Harry Potter at Disney Studios

shmmrname

shmmrname

Active Member
1. Yes, I would favor an HP-themed ride/attraction.
2. More importantly, I choose not to attack "unoriginal" forums.
3. There really are a lot of "forum nazis" that lurk these boards.
4. Lighten up people, it's WDW.
 
C

cameraguy

New Member
WHO Cares!!!!!!! If HP comes to WDW, that great. If it dosen't, no big los. WDW won't loos popularity because of that. I have only been a member of this board for a month, and i am sick of this thread already. So I say it agian, WHO CARES. It's no big deal. Will you not like Disney if they add a HP attraction. Will you not like WDW if they don't. I didn't think so. So lets just droop it, or i am going to go insaine.
 
A

artdude323

New Member
dave2822 said:
Sorry but as unfair as that may sound to you, no one who has read one Harry Potter thread ever wants to read another. They are dozens of pages long, filled with ridiculous ideas, and never ever die (as witnessed by the currently two HP threads floating around). Not to mention this isn't news or rumors. Even a rumor has to have some credit/merit, and HP is never coming. Discuss it in chit chat, or even in WDW General Discussion, but everytime people post in this section it is giving the casual fan who just glances by wdwmagic.com the wrong idea.



Be happy to answer. Firstly, and most importantly, makes no sense to the bottom line, and that is what means the most to shareholders. Airing rights have nothing to do with what we are talking about. Disney Channel has shown Back to the Future 2 on occasion, this argument isn't relevant. You need the rights to build the attraction, the money to build it, and the merchandising rights, which J.K. will never give up, or will ask for way too much of a cut for it to be worth it for TWDC.

And, to those who think it belongs somewhere, where?

Magic Kingdom: Never, Harry Potter doesn't belong anywhere near Mickey Mouse. Fantasyland is filled with Disney classics, not attractions they simply own the right to and has no other affiliations with them. Winnie the Pooh, Peter Pan, IASW, Dumbo, Harry Potter? please.

EPCOT: This one is the funniest. World Showcase is about attention to detail and realism. Harry Potter is fantasy, and set in fantasy. Just because the author is British does not make it o.k. to stick it in that pavilion. And if you honestly believe that attraction would fit in with the rest of World Showcase .....

So this brings us to Disney Studios, where non-Disney affiliations live. Star Tours, Indiana Jones, all of these attractions Disney is affiliated with have stood the test of time, and proven to be enjoyed by all audiences. Harry Potter certainly can't say that, and who knows if this is a generation fad and will look horrible in a decade. Think in the future guys.
Click to expand...

You know, it's very simple - if you are so tired of reading threads that have the name HARRY POTTER in the titles, IGNORE THEM and move on. It's really not your place to tell people what to write, it's your place to tell yourself to NOT read the threads if you aren't interested in the topic. Seems pretty simple, no? Maybe only to those who can be responsible for themselves first and don't expect much accomodation from everyone else.

I guess someone lied to me all these years - I had NO idea that Winnie the Pooh or Peter Pan were original Disney characters, I thought they were characters that Disney bought the rights to use and developed past their original state. Just like they could do with Harry Potter, if they wanted to put him in Fantasyland, where all these other non-Disney affiliates live as well as at MGM.

As for Epcot being the funniest because it's so realistic, I'll believe that when you show me a real, live troll like those in Maelstrom at Norway, or children like those in El Rio. Or when the Chinese movie shows the poverty and conditions of most of the people who live there. There's nothing "realistic" about any of those and they're no more or less fantasy that HP is, and even if you go to Future World, when was the last time you saw a shrinking audience? Or time travel to Dinosaurs? Or for that matter, Ellen Degeneres on Jeopardy? So much for your hard core reality. Give the hardcore statements a rest and think a little before you post such "absolute" statements.

I don't say I think Harry Potter belomgs at Disney or he doesn't, I just say that the board nazis who declare topics off limit for more posts really need to see that they aren't the last word, and there's a staff to keep that control. You aren't needed for it.
 
D

Disneydreaming

New Member
dave2822 said:
Be happy to answer. Firstly, and most importantly, makes no sense to the bottom line, and that is what means the most to shareholders. Airing rights have nothing to do with what we are talking about. Disney Channel has shown Back to the Future 2 on occasion, this argument isn't relevant. You need the rights to build the attraction, the money to build it, and the merchandising rights, which J.K. will never give up, or will ask for way too much of a cut for it to be worth it for TWDC.

.
Click to expand...

Yes, well I am a stockholder, with a pretty good chuck invested. I think that adding a Harry Potter ride will boost interest and attendance in the parks. It would increase bookings from around the world, since Harry Potter is such a worldwide phenomenom. People that come from all over the world stay longer, not a 3 or 4 night stay. They will dump more money into the parks. Also JKR and merchandising rights....I think she might be willing to give them to Disney, because after her 7th book is published, interest and sales will have hit their peaks, and she would be wise to have a theme park such as Disney to continue to push sales in merchandising, videos, cd's and books. I think it is a win-win situation for everyone except everyone on these boards who hate Harry Potter.
 
Tara Mae

Tara Mae

New Member
I'm going to voice my opinion and leave, as this topic is getting bloody old.

Harry Potter is a wonderful, magnificent young adult book, yes, that is true.

But where does Harry Potter come into play in Disney? It just wouldn't fit in any of the parks.

Magic Kingdom: Maybe...no.

Epcot: The technology of Harry Potter on Spaceship Earth? ;)

Animal Kingdom: The animalistic side to Harry/Draco. ;)

MGM: Maybe a tidbit in Great Movie Ride...even that would be too much.

Harry Potter isn't a Disney movie, nor does it have any relations to Disney except that it draws a great deal of children in.

I just don't see fit to put Harry Potter in Disney.

Now, goodness, quit bringing this back up! lol
 
dave2822

dave2822

New Member
artdude323 said:
You know, it's very simple - if you are so tired of reading threads that have the name HARRY POTTER in the titles, IGNORE THEM and move on. It's really not your place to tell people what to write, it's your place to tell yourself to NOT read the threads if you aren't interested in the topic. Seems pretty simple, no? Maybe only to those who can be responsible for themselves first and don't expect much accomodation from everyone else.
Click to expand...

The threads about HP, monorail, 5th gate, IJA, all have been discussed to death, and yet everytime another thread comes up it is discussed for 12 pages more. It's not my place to tell people what to write, but this is Disney World News and Rumors, and by your theory I can go and start a thread about how I wonder if Disney will ever buy Six Flags and it's ok. This topic has no spot in this section, and every time people post about it, others will think it's a credited rumor ready to be greenlighted. Even General Discussion, or better yet, Chit Chat, is it's rightful space. These threads last for months and take away from other good discussion that could take place, and they always turn ugly, by evidenced from your attack on me here.

artdude323 said:
I guess someone lied to me all these years - I had NO idea that Winnie the Pooh or Peter Pan were original Disney characters, I thought they were characters that Disney bought the rights to use and developed past their original state. Just like they could do with Harry Potter, if they wanted to put him in Fantasyland, where all these other non-Disney affiliates live as well as at MGM.
Click to expand...

They didn't put either attraction in their parks until they were recognizable Disney icons. So, Disney will need to buy Harry Potter from J.K., and completely develop it on their own for it to be in the Magic Kingdom, or they will still have to buy the rights for it to be in MGM, and they would never get merchandising rights from her right now. Either way, it would take a long time for anything to developed, including a lot of money, on something that could most certainly still be a fad. And I don't think HP is an American icon like Pooh or Peter Pan is either.


artdude323 said:
As for Epcot being the funniest because it's so realistic, I'll believe that when you show me a real, live troll like those in Maelstrom at Norway, or children like those in El Rio. Or when the Chinese movie shows the poverty and conditions of most of the people who live there. There's nothing "realistic" about any of those and they're no more or less fantasy that HP is, and even if you go to Future World, when was the last time you saw a shrinking audience? Or time travel to Dinosaurs? Or for that matter, Ellen Degeneres on Jeopardy? So much for your hard core reality. Give the hardcore statements a rest and think a little before you post such "absolute" statements.
Click to expand...

- those are Norway legends and myths, truly a part of their past and their culture. Harry Potter isn't that way to England.
- poverty in China isn't a relevant argument, World Showcase is about glorifying countries.
- Harry Potter obviously won't be in Future World, so non of those arguments are relevant either.

artdude323 said:
I don't say I think Harry Potter belomgs at Disney or he doesn't, I just say that the board nazis who declare topics off limit for more posts really need to see that they aren't the last word, and there's a staff to keep that control. You aren't needed for it.
Click to expand...

So then why did you just go nuts? If this was just an attack on me, then go ahead and PM me. We can work it out. For you to attack my argument (which was all it was, a debate with no ill-will intended) and then start attacking me, call me a nazi, and then say you don't even care about HP, then you started more drama then is truly necessary.

Disneydreaming said:
Yes, well I am a stockholder, with a pretty good chuck invested. I think that adding a Harry Potter ride will boost interest and attendance in the parks. It would increase bookings from around the world, since Harry Potter is such a worldwide phenomenom. People that come from all over the world stay longer, not a 3 or 4 night stay. They will dump more money into the parks. Also JKR and merchandising rights....I think she might be willing to give them to Disney, because after her 7th book is published, interest and sales will have hit their peaks, and she would be wise to have a theme park such as Disney to continue to push sales in merchandising, videos, cd's and books. I think it is a win-win situation for everyone except everyone on these boards who hate Harry Potter.
Click to expand...

That's fine if you think that. I've debated enough already and there is plenty of rebuttle already out there for why or why not it is financially a good idea.

The point: if it's not happening, then we shouldn't be giving it any light of day. If you still feel the need to discuss it, fine, but just remember that it probably won't be happening any time soon.

My posts were not meant to be harsh, just realistic, there's no need to get people's hopes up when this isn't happening. If you took offense to that, then you took my words in the wrong way.
 
IcicleM

IcicleM

New Member
Wonderful replies to all of those people's posts.

My view on this is as follows:

I love Harry Potter to death, and so does my family, and we were all both excited and disappointed with the end of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. We don't know how the series is going to end, and neither does anyone else besides JK Rowling. The book isn't going to come out until 2007 (most likely) because Jo wants to give MacKenzie (her new baby girl) some time for her and her alone, and she won't begin the next book until next year.

With this being said, what would Disney be able to do with a Harry Potter ride? A movie ride perhaps? Something like Dinosaur or Indiana Jones, or like Peter Pan, flying through the air. In general, it would be very difficult, as of right now, for them to be able to decide a Harry Potter themed ride, if they wanted to go from book 1-7. Harry Potter is a children's book, yes, but it deals with more than magic and good versus evil. It has deeper messages about character and life that couldn't possibly be told through a Disney Ride. Although it would be rather entertaining, I sincerely do not see Disney ever doing a Harry Potter ride. No doubt it would be popular until the end of time, but like the last poster said, Disney would have to make Harry Potter one of it's own characters, and with the movies being done by Warner Brothers, and the Warner Brothers symbol EVERYWHERE around Harry Potter, there's no way Disney would be able to fit itself in there to make it "Disney Presents Harry Potter: The Ride"

If anything, Australia's Warner Brother's Studios Park would make a Harry Potter ride first.
 
Testtrack321

Testtrack321

Well-Known Member
godkills.jpg
 
A

artdude323

New Member
dave2822 said:
The threads about HP, monorail, 5th gate, IJA, all have been discussed to death, and yet everytime another thread comes up it is discussed for 12 pages more. It's not my place to tell people what to write, but this is Disney World News and Rumors, and by your theory I can go and start a thread about how I wonder if Disney will ever buy Six Flags and it's ok. This topic has no spot in this section, and every time people post about it, others will think it's a credited rumor ready to be greenlighted. Even General Discussion, or better yet, Chit Chat, is it's rightful space. These threads last for months and take away from other good discussion that could take place, and they always turn ugly, by evidenced from your attack on me here.



They didn't put either attraction in their parks until they were recognizable Disney icons. So, Disney will need to buy Harry Potter from J.K., and completely develop it on their own for it to be in the Magic Kingdom, or they will still have to buy the rights for it to be in MGM, and they would never get merchandising rights from her right now. Either way, it would take a long time for anything to developed, including a lot of money, on something that could most certainly still be a fad. And I don't think HP is an American icon like Pooh or Peter Pan is either.




- those are Norway legends and myths, truly a part of their past and their culture. Harry Potter isn't that way to England.
- poverty in China isn't a relevant argument, World Showcase is about glorifying countries.
- Harry Potter obviously won't be in Future World, so non of those arguments are relevant either.



