Monday Mouse Watch: You'll believe a car can fly

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 02:45:47 GMT

If universal puts something like this into its park, better see it the first couple of months. They spend 0 on maintanance, and their attractions always seem appalingly hammered and non-functional. I can believe Disney giving up on it since it might bring back "beastly kingdom". JK Rowling seems to be one tough customer... Thanks for the info Jim.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:13:16 GMT

Narnia's doing comparable business at the box office as Harry Potter. Pirates is doing better. I suspect Disney is opting to go with the uber-successful franchises it owns and controls, rather than do the costly song and dance Rowling will require. And if Universal sinks billions into this one, I'm not convinced that it is money well-spent. Sure, a mega-Harry land will do gangbusters for a decade, but how will the franchise age? Is it a "Wizard of Oz" or an "E.T."? I tend to think the former, but there's enough uncertainty on this that I think Disney is spending smart money on Pirates and Narnia if wants to tap into the "see the movie/ride the ride" sentiment that is sweeping the industry...

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:24:07 GMT

Jim, if Disney's lawyers were reluctant to sign off on this technology, do General Electric's lawyers know something they don't, or are they suddenly more courageous?

GE is always a very cautious corporation, and so then if Disney passed on what are going to be astronomical costs associated with Rowling's obsessive demands with very little in immediate return, why on earth would GE agree to it? IOA still has great attractions, but by most accounts is a financial failure, and this expense may simply not be worth it.

I bet they walk away from this deal too, and just sink more money into building jet engines and refrigerators, while any Harry Potter attraction just sits on the drawing board.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 07:59:36 GMT

Jim since General Electric has since taking over the parks spent zero in any new attractions,except for that dark ride/monorail attraction at IOA The High in the Sky Seuss Trolley Train Ride!,Im finding it difficult to believe that first there will spend millions on a Harry Potter franchise.Its become obvious to me that GE have no interest in spending money on these parks and instead will sit by and count the money the parks devision makes.If Universal wants a new family friendly land or attraction why not just use the many existing characters from the Dreamworks Animation Studios.To be honest it would be cool to walk through a theme land based on Shrek.I strongly believe this new deal is just to stop Disney from having another theme park franchise to make millions out of and not really a intent to actually make attractions,esspecially the expensive Robotic Arm you talk about.

Of course Im suprised Six Flags hasn't made a offer,as its a park very desperate now days to attract family's and the Harry Potter franchise must have more life in it than the fading Loony Toons.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:02:43 GMT

I agree with bhb007. I think they'll go for a more Narnia style theme park idea, before they'll put a Potter park into action. A Narnia theme park looks like more fun to me either way, so I'm hoping for that.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:09:50 GMT

I agree with bhb007- Disney should stick with "Pirates", "Narnia", and other properties it owns. This Disney fan is happy- I'm very anti-Universal, but, since Friday, I've thought that a "Harry Potter" attraction would be much better suited to a Universal park than a Disney park. I can't find it on its website, but, recently, the Orlando Sentinel had an article about how poorly upkept Universal Studios is, which is what datbates said. I'm glad Disney isn't getting HP...the last book is coming out soon, and within a few years, the last movie will be out. In 10 years, how popular would a HP attraction be?

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:50:24 GMT

"blackcauldron85 said:

And I agree with blackcauldron85 and bhb007 ... Disney has enough marketable properties of their own. Who cares if they lost Harry Potter??

As far as the robocoaster technology goes, I had a chance to try it out at the 2005 IAAPA convention in Atlanta and I have to say it was VERY cool. The smoothness of the motion is pretty amazing. I hope Disney eventually finds a way to put it to good use in one of their parks.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:09:09 GMT

Is Disney planning anything around Narnia?

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:09:55 GMT

I'm not a Harry Potter fan, but from everything I've heard, it sure sounds like HP is headed for a long fallow period. In my mind I compare it to the period from the mid-80s to late-90s when George Lucas swore-off Star Wars.

As of July, the novels are done, right? There will still be a couple of films left to release, but then what?

The time to invest millions in HP-themed attractions was about 3-4 years ago. I should say the time to OPEN those attractions was 3-4 years ago with construction beginning even further back. Then they could have leveraged 2-3 book releases and most of the film premiers.

Universal will get a lot of press over this and it will initially increase crowds dramatically. But ultimately they will be at the mercy of seemling fickle JK Rowling to continue producing additional material. If she doesn't, people will move on to other things. There were pop culture phenomenons before Harry Potter and there will be others to follow.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:16:18 GMT

I think tjkraz is right on the money ... the time to exploit HP has long passed ... the whole series is definitely on a downward spiral and probably won't be nearly as popular as it was once the final movie is released.

Given the long development timeline to release a new theme park ride from scratch, it seems likely that Universal will be opening this ride right in time for interest in Potter to peter out.

I don't see HP as being a character that endures like Snow White or Peter Pan ... he's a passing fad that, once this generation's kids move on to something else, that will barely be remembered ten years from now. Harry who??

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:18:07 GMT

True, but there is a timeless nature to Harry Potter, and the books are brilliant in that they attract both adults and kids. In my family we buy multiple copies and then discuss the book when we are all done. Parents and Kids enjoying something together has long been what separated Universal (very teen focused) and Disney parks IMHO. The Oz books, and Narnia all did the same thing apparently (Although when I read them my parents weren't interested). So I think that Disney really missed out on something that should have been theirs in the first place......they should have done the movies, and owned the theme park rights. I think it was the miss of the modern age. Since, however, it's not their movie property, then Universal is a better fit for Harry and the Hogwarts crew. And Universal really has the opportunity to change the game here. I certainly would visit again just to see a really good Harry Potter themed area. And if Universal gets off their *****, they can show off spiffed up theme parks to the throngs that come visiting.

And I am sure Disney will move to compete. Which means, that I win regardless, because I can see the new stuff over on their campus too. That's the coolest.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:26:31 GMT

I have to laugh at some of the sour grapes going on here. "downward spiral"? The last movie made almost 900 million worldwide. Sure, it will drop off after new movies and books stop being released, but the same is true of any franchise (and the last potter movie will come out years after the last Pirates movie, for example).

Jim, nobody's buying your spin that you were right ten months ago but the deal changed. You insisted disney was making the Potter deal, you were called out on it, and now we're getting the confirmation that you were wrong.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:27:04 GMT

Not sure if Harry Potter is on a downward spiral just yet as heard the pre orders for books are doing record numbers over at the Amazon sites.Interesting to see how no one seems to be that upset so far about Disney not getting the rights.Also I guess Disney don't want a repeat with the Roger Rabbit dissaster when everything WDI wanted to do involing Roger Rabbit and freinds had to go through Speilberg's company first for clearance.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:57:49 GMT

Disney Co can base a new ride on "Escape to Witch Mountain," and if it's a killer ride, word will spread quickly. Disney has an embarrassment of riches with characters they already own that can be exploited in a ride. The trick is getting the rides built and operating. Multi-million dollar executives will always exclaim the rides cost too much. Strobe-light Yeti coaster needs to get back to scary-amazing yeti coaster. The main thing JK would do for Disney Co is become one more high-priced voice that demands quality and hopefully maintenance.

By the time Disney Co pays JK, the theme park rights to the book, pays Warner Bros for their artwork and interpretations, and the main actors for their likenesses, the imagineers will be told once again - gotta cut back. Most likely you'd end up with Star Tours flys to Hogwarts. Bumps attendance for a summer, but then Disney Co and JK would never agree on a new ride film. Take the amazing new ride technology and apply it to Wilbur Robinson's spaceship (since everyone hates Pixar - even though Incredibles would still work regardless of what Universal does).

The classic Disney ride is "and then something went terribly wrong." The behind-the-scenes story regarding a Disney ride involves "and then the imagineers were told to cut back costs."

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:26:17 GMT

I'll grant you folks that GE hasn't spent a lot of money on the Universal parks; part of it's probably that they weren't all that sure they wanted to keep them and part of it's that the GE accountants balked about laying out the bucks that it'd cost to build any new stuff. But even the most hard-headed sharp-pencil guy at GE must have noticed by now that Uni's attendance figures have been going in the tank for the past couple of years while Disney's figures have increased, and they realize they've gotta do something before GE's bottom line is affected. A Harry Potter attraction might be worth the expense and the hassle to them if it helps boost attendance.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:16:16 GMT

Gee. Do you want to fly in a car, in an updated version of the classic fair ride the Sandstorm?

Or do you want to get on a enter diagon alley, stand on platform 9 3/4, and take a train to hogwarts?

Good Job Universal. I cant wait to go back to your dilapidated park, where i can look at moldy dinosaurs (jurassic park), The biggest waste of prime ride space (also known as toon island), watch outdated shows where B- performers sing as old hollywood horror characters, ride the shortest and most poorly executed indoor coaster ever and now fly around in a harry potter car. What a hodge podge of crap.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:27:35 GMT

Considering the fact that Back to the Future (another ride involving flying cars in a pre-filmed environment) is closing at USF, the designs would make a lot of sense. And it will boost attendence considering HP is now a decade old (at least in the UK) and still going strong considering age gaps of the kids who first read it and the now cinderblock sized books.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:48:47 GMT

Wow. The whole use of the Ford Anglia and the robotic arm might actually fit what I had in mind for a Harry Potter ride. Zooming through Diagon Alley, crossing the Forbidden Forest, flying along side the train. Better yet, the arm will allow an encounter with the Giant Squid in the lake in front of Hogwarts. Sounds like a good project to me. Too bad Universal got a hold of it first. Still, JKR holds the key that could turn this project around. Which reminds me...

I truly resent those who called JKR "obsessive." With all the lackluster attractions that Disney has been spitting out in the past few years (and probably will continue to spit out...Pirates Lair at Tom Sawyer's Island, anyone?), I applaud anyone who wants a quality attraction. Not to mention that the Harry Potter fanbase can be absolutely vicious. If things aren't done right, they'll revolt. Case in point: while Goblet of Fire (the fourth movie, for those of you who can't keep up) was still in production, they released a few movie stills and one in particular caused an uproar. It contained a photo of Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) standing in front of the tombstone of main baddie Voldemort's father. There were two glaring errors on said tombstone: the date of birth was incorrect and so was the middle name. Fans bombarded Warner Bros. with letters to the point that the studio actually went back and digitally corrected the tombstone before the movie's release. Talk about fan power.

Can you imagine what kind of an upset there would be if a Harry Potter attraction was not done suitably? I have been on several Harry Potter message boards regarding such an attraction and nearly all agree that there are several things that they don't want to see, including any kind of AA figures of the human characters. JKR knows what her fans want better than anyone. Why not trust her judgment? It's better than wasting millions of dollars on a ride just so it can be eviserated by its target audience.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:55:04 GMT

Harry Potter? Timeless?

I think that remains to be seen. It's hard to tell what can be timeless and what can't be. As Jim has pointed out, Roger Rabbit was expected to be timeless.

It's also worth pointing out that the bigger a pop-culture phenomenon something is the less likely it is to be timeless.

I'm not saying Harry Potter isn't, or won't be. I'm just saying that it's many years too early to dub it so.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:18:53 GMT

JIM, that "Fast and Furios" picture is one of the most horribly demented things I have ever seen on this website. Please, please take it offffff!!!!!!

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:29:59 GMT

A single Harry Potter attraction?

If you really want to do it right (and I am sure this is with JKR is thinking) it needs to be almost an entire park by itself. I am not a big HP fan but those that are (adults and kids) will be looking for a fully immersive experience; not just a single ride.

I too have heard that JKR is difficult but they are her characters; she absolutely has the right to protect her creations.

I do think that given the very high cost of licensing, the return on investment may be a hard one for Disney to digest. As many have said, Disney has many characters that it owns or has more complete rights to. While I think Disney is the theme park operator that could do HP the way it should be done, I won't be too sad if Universal takes on the project.

I have to say that the Universal "special effects" show with the robotic arm is one of the stupidist things that I have seen!

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:40:12 GMT

Hey Jim. Thanks for the information in today's article. I agree with others here

that Disney should stay with properties that it already owns.

I mean why, spend the money to buy the rights to do a Harry Potter attraction

when thay already have the rights to do a Narnia attraction?

That just my opinion anyway.

wec

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:27:38 GMT

Perhaps it's too early to call them "timeless". I guess what I was trying to say is that I have enjoyed the experience of discovering them with my kids more than any other literary series. And the good vs. evil thread that weaves through them is certainly a timeless theme. My wife and I (45 years young), my sons (21 and 14), and my daughter (18) are all very into the series, movies, etc. I cannot think of another media series of any type that has so captured the hearts of everyone in my family. And this has been going on (In my home) for 7 or 8 years.

So I really wish Disney had the series. Oh well.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:30:52 GMT

The quality of whatever theme park experience results from Harry Potter is going to be a factor in how well it ages past the last book and three movies. The story's gonna be over in July, the movies by the turn of the decade, and the current hotbed of fan activity may or may not die out. But a ride would keep things going longer.

Now, in terms of the Kuka... I don't think it's that bad if something that's so expensive and makes the lawyers nervous gets tested out by Disney's competitors. What it costs in "street cred" can be made up for with more testing and planning that results in attractions that don't depend solely on the novelty of new technology. The costs of robotics are eventually going to go down, like any technology, and the range in robots is going to increase.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:50:34 GMT

so much negative energy here

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:26:30 GMT

Sorry-gotta leave some more "negative energy".

As a former Universal employee, I can tell you this will probably never happen, since their pattern for theme park anything seems to be design big, hype it to death and deliver half of what you promiced and poorly done.

I saw the incredible plans and models for Florida 10 years before they broke ground, and the people of Orlando got rooked with what they finally delvered.

Universal Hollyood's Mummy' Revenge is a classic example, "Shrek 4-D" sucks and doen't even get me started on that "Furios"thing. An insult of a show based on a bad series of films. "You will believe a car can fly?" Give me a break. Vacu-formed plastic on a pvc form "dancing" on a stick? (The underside of one of these "cars" was missing-typical lack of maintanence.) Fast and smooth, yes, but who cares?

I don't know if Harry Potter will outlive OZ (doubtful, but who knows), but if the suits and designers don't do this thing right..well, glad I don't own any of their stock.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:43:51 GMT

Who knows what will happen...I don't really care one way or another...but I don't see Rowling signing with Universal. The audience that will see "Harry Potter World" at Disney parks is at least 10x the number of people that will see it should it appear at Universal. At this point, she's really not after money, she's after a legacy...and she'll get that by teaming with Disney.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:22:10 GMT

So Back to the Future in an Anglia on a robot arm? No thanks. And if JKR kills off Harry in this last book, how much interest will there be in a doomed character's story then? Still it is sad that Disney has taken a back seat to Universal technologically.

I would like a land themed to Harry Potter more than a ride. That's just me though.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:55:52 GMT

I agree with The Mur. I haven't read a single HP book, but from what I've seen of the movies, I would be thoroughly underwhelmed with a single flying car ride. I want the whole she-bang. Hogwarts deserves to be its own "land". I want Diagon-Alley, magical trians, moving staircases, talking portraits, mystical forests, eerie lakes, floating candles, dragons, griffins, owls, a game of Quidditch, and my very own Nimbus 3000 as a souvenir!

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:11:02 GMT

Tim said:

Sorry-gotta leave some more "negative energy".

Amen.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:30:57 GMT

Also, who wants to ride a random scene from the second (!!) book/movie with no appeal whatsoever of what makes Harry Potter so unique. Just because the robot arms and a flying car would technically work together, it doesnt mean it captures the spirit of Harry Potter. Broomsticks anyone?

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:19:29 GMT

Universal did not steal this idea from Disney based upon the Incredibles, it was actually Disney who stole that idea from Universal’s proposed Van Helsing themed dark ride that was also to go into the Lost Continent. The Van Helsing project was sent back to the drawing board after Vivendi balked at the cost of the expensive ride system in question combined with the lackluster performance of the Van Helsing film itself.

As for J.K signing off on such a project, time will tell. Universal has already proven that it can work with demanding right holders. Mrs. Geisel, widow of "Dr. Seuss" is also a tough cookie to deal with, and Universal has done a good job in dealing with her.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 03:53:50 GMT

I just really think everyone in here is just a major anti-Harry fan. All of you people saying "oh, I've never read Harry Potter" I think you just hit it on the head right there. I do not think there has ever been a phenomon quite like Harry Potter. I do not know the excact figure but I think that the idea of over a billion Harry Potter books sold is not excacatally an excageration. Harry Potter will live on I think. I really think this might be a timeless book series and disney will look back on the mistake of losing the theme park rights to HP with regret. There are so many cool things you could do for rides and there are some absoultly rabid Harry Potter fans. Probley on the level as some Disney fans out there. Don't bash this idea, it will make someone alot of money to create an HP ride, and I really hope it is disney.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 11:51:29 GMT

Strange to see such a high % of posters that don't like HP considering the popularity of the franchise. Most people I know whether at work or elsewhere like HP to some degree with many having read all of the books and seen all of the movies. When we went to a very expenisve resort in St. Lucia on our honeymoon we ran into an attractive well-off middle-aged couple reading the books on the beach, we chatted and they gave us the next book when they left so we could continue reading. I cannot think of too many children's books with such broad appeal. We will definately encourage our children to read the books and see the movies when they are old enough. Most people that do read the books get sucked in. Why else would an eight or ten year old read a book the size of a dictionary. I think the books are the things that will make the franchise popular for many generations to come.

Did Disney miss the boat? It depends. If IOA gets only one ride and it is done poorly or breaks down a lot, the popularity will be short-lived regardless of the character involved. If it is done well, though, it will probably give people a reason to spend a day there when they normally wouldn't. Thus taking away visitors from WDW. Really though HP deserves at least a land of its own if not a small park. It is hard to be satisfied with a short experience from one ride for such epic detailed stories. Narnia and LOTR would also be better suited to their own land. Alternatively, HP could have really helped the flagging Disney MGM Studios park even it is not the best fit. That park really needs a good shot in the arm.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:33:29 GMT

It really shouldn't matter to WDC where Rowlings brings her business to. But since INDIANA JONES and STAR TOURS, it's like they have an obsession buying out or tying in "outside" franchises.

How long will it take for them to realize they've got a pot-of-gold right in their own backyard? The wealth of unused material and scrapped rides is staggering. They've got the most valuable, popular, vault in Hollywood which they've hardly begun to tap . . . They've got ABC now, so advertising the way Walt did with "Wonderful World of Disney" is a cinch . . . And still no one seems to be doing a damn thing. It's maddening.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:11:41 GMT

I agree with Gallopin' Gaucho- Disney has a rediculous amount of material (that they own) and they do nothing with it. I'd love to see a re-do of The Great Movie Ride. With Disney movies. The animated films are my favorites, but they have more live-action films, and they should do something with them. Re-do the ride, put amazing scenes from some of these films (like the flying car from "The Absent Minded Professor"), and then interest in these films will greatly increase, thus leading to DVD sales. I love the "Oz" segment in The Great Movie Ride, but the rest just don't seem to belong. It's called Walt Disney World for a reason. Sure, Disney-MGM Studios includes MGM. Aren't they going to change the name sometime soon? I love Star Tours, but I'd love it even more if it was Disney related. Since Disney bought the Muppets (and the Muppets are great- I'm biased), they deserve to stay. But, bring some more Disney to Walt Disney World.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:08:01 GMT

<<minderbinder said:

Well, Disney WAS working on Potter concepts and discussions WERE going on with JKR’s people. Just because a deal was never worked out doesn’t mean that there wasn’t the possibility of one.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:18:59 GMT

<<bhb007 said: Narnia's doing comparable business at the box office as Harry Potter. Pirates is doing better. I suspect Disney is opting to go with the uber-successful franchises it owns and controls, rather than do the costly song and dance Rowling will require. And if Universal sinks billions into this one, I'm not convinced that it is money well-spent. Sure, a mega-Harry land will do gangbusters for a decade, but how will the franchise age? Is it a "Wizard of Oz" or an "E.T."? I tend to think the former, but there's enough uncertainty on this that I think Disney is spending smart money on Pirates and Narnia if wants to tap into the "see the movie/ride the ride" sentiment that is sweeping the industry...>>

While Narnia did make good box office showing, it in no way has the quality and depth that Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or other ultra successful franchises have maintained. Narnia’s success can mainly be attributed to intense religious backing, not due to exceptional continent. The religious fervor for the film was based on the religious subtext that C.S. Lewis incorporated into the stories.

It’s hard to conceive of a Narnia based attraction that would provide the level of excitement or interest that one based on Harry Potter could provide.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:09:05 GMT

Wow. I'm, actually very glad that Disney lost HP. Downward spiral is right-even though it will probably be more of a downward pitfall now, due to Daniel Radcliffe's recent "escapade" on London Broadway. Harry Potter was cool about 5 or 6 years ago-not now, and it's fitting that Universal gets to add HP to their huge pile of crappy attractions.

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:24:16 GMT

Wow...can't believe how much snark is flyin' around!

You Muggles you! : P

I'm totally stoked to see a HP attraction! who cares where it'll be!

I'll go!

re: Monday MouseWatch: You'll believe a car can fly

Jim Hill — Sat, 26 May 2007 17:21:15 GMT

I don't think HP would've really fit in a Disney environment (and I LOVE Harry Potter books). It just doesn't mesh at all.

As for the Potter dying thing, I reallly doubt that.

The books will continue to be read, and the movies will continue to be watched for a long ime, IMO.

Monday Mouse Watch : Will MGM's upcoming name change really allow the Universal Orlando Resort to nudge Disney out of the spotlight?

Jim Hill — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:07:56 GMT

Jim Hill shares what he's heard about Universal's bold new plan to reposition that Central Florida Resort. He also offers up additional information about that after-hours Halloween party that's now in the works for Disney's Hollywood Studios. And would