More Marvel at Disney World? Maybe?

[JT3000]

Actually, the details in the SEC were not the contract. The real contract has been kept from the public. It makes one wonder why Universal would want to keep it a secret if they're so sure they have the rights 'forever'. My guess is that there is an expiration date on the contract, as there is for all of the islands. If someone were to produce the actual contract, which none in the media have been able to do, and it claims they have the rights in perpetuity, then I would believe Universal's claims. I assume the reason it hasn't been made public is for Universal to save face. So, whether it's this year or four years from now, I'm sure Disney knows and has big plans for Marvel and Florida.

 

[Disday]

Lazyboy, there is no reason to get mad at me just because I disagree with you. I have read through the 'statement' you had linked and the last link shows me nothing. Do you work for Universal? I'm just curious. Anyway, if the linked 'contract' is the final contract, it wouldn't hold up in a court of law. I have no doubt there is a final contract, and that Disney is abiding by it, but that isn't it. The actual contract has not been made public. That's why the media go by what Universal tells them. I'm not an expert at this kind of law, but it does seem similar to copyright law. I had a book copyrighted and can sue anyone who uses the name or ideas. Yet, even copyright laws have a 50 year limitation. And, I had to be specific about everything in order to receive the copyright. If people don't believe me about the contract, that's cool. I'm not here to offend people, like I said earlier, I'm just stating my point.

 

[JT3000]

Quite frankly, what I can imagine is for Disney to not only offer Uni a boatload of cash, but the rights to Avatar-land, access to Imagineers who will help retrofit existing Marvel-themed rides in Islands of Adventure to be themed around other properties, and to absorb some of the cost of that retrofitting. If they want the Marvel characters bad enough, who knows what they'll offer?

Why in the world would they need Disney's Imagineers? Universal has its own creative team, you know.

And to be honest, there may come a point where Uni says yes. Because as much as it may chaff Disney's butt that Uni controls the theme park elements to a franchise it owns, it probably also chaffs Uni's butt everytime it has to give Disney a check for Marvel-themed merch revenue. Uni may decide it wants to be get out of bed with Disney. Heck they may have decided it already, they're just waiting to see what kind of backflips Disney is willing to make to get Marvel theme park rights in the fold.

I'm sure it pains Universal to give a small portion of their overall profit to their competitor. A profit that's made off of the competitor's own property, which they're not allowed to use in their own parks. A property that increases in value every time their competitor does anything to increase its popularity in other media. Really sucks to be Universal.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Quite frankly, what I can imagine is for Disney to not only offer Uni a boatload of cash, but the rights to Avatar-land, access to Imagineers who will help retrofit existing Marvel-themed rides in Islands of Adventure to be themed around other properties, and to absorb some of the cost of that retrofitting. If they want the Marvel characters bad enough, who knows what they'll offer?

I cannot speak to specifics to those deals, but I doubt they have become as one sided as this the theme park deal. They were all post-X-Men and the resurgence of Marvel via its films.

And to be honest, there may come a point where Uni says yes. Because as much as it may chaff Disney's butt that Uni controls the theme park elements to a franchise it owns, it probably also chaffs Uni's butt everytime it has to give Disney a check for Marvel-themed merch revenue. Uni may decide it wants to be get out of bed with Disney. Heck they may have decided it already, they're just waiting to see what kind of backflips Disney is willing to make to get Marvel theme park rights in the fold.

I doubt Universal cares all of that much. Via Comcast they also pay Disney for their television channels. If any NBC-Universal channels run Disney content, they pay for that as well. The growing popularity of Marvel only helps to attract people to their parks. The merchandise fee is a set percentage and the licensing fee increases only with inflation.

