Marvel's Next Step

[Captain Chaos]

I'm correct in my assumption about the contract. You can show your age by calling me names, it's a free country. We'll see what happens "if" Comcast doesn't buy the Florida parks.:wave:

IF Comcast doesn't buy Blackstone's portion, and a new buyer isn't named, reports have said that Universal MAY lose ALL their licenses, including Harry Potter.... But that is a big IF... You act like it is a foregone conclusion... It isn't.... While it isn't a foregone conclusion Comcast is 100% buying out Blackstone, initial reports from financial newsletters stated Comcast is seriously considering doing just that...

 

[wizards8507]

And Forbidden Journey is more than just a fancy brand slapped on a the system.... it is INNOVATIVE

I don't mean to drift more off topic but I agree that the ride system is innovative. My point is that it wasn't THEIR system. KUKA developed it and they bought it.

 

[Disday]

I'll try to gently explain myself for those with anger issues. I didn't say that Universal is in breach of contract now. I said that if Blackstone puts the Universal Florida parks up for sale, that Comcast will be in breach of contract because the other party must be connected with Universal in some way. Reportedly even the Universal name on the parks will be at risk if Blackstone sells that portion. They would have to say specifically in the contract that if Universal gets out of the agreement then the new owner will take over the contract. - And kids - don't even try pixie dust, I'm proof of what can happen to you.:wave:

 

[lazyboy97o]

IF Comcast doesn't buy Blackstone's portion, and a new buyer isn't named, reports have said that Universal MAY lose ALL their licenses, including Harry Potter.... But that is a big IF... You act like it is a foregone conclusion... It isn't.... While it isn't a foregone conclusion Comcast is 100% buying out Blackstone, initial reports from financial newsletters stated Comcast is seriously considering doing just that...

They might be in trouble with a good many (have not read all of the separate contracts), but Marvel in no way falls under that category.

I don't mean to drift more off topic but I agree that the ride system is innovative. My point is that it wasn't THEIR system. KUKA developed it and they bought it.

And the Expedition Everest and Big Grizzly Mountain Runaway Mine Cars ride systems were developed by Vekoma. Universal Creative operates in a significantly different manner than Walt Disney Imagineering. But does it really matter who actually developed the technology? Universal saw something with potential went in and got the exclusive rights, just like Walt Disney did with Technicolor's three strip process. Do we knock the vibrancy of the Silly Symphonies because the technology was not developed at the Walt Disney Studio? Do we knock the Matterhorn or "it's a small world" or Pirates of the Caribbean because of Arrow Dynamics' involvement developing those ride systems?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I said that if Blackstone puts the Universal Florida parks up for sale, that Comcast will be in breach of contract because the other party must be connected with Universal in some way.

That is found nowhere in the contract with Marvel.

Reportedly even the Universal name on the parks will be at risk if Blackstone sells that portion.

If that is the case it would be pursuant to a different contract, no the Marvel contract.

I said that if Blackstone puts the Universal Florida parks up for sale, that Comcast will be in breach of contract because the other party must be connected with Universal in some way.

That is found nowhere in the contract with Marvel.

They would have to say specifically in the contract that if Universal gets out of the agreement then the new owner will take over the contract.

Where are you getting this from? That is not at all how contract law in this country has been established. In fact, if this were the case, then it would have trigged an issue in 2003 when Universal City Development Partners came into existence and took over ownership of the Resort.

Instead of theorizing what happens if Blackstone Group sells off its half, I think it is time to start reading some more.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262450/000095013603002247/0000950136-03-002247-index.htm
These are the documents that created Universal City Development Partners, the entity that actually owns and operates Universal Orlando Resort.

 

[Disday]

Please enlighten me. Where in the contract - that was between MCA, which is now called Universal or Universal Comcast (or whatever it's called this week), and Marvel, does it say that if MCA (or whoever) leaves the agreement that it is still valid. Please give me the specific words and I'll be satisfied.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I don't mean to drift more off topic but I agree that the ride system is innovative. My point is that it wasn't THEIR system. KUKA developed it and they bought it.

