NO Harry Potter for Disney!

[imagineer boy]

This really is not good at all. Disney doesn't have any really big plans for big new attractions in the future, and all the attractiongs they've been making now like SGE and MILF have been terrible. Once the Harry Potter land opens, the spot light is going to be on Universal for the next few years and not on Disney. Yeesh, Disney had better get something planned.

On another note, who know what Universal will do with the Harry Potter theme. Mabe they'll do a crappy job. I can imagine they build something like "THE NIMBUS 2000 ROLLER COASTER!!!! THE MOST ADVANCED ROLLER COASTER EVER MADE. WITH 35 IVERSISIONS, LIM LAUNCH THAT GOES ZERO TO TWOHUNDRED IN 12 PICOSECONDS, THREE CORKSCREEWS, AND NINETEEN ZERO GRAVITY ROLLS. ITS JUST SO EXTREEEEEEMMMMEEE!!!! Oh yeah, and its themed to Harry Potter a little bit too."


With that said, let us bow our heads in a moment of silence for there will be no more Harry Potter rumor threads..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[Champion]

I don't know if I would be so sure about that. Maybe 10 years ago. I'm feeling a Superman IV coming on for some reason. Ford has fallen flat since Air Force One (exactly 1 decade ago). Rocky Balboa shows hope for resurrecting franchises -- but for every one of those we get, there are 5+ Alien Resurections / Revenge of the Nerds: Nerds in love / Police Academy Mission Moscow / Jaws the Revenge / Need I keep going? I think Die Hard IV will be another big test. But I can easily see word of mouth killing this thing and it having a 60% drop in the 2nd and 3rd weeks. Might be pretty sad to see it go out like that. Besides Ford has to lay off the weed long enough to shoot a movie again. Then he can go ahead and light back up for the junkets and talk show rounds.

The Potter movies don't make $300m. Indy 4 will make $400m+.

 

[Champion]

This really is not good at all. Disney doesn't have any really big plans for big new attractions in the future, and all the attractiongs they've been making now like SGE and MILF have been terrible. Once the Harry Potter land opens, the spot light is going to be on Universal for the next few years and not on Disney. Yeesh, Disney had better get something planned.

No big plans? This years annual report had more in it as far as future endeavors then we have seen in quite a long time.

Universal doesn't have the infrastructure to be the focus of the central Florida tourism industry. Sure, they will probably see an attendance increase once it opens. And yes, they will get publicity for it. But they simply do not have the ability to handle the vast amount of people that Disney does.

But 'the spot light'? Hardly. Especially since two of the attractions in the HP land are simply going to be rethemed existing attractions. That says to me they are trying to make this happen while still cutting corners. Time shall tell.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Disney doesn't have any really big plans for big new attractions in the future

That we know about, that is.

 

[disneyparksrock]

But 'the spot light'? Hardly. Especially since two of the attractions in the HP land are simply going to be rethemed existing attractions. That says to me they are trying to make this happen while still cutting corners. Time shall tell.

The Warner Bros guy said that they will have to do more than just retheme DD, so I have a feeling that there will be some special effects involved. Something like the Mummy.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

On another note, who know what Universal will do with the Harry Potter theme. Mabe they'll do a crappy job. I can imagine they build something like "THE NIMBUS 2000 ROLLER COASTER!!!! THE MOST ADVANCED ROLLER COASTER EVER MADE. WITH 35 IVERSISIONS, LIM LAUNCH THAT GOES ZERO TO TWOHUNDRED IN 12 PICOSECONDS, THREE CORKSCREEWS, AND NINETEEN ZERO GRAVITY ROLLS. ITS JUST SO EXTREEEEEEMMMMEEE!!!! Oh yeah, and its themed to Harry Potter a little bit too."

I don't think that's a fair characterization of Universal's theming. You can walk around Jurassic Park or Marvel Super Hero Island and see that a lot of effort has gone into making those environments pretty immersive.

Outside of some of the thrill rides (e.g. Hulk, which I assume this is based on), I think Universal's area and attraction theming is about as good as Disney's.

 

[wedway71]

Sweet!!!!!!
Great news!!!!

Stiffer competition for WDW means WDW needs to step it up to compete.

I think blue sky's are going crazy now.

 

[teebin]

Universal can match Disney on theming...there is no question about it. IOA is easily as impressive as any Disney park from a theming perspective and in some areas more so. The castle of dueling dragons is utterly incredible in every way, as is the tree restaurant. I think Universal is going to hit a home run with this project. It's possible that both Disney and Universal drew up plans and they chose IOA due to their vision. Competition is a good thing, and IOA needs this. It is a great park and this is just in time when the park is slowing down and in need of something new. Not only is this new but it is massive! More great things at IOA just means Disney will have to step up and deliver more new attractions in the future.

Thank you, I agree.

Some of you people are being so dogmatic about this. Tons of talented Disney people left Disney to work on IOA. And it looks or should I say, looked it at the time. Universal/NBC has let the ball drop in recent years and things have become a bit stale, but still, IOA is a brilliant creation needing some TLC. Lead designers are changing jobs all the time or just freelance for these companies. Disney has canned a bunch of imagineers in recent months and I will bet that a bunch of them are clamoring to work on the new Harry Potter project at Universal.

few points:
Jurassic Park is still a popular area in IOA and that franchise hasn't had a new movie since 2001.

I came to Orlando for the first time ever in 1999. I went to IOA and fell in love with it. I went to MK and Epcot. The MK was pleasant but not astounding to me but it is aimed at young children so it is probably top of its game in the youth dept. Then I went to Epcot and I thought to myself, "what a piece of dated junk". Remember, this is 1999. I don't think this anymore because Disney has dumped some bucks into Epcot in the past 8 years. I finally found AK and fell in love with it, while the unkempt IOA fell to third place.

So, moral of the story: Disney lets parks get stale (mgm mgm mgm) and will enevitably fix it, just as Universal's IOA is doing now.

And for those that think that there isn't enough in the Harry Potter stories to create a land in IOA. ARE YOU NUTS? There are at least three attractions that could be built from EACH book. I can't figure out how they are going to pick and choose what to use!

Disney is bigger and because it is a world, probably better as a total vacation experience for most. But Universal Orlando has pulled some top notch designs and attractions too, and much of the time, using the same designers and contractors that are used by Disney.

(wow, I didn't realize I had this much of an opinion) :wave:

 

[NIU EE]

Universal can pull it off from a theming perspective. I love the feeling of walking through the gates of Jurassic Park with music playing. The ride could definitely be better...but the theming is there. I LOVE the Lost Continent theming, but again the actual attractions are somewhat lacking. Universal really needs to spend some time on the rides and I think they can pull this HP thing off. HP will remain popular but will not become anything like Star Wars unless there is an expanded 'universe'. The comics and roleplaying games and cartoons etc etc are what makes Star Wars different from every other good movie from 30 years ago.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

According to Tolkien, death is the central theme of his story in LOTR - not necessarily the most uplifting experience for a theme park visitor.

I read a quote from J.K. Rowling a few days ago where she said something along the lines of "this series (meaning Harry Potter) is about death."

While not a bloodbath by any means, the later chapters of HP haven't shied away from killing off major characters. And one of the major themes of Book 6 was Voldemort's crazed determination to beat death.

 

[WDWFigment]

If you are judging popularity by money, thats one thing, and its not fair to compare a single movie, say, 'The Lion King' to all the Harry Potter movies combined. If you want to take a single movie and compare it to another, you have to adjust for inflation. Here's a list.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

If you are judging popularity by the number of fans, remember that with the internet, you see a lot more fans of newer properties than of older ones. Movies like Snow White basically influenced the entire country I don't think you can make that same argument for Potter.

Not that I care too much because I think it's a pointless argument to compare which series is the best/most popular, but Champion, you seem to be adjusting the rules of comparison to suit your needs. Earlier, you compared all the Star Wars books combined sold per year to the Harry Potter books after admitting that there were more Star Wars books--if that's the case, it's very likely that they'll sell more. If I have 500 of a varieties of a franchise product versus my competitor's 50, and I have 10 zealous fans who will buy any product I release with the franchise branding and my competitor has 99 zealous fans, I will sell more, but ultimately, he has a greater ability to bring in revenue if the playing field were leveled.

Then you said that LOTR has sold more books over the past 50 years than Harry Potter--a fact that likely is true because it has been around decades longer than Potter. So if Potter has sold 50,000 copies per year over the last five years and LOTR has sold 10,000, but sold a ton more 40 years ago accounting for the overall higher number, that doesn't make LOTR more popular today! You can't expect others to level the playing field if you aren't willing to do it yourself.

 

[Testtrack321]

My thoughts:

FINALLY WE CAN LAY IT TO REST!

Frankly, concept art looks cool, but usually not as cool as in person. I wonder how they'll keep all the snow nice and white, it hasn't worked very well in MGM...

I hope they don't screw over the rest of the land, from the looks and what I've read, it'll be an addition on the side, a major one at that.

I wonder what happened with the whole "tap the bricks like in the book" thing that she wanted.

What kind of rides are we looking at here? Or did they want to get this out ASAP? It seems the past few months have been Universal's day, from The Simpsons, to the Today show down there, to Blue Man next week, and now this.

I wonder if we'll see the characters, and in what cappactiy? As AAs? As walk around characters? Or will we see new ones, off shoots. And what about the shops, same ones, or different ones?

I'm interested in the answers, good to know we'll know in '09...

 

[Champion]

Not that I care too much because I think it's a pointless argument to compare which series is the best/most popular, but Champion, you seem to be adjusting the rules of comparison to suit your needs. Earlier, you compared all the Star Wars books combined sold per year to the Harry Potter books after admitting that there were more Star Wars books--if that's the case, it's very likely that they'll sell more. If I have 500 of a varieties of a franchise product versus my competitor's 50, and I have 10 zealous fans who will buy any product I release with the franchise branding and my competitor has 99 zealous fans, I will sell more, but ultimately, he has a greater ability to bring in revenue if the playing field were leveled.

Then you said that LOTR has sold more books over the past 50 years than Harry Potter--a fact that likely is true because it has been around decades longer than Potter. So if Potter has sold 50,000 copies per year over the last five years and LOTR has sold 10,000, but sold a ton more 40 years ago accounting for the overall higher number, that doesn't make LOTR more popular today! You can't expect others to level the playing field if you aren't willing to do it yourself.[/quote]

I don't see your point. Merchandising a franchise has everything to do with quantity. Does it really matter if you're selling 20,000 of 10 items to sell your 200,000 items? Not really. Not if you're competing against someone that only has one item and can only sell 100,000 of them.

You also don't judge a franchise by a small sample. I understand that HP hasn't been around long, and thus its legs are unknown, but its not fair to disregard 50 years of book sales from LotR simply because HP didn't come out until the 90s.

My point was that in the Potter fans rush to claim Potter as the biggest franchise in the world, they are quick to disregard the other major franchises simply because they don't have a wizard named Harry. HP is very popular, and I'm sure the land at IoA will do well for at least the first couple of years. I just don't know if an entire land is right for ANY franchise, regardless of what it is. I suppose Universal can ride them into the ground like they did with Jurassic Park, while Disney will continue to spread the wealth to many of its different properties.

 

[sknydave]

Wow some people really do turn a blind eye to anything wrong with Disney.

 

[NemoRocks78]

Have you been to Universal in recent years to see the horrible conditions of the parks? You see people complain about things wrong at Disney, but the conditions at Universal have been deplorable.

:ROFLOL:

WDW Total: 45m
Universal Total: 11.3m

WDW has TWO MORE PARKS. AND one of the most popular parks in the world. No one has or ever will expect USF to be doing 15m+ visitors a year.

It is. Besides the movies, it makes ridiculous amounts in merchandising, a lot more than Harry Potter. Why do you think Disney fought :ROFLOL: so hard to keep merchandising rights when they were renegotiating the Pixar deal before they purchased them? The merchandising to these movies easily makes more then the box office. Much, much more.

Yeah, I'm sure Toy Story is still making much more in merchandising than Potter, when it hasn't had a new film in five years...

And have you seen the top-grossing fictional characters list over at Forbes? Granted it's from 2004, but they've got Potter on the list with $2.8 billion... and Buzz and Woody are nowhere to be found.

I get the impression that you've grown up with Harry Potter. Its fine to believe its a great series, and to love it. But you can't disregard other franchises simply because they aren't Potter.

Quality to me means riding a ride and not seeing holes in the sides of dinosaurs - like happened to me the last time I went to Universal.

1.
2. So do you think Dinosaur is in excellent shape? If so, why can I still see the mechanics of the AAs when I'm on the ride? And what's with the busted effects and AAs that don't even work anymore?

Quality to me is taking care of your rides so that your coasters like Hulk and DD aren't smashing my head against the headrest over and over and over. RnRC doesn't do that, and for that matter neither did Kraken, all of which I did in consecutive days. The coasters that I ride a few times a month during the summer at SF New England and SF Great Adventure aren't as pooly maintained as the ones at Universal.

:ROFLOL: RNRC is one of the worst head-bangers around. It's also a Vekoma. You complain about Hulk and DD too, and yet you don't even mention the condition Space Mountain has been in for years...

Quality to me is being able to sit down at a table for lunch without having to check if its completely sticky or not, as I have to do whenever I'm at Universal.

:ROFLOL:

Most of all, quality to me is not being able to do everything in the park by 11 o clock. And I do mean everything, except Seuss land, as I did the last time I went to IoA.

I could do everything in DAK or MGM by 11am on a non-crowded day too. :shrug:

The problem with choosing MK attractions to compare is that MK is a victim of its own success. Those rides are so heavily attended that it is extremely difficult to do long term rehabs on them, and when they do, they can only do one ride, maybe two, at a time. They are trying to refurbish the attractions as they can, but they can't close multiple major attractions at the same time. Thus full refurbs take a very long time to get done.

