That Darn Marvel Contract – What Rights Does Universal and Disney Own

[LieutLaww]

As far I understand the contract (I am sure someone can yes/no this) Uni can use the comic versions of Avengers etc but the new MCU stuff is off limits, so they would only be able to refresh the comic look (If that is the way i read it)

 

[jseal777]

I actually prefer them to keep the "comic" look. Just update it a little bit and give us a new ride. I will say I'm not a fan of the animations in the Hulk queue

 

[yankees13]

The comic look makes the land timeless. I'm in the minority but I love the 90s aspect of the land. As a 90s kid I'm a sucker for anything like that. In 10-15 years time, a lot of these superheroes will probably be re-casted. So I don't have a problem with them not being able to use MCU versions.

 

[Scott W.]

As far I understand the contract (I am sure someone can yes/no this) Uni can use the comic versions of Avengers etc but the new MCU stuff is off limits, so they would only be able to refresh the comic look (If that is the way i read it)

I think they could use the MCU but the cost would be ridiculous as they'd have to pay the actors to get involved plus they'd have to redo the whole land.

I'm happy they've went the comic look and continued with it with Hulk. I think the MCU will stay popular for a long time but when IOA opened, Spider-Man could have been Toby Maguire and imagine how dated it would look now.

If GOTG is coming to WDW, I'm hoping that Disney and Universal have made a deal. It benefits both companies, saves them money and we as the guests win instead of paying lawyers a crazy amount of money to stop each other building new attractions.

 

[Andysol]

Not a terrible move on Disney for PR if it made uni flex their muscle.
"Sorry guys- we should have been able to get away with it but universal are being sticklers about it"

 

[zg44]

As far I understand the contract (I am sure someone can yes/no this) Uni can use the comic versions of Avengers etc but the new MCU stuff is off limits, so they would only be able to refresh the comic look (If that is the way i read it)

It's not that the new MCU stuff is off-limits per se, but rather that the contract specifies that the IoA Marvel Universe is based on the following: "The Official Handbook of The Marvel Universe, Marvel’s Style Guide and such other descriptive design/style materials as may be provided by Marvel."

It's a complex issue in the general sense that Disney/Marvel basically controls what Universal can use in the design beyond the comics, and I'd imagine that unless there's some kind of agreement between Disney and Universal, we're not likely to see Universal allowed to use MCU or anything other than comic designs.

This also makes refurbishments/enhancements somewhat complex because Marvel has to agree to expanded content beyond the original allowances, and Disney probably isn't in a rush to allow that. It's probably a stalemate unless there's some kind of exchange of Disney being allowed to use GotG in exchange for design enhancements to IoA's Marvel Universe.

 

[Scott W.]

It's not that the new MCU stuff is off-limits per se, but rather that the contract specifies that the IoA Marvel Universe is based on the following: "The Official Handbook of The Marvel Universe, Marvel’s Style Guide and such other descriptive design/style materials as may be provided by Marvel."

It's a complex issue in the general sense that Disney/Marvel basically controls what Universal can use in the design beyond the comics, and I'd imagine that unless there's some kind of agreement between Disney and Universal, we're not likely to see Universal allowed to use MCU or anything other than comic designs.

This also makes refurbishments/enhancements somewhat complex because Marvel has to agree to expanded content beyond the original allowances, and Disney probably isn't in a rush to allow that. It's probably a stalemate unless there's some kind of exchange of Disney being allowed to use GotG in exchange for design enhancements to IoA's Marvel Universe.

As far as I remember, as long as the designs are a fair representation of the brand, Marvel can't really do anything to stop them. I also get the impression that Disney doesn't have a lot of say over Marvel.

 

[zg44]

As far as I remember, as long as the designs are a fair representation of the brand, Marvel can't really do anything to stop them. I also get the impression that Disney doesn't have a lot of say over Marvel.

