Uni waiting for Marvel Buyout from Disney?

[jt04]

Universal doesn't have to pay to give up the rights.

Not yet anyway.

My point was Disney is not required to bid on the rights as the poster seemed to imply. Disney can take a wait and see approach. It is possible Uni would take the initiative. That is all.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Oh, right. That Hagar the Horrible movie they came out with made SO much money that it made me so confused that I forgot about Universal being devoted to solely movies and having nothing but stuff from movies and not, for instance, comic strips that aren't very popular.

Alternatively, there was the Transformers animated movie in 1986, so....

Islands of Adventure is more about books (including comics), rather then movies with the lighthouse=Lighthouse of Alexandria and thus an allusion to that lost library. I'm actually kinda hesitant about the addition of Kong because that'd be the combobreaker.

 

[Bairstow]

Islands of Adventure is more about books (including comics), rather then movies with the lighthouse=Lighthouse of Alexandria and thus an allusion to that lost library. I'm actually kinda hesitant about the addition of Kong because that'd be the combobreaker.

Was there any proof that the IOA/"Literature" connection was actually intended by the designers and not simply a coincidence extrapolated by fans?

 

[marni1971]

It is possible Uni would take the initiative.

Oh they've done that alright

 

[Frankie The Beer]

This would make the contract Marvel/Universal contract void if it goes through:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/jack-kirbys-heirs-get-huge-712924

I doubt it will happen, but if Jack Kirby's heirs get the rights back to the characters he created, it would totally usurp the delicate void of comic book character at theme parks.

 

[Matt_Black]

Those frigging kids. They weren't all that concerned about dear old dad's legacy when Joe Simon was running around saying he made Captain America all by himself.

 

[BryceM]

Was there any proof that the IOA/"Literature" connection was actually intended by the designers and not simply a coincidence extrapolated by fans?

"Around every bend is another epic adventure. Around every corner awaits another once-in-a-lifetime thrill. Take an unforgettable journey through the uniquely themed islands of Universal’s Islands of Adventure®, where the world's most cutting edge rides, shows and interactive attractions bring your favorite stories, myths, cartoons, comic book heroes and children's tales to life."

By the park's description, I feel like it was intended, and/or Universal at least recognizes and capitalizes on the literature connection.

 

[slappy magoo]

Lol...This reminded me of Disney's Popeye movie Robin WIlliams was in...

Off topic but just for the record, Disney released Popeye outside the USA but within the States it's a Paramount property. Unless Disney finagled domestic rights the way they did all Muppet content produced prior to the buyout.

 

[Ranch Dressing]

This would make the contract Marvel/Universal contract void if it goes through:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/jack-kirbys-heirs-get-huge-712924

I doubt it will happen, but if Jack Kirby's heirs get the rights back to the characters he created, it would totally usurp the delicate void of comic book character at theme parks.

Not another Marvel/ Universal thread. I'm joking.

Actually this is good stuff. I think Disney would buy out the Kirby's if it got to that point where they thought they could possibly lose. Disney has to much invested in Marvel now. The only attraction 100% safe is Spider-Man, I think Kirby touched just about everything else. It would rip a huge hole because Universal can't build anything new with the Marvel liscense.

Either way, I'm going to keep an eye on it.

 

[Ranch Dressing]

This would make the contract Marvel/Universal contract void if it goes through:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/jack-kirbys-heirs-get-huge-712924

I doubt it will happen, but if Jack Kirby's heirs get the rights back to the characters he created, it would totally usurp the delicate void of comic book character at theme parks.

Not another Marvel/ Universal thread. I'm joking.

Actually this is good stuff. I think Disney would buy out the Kirby's if it got to that point where they thought they could possibly lose. Disney has to much invested in Marvel now. The only attraction 100% safe is Spider-Man, I think Kirby touched just about everything else. It would rip a huge hole because Universal can't build anything new with the Marvel liscense.

Either way, I'm going to keep an eye on it.

 

[Matt_Black]

Not another Marvel/ Universal thread. I'm joking.