Granted.... I'll give you that... But Universal did take the EMV and improve it with Spiderman... I still haven't seen Disney give us something that beats Spiderman's vehicle system...

It is entirely possible Disney has something up its sleeve, and I hope they do... But until we see something, I have to say, Universal has been out-Disneying Disney...

 

[wizards8507]

Please enlighten me. Where in the contract - that was between MCA, which is now called Universal or Universal Comcast (or whatever it's called this week), and Marvel, does it say that if MCA (or whoever) leaves the agreement that it is still valid.

Nobody is LEAVING any agreement. The agreement is merely being sold to one entity by another.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I'll try to gently explain myself for those with anger issues. I didn't say that Universal is in breach of contract now. I said that if Blackstone puts the Universal Florida parks up for sale, that Comcast will be in breach of contract because the other party must be connected with Universal in some way. Reportedly even the Universal name on the parks will be at risk if Blackstone sells that portion. They would have to say specifically in the contract that if Universal gets out of the agreement then the new owner will take over the contract. - And kids - don't even try pixie dust, I'm proof of what can happen to you.:wave:

Can you post a link that says the other buyer must be connected with Universal in some way, because that is the first I am hearing of that... Not saying you are wrong about it.. I'm saying I haven't ever heard that before... So some proof would be nice... Thank you.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Please enlighten me. Where in the contract - that was between MCA, which is now called Universal or Universal Comcast (or whatever it's called this week), and Marvel, does it say that if MCA (or whoever) leaves the agreement that it is still valid. Please give me the specific words and I'll be satisfied.

Disday, it is contract law... it doesn't have to be specifically written into the contract, though most contract do put in clauses incase of buy outs... If one group has a contract with another group, and the first group is bought out, the new owner assumes the ownership of the contract...

For example, I own company A and contract out to use services from company B... Company C comes in and buys me out... Now Company C and Company B will be doing business under the original contract... However, if the contract I signed with company B says company B can end the contract if I sell company A, then the contract can be terminated.. Company B holds the right to end the deal... I could have also put in a clause saying the contract automatically ends if I sell my business...

Unless specified, the new company takes on the current contract... You know sort of like how Disney had to take on the current license agreement between Marvel and Universal since no clause states otherwise... Disney HAS TO BY LAW, abide by the contract...

 

[Krack]

This thread has entered into the arena of "absurd". To take Disday's incorrect legal understanding to it's most ridiculous conclusion ... if one Disney shareholder sold one share of stock to his wife, Disney could then void or nullify each and every contract it is a party to that it desires. Why? It's a new person now owning part of Disney, so the contracts are all void.

Again, (as I stated 3 or 4 pages ago) there is nothing Disday has posted in this thread that is an even remotely accurate depiction of United States contract law.

 

[Skip]

Are you serious? Universal has a grand total of ONE "new, innovative" ride. One. Spoiler alert: Universal isn't the company that made the innovation. KUKA Robotics designed the system. Universal purchased it and slapped a fancy brand on it.

A valid point - Universal did jump on the technology though, wisely forging an exclusivity agreement with KUKA for I believe a decade, and built the first incredible attraction around it. You also can't deny that Spider-Man revolutionized the Orlando theme park scene and Disney never truly countered it. Moreover, Universal (admittedly by requirement of JK Rowling) built a truly fantastic land that feels completely self-contained due to its lack of outer world intrusions (no Coke products or garish Universal Orlando logos on merchandise - only Potter logos). Truly something special. Mummy was a big leap forward in the dark ride/coaster hybrid, and if the hype is to be believed Transformers is set to 1-up Spider-Man, with the ride track taking place on TWO floors with robotics integrated into the 3D action.

