New MARVEL attractions to Disney Parks

[lebeau]

Of course if you can actually prove I am wrong with facts I am sure everyone would applaud you and buy you lunch.

If you read the contract, the facts are all there. Yes, there are grey areas that would need to be decided by an arbitor if it ever came to that. Read the contract and get back to me about your theories.

No need to buy me lunch.

Why on earth would they base it on a lame, now obscure tim burton movie from the early 90s? They should have been more faithful to the comics rather than emulating the poorly made burton/schumacher batman films. Penguin is a lame villian anyway.

The plans are very old. The 90's Batman film series was the dominant interpretation at the time.

And then there's people like me who wasn't even aware there was a Batman animated series, but I've seen (and remember well) all the films....:shrug:

It's likely an age thing. Most of us old enough to remember when the Adam West Batman series was still running, probably have no clue about an animated series.

It's been my experience that cartoon and video game fans greatly overestimate the cultural impact of their little niche.

In the world of TV toons, B:TAS is a heavy weight. Few series measure up. But most people are more familiar with the movies. Even Batman and Robin. TV toons just don't have as broad of an audience.

I say that as a fan of B:TAS (I have an animation cell from 1992) who still watches the super hero toons on Sat mornings. They are great. But they are far from mainstream. A lot of fans don't realize this.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Perhaps Disney can come to some sort of understanding with Universal where they can buy the rights to just 1 or 2 franchises from the Marvel Universe from Universal? I would rather have Asgard land then New Fantasyland to be honest with you and i'd be on the next plane back to CA if they had Marvel rides at Disneyland/DCA.

What you, and everybody who suggestios some sort of renegotiation, seem to forget is that NBC Universal is just as aware of the success of the Marvel films and now The Avengers in particular. These types of successes are only a legitimate reason for NBC Universal to increase whatever ridiculous price they would already want for anything. Marvel needs to become less popular for NBC Universal to be willing to renegotiate or to sell for a reasonable price. So unless Disney is going to force Kevin Feige to produce a few bombs, squandering the $4 billion spent on Marvel, then there is little wiggle room for Disney.

 

[jt04]

I believe Lee has said Disney is very happy with the deal and sees no need to negotiate for the right to use the characters from IoA at WDW.

 

[jt04]

^It is as if Ford had a deal with Chevy that had Chevy promoting and selling Fords in Chevy dealerships. Really no downside for Ford in such a scenario.

 

[lazyboy97o]

^It is as if Ford had a deal with Chevy that had Chevy promoting and selling Fords in Chevy dealerships. Really no downside for Ford in such a scenario.

The issue of brand confusion should not be overlooked. However, unlike the Disney-Pixar relationship, which was instantly solidified by Pixar branding becoming Disney-Pixar, we have not seen similar moves regarding Marvel. Yes, there is merchandise in the parks and the Disney Stores, but that is not much in the grand scheme. Yes, Disney marketed and distributed The Avengers, but Disney's name does not appear on any marketing materials or before the film, just a single line of text at the very, very end. We also have not seen even meet and greets at the parks, despite them continuing for other releases (see Merida from Brave).

Iger's words indicate that he would like to accelerate the establishment of a Disney-Marvel identity. I am starting to think more and more that it is Marvel that is resisting Disney's desire to more closely relate the brands. Iger seems to almost bordering on the thought that "content is content," where the people at Marvel could better see the different tones between the Disney's brands and Marvel's. Supposedly the Marvel executives were rather well invested in their company, which translated to so decent chunks of stocks in The Walt Disney Company. The success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as we are seeing right now, is something Disney wants to see continue, and alienating Marvel's key creative personelle could be tantamount to pushing out a group almost equivalent to Pixar's "brain trust." Disney spent $4 billion not just to acquire the characters, but also the people who have been at Marvel and turned around the company's fortunes, making it worth $4 billion.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Unfortunately people continue to overlook a simple fact.

If Disney wants the theme park rights for the Marvel characters, they will get them.

It does not matter what anyone wants to think or what people think Disney thinks, if Disney decides due to the success of the Avengers, which apparently could become the highest grossing film of all time, that they now want to feature those characters in the parks, they will do so, perpetual contract or not. People tend to underestimate Disney all the time, but tend to forget they are a billion dollar conglomerate capable of buying out anyone.



Jimmy Thick-Thank Micheal Eisner for that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Unfortunately people continue to overlook a simple fact.

If Disney wants the theme park rights for the Marvel characters, they will get them.

It does not matter what anyone wants to think or what people think Disney thinks, if Disney decides due to the success of the Avengers, which apparently could become the highest grossing film of all time, that they now want to feature those characters in the parks, they will do so, perpetual contract or not. People tend to underestimate Disney all the time, but tend to forget they are a billion dollar conglomerate capable of buying out anyone.



Jimmy Thick-Thank Micheal Eisner for that.

