MSHI Expansion?

[graspthesun]

Notice that the trump card is Disney's opinion of the plans, so Uni does not have carte blanche.

Ultimately, Universal will likely prevail in a lawsuit. There was the dispute over Disney's attempt to market the Avengers universe films on the monorail. An arbitrator required Disney to remove the wrap from the Epcot line because it goes through a park and would be a breach of contract.

 

[Nico]

So hate posted two pics on his twitter:

https://twitter.com/hatetofly/status/488319686220587008/photo/1

 

[DufflesMcGee]

So hate posted two pics on his twitter:

https://twitter.com/hatetofly/status/488319686220587008/photo/1

After Kong, JP, LC & Seuss... So Oct. 1st 2021

 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

I've been crying for a Flyer for Islands for about 4 years. Thought it would be JP . But an Ironman Flyer in toon lagoon theatre works for me.

 

[MrRoamer]

If you count both dragons and the Hogwarts Express, Hogsmeade has the most with 5.

Drat, I hadn't been on Hogwarts Express (which is awesome!!) yet so that didn't even factor into my calculations.

 

[JungleSkip]

Quinn, that's absolutely not true. The agreement states that Marvel gets reasonable approval over everything in that section of the park. So let's say Universal wanted to build an Iron Man ride. Marvel/Disney would have to approve. And they wouldn't.

Marvel cannot deny a new attraction simply because Disney owns them. It would have to be because the character being used is not portrayed in the agreed upon manner

 

[rhino4evr]

An Iron Man flying coaster seems like a no brainer. It's been awhile since the last coaster. Bring it on.

 

[UniversalCityFL]

Marvel cannot deny a new attraction simply because Disney owns them. It would have to be because the character being used is not portrayed in the agreed upon manner

I'm not sure what you mean. If Uni were to propose building a, let's say, Iron Man ride (comics), which the main driving reason is to latch onto the popularity in the character due to the recent movies, you can bet your ass Disney-owned Marvel would deny that proposal.

Probably pointless for us to discuss since all we have to go by is an agreement from 18-some-odd years ago on the internet Who knows what discussions or agreements the companies have had since then. Anything is possible if it's mutually beneficial for all parties.

 

[JungleSkip]

I'm not sure what you mean. If Uni were to propose building a, let's say, Iron Man ride (comics), which the main driving reason is to latch onto the popularity in the character due to the recent movies, you can bet your ass Disney-owned Marvel would deny that proposal.

Probably pointless for us to discuss since all we have to go by is an agreement from 18-some-odd years ago on the internet Who knows what discussions or agreements the companies have had since then. Anything is possible if it's mutually beneficial for all parties.

That 18 year old agreement is the current agreement. Any changes would be reflected in the contract available to the public. Marvel agreed to allow Universal to use their characters in their comic book state. If Universal wanted to use Iron Man from his comic book state, Marvel could not deny them that, just like Universal could not make Iron Man a mutant made our of iron, because that would not be representing the character as he appears in the Marvel Universe.

 

[quinnmac000]

That 18 year old agreement is the current agreement. Any changes would be reflected in the contract available to the public. Marvel agreed to allow Universal to use their characters in their comic book state. If Universal wanted to use Iron Man from his comic book state, Marvel could not deny them that, just like Universal could not make Iron Man a mutant made our of iron, because that would not be representing the character as he appears in the Marvel Universe.

Yep. Yep. Yep and Yep. They have to stay true to the comic book character who he is, his abilities, and his story. Thats the only way Disney can say no if they do not follow through with those.

 

[UniversalCityFL]

Yep. Yep. Yep and Yep. They have to stay true to the comic book character who he is, his abilities, and his story. Thats the only way Disney can say no if they do not follow through with those.

That's not how I interpret the Agreement. It states Marvel gets reasonable approval to the land and the reasons you list above are some of the primary reasons they put in print as a reminder to Uni to do things on-brand -- but they are not the ONLY reasons. Disney could say a new Iron-Man ride conflicts with their promotion of an upcoming movie (just as an example) and veto it.

This is all a gray area as the agreement doesn't specifically call out expansions of the land. I interpret the language one way, yourself a different way --- this is why lovely lawyers exist.

 

[USO92]

That's not how I interpret the Agreement. It states Marvel gets reasonable approval to the land and the reasons you list above are some of the primary reasons they put in print as a reminder to Uni to do things on-brand -- but they are not the ONLY reasons. Disney could say a new Iron-Man ride conflicts with their promotion of an upcoming movie (just as an example) and veto it.

This is all a gray area as the agreement doesn't specifically call out expansions of the land. I interpret the language one way, yourself a different way --- this is why lovely lawyers exist.

Skip works with a lawyer at Parkscope and is very well versed in the matter we are speaking of. I know you didnt respond to him but the subject matter is the same. This isnt a case of being able to interpret it one way and have someone else another way. Its black and white.

 

[UniversalCityFL]

Got it.

(Side note, I had no idea that Skip was with ParkScope until now).

