Uni's New Plan For Potter Could Make Significant Dent To WDW

[Thrill]

Also, there are reports that major shareholders have recently made demands that Disney stop the trend of new expenditures (especially in the parks), which would make the days on one-upping each other dead before it's really had a chance to begin. I would speculate that this may be one of the major reasons Iger decided to step down.

Capital investment is the bane of any corporation's existence. I mean, how can a company make money if they are busy spending it on expansion? This idea of "growth" is preposterous!

This is true, HOWEVER, its because Disney stays on the cutting edge, not because it sits around and says "yeah we're awesome, whatcha gonna do". USO/IOA sat around for a few years with almost nothing (especially at IOA) and attendance sank.

Also, Disney will always end on top, its called the RCID. And it covers more land than Universal owns in the entire world (Aprox. estimate)

Doesn't matter. The fact is that Universal is expanding at a rapid rate. At some point, people are going to get bored of the same things at WDW and spend multiple days at the resort that is innovating and is expanding.

I still believe that Disney hasn't technologically topped Spiderman, which almost 15 years old.

But imagine going from Jungle Cruise to Pirates and being charged another day's admission.

You're paying twice for the same themed land.

You tell an average family that Universal Orlando has a Harry Potter themed land but then you say..."Wait a minute, we divided this up between two parks so we can charge you more to experience the whole thing." And that is supposed to elicit a positive reaction?

From a money making standpoint alone, this is a great idea. Looking at it from the consumer side, it's a raw deal to pay twice for the same land.

You're right, but they are charging you $55 to get from Tomorrowland to Future World by Monorail.

 

[menamechris]

The Orlando Sentinel is also now reporting that floating barges are being worked on in Universal's central lagoon. Speculation is that a World of Color type nighttime show may be coming..... Interesting...

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-universal-studios-20111207,0,4662374.story

 

[Figment571]

Avatar made more money than any other film by a huge margin, and the main thing people loved about it were its special effects and visuals. That'll lend itself really well to a theme park land, IMO.

I think Pandora is a good investment (I haven't seen the movie, but I actually have confidence in this). Plus, they'll continue to watch Uni sell wands and butterbeer while Avatar doesn't seem to have a corresponding merchandise commodity (maybe they'll pursue a blue theme by recoloring existing Disney characters - Pandora Mickey, Pandora Duffy, Pandora Yeti, etc).

If you saw the movie you'd know what the problem is. there is little emotional attachment to any character, they are flat and serve only to be stock characters in the story.
There are little to no merchandising oppertunities with the franchise (heck when the toys for the movie came out they didn't sell) and there are little iconic locations in the movie other than "glow forest" and "The Tree of Life? (I think that's what it was called...)".

"Hey kid, we're gonna have milkshakes now too. Wanna buy one?"

Universal to Disney "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE! SSSSLLLLLUUUURRRRPPPP! I DRINK IT UP!"

If Universal expands and keeps hedging off another day or two from a Disney vacation then Disney will see a serious hurting on their cash flow.

 

[Figment571]

...

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

If you saw the movie you'd know what the problem is. there is little emotional attachment to any character, they are flat and serve only to be stock characters in the story.
There are little to no merchandising oppertunities with the franchise (heck when the toys for the movie came out they didn't sell) and there are little iconic locations in the movie other than "glow forest" and "The Tree of Life? (I think that's what it was called...)".

Good movie =/= good theme park attraction.
Popular movie =/= good theme park attraction.
Good theme park attraction = immersive, well-themed, and memorable special effects. Avatar supplies more than enough of this for a theme park land.

And if Disney isn't simply doing this for the merchandise opportunities (since they don't appear to be great), I applaud them. We've gotten enough terrible retail-driven additions.

 

[Figment571]

Good movie =/= good theme park attraction.
Popular movie =/= good theme park attraction.
Good theme park attraction = immersive, well-themed, and memorable special effects. Avatar supplies more than enough of this for a theme park land.

And if Disney isn't simply doing this for the merchandise opportunities (since they don't appear to be great), I applaud them. We've gotten enough terrible retail-driven additions.

The thing is it can be an immersive environment and look great but it holds no value if it does not connect to people in some way. The franchise itself has to be significant to the person experiencing it in order for it to connect fully.
It may be cool and all but it will not resonate if the world is populated with characters that are not identifiable. I would rather them see them create something original, that has some basis in the culture, in some sort of history, whether it be mythological, or Australian (specifically talking about AK here), as a whole rather than an unproven franchise, that I personally believe has a very limited lifespan.

Pirates are pirates
ghosts are ghosts
cowboys are cowboys
Nav'i are....cat alien things.

 

[TinkerBelle8878]

The thing is it can be an immersive environment and look great but it holds no value if it does not connect to people in some way. The franchise itself has to be significant to the person experiencing it in order for it to connect fully.
It may be cool and all but it will not resonate if the world is populated with characters that are not identifiable. I would rather them see them create something original, that has some basis in the culture, in some sort of history, whether it be mythological, or Australian (specifically talking about AK here), as a whole rather than an unproven franchise, that I personally believe has a very limited lifespan.

Pirates are pirates
ghosts are ghosts
cowboys are cowboys
Nav'i are....cat alien things.

I agree with this. Especially after Disney thought that they needed a merchandising boost and started retheming Epcot with their own characters, wouldn't they realize that Avatar doesn't quite lend itself the same way? I guess we could go with Disney cats turned into those Avatar creatures? Simba, Aristocats, etc all turned blue?

I'm just imagining how tourists will refer to the new land.

"We're going to that area with those blue things from that movie."

"Blue man group?"

"No."

"Smurfs?"

"No."

"Gonzo? They gave him his own land? To explain what a Weirdo is?"

"Nope. Some cat thing."

 

[Bairstow]

The thing is it can be an immersive environment and look great but it holds no value if it does not connect to people in some way. The franchise itself has to be significant to the person experiencing it in order for it to connect fully.
It may be cool and all but it will not resonate if the world is populated with characters that are not identifiable. I would rather them see them create something original, that has some basis in the culture, in some sort of history, whether it be mythological, or Australian (specifically talking about AK here), as a whole rather than an unproven franchise, that I personally believe has a very limited lifespan.

Pirates are pirates
ghosts are ghosts
cowboys are cowboys
Nav'i are....cat alien things.

Oh? I thought it was quite clear what the N'avi are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powhatan

 

[RandySavage]

Everything will be depend on the execution, moreso than the source material. I have zero attachment to the Potter universe, characters, books or movies, but the execution of most of the land and key attraction compel me to want to go there. Same looks to be the case with Carsland.

You could argue that lots of people feel attachment to the Potter or Cars characters even though I don't, but I would point to examples of very successful attractions where we can assume that the guest has little/no emotional attachment to the characters involved (e.g. Tower of Terror, Space Mountain, etc.). A theme park land or attraction that is executed at the highest level doesn't require that we have some kind attachment to the characters presented, because we are typically the central character (on rides).

 

[Mem11]

So one land has changed everything? Please. HP is a great addition for Uni. But lets not get carried away.

No need to beg. :wave:

It hasn't, I'm not saying that... The point is Disney was always the leader, the innovator, the one everyone chased and reacted to. I don't think Uni will ever catch Disney, but it will be interesting to see if they continue to expand and build "Disney" quality attractions. I hope so, competition is good.

Sorry, I just use to have higher expectation of Disney.

 

[Figment571]

Oh? I thought it was quite clear what the N'avi are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powhatan

That is lost in translation for most people. If they wanted to have some sort of North american area and build upon the many myths and legends of Native American culture they could have easily done that too.

You could argue that lots of people feel attachment to the Potter or Cars characters even though I don't, but I would point to examples of very successful attractions where we can assume that the guest has little/no emotional attachment to the characters involved (e.g. Tower of Terror, Space Mountain, etc.). A theme park land or attraction that is executed at the highest level doesn't require that we have some kind attachment to the characters presented, because we are typically the central character (on rides).

the thing is with Potter is that the people who go there, the majority do have some sort of connection, and that from now on I think most people will on some level have that connection.

You use single attractions to say that people don't need to have a connection to have a great experience, and for the example this is true.
Space Mountain - no characters within the attraction, the idea is a Rocket in Space, simple and everyone has some sort of connection to that idea. I.E. Spacemen, rocket-ships that whole deal.