So then why did you just go nuts? If this was just an attack on me, then go ahead and PM me. We can work it out. For you to attack my argument (which was all it was, a debate with no ill-will intended) and then start attacking me, call me a nazi, and then say you don't even care about HP, then you started more drama then is truly necessary.



That's fine if you think that. I've debated enough already and there is plenty of rebuttle already out there for why or why not it is financially a good idea.

The point: if it's not happening, then we shouldn't be giving it any light of day. If you still feel the need to discuss it, fine, but just remember that it probably won't be happening any time soon.

My posts were not meant to be harsh, just realistic, there's no need to get people's hopes up when this isn't happening. If you took offense to that, then you took my words in the wrong way.
Click to expand...



You certainly DO have every right to start a thread about Six Flags, if the rumor involves Disney. And as long as the RUMOR about HP stays neither confirmed or denied by Disney, this is exactly where threads about that should be - on the News and RUMORS forum. And if each thread goes on for 12 pages, that shouod be telling you that people still want to discuss it. Except if you would remove all of the posts from the uber-control freaks who demand that people stop posting about it, they wouldnt be nearly as long.

It's not necessary for Disney to BUY HP - they don't own Winnie the Pooh or Peter Pan. Those were existing characters that Disney LICENSED, and animated. They still don't own them, and probably never will. Odd that you call these characters American Icons - most of them are Disney Movie Icons, but wouldn't come to mind as a top 10 choice from all animated icons today. Sad, but true. they're much more icons to hardcore Disney fans than Americans in general as you say.

By the way, in Disneyland, the original park, Indy and Star Tours ARE in the MK. They weren't turned down just because they weren't original hardcore Disney characters.

Your other post didn't say anything about Epcot being the funniest choice because it glorifies the myths and legends of other countries, or glorifying the countries themselves, you said it was the funiest choice because Epcot was about REALISM, and attention to detail. Disney can provide the attention ro detail - if you really feel that Epcot is about realism, Disney has fallen WAY short of that mark, though I've never heard anyone else say very seriously that Epcot was about realism. Evidentoy you don[t mean it either, because you've changed your argument. It's pretty sad to change your argument to defend your point, as that also changes the poiint you were trying to make. THINK OF THE FUTURE, and say what you mean the first time.

I don't remember saying I didn't care about HP coming to Disney - I said I wasn't offering my opinion at that particular time. Maybe you should be more concerned about reading what's there and not about telling people to stop posting about things that have been posted before. You're probably misreading other peoples comments too.

And people who demand that others change their posting topics and style for the convenience of the reader, so they don't have to edit their reading habits? Yeah, that's where "board nazi" comes from. Do a serach on Google, isn't that also the way to be rude to new posters, tell them to search? One who tries to get everyone else in line with their vision of what should and shouldn't happen instead of realizing that everyone has free opinion and right to post about on-topic threads - and has no authiority to do so. Again I say - if it breaks the TOU, there's a staff here to take care of it.

If you removed all of the threads here that had someone demanding that people stop posting, the number of new threads would be VERY limited, and the new subjects would be even moreso. But it IS called a discussion board, after all. That just means that you don't need to feel obligated to discuss topics that have no further interest for you. And I wasn't just talking to you, I was generalizing for all of the controlling posters who want to control what others post instead of what they choose to read. I apologize if that wasn't clear - it was presented as a plural.

Maybe you should look at your choice of words. You called what you posted an argument instead of a discussion. That says something about your intent. Doesn't seem like it really belongs on a board about the happiest Place on Earth.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Actually while disney does not own the Peter Pan story, they do own it as it pertains to their film. They own the image of Peter pan and all other characters in their movie. In the case of Pooh. That is a little tricky. While Disney does not own Winnie the Pooh. They do own the theme park, and merchandise rights to Winnie the Pooh.
 
Tigger1988

Tigger1988

Well-Known Member
Disneydreaming said:
You have a sick mind. Its not even funny. Its a shame people can't have a serious discussion without immaturity rearing its ugly head.
Click to expand...

He didn't invent that photo or the "...kills a kitten" thing its been around, he just added the bit about Harry Potter, it was a joke dont take it too seriously
 
Legacy

Legacy

Well-Known Member
Disneydreaming said:
You have a sick mind. Its not even funny. Its a shame people can't have a serious discussion without immaturity rearing its ugly head.
Click to expand...
Would a rabbit with a pancake on its head be just as twisted?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom