Disney Playing catch up with Universal... Potter Disney's biggest mistake in 20 years...

[kucarachi]

I don't think Disney got burnt on Harry Potter...i believe Universal absolutely desperately needed it and treated it accordingly. You take away all the potter stuff and universal is a 2 day park at best. They have made some good stuff but their themes are scatterbrained for the most part, mismatched, quickly outdated and easily forgotten. Harry Potter is the first must do thing they have had since...well forever. Avatar has nothing to do with disney but the message and theme of the movie fits animal kingdom very well. So with disney owning marvel, owning frozen the biggest cartoon of all time, star wars franchise, and partnering with James Cameron i am pretty sure they are up late at night crying over 1 lost bid.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I don't think Disney got burnt on Harry Potter...i believe Universal absolutely desperately needed it and treated it accordingly. You take away all the potter stuff and universal is a 2 day park at best. They have made some good stuff but their themes are scatterbrained for the most part, mismatched, quickly outdated and easily forgotten. Harry Potter is the first must do thing they have had since...well forever. Avatar has nothing to do with disney but the message and theme of the movie fits animal kingdom very well. So with disney owning marvel, owning frozen the biggest cartoon of all time, star wars franchise, and partnering with James Cameron i am pretty sure they are up late at night crying over 1 lost bid.

Avatar doesn't have much merchandising potential. Which makes Disney's bid for Avatar even more perplexing.

Also, it wasn't a good movie.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't think Disney got burnt on Harry Potter...i believe Universal absolutely desperately needed it and treated it accordingly. You take away all the potter stuff and universal is a 2 day park at best. They have made some good stuff but their themes are scatterbrained for the most part, mismatched, quickly outdated and easily forgotten. Harry Potter is the first must do thing they have had since...well forever. Avatar has nothing to do with disney but the message and theme of the movie fits animal kingdom very well. So with disney owning marvel, owning frozen the biggest cartoon of all time, star wars franchise, and partnering with James Cameron i am pretty sure they are up late at night crying over 1 lost bid.

Which park is at best a two day park? That hardly seems like a problem.

 

[tirian]

I agree with you up to the last few lines. Most industry watchers agree that Avatar was a momentary cultural touchstone that would become nothing more than movie history if it weren't for upcoming sequels. Avatar was the Independence Day of its time: it was insanely popular until people realized it wasn't that good. The movie is recognized for its cutting-edge 3-D, but the story is lousy. It also has no fanbase whatsoever—I'm not saying that nobody likes it; I'm saying that there aren't enough Avatar fans to create a solid foundation for a franchise.

HP was a book series first, then a movie series. The books are already considered classics and will never go away; they are this generation's Narnia or Middle Earth.

Disney knows it missed out and you're right: the company has enough IP to respond. But it hasn't and it won't for a few more years.

I believe Pandora will be a beautiful addition to DAK. The attractions will be solid, but not groundbreaking, and the atmosphere will be incredible. However, in the last ten years Disney hasn't given WDW anything that rivals Hogsmeade on any level whatsoever. NFL is a missed opportunity of rustic rockwork and C-level attractions, with badly constructed forced perspective in many areas and nothing special to create a sense of place. Hogsmeade, and now Diagon Alley, have mechanical figures and special effects in the store windows; NFL has plush. That's telling enough.

I don't think Disney got burnt on Harry Potter...i believe Universal absolutely desperately needed it and treated it accordingly. You take away all the potter stuff and universal is a 2 day park at best. They have made some good stuff but their themes are scatterbrained for the most part, mismatched, quickly outdated and easily forgotten. Harry Potter is the first must do thing they have had since...well forever. Avatar has nothing to do with disney but the message and theme of the movie fits animal kingdom very well. So with disney owning marvel, owning frozen the biggest cartoon of all time, star wars franchise, and partnering with James Cameron i am pretty sure they are up late at night crying over 1 lost bid.

 

[wm49rs]

I don't think Disney got burnt on Harry Potter...i believe Universal absolutely desperately needed it and treated it accordingly. You take away all the potter stuff and universal is a 2 day park at best. They have made some good stuff but their themes are scatterbrained for the most part, mismatched, quickly outdated and easily forgotten. Harry Potter is the first must do thing they have had since...well forever. Avatar has nothing to do with disney but the message and theme of the movie fits animal kingdom very well. So with disney owning marvel, owning frozen the biggest cartoon of all time, star wars franchise, and partnering with James Cameron i am pretty sure they are up late at night crying over 1 lost bid.

I suppose it's just unfortunate then that you can't take HP away from Universal. Just as it's unfortunate WDW cannot use Marvel....

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I'm pretty sure after Diagon Alley opens, UOR will be a 3 day resort.

 

[Next Big Thing]

I'm pretty sure after Diagon Alley opens, UOR will be a 3 day resort.

You could easily spend an entire day just at WWoHP.

But unfortunately if you get express, you could probably hit all the big attractions in both parks within the same day still. The key would be to start first thing in the morning in Hogsmeade, take HE over to Diagon and then get in line for Gringotts. After that it's a cakewalk. May not even need express.

But yes, if you wanted to take your time and leisurely see everything, the stays are getting extended.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

If you're throwing in Splash, then at IoA you should probably include Jurassic Park River Adventure and Ripsaw Falls.

I don't think any of the Orlando parks are coaster heavy, Busch is probably the better bet for that.

OK.. Let's take out Splash.
But that is exactly my point. People constantly refer to IOA as a coaster park and it really isn't.

 

[CinematicFusion]

Avatar doesn't have much merchandising potential. Which makes Disney's bid for Avatar even more perplexing.

Also, it wasn't a good movie.

Agree...wasn't a good movie. But, was an amazing visual world. A world I would love to explore. Capture that world in animal kingdom. Bring in to that park a wonderful nighttime experience and Ak attendance goes up by a minimal of 500,000.

 

[twebber55]

Agree...wasn't a good movie. But, was an amazing visual world. A world I would love to explore. Capture that world in animal kingdom. Bring in to that park a wonderful nighttime experience and Ak attendance goes up by a minimal of 500,000.

Nah at least a million

 

[TubaGeek]

OK.. Let's take out Splash.
But that is exactly my point. People constantly refer to IOA as a coaster park and it really isn't.

Coaster park? No. I mean, it has five coasters, but only three ADULT coasters. It IS, however, still a thrill park.

 

[CinematicFusion]

Nah at least a million

I do believe you will see 1 million more people at Ak once Pandora opens.
1. New world to explore
2. Two new rides...first Disney eticket in years
3. More important this land opens up Ak to a new night time audience.
3a. The world of Pandora will light up at night and if they nail this, there won't be anything like it anywhere.
3b. The night time show will be on the level of fantasmic and world of color. It will pack people in.
Expedition everest will be fun to ride at night.
Maybe even the carny area will be cooler at night.
Ak at night is going to be a brand new park. That s exciting.

 

[Bairstow]

Nintendo would need a couple lands or even its own park... its IP library is on par with Disney.

Mushroom Kingdom (Mario)
Yoshi/DK/Animal Crossing area
Kid Icarus/Fire Emblem area
Hyrule
Dream Land
Kanto
Earthbound/Chibi Robo, etc area
Sci-fi area
Retro area

The trouble with a Nintendo park, or any sort of videogame-themed land is that the details of the way each of those lands look change almost completely from game to game. Zelda is a good example- while the hero character's look has changed relatively little since the first game, the fundamentals of the world he explores have been reinvented with every game, and with good reason.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a video game parks built, (and indeed, a lot of the areas in many Nintendo games would translate very well to themed areas) but I worry that the cherished corporate synergy and brand recognition that corporate planners crave wouldn't allow a permanent or semi-permanent theme park installation to accurately reflect the aesthetic of a video game built for a console with a 4-year shelf life.

I think we're actually seeing the converse trend emerging- video game design in a lot of cases is beginning to adopt a lot of the fundamentals of theme park design, Bioshock Infinite being the most obvious example.

 

[Mr Toad]

Potter makes as much sense at WDW as Avatar at AK. Why not put James Cameron's Terminator in Tomorrowland? How about Cameron's Titanic in WS...it could launch from England. Although I like the Potter books & films, its not needed. Uni got the rights so it's over.

 

[Mike S]

The trouble with a Nintendo park, or any sort of videogame-themed land is that the details of the way each of those lands look change almost completely from game to game. Zelda is a good example- while the hero character's look has changed relatively little since the first game, the fundamentals of the world he explores have been reinvented with every game, and with good reason.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a video game parks built, (and indeed, a lot of the areas in many Nintendo games would translate very well to themed areas) but I worry that the cherished corporate synergy and brand recognition that corporate planners crave wouldn't allow a permanent or semi-permanent theme park installation to accurately reflect the aesthetic of a video game built for a console with a 4-year shelf life.

I think we're actually seeing the converse trend emerging- video game design in a lot of cases is beginning to adopt a lot of the fundamentals of theme park design, Bioshock Infinite being the most obvious example.

I understand what you're saying about how things change from game to game, but I think if something like this were to ever happen the creatives working on such a project would most likely work very closely with the game companies to make an environment that would fit well in a theme park. They don't necessarily have to build an exact replica of one of the many versions of Hyrule castle for example. They could make one that's wholly their own designed and built specifically for the park but is still fitting of the Zelda series at the same time.

 

[Bairstow]

I understand what you're saying about how things change from game to game, but I think if something like this were to ever happen the creatives working on such a project would most likely work very closely with the game companies to make an environment that would fit well in a theme park. They don't necessarily have to build an exact replica of one of the many versions of Hyrule castle for example. They could make one that's wholly their own designed and built specifically for the park but is still fitting of the Zelda series at the same time.

But if you're not going for accuracy to any particular scene or design, what's the point of licensing the property in the first place?
To take your example of Hyrule castle, a lot of people only know the thing as a top-down, 2-dimensional representation. There's no frame of reference to even replicate.

 

[FigmentJedi]

But if you're not going for accuracy to any particular scene or design, what's the point of licensing the property in the first place?
To take your example of Hyrule castle, a lot of people only know the thing as a top-down, 2-dimensional representation. There's no frame of reference to even replicate.

Pretty sure the 3D games are more of what people think of Zelda these days. Especially Ocarina. Twilight Princess is also a fan favorite and their castle has a more interesting dynamic and kinda served as the weenie for that game as a whole.

 

[Tom Morrow]

And that's what ALWAYS happens these days. TDO starts off with a great idea for a ride, and then the budget cutters barge in and snip here and snip there, and the attitude seems to be "ahhh, that's good enough for the dumb tourists". That's the part that gets me the most - the CONTEMPT that TDO and Iger seem to feel about park guests. They REALLY believe that they can get away with the cheap stuff because after all IT'S DISNEY!!! I bet when they read these message boards they think, well, who cares, let them complain, these are Disney nuts, not the average consumer. Um, hello? THIS IS THE INTERNET AGE. News gets around EVERYWHERE. How does Disney know that the next generation will have anything like the veneration for Disney that still lingers in our generation? Universal is not just catching up, it's surpassing Disney in innovative, immersive theme park experiences. If Disney continues to nickel-and-dime the parks, and if Universal continues to come up with great stuff like the Hogwarts Express and Diagon Alley, then why wouldn't the next generation do most of its vacationing at Universal? It's like that old saying: "How do you keep them down on the farm after they've seen the city?"

This.

And that's why its even harder to feel any excitement for Avatar or any possible new announcements. We don't have any faith that they will actually "go all-in"; the end result is always budget cut.

 

[Mike S]

But if you're not going for accuracy to any particular scene or design, what's the point of licensing the property in the first place?
To take your example of Hyrule castle, a lot of people only know the thing as a top-down, 2-dimensional representation. There's no frame of reference to even replicate.

That was just one solution I thought of for the problem of scenery in the Zelda series changing almost completely from game to game. IMO the Twilight Princess design would be the best fit for a theme park as you can see above thanks to @Tahu.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I do believe you will see 1 million more people at Ak once Pandora opens.
1. New world to explore
2. Two new rides...first Disney eticket in years
3. More important this land opens up Ak to a new night time audience.
3a. The world of Pandora will light up at night and if they nail this, there won't be anything like it anywhere.
3b. The night time show will be on the level of fantasmic and world of color. It will pack people in.
Expedition everest will be fun to ride at night.
Maybe even the carny area will be cooler at night.
Ak at night is going to be a brand new park. That s exciting.

Pandora will be somewhat like food to a starving man.

People will gobble it up because they've been undernourished at WDW for so long.