And you seem to forget that Comcast and GE are also both large conglomerates. Just a few years ago Comcast felt themselves in the position to purchase The Walt Disney Company, the very company you think can bully them into selling the rights to the Marvel characters.

By all measures Comcast is just as large, if not larger than The Walt Disney Company. General Electric is much larger than The Walt Disney Company.

 

[coolbeans14]

Could you imagine if it changed to "Disney's marvel"? Then uni would need to plaster Disney in their theme park.. Eek.

 

[ChrisFL]

Unfortunately people continue to overlook a simple fact.

And you continue to overlook a simple fact. Fanboys on the sidelines don't make decisions for massive global companies.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Could you imagine if it changed to "Disney's marvel"? Then uni would need to plaster Disney in their theme park.. Eek.

Why would the Disney name have to be on it? Just make it Marvel Studios/Islands of Adventures. However, I really can't see this happening. I would see Universal selling their rights or giving them up after a few years and moving on to some other movie franchise. But right now, they're probably enjoying the publicity and the popularity of Avengers.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Unfortunately people continue to overlook a simple fact.

If Disney wants the theme park rights for the Marvel characters, they will get them.

Universal owns those rights to the characters they are currently using, and nothing short of a HUGE boat load of cash is going to convince them to give them back to Disney right now, especially while the movie and characters are as popular as they are right now. I think both companies are at a stalemate with the issue right now. Universal is probably unwilling to sell what they have, and Disney can't build anything (east of the Mississippi) right now to take advantage of the popularity. Wait a few years until the popularity dies down, and their next installment of Harry Potter is up and running, and maybe the price will be more negotiable. Until then, don't hold your breath.

 

[lebeau]

Could you imagine if it changed to "Disney's marvel"? Then uni would need to plaster Disney in their theme park.. Eek.

Contractually, I don't believe they would be obligated to make such a move even if Disney changed the name.

However, if Disney changed Marvel to Disney's Marvel they would automatically defeat the purpose of buying Marvel in the first place. Marvel would become uncool overnight. And Disney would be flooded with complaints every time a Disney's Marvel comic book contained content inapproprriate for a kindergartner (which is pretty much every Marvel comic book).

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Contractually, I don't believe they would be obligated to make such a move even if Disney changed the name.

However, if Disney changed Marvel to Disney's Marvel they would automatically defeat the purpose of buying Marvel in the first place. Marvel would become uncool overnight. And Disney would be flooded with complaints every time a Disney's Marvel comic book contained content inapproprriate for a kindergartner (which is pretty much every Marvel comic book).

So with a statement like that, Disney is uncool?



Jimmy Thick-This ought to be good.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Universal owns those rights to the characters they are currently using, and nothing short of a HUGE boat load of cash is going to convince them to give them back to Disney right now, especially while the movie and characters are as popular as they are right now. I think both companies are at a stalemate with the issue right now. Universal is probably unwilling to sell what they have, and Disney can't build anything (east of the Mississippi) right now to take advantage of the popularity. Wait a few years until the popularity dies down, and their next installment of Harry Potter is up and running, and maybe the price will be more negotiable. Until then, don't hold your breath.

Again, how is it a stalemate? People keep thinking Disney would like to build at Walt Disney World, but why would that hurry exist? We still have not seen anything at any of the other Disney parks. Why agonize over Universal blocking the characters from Florida when nothing has been done elsewhere? There is no big push of Marvel into the theme parks.

So with a statement like that, Disney is uncool?



Jimmy Thick-This ought to be good.

Yes, that is exactly why Disney bought Marvel, to appeal to a demographic that is not interested in Disney branded products.

 

[fosse76]

There is nothing in the contract that says these number can be re-negotiated.

Like everything else in any contract, both parties have to agree to put terms in the contract they want to agree to. Some contracts have clauses where they have to re-visit certain terms in the contract, some don't. However, every contract can be re-negotiated. BOTH parties have to agree, however (unless the aforementioned clause is in the contract mandating a renegotiation).

 

[fosse76]

Now if these numbers can be renegotiated, who is to say Disney can't make these values higher and high enough Uni might not want to deal with it?

Contract Law, that's who's to say. There is no clause in the agreement between Universal and Marvel where terms of the contract must be re-negotiated. Since the contract is in perpetuity (i.e., no expiration), the terms in the contract cannot be altered independently. Both parties must agree to re-negotiate the terms of the contract, otherwise the contract stands. Universal has absolutely no reason to alter the contract terms.

Uni could tell Disney to take a hike, but Disney could say, and these are just made up numbers please nothing more, but I don't know when the contract was signed, but for the sake of argument...

Yes, they can tell Marvel/Disney that, and continue using Marvel characters as laid-out in the contract.

