NO Harry Potter for Disney!

[Champion]

That is matter of opinion and you or I could never really prove how Uni. compares to Disney on a quality level, becuase its strictly an opinion. Someone could say they like Six Flags more than Disney and Uni. and they wouldn't be wrong. It's just an opinion.

Someone liking one or the other better is NOT the same as quality or competition. You're correct in that liking one or the other is an opinion, I'm not talking about liking one or the other.

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.

But the biggest thing that shows that Disney is in a different league than Universal is this.

Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom, 16.64 million, up 3.0 percent
Epcot, 10.46 million, up 5.5 percent
Disney-MGM Studios, 9.10 million, up 5.0 percent
Disney's Animal Kingdom, 8.91 million, up 8.6 percent
Universal Studios Florida, 6.00 million, up 1.2 percent
SeaWorld Orlando, 5.74 million, up 2.5 percent
Universal's Islands of Adventure, 5.30 million, down 4.8 percent

WDW Total: 45m
Universal Total: 11.3m

Sorry, but when you're only dealing with 25% of the people, you can't be considered the equal.

I could agree with you on Spider-Man and Mickey. I already said that LOTR is probally just as popular as HP. However the other things on your list are no way more popular than HP. Toy Story being more popular as a franchise than HP?

It is. Besides the movies, it makes ridiculous amounts in merchandising, a lot more than Harry Potter. Why do you think Disney fought 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.
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.

Could you explain this a little more? I think it wouldn't be hard to do an entire LOTR theme park, never mind a land.

Sure, all I meant was that I don't like the idea of giving an unproven (in theme parks) property an entire land of attractions. If you do one, and it does well, you add another.
No disrespect meant to LotR, there are hundreds if not thousands of possibilities for shows and rides that could come from LotR, but if you were going to have an LotR theme park presence, I think it should begin with a single attraction.

 

[disneyparksrock]

Someone liking one or the other better is NOT the same as quality or competition. You're correct in that liking one or the other is an opinion, I'm not talking about liking one or the other.

Judging a park's quality is an opinion.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Harry Potter and Reggie White

:brick:
You know, the price may have been too high, and Universal and Warner Brothers may be paying way too much. It seems that an entire park dedicated to Harry Potter is also a bit extreme. After all, how much interest will remain in ten years when the excitement of the last book is gone? Perhaps they will eventually broaden their theming to a mythology park, or something else.

Still, I now will have a significant reason to leave Disney property for a day, and maybe even stay at a hotel off Disney property if the reasons to leave Disney become significant enough.

In sports, you sometimes see big time free agents like Shaquille O'Neal, Reggie White, Deion Sanders, A-Rod, Roger Clemens, Wayne Gretzky and many others go off to the highest bidder. Everyone remembers the subsequent championships, but few remember the poor franchise that was left behind to wallow in its losing rut. One example, Reggie White left Philadelphia in 1993 to go to the Packers. The Eagles still had Randall Cunningham and a host of other really good players, but they let a great one go. Within a few years, the Packers appear in 2 Super Bowls (winning one), and Philadelphia never quite makes it.

Is Disney losing today, or are Universal and Warner Brothers paying way too much to J.K Rowling and in the millions that will be spent on the park itself? Will the Harry Potter franchise still be pulling them in in 2017? Will the park live up to the expectations of the fans, or will they be disappointed?

None of us know these answers right now, but my gut is telling me that Disney just lost the Super Bowl. I hope I'm wrong. Of course, the biggest competitor for Reggie White in 1993 was the Dallas Cowboys, and without Reggie, they still went on to win multiple Super Bowls in the 90's. Maybe that's what Disney is planning on, so to speak.

 

[disneyparksrock]

Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom, 16.64 million, up 3.0 percent
Epcot, 10.46 million, up 5.5 percent
Disney-MGM Studios, 9.10 million, up 5.0 percent
Disney's Animal Kingdom, 8.91 million, up 8.6 percent
Universal Studios Florida, 6.00 million, up 1.2 percent
SeaWorld Orlando, 5.74 million, up 2.5 percent
Universal's Islands of Adventure, 5.30 million, down 4.8 percent

WDW Total: 45m
Universal Total: 11.3m

Sorry, but when you're only dealing with 25% of the people, you can't be considered the equal.

If you're talking in sales and popularity, then yes, Disney is much better than Universal. If you're talking in quality or personal favorites, then it's just strictly an opinion. Like I said, I do like Disney more than Uni., and yes it is more popular, but in my opinion their quality is almost equal.

 

[disneyparksrock]

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.

I have grown up with HP and love it. However I'm not disregarding the other franchises. I love SW and LOTR almost as much as HP, and I would love it if Disney based a whole land on SW or LOTR.

 

[Champion]

Judging a park's quality is an opinion.

Quality is, by definition, something that can be given an exact attribute. I think you might be saying 'quality' but thats not really what you mean.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Quality is, by definition, something that can be given an exact attribute. I think you might be saying 'quality' but thats not really what you mean.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. It is abstract and is not an exact.

But thats just my opinion.

 

[disneyparksrock]

Quality is, by definition, something that can be given an exact attribute. I think you might be saying 'quality' but thats not really what you mean.

I don't really understand what you mean by quality then. Can you please explain?

This is what quality is to me.

I think that Mickey's Philharmagic and Shrek 4-D are of the same quality.(Both are newer 4-D shows, so comparable.) However I enjoy Philharmagic more.

I also think that Buzz and MIB are the same in quality, but I enjoy MIB better.(Both are rides where you shoot aliens with a gun, so comparable.)

 

[Champion]

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. It is abstract and is not an exact.

But thats just my opinion.

If meant as in 'trait' then I suppose so.

But as in 'high quality clothing' it isn't really abstract. If you have something to compare it to, you can see which is higher quality. Saying Universal and Disney are of the same level simply isn't true.

 

[Champion]

I don't really understand what you mean by quality then. Can you please explain?

This is what quality is to me.

I think that Mickey's Philharmagic and Shrek 4-D are of the same quality.(Both are newer 4-D shows, so comparable.) However I enjoy Philharmagic more.

I also think that Buzz and MIB are the same in quality, but I enjoy MIB better.(Both are rides where you shoot aliens with a gun, so comparable.)

You're the one who was using 'quality' to call the two resorts equals. I wasn't.

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.
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.
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.
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.

 

[disneyparksrock]

If meant as in 'trait' then I suppose so.

But as in 'high quality clothing' it isn't really abstract. If you have something to compare it to, you can see which is higher quality. Saying Universal and Disney are of the same level simply isn't true.

Clothing is alot easier to compare quality wise than theme parks are. I could easily take a t-shirt from Wal-Mart, and then one from Abercombie and Fitch, and say without a doubt that A&E's t-shirt is of higher quality than Wal-Mart's. However it would be a lot harder to judge the quality of say Buzz to MIB. Or even EE to Mummy.(Though EE to Mummy would be harder since EE is an all-out rollercoaster while Mummy is a rollercoaster/dark ride.)

The only thing you could really say was that TOT is of a higher quality than Dr. Doom, however Uni. wasn't aiming for an elaborate ride like TOT when they made Dr. Doom.

 

[disneyparksrock]

You're the one who was using 'quality' to call the two resorts equals. I wasn't.

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.
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.
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.
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.

When using things like the Jurassic Park ride, yes if there is holes in the dinosaurs, but the last time I checked Haunted Mansion wasn't in such great shape either. The audio dosen't work all the time on that ride, although it did when I rode it. (To be fair though HM is getting a refurb.) Also, don't even get me started on the shape Space Mountain is right now. If feels like your riding a rickety old coaster in a dimmly lit building, instead of a ride though space. It desperatly needs a refurb like Disneyland's. If were speaking of quality based on the pictures I've seen of Disneyland it has more quality then Uni. or WDW.

