Rumor Wonders of Life getting an attraction soon?

[RSoxNo1]

There is not one insider, not one, who is saying that Black Panther or Wakanda is being considered. All those internet clickbait trolls and vloggers are doing are passing around a fantasy about what WDW *might* do *if* they can get around the contract from Jim Hill, a notorious fantabulist about what Disney *might* do based on presumptions. But not one is saying that it's actually happening according to their sources.

Occam's Razor: Neither Black Panther nor Wakanda is coming to WDW unless a *reliable* insider gives it credence. Full stop.

And second, the idea of a Wakanda without mentioning Black Panther is beyond absurd.

While I agree that Jim is the only source on this. The idea of Wakanda without Black Panther is far from the least absurd thing Disney has done. Keep in mind that the original Star Tours attraction didn't have Luke, Leia, Han or Darth Vader.

I could absolutely see a Disneyland/Iron Man suit-esque exhibit of the technology of Wakanda. I'm not saying it's a great fit, but as an exhibit space it would certainly work.

 

[Haymarket2008]

While I agree that Jim is the only source on this. The idea of Wakanda without Black Panther is far from the least absurd thing Disney has done. Keep in mind that the original Star Tours attraction didn't have Luke, Leia, Han or Darth Vader.

I could absolutely see a Disneyland/Iron Man suit-esque exhibit of the technology of Wakanda. I'm not saying it's a great fit, but as an exhibit space it would certainly work.

I wouldn't say Wakanda is anywhere near a dynamic locale than the trove of locations Star Wars has to offer. In fact, you see very little of Wakanda. The characters SIGNIFICANTLY outshine the setting.

 

[rioriz]

No knowledge on this one but

Surprised they haven't used Strange.... Well yet

 

[RSoxNo1]

I wouldn't say Wakanda is anywhere near a dynamic locale than the trove of locations Star Wars has to offer. In fact, you see very little of Wakanda. The characters SIGNIFICANTLY outshine the setting.

New exhibit, "Marvels of Technology sponsored by the Wakanda Tourism Bureau". There's an A/B ticket diversion to put into Wonders of Life in relatively short order.

 

[Haymarket2008]

New exhibit, "Marvels of Technology sponsored by the Wakanda Tourism Bureau". There's an A/B ticket diversion to put into Wonders of Life in relatively short order.

But Panther cannot be used at WDW, so that isn’t happening....and Epcot deserves better.

 

[mikejs78]

No. They can't. Else, they would have. See post above.

And if Disney tried to use tricksy verbiage tricks to get around it, they'd be slapped down in arbitration. There is no Air-Budding in real world contracts.

It's not tricksy verbiage, it's the plain language of the contract, at least what was pasted above. I admit there may be more to the contract (I haven't read it in its entirety), but unless the contract defines 'licensee' as including Marvel itself and any company that purchases Marvel, I don't see how any arbitration would rule against Disney if they decided to use the name.

Also, although it may be the case that they haven't used the name because it's prohibited, but that's not the only possibility. It could be out of an abundance of caution or because Disney wants to avoid arbitration all together. It could be that they are hoping to reach a settlement with Comcast and don't want to necessarily rile them. It could be that they determined that the name isn't necessary.

All that being said, there may be more to the contract that strictly prohibits it, that I don't know. Again, was just commenting on the language pasted here which only prohibits a 'licensee'. And also, I'm only talking about the use of the name Marvel at DLR, not WDW. WDW had a whole different set of restrictions when it comes to Marvel, as has been pointed out here many times.

 

[shortstop]

It's not tricksy verbiage, it's the plain language of the contract, at least what was pasted above. I admit there may be more to the contract (I haven't read it in its entirety), but unless the contract defines 'licensee' as including Marvel itself and any company that purchases Marvel, I don't see how any arbitration would rule against Disney if they decided to use the name.

Also, although it may be the case that they haven't used the name because it's prohibited, but that's not the only possibility. It could be out of an abundance of caution or because Disney wants to avoid arbitration all together. It could be that they are hoping to reach a settlement with Comcast and don't want to necessarily rile them. It could be that they determined that the name isn't necessary.

