A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah I agree that’s not necessary.
The best way to incorporate the MoM would be for to be adjacent to Diagon Alley (but not connected). The Ministry is in an undisclosed part of London, only accessed by a telephone booth, apparation, or floo powder. Universal has ‘London’ now, so whatever they do, the Ministry really needs to be attached.

Also, I just realized that unlike Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley, the Ministry is entirely indoors, which doesn’t exactly lend itself to a land.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
The best way to incorporate the MoM would be for to be adjacent to Diagon Alley (but not connected). The Ministry is in an undisclosed part of London, only accessed by a telephone booth, apparation, or floo powder. Universal has ‘London’ now, so whatever they do, the Ministry really needs to be attached.

Also, I just realized that unlike Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley, the Ministry is entirely indoors, which doesn’t exactly lend itself to a land.
I think they’re referring to the Fantastic Beasts land to replace part of NY around Mummy.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
I think they’re referring to the Fantastic Beasts land to replace part of NY around Mummy.

Fantastic Beasts is a lesser franchise to Potter.

1) Universal has no real ball in the game to make Fantastic Beasts a successful franchise. It's a WB franchise, this is a very different scenario to something like Jurassic Park and Jurassic World.

2) Does Universal have the rights to Fantastic Beasts? That's not to say someone else can waltz in and build a Fantastic Beasts land, but wouldn't more money need to exchange hands for them to use a product that now outdates their agreement in a sense? Sort of like how Universal owns Marvel rights, but they don't own the Marvel rights to reproduce the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Universal needs to ask what will bring in more guests. A new land based on the books/Potter franchise? Or Fantastic Beasts. I think the answer still greatly skews to the former, which is why that rumour never seems to add up for me.
 

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
Fantastic Beasts is a lesser franchise to Potter.

1) Universal has no real ball in the game to make Fantastic Beasts a successful franchise. It's a WB franchise, this is a very different scenario to something like Jurassic Park and Jurassic World.

2) Does Universal have the rights to Fantastic Beasts? That's not to say someone else can waltz in and build a Fantastic Beasts land, but wouldn't more money need to exchange hands for them to use a product that now outdates their agreement in a sense? Sort of like how Universal owns Marvel rights, but they don't own the Marvel rights to reproduce the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Universal needs to ask what will bring in more guests. A new land based on the books/Potter franchise? Or Fantastic Beasts. I think the answer still greatly skews to the former, which is why that rumour never seems to add up for me.
I’ve mentioned it in a different thread, but Beasts would probably be more successful if Rowling wrote a 5 book series first. The second film featuring Dumbledore might be able to help ticket sales, but we’ll see.

That being said, I would buy a Niffler in a heartbeat if Universal sold them.
 

ProfSavage

Well-Known Member
I’ve mentioned it in a different thread, but Beasts would probably be more successful if Rowling wrote a 5 book series first. The second film featuring Dumbledore might be able to help ticket sales, but we’ll see.

That being said, I would buy a Niffler in a heartbeat if Universal sold them.

They should have kept Colin Ferrel as Grindelwald. Depp has always been overrated. Yes, that is the hill I am willing to die on.
 

FigmentForver96

Well-Known Member
I'm only going to make one post about this, and I'm sure the replies will throw words into my mouth, try to interpret them in the worst possible way, accuse me of being some horrible things, and I'm okay with that - I am going to say what I have to say, and then (as the mob internet mentality we live in today dictates) people will then think whatever they want that fits their own internal narrative.

What happened today with Roseanne is the epitome of what the hell is wrong with all of us today. It is why I am, no joking, no exaggeration, really concerned for the future of our nation. It shows that we have lost most critical thinking skills, that our bar for things like "virulent racism" is ridiculously low (anyone who actually thinks Roseanne is some terrible racist have never met nor seen a terrible racist), that people will pounce on to something and use it to further their own narrative no matter what the truth or context may be, and that corporations are now ruled by social media. We all see everything through the lens of identity politics, and it is going to be the ruin of our culture as this goes further and further (and I say this as a gay man who is sick to death of everyone who isn't gay telling me how "marginalized" I am).

What Roseanne said was stupid, and she should have known better. She is also quite famous for having rather severe mental health problems (impulse issues, bipolar, etc.). In the middle of the night she made a tweet, deleted it when the sun came up, issued what was a rather sincere apology for it, and left the platform - all BEFORE most of us were out of bed this morning, and before the media even picked it up.

Her tweet refereed to "Planet of the Apes" - and clearly she was referring to the classic films. In which they were all played by...white people. I'm sorry, condemn me for it - it was not right to say, but yes, when it is pointed out, the shape of the face of the woman she was talking about strangely does resemble the sort of streched faces of the masks used in that film. I'm not going to put up comparison pictures here, but if anyone honestly can look at a picture of her and look at a picture from that film you will see what I honestly believe she was actually referring to.

She had a really stupid thought in the middle of the night (and who knows what medications she is on), did not properly control her impulses, hours later, again, before any of us even knew about it, issued a frank apology and did the right thing by realizing that twitter just isn't a place for her, and...REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE the outrage machine had a long weekend off and were ready to just pounce. This was so perfect for it, because of all the misinformation and bullcrap said about the new show, to begin with (mostly from people who didn't even watch it).

Again, it was in bad taste. She should not have gone after someone's appearance. But to see it reported as "virulently racist" and enough to just delete someone from society is so troubling, especially since most people who are jumping on this aren't putting what she said into context. Putting it into context doesn't make it right, but it does show that she was making a poor joke about someone's appearance, and by labeling it as racist it just amped it all up and now 100's of people lost their jobs, and millions of people just lost a show they obviously connected with in these troubled times.

I am sure people will vehimently disagree with this, and somehow label me some racist or other -ist for saying these things, but like I said, this is the internet age - 1984 is here, but the twist is it is not the government that is imposing it - it is social media, we are doing it to ourselves. The supposed "compassion" we are supposed to show is a joke, when people cannot see that indeed, like many creative people (and let's not pretend that until her politics and tweets became involved, Roseanne has been called a comic genius for decades) she admittedly has myriad mental health issues, which would be the first thing people would mention if they didn't disagree with her politics.

If this is a picture of some horrible racist who needs to be expunged, then America - we have gone off the deep end:

cc62316c-08cb-4525-9c8c-04a81e3bd4c1-147831_6361.jpg
I know this was a few pages back...but bravo.

But honestly I'm sure ABC rebooted the show, then she started getting sorta crazy with her tweets and ABC probably would have quietly canned it after a season but the demand was very high. This gave them the perfect reason. Anyway I'm not really going to get into it but yea seems like people were all to eager to jump on this and it's very concerning.
 

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
They should have kept Colin Ferrel as Grindelwald. Depp has always been overrated. Yes, that is the hill I am willing to die on.
It might be because I have the hots for Colin Farrell, so I’ll agree with that point. I think this is going to be Johnny’s first film post-#MeToo, which might make for an interesting box office. I think it’s too early to make an amusement park atttraction based off of FB though, regardless of who is playing Grindelwald. If done right, it wouldn’t matter, but it should be focused on the creatures not the characters. And if you’re going to have a creatures ride, just turn it into a Forbidden Forest ride instead.

(I’m not hating on FB, I’m glad we’re getting an adult HP, but I wish we had gotten them in book form first, and that an English actor was cast as Grindelwald).
 

NearTheEars

Well-Known Member
Maybe an odd question, but does the film still run at Launch Bay with all the directors for the Star Wars films talking about how excited they were to get the chance to lead a film in the franchise and yada yada. I remt seeing it when it first opened.

But if it does, did they keep all the booted directors in it?
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Maybe an odd question, but does the film still run at Launch Bay with all the directors for the Star Wars films talking about how excited they were to get the chance to lead a film in the franchise and yada yada. I remt seeing it when it first opened.

But if it does, did they keep all the booted directors in it?

It had treverrow...I think...and the truth of why he left has leaked out...so I’m guessing he was at least cut
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member

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

Back
Top Bottom