Say the contract was signed in 2000 and, for example this annual fee was 1 million dollars, Disney could claim one million dollars dont cut it, the want 500 million a year now, Uni says no way, Disney goes to court stating inflation bla,bla bla...

A crafty lawyer could make things work.

No, a crafty lawyer couldn't. Unless the contract specifically says that the rates/fees "shall" be increased based on inflation (or whatever), then Marvel/Disney is out of luck. It's not the Court's problem that Marvel sold themselves short. The contract is binding, and Marvel/Disney has no choice but to adhere to its terms until Universal makes a move.

Imagine if you signed a 2-year lease for an apartment for $1100/month, but market conditions changed a year later where the landlord felt the property was now worth $2000/month. Do you honestly believe that he could just raise your rent in the middle of a lease like that? (and FYI, a lease is a contract, too).

Will it happen I seriously doubt it, but there are a lot of things people could work with if so inclined.

Marvel/Disney is out of luck. There would have to be an irreperable breach of contract on Universal's part for them to even have a hope of re-acquiring the rights. The contract even states that should a breach occur, Universal has the right to take steps to rectify the breach.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Contract Law, that's who's to say. There is no clause in the agreement between Universal and Marvel where terms of the contract must be re-negotiated. Since the contract is in perpetuity (i.e., no expiration), the terms in the contract cannot be altered independently. Both parties must agree to re-negotiate the terms of the contract, otherwise the contract stands. Universal has absolutely no reason to alter the contract terms.



Yes, they can tell Marvel/Disney that, and continue using Marvel characters as laid-out in the contract.


No, a crafty lawyer couldn't. Unless the contract specifically says that the rates/fees "shall" be increased based on inflation (or whatever), then Marvel/Disney is out of luck. It's not the Court's problem that Marvel sold themselves short. The contract is binding, and Marvel/Disney has no choice but to adhere to its terms until Universal makes a move.

Imagine if you signed a 2-year lease for an apartment for $1100/month, but market conditions changed a year later where the landlord felt the property was now worth $2000/month. Do you honestly believe that he could just raise your rent in the middle of a lease like that? (and FYI, a lease is a contract, too).


Marvel/Disney is out of luck. There would have to be an irreperable breach of contract on Universal's part for them to even have a hope of re-acquiring the rights. The contract even states that should a breach occur, Universal has the right to take steps to rectify the breach.

Iam not arguing any of this, I feel Marvel got screwed in this contract, I won't debate this.

But...

There are a lot of things in this contract that could be worked against Universal if a crafty lawyer decided it was worth it. It depends how far Disney would want to go and how much money they would want to spend in litigation.

People are quick to point out this contract is perpetual, but its only perpetual unless people open up the check book.


Jimmy Thick-The whole point...?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Iam not arguing any of this, I feel Marvel got screwed in this contract, I won't debate this.

Only if you ignore Marvel's situation in 1994.

There are a lot of things in this contract that could be worked against Universal if a crafty lawyer decided it was worth it. It depends how far Disney would want to go and how much money they would want to spend in litigation.

You're not the first to say something along these lines. Care to be the first to give specific examples quoted from the contract?

People are quick to point out this contract is perpetual, but its only perpetual unless people open up the check book.

NBC Universal knows exactly how much they are going to pay each year. The annual fee is set and increases only with inflation, which tends to stay around 3%. The merchandise fee comes out of the markup that customers pay. Comcast, which is just as large if not bigger than The Walt Disney Company, has also shown interest in the Universal theme parks.

 

[baymenxpac]

Iam not arguing any of this, I feel Marvel got screwed in this contract, I won't debate this.

But...

There are a lot of things in this contract that could be worked against Universal if a crafty lawyer decided it was worth it. It depends how far Disney would want to go and how much money they would want to spend in litigation.

People are quick to point out this contract is perpetual, but its only perpetual unless people open up the check book.


Jimmy Thick-The whole point...?

that sounds a lot like wishful thinking on your part.

based on my experiences living with one, i can tell you it sounds like fosse is a lawyer (or at one time was). what i've learned: if you're not a lawyer, it's really hard to make any judgments or inferences on contracts or legal cases. best to leave it to the people who went to law school for three years and are qualified to talk about such nuances.

 

[fosse76]

Only if you ignore Marvel's situation in 1994.

Exactly. Universal did to Marvel what Disney has been doing to rights-holders for decades. The is normal business practices: make the best deal for you...and at the time Marvel was an independent Company with no reason to believe the terms were entirely against them. It's only a bad deal for a major corporation with theme parks, movie studios and television networks.

Only if you ignore Marvel's situation in 1994.

You're not the first to say something along these lines. Care to be the first to give specific examples quoted from the contract?

You beat me to it! I'd like to know exactly what in the contract can work against Universal.

Even if something isn't maintained to contractual standards, the contract allows Universal to cure the deficiency and bring it to the contractual level required within a reasonable amount of time.