Lazyboy, there is no reason to get mad at me just because I disagree with you. I have read through the 'statement' you had linked and the last link shows me nothing. Do you work for Universal? I'm just curious. Anyway, if the linked 'contract' is the final contract, it wouldn't hold up in a court of law. I have no doubt there is a final contract, and that Disney is abiding by it, but that isn't it. The actual contract has not been made public. That's why the media go by what Universal tells them. I'm not an expert at this kind of law, but it does seem similar to copyright law. I had a book copyrighted and can sue anyone who uses the name or ideas. Yet, even copyright laws have a 50 year limitation. And, I had to be specific about everything in order to receive the copyright. If people don't believe me about the contract, that's cool. I'm not here to offend people, like I said earlier, I'm just stating my point.

Then why the hell does Universal keep filing a decade and half old "not final" contract? Why would not be held up in a court of law? It is specific in all of the cases you claim it is not, and plenty of contracts have run into trouble because of their ambiguity, that does not make them "not real" or even invalid. If the characters in question lapse into the public domain, then there is still no issue because Universal can still use the characters and content because they are in the public domain.

 

[Lee]

If Disney decides it wants Marvel properties in its parks, they'll try to make a deal. I'm not saying they'll succeed, but they'll try.

The thing is...they don't want to.
Way back when the thing was first happening, I asked a Disney source about it. I was told that Disney is well aware of the contract terms, and that they had no intention of trying to alter them.
Disney wanted the characters for many reasons other than use in theme parks. They are fine with Uni having the rides, and are quite content with just profiting off of the other uses of the IP.

Quite frankly, what I can imagine is for Disney to not only offer Uni a boatload of cash, but the rights to Avatar-land, access to Imagineers who will help retrofit existing Marvel-themed rides in Islands of Adventure to be themed around other properties, and to absorb some of the cost of that retrofitting. If they want the Marvel characters bad enough, who knows what they'll offer?

Nah.
Both companies are currently fine with how things stand now. Honestly, it isn't worth that much expense and trouble just to be able to theme rides at one resort. The Marvel characters will show up in Paris or Asia eventually, without Uni having to be paid a dime.

Also, I asked if the contract with Uni was "forever" and was told it "might as well be". Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Skip]

The thing is...they don't want to.
Way back when the thing was first happening, I asked a Disney source about it. I was told that Disney is well aware of the contract terms, and that they had no intention of trying to alter them.
Disney wanted the characters for many reasons other than use in theme parks. They are fine with Uni having the rides, and are quite content with just profiting off of the other uses of the IP.


Nah.
Both companies are currently fine with how things stand now. Honestly, it isn't worth that much expense and trouble just to be able to theme rides at one resort. The Marvel characters will show up in Paris or Asia eventually, without Uni having to be paid a dime.

Also, I asked if the contract with Uni was "forever" and was told it "might as well be". Take that for what it's worth.

The end. Confirmed all my suspicions/conclusions. Thanks much, Lee.

 

[HenryMystic]

Also, I asked if the contract with Uni was "forever" and was told it "might as well be". Take that for what it's worth.

I've read the licensing agreement. As long as Marvel Superhero Island remains open, the agreement stands.

 

[MarkTwain]

The thing is...they don't want to.
Way back when the thing was first happening, I asked a Disney source about it. I was told that Disney is well aware of the contract terms, and that they had no intention of trying to alter them.
Disney wanted the characters for many reasons other than use in theme parks. They are fine with Uni having the rides, and are quite content with just profiting off of the other uses of the IP.


Nah.
Both companies are currently fine with how things stand now. Honestly, it isn't worth that much expense and trouble just to be able to theme rides at one resort. The Marvel characters will show up in Paris or Asia eventually, without Uni having to be paid a dime.

Also, I asked if the contract with Uni was "forever" and was told it "might as well be". Take that for what it's worth.