Sssuuurrreee...

Not that Rock'N Roller Coaster was of a higher quality than Hulk (which it is anyway, but thats neither here nor there.)

:ROFLOL:

The Potter movies don't make $300m. Indy 4 will make $400m+.

$400m+? With all the other big blockbusters out next year? And as a movie that hasn't had a sequel in 17 years? Um, yeah... no.

Not that I care too much because I think it's a pointless argument to compare which series is the best/most popular, but Champion, you seem to be adjusting the rules of comparison to suit your needs. Earlier, you compared all the Star Wars books combined sold per year to the Harry Potter books after admitting that there were more Star Wars books--if that's the case, it's very likely that they'll sell more. If I have 500 of a varieties of a franchise product versus my competitor's 50, and I have 10 zealous fans who will buy any product I release with the franchise branding and my competitor has 99 zealous fans, I will sell more, but ultimately, he has a greater ability to bring in revenue if the playing field were leveled.

Then you said that LOTR has sold more books over the past 50 years than Harry Potter--a fact that likely is true because it has been around decades longer than Potter. So if Potter has sold 50,000 copies per year over the last five years and LOTR has sold 10,000, but sold a ton more 40 years ago accounting for the overall higher number, that doesn't make LOTR more popular today! You can't expect others to level the playing field if you aren't willing to do it yourself.

Great post. :sohappy:

 

[NemoRocks78]

You also don't judge a franchise by a small sample. I understand that HP hasn't been around long, and thus its legs are unknown, but its not fair to disregard 50 years of book sales from LotR simply because HP didn't come out until the 90s.

IT HAD 50 MORE YEARS TO DO IT! How can you even expect Potter to do that much in so little time? In 50 years, it will most likely be right up there with LOTR, but there's no way it could touch the massive sales of LOTR so soon.

I suppose Universal can ride them into the ground like they did with Jurassic Park, while Disney will continue to spread the wealth to many of its different properties.

Yeah, because we can all hardly wait for 10 more Finding Nemo attractions...

 

[ToTBellHop]

RnRC is a headbanger? It's smooth as silk compared to the garbage Six Flags shoves down our throats these days...and if you don't think Indy 4 will make a fortune, you are smoking something pretty potent.

 

[NemoRocks78]

RnRC is a headbanger? It's smooth as silk compared to the garbage Six Flags shoves down our throats these days...and if you don't think Indy 4 will make a fortune, you are smoking something pretty potent.

You and I must be riding a different coaster because there's no way that thing is smooth. Vekoma coasters have always been known for their roughness. I was just on it two days ago and my head was banging back and forth while going in and out of the inversions.

And I never said a single word about Indy IV not making a "fortune," it's just that I definitely can't see it pushing $400m+ (though $350m+ is and probably will be attainable). There's too many factors in play to prevent it from happening.

 

[WDWFigment]

You also don't judge a franchise by a small sample. I understand that HP hasn't been around long, and thus its legs are unknown, but its not fair to disregard 50 years of book sales from LotR simply because HP didn't come out until the 90s.

I'll agree that an entire land is too much for any franchise. But, if this land looks the way it does (just some English village with a castle) it could be re-themed in the future if/when Harry Potter loses its popularity. Retheming at Universal is possible, as much can be evidenced in the fact that they are retheming attractions for Potter.

Also, you do look at a small sample for things like this. What's the point in judging the last fifty years if something has waned in popularity (which would be the case with LOTR if it weren't for the movies of the last five years). Now LOTR is popular again, so it's a different story, but how many of those people purchasing LOTR books 30-50 years ago are going to go to a theme park now? I'm sure a good portion of those people aren't even alive anymore. Take this example: Trolls (the ugly dolls with the fruity hair) have sold more money over the past fifty years than Stitch merchandise. We need to make one attraction based on ugly and annoying products, so those are the two candidates--better pick Trolls because they are more popular over the past fifty years! Uhh...yeah.

 

[mousermerf]

What? One franchise too much for a land?

Have you been to JP at IOA? It was supposed to get more attractions if the other JP movies did well.

IOA is really the best currently established park to put Potter into. Anyone else notice that the other lands are based on pulp characters? JP was a book - which the land often refers to moreso then the movie. Marvel is comics and Toon Lagoon is funnies. Suess is obviously book-based.

So, now we add another Island based on a book series. Its redirecting the otherwise vague focus of the land to an actual property. Wher would Disney have put Potter?

Not in AK, not in MK, and Epcot only barely fits it in the UK pavilion where there is little space for such a large creation to fit Rowling's requests. MGM has a similiar space problem and the whole theme doesn't fit in MGM's general landscape.