All that being said, there may be more to the contract that strictly prohibits it, that I don't know. Again, was just commenting on the language pasted here which only prohibits a 'licensee'. And also, I'm only talking about the use of the name Marvel at DLR, not WDW. WDW had a whole different set of restrictions when it comes to Marvel, as has been pointed out here many times.

Disney =! Marvel, at least legally. I’m pretty sure that technically they still have to license the Marvel IPs.

 

[Bob Harlem]

It's not tricksy verbiage, it's the plain language of the contract, at least what was pasted above. I admit there may be more to the contract (I haven't read it in its entirety), but unless the contract defines 'licensee' as including Marvel itself and any company that purchases Marvel, I don't see how any arbitration would rule against Disney if they decided to use the name.

Also, although it may be the case that they haven't used the name because it's prohibited, but that's not the only possibility. It could be out of an abundance of caution or because Disney wants to avoid arbitration all together. It could be that they are hoping to reach a settlement with Comcast and don't want to necessarily rile them. It could be that they determined that the name isn't necessary.

All that being said, there may be more to the contract that strictly prohibits it, that I don't know. Again, was just commenting on the language pasted here which only prohibits a 'licensee'. And also, I'm only talking about the use of the name Marvel at DLR, not WDW. WDW had a whole different set of restrictions when it comes to Marvel, as has been pointed out here many times.

That's not how the law works. Similar to a song writer licensing music to a music company, they gave away the rights to use it to the company in return for marketing/distribution (Or Stan Lee created Spider Man, but doesn't directly own it). Marvel is not Disney in that sense, Marvel carved out a portion of what it owned and gave that away that particular right (theme park naming license) from its own self in exchange for the area at Islands of Adventure for the prospect of promoting/marketing through them (with a cut of returns). In short Marvel no longer directly owns that right, so Disney cannot use the name "Marvel" in any theme park for attractions or marketing in the US.

That agreement does not go away because Disney bought Marvel out, and Disney knew about it before they acquired Marvel but did it anyway.

Corporations or Individuals can license pretty much anything they want to define in a contract as a license, at that point it if effectively doesn't belong to them (I.e. Marvel/Disney) any more as long as the contract stipulations are met. If the contract went away (and this one likely won't), that slice goes back to Marvel and that "carving" no longer exists (unless they give it to someone else) so only then could they can do whatever they want with it. Violating the contract would be like a homeowner walking into a house that they rent out and taking their renter's stuff. It's still stealing.

 

[KINGLOUIS1993]

Less Bacon more Spam

 

[Gringrinngghost]

Less Bacon more Spam

10-4

 

[MotherOfBirds]

Wonders of Mystic Life Pavilion.

The Wonders of Tilda Swinton Pavillion

 

[mikejs78]

That's not how the law works. Similar to a song writer licensing music to a music company, they gave away the rights to use it to the company in return for marketing/distribution (Or Stan Lee created Spider Man, but doesn't directly own it). Marvel is not Disney in that sense, Marvel carved out a portion of what it owned and gave that away that particular right (theme park naming license) from its own self in exchange for the area at Islands of Adventure for the prospect of promoting/marketing through them (with a cut of returns). In short Marvel no longer directly owns that right, so Disney cannot use the name "Marvel" in any theme park for attractions or marketing in the US.

That agreement does not go away because Disney bought Marvel out, and Disney knew about it before they acquired Marvel but did it anyway.

Corporations or Individuals can license pretty much anything they want to define in a contract as a license, at that point it if effectively doesn't belong to them (I.e. Marvel/Disney) any more as long as the contract stipulations are met. If the contract went away (and this one likely won't), that slice goes back to Marvel and that "carving" no longer exists (unless they give it to someone else) so only then could they can do whatever they want with it. Violating the contract would be like a homeowner walking into a house that they rent out and taking their renter's stuff. It's still stealing.

That's not what I'm saying. The language of the contract above doesn't say that *Marvel* couldn't use the name itself if it made it's own attractions, just that they couldn't grant it to another Licensee (i.e. another company or individual that was *not* Marvel). And since Disney purchased Marvel, then they assume the rights that Marvel had or gave up under the contract, as you stated.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That's not what I'm saying. The language of the contract above doesn't say that *Marvel* couldn't use the name itself if it made it's own attractions, just that they couldn't grant it to another Licensee (i.e. another company or individual that was *not* Marvel). And since Disney purchased Marvel, then they assume the rights that Marvel had or gave up under the contract, as you stated.