I'm wondering if we really will ever see Marvel's assimilation into the parks at a large scale. Wishful thinking perhaps, but is possible that Marvel will become a Disney brand in ownership alone, not unlike Touchstone? (That is, we'll never see Spiderman rubbing elbows with Mickey on merchandise or in theme parks)

 

[slappy magoo]

The thing is...they don't want to.
Way back when the thing was first happening, I asked a Disney source about it. I was told that Disney is well aware of the contract terms, and that they had no intention of trying to alter them.
Disney wanted the characters for many reasons other than use in theme parks. They are fine with Uni having the rides, and are quite content with just profiting off of the other uses of the IP.

Did you or anyone you know ever "try too hard" to date a guy or a girl, and had to be told "play it a little cooler, you're coming across as desperate?" Well, if Disney were planning to try to get the Marvel characters in their theme parks, do you think they'd go out and tell people "OH, HOW WE WANT MARVEL IN OUR THEME PARKS?" Or do you think they'd try to play it as cool as possible, so they don't come off as desperate, which puts them in a position of weakness? Or perhaps, a position of even weaker weakness?

Nah.
Both companies are currently fine with how things stand now. Honestly, it isn't worth that much expense and trouble just to be able to theme rides at one resort.

Four words: Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. How many people were REALLY clamoring for Oswald the Lucky Rabbit? And yet Disney got the rights to Oswald back from Uni. Sure, it was Walt Disney's (and Ub Iwerks') first popular character, but it's not like Disney absolutely had to have it. But Disney wanted it, and eventually worked out a deal where they got it. Maybe they'll do something awesome with Oswald, and I'm sure they tell stockholders they consider it a potentially valuable icon and franchise, worth the effort to get back. And I'm sure whatever that effort was will be miniscule compared to what it would take if they ever wanted Marvel in the theme parks. I'm just saying, if Disney wanted Marvel, they'd go for it, but they probably wouldn't telegraph that want before they were prepared to do something about it. If you don't think they have Imagineers blue-skying where Spiderman might fit in one of the parks, I've got some magic beans to sell you.
EDIT: I'd also point out that it's not uncommon for this "one resort" to generate more revenue in any given year than Disney's motion picture division. One of the reasons we're often such a surly bunch is because we feel that WDW is not living up to its full potential and if only people who cared as much as we do ran the parks then we'd see some serious changes for the better, I'll tell you what. Well, if someone like me were to be in charge of the parks, he'd assemble a small team to quietly explore any deal we could offer Uni that would get them to nix the contract. If someone like me were in charge of the parks (and, you know, thank God I'm not, because I don't know what the hell I'm doing), he'd even see if giving up rights to an Avatar experience, on top of a cash deal, might sweeten the pot. Or he might see if there's rights to a script or franchise not currently being adapted by Disney but controlled by Disney that Uni might want. And then someone like me might use the Marvel characters to make a giant expansion to seriously bolster the Hollywood Studios park, as well as see if there would be any way to leverage some of the more futuristic Marvel characters into Tomorrowland. Like, oh, I dunno, another retrofit of Stitch's Great Escape, which no one, even kids, seems to like all that much, and make it a Fantastic Four experience where Reed Richards has developed a portal into the future that Doctor Doom tries to steal. Or use Soarin' like technology for a Silver Surfer-themed ride.

Also, I asked if the contract with Uni was "forever" and was told it "might as well be". Take that for what it's worth.

And if Uni never chooses to cede their rights to the contract, that's how it will stay. But if Disney makes a deal that Uni decides is worth their while, then the contract can be broken. Uni's in the position of strength for now, but who knows if they'll ever want something Disney already has, and be willing to make a deal?

 

[maxairmike]

Quite frankly, what I can imagine is for Disney to not only offer Uni a boatload of cash, but the rights to Avatar-land, access to Imagineers who will help retrofit existing Marvel-themed rides in Islands of Adventure to be themed around other properties, and to absorb some of the cost of that retrofitting.

They already have a few former Imagineers at Universal Creative, and have since IOA was being built. Universal Creative doesn't need help from WDI, they've been holding their own quite well for some time now, and they know it.

