Anthony Murphy

Published: June 9, 2014 at 6:37 PM

So Disney World can't have anybody from the Avengers. I get it, but what about Iron Man and Thor? If I am not mistaken, they are not at IOA and I seriously doubt that Marvel Superhero Island is going to get anything new.

Published: June 9, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Iron Man and Thor are definitely used in the artwork of the area in Marvel Superhero Island, therefore negating them from usage in any Disney theme park as per the terms of the contract. They are on the facade of Captain America Diner facing the Toon Lagoon entrance. Sad, but true. :(
Robert Niles

Published: June 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM

The use of Hulk at IOA precludes the use of any members of the Avengers character family at any theme park east of the Mississippi, including Iron Man and Thor. Storm takes everyone in X-Men off the table. Fantastic Four are out, too, thanks to the restaurant and character parade. Basically, that leaves Guardians of the Galaxy as the *only* Marvel characters not restricted by IOA's current use of characters.

Published: June 9, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Sorry for my ignorance about this but until when is the contract for the rights in the east coast of Marvel to Universal?
Robert Niles

Published: June 9, 2014 at 9:07 PM

The contract remains in perpetuity, unless Universal ceases making its payments to Marvel or closes Marvel Super Hero Island.
grant crawford

Published: June 10, 2014 at 1:51 AM

I wouldn't say the Guardians of the Galaxy are the only Marvel characters not covered, Marvel has a huge list of characters. Punisher, Daredevil, Ghost Rider and Doctor Strange would all (probably) be fair game for Disney, and they have the cinematic rights to those characters as well. Admittedly these characters are not high profile, but I wouldn't have said Iron Man or Thor were either until their big screen debuts. There are many other characters, and probably some teams that would be possible.

I wonder if we'll ever see Universal relinquishing the rights to Disney. I doubt there's a dollar figure that would ever do it, but possibly the useage of some other IP would offer Universal enough incentive. At the moment though I think Disney has enough other underused IP they could develop in their parks without using Marvel.

Jaiden Cohen

Published: June 10, 2014 at 4:32 AM

Will this play before captain eo? I really hope so.

Published: June 10, 2014 at 5:21 AM

Big Hero 6 characters should be at WDW in the fall. Though they originated as characters in a Marvel comic book, posters and teaser trailers have had a curious lack of Marvel branding. I'm wondering if that is to allow for a clean move into Disney's East of the Mississippi resort.
Rob Pastor

Published: June 10, 2014 at 6:32 AM

A lot of those characters posters are discussing were Avengers at one time or another. The Avengers line up has changed often & drastically since their inception in the 60's.
Brian Bauer

Published: June 10, 2014 at 7:05 AM

@Rob, there have been a LOT of members of the Avengers over the years. However, I think there is a specific list of characters that fall under each family. For instance, Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman and the Thing have all been Avengers but would most likely NOT be listed as such under any sort of contract like this. They would be part of the Fantastic Four family.
Rob Pastor

Published: June 10, 2014 at 7:49 AM

Brian: To expand, basically, my point was that most of the major, and many minor, characters in the Marvel Universe were members of one of those teams at one time or another and therefore cannot be used by Disney east of the Miss. since all three team's have a member represented somewhere on Marvel Island. I think we're really thinking the same on this subject.

Published: June 10, 2014 at 7:59 AM

Matt Murdoch's name may be posted on an office door or window at Islands of Adventure. Would such a simple mention preclude Daredevil from being used?
Brian Bauer

Published: June 10, 2014 at 8:11 AM

@Rob, but if there was no Fantastic Four presence at IOA, would the 3 characters I mentioned still be off limits? Some people seem to think "yes" because they were Avengers at one point. I think they would NOT be off limits because they are not categorizes as part of the Avengers family.
Anon Mouse

Published: June 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM

What I wonder is whether Universal can install additional Marvel characters, thus take them out of Disney's reach. Could it take Guardians of the Galaxy and turn into an attraction?

What if they removed the Toon section in IOA and expanded the Marvel section. It should be a easy fix to convert the existing rides to a Marvel theme. They have a stage that can host a Marvel show.

Disney is skirting on the edge of the licensing deal. It is quite a feat to not be in violation. Perhaps Universal should send a cease and desist letter and state that the compromise should be a screening at IOA at no cost to Disney.

robert morris

Published: June 10, 2014 at 8:35 AM

Disclaimer: I have an eight year old son who watches the Avengers on Disney XD

The Avengers on Disney XD did just do an episode involving the Guardians of the Galaxy both fighting Galactus...who also happens to be a villain in the Fantastic Four (also present at Marvel Island)

Does that open Disney up to violate the contract?

Robert Niles

Published: June 10, 2014 at 9:32 AM

That is a *great* question.
Brian Bauer

Published: June 10, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Up until recently, Iron Man was a member of the Guardians in the comic series. If that doesn't make the Guardians off limits, I don't think a guest appearance on the cartoon will.

Published: June 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM

On the mention of individual characters, the way I read the contract, Universal has to already be using the character, otherwise Marvel can license the use of that character to someone else, at which point nothing Universal does can revoke that contract (ie if Marvel/Disney licenses itself to use Guardians of the Galaxy in a Disney theme park, assuming not already restricted by the Universal agreement, then as long as that license is valid nothing Universal does would effect that). If Universal did add it at some point, it would prevent future new licensing of those character, but wouldn't effect the existing license.

One interesting note - while it does appear Disney is free to create attractions based on Marvel characters at will west of the Mississippi, Disney will not be able to use the word Marvel is association with any of those attractions as long as this agreement is in force (and if you look at the Disneyland website for Innoventions, you don't see the word Marvel used even once in the listed Marvel character associated items). Also, they would not be able to create a 'Marvel' land, at least not with the word Marvel in the name. This does not apply outside the US from what I can tell (ie assuming the worldwide provisions of the contract have expired, they can do anything including the use of the word Marvel at the International parks, just not in any of the US parks).

On the note of the simulator ride in the article, I don't believe that matters for the purpose of Disney doing the Guardians of the Galaxy preview within Disney World, as that applies specifically to the section of the contract specifying the use/non-use of characters/rides in a potential retail concept that Marvel was apparently considering called The Marvel Action Universe (or similar), and would have necessarily (by the definition of the contract) be a separate entity from another theme park. That entire section of the contract (4) wouldn't apply to what may or may not happen within Disneyland, as it is specific to this retail concept.