Inside Universal Forums

Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!

  • 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.

MSHI Expansion?

I'm afraid I have to agree to disagree with your interpretation. The Marvel Action Universe doesn't say anything about not applying to theme parks, even if it's a retail concept. The Marvel Action Universe may contain a retail concept, as well as the simulator ride contained within a park. The contract says "THE MARVEL ACTION UNIVERSE WILL CONSIST, INTER ALIA, OF THE SALE OF COMIC BOOKS, TRADING CARDS, SOFTWARE, LICENSED OR MARVEL PRODUCED MERCHANDISE, THE USE OF ELECTRONIC GAMES AND/OR PINBALLS OR OTHER COIN OPERATED GAMES, AND MAY INCLUDE ONE OR MORE VIRTUAL REALITY AND/OR SIMULATOR RIDE USING MARVEL CHARACTERS OR OTHER THEMES."

So looking at Marvel Super Hero Island at IOA, it does have a bunch of arcade games, pinballs, a comic book store, and a trading center as well as a simulator ride within Islands of Adventure. The Spider-Man ride at Universal Studios Japan has a store featuring merchandises from dolls to trading cards. So it definitely applies to theme parks, let alone from the Disney ones.

Sorry, but reread the definition clauses in section I.A. of the contract. "THE MARVEL UNIVERSE" refers to the land at IOA, "THE MARVEL ACTION UNIVERSE" is the retail concept Marvel was planning on licensing. It specifically says "Marvel Action Universe will not be within any theme park, nor marketed in conjunction with any theme park" so that section can't apply to IOA.

And even if it did apply, it also says "no The Marvel Action Universe shall contain more than one simulator, nor shall such simulator hold more than 20 people," so they could have one simulator ride as long as the vehicle capacity was 20 or under.
 
Sorry, but reread the definition clauses in section I.A. of the contract. "THE MARVEL UNIVERSE" refers to the land at IOA, "THE MARVEL ACTION UNIVERSE" is the retail concept Marvel was planning on licensing. It specifically says "Marvel Action Universe will not be within any theme park, nor marketed in conjunction with any theme park" so that section can't apply to IOA.

This exactly. By the contract's own definition, the Marvel Action Universe is not a "theme park." Since Disney seems to be out of the Dave & Busters rip-off game with the closing of DQ, I don't think those provisions will be relevant again.
 
Sorry, but reread the definition clauses in section I.A. of the contract. "THE MARVEL UNIVERSE" refers to the land at IOA, "THE MARVEL ACTION UNIVERSE" is the retail concept Marvel was planning on licensing. It specifically says "Marvel Action Universe will not be within any theme park, nor marketed in conjunction with any theme park" so that section can't apply to IOA.

And even if it did apply, it also says "no The Marvel Action Universe shall contain more than one simulator, nor shall such simulator hold more than 20 people," so they could have one simulator ride as long as the vehicle capacity was 20 or under.

Seth, you have any links or more info on the retail concept? Some googles searches just bring back results to the contract and Inside Universal.
 
My mistake. But even then, at least Disney relies more on practical than screens when it comes to their stuff. Compare Frozen to Gringotts. Compare River Journey to Kong. Compare Flight of Passage's queue and loading to Fallon. They use more practical that UO has been recently. Supercharged isn't going to be any better.
Compare Kongs Queue to River Journey
Compare Jimmy Fallon's Queue to Frozen
Compare Gringotts to Flight of Passage

Ooh, look- I can pick and choose and rearrange to fit my narrative too.

Here in this IoA thread, we have a groundbreaking hybrid in Spider-Man. A groundbreaking hybrid in Forbidden Journey. And a hybrid in Kong. Everything else is practical.

So I'm not sure what you're getting at here...
 
Sorry, but reread the definition clauses in section I.A. of the contract. "THE MARVEL UNIVERSE" refers to the land at IOA, "THE MARVEL ACTION UNIVERSE" is the retail concept Marvel was planning on licensing. It specifically says "Marvel Action Universe will not be within any theme park, nor marketed in conjunction with any theme park" so that section can't apply to IOA.

And even if it did apply, it also says "no The Marvel Action Universe shall contain more than one simulator, nor shall such simulator hold more than 20 people," so they could have one simulator ride as long as the vehicle capacity was 20 or under.

So even if I accept your argument, saying that it can't have a themed simulator ride in a non-Universal property in one clause (IV.B.4.a.iii) while accepting it should have one simulator ride more less than 20 people in another clause (IV.B.4.b.i) in any park seems to be extremely contradicting with each other so it's not making any sense.
 
So even if I accept your argument, saying that it can't have a themed simulator ride in a non-Universal property in one clause (IV.B.4.a.iii) while accepting it should have one simulator ride more less than 20 people in another clause (IV.B.4.b.i) in any park seems to be extremely contradicting with each other so it's not making any sense.

It makes sense. The first clause (IV.B.1.a.4.a.iii) refers to Marvel Action Universe locations within 60 miles of Universal. The second (IV.B.1.a.4.b.i) refers to Marvel Action Universes outside the 60mi ADI, but less than 300 miles from Universal.

Either way, this entire discussion is moot because the Marvel Action Universe doesn't exist, and NONE of the simulator restrictions in the contract have any bearing on what Disney can or can't do. And that's my final word on the matter...
 
So I think it's safe to say with the Potter announcement that any new Marvel ride is on the back burner until after Potter? I think they're missing the boat on not getting a new Marvel attraction there ASAP. Marvel is one of the hottest properties right now. It's been 6 years since the last Potter movie so I'm not really sure how much of a hot commodity it is right now.
 
So I think it's safe to say with the Potter announcement that any new Marvel ride is on the back burner until after Potter? I think they're missing the boat on not getting a new Marvel attraction there ASAP. Marvel is one of the hottest properties right now. It's been 6 years since the last Potter movie so I'm not really sure how much of a hot commodity it is right now.
Potter is Popular. Not Hot. Popular always wins out in the long run. Not only that Potter introduced so many people to Universal theme parks. That gives them every single bit of power to keep the train moving and potter does that.
 
It makes sense. The first clause (IV.B.1.a.4.a.iii) refers to Marvel Action Universe locations within 60 miles of Universal. The second (IV.B.1.a.4.b.i) refers to Marvel Action Universes outside the 60mi ADI, but less than 300 miles from Universal.

Either way, this entire discussion is moot because the Marvel Action Universe doesn't exist, and NONE of the simulator restrictions in the contract have any bearing on what Disney can or can't do. And that's my final word on the matter...

Pretty sure, almost all experts agree that the governing of simulator rides applies to Disney parks in the U.S. and Japan. IDK about you, but it seems to be more evidence online against than for the idea that WDW can create a Marvel-themed simulator ride. The wording of the contract is a bit weird regarding "Marvel Action Universe" or what not so that caught me off by surprise.

So I think it's safe to say with the Potter announcement that any new Marvel ride is on the back burner until after Potter? I think they're missing the boat on not getting a new Marvel attraction there ASAP. Marvel is one of the hottest properties right now. It's been 6 years since the last Potter movie so I'm not really sure how much of a hot commodity it is right now.

Disney and Universal Studios had talks, but the contract wasn't changed. What was done was clarifying the gray areas and agreeing on who can use what. Both parties walked away quite pleased with the results of the talks. As a result, Universal got this https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/59/18/be/5918be02940dd229d8d7b447f859bbcf.jpg Iron Legion | Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

What is rumored is that Universal already filed a patent months ago indicating a figure strongly resembles of that of the Iron Man character for the expansion of Marvel Super Hero Island. Only time will tell though I really hope MSHI needs a new attraction it really deserves. Universal seeks patent for flight simulator and drift-racer rides - LA Times
 
Pretty sure, almost all experts agree that the governing of simulator rides applies to Disney parks in the U.S. and Japan. IDK about you, but it seems to be more evidence online against than for the idea that WDW can create a Marvel-themed simulator ride. The wording of the contract is a bit weird regarding "Marvel Action Universe" or what not so that caught me off by surprise.
Sorry, but can you provide any links to the experts who all disagree with me? You are the first and only person I've ever heard interpret the Marvel Action Universe clause as restricting what type of theme park ride Disney is allowed to build.

PS Please don't link to the article on this website from 2016. Brian got a lot of stuff right in that piece but this was one area he was mistaken, and really needs to edit.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I've never heard anyone else say Disney couldn't build a Madvel simulator in any park until this guy did.
 
The wording of the contract is a bit weird regarding "Marvel Action Universe" or what not so that caught me off by surprise.

Not sure I'm an expert, but I did get an "A" in contract law, so let me take a stab at lawyer-splaining ...

