Rumor Wonders of Life getting an attraction soon?

[Kman101]

I can’t believe I’m even remotely defending Guardians in Epcot, but it fits infinitely more than Black Panther would. At least you could say Guardians is a spiritual successor to Captain EO. Panther has zero to do with the park.

Oh, they could make it fit (and that's not an endorsement for BP in Epcot) ...

I'm still annoyed at the Peter Quill visited Epcot lip-service they gave us. But I agree you could stretch Guardians to fit Epcot MUCH better than BP.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Here is Black Panther in Islands of Adventure. He is not available for Disney to use unless there is something worked out between Disney and Universal.

 

[danlb_2000]

Contracts are contracts for a reason but people act as if something can't be negotiated or attempted. Many of us have no idea the discussions had. And there may be none.

That's a broad brush to paint all the characters under in that contract that opens itself up to loopholes (IMO). What they need is a contract that specifies exactly which characters can and can not be used. Not some "well if they're considered family" ....

Understand that most of the discussion here is about what the contract as written does and doesn't allow. I think we all understand that anything can be changed through negotiation.

 

[danlb_2000]

Here is Black Panther in Islands of Adventure. He is not available for Disney to use unless there is something worked out between Disney and Universal.

Being in that picture has nothing to do with him not being available, his connection to the Avengers does.

 

[Kman101]

Understand that most of the discussion here is about what the contract as written does and doesn't allow. I think we all understand that anything can be changed through negotiation.

Fair enough, and true.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Being in that picture has nothing to do with him not being available, his connection to the Avengers does.

Universal would not have the image in the park if it was not covered as a character Universal can use. The fact that Black Panther's image appears in the park is evidence of Universal having the right to use him.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My guess (and it is just a total guess) is any character that hasn't currently or previously been used in a Universal ride, show, decoration, or ad is fair game. Before their movies, GotG and Big Hero 6 were obscure to mainstream audiences and even some casual comic fans so chances are they were never used by Universal in any capacity.

Those characters post-date the contract. I still Universal should bring Marvel to arbitration over Guardians of the Galaxy.

Universal would not have the image in the park if it was not covered as a character Universal can use. The fact that Black Panther's image appears in the park is evidence of Universal having the right to use him.

If Black Panther was his own distinct family completely separate from the Avengers it would not be enough to claim the family, as it is incidental use.

 

[Bender123]

From the contract...

"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.]"

Except that's the part that is missing...We know Spiderman ISNT an Avenger according to that list and we know. Most Comic book people would say the Avengers "family" could be construed as the core group, which would be Iron Man, Cpt America, Thor, Vision, Hawkeye, Hulk and Ant Man, which were the "Avengers" for over 20 years. Other heroes join in and leave, but does that make them an Avenger?

Without seeing what a "Family" includes, its down to a bunch of comic book guys trying to define at what point being part of the Avengers is being an "Avenger" for the legal term. you could extend this down to the level of is Deadpool an Avenger, because he has been on their team. Are Squirrel Girl and the rest of the Great Lakes Avengers in the family, too, because they were a joke version of the Avengers?

This is the problem that the Disney Lawyers must be arguing with on a daily basis...Unless the character is specifically named (which we don't know that part of the contract), we don't really know what the rights are.

 

[danlb_2000]

Except that's the part that is missing...We know Spiderman ISNT an Avenger according to that list and we know. Most Comic book people would say the Avengers "family" could be construed as the core group, which would be Iron Man, Cpt America, Thor, Vision, Hawkeye, Hulk and Ant Man, which were the "Avengers" for over 20 years. Other heroes join in and leave, but does that make them an Avenger?

Without seeing what a "Family" includes, its down to a bunch of comic book guys trying to define at what point being part of the Avengers is being an "Avenger" for the legal term. you could extend this down to the level of is Deadpool an Avenger, because he has been on their team. Are Squirrel Girl and the rest of the Great Lakes Avengers in the family, too, because they were a joke version of the Avengers?

This is the problem that the Disney Lawyers must be arguing with on a daily basis...Unless the character is specifically named (which we don't know that part of the contract), we don't really know what the rights are.

Correct, Spider-Man isn't in the Avengers family, but since Universal has a Spider-Man ride they have the rights to the Spider-Man family, along with the Avengers, X-Men and Fantastic Four families.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Here is Black Panther in Islands of Adventure. He is not available for Disney to use unless there is something worked out between Disney and Universal.

Here's the other Black Panther appearance at the Cap restaurant.

It should also be noted that aside from the Avengers connection, Black Panther debuted in Fantastic Four and has worked with them occasionally throughout the years.

 

[danlb_2000]

Those characters post-date the contract. I still Universal should bring Marvel to arbitration over Guardians of the Galaxy.


If Black Panther was his own distinct family completely separate from the Avengers it would not be enough to claim the family, as it is incidental use.

The version of GoTG being used also post dates the contract.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Realistically this would be an exchange of things that would/could be mutually beneficial. Disney could simply bring a pile of money to the negotiation, but you'd essentially be paying for Universal's 3rd gate.

My understanding of the contract is that Universal would need consent from Disney before they utilize these characters in a different way than the original build of the attractions. So if Universal wanted to build the rumored Avengers E-ticket, Disney would have some say/approval in that process. If anyone can correct that understanding, please do, but that's the leverage Disney would have. They can allow Universal to do one thing as exchange for Disney doing another thing.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I can’t believe I’m even remotely defending Guardians in Epcot, but it fits infinitely more than Black Panther would. At least you could say Guardians is a spiritual successor to Captain EO. Panther has zero to do with the park.

