New MARVEL attractions to Disney Parks

[Ignohippo]

I don't believe there's anything at all in the contract about actually EXPANDING Superhero Island. The contract is only for its initial instruction. Any new addition would entail starting from scratch with a new contract.

I imagine this is exactly the way the Star Tours contract is written and why there hasn't been an expansion of Star Wars. Disney may have exclusive rights to SW, but they don't have any right to build anything besides the original attraction. Disney is probably waiting Lucas out (knowing that he can't go anywhere else with his characters) so it'll eventually be in his best interest to accept whatever deal Disney offers him to expand.

As others have stated, eventually Uni will tire of having an outdated Island on its property. Hopefully TF4 will be a major success and they'll decide they'd rather have TF than Marvel.

Still, the other side of the coin is that Uni would be allowing their competitor to add to their arsenal. I hate to say it, but we could end up one day with only one minor attraction at Uni based on the Marvel characters, just so WDW can't have the rights.

Even if they don't see Marvel as a major draw at their parks in the future, they won't want to see them in WDW. I don't see any amount of money that Disney could offer them that would be worth the amount of guests that they could lose to WDW.

 

[Disday]

MichWolz - smart thinking. I don't need any more stress either.

 

[Captain Neo]

Off topic but I don't think six flags OWNS the theme park rights to dc comics do they? I thought they just license it and dc can revoke that license at any time? If wb/dc gave away the theme park rights to their charecters to SIx Flags of all places then they are REALLY dumb (not that it would surprise me based on most of their other decisions over the years.)

 

[misterID]

Marvel likely approved the upgrades to the Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man. What people seem to not notice is that Disney has yet to replace Marvel's executives. It's mostly the same people who were there before the acquisition. Disney ordering Marvel to stop cooperating with Universal would like send the matter(s) into arbitration as it would not be a reasonable action to deny Universal the ability to use the characters. The big hurdle is that the contract alludes to a style guide which dictates how the Marvels characters and Marvel universe is to be representing, this would likely be the basis for what is reasonable.






Why not just read the contract for yourself? It's short and rather easy for non-lawyers to understand. Sure would beat constantly taking wild shots in the dark.

The liscensing fee increases every year in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (inflation). An massive increase in the licensing fee means hell for us as it means we're dealing with massive inflation. There is also the cut from merchandise, which must be purchased from Marvel or a licensed vendor.

As stated, at the time it was a great deal for Marvel. They were heading towards bankruptcy, which they declared about a year and a half after filing the contract. This type of deal may even have helped Marvel survive its bankruptcy as Universal was providing a nearly guaranteed amount of annual income that required little expense on Marvel's part. Nearly guaranteed profit is much more important when your in the red than hoping you'll become massively popular, through films of all things, a decade down the road.

Marvel Studios is where Marvel has invested most of their time and energy and have been extremely, EXTREMELY successful. From what I understand, Disney doesn't have a lot of say-so in how Marvel is run and they're not going to be replacing anybody in Marvel's corporate structure. Why replace people who know what they're doing with people who don't? Wouldn't make much sense. They're basically there to distribute and take in merch/ticket sales.

Marvel will be coming out with an "Inhumans" film at some point... But then again, they were tied in with the Fantastic 4.

 

[Lee]

I would really like to see Aqua Man be brought to the Big Screen. I can only imagine what could be done with that one.

It did well when Jim Cameron made it with Vinnie Chase....

Kidding, of course.

 

[DisneyWales]

The other strategy that Disney could take however is to put Universal into a position where they are paying to advertise Disney Attractions and products.

While a Disneyland Marvel attraction won't dent the bottom line of USF, the fact that they can't add any new attractions to Super Hero Island, they are tied with a rapidly ageing land. They can never add a new attraction to make the land appealing again, and eventually they will want to.

A Disney tied attraction at Disneyland Cali/Paris/Shanghai could work against Universal having the characters at all, as if Disney create a headline global attraction, and then start putting Disney at the start of the future Marvel movies, people will start to associate the characters with Disney, hence any marketing Universal do with ultimately improve Disney's brand.

Universal could eventually be forced with a choice to keep funding their competitor, through Merch sales and annual royalties for the rights or seek a more financially benefiting deal.

After London Project 2, and if transformers proves a big seller for them, i wouldn't be too surprised of them to look to loose Marvel (which by then they will share theme park space with Disney), and look to secure a franchise they have sole theme park rights for.

