-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Harry Potter interest from abroad.....
- Thread starter Tigerdaly
- Start date
ScrapIron
Member
Some purely personal opinions:
Star Wars: Enjoyable films, I guess, although grossly overrated. Would never have gone to a theater to see any (have seen 3 that way) without someone else that wanted to see them.
Star Tours: Still argueably the best motion simulator attraction in existence, although in need of a new film.
Terminator films: Haven't seen 'em, don't want to, certainly didn't vote for that clown.
T2-3D: One of the best 3D attractions that there is.
Back to the Future Films: All very well done.
BTTF ride: Overrated, although I've only ridden once.
Indiana Jones Films: Excellent.
Indiana Jones Ride: Excellent.
Waterworld film: Has anyone ever seen it?
Waterworld show: Extraordinary!
Sinbad films: Used to love them as a kid.
Sinbad Stunt Show: :snore:
Aerosmith: I've seen hundreds of musical performances in my life ranging from Chet Atkins to Frank Zappa, and Aerosmith (Birmingham, 1978) was without a doubt one of the worst.
Rock n RollerCoaster: Rode it (and Space Mtn) more than any other ride at WDW or Universal last summer.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion that I can draw is that the inspiration for an attraction often has nothing at all to do with the attraction itself as far as how good/bad either of them are. There does certainly seems to be enough within the Harry Potter books to inspire an entire park. It's hard to imagine that creative people would come up with a bad single attraction if they are given the proper time, budget and other resources.
Cheers.
Star Wars: Enjoyable films, I guess, although grossly overrated. Would never have gone to a theater to see any (have seen 3 that way) without someone else that wanted to see them.
Star Tours: Still argueably the best motion simulator attraction in existence, although in need of a new film.
Terminator films: Haven't seen 'em, don't want to, certainly didn't vote for that clown.
T2-3D: One of the best 3D attractions that there is.
Back to the Future Films: All very well done.
BTTF ride: Overrated, although I've only ridden once.
Indiana Jones Films: Excellent.
Indiana Jones Ride: Excellent.
Waterworld film: Has anyone ever seen it?
Waterworld show: Extraordinary!
Sinbad films: Used to love them as a kid.
Sinbad Stunt Show: :snore:
Aerosmith: I've seen hundreds of musical performances in my life ranging from Chet Atkins to Frank Zappa, and Aerosmith (Birmingham, 1978) was without a doubt one of the worst.
Rock n RollerCoaster: Rode it (and Space Mtn) more than any other ride at WDW or Universal last summer.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion that I can draw is that the inspiration for an attraction often has nothing at all to do with the attraction itself as far as how good/bad either of them are. There does certainly seems to be enough within the Harry Potter books to inspire an entire park. It's hard to imagine that creative people would come up with a bad single attraction if they are given the proper time, budget and other resources.
Cheers.
ballewclan
New Member
I cant imagine an entire park, but i can imagine a land in a new park.
Imagine strolling down knockturn alley...
Imagine strolling down knockturn alley...
CPimagineer86
New Member
ballewclan said:I cant imagine an entire park, but i can imagine a land in a new park.
Imagine strolling down knockturn alley...
I think that an ENTIRE land would be stretching it.
As for an attraction, I can picture it in one of two places, either MGM or Epcot. MGM would be an obvious choice for two reasons:
1. The books were turned into fantastic motion pictures. I know that if Disney were to have rights to use HP most likely it would be just the books and probably not the movies, but there is still a chance. The attraction could be either a show or attraction, though I feel that much more can be done with an attraction than a show.
2. It is not a genuine Disney product. All of the other products, Star Wars, Indy, Muppets, Twilight Zone, fit fantastically into MGM. Could you imagine the giant AT-AT standing next to the Indy Speedway or Dumbo? Yes, Winnie the Pooh and all of the Pixar features are not true Disney products either, but they still have genuine Disney touch and feel.
As for Epcot, I could see there being something in the UK pavilion, but not attraction or a show. This is where I could see them putting Diagon Alley in there, with all of the fantastic shops that our imaginations can conceive. Here store owners could showoff some of their "magical" merchandise through out the day.
Anyways, this has been my two cents upon the whole Harry Potter ordeal. :king:
Number_6
Well-Known Member
I could see another possibility. After book seven, JKR says that she will write no further stories about Harry Potter and his friends. That doesn't mean she couldn't talk to Disney about some sort of project, probably animated, set in the same world, but without the characters from her books. Maybe something set in an earlier or later time period. The characters would be a joint product of JKR and Disney and could then be used in an attraction at the parks. Not saying it's something that would happen, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
MuRkErY
Member
I really do not like HP, obviously it could still make for a good attraction given WDI would be designing it but it just does not feel right to me.
Star Wars, Indy, The Twilight Zone ect... fit into MGM because they are defining films, TV shows of there generations.
I dont feel HP fit's into this category, i would much rather see something to do with The Lord Of The Rings, both the book and the film versions are better than HP, and i feel it is more worthy of a place at MGM than HP.
HP is a fad, if a large one at that, the HP films will not be looked back on in 50 years times (Unless the last few films turn out to be amazing, cant see it my-self), where as both the LOTR films and books will be looked back on for generations to come.
Obviously i dont feel Disney would get the rights to LOTR, but i would much rather see something LOTR related (Plus the world of LOTR is so much bigger and more developed than HP, much more to explore and play around with) than HP.
Star Wars, Indy, The Twilight Zone ect... fit into MGM because they are defining films, TV shows of there generations.
I dont feel HP fit's into this category, i would much rather see something to do with The Lord Of The Rings, both the book and the film versions are better than HP, and i feel it is more worthy of a place at MGM than HP.
HP is a fad, if a large one at that, the HP films will not be looked back on in 50 years times (Unless the last few films turn out to be amazing, cant see it my-self), where as both the LOTR films and books will be looked back on for generations to come.
Obviously i dont feel Disney would get the rights to LOTR, but i would much rather see something LOTR related (Plus the world of LOTR is so much bigger and more developed than HP, much more to explore and play around with) than HP.
ScrapIron
Member
Star Wars, Indy and the Twilight Zone have worked fine in other parks besides MGM. One could perhaps argue that the Hollywood section at DCA is MGM Lite, I suppose.
I think that LOTR, books and films (well, never looked at more than one of each) are extremely boring and tedious. That said, they could be the basis for incredible theme park attractions, and you would hear no objection from me.
Cheers.
I think that LOTR, books and films (well, never looked at more than one of each) are extremely boring and tedious. That said, they could be the basis for incredible theme park attractions, and you would hear no objection from me.
Cheers.
You say that Harry Potter is just a Fad.:lol:
This is a bit of an over statement concidering the worlds children hang on his every word. They can't wait for each film to be released, and when it is they all attend dressed in character costumes. Each book release is greated with the same manic hysteria. I can't remember dressing the part and getting so enthusiastic about lotr when I had to trawl :snore: through it in English at school. The film adaptions of the books are the only thing that brought that trilogy to light (Peter Jackson rules).
Unfortunately you will have to put up with the fact that Harry Potter is the biggest thing since sliced bread for the children of the world at THIS moment, whether it stands the test of time, only time will tell, but I have a sneaking suspicion that its here to stay.
I truely hope Disney get a slice of the pie before its snatched away.
This is a bit of an over statement concidering the worlds children hang on his every word. They can't wait for each film to be released, and when it is they all attend dressed in character costumes. Each book release is greated with the same manic hysteria. I can't remember dressing the part and getting so enthusiastic about lotr when I had to trawl :snore: through it in English at school. The film adaptions of the books are the only thing that brought that trilogy to light (Peter Jackson rules).
Unfortunately you will have to put up with the fact that Harry Potter is the biggest thing since sliced bread for the children of the world at THIS moment, whether it stands the test of time, only time will tell, but I have a sneaking suspicion that its here to stay.
