• 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?

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

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.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
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

Rumormonger
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.
 
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

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?
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.
 
Top Bottom