As to the contract questions, Lee's post should clear that up.

 

[slappy magoo]

They already have a few former Imagineers at Universal Creative, and have since IOA was being built. Universal Creative doesn't need help from WDI, they've been holding their own quite well for some time now, and they know it.

As to the contract questions, Lee's post should clear that up.

1: I never said Uni would accept help form Imagineers, only that WDW could, conceivably, offer their services. It's all speculation, feel free to take it with however much salt you want,

2: Lee's post is irrelevant. The contract is valid as long as Uni wants it valid, but if Disney offers them a sweet enough deal to terminate the contract, then the contract will be terminated. The questions then are, will Disney ever off a deal and will that deal be sweet enough? None of us knows that answer. For those who believe the deal will always be in place, you will always be right until the day you're not.

 

[maxairmike]

1: I never said Uni would accept help form Imagineers, only that WDW could, conceivably, offer their services. It's all speculation, feel free to take it with however much salt you want,

2: Lee's post is irrelevant. The contract is valid as long as Uni wants it valid, but if Disney offers them a sweet enough deal to terminate the contract, then the contract will be terminated. The questions then are, will Disney ever off a deal and will that deal be sweet enough? None of us knows that answer. For those who believe the deal will always be in place, you will always be right until the day you're not.

1) Just pointing out the uselessness of offering WDI to Universal, so that point was moot.

2) I wasn't talking about your post, I was talking about Disday's and others thinking that the contract isn't ironclad/isn't actually the contract. Yes, if they want it bad enough, they could get it, but as I mentioned before (maybe in this thread, even) I don't think it would make financial sense to the investors if you laid it out and looked at it.

 

[slappy magoo]

1) Just pointing out the uselessness of offering WDI to Universal, so that point was moot.

2) I wasn't talking about your post, I was talking about Disday's and others thinking that the contract isn't ironclad/isn't actually the contract. Yes, if they want it bad enough, they could get it, but as I mentioned before (maybe in this thread, even) I don't think it would make financial sense to the investors if you laid it out and looked at it.

Yeah, the option of having people work for you that other people pay for. I could see why someone would hate that.

 

[Disday]

Of course Disney is satisfied with the way things are now. However, you can be sure that there is an expiration date in the actual contract and that it will not be renewed. Although, I believe that Disney will still allow Universal to keep their Marvel Island, even as they gain the rights for their own parks. It's a win-win situation for Disney.

 

[Skip]

Of course Disney is satisfied with the way things are now. However, you can be sure that there is an expiration date in the actual contract and that it will not be renewed. Although, I believe that Disney will still allow Universal to keep their Marvel Island, even as they gain the rights for their own parks. It's a win-win situation for Disney.

No, there isn't. And no, they wouldn't.

The only way the contract will ever end is if Disney puts up enough dough to buy it out. It isn't going to expire just by waiting, it'll only get more valuable.

I don't know how many times people need to explain that to you.

 

[slappy magoo]

The only way the contract will ever end is if Disney puts up enough dough to buy it out. It isn't going to expire just by waiting, it'll only get more valuable.

I don't know how many times people need to explain that to you.

Current over-under: Seven

 

[danlb_2000]

Of course Disney is satisfied with the way things are now. However, you can be sure that there is an expiration date in the actual contract and that it will not be renewed. Although, I believe that Disney will still allow Universal to keep their Marvel Island, even as they gain the rights for their own parks. It's a win-win situation for Disney.

No, there is no expiration date, you can read it right here:

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

Here is the relevant section:

III. TERM

Once THE MARVEL UNIVERSE opens within the above time period, the term of this agreement shall continue for so long as a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall remain open (and operated consistent with the standards of the next paragraph below) at any Universal Theme Park (allowing for temporary closures for force majeure events or refurbishment/maintenance provided they are being diligently pursued), except for termination for material breach (with written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure).

