Rides coming out of the Fox Deal

A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Well-Known Member
Honestly I think they should license a lot of them out to Universal, Cedar, SixFlags, Busch Gardens etc. They have uses for Anastasia, Ice Age, Rio, and the Marvel properties. Maybe Planet of the Apes as well.

The rest though? Seems like they won't fit at Disney too well and why let IPs sit idle when you can promote your brand while bringing in FCF with no capex risk? I know Disney's C level executives are not the smartest of people, but this is a no brainer. Franchises like Predator, Kingsmen, Aliens, Die Hard, Simpsons, Family Guy, Archer, King of the Hill, American Horror Story, etc do not really fit well with Disney's image, but could be a good ride or whatever at another park. Free money + promote a brand that you otherwise would not promote. Seems like a win win to me.

Plus I want a Paddy's Pub bar somewhere.
 
Cmdr_Crimson

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
TwilightZone said:
I need nemo shark footage now, I never heard of this.
Click to expand...
I know what he's talking about...The shark Chum in the Submarine would lunge at guests...At times I've seen it work...But, they just slowly move him out and he then goes back in slowly...rather it being a Jumpscare...Found this pic on Flickr...
5493770705_e774c2c3fa_b.jpg
FOUND FOOTAGE! Go to the 3:24 Second mark....

Again the effect is random sometimes it's on sometimes it's off..
 
M

MikeThe1

New Member
geekza said:
Nobody outside of the two companies has a copy of the contract, so we really don't know exactly which characters are covered by it, but we have a pretty good idea because of what has already been used by Universal.
Click to expand...

I know this is an older thread, but I'm sorry--that's just flat out false.

The signed contract was filed with the SEC. With the exception of certain elements (i.e. specifics of cost, which were "filed separately"), the content of the entire signed contract is available to anyone who cares to read it.

Here:

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

Whomever told you that only the companies in question had a copy of it lied to you.

To sum up, Universal (previously "MCA, Inc.") had two years of worldwide exclusivity to decide which Marvel characters they wanted in their park. After that 2 years, theme park rights to the whole of Marvel opened up to anyone west of the Mississippi, while Universal retained the rights to anyone in the "families" (which, yes, is defined in the contract), regardless of whether or not they were already in use, east of the Mississippi, for the purposes of allowing them potential expansion without requiring Marvel's oversight or renegotiation.

Put even more simply, the characters that Universal has a right to are those who would've been considered part of the families of Spider-Man, The X-Men, Avengers, & Fantastic Four (heroes & villains) as of, or became such within, 2 years of the park opening.

With some characters, there's more room for interpretation than others, but there's no secret list that only Marvel & Universal are privy to. The relationship is defined by the linked contract, and will be (strictly), until one party thinks the other party overstepped & takes them to court, at which time the relationship will be governed by the linked contract and the resulting court order(s)/rulings.

There's no need for a more specific contract highlighting specific characters (which is what you seem to be alluding to the existence of), because, though a touch vague, this one covers the rights & limits of the "after 2 years" period quite well. A new, more specific contract would merely be restating what both parties already knew this one said.
 
Last edited:
ppete1975

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
MikeThe1 said:
I know this is an older thread, but I'm sorry--that's just flat out false.

The signed contract was filed with the SEC. With the exception of certain elements (i.e. specifics of cost, which were "filed separately"), the content of the entire signed contract is available to anyone who cares to read it.

Here:

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

Whomever told you that only the companies in question had a copy of it lied to you.

To sum up, Universal (previously "MCA, Inc.") had two years of worldwide exclusivity to decide which Marvel characters they wanted in their park. After that 2 years, theme park rights to the whole of Marvel opened up to anyone west of the Mississippi, while Universal retained the rights to anyone in the "families" (which, yes, is defined in the contract), regardless of whether or not they were already in use, east of the Mississippi, for the purposes of allowing them potential expansion without requiring Marvel's oversight or renegotiation.