Disday, if you really think that Spider-Man is not a "great" ride, I don't know what to tell you. I guess I'm always aware that on Soarin` I'm in front of an IMAX screen? Even the strongest of Disney purists agree that Spider-Man is something special.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Please enlighten me. Where in the contract - that was between MCA, which is now called Universal or Universal Comcast (or whatever it's called this week), and Marvel, does it say that if MCA (or whoever) leaves the agreement that it is still valid. Please give me the specific words and I'll be satisfied.

It does not have to be specifically listed because it is assumed that the contract can transfer ownership as legally allowed by law.

Can you post a link that says the other buyer must be connected with Universal in some way, because that is the first I am hearing of that... Not saying you are wrong about it.. I'm saying I haven't ever heard that before... So some proof would be nice... Thank you.

I started reading through the partnership agreement that created Universal City Development Partners and this does seem to be an issue. It appears that the partnership gets a free, non-exclusive license of use for Universal's name, properties and licensed material so long as Universal is still involved, otherwise the license ends 30 months after Universal is no longer involved. (It is a bit more complicated but I think that is a good summary).

This is the clause the Disday seems to be thinking is in the Marvel contract or mandated by law. If the Marvel contract is still owned by NBC Universal and not the Partnership, then it would be applicable to the above.

I am now looking for evidence of the scenario that is feared, the entire resort going up for sale because NBC Universal passes up on purchasing the share owned by Blackstone Group. This may take awhile as it seem that the partners involved in Universal City Development Partners are themselves two separate partnerships Universal City Florida Holding Co. I and Universal City Florida Holding Co. II that are themselves partnerships between subsidiaries of Universal and Blackstone Group.

Just an interesting observation, the Partnership owns and operates what are called Project 1 (Universal Studios Florida) and Project 2 (the expansion that first opened in 1999). There is even talk of the Partnership being able to sell either of the Projects as a separate entity.

I may be surprised, but as of now I have a hard time believing Blackstone Group would really enter into an agreement where they could sell off the entire Resort. Doing so would instantaneously kill off significant amounts of the value in the property, as the new owners would have absolutely no claim to any of the present intellectual property, requiring all new licensing contracts and/or having to pay for almost everything to be rethemed. It seems that if Comcast / NBC Universal passes on buying out Blackstone Group's share, it would be in Blackstone Group's best interest to either stay in or try to find a party that would agree to enter into a new partnership with NBC Universal immediately following their acquisition of Blackstone Group's share.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Let me takes these one by one....



Wizarding World of Harry Potter is one example of Universal out Disney-ing Disney...Forbidden Journey is Universal out Disney-ing Disney... Spiderman ride, which Disney has yet to create something even close to the ride, is Universal out Disney-ing Disney... Jury is out on Despicable Me since no details have yet been released.... MIB is better than Buzz Lightyear and TSMM (Universal out Disney's Disney)... Mummy is better than Everest (Yes, Universal out Disney's Disney)... and wait for the next batch of rides to come... They will once again... You geussed it.. OUT DISNEY DISNEY



Well, Spiderman has been around for how long now, and Disney STILL hasn't been able to create anything remotely close to it???? And Forbidden Journey is more than just a fancy brand slapped on a the system.... it is INNOVATIVE.. Disney?? yea, touch screens (been there), interactive queues that aren't necessary (HM anyone????), Little Mermaid omnimover, nothign innovative about that... slapping 3D on a simulator isn't innovative (maybe making each ride experience different is innovative, it is still just a simulator)... TSMM is a dark ride, 3D screen technology that Xbox, Wii, and PS3 now use so nothing truly innovative there... Yeti was supposed to be a great AA, and what happens??? Disney won't fix it.. Way to be innovative!!!! So, again, Universal has been out Disneying Disney...







MD and Wizards are right... The contract will just go to the next owner, if Comcast happens to purchase Blackstone's portion of Universal, then proceeds to sell it all...





Disday, sniffing how much Pixie dust today??? You are off and wrong on everything you posted... The contract isn't breached because Universal is sold... The new owner of Universal will then own the contract... Disney purchased Marvel, therefore Disney now OWNS that contract... No breach took place once Marvel agreed to sell to Disney...