Each THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall be operated and maintained in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the theme park industry and shall be deemed “open” only when operated in such manner (subject to temporary closures for force majeure events as described in the prior paragraph).

At such time as any THE MARVEL UNIVERSE is no longer open at a particular Universal Theme Park, all exclusivity and marketing rights acquired by MCA as a result of the opening of such THE MARVEL UNIVERSE at such Universal Theme Park, as set forth in Section IV below, shall terminate and this Agreement shall thereafter be construed as if the notice of intent to open THE MARVEL UNIVERSE had not been given by MCA.

 

[slappy magoo]

If there's ever a point where you hear some high up muckety mucks at Uni Orlando start publicly dissing Marvel ("since we opened the Harry Potter area, the attendance at Marvel has dropped precipitously, we're not even sure it has the cache it used to have, perhaps it's a franchise whose time has passed..."), and then suddenly stop, that's when you know a deal is close to happening. They'll be dissing Marvel in an attempt to diminish its value, and they'll stop because the law department will warn them they risk queering the deal.

THAT'S when you can start anticipating an announcement.

Until then...well...there's always macrame...

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, there is no expiration date, you can read it right here:

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

Here is the relevant section:

III. TERM

Once THE MARVEL UNIVERSE opens within the above time period, the term of this agreement shall continue for so long as a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall remain open (and operated consistent with the standards of the next paragraph below) at any Universal Theme Park (allowing for temporary closures for force majeure events or refurbishment/maintenance provided they are being diligently pursued), except for termination for material breach (with written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure).

Each THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall be operated and maintained in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the theme park industry and shall be deemed “open” only when operated in such manner (subject to temporary closures for force majeure events as described in the prior paragraph).

At such time as any THE MARVEL UNIVERSE is no longer open at a particular Universal Theme Park, all exclusivity and marketing rights acquired by MCA as a result of the opening of such THE MARVEL UNIVERSE at such Universal Theme Park, as set forth in Section IV below, shall terminate and this Agreement shall thereafter be construed as if the notice of intent to open THE MARVEL UNIVERSE had not been given by MCA.

From a very technical point of view, I can see how saying the contract is perpetual or without expiration could be seen as wrong. Such terms could imply that regardless of what is done (such as a closure) that Universal retains the rights to the characters, that Universal could decide to be done with marvel and still be a jerk and not let Disney use the characters at Walt Disney World.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

No, there is no expiration date, you can read it right here:

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

Here is the relevant section:

III. TERM

Once THE MARVEL UNIVERSE opens within the above time period, the term of this agreement shall continue for so long as a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall remain open (and operated consistent with the standards of the next paragraph below) at any Universal Theme Park (allowing for temporary closures for force majeure events or refurbishment/maintenance provided they are being diligently pursued), except for termination for material breach (with written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure).

Each THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall be operated and maintained in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the theme park industry and shall be deemed “open” only when operated in such manner (subject to temporary closures for force majeure events as described in the prior paragraph).

At such time as any THE MARVEL UNIVERSE is no longer open at a particular Universal Theme Park, all exclusivity and marketing rights acquired by MCA as a result of the opening of such THE MARVEL UNIVERSE at such Universal Theme Park, as set forth in Section IV below, shall terminate and this Agreement shall thereafter be construed as if the notice of intent to open THE MARVEL UNIVERSE had not been given by MCA.

Now, Iam no lawyer, but reading that SEC listing I could see a creative lawyer taking it Universal and getting Marvel characters on Disney World property.

Funny, reading that, Universal if forced to seek litigation to defend Marvel properties east of the Mississippi if people try to use said properties. If some small time carnival popped up with Marvel characters in New York for example, Universal, not Disney has to go into litigation.

Also worth noting, the agreement is governed in New York.


The fanboi's can try to claim what they want, but I still believe we will see Marvel characters at Disney World sooner than later.



Jimmy Thick-Notice how things have to be constantly considered running at the higest class of industry standards....?