Any chance for a Marvel Universe?

[rteetz]

I agree. Right now they're both fine. I'm just thinking long-term and the original question was about there being any chance for Disney regarding Marvel.

Disney is busy doing a bunch of other stuff, but if they want the rights then 2021 or 2022 is the best time for them to get their characters back. Disney will have all of their new stuff and it will contrast greatly with the state of Marvel Super Hero Island, which will be 22-23 years old. Disney takes forever to actually plan and build anything, so the earliest we'd see any new Marvel rides built from such a deal would probably be closer to 2030.

2030 or later would give Disney enough time to be Disney and it would give Universal enough time to re-theme or rebuild.



I'd still prefer Wakanda in Hollywood Studios, but I wouldn't mind if it took the Wonders of Life Pavilion. Something, anything needs to go in there. I mean, It would make for an epic indoor butterfly house, but that's probably not enough of a draw for Disney.

Don't forget Disney will have Fox is all goes to plan and may not need Marvel for WDW at all.

 

[Krandor]

I'd still prefer Wakanda in Hollywood Studios, but I wouldn't mind if it took the Wonders of Life Pavilion. Something, anything needs to go in there. I mean, It would make for an epic indoor butterfly house, but that's probably not enough of a draw for Disney.

The other option for Wakanda would be AK where we already have Africa Represented. I personally wouldn't shed a tear for the dinoland amusement park to go away.

I do agree that something needs to be done with WoL be it Marvel or whatever. That is a huge piece of prime real estate that is just rotting away (even though they are doing some work on it currenty).

 

[Krandor]

Don't forget Disney will have Fox is all goes to plan and may not need Marvel for WDW at all.

I'm not sure how many of the Fox properties would lend themselves to rides that fit with disney. I'd love to see an Alien or Predeator ride or something like that but I'm not sure if Disney would go there. It would seem a bit out of place... of course in my mind Frozen in Norway is out of place do what do I know?

 

[maltdizzy]

I agree. Right now they're both fine. I'm just thinking long-term and the original question was about there being any chance for Disney regarding Marvel.

Disney isn't going to be able to contractually take Marvel back. Both parties have to act in good faith toward the existing contract or risk lawsuits and financial penalties neither wants. financial penalties for one or both. That means Disney can't refuse Universal new attractions and I doubt they'll be able to contest "1st class." As is, Universal has the options sewn through mid-century.

I expect there will ultimately be a trade or buyout. I think much of it hedges on the terms the Simpsons/Fox/Universal contract. Simpsons have a huge presence in all US parks, not just Orlando. Disney owning The Simpsons gives them something to offer in trade. I think Universal would prefer to re-theme their Marvel section over Simpsons World.I wouldn't be surprised to see Disney trade something like the entire Simpsons TV franchise to Universal.

Of course, Disney's interest in Marvel in the parks could crash if the box office ever turns against the relentless tide of MCU movies.

 

[onetoescape]

Long term there will be more integration but short term there wont be due to licensing. TBH I think it's a messy situation for both parties and I do think something will happen when Fox closes but I dont think it would be a overnight job as Universal would need time to retheme the areas.

 

[Phicinfan]

Lets be honest, Disney isn't paying Universal squat to get rights to Marvel in FL. It won't happen, as it is they are raking in the money in movies and merch. Will put Marvel where they can, and enjoy the revenue it brings. Why pay to add to one park? Makes no sense.

Now, if they ever decided they want a Marvel world(5th gate) yeah, but I simply don't see them paying the cost to build the 5th gate. Not when they still have capacity to expand at existing parks.

Honestly, they can use SOME Marvel characters in WDW - GotG is an example. Assuming it does well, and they continue to expand the MCU character world, they can simply circumvent Universal at no cost.

There ARE other Marvel characters that are not being used by Universal or Avengers family they can choose from.

 

[tjkraz]

Debating the future of the Marvel/USF licensing agreement is like predicting whether or not it will rain on September 27, 2019: it might happen; it might not happen. Not sure I see Disney building a case around a self-serving interpretation of "first class". However, at some point the powers that be could decide it's best to end the deal and look for a way to part amicably.

Most accounts indicate the financial terms are very favorable for Universal. Given the popularity of all things Marvel, they'd be foolish to let it go cheaply. At the very least they'd want hundreds-of-millions from Disney to re-theme the entire land. Disney has shown its willingness to use likes of Guardians and Dr. Strange in the Florida parks. Is it really worth that investment to reclaim even more characters? Bear in mind Disney currently receives licensing and merchandise fees from USF. So not only would they have to pay a huge sum for return of the rights, they'd lose that existing revenue stream.