Put even more simply, the characters that Universal has a right to are those who would've been considered part of the families of Spider-Man, The X-Men, Avengers, & Fantastic Four (heroes & villains) as of, or became such within, 2 years of the park opening.

With some characters, there's more room for interpretation than others, but there's no secret list that only Marvel & Universal are privy to. The relationship is defined by the linked contract, and will be (strictly), until one party thinks the other party overstepped & takes them to court, at which time the relationship will be governed by the linked contract and the resulting court order(s)/rulings.

There's no need for a more specific contract highlighting specific characters (which is what you seem to be alluding to the existence of), because, though a touch vague, this one covers the rights & limits of the "after 2 years" period quite well. A new, more specific contract would merely be restating what both parties already knew this one said.
Click to expand...
You have to admit, universal was smart in their decision of what characters to use. It pretty much locked down most of the characters due to the "family" relationship.
 
M

MikeThe1

New Member
I'll be honest: I made my post after a very long day & was less than careful in doing so. I made at least a few factual errors, which I didn't discover until this morning (some I may not have discovered yet at all), though I didn't correct them, because I assumed someone would beat me to the punch.

As that hasn't happened yet, and nobody's stepped forward except for @MisterPenguin (thank you, sincerely), I figured I'd point out now the ones I noticed:

1) I believe I got the terms of the "families" incorrect. Reading it again, I don't think it's determined when the deal took effect, but, rather, by when a request is/was made by another entity to license the characters.

2) Having never been to IOA (my last visit to Universal was very shortly before IOA opened), I spoke out of turn with regard to Universal's exclusive rights to the X-Men. It's possible I was correct, but, if I was, it's purely by accident. My comment was based on my knowledge of the ability to meet Storm & Cyclops. Though I was aware of the part of the contract that specifies that characters don't constitute use by Universal for the purposes of exclusivity, I wasn't thinking about it at the time. Personally, given the topic, I find that element to be somewhat counter-intuitive, but I can understand exactly why it was in Marvel's best interests. Without it, Universal could have claimed perpetual exclusivity of every Marvel character available, simply by rotating meet & greets.

Again, those are the ones I noticed. It's possible that there are several more that I didn't. As such, I'd encourage anyone inclined to do so to read the contract with your own eyes, rather than take my word for the contents.
 
Darkzeid25

Darkzeid25

Well-Known Member
I'm trying to think of any characters that wouldn't fall under the "families" umbrella. Obviously Guardians of the Galaxy (even though the original is closely related to the Avengers.) Daredevil? Doctor Strange? Both have been Avengers, but started out in their own titles.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Darkzeid25 said:
I'm trying to think of any characters that wouldn't fall under the "families" umbrella. Obviously Guardians of the Galaxy (even though the original is closely related to the Avengers.) Daredevil? Doctor Strange? Both have been Avengers, but started out in their own titles.
Click to expand...

A lot of the ones that don't fall under families are also ones developed for an adult audience and on TV or Streaming Services, and therefor, not easily portable to a family-friendly audience, or, not as popular: DareDevil and the other Defenders; Legion; Deadpool; Agents of Shield; Ghost Rider; Inhumans; Punisher.
 
Darkzeid25

Darkzeid25

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
A lot of the ones that don't fall under families are also ones developed for an adult audience and on TV or Streaming Services, and therefor, not easily portable to a family-friendly audience, or, not as popular: DareDevil and the other Defenders; Legion; Deadpool; Agents of Shield; Ghost Rider; Inhumans; Punisher.
Click to expand...
Legion and Deadpool probably fall under the X-Men umbrella. Inhumans may be under Fantastic Four. Punisher may fall under Spider-Man because that's where he debuted.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Darkzeid25 said:
Legion and Deadpool probably fall under the X-Men umbrella. Inhumans may be under Fantastic Four. Punisher may fall under Spider-Man because that's where he debuted.
Click to expand...

"Family" definitely isn't defined that broadly, otherwise Guardians and Doctor Strange wouldn't have had presences in WDW.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom