Universal Studios Florida: What Do We Think About It?

[GA-MBIT]

What are we even talking about here? Is there any indication that MSHI is going away outside of a contract expiring in a park a continent away?

I feel like even if Disney found some legal loophole to force MSHI to shutter today, they wouldn't even be able to build something Marvel-related at WDW until at least 2030. They've already been ramping up construction on a ton of projects across multiple parks for years, I just don't see how it'd be worth it to them short-term to postpone those to fasttrack a Marvel land when they don't even have a complete one built in Anaheim yet. I think this is all just a bit silly to be honest.

 

[Sneakman]

I assume Alicia’s main viewpoint on Universal’s perspective would be that while the rides are still popular, contractual agreements keep them from making major changes to the area with the current theme and locks them into other restrictions that are troublesome to work with and that they don’t have with any other licensed themes.

If they have the option to switch the area to another immensely popular IP that would give them more freedom in development and marketing with an almost guaranteed huge ROI, it is definitely still something that can and will be looked into.

Thank you for illustrating what I am thinking. MHSI is locked into place in time, for better or for worse. Key contract word is MAINTAIN If I’m not mistaken.

 

[Legacy]

Thank you for illustrating what I am thinking. MHSI is locked into place in time, for better or for worse. Key contract word is MAINTAIN If I’m not mistaken.

Universal is able to maintain and update. They’ve done so since the Disney acquisition (the Hulk rebuild was done post-Disney acquisition, and Spider-Man has seen extensive tech updates). As long as Universal keeps the land in good working order, they can keep it. More so, Disney cannot actively prevent such updates and maintenance by “not approving it.” Then Disney is in breach.

The generalized rule is pretty straightforward-Universal has access to comic book versions of the authorized Marvel characters in perpetuity. Universal cannot use MCU versions (which Disney can). But that doesn’t stop Universal. Universal was actively developing an Iron Legion ride to add to MSHI post acquisition and capitalize on Avengers-fever, but they couldn’t get the tech to work (which is why it didn’t get built). They wouldn’t have spent millions on developing tech for an IP they don’t have appropriate control of.

And I’m certain the stipulations of the contract for Marvel are similar (if not identical) to Nintendo and Harry Potter.

It is so not an issue and there is no reason to believe Universal is going to “lose” anytime soon.

And if Universal gains access to an IP that can equal the Marvel ROI, they’re going to try to ADD-not replace.

 

[Sneakman]

Universal is able to maintain and update. They’ve done so since the Disney acquisition (the Hulk rebuild was done post-Disney acquisition, and Spider-Man has seen extensive tech updates). As long as Universal keeps the land in good working order, they can keep it. More so, Disney cannot actively prevent such updates and maintenance by “not approving it.” Then Disney is in breach.

The generalized rule is pretty straightforward-Universal has access to comic book versions of the authorized Marvel characters in perpetuity. Universal cannot use MCU versions (which Disney can). But that doesn’t stop Universal. Universal was actively developing an Iron Legion ride to add to MSHI post acquisition and capitalize on Avengers-fever, but they couldn’t get the tech to work (which is why it didn’t get built). They wouldn’t have spent millions on developing tech for an IP they don’t have appropriate control of.

And I’m certain the stipulations of the contract for Marvel are similar (if not identical) to Nintendo and Harry Potter.

It is so not an issue and there is no reason to believe Universal is going to “lose” anytime soon.

And if Universal gains access to an IP that can equal the Marvel ROI, they’re going to try to ADD-not replace.

Thank you. This is very helpful. I apologize for any inaccuracies. Legal lingo is not my strong suit.
Also I DO remember the iron legion ride! I wonder how that wouldve turned out?

 

[HHN Maddux]

Universal is able to maintain and update. They’ve done so since the Disney acquisition (the Hulk rebuild was done post-Disney acquisition, and Spider-Man has seen extensive tech updates). As long as Universal keeps the land in good working order, they can keep it. More so, Disney cannot actively prevent such updates and maintenance by “not approving it.” Then Disney is in breach.

The generalized rule is pretty straightforward-Universal has access to comic book versions of the authorized Marvel characters in perpetuity. Universal cannot use MCU versions (which Disney can). But that doesn’t stop Universal. Universal was actively developing an Iron Legion ride to add to MSHI post acquisition and capitalize on Avengers-fever, but they couldn’t get the tech to work (which is why it didn’t get built). They wouldn’t have spent millions on developing tech for an IP they don’t have appropriate control of.

And I’m certain the stipulations of the contract for Marvel are similar (if not identical) to Nintendo and Harry Potter.

It is so not an issue and there is no reason to believe Universal is going to “lose” anytime soon.

And if Universal gains access to an IP that can equal the Marvel ROI, they’re going to try to ADD-not replace.

Is Iron Legion what that one patent was for way back then? The one with the suspended Iron Men riders?

 

[Sneakman]

Is Iron Legion what that one patent was for way back then? The one with the suspended Iron Men riders?

Think I found the patent photo. Remember this bad boy?

 

[DarkMetroid567]

Universal is able to maintain and update. They’ve done so since the Disney acquisition (the Hulk rebuild was done post-Disney acquisition, and Spider-Man has seen extensive tech updates). As long as Universal keeps the land in good working order, they can keep it. More so, Disney cannot actively prevent such updates and maintenance by “not approving it.” Then Disney is in breach.

The generalized rule is pretty straightforward-Universal has access to comic book versions of the authorized Marvel characters in perpetuity. Universal cannot use MCU versions (which Disney can). But that doesn’t stop Universal. Universal was actively developing an Iron Legion ride to add to MSHI post acquisition and capitalize on Avengers-fever, but they couldn’t get the tech to work (which is why it didn’t get built). They wouldn’t have spent millions on developing tech for an IP they don’t have appropriate control of.

And I’m certain the stipulations of the contract for Marvel are similar (if not identical) to Nintendo and Harry Potter.

It is so not an issue and there is no reason to believe Universal is going to “lose” anytime soon.

And if Universal gains access to an IP that can equal the Marvel ROI, they’re going to try to ADD-not replace.

Something funny about Disney and Universal both giving up on suspended rides that make you feel like your favorite Marvel hero.

That being said, the Iron Legion thing kinda helps me understand why the Disney acquisition thing is an issue. For most, Marvel IS the MCU. The lack of MCU stuff is part of what makes people call Super Hero Island “outdated”, and considering Universal is never getting those rights, it’s easy to understand why many think MSHI’s time is limited.

EDIT: For what it’s worth, I don’t think MSHI is going anytime soon. I’d be shocked to not see it last another decade.

 

[belloq87]

Back to USF, I have to say, the recent decreased confidence around here about Pokemon happening (and where) in any near term future is mildly concerning. If it weren't to happen by the end of the decade... what is happening by the end of the decade*, post-Epic?

* That we don't already know about.

 

[Disneyhead]

Disney: "We'll extend the Simpson's contract for dirt cheap if..."

 

[DodgsonHere]

Back to USF, I have to say, the recent decreased confidence around here about Pokemon happening (and where) in any near term future is mildly concerning. If it weren't to happen by the end of the decade... what is happening by the end of the decade*, post-Epic?

* That we don't already know about.

I’m starting to believe for a couple reasons that Supercharged might actually be closing before Simpsons.

 

[Clive]

Disney: "We'll extend the Simpson's contract for dirt cheap if..."

This is what I’m saying. Lots of things can happen. I don’t think Marvel’s going anywhere because it’s a huge boon for Universal, and the attractions remain extremely popular. Not sure if Disney can really leverage The Simpsons the same way - and if they can’t, why not just let Universal continue to cut checks, especially if they can get a quid pro quo concession somewhere?

 

[Freak]

This is what I’m saying. Lots of things can happen. I don’t think Marvel’s going anywhere because it’s a huge boon for Universal, and the attractions remain extremely popular. Not sure if Disney can really leverage The Simpsons the same way - and if they can’t, why not just let Universal continue to cut checks, especially if they can get a quid pro quo concession somewhere?

The only thing I would have to counter your statement is that the Simpsons ride system is shot. Like it’s old. Would they really want to invest the extra $$$ into a ride that kinda sucks? But I guess if the food and beverage income is that great, then I guess they’ll throw some money into keeping Simpsons around a little longer.