Tower of Terror- This is a Single attraction and not the whole basis of a land. It is a haunted hotel, variation on the Ghosts are Ghosts idea I presented earlier.

With Avatar, they are putting hundreds of millions into this thing and with major attractions that are based on franchises we are usually expected to have some sort of major interaction with the characters from that said universe. With Harry Potter we know who they are, at least Harry. Toy Story, we know the characters, Great Movie Ride,, we know the Wizard of Oz, We know John Wayne. With a single attraction vs an Entire Land there is not the problem of having so many recognizable locations, merchandise (which like it or not is a big deal to Disney) and eating locations.
Avatar's characters are not readily identifiable, and that is a problem.
If it were a single attraction rather than an entire land I would be much less skeptical of it.

 

[RandySavage]

^ We agree that original content would be inherently more timeless and a better option for DAK than any film franchise connection. I also agree that if it had to be a movie, there are other more timeless franchises that would resonate better (although they are all less focused on animals/nature than Avatar) with the general public.

BUT for the sake of our debate, you understand that the tropes of Avatar's genre (Alien World/SciFi Technology/Space Colonization/Paradise Lost/Noble Savage) are definitely understood among the general public regardless of their familiarity with the film (they don't need to know specific characters), just as the tropes of haunted hotels, cowyboys & indians, and the other examples you gave are. And it is a definite possiblility that Disney will build a top tier & successful addition to the park, even though Avatar doesn't yet and may never have the lasting power or resonance of a Star Wars, Potter, LOTR, etc.

To your point, I don't think Avatar has the legions of fans like the above, but I disagree that this fact automatically preempts it from being a success IF the execution is top notch.

As far a needing to have recognizable characters everywhere... I really hope they avoid that. This "we need to add characters to everything!" mantra of Disney management over the last 10 years or so has "kiddyfied" a lot of the more sophisticated, original aspects of the parks, IMO. I'd take Avatar in a heartbeat over another Disney/Pixar-based area.

 

[RandySavage]

doublepost

 

[lt94]

The improvements at uni are multiable not only wwhp, with them closing jaws and expanding within their own space the are also making improvements they are adding some type of water or light show I saw them working on barge and some type of control build in same area

 

[danlb_2000]

Everything will be depend on the execution, moreso than the source material. I have zero attachment to the Potter universe, characters, books or movies, but the execution of most of the land and key attraction compel me to want to go there. Same looks to be the case with Carsland.

You could argue that lots of people feel attachment to the Potter or Cars characters even though I don't, but I would point to examples of very successful attractions where we can assume that the guest has little/no emotional attachment to the characters involved (e.g. Tower of Terror, Space Mountain, etc.). A theme park land or attraction that is executed at the highest level doesn't require that we have some kind attachment to the characters presented, because we are typically the central character (on rides).

Not to mention that in Magic Kingdom we have/had two attractions that were arguably made worse by attaching them to a popular franchise, Stitch's Great Escape and Tiki Room Under New Management. A popular franchise will give you a bump at the begininning but I think the franchise starts to matter less as time goes on as long as the execution is good.

 

[Silver Figment]

I'd still like to visit the WWOHP but WDW will always be higher up on my list.

 

[jt04]

The Orlando Sentinel is also now reporting that floating barges are being worked on in Universal's central lagoon. Speculation is that a World of Color type nighttime show may be coming..... Interesting...

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-universal-studios-20111207,0,4662374.story

WoC cost $100 million so it is probably not a good comparisson.

 

[cbconglom]

The improvements at uni are multiable not only wwhp, with them closing jaws and expanding within their own space the are also making improvements they are adding some type of water or light show I saw them working on barge and some type of control build in same area

and don't forget the potential water park wondersea island!

 

[cbconglom]

WoC cost $100 million so it is probably not a good comparisson.

except someone posted pics of the crates over at ou that say aqautique which is this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AZKDMy76grs

and i'd say
1. it look similar to world of color
2. it looks amazing

 

[jt04]

except someone posted pics of the crates over at ou that say aqautique which is this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AZKDMy76grs

and i'd say
1. it look similar to world of color
2. it looks amazing

I hope you are right as Uni needs to challange Disney with quality adds and not cheap mimickry.