Sort of, the contract makes it a coordinated effort with Marvel supplying the basic theme/design elements and Universal controlling the remainder with Marvel basically having to accept anything reasonably expected as a result. Could Universal do an end-run and say they want to update with the MCU? They could attempt it, but Marvel might be able to say that they expected it to just be comic-related attractions.

As far as Disney and Marvel go, they run it quasi-hands off as a subsidiary with its own management, but anything to do with the theme parks and especially the Marvel-IoA contract would probably rise all the way up to the top of Disney's legal team and Iger.

Given Marvel's poor track record in the past on legal issues (giving away incredibly lopsided contracts), these kinds of things probably go to the top of Disney's legal team; you're talking about contracts worth hundreds of millions.

 

[Scott W.]

Sort of, the contract makes it a coordinated effort with Marvel supplying the basic theme/design elements and Universal controlling the remainder with Marvel basically having to accept anything reasonably expected as a result. Could Universal do an end-run and say they want to update with the MCU? They could attempt it, but Marvel might be able to say that they expected it to just be comic-related attractions.

As far as Disney and Marvel go, they run it quasi-hands off as a subsidiary with its own management, but anything to do with the theme parks and especially the Marvel-IoA contract would probably rise all the way up to the top of Disney's legal team and Iger.

Given Marvel's poor track record in the past on legal issues (giving away incredibly lopsided contracts), these kinds of things probably go to the top of Disney's legal team; you're talking about contracts worth hundreds of millions.

I still think the biggest issue with implementing the MCU into IOA is getting the actors to do it. I'm almost sure that an actor can count doing work for an attraction as a movie in their contract and with most of the major actors being on a limited number of films left, the cost would be astronomical.

Is it possible? Anything is but for the money involved, they could invest it more wisely.

 

[zg44]

I still think the biggest issue with implementing the MCU into IOA is getting the actors to do it. I'm almost sure that an actor can count doing work for an attraction as a movie in their contract and with most of the major actors being on a limited number of films left, the cost would be astronomical.

Is it possible? Anything is but for the money involved, they could invest it more wisely.

Yeah, considering how successful Universal has been at obtaining other high quality IP, they can probably just ignore that part of IoA for a while. At some point, I'm sure they'll discuss modernization or a revamp but it's probably not a priority.

Jurassic is probably a higher priority.

 

[Scott W.]

Yeah, considering how successful Universal has been at obtaining other high quality IP, they can probably just ignore that part of IoA for a while. At some point, I'm sure they'll discuss modernization or a revamp but it's probably not a priority.

Jurassic is probably a higher priority.

The sad reality is that no resort will take a leap of faith in an untested IP. Last time that Disney went all out was for an unproven IP was the Test Track revamp based on Tron which they thought was going to be a huge hit. Now, they'll only really start on a project after it's success is proven.

I think you're right about JP. Hopefully with the success of Jurassic World, they'll start to concentrate on that land. Marvel although looking dated physically is still kind of timeless (I know that sounds like a contradiction)

 

[GadgetGuru]

Well, with Guardians coming to Epcot, something happened. Couple ideas:

1) Disney's been testing out Guardians on a small-scale for several years. They're confident enough that Guardians doesn't fall under the contract, even with Infinity War happening soon.

2) There was a renegotiation at some point. We could possibly see a new Marvel attraction at Universal or a Hulk solo movie maybe (apparently Universal has Hulk solo movie rights locked up). Remember, if a large sum of money changed hands, both Disney + Universal would have to tell that to shareholders. Heck, I would think any contract changes would have to be told to shareholders, even if it's vague.

3) Contract negotiations are currently under way. The Guardians announcement was very vague. Disney is trying to bluff. They have an alternate ride concept ready if their bluff fails. Either way, we get something replacing UoE.

 

[Brian G.]

Well, with Guardians coming to Epcot, something happened. Couple ideas:

1) Disney's been testing out Guardians on a small-scale for several years. They're confident enough that Guardians doesn't fall under the contract, even with Infinity War happening soon.

