While it would definetely be awesome for something to come of these things, and while he has done a pretty decent job thus far, there's no way I can approve of the jacket Bobby's wearing in that photo up there. Just awful...:)

This sounds awesome, but a voice in the back of my head is shouting "Disney Decade Part 2"...  I sure hope not...

"When the world is expected to be in the grips of unprecedented Harry Potter mania."
---
And--just between Potter fans--a few months before the craze will officially be OVER:
Book 6 managed to rescue the big black eye the franchise had taken from Book 5 (although the movie condensation should improve the book's long hard slog), but most fans are now just  eady to wrap the whole story up with a bang and be done with it....Like the Star Wars prequels, at this point we're just tuning in to find out what happens.  And in '07, What Will Happen is that the story will end.
(As Warner will find out when they try to flex that "Original story" clause they put into the marketing contract, and Movie 8 never quite gets into production.)

Shades of Goosebumps--The Eisner Disney had a bad habit of grabbing outsiders' third-party mainstream crazes just before they hit the tag sale...Which really, they shouldn't even have to be doing now; this isn't MGM Studios in '91.
Not to mention that any attraction would have to be based on the -characters- only, since Warner still has the more familiar movie imagery tied up, as it's already a cash-hub of their MovieWorld parks overseas.

====
"So what other reason might Disney officials have for meeting with Peter Jackson? Perhaps to gain access to Weta's extensive design library for a yet-to-be-announced "LOTR" -based project?"
---
...Um, aren't they already working with WETA for that Narnia thing?
But, from the linked article, sounds like Peter Jackson just wants to use his neat-o Motion-Cap characters to get into the CGI Feature Glut.  No hobbits mentioned.

====
"But given that Walt Disney Pictures is actually planning on scaling back on the number of feature length cartoons that it will be releasing each year (With the hope that this artificial scarcity will then translate into renewed audiences' interest in new Disney animated films) ... Well, that cover story doesn't hold much water then, does it?"
--
No, it does:  Now that Pixars count as "in-house" movies, they want a few more Nightmare Before Christmas-style "alternative" off-house animateds to acquire and throw into the mix for major seasons, and heard that Peter wanted to play, too.
Although they probably won't be going back to the "Valiant" and "Wild" studios for major off-house "alternatives" any time soon.  :)

Oh, and from the linked article:
----
"Weta has been in discussions with Walt Disney Studios over the options open to the Wellington-based workshop, which was responsible for The Lord of the Rings and King Kong.
Disney's Animation Creative Director Dave Bossart rates Weta Workshop highly for the special effects they have already produced in Peter Jackson's films.
He now expects them to take it further and move into making films based on digital characters.
Bossart says film makers are always looking to work with the best, and it is a natural evolution for a company like Weta Workshops to move into animation."
---
...Um, excuse me if I misread, but it sounds awfully like the CGI Feature thing isn't even Jackson's IDEA--And that Bossart's trying to talk him into it so they can get his name on the company credits.
Nice looking cart, but I'll wait for which pictures the horse feels like making.

One thing about Bob Iger's first year is that  he really  dropped the ball by deciding not to release "Song Of The South"

" Which then awarded the Walt Disney Company the right to begin preliminary development of a theme park-related project featuring the Harry Potter characters."
I feel that 'Harry Potter' is not Disney...why can't Disney use its existing, or brand new, entertainment properties?
Wouldn't having 'Harry Potter' at Six Flags make more sense, since they have Looney Tunes characters, which are Warner Bros. characters?

"(With the hope that this artificial scarcity will then translate into renewed audiences' interest in new Disney animated films)"
Quality, not quantity.  I've liked all of Disney's animated films, but, for whatever reasons, be it marketing, story, etc., some people haven't been going out to see some of Disney's animated films...I think "Rapunzel" will do well, since it's a Princess film, but I honestly don't know how many people will "Meet the Robinsons", although I'm excited for it.

I don't see how acquiring some rights to HP or LOTR is going to "top last year's landmark deal to acquire Pixar Animation Studios".  Pixar already had a history with Disney; they made Disney films.  It made sense to acquire that company.  Besides hoping to make money, I just don't see how HP or LOTR will fit into the Walt Disney Company.  Sure, Star Tours or Indiana Jones aren't Disney.  I like those attractions, but I'm sure I'd like them more, and they'd make more sense, if they were Disney originals, or based on Disney characters...

DerekJ said:
" since Warner still has the more familiar movie imagery tied up, as it's already a cash-hub of their MovieWorld parks overseas."
So, HP already has theme park attractions existing?  So why would Disney steal someone else's idea?

Disney has "Pirates" and "Narnia"- I know they have been and are still expanding the "Pirates" line, but how about a Narnia attraction, besides the walk-through at MGM?

DerekJ said:
"they want a few more Nightmare Before Christmas-style "alternative" off-house animateds to acquire and throw into the mix for major seasons, and heard that Peter wanted to play, too."
But, since they have Pixar, you'd think they wouldn't need any more outside-produced animated films... I like how TNBC has become an actual Disney film.  I don't mind that "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was a joint deal.  Heck, people may have been skeptical about Disney working with Pixar for "Toy Story".  But, "Valiant" and "The Wild" didn't do so well at the box office, and I've heard people say that the stories and animation just aren't up to par.  I saw "Valiant" with a free ticket, and it wasn't Disney-good, but it was entertaining enough.  I didn't bother with "The Wild"...not because I saw "Madagascar", because I didn't, but I guess I'm fed up with Disney, who should (and use to) pride itself on its amazing animation studio, who now apparently doesn't.  I know that DisneyToon Studios is part of Disney, and they animate the sequels, but do they also ship out animation to other studios overseas, or are those actual legit Disney studios?  Regardless, I wonder if Walt would be happy with this.  My guess is no, but how can I know?  I wonder how Roy E. Disney feels about this.  He should have more of an impact at the studio.
Sorry for getting off topic.  

Elcapitan Man said:
"he really dropped the ball by deciding not to release "Song of the South""
That really disappointed a lot of fans, I'm sure some African American fans, too.  They really need to do a widespread opinion poll on the movie, and maybe even show it to some select groups of people.  Who cares if Maya Angelou won't like Disney after this; when did she ever help the Mouse?  I have nothing against her, but I'm hoping that's not a key factor in not releasing SOTS.  I can't see that the majority of moviegoers can't handle the film.  I've seen it; I can't see what's wrong with it...it's Reconstruction period.  I wonder what Leonard Maltin thinks...Disney needs to get him on board and rerelease SOTS.

Sorry about this long rant...I'm done!

A Narnia-HP-LOTR union would make for pretty cohesive and interesting land or even a full park... only one of those could probably sustain an attraction, but I think it would take all three to form a coherent universe for a theme park... perhaps that's the thinking here? again, "I'll believe it when..."

Jim, you know something we don't about the release of Book 7?  

Or did you not read past the first line of this article?

http://www.hpana.com/news.19200.html

As a lifelong fan of LOTR it is interesting to hear even the smallest rumor of discussions with Peter Jackson (wow has he lost some weight!).

I can't get excited about animation projects involving LOTR -- not only have previous efforts left a bad taste, but it's hard to imagine wanting anything else in this area after the wonderful trilogy that Jackson brought to life.

Much more interesting would be a theme park project. Even with basic dark rides it would be possible to put together some terrific attractions, and with more imagination put into the format of the attractions there's no limit to what could be done. As my enthusiasm is shared (and often surpassed) by tens of millions of people around the world, such a project would have the potential to attract many people who would otherwise not visit Disney parks.

Oh, yes, Harry Potter would be very cool too! ;)

I thought that Jim had reported a while ago that Disney was looking into buying the publisher that has the rights to the Harry Potter Series...wouldn't that make more sense than getting involved with the actual author?

...and let's be frank, Disney has plenty of characters in its stable that would make for very good rides if a little extra time a money were spend on them.  I don't think that I am the only one who thinks that the cheap-quel idea has not only applied to these crappy made for DVD movies, but also most park rides lately.

To make my point, wouldn't it make more sense to fix what you have first instead of paying someone to screw up their project as well?

IMO, Disney should be working on an attraction based on a little film they had last year, oh what was its name, made a ton of money - oh yeah - NARNIA!!!!

I mean what the hell? Is Disney buying up other people's creations again instead of developing its own? Crap! I thought things had changed...

What if Harry dies in the final book? Will that change Disney's desire to pursue these rights?

brick1974 said:
"Jim, you know something we don't about the release of Book 7?  
Or did you not read past the first line of this article?
http://www.hpana.com/news.19200.html"

I was just thinking the same thing.  There is no release date scheduled for HP7 yet.  They 7/7/07 was just speculation.
As for acquiring Harry Potter theme park rights, I say leave it alone.  Unless disney is going to create an entirely separate park, I don't think Harry Potter belongs in any of the disney theme parks.

Who said Harry was coming to a Disney theme park? All the letter of intent says is that Disney can develop a theme-park related project.  With the rumors swirling about an indoor theme-park project in Singapore and the proposed Shanghai project NOT being another Magic Kingdom, it's very possible Disney could be looking at a Harry Potter or LOTR theme park.

Much like Voldemort, these Harry Potter-Disney stories just won't die. They seem to pop up every year like unwanted weeds.

This is the standard reasoning of Disney Co wanting to establish an ongoing "relationship" with these Hollywood players. The Indiana Jones dark ride would have been much better and more cost effective if it was themed to Aladdin's Cave of Wonders, but Disney Co wanted a relationship with George Lucas and tried to start a relationship with Harrison Ford. George didn't end up releasing episodes 1-3 with Disney Co, and Harrison was done before he started.

"Development deals" and "working relationships" are established everyday in Hollywood, at great expense, and maybe 1% of those deals actually pay off with anything substantial. They became necessary with the fall of the studio system, and the rise of MBA non-creative leadership. Development deals and lunch expenses can be shown on a spreadsheet - creativity can't.

