That Darn Marvel Contract – What Rights Does Universal and Disney Own | Inside Universal Forums
  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.

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

SpyderDan

Veteran Member
Feb 9, 2009
1,594
The Daily Bugle
Since Disney owns Marvel Entertainment as a whole, Universal cannot build any future Marvel attractions outside of IOA. Pre-2009 Marvel contract stipulated that Universal holds the rights of specific Marvel characters for attractions East of the Mississippi as well as the Marvel name in both West and East of the Mississippi, as Universal never owned Marvel itself. Disney came in and sweep up Marvel, so Universal simply doesn't have the right to build new Marvel attractions outside of IOA.
Okay so Universal will have to work with what they currently have but it's still of immense value to them. Disney owning Marvel does not legally give them authority to break the contract Marvel and Universal wrote up, lucky for Universal and Marvel fans.

If Disney finds that Universal is practicing the Marvel contract in bad faith, with additions that negatively depict characters; I thought that'd be when Disney would try to take it to court, no?
I think it's nearly impossible to make that argument though considering the upgrades they've made in recent years.
 

jseal777

Member
Jun 7, 2016
866
Okay so Universal will have to work with what they currently have but it's still of immense value to them. Disney owning Marvel does not legally give them authority to break the contract Marvel and Universal wrote up, lucky for Universal and Marvel fans.



I think it's nearly impossible to make that argument though considering the upgrades they've made in recent years.
Oh I don't know... You guys remember a year or two ago when one of those fantastic four flags was in tatters.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SpyderDan

Nick

Staff member
Moderator
Sep 22, 2011
25,114
Orlando
And then they replaced it shortly after?
They did replace it so certainly credit to them for maintaining the area, but they only did it after basically being called out by bioreconstruct on twitter. A flag doesn't get as torn up as that one was overnight is all i'm saying.
 

AlexanderMBush

Legendary Member
Nov 23, 2013
18,682
Arizona
Coming back to this, now seeing just how successful Shang-Chi is for the MCU; excluding any potential use of The Mandarin, could Disney be able to use Shang-Chi and Katy for the parks? I feel like this should be something to consider for Orlando, but if the characters are already in place; then I think that settles that.
 

Brian G.

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 21, 2008
21,688
Orlando, FL
This is probably the trickiest since Guardians. My general rule of thumb has been pay attention to the Meet & Greets at WDW but with all the cutz lately… that’s probably not a good measure right now.

What I do know is that the 10 Rings are out, and if Shang Chi is now in possession of that - it may be reason enough for a restriction.
 

Nick

Staff member
Moderator
Sep 22, 2011
25,114
Orlando
Might as well ask since we're on the topic of where characters stand. Do we know where The Eternals stand in all of this?
 

SpyderDan

Veteran Member
Feb 9, 2009
1,594
The Daily Bugle
The Mandarin was Iron Man's arch-nemesis for a long time so I am not sure if they're in the same family of characters. Not sure how that would effect things.
 

SeventyOne

V.I.P.
Jul 1, 2010
3,090
Orlando
Which universe does Shang-Chi belong to? Avengers?
The original 1972 Master of Kung Fu or whatever should be free and clear. However (movie spoilers I guess so I'll tag it)
in the film, they ret-conned the character into being The Mandarin's son. As the Mandarin is an Iron Man/ Avengers villain, technically movie Shang-Chi would be in his "family" ... and therefore the Avengers' "family."

Whether post-contract ret-cons count is something I doubt has come up before. This would no doubt go to arbitration if both companies felt strongly about it. Because, to be blunt, I'm certain neither party considered this possibility when the contract was drafted.

Might as well ask since we're on the topic of where characters stand. Do we know where The Eternals stand in all of this?
I remember very little about them, but think mostly they would be free and clear. I could be totally wrong about that, defer to any better informed Marvel zombies on here. That said, various incarnations of Black Knight (who I believe Jon Snow is playing) did do a fair amount of time as an Avenger, so he might be problematic.

ETA: skimmed the wiki, Eternals crossed over with the Avengers (particularly Thor) but started as their own New Gods-ripoff book and was originally not a part of the Marvel Universe, should be ok. Except Kit Harrington's character, who actually began as an Avenger villain and became an Avenger in the comics. He's not an Eternal, fwiw.
 
Last edited: