Disney(World) vs. Disney(land)?

[RSoxNo1]

I don't think Jackson has any of the rights at all. They're owned by Saul Zeantz, the guy who once sued John Fogerty for sounding too much like himself (after Zeantz bought all the rights to all the early Creedence music). Not, from what I understand, the easiest man in the world to deal with.

Interesting... The rumblings on this have all surrounded Jackson - perhaps he has an arrangement with Zeantz?

 

[nytimez]

Interesting... The rumblings on this have all surrounded Jackson - perhaps he has an arrangement with Zeantz?

I don't know. I doubt Peter Jackson has the rights to license anything Hobbit/LoTR independently. But he may own the rights to how the characters are portrayed in his films -- his specific depictions of the Ents, for example, or Gollum, and the locations and such as created by his effects unit.

So, if you wanted to create an LoTR land based on the imagery of the film -- which would IMO be essential to any LoTR land -- you'd have to secure the rights from both Zaentz (for the names, characters, etc) and Jackson (for the specific depictions of those characters).

This is a guess, I don't know any of that for a fact.

 

[Beholder]

Jim Hill has been talking about Lord of the Rings for a while. I guess Peter Jackson has the rights from the Tolkien estate and is looking to offer up the Harry Potter type package (set designers from the movies, etc), but only after The Hobbit movies are done.

From what I've gathered, Jackson doesn't own or control the "rights" to anything Tolkien, he was given the right to film the movies. I'm not sure that he has any authority to grant or otherwise allow the use of any of Tolkien's properties, unless if course he was asked to do so on the behalf of the Tolkien estate. At one time, Tolkien himself hated what Disney did to traditional folk tales and abhored the idea of Disney translating his work.

 

[HMF]

At one time, Tolkien himself hated what Disney did to traditional folk tales and abhored the idea of Disney translating his work.

They would do a better job than what Rankin/Bass did.

 

[Beholder]

They would do a better job than what Rankin/Bass did.

Not if Sauron breaks out into a song.

 

[M.rudolf]

Jim Hill has been talking about Lord of the Rings for a while. I guess Peter Jackson has the rights from the Tolkien estate and is looking to offer up the Harry Potter type package (set designers from the movies, etc), but only after The Hobbit movies are done.

Jackson has no rights whatsoever. Warner and New line cinema own the rights to the films.The theme park rights are still owned by the Tolkien estate.LOTR would be great but it probably won't happen due to cost. The estate will not allow Jackson to represent them in any way due to the fact they aren't fans of the films. The only way this would happen is for it happen immediately to help promote the three hobbit films.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

The same billboards you saw in Cali -you saw in FL too. The same outside the park posters, you would see in both parks. They both had prominent placement on the web. FL even had a traveling show hitting malls to introduce the relaunch.

But beyond that.. I don't see where this is going.

You asked where Disney is taking this.. and the answer is to alter what the theme park experience is. And yes they can market on abstractions and not just 'here is new attraction #1' as marketing campaigns. The 'advertise your new ride' is not the only way one markets a product. Just look at brands like Coke, McDonalds, etc.. they are marketing a brand and slogans more than they are individual products. Disney will ultimately start marketing with notions like 'here is what vacationing can be like.. no lines.. one key to rule them all.. your favorite characters knowing you by name..' -- not 'Come see FP+ and our new RFID!!!'

I think WDW inherently has it tougher with marketing... at DL, you buy ads on KNBC, KABC, the LA radio stations, etc. and you have reached a significant portion of your audience, regardless of what we're calling the local/tourist split now, you've got a big chuck of your audience in one media market. At WDW, you'd have to hit NYC, Boston, Chicago and the whole Southeast before you'd probably even get that type of audience penetration. That's even without international guests.

I don't remember WDW's web advertising? I only remember the "Darth Goes to Disneyland" video... and it was epic.

 

[ChrisM]

Jackson has no rights whatsoever. Warner and New line cinema own the rights to the films.The theme park rights are still owned by the Tolkien estate.LOTR would be great but it probably won't happen due to cost. The estate will not allow Jackson to represent them in any way due to the fact they aren't fans of the films. The only way this would happen is for it happen immediately to help promote the three hobbit films.

I believe that's correct, but Jackson does have ownership of all of his studio materials (props, sets, designs, etc) which Universal would want access to in developing a theme park property. So Universal would still have to deal with the Tolkien estate and Jackson to do what they want to do.