2) There was a renegotiation at some point. We could possibly see a new Marvel attraction at Universal or a Hulk solo movie maybe (apparently Universal has Hulk solo movie rights locked up). Remember, if a large sum of money changed hands, both Disney + Universal would have to tell that to shareholders. Heck, I would think any contract changes would have to be told to shareholders, even if it's vague.

3) Contract negotiations are currently under way. The Guardians announcement was very vague. Disney is trying to bluff. They have an alternate ride concept ready if their bluff fails. Either way, we get something replacing UoE.

IF #3 was a possibility - they wouldn't have announced it.

 

[quinnmac000]

Sort of, the contract makes it a coordinated effort with Marvel supplying the basic theme/design elements and Universal controlling the remainder with Marvel basically having to accept anything reasonably expected as a result. Could Universal do an end-run and say they want to update with the MCU? They could attempt it, but Marvel might be able to say that they expected it to just be comic-related attractions.

As far as Disney and Marvel go, they run it quasi-hands off as a subsidiary with its own management, but anything to do with the theme parks and especially the Marvel-IoA contract would probably rise all the way up to the top of Disney's legal team and Iger.

Given Marvel's poor track record in the past on legal issues (giving away incredibly lopsided contracts), these kinds of things probably go to the top of Disney's legal team; you're talking about contracts worth hundreds of millions.

That is a no. 100% not allowed legally as Disney and Universal are direct competitors and Disney themselves could not get plans/access to anything that potentially can be harmful for Universal without Universal actually wanting to allow Disney access.

 

[zg44]

Hulk movie/film rights are owned by Disney (returned to Marvel after Universal stopped making them) but distribution rights are owned by Universal for at least next Hulk solo film (i.e. Universal has first look distribution rights).

That's why Hulk isn't getting a solo film; Disney wants distribution rights back before they make an MCU Hulk.

That is a no. 100% not allowed legally as Disney and Universal are direct competitors and Disney themselves could not get plans/access to anything that potentially can be harmful for Universal without Universal actually wanting to allow Disney access.

What does this refer to? I meant that the legalities of the Marvel-IoA contract are not handled by the Marvel execs but rather by Disney's general counsel.

 

[quinnmac000]

That's why Hulk isn't getting a solo film; Disney wants distribution rights back before they make an MCU Hulk.

What does this refer to? I meant that the legalities of the Marvel-IoA contract are not handled by the Marvel execs but rather by Disney's general counsel.

Nope, its all Marvel Execs. As Disney lawyers also aren't allowed to look at Universal financial books to make sure Marvel is paid correctly, its Marvel legal/business analysts.

 

[tyro]

So if this attraction breaches contract will universal have to wait until it's officially open to act upon it?

 

[AlexanderMBush]

So if this attraction breaches contract will universal have to wait until it's officially open to act upon it?

Disney would've most likely had to get it approved with Universal's consent.

Which is why I think there was negotiations for Universal and Disney. And that I don't see it impossible, especially considering that Marvel Studios and Sony are in a specific contract for Spider-Man.

 

[zg44]

Nope, its all Marvel Execs. As Disney lawyers also aren't allowed to look at Universal financial books to make sure Marvel is paid correctly, its Marvel legal/business analysts.

Marvel's execs work for Disney; it's a wholly owned subsidiary.

The Marvel-IoA contract allows for only regular auditing based on expected industry practices.

Given that the regular license fee for Marvel Universe is a regular annual fee, that means the main variable part of the contract is the various merchandise licensing fees.

So it probably just comes down to Universal showing the specific merchandise sales of the Marvel Universe area to Disney/Marvel's accounting team.

That's all Marvel gets to see. None of that is top-secret stuff that Universal would need to hide from Disney.

Disney already sees all of Marvel's earnings including the breakdown that they get from Universal licensing Marvel Universe. And you could easily just reverse engineer the numbers given the license fees are %...

 

[Ryan]

UoE is closing on August 13th, less than a month. They have something locked in already with Universal, I'm pretty damn sure.