NO Harry Potter for Disney!

[NemoRocks78]

What? One franchise too much for a land?

Have you been to JP at IOA? It was supposed to get more attractions if the other JP movies did well.

IOA is really the best currently established park to put Potter into. Anyone else notice that the other lands are based on pulp characters? JP was a book - which the land often refers to moreso then the movie. Marvel is comics and Toon Lagoon is funnies. Suess is obviously book-based.

So, now we add another Island based on a book series. Its redirecting the otherwise vague focus of the land to an actual property. Wher would Disney have put Potter?

Not in AK, not in MK, and Epcot only barely fits it in the UK pavilion where there is little space for such a large creation to fit Rowling's requests. MGM has a similiar space problem and the whole theme doesn't fit in MGM's general landscape.

Another good observation.

 

[sknydave]

Who rides a rollercoaster and afterwards says "Wow... My head banged a bit. I expected this thing to be as smooth as silk!"

 

[WDWFigment]

You and I must be riding a different coaster because there's no way that thing is smooth. Vekoma coasters have always been known for their roughness. I was just on it two days ago and my head was banging back and forth while going in and out of the inversions.

And I never said a single word about Indy IV not making a "fortune," it's just that I definitely can't see it pushing $400m+ (though $350m+ is and probably will be attainable). There's too many factors in play to prevent it from happening.

I have to say you all are crazy prognosticating about a film in a franchise that's been dormant for so many years and is going to be released a year from now. There are so many variables that go into this. What if Disney sees an early cut of a film and decides to 1) edit it more, forcing them to release it in the fall (when movies are less likely to have the same box office numbers) or 2) decides to let it fly under the radar and not promote it too much. What if another studio decides to put up their big movie against it? The list of what ifs goes on and on. Sure, it's fun to speculate, but arguing with any sort of feigned authority on what Indy will make is BS, plain and simple.

 

[imagineer boy]

Yeah, because we can all hardly wait for 10 more Finding Nemo attractions...

:ROFLOL: :ROFLOL: :ROFLOL: :ROFLOL: :ROFLOL:

Sad but true...

 

[CaptainMichael]

Agreed. Let's face it......Disney's pro-gay stance hasn't endeared it to many evangelical Christians, with the Southern Baptists boycotting several years back....some are still.

If Disney had gotten the license to Potter, yes.....they would have made a ton of cash. But, at what price? Face another boycott from the church?

Disney parks are all about family........whimsical adventures that the family can experience together. But, after watching the Potter series progress, it gets darker and darker with each new movie and book.....not the kind of stuff I would want my 4 year old watching at this age.

:brick: :brick: :brick: :brick: :brick:

 

[Enigma]

JP was a book - which the land often refers to moreso then the movie.

Im glad im not the only person to realize this!!

So, now we add another Island based on a book series. Its redirecting the otherwise vague focus of the land to an actual property. Wher would Disney have put Potter?

Not in AK, not in MK, and Epcot only barely fits it in the UK pavilion where there is little space for such a large creation to fit Rowling's requests. MGM has a similiar space problem and the whole theme doesn't fit in MGM's general landscape.

Harry Potter could have actually fit in any of the parks.

Magic Kingdom: Fantasyland 20k site (and before someone goes off on me...Harry Potter is as fantasy as fantasy gets so it fits the namesake better than just about anything else in the land and no Fantasyland is not all based on disney cartoons...IASW is not nor was your beloved 20k under the sea which was actually based on a SCIENCE FICTION story!)

Epcot Center: Behind or apart of UK Pavillion

Disney-Pixar Studios: Wherever there is room available. Would be right at home with Star Wars, Twilight Zone, Muppets, Wizard of OZ, Pixar, etc.


Disney's Animal Kingdom: Camp Minni-Mickey/empty land where BK was supposed to. In fact there was an Imagineering concept for a Harry Potter/Narnia Beastly kingdom that would have had Hagrid's care of magical creatures tour and a heavy tie to mythology.

 

[MickeyJman06]

Well, like others have said, it's about money.

This new "island" would have been great at WDW, but I think this is Universal's way of stepping up to the plate and saying, we're here to compete.

Now, what will WDW open in 2009?

The war between the parks heats up again... we're the ones who hopefully will enjoy the competition!

at least we have narnia
crap, i love harry potter books
who knows, it might be rejected

 

[Giraffe Lounge]

Who rides a rollercoaster and afterwards says "Wow... My head banged a bit. I expected this thing to be as smooth as silk!"

I forgot most of Latin riding Minderaser at Six Flags New England (most accurate name ever). There's a degree to which roughness is fun and expected on a roller coaster, and it can easily be surpassed.

Don't believe me? Ask the folks at Cedar Point how Maverick's going.