Ignoring that Marvel still exists as a company separate from the parks who are a licensee, by your logic there is no such thing as exclusive licensing and Disney can use all Marvel characters at Walt Disney World.

 

[mikejs78]

Ignoring that Marvel still exists as a company separate from the parks who are a licensee, by your logic there is no such thing as exclusive licensing and Disney can use all Marvel characters at Walt Disney World.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The language that governs the use of characters in Orlando is very different from the language about the Marvel name and logo. Language in contracts is critically important.

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.].

West of The Mississippi - any other theme park may use any Marvel characters whether or not used by MCA.

Here, the language references *any other theme park*. It doesn't specify licensee. So let's say we live in a world where Marvel doesn't get bought by Disney and in 2015 decide to create their own theme parks. They can build one in California, because it's West of the Mississippi. But they can't build one in Orlando, Tampa, Boston, or Scranton, because the language says that Marvel characters can't be used in any other theme park East of the Mississippi. If it had said "Marvel cannot grant another licensee the use of the Characters in a theme park East of the Mississippi", that would mean that Marvel couldn't let Six Flags build a Marvel park, but Marvel still could. But under the current language, an independent Marvel cannot build theme park attractions based on Marvel characters east of the Mississippi.

East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

The language is much different here. It talks about how Marvel 'may not permit a licensee' to use the name. It does not say "No other theme park may use the Marvel name" like the prohibition of characters east of the Mississippi does. What this language means is that while Marvel will not grant any other company use of the Marvel name, they retain the use of it themselves. So in our world where Marvel is not bought by Disney, Marvel *could* open up a park called 'Marvel World' in Anehime, but it couldn't grant Six Flags or Disney use of the name Marvel.

So what it comes down to is the arrangement between Disney and Marvel post-sale. Marvel is a wholly-owned subsidiary. If the legal arrangement between Marvel and Disney requires Disney to formally 'license' from Marvel when they use the Marvel names and characters, then yes, the above clause would apply to DLR and Disney couldn't use the Marvel name. If Disney has ownership and legal rights to the Marvel name and characters, then they can use the Marvel name at DLR as they would function as Marvel in the contract, not as a licensee.

In no case, however, would Disney ever be premitted to use Marvel characters at WDW.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

You are absolutely right, but I do think Disney licenses stuff to themselves. For example, Bob Iger did mention that when Disney streaming service is launched that the only difference would be that they would be licensing - and therefore paying - to themselves.

Among other reasons this is done for tax and accounting purposes. I'm sure Disney could make an exception here if they wanted it, but we haven't seen that yet. Something similar happened at Disney Springs where the Marvel store was called Super Hero Headquarters when it launched and for awhile after that. It's now called Marvel Super Hero Headquarters.

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.

How do you know the rights expire in 2027? I haven't seen that anywhere.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

I wish there was a pinned thread with all the Marvel contract facts so people can play intellectual property lawyer there and the rest of us can just post a link to it whenever someone asks a question about it in another thread. Seeing this discussion pop up in so many threads is annoying.

 

[danlb_2000]

I wish there was a pinned thread with all the Marvel contract facts so people can play intellectual property lawyer there and the rest of us can just post a link to it whenever someone asks a question about it in another thread. Seeing this discussion pop up in so many threads is annoying.

There is...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

 

[Bender123]

There is...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

The issue about the contract is the portion that outlines "families" and characters included in those families is not public. We know all the basics, but the devil is in the details, which we don't have access to. All in all, its a really good read, it just leaves out the most important part.

 

[danlb_2000]

The issue about the contract is the portion that outlines "families" and characters included in those families is not public. We know all the basics, but the devil is in the details, which we don't have access to. All in all, its a really good read, it just leaves out the most important part.

The op asked for a list of all the contract "facts", the contract is the only true facts we have to work with.

 

[Kman101]

Sooo ... how's that Wakandan Embassy coming?