I truely hope Disney get a slice of the pie before its snatched away.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
I agree...I love Harry Potter (as do most people under age 25 or so), and what are people our age going to be reading to our kids when they are old enough? Not Lord of the Rings (I only now have the attention span for those books).Tigerdaly said:
EpcotServo
Well-Known Member
I'd only like it if it was based off goblet of fire. Both the book and movie versions of that one were much better than the rest. (Oh, and only if it was in MGM. Nowhere else.)
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Well, such a ride would be very dark and scary, which would likely lock it into MGM...EpcotServo said:
Reckon MGM should tackle it and have a Quidditch based coaster :sohappy: . However you could also incorperate into Magic Kingdom a type of track based carousel were you ride Hippogriffs rather than horses . This would appeal to the smaller guys and gals. If the Imagineers got hold of it I'm sure there is enough subject matter to cover all age groups in all the parks. Also........
Who cares if the characters look like Daniel Radcliffe etc, as another post said the book covers and pre-released graphic work had characters that were totally different to the actors. These images would be far better for the Disney empire rather than trying to negotiate with WB.
The only negotiation in my mind would t try and get the theme music because this has already replaced words in introducing the films.:wave:
. This would appeal to the smaller guys and gals. If the Imagineers got hold of it I'm sure there is enough subject matter to cover all age groups in all the parks. Also........Who cares if the characters look like Daniel Radcliffe etc, as another post said the book covers and pre-released graphic work had characters that were totally different to the actors. These images would be far better for the Disney empire rather than trying to negotiate with WB.
The only negotiation in my mind would t try and get the theme music because this has already replaced words in introducing the films.:wave:
It's gonna be big for a long time
What better spot to buy merch than a Diagon Alley after the ride. I never thought of that.
Of course, eating at the Hogwarts Banquet Hall would be a great tie-in, especially where good sit-down restaurants are scarce (Animal Kingdom). Harry Potter could also be the inspiration for a night-time spectacular at Animal Kingdom which would not scare the real animals. Imagine quiditch players flying around somehow, with a castle backdrop, a flying car, mythical beasts, etc . . . And you wouldn't need animal-scaring fireworks to make it all happen.
No, animals are not central to Harry Potter, but they're a big enough part of the story to justify putting them in Disney World's least attended park.
HP will be around a long time, as will Lord of The Rings. But HP is bigger, and the author is alive and able to sign over the amusement park rights. I would really really love to see LOTR, but HP is probably bigger, more amenable to an amusement park with merch sales, (Where can you buy merch in Middle Earth?), and legally buyable with J.K. Rowling being alive and all.
It will happen. It's too big not too, and there's no way Disney will let the competition get it.
What better spot to buy merch than a Diagon Alley after the ride. I never thought of that.
Of course, eating at the Hogwarts Banquet Hall would be a great tie-in, especially where good sit-down restaurants are scarce (Animal Kingdom). Harry Potter could also be the inspiration for a night-time spectacular at Animal Kingdom which would not scare the real animals. Imagine quiditch players flying around somehow, with a castle backdrop, a flying car, mythical beasts, etc . . . And you wouldn't need animal-scaring fireworks to make it all happen.
No, animals are not central to Harry Potter, but they're a big enough part of the story to justify putting them in Disney World's least attended park.
HP will be around a long time, as will Lord of The Rings. But HP is bigger, and the author is alive and able to sign over the amusement park rights. I would really really love to see LOTR, but HP is probably bigger, more amenable to an amusement park with merch sales, (Where can you buy merch in Middle Earth?), and legally buyable with J.K. Rowling being alive and all.
It will happen. It's too big not too, and there's no way Disney will let the competition get it.
M:SpilotISTC12
Well-Known Member
Maybe it would fit in with Beastly Kingdom? Considering it has mystical creatures. That is just my two cents on it.Ralphlaw said:
S.E.A.
Member
you people aren't seriously justifying Harry Potter leeching on to Animal kingdom are you?