Now this could work the other way, as IOA is more established, general public may see Avengers attraction on TV and think, "Thats at Universal isn't it?" but who knows.

I think Marvel is at USF for at least 8-10 years, but i wouldn't be shocked if after that they may look to replace the theme (easy to do with everything apart from Spiderman).

I know I would prefer to promote something thats unique to my park rather than at 3/4 of my competitors parks around the world.

 

[lebeau]

Spawn, Venom, Lobo, Static Shock, Cyborg, Doomsday, and many more are extremely iconic heroes and villains and all came well after the 70s. So I'm not sure what your talking about

None of those characters are iconic. Most people haven't heard of them. Kids know Static Shock and Cyborg from cartoons. Some people remember the cr@ppy Spawn movie. There hasn't been a character on par with Superman, Batman, Spider-man or Wolverine in decades. Certainly no one you would base a theme park attraction on.

 

[Ignohippo]

The other strategy that Disney could take however is to put Universal into a position where they are paying to advertise Disney Attractions and products.

While a Disneyland Marvel attraction won't dent the bottom line of USF, the fact that they can't add any new attractions to Super Hero Island, they are tied with a rapidly ageing land. They can never add a new attraction to make the land appealing again, and eventually they will want to.

A Disney tied attraction at Disneyland Cali/Paris/Shanghai could work against Universal having the characters at all, as if Disney create a headline global attraction, and then start putting Disney at the start of the future Marvel movies, people will start to associate the characters with Disney, hence any marketing Universal do with ultimately improve Disney's brand.

Universal could eventually be forced with a choice to keep funding their competitor, through Merch sales and annual royalties for the rights or seek a more financially benefiting deal.

After London Project 2, and if transformers proves a big seller for them, i wouldn't be too surprised of them to look to loose Marvel (which by then they will share theme park space with Disney), and look to secure a franchise they have sole theme park rights for.

Now this could work the other way, as IOA is more established, general public may see Avengers attraction on TV and think, "Thats at Universal isn't it?" but who knows.

I think Marvel is at USF for at least 8-10 years, but i wouldn't be shocked if after that they may look to replace the theme (easy to do with everything apart from Spiderman).

I know I would prefer to promote something thats unique to my park rather than at 3/4 of my competitors parks around the world.

I think you're right on.

I don't remember seeing it in the contract, but I wonder if Uni has to spend $XXX on advertising the Marvel properties each year. I would find it hard to believe that wouldn't be in the contract.

If so, I can see them tiring of promoting something that will be in other Disney parks.

But, then again, they may do just about anything to make sure WDW doesn't get Marvel so they can't use it against them.

 

[lebeau]

Off topic but I don't think six flags OWNS the theme park rights to dc comics do they? I thought they just license it and dc can revoke that license at any time? If wb/dc gave away the theme park rights to their charecters to SIx Flags of all places then they are REALLY dumb (not that it would surprise me based on most of their other decisions over the years.)

My understanding is that Six Flags has the DC/Looney Tunes liscense forever. It's a similar situation to the Marvel/Uni arrangement. Why not sell to Six Flags? They don't operate theme parks. If you don't sell the rights, they go to waste. Might as well create a regular income stream.

I wish DC had sold to Disney or Uni instead. But I would consider the dumb decision to have been to not sell the rights to someone.

 

[lebeau]

While a Disneyland Marvel attraction won't dent the bottom line of USF, the fact that they can't add any new attractions to Super Hero Island, they are tied with a rapidly ageing land. They can never add a new attraction to make the land appealing again, and eventually they will want to.

Why do people keep stating this as though it is a fact? Has this been established anywhere? I don't believe this is a fact at all. It may be true, but I don't believe it has been factually established. If it has, please provide some back-up. I am very interested if there is a definitive answer out there somewhere. I have been looking and I can't find one.

 

[jt04]

Why do people keep stating this as though it is a fact? Has this been established anywhere? I don't believe this is a fact at all. It may be true, but I don't believe it has been factually established. If it has, please provide some back-up. I am very interested if there is a definitive answer out there somewhere. I have been looking and I can't find one.

They would need to go to Marvel (i.e. Disney) for permission to expand with new attractions is what I have heard. I have also read on these boards that they have certain standards to adhere to as it pertains to content and quality. I would imagine the issue is inseperable from these standards.

In my opinion for them to add new attractions they would need permission from Disney who would likely want to void the current contract first. Seems unlikely to happen.