Actually this is good stuff. I think Disney would buy out the Kirby's if it got to that point where they thought they could possibly lose. Disney has to much invested in Marvel now. The only attraction 100% safe is Spider-Man, I think Kirby touched just about everything else. It would rip a huge hole because Universal can't build anything new with the Marvel liscense.

Either way, I'm going to keep an eye on it.

X-Men might be tricky for Kirby's heirs. While he co-created the basic concept and the original characters, the book really didn't take off until the "All New, All Different" era, using creations from Chris Claremont, John Byrne, and most notably Len Wein, as his creation of Wolverine has basically been THE focal point of the X-Comics for almost 4 decades now.

 

[danlb_2000]

Not another Marvel/ Universal thread. I'm joking.

Actually this is good stuff. I think Disney would buy out the Kirby's if it got to that point where they thought they could possibly lose. Disney has to much invested in Marvel now. The only attraction 100% safe is Spider-Man, I think Kirby touched just about everything else. It would rip a huge hole because Universal can't build anything new with the Marvel liscense.

Either way, I'm going to keep an eye on it.

There is nothing in the Uni-Marvel contract that would prohibit them from building something new.

I do agree with the first part, Disney would throw a ton of money at them to buy out the rights.

 

[seascape]

There is nothing in the Uni-Marvel contract that would prohibit them from building something new.

I do agree with the first part, Disney would throw a ton of money at them to buy out the rights.

Why do you think Disney would buy the rights back? If Disney wanted they could just build a restaurant at Disney Springs based on the Characters with a M&G. If it was really successful expand it all over the country. Has to be better than chuckle cheese. There are so many things Disney can do with the Characters that they don't do now why should they waste their money.

 

[danlb_2000]

Why do you think Disney would buy the rights back? If Disney wanted they could just build a restaurant at Disney Springs based on the Characters with a M&G. If it was really successful expand it all over the country. Has to be better than chuckle cheese. There are so many things Disney can do with the Characters that they don't do now why should they waste their money.

I wasn't referring to the rights Uni has. What I was agreeing with was if the Supreme Court finds in favor of Kirby's estate, I would think Disney would offer them a very large sum of money to buy back the rights.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Why do you think Disney would buy the rights back? If Disney wanted they could just build a restaurant at Disney Springs based on the Characters with a M&G.

Well Ironically they did do a restaurant at Universal Hollywood called Marvel Mania but closed down and now has been a Haunted Maze based on the Universal Monsters..

 

[NormC]

Disney does not have to buy the rights back. Disney owns the rights and they are licensed to Universal for use in their Orlando Park with exclusivity agreements. If Universal no longer wishes to use the IP and stops paying the license fees Disney can then use the IP itself. Disney can use the IP anywhere other than WDW because they own the rights. They do not have to buy anything. Now they could offer Uni a dollar amount to end the current agreement but why would they? They get paid by Uni for doing nothing.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Disney does not have to buy the rights back. Disney owns the rights and they are licensed to Universal for use in their Orlando Park with exclusivity agreements. If Universal no longer wishes to use the IP and stops paying the license fees Disney can then use the IP itself. Disney can use the IP anywhere other than WDW because they own the rights. They do not have to buy anything. Now they could offer Uni a dollar amount to end the current agreement but why would they? They get paid by Uni for doing nothing.

Exactly the same way Universal is Paying Warner Bros, Columbia Pictures, DreamWorks, 20th Century Fox, Seuss Productions and Jay Ward Productions to use their IP's within their Parks...

 

[NormC]

Yes

 

[seascape]

I wasn't referring to the rights Uni has. What I was agreeing with was if the Supreme Court finds in favor of Kirby's estate, I would think Disney would offer them a very large sum of money to buy back the rights.

Sorry I misunderstood but I do agree with you. They would bug the rights from the family.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney does not have to buy the rights back. Disney owns the rights and they are licensed to Universal for use in their Orlando Park with exclusivity agreements. If Universal no longer wishes to use the IP and stops paying the license fees Disney can then use the IP itself. Disney can use the IP anywhere other than WDW because they own the rights. They do not have to buy anything. Now they could offer Uni a dollar amount to end the current agreement but why would they? They get paid by Uni for doing nothing.

Disney paying Universal to give up the rights is what people mean when they say Disney would buy the theme park rights.