-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Lagoon Replacement!!!
- Thread starter yensidtlaw1969
- Start date
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by NemoRocks78
If that is the case, then Indiana Jones needs his own stunt show, two thrill rides, and a coaster at the Paramount theme parks.
Not true.
Indy, like Star Wars, is a LucasFilm production.
Paramount DISTRIBUTED Indy, just like 20th Century Fox DISTRIBUTED Star Wars, but those are just the end-licenses to get the films into theaters/video.
Any and all rights belong to Lucasfilm, an independent production house, which obviously has a development deal with Disney parks.
AEfx
careship
New Member
well
we all know Harry Potter has some form of deal with Disney because ABC has the rights to the films for TV showing. Who knows how extensive the deal is. I would think that Rowlings would want Disney to do the ride if there was ever going to be one. I almost see this is a better idea for EuroDisney. Even though it isn't a movie park like MGM. Do we really even know the deal between MGM and Disney will stay together for this or not?
we all know Harry Potter has some form of deal with Disney because ABC has the rights to the films for TV showing. Who knows how extensive the deal is. I would think that Rowlings would want Disney to do the ride if there was ever going to be one. I almost see this is a better idea for EuroDisney. Even though it isn't a movie park like MGM. Do we really even know the deal between MGM and Disney will stay together for this or not?
Bill
Account Suspended
Well, let's look at how easilly Disney could build the rights to Potter...
An imagineer has an idea to do a partnership with Potter.
The rest of the high ups agree.
It gets built.
This has happened before. Disney/Lucas happened the same way. Disney proposed the idea to Lucas. Lucas then gave Disney the rights to build. That's the way it works.
An imagineer has an idea to do a partnership with Potter.
The rest of the high ups agree.
It gets built.
This has happened before. Disney/Lucas happened the same way. Disney proposed the idea to Lucas. Lucas then gave Disney the rights to build. That's the way it works.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bill
Well, let's look at how easilly Disney could build the rights to Potter...
An imagineer has an idea to do a partnership with Potter.
The rest of the high ups agree.
It gets built.
This has happened before. Disney/Lucas happened the same way. Disney proposed the idea to Lucas. Lucas then gave Disney the rights to build. That's the way it works.
Because Lucas is a privately held company they can do such things.
The situation at Warners is certainly not the same as it is a corporate studio conglomerate, and as we know Warners already has exclusive contracts with Six Flags.
In order for that scenario to work, Disney would have to get the rights from Warners, who likely contractually could not do so because of their exclusive deal with Six Flags.
Lucas owns everything Star Wars outright, he can sell whatever part of it to whatever studio he chooses. In fact, there was a debate for awhile as to if 20th Century Fox would even be given the distribution for the pre-quels - it wasn't a given. This is unlike Harry Potter, where the rights to the property were actually sold to Warners. And as I said above, Warners isn't going to license a ride to Disney.
Entertainment law is fun.
AEfx
Bill
Account Suspended
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. The agreement between Six Flags and Warner Brothers isn't exclusive. Otherwise you wouldn't have Warner Brothers Movie Worlds. Oh, I'm pretty sure that the Twilight Zone wasn't privately held. That's part of CBS. And look at what Disney has there. And if you go looking, I'm sure you'll find CBS Deals with other theme parks. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Disney already had the rights to build the Potter Rides. Or a Potter ride. Even public corporations can have private, un-disclosed deals. I'm willing to bet that Potter is one of them.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Warner Bros. Movie World parks were built entirely as Six Flags properties. Only within the last year were they sold to another company which has special rights to keep the park and attraction names.
speck76
Well-Known Member
I don't really understand why Disney needs Harry Potter. If you look at WHY they sought out Star Wars, which lead to the other Lucas inspired attractions, and WHY they sought out Twilight Zone, (and even WHY they sought out MGM) it was to fill gaps in their own product.
They already have a large library of films and products geared towards kids and teens....Disney does not need Harry Potter!
They already have a large library of films and products geared towards kids and teens....Disney does not need Harry Potter!