The "Marvel Action Universe" is a very specific thing--a Planet Hollywood/Dave & Busters rip-off themed to Marvel characters (mostly the ones in IoA, who were the ONLY characters all but the geekiest of fans would have recognized in 1989). Planet Hollywood and Hard Rock were all the rage at this time, everybody was trying to cash in--for example, the WWE restaurant/"experience" in Times Square. Or a little experiment TWDC was working on called DisneyQuest.

MAU is by definition not a "theme park." A "theme park," given the explicit definition in the contract, would be Magic Kingdom, or Sea World, or an as-yet-unbuilt but still easy-to-imagine-in-1989 Six Flags Orlando or Tampa park. Most of the contract is devoted to making sure no other theme park gets to use the IoA characters (again, the only ones with pop cultural relevance at the time). It is very much directed at making sure no other theme park builds rides, shops, restaurants, etc. with Spidey or Hulk. Especially a Six Flags park if the Marvel characters ended up in WB hands, a distinct possibility given Marvel was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. I seriously doubt anyone who drafted this contract thought WDW would ever want the characters but a new Six Flags or a Six Flags rebrand of one of the AB properties was certainly within the realm of possibility.

Universal didn't want a MAU opening up on I-Drive (Pointe Orlando would've been an obvious target, with FAO Schwartz and Pac Man Cafe) or that rumored new Disney Springs development. That would dilute the market, so close to home. But it wasn't such a huge deal that they felt the need to block them all over the country. A Marvel restaurant/gift shop with a couple traveling mall show level simulators in NYC or Chicago wasn't going to hurt IoA anymore than DQ Chicago hurt MK--if anything, it promotes the IP and lets Marvel make a little extra cash to stay in business publishing comics (again, a real concern back then). So the rules regarding MAU are far more lenient, but in theory still could be enforced if, say, Disney moved to open a Marvel restaurant in Disney Springs. However, those clauses will never have any effect on anything done in DHS, EPCOT, MK or DAK, because those are theme parks, not MAUs or a concept evolved from MAU.
 
So I think it's safe to say with the Potter announcement that any new Marvel ride is on the back burner until after Potter? I think they're missing the boat on not getting a new Marvel attraction there ASAP. Marvel is one of the hottest properties right now. It's been 6 years since the last Potter movie so I'm not really sure how much of a hot commodity it is right now.

Like yes on the back burner but also not.. I think it's all on their 5-year plan that we don't know about... yet.
 
Anyways, I have a thought just now, can Universal build Marvel rides in Beijing and elsewhere in the world like Singapore for example? I know that Universal owned the theme park rights to Marvel characters for the abandoned Dubai Universal themed park and Universal Studios Hollywood ended the theme park agreement with Marvel in 2008. But technically, can Universal Hollywood renew the agreement with Marvel or no?
 
Anyways, I have a thought just now, can Universal build Marvel rides in Beijing and elsewhere in the world like Singapore for example? I know that Universal owned the theme park rights to Marvel characters for the abandoned Dubai Universal themed park and Universal Studios Hollywood ended the theme park agreement with Marvel in 2008. But technically, can Universal Hollywood renew the agreement with Marvel or no?

I'd say it's next to impossible with Disneyland just down the road and Disney now owning Marvel and building their own land in DCA.
 
Anyways, I have a thought just now, can Universal build Marvel rides in Beijing and elsewhere in the world like Singapore for example? I know that Universal owned the theme park rights to Marvel characters for the abandoned Dubai Universal themed park and Universal Studios Hollywood ended the theme park agreement with Marvel in 2008. But technically, can Universal Hollywood renew the agreement with Marvel or no?

No, the contract was explicitly limited to the US and Japan. And since then, Comcast has let it lapse for all of the US west of the Mississippi and all characters in Japan except Spider-Man.

The reason Transformers was created for Singapore was to re-use the Spidey ride system without the Spidey IP. Ride them back-to-back in Orlando, it's readily apparent it's the same attraction with different skins.
 
No, the contract was explicitly limited to the US and Japan. And since then, Comcast has let it lapse for all of the US west of the Mississippi and all characters in Japan except Spider-Man.

The reason Transformers was created for Singapore was to re-use the Spidey ride system without the Spidey IP. Ride them back-to-back in Orlando, it's readily apparent it's the same attraction with different skins.

Is Transformers different in Singapore to USF and USH?
 
Top