Most Comparable to Wizarding World?

[wizards8507]

The argument that Lewis was writing an allegory isn't an argument at all. The fact remains that there is nothing "original" in his books either. How anyone could claim Harry Potter won't become a classic while at the same time talk about how brilliant Lewis' modest novellas are makes me gag. I'm fine with putting Tolkien on a pedestal but the Narnia books read like the Berenstain Bears. It's fluff and for the life of me can't imagine why it would amuse anyone over the age of 10. Harry Potter enthralls 60 year-olds.

I don't put Lewis on par with Tolkien but he was the one attacked, so he was the one defended. Again, "classics" aren't determined by what "enthralls" people. Dan Brown "enthralls" people but are we really going to put "Angels and Demons" in the literary canon?

 

[SleepingMonk]

The thing is with WWoHP, all the buildings are not original. They are pretty much duplicates of the sets they used in the movies, and I believe the set designers also helped in WWoHP. So they just copied what was on-screen. Disney is much much more original. Think of all the research that was required and done for Everest, and the trips imagineers took to accurately portray the Himalayas and buy all that authentic stuff.

Wizarding World isn't original because they copied buildings based on books and movies.

Expedition Everest is totally original because they copied buildings based on pictures they took on a trip to Asia.

Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense!

:lol:

 

[AndyMagic]

I don't put Lewis on par with Tolkien but he was the one attacked, so he was the one defended. Again, "classics" aren't determined by what "enthralls" people. Dan Brown "enthralls" people but are we really going to put "Angels and Demons" in the literary canon?

I would argue a classic is determined by what enthralls people for generations. In this case, we can't say for sure about Harry Potter but it is pretty safe to say that parents will continue introducing HP to their children for years to come. Dan Brown is popular now just like John Grisham was popular then. Big difference.

 

[AndyMagic]

Wizarding World isn't original because they copied buildings based on books and movies.

Expedition Everest is totally original because they copied buildings based on pictures they took on a trip to Asia.

Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense!

:lol:

:lol:

Also, everyone keeps pretending that Universal just bought sets from the movies and put them in Orlando as if sets are actually buildings. The "sets" you see of Hogsmeade in the movies are false walls with CGI as extension. They hired Stuart Craig to bring the "look" of the films to the land but there is no direct copying going on. It's a huge accomplishment that they made it look so authentic and encompassing using such a tiny plot of land.

 

[EvanAnderson]

I have a feeling that if Disney built this somewhere on their property, the exact same way, it would be hailed as the best thing in the world. But because it's on Universal's property, it's terrible.

People always say "ugh, Universal could handle the crowd control better! You never have to wait to get into a land at Magic Kingdom!" Well, if 10,000 people wanted to ride Space Mountain all at one time, that exact thing would happen at Disney.

Also, don't complain about Hogwarts castle not being real, or of forced perspective. Have you seen what's been rising lately in Fantasyland? A "full" castle about the size of one of Hogwarts turrets.

It's also a given that Potter will be expanded, just more of a "when". Hopefully, since they now realized how majorly popular it is, they can pour more money into Phase 2 of the project and make it even better than Phase 1.

 

[EvanAnderson]

The thing is with WWoHP, all the buildings are not original. They are pretty much duplicates of the sets they used in the movies, and I believe the set designers also helped in WWoHP. So they just copied what was on-screen. Disney is much much more original. Think of all the research that was required and done for Everest, and the trips imagineers took to accurately portray the Himalayas and buy all that authentic stuff.

No, actually they designed the Three Broomsticks first for the Wizarding World, and then used THAT design to build it for the movie. Also, a movie is an outside set, where the actors walk into a facade for a building, and inside is nothing. Then they cut and walk out and into a another soundstage where a mock up of the what inside would look like is built. In Wizarding World, it all has to be together. Ugh, nevermind. No matter what I say, some people will just be so hard headed, sneering their nose going "nope, nope, nope," not appreciating the thousands of man hours and years of programming that goes into making a high tech ride like FJ. You guys go enjoy your omni-mover that has been done for years, while Universal whips up yet ANOTHER technologically advanced ride.

 

[thelookingglass]

I honestly feel that they could have done even better with Harry Potter. The theming of Hogsmeade is great. The main ride is really really impressive. But why short change other items. The remaining attractions are roller coasters. Two of them just renamed and given a new entrance and the other having about the same excitement level of the old Barnstormer. Like I said, some of what they did is great, but they really cut some corners and the corners cut are kind of obvious. When the expansion is done try comparing the Snow White roller coaster to Flight of the Hippogriff. You will find it won't be much of a comparision.

Likewise, I have a hard time believing that the new Little Mermaid attraction will even be remotely in the same league as Forbidden Journey.

 

[MAF]

I find it laughable that people are saying the "Narnia" books are somehow better than the Harry Potter series. "Narnia" is simply religious propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[draybook]

I find it laughable that people are saying the "Narnia" books are somehow better than the Harry Potter series. "Narnia" is simply religious propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

I would agree. Before I watched the movies I didn't believe in Him. Then, after they strapped me to a chair and forced me to watch it, I give Him praise!!!!