 

[M.rudolf]

I believe that's correct, but Jackson does have ownership of all of his studio materials (props, sets, designs, etc) which Universal would want access to in developing a theme park property. So Universal would still have to deal with the Tolkien estate and Jackson to do what they want to do.

No Warner and new line own all likenesses and props. Weta doesn't even own their designs on gollum

 

[ChrisM]

No Warner and new line own all likenesses and props. Weta doesn't even own their designs on gollum

In that case, they'd still probably want him as the primary consultant. Universal wants to bring the movies to life as opposed to the books, if you know what I'm saying.

 

[M.rudolf]

In that case, they'd still probably want him as the primary consultant. Universal wants to bring the movies to life as opposed to the books, if you know what I'm saying.

The good thing is they have on retainer like Spielberg

 

[nytimez]

No Warner and new line own all likenesses and props. Weta doesn't even own their designs on gollum

That makes sense.

I think the real question is, does Universal have the stomach to spend the money to get the rights and develop the land/attractions after everything they've spent so far? And would the costs justify the expected returns?

I'd love to see it. But I don't know the answer to those questions.

 

[M.rudolf]

That makes sense.

I think the real question is, does Universal have the stomach to spend the money to get the rights and develop the land/attractions after everything they've spent so far? And would the costs justify the expected returns?

I'd love to see it. But I don't know the answer to those questions.

They have the stomach. It depends the hobbit and lotr are 2 separate licenses so it would be really expensive plus the studio licenses. If they built a whole land versus a ride then probably. But with the overlap in theme between potter and lotr I don't see it happening. I hate to say it but it probably would be a better fit at disney and with the way Tolkien felt about him that probably won't happen either

 

[HMF]

They have the stomach. It depends the hobbit and lotr are 2 separate licenses so it would be really expensive plus the studio licenses. If they built a whole land versus a ride then probably. But with the overlap in theme between potter and lotr I don't see it happening. I hate to say it but it probably would be a better fit at disney and with the way Tolkien felt about him that probably won't happen either

Somewhat bizarre that Tolkien did not like Disney considering that there is a lot of overlap in their respective fan bases.

 

[M.rudolf]

Somewhat bizarre that Tolkien did not like Disney considering that there is a lot of overlap in their respective fan bases.

Tolkien didn't like the dramatic license Disney did with the films they made. Same with Jackson

 

[AEfx]

No, those are benefits Disney gets from it - but are not part of the 'experience' per say that guests will see that is part of the story to create the differentiation. Those are more of the intermediate gains.. not end games.

An area where they overlap would be something like... suggested buying or helping you find something based on your data. But where the pitch would be in terms of the customer experience is more along the lines of the personalized booking, shows, integrated billing, etc all the things that are enabled from the technology.

Imagine as a parent (or lost child), being able to walk up to a kiosk in the park, swipe your ID, and see the last known location of everyone in your party...

These are all kinds of new vacation experience things Disney will be able to do FOR THE GUEST. Yes, there are massive benefits Disney will get on the backside as well... but all of this is to alter the theme park and vacation experience first. The point isn't just 'data savvy Disney' but DIFFERENTIATED Disney. People are being way too shortsighted in how Disney will be able to manipulate this integrated platform they are building to be able to touch so many different aspects of a vacation. From the show itself, to customer service, to personalized services, there is massive potential... and Disney aims to stand-alone in being able to deliver these experiences.

I get the "Disney Difference", but in this case - yeah, no, I just don't think that overall it's going to truly improve things for guests.

Let me give you a non-Disney example. I have an iPhone. There are countless apps out there that help you make grocery lists. You can scan products, do all kinds of fancy things, have things automatically show up on your list at certain dates, meal plan, etc.

Personally, I find that all a huge PITA. But I still use the new technology. I keep a pad of paper and pen on my fridge, and I jot down a list throughout the week of what I need. It's a lot easier than going to my phone (which is likely in another room), unlocking it, opening up the app, waiting for it to load, navigating to adding an item, and then typing out "KETCHUP". *BUT*...when my list gets full, or I'm going to the market in the next day or so, I snap a picture of the list with my phone so I don't have to carry around a piece of paper I'm more likely to lose, or forget in the car, etc.

I think much the same about, say, your example about lost children. I was "lost" at Disney almost 30 years ago. And not even in a park. Before cell phones. I was a pretty smart and capable kid, so when my aunt forgot the tickets back in the room, she let me go ahead on the bus and wait for her to take the next one to the MK. Well, being me (who was an expert on WDW even though I had only been once before, since I devoured every travel book I could find) took the next bus, which went to Epcot - where I knew I could take the monorail to the MK. What I didn't know was that the bus and monorail brought you to different places at the MK entrance.

Long story short, it took Disney about ten minutes to help us find each other. I was given a bunch of free stuff while I waited in a break room, and we went about our day (though the new theme of the trip became "togetherness", LOL, we still joke about it to this day).

The point is, when it comes to the guest experience, it's possible to automate some things that might slightly speed them up - but really, the actual value it's going to add is not that great. It's not that we can't see the possibilities, it's that we see through the hype and what it will practically bring to the experience. It's not something that is going to draw people to WDW like spending time on amazing, WOW-factor attractions. It's a way for Disney to maximize their ability to micromanage experiences, but in truth - it's mostly stuff most people aren't really going to care about, ESPECIALLY since it seems it revolves almost solely people who choose to stay on-property, which is only a portion of WDW's guests.

It's a nice thought, and it will appeal to the "Disney Moms" - but to the average person on vacation at Disney? Even if they are eligible for most of this stuff, I don't see it having the impact of the same amount of money spent on major attractions like WWOHP sprinkled throughout the parks. The reason Disney is doing it is to increase their control from your vacation, and for their benefit in finding ways to part you with more money. I don't necessarily have an issue with that (Disney is there to make money), but I don't buy in to the concept that somehow this is going to greatly affect the experiences of anyone other than excessive planners who regularly visit WDW and want to micromanage their FastPasses months/weeks ahead. Everything else could be accomplished by other means - and, really, why should Mickey know who you are if he hasn't met you yet. I'll bet more kids are confused than delighted.

 

[Longhairbear]

I could care less about the Next Gen stuff.
We no longer go commando, getting Fastpasses etc. at WDW when we became DVC members. Planning everything in advance is so stress making we don't do it. In fact we no longer go to WDW. It's been a few years since we have been, opting to go to DLR, and take cruises.
We are trading one week at our Wilderness Lodge DVC for a week onboard the Disney Wonder for a California Coast Cruise. No air fare, and we don't pay for meals, and only paying for a side trip to the Disney Family Museum in San Francisco.

 

[ChrisFL]

I get the "Disney Difference", but in this case - yeah, no, I just don't think that overall it's going to truly improve things for guests.

Let me give you a non-Disney example. I have an iPhone. There are countless apps out there that help you make grocery lists. You can scan products, do all kinds of fancy things, have things automatically show up on your list at certain dates, meal plan, etc.

Personally, I find that all a huge PITA. But I still use the new technology. I keep a pad of paper and pen on my fridge, and I jot down a list throughout the week of what I need. It's a lot easier than going to my phone (which is likely in another room), unlocking it, opening up the app, waiting for it to load, navigating to adding an item, and then typing out "KETCHUP". *BUT*...when my list gets full, or I'm going to the market in the next day or so, I snap a picture of the list with my phone so I don't have to carry around a piece of paper I'm more likely to lose, or forget in the car, etc.

I think much the same about, say, your example about lost children. I was "lost" at Disney almost 30 years ago. And not even in a park. Before cell phones. I was a pretty smart and capable kid, so when my aunt forgot the tickets back in the room, she let me go ahead on the bus and wait for her to take the next one to the MK. Well, being me (who was an expert on WDW even though I had only been once before, since I devoured every travel book I could find) took the next bus, which went to Epcot - where I knew I could take the monorail to the MK. What I didn't know was that the bus and monorail brought you to different places at the MK entrance.

Long story short, it took Disney about ten minutes to help us find each other. I was given a bunch of free stuff while I waited in a break room, and we went about our day (though the new theme of the trip became "togetherness", LOL, we still joke about it to this day).

The point is, when it comes to the guest experience, it's possible to automate some things that might slightly speed them up - but really, the actual value it's going to add is not that great. It's not that we can't see the possibilities, it's that we see through the hype and what it will practically bring to the experience. It's not something that is going to draw people to WDW like spending time on amazing, WOW-factor attractions. It's a way for Disney to maximize their ability to micromanage experiences, but in truth - it's mostly stuff most people aren't really going to care about, ESPECIALLY since it seems it revolves almost solely people who choose to stay on-property, which is only a portion of WDW's guests.

It's a nice thought, and it will appeal to the "Disney Moms" - but to the average person on vacation at Disney? Even if they are eligible for most of this stuff, I don't see it having the impact of the same amount of money spent on major attractions like WWOHP sprinkled throughout the parks. The reason Disney is doing it is to increase their control from your vacation, and for their benefit in finding ways to part you with more money. I don't necessarily have an issue with that (Disney is there to make money), but I don't buy in to the concept that somehow this is going to greatly affect the experiences of anyone other than excessive planners who regularly visit WDW and want to micromanage their FastPasses months/weeks ahead. Everything else could be accomplished by other means - and, really, why should Mickey know who you are if he hasn't met you yet. I'll bet more kids are confused than delighted.

Excellent post!

 

[bubbles1812]

They have the stomach. It depends the hobbit and lotr are 2 separate licenses so it would be really expensive plus the studio licenses. If they built a whole land versus a ride then probably. But with the overlap in theme between potter and lotr I don't see it happening. I hate to say it but it probably would be a better fit at disney and with the way Tolkien felt about him that probably won't happen either

Interesting talk about LOTR. I think Uni does have the stomach for it and Comcast seems very willing to spend money these days but I agree that the licensing would be really tricky. I think Warner/New Line would be easier to get the license from that the Tolkien estate, especially given the success of Potter. WHHOP is raking in more dough than I think Uni/Warner could have ever expected. It's not every day that theme parks are willing to build an entire new huge chunk of land so few years after it just built a multimillion dollar land (and that is what gets me excited...yay for actually being willing to spend money on concrete things guests can enjoy!). The Tolkien estate though would definitely be a more tricky one because I assume they would know that an LOTR land would definitely be based on the look/plot of the films more so than just the books. So they'd have to get over that but I'm sure a big pile of money from Uni/Comcast would help I wouldn't be surprised if there is something in development for a theme park. The success of Potter is not something that can have gone unnoticed.

As for where it fits best...I sort of see your point about how the two properties have similar themes. But at the same time, they are very very different. About the only thing they really have in common is that both are in the "fantasy" genre. After that, they totally differ. And LOTR (both the books and movies) is an extremely popular property in it's own right, with a well established fan base that has grown in the last decade due to the movies being out. I know there are many people out there who would love to step into Middle Earth (and can't afford a trip to New Zealand ). A land like Potter's would be perfect! (Though in my ideal world, LOTR would get a whole park). Sorry, but I digress... anyways, what I'm really trying to say is that they are sufficiently different enough that I don't think having both within the same park would be in an issue.

I honestly don't think Disney and LOTR would mesh well at all together, though I'm sure they'd rather have LOTR than Avatar if they could get it. But given the way Disney is so reluctant (and slow when they do) to build things these days, I don't think Disney would be able to do LOTR justice. They'd set a budget and then cut that budget in half, cut out all the cool rides in favor of the "Flying Gollum spinner" and yet another omnimover, and then cut the budget again faster than you can say Bob's your uncle. I don't even know where they'd put it...I guess if they finally wanted to get rid of Backlot, they could put it back there, but LOTR doesn't seem to even fit that well with the theme of DHS.

 

[Kuhio]

Close.
I'm planning the "Spirited Meet, Greet, Grope and Autograph Signing*".

Probably gonna have it upstairs at the Umbrella, immediately following whatever ceremony they decide to wow us all with. That way the fanboys can load up on 30th merchandise then pop straight up to meet the Spirited One.

*For a nominal fee, of course.

I like that ... No. 2 ... you're putting me on a lofty perch where I can look down upon the gaggle of fanbois wetting themselves over retro tees (and meeting me).

I just got back from the EPCOT 30th celebration. On the whole, it was enjoyable... got to spend some quality time with a couple of fun fellow WDWMagic members, while marveling at the number of people who were willing to spend hours waiting to get into Mouse Gear for stuff that was still available the following afternoon.

The Spirited MG&G was a total bust, though.

First of all, the fellow I thought was Lee turned out simply to be a cast member named "Lee" from Hong Kong, who took my nominal fee (actually $100) and ran off backstage at the China pavilion with it.

Then, even more oddly, the older gentleman who claimed to be the Spirit ended up being just a self-proclaimed "daddy blogger"... who wasn't even an actual father, but insisted that I call him "daddy" anyway as he tried to show me his special Duffy collection.

Needless to say, I hastily fled for the more family-friendly environs of the Magic Kingdom...