As apathetic as I am about Simpsons coming to Disney theme parks, I’m kinda rooting for it to close at Universal. The ride sucks, and the food has gone downhill….except for the donut but even then it’s not “great” to begin with, but I still like it! I do think Disney will knock it out if the park with Springfield food if they bring it to their parks.

 

[Viator]

I know it’s in the thread in Orlando, but what about Hollywood for Simpsons?

Considering the circumstances with the infrastructure, might it make sense that they could figure out a way to extend or alter the contracts to keep our version alive due to the artery it has (alongside that of the infrastructural impact that it has)?.

 

[TheUniC6]

Hopefully once EU is fully online, we get some more rumor leaks on the future timelines for USF and IOA additions to work with. As we all know, this can change in a heartbeat, but at least it will be something.

I hope that Pokemon is still on. It sounds like it would have the potential to address a lot of the complaints people have about the current state of USF.

 

[Mad Dog]

Disney doing surveys on Simpsons probably reflects on uncertainties of how well the 'getting real old' IP will do as a Disney attraction/mini land. If the survey results indicate lukewarm, or lower, interest from the general public, Disney might want to retain the very good profits they receive from a Universal collaboration.

 

[SeventyOne]

If anything, the MSHI contract (that Disney is stuck with like a dead parent's timeshare) is more favorable than the other contracts Universal has. It was signed at a time Marvel was desperate for cash and there were no other suitors (Six Flags had DC, 1980s Disney wasn't going to put comic book heroes in their parks). They needed the money to stay afloat. In contrast, by the 2000s Universal Orlando itself was in trouble and throwing a Hail Mary to steal Potter away from the Mouse--a deal everyone in the industry thought was already done--so they gave gave Rowling an unprecedented level of control to woo her. The average 2-month HHN IP contract is probably more onerous than the Marvel contract.

As for not updating MSHI to the MCU, there's many good reasons--and none are "Disney won't let them" because that's simply not in the contract, mostly because the MCU was over a decade away at the time. Comic book versions of the characters are more timeless, and probably appeal a bit more to the under 10 crowd who buy toys and pics with Spidey. Having the MCU actors would cost twice as much--Tom Holland would get paid as much or more than Disney to use his face for a 20 second video. And if an actor does something stupid or says something to offend half the country, it puts Universal in an awkward situation. No offense to the talented Chris Edgerly, if he gets busted for DUI, no one's going to connect that to Spider-Man.

ETA: WB unquestionably has authority over all things DC. Did they ever update Six Flags with Christian Bale or Gal Gadot? If not, probably similar reasoning.

 

[Mad Dog]

If anything, the MSHI contract (that Disney is stuck with like a dead parent's timeshare) is more favorable than the other contracts Universal has. It was signed at a time Marvel was desperate for cash and there were no other suitors (Six Flags had DC, 1980s Disney wasn't going to put comic book heroes in their parks). They needed the money to stay afloat. In contrast, by the 2000s Universal Orlando itself was in trouble and throwing a Hail Mary to steal Potter away from the Mouse--a deal everyone in the industry thought was already done--so they gave gave Rowling an unprecedented level of control to woo her. The average 2-month HHN IP contract is probably more onerous than the Marvel contract.

As for not updating MSHI to the MCU, there's many good reasons--and none are "Disney won't let them" because that's simply not in the contract, mostly because the MCU was over a decade away at the time. Comic book versions of the characters are more timeless, and probably appeal a bit more to the under 10 crowd who buy toys and pics with Spidey. Having the MCU actors would cost twice as much--Tom Holland would get paid as much or more than Disney to use his face for a 20 second video. And if an actor does something stupid or says something to offend half the country, it puts Universal in an awkward situation. No offense to the talented Chris Edgerly, if he gets busted for DUI, no one's going to connect that to Spider-Man.

​

Excellent points, especially the timeless characters. As a long time Marvel fan and collector (over 4,500 comics, most from the 60's and 70's). I grew up with the first Marvel superhero mags, and have always considered the original characters and stories superior to the MCU adaptations/changes. And of course, no connections to the present actors is probably a positive in most situations. The MCU also really lessened the value, and created lots of confusion, with their overt emphasis on time travel and alternate timelines. The MCU is kind of a mess now because of that.