Sure, it has mythical beasts in it but the point is, Harry Potter is about HARRY POTTER! not centaurs, not mermaids, not griffins, not dragons but about WIZARDS AND WITCHCRAFT. And you dare taint the concept of DAK by getting this completely different pop cultural entity to take center stage on a place it has nothing to do with.
If you people so very much want Potter inside the Disney parks, settle for Disney-MGM, a park revolving around pop culture and entertainment, which is what Harry Potter is. If you wish, you could even put it in the Magic Kingdom where the medieval fantasy atmoshpere would perfectly complement the theme of the story.
Sure, it has mythical beasts in it but the point is, Harry Potter is about HARRY POTTER! not centaurs, not mermaids, not griffins, not dragons but about WIZARDS AND WITCHCRAFT. And you dare taint the concept of DAK by getting this completely different pop cultural entity to take center stage on a place it has nothing to do with.
If you people so very much want Potter inside the Disney parks, settle for Disney-MGM, a park revolving around pop culture and entertainment, which is what Harry Potter is. If you wish, you could even put it in the Magic Kingdom where the medieval fantasy atmoshpere would perfectly complement the theme of the story.
Christina
New Member
I actually like the idea of HP in the parks. :lookaroun
I think all the Harry Potter books have a tremendous amount of themeing that would be easily transferable into their own land. I'd actually love to see a whole HP land but somehow I don't think that will happen. As for rides, c'mon...you HAVE to admit that Harry Potter would make an excellent dark ride or even a quiddich themed coaster. Sure, the theme is a little dark...but Disney has a way of looking over that and sanatizing it. To me, Disney parks are about magic... and you don't get any more magical than Harry Potter. So why not put a HP attraction in the parks?
That being said...I'm a HUGE Harry Potter fan so prehaps that discredits my opinon.:wave:
PS: I hated Star Tours. Always have, always will. I don't think it belongs in the park or is disneyesque in ANY way whatsoever. I hated "Star Wars" as well. That being stated, I LOVE Tower of Terror and think it belongs right where it is in MGM and DCA- go figure, huh?
I think all the Harry Potter books have a tremendous amount of themeing that would be easily transferable into their own land. I'd actually love to see a whole HP land but somehow I don't think that will happen. As for rides, c'mon...you HAVE to admit that Harry Potter would make an excellent dark ride or even a quiddich themed coaster. Sure, the theme is a little dark...but Disney has a way of looking over that and sanatizing it. To me, Disney parks are about magic... and you don't get any more magical than Harry Potter. So why not put a HP attraction in the parks?
That being said...I'm a HUGE Harry Potter fan so prehaps that discredits my opinon.:wave:
PS: I hated Star Tours. Always have, always will. I don't think it belongs in the park or is disneyesque in ANY way whatsoever. I hated "Star Wars" as well. That being stated, I LOVE Tower of Terror and think it belongs right where it is in MGM and DCA- go figure, huh?
Where, where, where to go
Disney is clever enough to make Harry Potter fit into any of its theme parks. The question is one of attendance and profitability. In my opinion, HP would would add a great deal to Animal Kingdom because it is the least attended park, and will probably continue to be least attended within a short time after Expedition Everest has its grand opening. This will certainly help with the oft-rumored Beastly Kingdom part of AK, especially in conjunction with Narnia. Animal Kingdom also has the most acreage, and becomes quite empty after the Jammin' Jungle Parade.
HP could cleverly add an outstanding giftshop area as Diagon Alley or Hogsmeade, a great restaurant in a Hogwarts Banquet Hall, and a nighttime show that would not rely on fireworks that scare the animals. Certainly Disney could make it work at Magic Kingdom, EPCOT or MGM-Studios, but they would probably get the biggest bang for their buck at AK.
No, Harry Potter is not centered on Animals, but I also do not think of animals when the subject of Mt. Everest pops into my head. Yes, Expedition Everest has a Yeti, but it is first and foremost about a mountain and a mining train.
Personally, AK would then become a full day and evening park to my family instead of a partial day. Gee, now I'll have to stay an extra night at a Disney Resort. $$$$
Disney is clever enough to make Harry Potter fit into any of its theme parks. The question is one of attendance and profitability. In my opinion, HP would would add a great deal to Animal Kingdom because it is the least attended park, and will probably continue to be least attended within a short time after Expedition Everest has its grand opening. This will certainly help with the oft-rumored Beastly Kingdom part of AK, especially in conjunction with Narnia. Animal Kingdom also has the most acreage, and becomes quite empty after the Jammin' Jungle Parade.
HP could cleverly add an outstanding giftshop area as Diagon Alley or Hogsmeade, a great restaurant in a Hogwarts Banquet Hall, and a nighttime show that would not rely on fireworks that scare the animals. Certainly Disney could make it work at Magic Kingdom, EPCOT or MGM-Studios, but they would probably get the biggest bang for their buck at AK.
No, Harry Potter is not centered on Animals, but I also do not think of animals when the subject of Mt. Everest pops into my head. Yes, Expedition Everest has a Yeti, but it is first and foremost about a mountain and a mining train.
Personally, AK would then become a full day and evening park to my family instead of a partial day. Gee, now I'll have to stay an extra night at a Disney Resort. $$$$
S.E.A.
Member
Ralphlaw said:
There are PLENTY of other ways to expand on DAK without having to shoehorn a franchise that has nothing to do with the park's central theme.
And mind you, the main selling point of Expedition Everest is THE YETI. You may not think of the yeti as the big selling point of everest, but it's your "thoughts" against hundreds of others'
ask the average person what they would think of having Harry Potter in ANIMAL KINGDOM and you'd likely have a response akin to "What does Harry have to do with animals?"
Shoehorning galore
It would seem that Disney often shoehorns attractions. What does Primevil Whirl really have to do with Dinosaurs? Or the Muppets with Hollywood, which was actually filmed in New York and London? And what does the Twilight Zone, Aerosmith, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Test Track by GM, and Ellen Degeneres and Jeopardy have to do with Disney?
The initial answer is NOTHING, but Disney adapted them to the situation.
In my opinion, Disney would be wise to use Harry Potter to attract visitors to Animal Kingdom and have them stay for a whole day and spend money in its least attended park. Thematic purity is far less important than the economic viability and balance of the parks.
After all, when I stand in Tomorrowland with all of its futuristic rockets, I can see a medieval/romantic Castle with old time European princesses gliding around. I also see a futuristic globe and other cutting edge technology while I'm standing by a Mayan Temple, a renaissance piazza, and a Viking Ship. And Tatooine Traders is only steps away from 1950's automobiles and a Chinese theatre.
Conclusion, Disney can make a Harry Potter attraction fit in any of the parks. Animal Kingdom, in my opinion, makes the most sense economically, and it helps fulfill the long-awaited Beastly Kingdom project.
It would seem that Disney often shoehorns attractions. What does Primevil Whirl really have to do with Dinosaurs? Or the Muppets with Hollywood, which was actually filmed in New York and London? And what does the Twilight Zone, Aerosmith, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Test Track by GM, and Ellen Degeneres and Jeopardy have to do with Disney?
The initial answer is NOTHING, but Disney adapted them to the situation.
In my opinion, Disney would be wise to use Harry Potter to attract visitors to Animal Kingdom and have them stay for a whole day and spend money in its least attended park. Thematic purity is far less important than the economic viability and balance of the parks.
After all, when I stand in Tomorrowland with all of its futuristic rockets, I can see a medieval/romantic Castle with old time European princesses gliding around. I also see a futuristic globe and other cutting edge technology while I'm standing by a Mayan Temple, a renaissance piazza, and a Viking Ship. And Tatooine Traders is only steps away from 1950's automobiles and a Chinese theatre.
Conclusion, Disney can make a Harry Potter attraction fit in any of the parks. Animal Kingdom, in my opinion, makes the most sense economically, and it helps fulfill the long-awaited Beastly Kingdom project.