Monorail to be wrapped once again

IlikeDW

Active Member
Just asking...it would just seem crazy to me that they wouldn't have a complete understanding of what that contract does and does not say.



There seems to be a lot more involved with that. Aulani didn't seem like a simple oversight.

I was thinking both would be more of a case of bad assumptions or lack of verification.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Once again, here is the exclusivity as it now exists.
MARVEL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MCA INC. AND MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP said:
IV. EXCLUSIVITY
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.]

That specifically says "theme park" and the project description makes a distinction between a "theme park" as being a component of a "complete destination resort."

MARVEL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MCA INC. AND MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP said:
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MCA is developing a complete destination resort on approximately 800 acres owned by it and a partner in Orlando, Florida, on which Universal Studios Florida is located and attracted approximately 7__million visitors in 1992.
When completed, as presently planned the resort will consist of the existing theme park and HARD ROCK CAFE, plus a second gated theme park (“THE SECOND GATE”), four highly themed hotels totalling 4,000 rooms, a themed entertainment and shopping complex, as well as a golf course, tennis club and spa. It is contemplated that the total cost of building out these facilities over the next decade will be approximately $3 billion. The total complex is hereafter referred to as “Universal City Florida”.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Just asking...it would just seem crazy to me that they wouldn't have a complete understanding of what that contract does and does not say.

Exactly. Simply look at the poster who stirred the pot and those that are keeping it stirred in his absence. It is the same story every single time. :brick:

Please stop falling for it folks. Disney knows exactly what the contract states.

Ultimately though it is great seeing the characters on property in such a larger than life way. And I am sure, just like with the TRONorail, it is reaching the audience it is meant to reach. Plus it looks cool IMO.

Funny thing is that it could be said Marvel plush being sold at IoA paid for it!

:ROFLOL:
 

asianway

Well-Known Member
Doesn't look to be running right now, did they start it on a Saturday hoping the cease & desist wouldn't come in until Monday?
 

HenryMystic

Well-Known Member
He's pretty much right, though.
Disney didn't produce the film. It fell under Marvel's old agreement with Paramount. Disney is distributing the film, and actually had to pay to get their name on it along side Paramount's.

Check the poster in that link. What logo is missing?

Fact is, putting those characters on a monorail, especially if it were to run the Epcot route, would almost certainly violate the terms of the deal with Universal. Proving damages wouldn't necessarily be needed, merely that it took place. (example: if Disney put an Iron Man character on property to advertise the film, it would violate the deal. No need for Uni to prove anything.)

I can't imagine how it got this far. Is nobody at Disney paying attention at all.:hammer:

Just to add to the argument:

I saw an Avengers trailer last night at the theater. No mention of Walt Disney Pictures anywhere. Paramount was though.

Btw, if anyone is privy to the licensing agreement, I would like to see it. These sort of things interest me.
 

nace888

Well-Known Member
It's a lot more fun to think that it must have to do with the contract issue and build a story behind that. Mechanical issues were cool like 4 months ago...

They were cool when Peach was barely up and running, :ROFLOL:

It could be mechanical, but they've never had much of a problem with Red, have they?
 

Captain Chaos

Well-Known Member
For anyone who knows, this question is for you...

I read a lesser known site (no i do not post on it), and I am watching two people go at it over Marvel (Disney vs Universal)... One person actually said Disney has total control over everything, including what merchandise Universal sells... Now, i of course laugh cause we all know Universal has total control over the characters, but, the merchandise thing got me thinking... Now, I do not believe that Disney can tell Universal what to sell and how they can sell the merchandise... But, is there a clause where Disney can tell Universal what kind of merchandise to sell, or at least have to approve the merchandise??? I know this may be a stupid question, but I ask it anyway... :)
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I would hope that the time Monorail Red spent being wrapped would have been better used than for just applying the wrap.

For anyone who knows, this question is for you...

I read a lesser known site (no i do not post on it), and I am watching two people go at it over Marvel (Disney vs Universal)... One person actually said Disney has total control over everything, including what merchandise Universal sells... Now, i of course laugh cause we all know Universal has total control over the characters, but, the merchandise thing got me thinking... Now, I do not believe that Disney can tell Universal what to sell and how they can sell the merchandise... But, is there a clause where Disney can tell Universal what kind of merchandise to sell, or at least have to approve the merchandise??? I know this may be a stupid question, but I ask it anyway... :)

V. OTHER ASPECTS OF RELATIONSHIP
B. Merchandise Opportunities/Specialty Stores
Throughout THE SECOND GATE, stores will carry a wide range of Marvel produced or licensed products and artwork, Marvel comic books, Fleer trading cards (or cards of such other licensee as may be designated by Marvel), and toys (primarily action figures) manufactured by Toy Biz, Inc. (or such other Marvel licensee as may be designated by Marvel). Additionally, within or adjacent to THE MARVEL UNIVERSE there would be significant retail space dedicated to Marvel publications, software, products, and cards produced or licensed by Marvel. It is anticipated that this exposure to a highly motivated public who have experienced THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, combined with the underlying popularity of the Marvel properties, will result in a level of sale of Marvel manufactured and licensed products, such as would make THE SECOND GATE an extremely lucrative outlet for its properties.
Within THE SECOND GATE, a minimum of 10,000 square feet of retail space will be devoted to items licensed or manufactured by Marvel or its related companies including a minimum of 5,000 square feet of retail space in stores themed around MARVEL properties and devoted virtually exclusively (allowing for minor exceptions such as film, etc., but not competing characters) to the sale of MARVEL items.
MCA will give serious consideration to placing such Marvel-oriented stores at or adjacent to the exit of the major attractions within THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, consistent with its reasonable judgment as to traffic flow, planning considerations and customer acceptance.
The various Marvel properties and merchandise will also be used throughout the destination resort including within the hotels (if operated by MCA or an MCA Corporately Related Company; or if operated by a third party MCA will encourage such use), and Marvel theming and merchandise will be featured in any airport stores operated by MCA in Los Angeles or Orlando. Uses of Marvel theming in MCA operated stores other than within the resort property or within the aforesaid MCA operated airport stores will require specific Marvel approval.

The merchandise within such retail facilities will either be (i) purchased from Marvel’s licensees; (ii) purchased directly from Marvel or its designated distributors; or (iii) manufactured by or to MCA’s specifications as a direct licensee of Marvel.

a. Sale of food or beverage, at non-premium prices, from Marvel themed facilities will not be subject to royalties, unless the items sold carry Marvel logos or proprietary elements. In the event such item(s) carry Marvel logos or proprietary elements, Marvel shall receive a license fee of *** percent on the wholesale price of such item (i.e. combined food and packaging).

b. Food or beverage items sold at a premium price, either from Marvel themed facilities or which carry Marvel logos or proprietary elements, shall bear a licensee fee to Marvel equal to the greater of (x) *** percent on the wholesale price or (y) *** percent of the retail price of such item (i.e. combined food and packaging).

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
For anyone who knows, this question is for you...

I read a lesser known site (no i do not post on it), and I am watching two people go at it over Marvel (Disney vs Universal)... One person actually said Disney has total control over everything, including what merchandise Universal sells... Now, i of course laugh cause we all know Universal has total control over the characters, but, the merchandise thing got me thinking... Now, I do not believe that Disney can tell Universal what to sell and how they can sell the merchandise... But, is there a clause where Disney can tell Universal what kind of merchandise to sell, or at least have to approve the merchandise??? I know this may be a stupid question, but I ask it anyway... :)

Interesting point but think of it this way: Even if they could it is only ever going to lead to things that are beneficial to both. Disney does not win or gain anything,in fact they lose a lot of investment potential if they ever tell Universal not to sell something (such as the Avengers or Spiderman Merch) as ultimately it will make Disney a cut of the deal. It would be like telling Walmart or other stores not to carry Marvel licensed things. It does not hurt Disney as a company and helps their bottom line. Universal is more than happy with it as they have the rights to sell the merch based on these popular characters but most importantly, have the ability to feature those attractions based on the very popular characters.
 

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
Two points, both of which have been raised, both of which make sense:

This move was deliberate on the part of TWDS after wrapping the Tron-o-rail last year. Understand that despite what drivel some folks here may spew, there are only two rational/business reasons/explanations for this:

1.) Since the Studios are paying the price tag that they never even considered UNI's rights issues as far as theme parks and it truly never crossed anyone's mind that there were legal issues at play (if you don't believe this is possible, then you are naive as to the way media goliaths like Disney operate in this enviornment) OR;

2.) This is TWDC doing something provocative with malice of forethought in order to see just how much 'play' there is in the contract and what they can get away with ... and that it's worth the time and money even if they have to rip the whole wrap off (again, if you don't believe this is possible, then you are naive as to the way media goliaths like Disney operate in this environment).

It really IS that simple.

~Change is coming!~
 

zooey

Well-Known Member
It breaks my little fanboi heart just a little to think of a first time visitor seeing the Magic Kingdom for the first time through a faded outline of Captain America's giant head.
 

Captain Chaos

Well-Known Member
OK so one person said the Avenger monorail wasn't out today, but no one backed up the report... And I didn't see it posted anywhere else... So, can someone back up the report and provide a reason why, not guess???
 

NoChesterHester

Well-Known Member
OK so one person said the Avenger monorail wasn't out today, but no one backed up the report... And I didn't see it posted anywhere else... So, can someone back up the report and provide a reason why, not guess???

The monorail was out tonight. MouseUpdates posted a photo of it on twitter.
 

Captain Chaos

Well-Known Member
The monorail was out tonight. MouseUpdates posted a photo of it on twitter.

Thanks... so we can write it off as either mechanical issues this morning, or the OP didn't see it...

Doubtful Universal would order a cease and desist.. I mean, imagine this: 6 year old boy sees the Avenger wrap and says "MOMMY I WANT TO SEE THOSE CHARACTERS!!!!!" Guess where the family winds up the next day.... Not WDW... :)
 

mickey2008.1

Well-Known Member
While the black n lightning looks awesome, the characters do not. I like the new look, actually love it, just keep the Avengers off of it. Works well with EPCOT! If it's meant to ________ off UNI, oh well. But with top execs in town, I believe it's a statement that WDW is about to take it's O town back.
 

nace888

Well-Known Member
I just got this idea...

Everyone's saying that the trains need an overhaul so to speak, well, why not paint the trains BLACK instead of white, and use the color stripes... Monorail Black would switch to Monorail White, with red pinstripes...

The rest of the trains would then have white pinstripes instead of black ones... Thoughts??
 

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

Back
Top Bottom