 

[Gartooth]

Pokémon at MSHI is an interesting thought experiment just because I feel this one move would upend a lot of speculation people have had about the Orlando resort's post Epic future.

With no Pokémon at USF, what becomes the big ticket draw for that park in the future?

What becomes of Springfield? Does something else take it over? Or do they somehow extend the contract with Disney? (Maybe in exchange for giving up Marvel?)

Does Zelda even happen at Lost Continent with another Nintendo IP at IOA?

A lot to consider there. To be clear I would be really disappointed personally to lose Spider-Man which is my favorite ride at the Orlando parks. (and Marvel is just one of my favorite IP in general) But if it were to happen I feel like it opens a big can of worms to mull over.

 

[Mad Dog]

I don't think Simpsons can be equated, or compared, with Marvel. That would be the worst trade of all time. Like Yankees trading Judge for a rookie League outfielder hitting under .200.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

But it isn't something that could maybe happen.

Obviously we can't expect everyone who joins the conversation here to know everything about everything by default, but I think it's fair to ask that people familiarize themselves with the basic foundational facts of what's being discussed before constantly weighing in.

In this case, it's been discussed at length over many years that Disney can't just be "annoying" to work with. They have to, through Marvel, deal with Universal in good faith. Otherwise, we wouldn't see major, advertised enhancements like the redone Hulk, the redone Spider-Man, or the refreshed character costumes (granted, that was long ago at this point, but if I'm not mistaken it was post-Disney acquisition). In turn, Universal has to maintain certain show standards and keep their presentation of the characters consistent with the Marvel brand. But Disney can't just decide to be petty and refuse to approve whatever Universal throws at them - that would be a breach of contract, and it would likely lead to litigation (or arbitration, if that's what's specified).

It would never be as simple as Universal going "oh hey, Disney's so frustrating to work with this on this, let's just give up these rights that are worth billions of dollars." They would attempt to enforce their contractual rights, and likely prevail.

I think you missed this:

And I imagine trying to work with Disney is an enormous PITA these days, but that’s just my guess.

The Marvel thing has always been interesting. The online fans get so caught up in the horserace between Disney and Universal but I’d consider things from Universal’s perspective in a vacuum. Currently the properties they license are (I believe):

1.) Harry Potter - obviously a huge draw in every sense of the word; hallmark in their marketing, huge incremental revenue opportunities, etc.

2.) The Simpsons - as discussed, despite not being a landmark attraction it likely moves a good amount of merch and (especially) F&B. Licensing costs (and I’d imagine part of the merch) goes to Disney so on the cutting board.

3.) Transformers - one singular attraction but lots of toy opportunities that (I believe) Universal pockets all the profit from.

4.) Toon Lagoon - yeah, this one’s gone yesterday if there was a quick/easy substitution given the infrastructure.

5.) Seuss - important to the fabric of IOA in that it’s their singular kids’ area and serves as a gateway to Grinchmas (THE reason for UO’s lucrative holiday push each year). Again, merch sales and incremental Grinch revenue pocketed 100% by Universal.

6.) Men in Black - see Toon Lagoon

7.) Nintendo - looking to be a huge merch mover, but has been in the portfolio for 10 years now and is underutilized (for now…acknowledging more is coming).


Compare all of those to Marvel. Marvel is a stronger brand than all but Potter or Nintendo but lacks the F&B potential of Simpsons or the simplicity of stuff like MIB/Toon Lagoon. And while it assuredly moves merch, it’s not 100% pocketed by Universal.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has been licensed for 10 years and yielded just 3 unique attractions, 0 of which are in Orlando yet. It’s a contract struck up post-Potter and was surely more savvy in the way it split revenues for merch/food…yet is so far underutilized in the parks.

If I’m Universal, I’m not concerned about Marvel because of Disney, I’m concerned about Marvel because it uses prime real estate to sell things they can’t fully capitalize on while also representing an opportunity cost to extrapolate more out of Nintendo/other potential licenses. Sure, it may be a favorable contract to Universal, but when you’ve got a whole portfolio of IP like Pokémon just begging to be used (and fully profited off of), I could see why Marvel would be seen as something to strike.

I don’t believe Marvel is going anywhere…especially given all of the other areas of need. But I don’t think it would be THE most absurd thing Universal could do.