 

[davper]

Ultimately, the legal argument Helvetica is trying to make is, what constitutes "First Class"? If ride upkeep is all they are concerned with, Disney doesn't have a leg to stand on. But if addition, expansion, or use of the newest technologies is the expectation, then there might be something...

Who wrote the contract?
When something is ambiguous in a contract, like the meaning of First Class, the ruling is usually against the contract writer.

I think Wakanda would be better suited in Animal Kingdom.

I think what is going to become a big bone of contention between the companies will be Black Panther. He isn't on a ride at Universal but is present at Universal in at least some posters so technically (and with him being part of the avengers family) cannot be used by Disney, but with the success of that movie you know they want to use him more then most any other property right now. I think this may be the character that Disney is willing to fight Universal for.

Speaking of Avengers, how does disney get to use the characters from Guardians of the Galaxy when they are now part of the Avengers series? They are making a GoG themed coaster in epcot, right?

 

[Phicinfan]

Speaking of Avengers, how does disney get to use the characters from Guardians of the Galaxy when they are now part of the Avengers series? They are making a GoG themed coaster in epcot, right?

what happens in movie lore, post the agreement is not effected. In comics there was some slight tie in with GotG in Avengers but evidently not enough to stop this.

Again, most of what Uni has protected against WDW use in FL is what is used currently at park or direct family ties. Not ties post agreement. As I understand it.

 

[Krandor]

Speaking of Avengers, how does disney get to use the characters from Guardians of the Galaxy when they are now part of the Avengers series? They are making a GoG themed coaster in epcot, right?

because in the comics and espcially at the time the universal areement was made, GoTG were not considered to be part of the "avengers family" of characters.

And as far as IW is concerned while they are in an Avengers movie, I never really got a sense that they became members of the avengers. They were helping out against a common enemy,

 

[XXRAINMANX]

As much as I like Epcot IP free. I do think future world is a great place for Black Panther/Wakanda. I would even argue the designs for Wakanda in the movie were meant to sell this idea. Wakanda is literally what Epcot was originally designed as. Wakanda fits the country aspect much better than frozen in Norway. It fits the idea of a futuristic place with new technologies; that don't have to constantly be questioned for updates because it ties to a movie. They can start small with the area being called an outreach center just like the movie, and that allows for expandability amd flexibility of space. This idea checks all the boxes for what Epcot Was, Is, And Could BE. Throw in the idea of Dr. Strange being able to travel at ease and it even fits the idea of going into other worlds and dimensions. As much as we all might dislike it Marvel fits Epcot well as far as I see it.

 

[DanBoris]

Ok, but is it really "first class?" Good upkeep of 20 year old rides probably isn't good enough if they decide go to arbitration. Disney's lawyers will say Marvel Super Hero Island has to be as good as Star Wars Galaxy's Edge and The Hulk has to be as good as Guardians and Tron in order for them to be considered first class. First Class, I'd say, is the best of the best in the entire world. Top 10% or higher. Marvel Super Hero Island isn't the best of the best in the industry, it's not even the best of the best at their own parks, thereby hurting my IP.
.

I have heard other people try to make this argument but I think it's a big stretch to think that would work, especially since hulk was just recently re-built and Spider-Man got a major update to the projection technology a couple years ago. From a technology standpoint Spider-Man is still close to cutting edge compared to things Disney is building. Also remember that it does not say these must be "first class rides", just that they need to be "maintained" in a first class manner. In think this clause was put in there just to prevent Universal from just doing the bare minimum of maintenance of the rides this presenting Marvel in a bad light.

 

[DanBoris]

what happens in movie lore, post the agreement is not effected. In comics there was some slight tie in with GotG in Avengers but evidently not enough to stop this.

Again, most of what Uni has protected against WDW use in FL is what is used currently at park or direct family ties. Not ties post agreement. As I understand it.

Also, the Guardians characters from the movies were first seen in the comics in 2008, the original Guardians were a different set of characters. So the move Guardians were created after Islands of Adventure opened.

 

[maltdizzy]

Speaking of Avengers, how does disney get to use the characters from Guardians of the Galaxy when they are now part of the Avengers series? They are making a GoG themed coaster in epcot, right?

In the '90s, Marvel split their titles up into "families" for the film and licensing deals. These include all the heroes, villains and secondary characters most closely related to the title.

• Spider-man family, held by Sony
• X-Men family, owned by Fox (including all of the mutant titles and the name "mutant")
  
• Fantastic 4 family, owned by Fox (includes Silver Surfer and Galactus)
  
• Hulk family, sold to Universal, reverted to Marvel
• Daredevil family, sold to Fox, reverted to Marvel
• Avengers family, owned by Marvel
• Not sure if Ghost-Rider was sold as a family, but maybe

When they packaged the rights to sell to Universal, they were lumped by these families. Titles that fall completely outside of these families or that were newer, like GOTG and Big Hero 6, weren't included in the deal. But there are other weird factors, Universal Parks has certain control over the comic-book likenesses of these characters and the name Marvel at extends beyond their Orlando location.

 

[maverik85]

I do think it's just a matter of time for Disney to get Marvel rights back. Made sense for Universal to want them and keep it as it was a major property for them, but since then they have secured lots of other rights that give them more options. Harry Potter and Nintendo are huge grabs for them and HP has payed off much more than Marvel ever did for them. And now with them owning Dreamworks and Ilumination they have many more. I could see them holding onto it for a bit longer just to keep them out of Disney's hands but they are becoming a much greater threat to Disney and once they open their third park they probably won't have to worry about Disney getting Marvel.

A lot of the Marvel island is not heavily themed either so would be easy for them to re-theme the whole island. Spider-Man is really the only immersive ride there so it would be the biggest issue for them but not impossible to do. They could potentially retheme it into a sci-fi space area as they don't really have anything for that in their parks in Orlando yet. Got one in Singapore. Could retheme Hulk to Star Trek or Battlestar like Shanghai, woudl love to see Metroid replace Spider-Man if they did that too.

 

[Smalerie]

I could see the two sides coming to an agreement at some point, but I doubt it's a huge priority when Disney can have Marvel in its other parks and both Universal and Disney are able to focus on bringing other major IPs into their parks (Nintendo for Universal, Star Wars for Disney).

With the new phase of the MCU on the horizon, Disney might also just be waiting for other Marvel characters to come to the forefront so they have less focus on Iron Man and Captain America and can instead focus on those who are not covered in the contract. Do I think that there's going to be another unexpected break out like GotG? Maybe not, but if there's no rush, I suppose you could just wait and see.

I've spent a lot of time (maybe too much) speculating and trying to guess what might happen. I suppose the truth is that only time will tell. I will say this much though, I keep wishing that Universal would just give up on Marvel and instead turn all of that area into something Jurassic Park themed.

 

[DBDiz]

In the '90s, Marvel split their titles up into "families" for the film and licensing deals. These include all the heroes, villains and secondary characters most closely related to the title.

• Hulk family, sold to Universal, reverted to Marvel

Universal still retains these rights. That's why we haven't seen Hulk in a stand-alone title. Marvel Studios has the ability to use him in any crossover sense (Avengers, Thor: Ragnarok) but cannot produce a stand-alone film for him.

 

[maltdizzy]

Universal still retains these rights. That's why we haven't seen Hulk in a stand-alone title. Marvel Studios has the ability to use him in any crossover sense (Avengers, Thor: Ragnarok) but cannot produce a stand-alone film for him.

Well, it's a bit odd. Universal still holds the distribution rights, but not the film rights. Marvel/Disney can't make a stand-alone Hulk movie without Universal acting as distributor (or exercising first right of refusal).

 

[StrawberryChan]

black panther isn't considered its own IP like doctor strange or guardians of the galaxy; if i'm not mistaken, he falls under the avengers umbrella, though he technically debuted with the fantastic four. so wakanda at WDW probably isn't feasible because of the universal deal (they currently own the avengers, the fantastic four, the x-men, hulk, and spider-man)

 

[Helvetica]

black panther isn't considered its own IP like doctor strange or guardians of the galaxy; if i'm not mistaken, he falls under the avengers umbrella, though he technically debuted with the fantastic four. so wakanda at WDW probably isn't feasible because of the universal deal (they currently own the avengers, the fantastic four, the x-men, hulk, and spider-man)

Has Universal ever used Black Panther? I’m not sure what umbrella he’d be under. He’s not an original Avenger, he debuted in Fantastic Four, he’s Illuminati and an Ultimate. He’s also his own man and a King. I always saw him more as his own man than as part of a team.

It would be a giant waste if a billion dollar franchise like Black Panther isn’t utilized in a major way. I want to see a Wakanda.