Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
I think that he is technically a 'New Avenger'. Plus he's in the Defenders (which I want to say is a part of the Uni contract)
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Star Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Walt Disney World
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
In the Marvel universe, being an Avenger is like jury duty... everyone must serve a term.
mvieguy
Active Member
But, there is a chance, that characters that Universal is not promoting within the park. X-men, Spidey, Fantastic Four, Hulk, etc. could not be used
but characters such as Dr. Strange, Guardians, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, and The Inhumans they can
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
I have no doubt that they can use the Inhumans since it's a lesser known property (though I'd need to see the Uni contract to be sure)
asianway
Well-Known Member
Inhumans are fantastic four family...
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
Then Disney probably can't put them in Orlando.
People keep using the "family" clause incorrectly. "Family" only appears twice in one paragraph which is specifically about freeing up Marvel characters not in significant use by Universal.
a. After such 2 year period, MCA’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows:
1) If no action is taken by MCA, such exclusivity shall be limited as follows:
The Inhumans have not been used by Universal...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.]
- as more than an incidental element of an attraction
- presented as a costumed character
- as more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail facility
- as an element in any marketing the previous year
In other words: "Hey, Universal, if you don't want us to license certain characters to other theme parks, then you got to use the character in more than an incidental fashion."
So, we can't just keep expanding "family" to mean appearance in the comic books, but actual and significant appearance in the parks. Use them or lose them.
Doctor Strange was once an Avenger in the comic books, and so belongs to the Avenger family, but he was never used more than incidentally at Universal. So, we got the Doctor Strange streetmosphere at DHS. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is making just about every Marvel Character part of the family, but the Guardians were never leveraged at Universal, so, they could go to DHS.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
It sounds like you are reading this differently then most people. I interpret this as meaning that Universal has exclusive use of any character that is used in more then an incidental way in the parks, OR is in the same family as one of those character. So Iron Man is not used in more then an incidental way but Iron Man is an Avenger, so they have exclusive right to Iron Man because they are using Hulk (and likely Captain America) in more then an incidental way.
I still have the Justice League vs Avenger crossovers back in 1980s, even then both teams was made honorary members of both teams, also love the X-men vs Teen Titans, Superman vs Fantastic Four, Superman vs Spider-man and Batman vs Hulks, Punisher vs Archies
Raineman
Well-Known Member
Does anyone know how long Uni has the east coast Marvel theme park rights? I'm sure Disney is chomping at the bit waiting for that contract to expire, as I would imagine that Uni would want an exorbitant amount from Disney to buy out the contract, given the massive amount of change that would require at IOA.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
The contract has no expiration date. As long as Universal continues to use the characters and they properly maintain the attractions, then they can keep the exclusivity.
Well, then a broad meaning of "family" in that interpretation would have precluded Doctor Strange from showing up at DHS, and in the end, any Marvel character, since just about every single one was once an Avenger. The contract presumes there are Marvel characters out there that Uni would lose using if they don't use them. So, "family" can't be that broadly defined.
Which leaves us the question of how narrowly defined?
The Fantastic Four is four people. The Avengers is hundreds.
And that's the problem with the contract... It' is a very bad contract: Lack of definitions, convoluted sentences, horrific outlining and indentation, whiplash switching of subject matter.
Not to mention that the contract mentions the possibility of another document drawn up that would list all the characters Uni can use. If that list exists somewhere, then all our conjecturing is moot.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
The definition of "family" is the point that has lead to the most debate on Disney fan sites about what is and isn't covered by the agreement. There has been a lot of debate about Guardians, but it seems that they are ok for Disney to use. A you say the contract does mention a separate document that lists the characters, but this has never been made public.
Keep in mind that this is not a Disney contract, this was made between Marvel and Uni at a time that when Marvel was having serious financial shape. This is likely not the kind of contract that Disney would agree to today.
asianway
Well-Known Member
Dr Strange became an Avenger after the contract was signed.
Medusa was the first sub for FF in the 70s
Haymarket2008
Well-Known Member
This whole Marvel thing is an absolute mess. I can do without them in Disney parks, to say the least.
My daughter is very jealous.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
Obviously not, or they wouldn't be included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe but instead be locked up with the FOX contract.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
It's upsetting that we never got the Ghost Rider/ Casper the Friendly Ghost crossover, which was an actual thing that was proposed and I wish existed SO HARD.