Explain how Disney can sue for breach of contract??? They can't.. Now, if they tried to prevent Universal from doing anything with the Marvel license, Universal can sue... Universal holds all the cards... Deal with it, face reality, move on and get over it... Universal is OUT DISNEYING DISNEY!!!!!

All this talk of out Disneying Disney isn't really accurate. Disney has created a destination resort for families and no amount of non-family friendly thrill rides no matter how high the quality is will accomplish this.

The next move for Universal is to make the Despicable Me ride a dark ride - it shouldn't be the same type of simulator used in Jimmy Neutron/Hanna Barbara. Following that, the next addition to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter should be the first stateside use of the Pooh's Hunny Hunt technology. Again, making a highly marketable, family friendly attraction.

As for why Disney hasn't "one-upped" Spiderman... they haven't had to. In terms of a Harry Potter response, you're more likely to see improvements in merchandise offerings in lieu of the next greatest attraction.

 

[Captain Chaos]

It does not have to be specifically listed because it is assumed that the contract can transfer ownership as legally allowed by law.


I started reading through the partnership agreement that created Universal City Development Partners and this does seem to be an issue. It appears that the partnership gets a free, non-exclusive license of use for Universal's name, properties and licensed material so long as Universal is still involved, otherwise the license ends 30 months after Universal is no longer involved. (It is a bit more complicated but I think that is a good summary).

This is the clause the Disday seems to be thinking is in the Marvel contract or mandated by law. If the Marvel contract is still owned by NBC Universal and not the Partnership, then it would be applicable to the above.

I am now looking for evidence of the scenario that is feared, the entire resort going up for sale because NBC Universal passes up on purchasing the share owned by Blackstone Group. This may take awhile as it seem that the partners involved in Universal City Development Partners are themselves two separate partnerships Universal City Florida Holding Co. I and Universal City Florida Holding Co. II that are themselves partnerships between subsidiaries of Universal and Blackstone Group.

Just an interesting observation, the Partnership owns and operates what are called Project 1 (Universal Studios Florida) and Project 2 (the expansion that first opened in 1999). There is even talk of the Partnership being able to sell either of the Projects as a separate entity.

I may be surprised, but as of now I have a hard time believing Blackstone Group would really enter into an agreement where they could sell off the entire Resort. Doing so would instantaneously kill off significant amounts of the value in the property, as the new owners would have absolutely no claim to any of the present intellectual property, requiring all new licensing contracts and/or having to pay for almost everything to be rethemed. It seems that if Comcast / NBC Universal passes on buying out Blackstone Group's share, it would be in Blackstone Group's best interest to either stay in or try to find a party that would agree to enter into a new partnership with NBC Universal immediately following their acquisition of Blackstone Group's share.

Nice write up lazyboy, thank you... That is why I asked Disday to link something to state his claim... Glad you were able to expand and explain some of it...

So, if Comcast does not buy Blackstone's share of the park, Universal may be in bigger trouble than I originally thought... Interesting.. I really don't think it will come to that, but one never truly knows...

Disday, now that you have explained what you were really trying to say, and lazyboy found some back up to your claims, I can now say I understand what you meant and where you were coming from... You just worded it... Um, confusingly LOL....

 

[Captain Chaos]

All this talk of out Disneying Disney isn't really accurate. Disney has created a destination resort for families and no amount of non-family friendly thrill rides no matter how high the quality is will accomplish this.

The next move for Universal is to make the Despicable Me ride a dark ride - it shouldn't be the same type of simulator used in Jimmy Neutron/Hanna Barbara. Following that, the next addition to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter should be the first stateside use of the Pooh's Hunny Hunt technology. Again, making a highly marketable, family friendly attraction.

As for why Disney hasn't "one-upped" Spiderman... they haven't had to. In terms of a Harry Potter response, you're more likely to see improvements in merchandise offerings in lieu of the next greatest attraction.

Universal is CREATING a family resort destination, whether you all want to believe it or not... They have 3 wonderful hotels... Be prepared for a 4th hotel, in the value price range, soon... If Universal uses Pooh's Hunny Hunt technology in a new ride, and Disney doesn't bring it stateside first, that is Universal OUTDISNEY-ING Disney.... Why hasn't Disney brought this technology stateside?? Too cheap??? Sit back and watch the competition out maneuver you in every way... But hey, it's ok... Sell that cheap Pooh plush or that Belle tee shirt and everything in Disney is A-OK...

Let's just face it... Disney is being cheap, resting on laurels instead of doing what they once did the best... Dominate the theme park industry...

If Spirit was here, he'd call it Walmarting of Disney.. Have we sunk so low as a Disney community to accept Disney mediocrity???

 

[lazyboy97o]

So, if Comcast does not buy Blackstone's share of the park, Universal may be in bigger trouble than I originally thought... Interesting.. I really don't think it will come to that, but one never truly knows...

Only if it is true that NBC Universal passing on the purchase enables Black Stone Group to place the entire Resort up for sale. If that is the case, it just makes no financial sense (priority number one). The conventional wisdom of the day is that themed entertainment is only as good as its intellectual property. Selling off the resort without its intellectual property removes so much of its value. I guess Blackstone Group could have made enough money off the property and is so intent on getting out that they do not care if they sell of the Resort for a loss, but why would they? They would get so much more selling a working, thriving Universal Orlando Resort than selling it for its land or its existing theme park infrastructure sans intellectual property.

 

[celluloid]

If Spirit was here, he'd call it Walmarting of Disney.. Have we sunk so low as a Disney community to accept Disney mediocrity???

Agreed. Also we have to remember that WDW has been around as a resort since 1971. 40 years now. and was already a big name in the theme park business from Disneyland since 1955. Universal has only been a resort for ten. It started with just a park in Orlando 20 years ago. How far they have come is quite impressive.

It is funny to think that Disney was once the company that after man had landed on the moon, they wanted to change so it would not seem as obsolete of a Tomorrowland Journey and just give it a bit of an upgrade. Compare that to what the company has done now with an attraction featuring some obsolete information on Energy, dated or broken effects and a VERY dated gameshow set.


Even with a property not Universal's own they are doing some great things with it. This applies for WB's Potter, or Disney's Marvel.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Only if it is true that NBC Universal passing on the purchase enables Black Stone Group to place the entire Resort up for sale. If that is the case, it just makes no financial sense (priority number one). The conventional wisdom of the day is that themed entertainment is only as good as its intellectual property. Selling off the resort without its intellectual property removes so much of its value. I guess Blackstone Group could have made enough money off the property and is so intent on getting out that they do not care if they sell of the Resort for a loss, but why would they? They would get so much more selling a working, thriving Universal Orlando Resort than selling it for its land or its existing theme park infrastructure sans intellectual property.

I guess that is the key to all this.... If the purchase, as you said, enables Blackstone to put the entire resort up for sale... We'll just have to wait a few weeks and see I guess....

 

[Captain Chaos]

Agreed. Also we have to remember that WDW has been around as a resort since 1971. 40 years now. and was already a big name in the theme park business from Disneyland since 1955. Universal has only been a resort for ten. It started with just a park in Orlando 20 years ago. How far they have come is quite impressive.

It is funny to think that Disney was once the company that after man had landed on the moon, they wanted to change so it would not seem as obsolete of a Tomorrowland Journey and just give it a bit of an upgrade. Compare that to what the company has done now with an attraction featuring some obsolete information on Energy, dated or broken effects and a VERY dated gameshow set.


Even with a property not Universal's own they are doing some great things with it. This applies for WB's Potter, or Disney's Marvel.

Sometimes, there is such a thing as getting too big for one's own britches... WDW may just be getting too big... There is only so much money any company can throw around to expand... The Walmarting of WDW may be a direct result of possible over expansion of the property...