 

[anihilnation]

Us laypeople who do not speak legaleze interpret imagine it can be interpreted different ways, though the fact is that contracts are pretty much definite and hence not open to interpretation and no matter how old the contract is, it remains valid for the duration of the contract. I can see the Marvel Island go away in the far future though, as I feel that it does not quite fit in with the adventure, so I think that eventually all of IOA will become more fantasy adventure oriented, JP and Kong kind of fit into that as well and Toon Lagoon will probably eventually give way to something like LOTR or Warcraft and if that indeed happens, then Marvel Island would feel awkward. Anyway, just a feeling I have for the far away future

 

[SeventyOne]

That's not how I interpret the Agreement. It states Marvel gets reasonable approval to the land and the reasons you list above are some of the primary reasons they put in print as a reminder to Uni to do things on-brand -- but they are not the ONLY reasons. Disney could say a new Iron-Man ride conflicts with their promotion of an upcoming movie (just as an example) and veto it.

This is all a gray area as the agreement doesn't specifically call out expansions of the land. I interpret the language one way, yourself a different way --- this is why lovely lawyers exist.

In any contract like this, it's presumed both parties will act reasonably. Nothing all that gray here. Pink and green rather than yellow and red Iron Man? Would be an issue. Animatronic Iron Man murdering random civilians? Problematic. But an yellow and red coaster with an Iron Man statue similar to the one in the comic shop out front? No problem. As long as it doesn't contradict the character--and that wouldn't--nothing Disney can do.

BTW, re: Guardians of the Galaxy, tricky area. The villains in the movie are straight-up Avengers bad guys, firmly in the Avengers "family." And apparently the Marvel logo is off-limits at WDW. But the Guardians themselves are probably ok, although Star Lord may have been an "honorary" Avenger at one point--that is the kind of thing we have lawyers for.

 

[JungleSkip]

In any contract like this, it's presumed both parties will act reasonably. Nothing all that gray here. Pink and green rather than yellow and red Iron Man? Would be an issue. Animatronic Iron Man murdering random civilians? Problematic. But an yellow and red coaster with an Iron Man statue similar to the one in the comic shop out front? No problem. As long as it doesn't contradict the character--and that wouldn't--nothing Disney can do.

BTW, re: Guardians of the Galaxy, tricky area. The villains in the movie are straight-up Avengers bad guys, firmly in the Avengers "family." And apparently the Marvel logo is off-limits at WDW. But the Guardians themselves are probably ok, although Star Lord may have been an "honorary" Avenger at one point--that is the kind of thing we have lawyers for.

Thanks for popping in here, 71.

 

[rhino4evr]

Doesnt Disney make a portion of the merchandise sales on Marvel products anyway? I mean, if they can't do anything about the park habing a Marvel Land, at least they can make some money on the merch they sell. So a new attraction isn't a total lose/lose for Disney.

 

[UniversalCityFL]

In any contract like this, it's presumed both parties will act reasonably. Nothing all that gray here. Pink and green rather than yellow and red Iron Man? Would be an issue. Animatronic Iron Man murdering random civilians? Problematic. But an yellow and red coaster with an Iron Man statue similar to the one in the comic shop out front? No problem. As long as it doesn't contradict the character--and that wouldn't--nothing Disney can do.

I TOTALLY get what everyone is saying about the characters being on-brand. But My argument here is predicated on this line of the Agreement:

Marvel-themed complex would be designed in coordination with Marvel, and all major elements and themes would be subject to Marvel’s reasonable approval.

Going off this line, it seems to me that anything in this land has to be something that Marvel wants to do as well and therefore can still "veto" any idea if they don't want to play along/"in coordination with". So it seems Disney does have more say in the matter vs. being forced to agree with anything Universal wants as long as the colors and characters are accurate.

Thoughts?

anihilnation: contracts are not definite, every day there are thousands of contracts being deliberated because both parties disagree on what's written. This is why contracts are so long and wordy, to try to avoid it getting to that point. That's what lawyers do, they interpret the law, which can be nebulous a lot of the time.

 

[Frank Drackman]

I TOTALLY get what everyone is saying about the characters being on-brand. But My argument here is predicated on this line of the Agreement:

Marvel-themed complex would be designed in coordination with Marvel, and all major elements and themes would be subject to Marvel’s reasonable approval.

Going off this line, it seems to me that anything in this land has to be something that Marvel wants to do as well and therefore can still "veto" any idea if they don't want to play along/"in coordination with". So it seems Disney does have more say in the matter vs. being forced to agree with anything Universal wants as long as the colors and characters are accurate.

Thoughts?

anihilnation: contracts are not definite, every day there are thousands of contracts being deliberated because both parties disagree on what's written. This is why contracts are so long and wordy, to try to avoid it getting to that point. That's what lawyers do, they interpret the law, which can be nebulous a lot of the time.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the key word in all of that is "reasonable". I do know enough to know that words have strong meaning in contracts and that one word is placed there to keep Marvel/Disney in line in that they must act within reason. I do not think Disney would want to go to court to explain why their veto would be considered reasonable.

Just my non-legal opinion though.

 

[Frogki]

I'd agree with others - because Marvel is already represented at Islands of Adventure, Marvel can't just say no because they're with Disney now and don't want to do that project. But I don't know. I think the "reasonable" part of the contract is the most important, Marvel can be involved with the project or not but they can't veto involvement simply because they don't want it at Universal.