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."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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
So if this attraction breaches contract will universal have to wait until it's officially open to act upon it?
Marvel's execs work for Disney; it's a wholly owned subsidiary.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.