It is even possible that the upgrades to Spiderman were necessary to stay within the requirements of the contract. Just a guess though.

 

[lebeau]

They would need to go to Marvel (i.e. Disney) for permission to expand with new attractions is what I have heard. I have also read on these boards that they have certain standards to adhere to as it pertains to content and quality. I would imagine the issue is inseperable from these standards.

In my opinion for them to add new attractions they would need permission from Disney who would likely want to void the current contract first. Seems unlikely to happen.

It is even possible that the upgrades to Spiderman were necessary to stay within the requirements of the contract. Just a guess though.

I have read over the contract and I find it to be exceptionally vague regarding this issue. The fact is, I don't think anyone really knows what would be involved in an expansion. I doubt even Disney or Universal are 100% clear on what Universal can or can not do.

My guess is it would have to be agreed upon by both parties (unlikely) or decided in court. I don't see Universal deciding to go to court over this any time soon if ever. But if they did decide to go to court, it seems to me they have a good argument to do anything that does not violate "reasonable use". So as long as they didn't portray the Avengers in an unflattering light, I believe they probably could build a new attraction if they wanted to push the issue.

I know there was a rumor floating around that Universal wanted to build an Iron Man attraction and Disney shot them down. But I have never seen anyone I trusted verify this rumor. It sounds like Screamscape internet fodder to me. Not saying it didn't happen. Maybe it did. But I'm not satisfied with accepting it as fact without a little more support.

Again, factually I don't think anyone will ever know the answer until it is agreed upon by both parties or decided in court. Which is unlikely in the short term. But possible in the distant post-HP future.

 

[danlb_2000]

Why do people keep stating this as though it is a fact? Has this been established anywhere? I don't believe this is a fact at all. It may be true, but I don't believe it has been factually established. If it has, please provide some back-up. I am very interested if there is a definitive answer out there somewhere. I have been looking and I can't find one.

I have tried to find an answer to this in the contract, but I don't see a clear answer there. In the section on "Development of the Marvel Universe" it says:

"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"

But it's not clear if this pertains to only the initial development or any on-going development. If this pertains to new development then it would come down to a question of what is "reasonable approval", but Disney couldn't flat out deny Universal's request to build new attractions.

 

[lebeau]

I have tried to find an answer to this in the contract, but I see a clear answer there. In the section on "Development of the Marvel Universe" it says:

"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"

But it's not clear if this pertains to only the initial development or any on-going development. If this pertains to new development then it would come down to a question of what is "reasonable approval", but Disney couldn't flat out deny Universal's request to build new attractions.

That's pretty much how I read that too.

Universal requests to build a big e-ticket Avengers ride that blows away anything Disney has built in the last 20 years. Disney gives them a knee-jerk "no". Universal sues. Judge says, "What is your objection?" Disney's answer can't be "because this would be good for our competition". They have to have some reasonable objection.

Now, if Universal is unwilling to go to court, Disney can just shut them down. But I think Universal knows this. So if they really want to build an expansion, they know they will likely need to go to court to do so.

The flip side is, I think Disney would be embarassed to go to court and be painted as unreasonable bad guys. I can see the headlines proclaiming the Mouse to be like Dr. Doom. Disney hates bad press. So, maybe they play nice (relatively speaking.)

My point is, I do think Universal could eventually expand if they were interested enough to do so. For the present, I think they are content with the popular franchises they can use without resorting to legal action. Building more HP first makes the most sense. And Transformers seems obvious.

Somewhere down the line though, I could easily see Universal pursuing a Marvel expansion of some kind. And I don't really think Disney could stop them. At best, I think they put up road blocks.

 

[fosse76]

They would need to go to Marvel (i.e. Disney) for permission to expand with new attractions is what I have heard. I have also read on these boards that they have certain standards to adhere to as it pertains to content and quality. I would imagine the issue is inseperable from these standards.

In my opinion for them to add new attractions they would need permission from Disney who would likely want to void the current contract first. Seems unlikely to happen.

It is even possible that the upgrades to Spiderman were necessary to stay within the requirements of the contract. Just a guess though.

There's nothing in the contract that prevents them from building new attractions. My understanding also is that they need to get approval from Marvel. However, there is no room for them to build anything new, unless they expand to where the the Toon Lagoon Theater is located and squeeze something in there. Disney refusing to allow them to build something new would be breach of contract, since they must perform contractual obligations in good faith.

