Buried20KLeague
Well-Known Member
First, I wasn't just refering to the 20K franchise. I am theorizing that Disney waited to gauge the scope of the additions to SW and Uni and are now about to counter those if the wdwinsider is right. Disney has a very good idea of what Potterland is all about.
Second, the whole 20K franchise rumor can be seen as a different kettle of squid (sorry). I have read accounts that Iger has expressed interests in building "franchises" that are much broader in scope than the way Pirates and Cars, for instance, have been deployed. Basically, in theory, 20K would have designed into it's "origin story" the idea of it being at least a trilogy. And instead of waiting to perhaps roll it into other Disney entities, they will instead go "all in" and develop the franchise throughout all aspects of the Disney empire to really capitilize on it. Is it a gamble? Absolutely. Would it pay off if it works? Beyond imagination.
Now people might wonder what would happen if the movie fails. The beauty of it is the plug can be pulled at anytime. And even if you ended up with an expensive MI land at AK, well that would still pay for itself eventually, even if the franchise failed. So really it's not a big gamble in my opinion. Now if the franchise succeeds along the lines of Potter or Pirates, well then MI turns into a marketing dream. Not to mention for stockholders and fanboy and fangirls everywhere.
So putting the cart before the horse might just be what they have in mind. It's beautiful. It reminds me of Walt's gamble in building Disneyland.
Look, your enthusiasm is great. But I don't believe what you're suggesting is feasable.
Disney isn't a privately held company anymore like it was when he was trying to build Disneyland. 3 people in a room don't make the decisions anymore. There are shareholders to make happy. That's the bottom line. That's what they care about. That's what keeps them from making "risky" decisions. It's not part of what a publicly held company does. This is nothing new.
Disney hasn't made a "gamble" move in a LONG, LONG time. Heck, they didn't even take the risk to build resorts around the world on their own! They required government help on all of them! A "gamble" would have been to not buy Pixar, and instead convince the public (and their very scared shareholders) that they could create as good a product and didn't need Pixar. But they didn't. They bought Pixar at a CRAZY price. Because it was the safe move.
The potential risk of loss of capital is far too great for a company to overlook if the franchise isn't huge. It's far safer (FAR FAR SAFER) to find the hit, then stretch out its time in the spotlight with release of other projects (attractions, sequals, etc). There is NOTHING to indicate this process would change.
And you said you had read about Iger coming up with a broader franchise attack than Pirates and Cars??? HOLY CARP. Broader than THAT?!?!?!? I couldn't look ANYWHERE without seeing Pirates and Cars stuff. I practically was blowing my nose on Lightning McQueen Kleenex. I can't imagine any further brand saturation... And dilution all at the same time.
I asked before what the last attraction based on a hit movie was. You didn't point out any that I hadn't thought of. I thought the Pirates refurb was probably it (if you even count that) and before that, Nemo, which was years ago.
There is no reason to think they'll buck the trend.
Even Carsland is YEARS behind the release of the picture.
And like I said, I like your enthusiasm. But I've made a mental note not to put you in charge of any of my companies. :lookaroun :lol:
