• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Rumor Wonders of Life getting an attraction soon?

SteamboatJoe

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
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?
What I'm saying is Universal DOES have the addendum, and knows what they can use. And they used Black Panther.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
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.
So, then, there was a list of Marvel superheroes that Uni could have used. Which, at the time, was just about all the superheroes.

But, the contract had a 'shrinkage clause' which was basically a use-or-lose function by such-and-such date.

Which means, Uni has access only to those superheroes currently in use and their families, which are:
  • Spider-Man
  • Avengers
  • Hulk
  • X-Men
The contract defines use as 'more than incidental'. Which would mean something like a M&G, show, or ride.

So, if there is a list of can's and can-not's for Universal and WDW, it isn't that original list. It would have to be one drawn up more recently and agreed upon by both parties based on the shrinkage clause. Does anyone know if such a more current written-down list exists? If not, then it's back to arguing about what it means to belong to a 'family.'

Despite crossovers with Avengers and X-Men, it's clear that at least WDW believes the GotG (current iterations) and Doctor Strange are not members of the Avengers nor X-Men families.

The fact that Black Panther is not currently M&Ging in WDW seems to be a sure indication that WDW believes BP to be part of the Avenger family and not usable in Orlando.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
And not to mention no preview for Black Panther in DHS. No M&G and preview seems like a good indication to me that BP can't be used in WDW, but I'm sure they'd like to find a loophole around it, I have no doubt that discussion came up. But I don't think anything will change on this front. But, as in life, who knows? lol
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
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".


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.
Correct, there are times when family is unclear. At one end of the spectrum is Big Hero Six which has no connection to anything Universal is using. At the other end is a character like Iron Man who is clearly in the Avengers family. There are some characters that are probably not as clear. According to the contract it has to be more then "incidental use". It could be debated what that means, but to me, you can't get much more incidental then appearing in a mural.

We have arguments about things that we have far less information on then this. ;)
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
And not to mention no preview for Black Panther in DHS. No M&G and preview seems like a good indication to me that BP can't be used in WDW, but I'm sure they'd like to find a loophole around it, I have no doubt that discussion came up. But I don't think anything will change on this front. But, as in life, who knows? lol
Don't forget that the Avengers movies routinely break the billion dollar gross mark. If WDW was going to move heaven and earth to put their most popular superheroes in WDW despite the contract, they would have done that for the Avengers already. And Marvel's Island of Adventure doesn't even have an Avenger attraction.

IOW, WDW isn't going to do for Black Panther what they would have already done, if they could, for the Avengers.
 

EOD K9

Well-Known Member
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.
 

hockeyfran

Member
With Disney's acquisition of Fox does Universal owe money for continued use of Simpsons? Is it possible that they release Marvel in exchange for the rights to the Simpsons?
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
With Disney's acquisition of Fox does Universal owe money for continued use of Simpsons? Is it possible that they release Marvel in exchange for the rights to the Simpsons?
Whatever Universal's current terms are for the Simpsons will continue as if the acquisition had never taken place. If Fox previously had the right to terminate the agreement, Disney will inherit that same right.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
With Disney's acquisition of Fox does Universal owe money for continued use of Simpsons? Is it possible that they release Marvel in exchange for the rights to the Simpsons?
If Disney was willing to sell, then Universal could buy, but Marvel is probably worth much more to Universal then the Simpsons are.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Whatever Universal's current terms are for the Simpsons will continue as if the acquisition had never taken place. If Fox previously had the right to terminate the agreement, Disney will inherit that same right.
Since they just updated the Simpsons are in Hollywood in mid 2015, I would think Universal has the contract locked in for a reasonable amount of time. You don't build a whole area if the contract allows Fox to pull the rights at any time.
 

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
Since they just updated the Simpsons are in Hollywood in mid 2015, I would think Universal has the contract locked in for a reasonable amount of time. You don't build a whole area if the contract allows Fox to pull the rights at any time.
Universal has the Simpson's rights until 2027. There are already rumors about what will take it's place. Don't be surprised if Duff Gardens becomes a Sushi/Sake bar.
 

lee.moles.disney

Well-Known Member
While not directly connected, is it right that Universal has the solo movie rights to the Hulk, hense why he hasn’t had a solo movie since Disney bought Marvel?
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
While not directly connected, is it right that Universal has the solo movie rights to the Hulk, hense why he hasn’t had a solo movie since Disney bought Marvel?
Universal owns the theme parks rights to Harry Potter, Disney owned the broadcast rights to the movies which got shown on ABC Family, and a lot of people watch that channel on Comcast which owns Universal which owns the theme parks rights.....

The media business is a tangled web of licensing deals.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
While not directly connected, is it right that Universal has the solo movie rights to the Hulk, hense why he hasn’t had a solo movie since Disney bought Marvel?
Uni indeed has the movie distribution rights to the Hulk. But not the production rights. So Marvel/Disney can make a Hulk solo movie, but Uni has the right to distribute it. Which most likely is the reason we aren't seeing any other Hulk movies at this point. Marvel/Disney owns the character movie rights so they can use him in other movies.

Universal apparently also has a similar deal for Namor the Sub-Mariner.
 
Top Bottom