:hammer:





That being said, WWoHP is pretty nice. Sure it's a little cramped, but they can't help it. I'm not even a Potter fan but it's nicely done. I'm still a Disney fanatic, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying another park.

 

[MAF]

All hail the Jesus Lion! :brick:

Oh and hold up a minute, someone actually posted that the D-Ticket Mermaid dark ride was going to be comparable to HP? Wow, that's delusion on a whole new level.

 

[Lucky]

That being said, WWoHP is pretty nice. Sure it's a little cramped, but they can't help it. I'm not even a Potter fan but it's nicely done. I'm still a Disney fanatic, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying another park.

I agree - I don't feel any reason to choose between them, or think that to enjoy one you have to run down the other.

 

[wizards8507]

I have a feeling that if Disney built this somewhere on their property, the exact same way, it would be hailed as the best thing in the world. But because it's on Universal's property, it's terrible.

It's also a given that Potter will be expanded, just more of a "when". Hopefully, since they now realized how majorly popular it is, they can pour more money into Phase 2 of the project and make it even better than Phase 1.

I agree - I don't feel any reason to choose between them, or think that to enjoy one you have to run down the other.

Nobody is saying it's terrible except for the people who accuse others of calling it terrible so they can say it's not. All I've been saying this entire time is that they're running a major risk that Harry Potter (the brand) won't have the staying power that they seem to be projecting. They realize "how majorly popular it is," but they're gambling on "how majorly popular it will be" in the future.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Nobody is saying it's terrible except for the people who accuse others of calling it terrible so they can say it's not. All I've been saying this entire time is that they're running a major risk that Harry Potter (the brand) won't have the staying power that they seem to be projecting. They realize "how majorly popular it is," but they're gambling on "how majorly popular it will be" in the future.

This is true...but I have a feeling they thought about that. I go back and forth on this one. Granted I wasn't around in the 70's, but who knew that Star Wars would have the staying power that it has today. I think that in the long run they probably will have made the correct choice in going along with the project.

 

[MAF]

It's so hilarious when people try to claim Harry Potter is just some "fad" that is going to fade away into obscurity. Uh the first book came out almost 15 years ago. Wow, what a flash in the pan!

It's also funny to compare the success of HP to Narnia when the movies flopped so hard that Disney dropped the franchise like a hot potato. Nice comparison you got there. :lol:

 

[Edeyore]

Likewise, I have a hard time believing that the new Little Mermaid attraction will even be remotely in the same league as Forbidden Journey.

Good point. Right now the Forbidden Journey is definitely the king of the hill.

 

[wizards8507]

It's so hilarious when people try to claim Harry Potter is just some "fad" that is going to fade away into obscurity. Uh the first book came out almost 15 years ago. Wow, what a flash in the pan!

It has nothing to do with when the FIRST book came out. They're STILL releasing new material. If they released the entire series and every film fifteen years ago and it was still popular, then we'd talk. Not to mention, I'd bet that 40% or more of those that have been watching the films have never read the books at all.

It's also funny to compare the success of HP to Narnia when the movies flopped so hard that Disney dropped the franchise like a hot potato. Nice comparison you got there. :lol:

That's because Disney royally screwed up the production of those films. If they were done by Peter Jackson, New Line, and Weta, then it'd be a different story. Also, nobody but you (who already labeled Narnia "religious propaganda") has tried to compare the success of the two. Nobody is talking about box office numbers and film releases. We're talking about staying power. Narnia has stayed relevant for 61 years. Harry Potter is still in its infancy. I'm not saying it's GOING to die, I'm saying, "we'll see."

 

[MAF]

That's because Disney royally screwed up the production of those films.

Except the films made after Disney dropped the franchise fared even worse in the box-office. :lookaroun

 

[draybook]

Except the films made after Disney dropped the franchise fared even worse in the box-office. :lookaroun

I sit corrected. Caspian made 4 million more than Dawn Treader overall. However, Caspian had a budget of 225million and made 419million. Dawn Trader had a budget of 140million and made 415million. I wouldn't consider that faring worse.

 

[jakeman]

Oh and hold up a minute, someone actually posted that the D-Ticket Mermaid dark ride was going to be comparable to HP? Wow, that's delusion on a whole new level.

/sigh

No one has said that.

Again a vast majority of people who say that anything about FLE as an answer to or going to better Potterland are people who are saying that other "people" are saying it so they can say that Potter is better. There are two examples in this thread alone.

Pumbas is right though. The usual suspects waving their flags.

 

[tmack8983]

The fact of the matter is Disney is a better all around park, what i mean by all around is, it caters to all different ages, Universal has better thrill rides.If Universal had more charm,magic, and catered to young children, it would easily surpass disney,the rides are just that much better. You can never tell a bias disney die hard fan that, because they'll never admit it lol.Dont get me wrong im a disney fan myself,or else i wouldnt be on this site, but im just keeping it real.