Why Universal is not actual competition to WDW, a theory...

[lebeau]

The one big difference between Star Wars and Potter is the constant influx of new material. While most people think there was nothing between Jedi and Phantom there was a continuous supply of expanded universe novels to keep the fires at least smoldering. If JK starts writing more like she claims, Potter could live for ever with more than a cult following. I doubt that would be true if she were to hang it up.

The influx wasn't always that constant for Star Wars. Between 1983 and 1991, there was very little. A couple of Ewok TV movies and the Droids cartoon. In the late 80's - early 90's, Star Wars was dormant. There weren't even Star Wars toys on the shelves. I remember being very excited when Kenner launched the Power of the Force line in 1995 because it had been a decade since there had been Star wars tous based on the films.

Right now, HP is more relevant that Star Wars was in say 1988. If new HP material is indeed forthcoming, Potter could continue to be relevant indefinitely. And I say that as a lifelong Star Wars fan who could give two hoots about Potter.

 

[Master Yoda]

The influx wasn't always that constant for Star Wars. Between 1983 and 1991, there was very little. A couple of Ewok TV movies and the Droids cartoon. In the late 80's - early 90's, Star Wars was dormant. There weren't even Star Wars toys on the shelves. I remember being very excited when Kenner launched the Power of the Force line in 1995 because it had been a decade since there had been Star wars tous based on the films.

Right now, HP is more relevant that Star Wars was in say 1988. If new HP material is indeed forthcoming, Potter could continue to be relevant indefinitely. And I say that as a lifelong Star Wars fan who could give two hoots about Potter.

Quite true. Only time will tell. Potter will need new material to survive. If it gets it and it is at least decent it could very well go into a lifespan similar to Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.

 

[lebeau]

LoTR only gained modern momentum with the films that were recently made, if they never were made I seriously doubt anyone under the age of 25 knew they existed. LoTR would be a fantastic "stop the bleeding" pick up but it too, would have a limited lifespan, much like Potter.


Jimmy Thick- Truth hurts, unfortunately.

Sorry, but that's the dumbest thing I have read on these forums this year. People under 25 were reading Tolkien prior to the movies.

I know you probably don't believe even 10% of what you post. But let's not be aggressively uninformed.

 

[lazyboy97o]

As a franchise Harry Potter may need new material, but that is not necessarily true of the theme park lands. An experience has to hold its own. A franchise really only helps with initial awareness.

 

[lebeau]

Did you ever see the Godfather part3? ...I can do this all day, but I'm going to stop now, you probably should too

Ever see the Star Wars prequels? Wait till you see Abrams' Star Wars.

Go out and Google a little thing called the Star Wars Holiday Special.

Very few franchises have the track record of the Potter series in literature and film. None come to mind, frankly. Even if a turkey gets made, I think the series will survive. The point is, people are claiming that the franchise will become irrelevant due to lack of new material when new material is in the works.

 

[danlb_2000]

And if there is no new Potter material, Potter will drop out of the public's eye, as it is already doing. Mention Harry Potter now and people think of Emma Watson.


Jimmy Thick- A person listening to Bruce Springsteen's Jungleland 100 times in a row does not become the Magic Rat...

If Potter is already loosing it's popularity then why does Disney (you know, that company that can do know wrong) dedicate entire weekends to it on ABC Family 3 or 4 times a year and as recently as Thanksgiving weekend? They are dedicating a lot of air time to something that people are loosing interest in.

 

[GLaDOS]

The point still remains that it was not a one and done franchise. There has been a near constant influx of new material even after Tolkien's death.

But that has no effect on keeping it in the mass market's eye. To them it was still The Hobbit and LotR. Those books didn't result in the series gaining more popularity. They were always popular.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

The Hobbit is still required reading in most US middle schools. Shakespeare, Dickens, and Tolkien are the 3 quintessential Brit Lit authors. To say that Tolkien is passé is ignorant.

 

[Gabe1]

What aren't you buying? That my parents experienced crowds at WDW last Monday and Tuesday? Or the definition of anecdotal, which covers both my post and yours?

So attendance was higher on Monday and Tuesday at WDW than it was Thursday thru Monday, ThanksGiving weekend? Nope still not buying it.

 

[englanddg]

As a franchise Harry Potter may need new material, but that is not necessarily true of the theme park lands. An experience has to hold its own. A franchise really only helps with initial awareness.

Exactly. Is Snow White "stale" because it was only one movie? It's a silly arguement.

The books and movies spanned a decade and literally a whole generation (two really, as there was overlapping interest with young Gen X) grew up with them.

They are not going anywhere.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Exactly. Is Snow White "stale" because it was only one movie? It's a silly arguement.

The books and movies spanned a decade and literally a whole generation (two really, as there was overlapping interest with young Gen X) grew up with them.

They are not going anywhere.

You and I know that Cars 2 has more legs than the 7 Potter books and 8 movies put together!

 

[copcarguyp71]

Just to interject here...how about a fresh idea and not one propelled into our consciousness by movies or media? Frontierland, tomorrowland and Adventureland (save Swiss Family Treehouse) were all just fine for a good many years without needing big budget Hollywood studio companies jamming a new theme down our throat...heck POTC actually inspired a huge franchise. Why not get back to ingenuity an innovation to capture our interest. Just a thought...

 

[englanddg]

You and I know that Cars 2 has more legs than the 7 Potter books and 8 movies put together!

To Disney fans and some kids.

But, really...do a random man on the street. More people are more excited to see Harry Potter than Disney. The people who make the financial decisions.

Were Cars Land to come to HS, it would certainly be a benefit to the park, and may sway a choice. But, my statement was more along the lines that the interest in Harry Potter isn't dwindling. And, even the worst HP movie (which I think was the last two, but my opinion) was still miles better than Cars 2!

<shudder>

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Just to interject here...how about a fresh idea and not one propelled into our consciousness by movies or media? Frontierland, tomorrowland and Adventureland (save Swiss Family Treehouse) were all just fine for a good many years without needing big budget Hollywood studio companies jamming a new theme down our throat...heck POTC actually inspired a huge franchise. Why not get back to ingenuity an innovation to capture our interest. Just a thought...

Name a "fresh" non-IP related concept that will do this on opening day:

http://www./wp-content/uploads/2010/06/54408252.jpg

Because that's the new standard.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Name a "fresh" non-IP related concept that will do this on opening day:

http://www./wp-content/uploads/2010/06/54408252.jpg

Because that's the new standard.

That's just the thing...the public should not have to name what they want to see...Theme park pioneers (of which there are apparently none anymore) should be able to come up with something NEW that nobody has even dreamed of before, something that inspires awe and instills a feeling of childlike discovery once again. Theme parks are replete with attractions that are built on the shoulders of previous success by them or someone else's whom they have acquired the intellectual rights to . What happened to risk taking, innovation and breaking with the norm?

 

[TubaGeek]

Well, @Jimmy Thick , you got two things right about this thread:
1) Universal is not a competition, if you're talking financially.
2) If you're talking in terms of quality, you at least had the sense to include "a theory" at the end of the title.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Its not Harry though, that's where the "charm" is.


Jimmy Thick- Rawlings name does not equal success.

Her name is ROWLING. Not Rawlings, or Rowlings.

Jimmy Thick- good at arguing, but not good at getting facts correct.

 

[lebeau]

Exactly. Is Snow White "stale" because it was only one movie? It's a silly arguement.

The books and movies spanned a decade and literally a whole generation (two really, as there was overlapping interest with young Gen X) grew up with them.

They are not going anywhere.

My 8 year old daughter finished the first book a couple weeks ago. She has plowed into the second. Those books will entertain generations to come. The movies will have a shorter life span because movies always do. But even the movies will be relevant for the forseeable future.

lebeau - If Disney had acquired the rights to the Potter franchise the Pixie Dusters would be singing a different tune.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Nonsense, Jimmy. Potter is genuinely popular and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I see it in people's eyes, in the way they talk about Potter, in their excitement when a new book came out. Potter genuinely resonates with its fans. The way Star Wars does, that other indestructible cultural phenomenon.

You don't need more than seven novels to sustain a young adolescent book series. Seven books is exactly long enough to grow with your readers from youngster to adoslescent. And have them for life.

Also Tolkien and Narnia have been around for abouts three quarters of a century now, and next month watch The Hobbit II take the movie charts by storm. Books have amazing longevity.