AEfx
Well-Known Member
None of which are in North America...from what I understand that deal is much like the MGM name, which Disney only gets to use over here. Warners can't build their own theme park here while they are still involved with Six Flags.
Seriously...we can debate the fine points of Entertainment law all day, but I'm telling you - Harry Potter will not be coming to Disney. Not only would it have to be a joint Warner/Disney production, there is simply no reason for either of them to do so. Why would Disney want to waste a new Big E-ticket ride on a film franchise it has NOTHING to do with? And why would Warners want to give someone else the ride to benefit from the publicity of increased park attendance?
It's a null/win situation on either side.
It's a really nice idea, but it just ain't gonna happen.
AEfx
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
But...
Yes, you're right, Disney doesn't need Harry, but quite possibly Harry needs Disney. What I mean by that is that if Ms. Rowlings has her say (as she retains rights in various aspects), I believe she would hold out to have it done right, and there ain't nobody but Disney that can do that.
I'm no lawyer, but there are distinct differences between movie rights, book distribution and control over characters/titles/themes.
I believe Ms. Rowlings retains control over that last area and therefore can license to anyone.
Even other companies, like Warner or Fox or Paramount understand that others can do some things better, and free advertizing is not a bad thing. There is sharing all the time.
Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Harry is on the way! :sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy:
Yes, you're right, Disney doesn't need Harry, but quite possibly Harry needs Disney. What I mean by that is that if Ms. Rowlings has her say (as she retains rights in various aspects), I believe she would hold out to have it done right, and there ain't nobody but Disney that can do that.
I'm no lawyer, but there are distinct differences between movie rights, book distribution and control over characters/titles/themes.
I believe Ms. Rowlings retains control over that last area and therefore can license to anyone.
Even other companies, like Warner or Fox or Paramount understand that others can do some things better, and free advertizing is not a bad thing. There is sharing all the time.
Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Bill is always right, Harry is on the way! :sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy:
talonstruck
Member
enough is enough already, just sign me up to be an imaginer and build all of your ideas lol:hammer:
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
Not about the money
J.K. Rowling is worth an estimated $800 million USD....I think she is doing fine without Disney. [Speck 76]
Your're right, from the financial aspect, Ms. Rowlings doesn't "need" the money, but there is a "need" to sustain your creation and dreams. She was very cautious with control over the movies, the moviemakers were sensitive to that and I believe all have been pleased with the results. (Remember early on there was talk of more Americans in roles, luckily she vetoed/influenced that)
Anyway, if you were to look for a legacy, would you not be flattered by the offer of a Disney representation of your lifes work?
J.K. Rowling is worth an estimated $800 million USD....I think she is doing fine without Disney. [Speck 76]
Your're right, from the financial aspect, Ms. Rowlings doesn't "need" the money, but there is a "need" to sustain your creation and dreams. She was very cautious with control over the movies, the moviemakers were sensitive to that and I believe all have been pleased with the results. (Remember early on there was talk of more Americans in roles, luckily she vetoed/influenced that)
Anyway, if you were to look for a legacy, would you not be flattered by the offer of a Disney representation of your lifes work?
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bill
You need to check up on your facts.
I really don't have patience for your stupidity, Bill.
http://www.sixflagseurope.com/movieworld/home/index_en.cfm?lg=en
The old website. Six Flags Europe. Just stop talking, Bill.
speck76
Well-Known Member
Ok, that was a little uncalled for.
The Warner Brothers Movie World in Germany is not the original, it was opened 5 years after the park in Australia.
Time Warner used to own Six Flags. Time Warner spun-off Six Flags in the Mid-90's into its own company. This was after the German property was under reconstruction (it used to be another theme park) but prior to it opening. This is also before Premier Parks bought Six Flags, and before the company bought all of the European parks. Although Warner Brothers no longer owns Six Flags, they continue to license the use of their characters and movies.
The Warner Brother's Movie World in Austrailia, in business since 1991, has never had Six flags affiliation. Instead, it is affiliated with Sea World Australia, which has no affiliation with SeaWorld in the US.
http://www.movieworld.com.au/about_us/our_history.cfm