 

[culturenthrills]

I still gotta wonder about the cost. If memory serves me correctly, Expedition Everest cost about $100M to build. Universal is going to create this entire 20 acre site for an estimated cost of $100-150M. It seems to me that the concept art looks great, but the finished product might not be anywhere close....

The $120 million dollar figure that has been tossed around is for capital expenditures for the next year. This includes the Simpsons ride and possibly the initial construction. I think we are talking in the 200-300 million dollar range for the total costs of this new land.

 

[culturenthrills]

Is the park worth $500 Mil?

Unless i am wrong IOA cost around a billion dollars to build. Spiderman was $100 million dollars alone.

 

[fizzle75]

Now here's hoping that this causes Disney to "answer" and come up with something new and groundbreaking!!

BEASTLY KINGDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy:

I think Disney was probably waiting until the whole HP fiasco was finalized. I bet we start seeing ramblings about Narnia especially since Disney did the film. I would love to see Disney get rights to LOTR. With those two properties, they could realistically consider completing DAK.

I am a huuuge LOTR fan and I would give my left two lug nuts to see a LOTR themed attraction at WDW but in all honesty I don't know that it would be a good fit for Disney...Narnia on the other hand would be a perfect fit and if Disney imagineering still has any desire at all to ressurrect the Beastly Kingdom project I think they should consider building a Narnia themed land at Animal Kingdom to counter Universal's Harry Potter land, it would be perfect.

Having said that...I have never had any desire to go to Universal Studios/Islands of Adventure but since I am also a big Harry Potter fan I might actually have to consider paying Universal a visit. I just hate to give up any of my WDW time.

 

[Miss Bell]

I personally am glad to see this go to Universal. While I have always been a big Potter fan--I just don't see it at WDW.

I think that Universal will regret this decision in the long run--after the last book comes out, I don't think there will be as much hype.

 

[PintoColvig]

HP to Universal is the best scenario. Universal needs a boost attendance-wise and a little competition never hurts anyone and will only encourge more attractions for WDW. In the end, I think both will benefit by this move.

 

[JimboJones123]

The Potter movies don't make $300m. Indy 4 will make $400m+.

It could just as easily pull a Superman Returns at peak out at $200 mil. The franchise is as old as dirt.

 

[George]

I am a huuuge LOTR fan and I would give my left two lug nuts to see a LOTR themed attraction at WDW but in all honesty I don't know that it would be a good fit for Disney...

You have two left lug nuts?:lookaroun

Two thoughts on franchise popularity as it relates to theme park attractions - 1) Every franchise mentioned in this thread has a fairly substantial fan base and that is important for the initial period right after an attraction opens. Some of the fans of said franchise will make a special trip to go visit said attraction or land , but more importantly 2) the long term success of a theme park attraction is almost wholly unrelated to the popularity of any franchise it might be tied to. All that matters is if said attraction/land is well done. I'm not really a big HP fan, but if everyone says that the new land at IoA is awesome I'll go check it out and probably like it. Someone mentioned that the a pod racing update of Star Tours would be bad. Although, I feel like every one of the new SW films was a dagger plunged directly into the heart of my child hood, I think that a pod racing simulator with updated technology has the potential to be really kick butt. Take the counter example - a lot of the biggest most popular theme/amusement park things on planet earth are based on things that were popular at one time (say a Peter Pan motion picture) but really don't have any cultural ramifications today or are something original (the roller coaster the Beast has a large cult following, EE, etc.). My point - in the long term the features that make a theme park attraction appealing to guests are much more important than any franchise tie in, especially since its hoped that theme park attractions will last for decades.

 

[Mecha Figment]

I know there are, I even had the link to one of the other threads in my post, I wouldn't normally double post... HOWEVER I just want to see the HP stuff die after this :sohappy:

but by brining it up you are keeping it alive and well

 

[shanny]

You have two left lug nuts?:lookaroun

its from the movie cars.

 

[Hakunamatata]

but by brining it up you are keeping it alive and well

Its just a horrid cycle of....

 

[Since1976]

My point - in the long term the features that make a theme park attraction appealing to guests are much more important than any franchise tie in, especially since its hoped that theme park attractions will last for decades.

Agreed. I mean, how many people ride Splash Mountain because they love Song of the South? This is why I think Disney could counter the kid-friendly HARRY POTTER land with a slightly scarier, more adult attraction (flume boat?) based on a "smaller" property like LOST. But that's for a different thread altogether :animwink:

 

[PintoColvig]

Its just a horrid cycle of....

Can you imagine what that horse will look like after HP-land opens up and the evaluations start showing up around here and all the woulda, coulda, shoulda threads? :brick: