraction, but Universal most definitely has the theme park rights to the character.

Correct. He's part of The Avengers (even debatably Hulk) family, which Universal owns via Captain America (Captain America Diner). There's also a Stark Laboratory facade in the island, as well as some cameo appearances as a poster in the Spider-Man ride and an appearance on the meteor mural.

Universal may hold the theme park rights to Iron Man (for now), but they will never have an Iron Man attraction unless Disney buys Universal Florida.l

This remains to be seen. Despite access to the contract it seems unclear whether or not Universal can only upgrade what currently exists (costumes & Spider-Man & Hulk) or if they can develop completely new attractions.

 

[Disday]

According to Nikki Finke of Deadline Hollywood if Universal wants to add any new attractions or characters they don't already have the rights to, they have to ask Marvel. She said that it is unlikely that there will be any new attractions built in the Marvel area.

 

[lazyboy97o]

According to Nikki Finke of Deadline Hollywood if Universal wants to add any new attractions or characters they don't already have the rights to, they have to ask Marvel. She said that it is unlikely that there will be any new attractions built in the Marvel area.

This was just covered. I do not know who Nikki Finke is, but we know exactly what the contract says. Universal most definitely has the rights to Iron Man. It is not certain if Marvel could really say "no" just based on trying to prevent Universal from using the characters.

 

[Krack]

Here's the language in the contract ...

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE

As part of THE SECOND GATE, within a separate environment designated under the banner of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (or similar designation approved by Marvel) MCA will construct a complex of attractions, stores and food venues heavily themed around the Marvel properties. Marvel hereby grants MCA a license to use Marvel’s characters for the purposes, on the terms and to the extent set forth herein.

In developing and implementing THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, MCA will follow and be consistent with The Official Handbook of The Marvel Universe, Marvel’s Style Guide and such other descriptive design/style materials as may be provided by Marvel. 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. As set forth in Section IV(A)(1)

IV. EXCLUSIVITY

A. Exclusivity of Marvel Characters Within THE MARVEL UNIVERSE:

1. Within THE SECOND GATE, the Marvel Characters will be primarily utilized as part of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, although they may also be used throughout THE SECOND GATE as strollers or featured elements in stores, restaurants, and the like (subject to Marvel’s reasonable approval). Within THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, the use of any non-Marvel characters will be subject to Marvel’s approval.

What's relevant is the term "reasonable approval" - that's a pretty standard concept in licensing contracts. No court will ever find reasonable approval to mean "no to everything". It means Universal couldn't make Iron Man a woman, or change Spiderman to a 60 year old man, or give the Hulk a polka dot colored uniform.

UNIVERSAL: Here are the designs of the proposed Iron Man attraction that Disney said "no" to. You will see the characters all match their depictions in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. We asked Disney for any concerns and things they'd prefer altered and they wouldn't provide any; they just said "no approval".

COURT: Disney, why didn't you grant approval?

DISNEY: We want our intellectual property back so we decided we would just say "no" to everything and try to be as obstructionist regarding Universal as possible until they void the contract.

COURT: And you feel this was "reasonable"?

DISNEY: Umm ....

 

[Disday]

Nikki Finke is a Hollywood insider who often scoops stories before The Hollywood Reporter or Variety. If you want to read an interesting article about the Marvel-Universal contract, I'd suggest Googling it and find her post from a day or two after Disney's Marvel announcement in 2009. It gave me the impression that Universal is very restricted to only the characters and attractions that they already include in the park. I know that part of it says that Universal has to keep the attractions in top condition or else they will lose the characters. This is probably why they've announced the Spider-Man upgrade and the Hulk paint job. Something else to watch will be if NBC/Universal actually buys their half of the parks. June 12 will soon be upon us, and I haven't read anything that shows an imminent purchase of the resort. I believe that NBC/Universal will get out of the theme park business sometime in the future, will they start now by passing on the buy-out? If so, it's not impossible to believe that Disney would make a bid.

 

[Disday]

I'm sorry I said that I believe NBC/Universal will get out of the theme park business in the future - I meant Comcast, it's new owner.

 

[GLaDOS]

June 12 will soon be upon us, and I haven't read anything that shows an imminent purchase of the resort.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704099704576289421859473638.html

 

[Disday]

Sorry, but that article is a month old and it cautioned that no deal is imminent. It seems like we would have heard more buzz by now.

 

[GLaDOS]

Sorry, but that article is a month old and it cautioned that no deal is imminent. It seems like we would have heard more buzz by now.

Correct, it was not imminent a month ago, but it was likely. Then Comcast released its quarterly earnings a day early, where they talked extensively about the theme park division and how well it was doing, as well as how pleased they were about it.

The NBCU CEO is also Steve Burke, who helped bring Disneyland Paris out of the slump it was in the early 90s, and is said to have left Disney due to not being promoted to the head of Parks and Resorts. I do not think he will pass up this chance.

And then there is the rumors of multiple greenlight projects from Universal. I doubt they'd do that if they didn't know their future.

The devil is in the details.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Nikki Finke is a Hollywood insider who often scoops stories before The Hollywood Reporter or Variety. If you want to read an interesting article about the Marvel-Universal contract, I'd suggest Googling it and find her post from a day or two after Disney's Marvel announcement in 2009. It gave me the impression that Universal is very restricted to only the characters and attractions that they already include in the park.

You probably should have read a bit more of the thread, as the points made about the contract are mostly coming from a reading of the actual contract and not second-hand sources. Iron Man is clearly Universal's.

B. 1. a. 1. i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]

MARVEL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MCA INC. AND MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP

 

[Disday]

I have reasons to doubt the authenticity of the "contract". I don't believe that the real contract would be floating about the Internet. Another thing is that the document continues to use MCA. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that NBC/Universal is a part of MCA anymore. Furthermore, this "contract" seems to imply that it is between Universal and Marvel. If the parks are sold to someone new, this contract would no longer be valid. Also, it would be in NBC/Universal's best interest if Comcast would buy the parks, however, that isn't guaranteed. As someone put it in another post, why would they pay $2 Billion to basically keep something exactly the same. I've found by observing other such deals that no news usually means trouble. We'll have to wait and see I guess.