 

[Champion]

When using things like the Jurassic Park ride, yes if there is holes in the dinosaurs, but the last time I checked Haunted Mansion wasn't in such great shape either. The audio dosen't work all the time on that ride, although it did when I rode it. (To be fair though HM is getting a refurb.) Also, don't even get me started on the shape Space Mountain is right now. If feels like your riding a rickety old coaster in a dimmly lit building, instead of a ride though space. It desperatly needs a refurb like Disneyland's. If were speaking of quality based on the pictures I've seen of Disneyland it has more quality then Uni. or WDW.

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.

 

[disneyparksrock]

You're the one who was using 'quality' to call the two resorts equals. I wasn't.

The resorts aren't on the same quality, it's the rides that are. WDW has much more to do and is so much more inclusive than Uni., so in that sense you could say that Disney has more quality than Universal. However when you just compare dark ride to dark ride, rollercoaster to rollercoaster, or even the teacups to the storm force acceleration, you could say the rides are of the same quality.

 

[Tim G]

And once again I was right, Warner never gives up their rights... :lookaroun :lookaroun :lookaroun

 

[k.hunter30]

Quality is, by definition, something that can be given an exact attribute. I think you might be saying 'quality' but thats not really what you mean.

actually... it's a subjective term...:lookaroun

 

[RandySavage]

LotR, particularly the books, are little too serious in tone to lend themselves particulalry well to themepark attractions. According to Tolkien, death is the central theme of his story in LOTR - not necessarily the most uplifting experience for a theme park visitor. Star Wars and Harry Potty, while containing some similar underlying themes, are more light-hearted, just-for-the-fun-of-it yarns.

 

[ToTBellHop]

LotR, particularly the books, are little too serious in tone to lend themselves particulalry well to themepark attractions. According to Tolkien, death is the central theme of his story in LOTR - not necessarily the most uplifting experience for a theme park visitor. Star Wars and Harry Potty, while containing some similar underlying themes, are more light-hearted, just-for-the-fun-of-it yarns.

lot of death on the Tower of Terror...they even kill a little girl.

 

[Champion]

The resorts aren't on the same quality, it's the rides that are. WDW has much more to do and is so much more inclusive than Uni., so in that sense you could say that Disney has more quality than Universal. However when you just compare dark ride to dark ride, rollercoaster to rollercoaster, or even the teacups to the storm force acceleration, you could say the rides are of the same quality.

But my original statement was that Disney is not in competition with Universal because they are well above them. Not that Rock'N Roller Coaster was of a higher quality than Hulk (which it is anyway, but thats neither here nor there.)

Taking it ride by ride isn't fair, because you can spend a lot in one place and skimp in others to save money. The best coasters in the country are usually at Six Flags parks, but that doesn't make them a 'high quality' park.

 

[JimboJones123]

Spider Man. Higher grossing movies. Not to mention the 60 years of comics and cartoons.
Toy Story. Extremely popular. Next movie will make boatloads.
Indiana Jones will gross more than any HP movie when that film comes out.
X - Men. Comics are extremely popular. Movies did extremely well. Spin off movies will do well too.
Pirates is more popular, both moviewise and merchandising wise.
LotR is a more popular franchise, and its long term legs are proven. Another 400m+ is guaranteed when the new movie based on 'The Hobbit' is released.
Heck, you can even mention Mickey.



Universal will focus on it, but saying Disney wouldn't is wrong. They always do big pushes on their newest big attractions, like they did with EE.

Yes, its a better franchise then Jurassic Park, thats for sure. And Jurassic park has a HUGE presence at IoA, in fact, I would say too much of one, so yeah, they have, at Universal, given one property a huge portion of the park. Would Potter be a better choice for giving it too much land? Yeah, I can agree with that.

Re-theming DD is kind of odd, because they are going to theme it to HP, which has a huge young audience. A lot of these children aren't going to be able to ride DD, so I don't quite understand why they would do that. Well I do, its to get another HP themed attraction without spending as much money as building a whole new attraction, but that they are going to do it with DD is odd.

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.