 

[71jason]

None of those characters are iconic. Most people haven't heard of them. Kids know Static Shock and Cyborg from cartoons. Some people remember the cr@ppy Spawn movie. There hasn't been a character on par with Superman, Batman, Spider-man or Wolverine in decades. Certainly no one you would base a theme park attraction on.

^ This--I'm talking general public, not the shrinking demographic who still buy comics. By iconic, I mean your parents would recognize them and know a couple background details (e.g. "Kryptonite is his weakness", "He has a teen sidekick named Robin"). No one mentioned would support a theme park ride.

Incidentally, on that list, Venom is clearly in Spidey's family, Spawn was originally under McFarlane's private label...and the others as far as I know were all DC. Which kind of re-enforces my point.

My understanding is that Six Flags has the DC/Looney Tunes liscense forever. It's a similar situation to the Marvel/Uni arrangement.

Even if this is the case, the closest 6 Flags to Orlando is 8 hours away. I can't believe they will EVER build in Florida. Money talks, and who knows, a deal could maybe be struck. I agree with others this is at least a decade off in the unlikely event if comes to pass. Spidey remains a top 5 ride in Orlando, Hulk remains the #1 coaster for most-- makes more sense to concentrate on more Potterverse stores.

Disney refusing to allow them to build something new would be breach of contract, since they must perform contractual obligations in good faith.

One of the things I think non-lawyers don't get--you can't just arbitrarily decide you want to screw over someone you have a contract with. There's an implied obligation of good faith. Even if Disney has veto rights, it would have to be a reasonable veto, based on protecting the brand.

 

[ctxak98]

Basically what ChrisFL said:



And don't get me wrong, I like the Marvel characters. I really just don't feel they belong at disney. Its like Mayonnaise on an Oreo, it just doesn't work.

Ok to me when people say this it sounds weird to me because all I get out of it is. "Yes we want Universal to be the best Theme Park"??? To me nothing That Disney does now out of its own franchises is going to Pull Millions of guests away from going to Potterland. If Disney doesnt add another outside Hit I feel like its going to fall even farther. I mean would guests rather go on a ride about the Avengers? or a ride on 20,000 leagues under the sea? Just my two cents but thats how I feel:shrug:

 

[WDWmazprty]

Ok to me when people say this it sounds weird to me because all I get out of it is. "Yes we want Universal to be the best Theme Park"??? To me nothing That Disney does now out of its own franchises is going to Pull Millions of guests away from going to Potterland. If Disney doesnt add another outside Hit I feel like its going to fall even farther. I mean would guests rather go on a ride about the Avengers? or a ride on 20,000 leagues under the sea? Just my two cents but thats how I feel:shrug:

Depends on who that guest is. I for one, as a Disney fanboy love 20,000 leagues under the sea, but you know what? I'm also a Marvel fanboy and would love to go on an Avengers ride more; thats just me.

 

[lebeau]

Even if this is the case, the closest 6 Flags to Orlando is 8 hours away. I can't believe they will EVER build in Florida. Money talks, and who knows, a deal could maybe be struck.

You probably know this already. But originally, Marvel Super Hero Island had a Batman theme. So, yes, I think a deal could be struck. I don't think it is remotely likely. But it is within the realm of possibility.

 

[lebeau]

Ok to me when people say this it sounds weird to me because all I get out of it is. "Yes we want Universal to be the best Theme Park"??? To me nothing That Disney does now out of its own franchises is going to Pull Millions of guests away from going to Potterland. If Disney doesnt add another outside Hit I feel like its going to fall even farther. I mean would guests rather go on a ride about the Avengers? or a ride on 20,000 leagues under the sea? Just my two cents but thats how I feel:shrug:

Depends on who that guest is. I for one, as a Disney fanboy love 20,000 leagues under the sea, but you know what? I'm also a Marvel fanboy and would love to go on an Avengers ride more; thats just me.

This whole conversation has gotten me thinking about themes. Do they really matter? Would I like Tower of Terror more or less if it had a different theme?

I think a beloved theme can enhance an experience. But ultimately, I don't think Disney or Universal is going to live or die based on the theme park rights they have. Even HP wasn't a sure thing. Universal's success with HP is a result of execution combined with a popular franchise.

Of the two, I think execution is more important. A great ride will attract a following even if it is based on something no one has heard of. A lousy ride based on a popular movie will eventually die out.

So, even as popular as Marvel characters currently are and likely will continue to be, neither Disney nor Universal NEEDS them to survive.