I suspect that Disney decided that the future of Epcot will include Marvel to the extent they can put Marvel in a WDW theme park.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Universal would not have the image in the park if it was not covered as a character Universal can use. The fact that Black Panther's image appears in the park is evidence of Universal having the right to use him.

Wouldn't the subject of whether BP could be used be moot since there's a list of what can and can't be used?

When the contract was drawn up, Universal had an addendum list of which characters they could use.

 

[danlb_2000]

Realistically this would be an exchange of things that would/could be mutually beneficial. Disney could simply bring a pile of money to the negotiation, but you'd essentially be paying for Universal's 3rd gate.

My understanding of the contract is that Universal would need consent from Disney before they utilize these characters in a different way than the original build of the attractions. So if Universal wanted to build the rumored Avengers E-ticket, Disney would have some say/approval in that process. If anyone can correct that understanding, please do, but that's the leverage Disney would have. They can allow Universal to do one thing as exchange for Disney doing another thing.

The only thing the contract says about that sort of approval is that the character are consistent with the style guide. There doesn't appear to be anything in the contract that would prevent Universal from, for example, building an Iron Man ride as long as was consistent with the comic style guide.

"Whenever Marvel has “reasonable” rights for rejection of approval hereunder, the basic criteria to be used by Marvel may include inconsistency with (i) basic story line, (ii) the powers, (iii) basic personality traits, (iv) physical appearance (including clothing or costume), and/or (v) living habitat or environment relating to such character as portrayed in Marvel’s exploitation of such character in comic books or other products for the particular time period being depicted by MCA."

 

[RSoxNo1]

The only thing the contract says about that sort of approval is that the character are consistent with the style guide. There doesn't appear to be anything in the contract that would prevent Universal from, for example, building an Iron Man ride as long as was consistent with the comic style guide.

Well that can certainly be a negotiating tactic then. To get movie versions of the characters would be a significant benefit for Universal.

Also, I was under the impression that life like movie likeness figures of some of the Avengers did/do appear in a shop within the land.

 

[SCOTLORR]

Realistically this would be an exchange of things that would/could be mutually beneficial. Disney could simply bring a pile of money to the negotiation, but you'd essentially be paying for Universal's 3rd gate.

My understanding of the contract is that Universal would need consent from Disney before they utilize these characters in a different way than the original build of the attractions. So if Universal wanted to build the rumored Avengers E-ticket, Disney would have some say/approval in that process. If anyone can correct that understanding, please do, but that's the leverage Disney would have. They can allow Universal to do one thing as exchange for Disney doing another thing.

It has always bugged me that a negotiation has never been considered possible by people discussing which characters can be used by Disney. If there's a trade/agreement to be made regarding Marvel rights, it makes sense to do that.

I see you are a red sox fan. I am a die hard Yanks fan, and while a trade between these two bitter rivals would be unlikely, it's certainly an option. That's a lot like this situation between disney and uni.

 

[Bender123]

Correct, Spider-Man isn't in the Avengers family, but since Universal has a Spider-Man ride they have the rights to the Spider-Man family, along with the Avengers, X-Men and Fantastic Four families.

But that's the rub...we don't know what the definition of "family" is. I know it sounds like hairsplitting, but welcome to contract language. We know rides and walk around characters being used are off limits, but does a mural in a restaurant count as an "attraction" based on the language of the contract, if BP isn't a named member of the "Avengers Family".

Wouldn't the subject of whether BP could be used be moot since there's a list of what can and can't be used?

The addendum is the part that causes arguments and its also the part which is listed as "confidential". Its a bit odd to have these arguments, when we don't really know what that exceedingly important factor is. We don't know if the Avengers family is the "Classic" lineup or anybody involved in the Avengers over time. We know that that is not the case, because Star Lord has been an Avenger.

The other question, checking that off the list, is if a random mural satisfies the use of the character clause in the contract.

The problem will always come down to not knowing the art of the contract that actually matters...which is the list that defines characters and families.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The version of GoTG being used also post dates the contract.

Yes, but they are clearly being advertised at this very moment with the Avengers.

Wouldn't the subject of whether BP could be used be moot since there's a list of what can and can't be used?

The schedule is of characters Universal could use. They didn’t get to grab Star Wars via the Marvel comics. Rights can be sub-licensed, see Harry Potter which was licensed from Warner Bros. Consumer Products.

It has always bugged me that a negotiation has never been considered possible by people discussing which characters can be used by Disney. If there's a trade/agreement to be made regarding Marvel rights, it makes sense to do that.

I see you are a red sox fan. I am a die hard Yanks fan, and while a trade between these two bitter rivals would be unlikely, it's certainly an option. That's a lot like this situation between disney and uni.

Universal has made it very clear during investor calls that they have no interest in altering the agreement.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

Yes, but they are clearly being advertised at this very moment with the Avengers.


The schedule is of characters Universal could use. They didn’t get to grab Star Wars via the Marvel comics. Rights can be sub-licensed, see Harry Potter which was licensed from Warner Bros. Consumer Products.


Universal has made it very clear during investor calls that they have no interest in altering the agreement.

Not surprised. Why would they be unless Disney has something serious to offer them in exchange.