Now, great - Disney Co signs a deal with HK Rowling to build a Harry Potter ride. It's going to be expensive - very expensive. She will insist on it. To build her E ticket to her specifications, you could probably build 3 amazing Disney E tickets that don't require licensing fees.

That's what happens when you intimidate, threaten, and fire all your creative people. The park was opened with a guy who walked around and said things like: "a mountain with a roller coaster inside it would look good there," or "let's re-create New Orleans over there." You didn't have to look outside the company because he surrounded himself with people who came up and said things like, "ya know, Main Street needs a fire truck," or "how 'bout if we put the people in boats?" And the guy in charge said "great - go do it."

In today's world you don't get, that because the guys in charge have never created anything themselves.  Oh hold on, just a second. Disney Co does have a guy like that in charge now. What was his name again? Lassetter, I think. And look at all the heat he's takin'.    He's spending way too much on unnecessary upgrades to the submarine ride, he just doesn't understand how to save money running a theme park, he wants to do things the old-fashioned way - ick! He might have some help if there were any imagineers left.

So if you're not going to give Lassetter some money to spend, what's the point of spending money on Jackson and Rowling? Disney Co had their crack at Harry Potter and turned it down or didn't want to spend the money, depending on who you talk to. Same story with LOTR.

Spend the money on people you've got now. If someone's succeeded on a Disney owned cable channel - try them on ABC. If they succeed at ABC, put them in a Disney movie. If someone is creative in one area, they probably are creative in another area. The company is packed with people that are thrilled to work for the legacy that is Disney Co and would work round the clock designing a theme park ride for free - but where is the press release in that?

blackcauldron85 said:
" 'since Warner still has the more familiar movie imagery tied up, as it's already a cash-hub of their MovieWorld parks overseas.'
So, HP already has theme park attractions existing?  So why would Disney steal someone else's idea? "
----
They didn't "steal" it, it was their own idea to do a HP deal.  Just after the books/movies first came out.  Seven years ago.  (Dating back to all those annoying fanboy rumor-misinterpretations, and our trying to tell them it was just for showing the movie on ABC, or selling the books in Epcot UK, etc.)

And Bob announcing that they "finally closed" the deal with JK after all these years--despite the clock ticking for the franchise--is the good and bad mark of the Iger administration.
Call it the Oswald the Rabbit Factor:  Bob doesn't care WHEN Disney finally wraps up a long-argued negotiation deal...He just wants to show us proudly that they DID finish it.  :)

The only motivation I see in this plan was to make up for the fact that Disney passed on both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings when both series were pitched to them in the early 2000's.

Disney can save a lot of time and energy if, instead of making more acquisitions for their already overcrowded property, they just focus on what they have now, and I DON'T mean those sinister spin-off shows or sequels. Pirates of the Carribean and Narnia can easily compete with Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings if enough time and effort are put into those series.

All in all I think Iger has really turned a corner for Disney. Even the most cynical of us can see the tonal shift in both the official and "unofficial" releases coming from inside the mouse over the last year.

My only gripe with Iger so far would be that while spending money to lure talent like Rowling and Jackson is a no brainer, but how about putting some money into exsiting franchises that they allready own or just paid for like the Muppets.

The reason Muppet Vision is the 3rd most attended attraction in MGM is that - not only is the itself fantastic - but they actually spent soem time with outside area to lure guests in. Whereas by comparrison the remodel in DCA looks even worse. The rarely needed que line is exposed and the cheap looking characterizations now adourning the sign look just that - cheap. And how about making that glorified kiosk outside into a much more substanial store that could focuse on both Monsters Inc., Muppets, and other random DCA Merchandise.

And now that Disney wants to get into making shorts agian, how cool would it be if they got Spielberg on board to made some new Roger Rabbit shorts or rides!

I come nearly every day, but I've learned to take Jim's reporting with a grain, nah, sack of salt. I have it firsthand  from a Story guy at Disney that Jim's coverage of events and decisions that take place within Disney is often just plain wrong. A blog does not a responsible journalist make. Anyone with a computer and a point of view can become a popular blogger. Becoming a journalist takes considerably more effort and discipline.

Hi, this is my first post here, and guess what, I'm going to disagree with everyone here.

I think one of the main reasons Disney creates rides based on outside properties (Star Wars, LOTR, Potter) instead of using there own stable of characters is probably because it gets more people in the park. Think about it this way: There's a new ride opening in Disney World based on Finding Nemo. Who's going to Disney World to see that? Disney Wolrd buffs and Finding Nemo fans, who, often times, are the same people. But, let's say there's a new attraction opening based on Harry Potter. Who's going to Disney World to see that? Disney World buffs and Harry Potter fans, who aren't always one and the same. So now they've got the usual people in the parks, plus Harry Potter fans. Do you see what I'm getting at?

So the logic is: if Disney had scored the film rights to Harry Potter a few years back, opening a Harry Potter ride wouldn't increase attendance because it would already be a Disney property? But since Harry is a Warner Bros film - attendance will increase?

Attendance blips radiate from quality. If the Harry Potter ride is on par with the US versions of the Winnie the Pooh ride, the attendance blip will be pretty small. When Universal Orlando opened its Spiderman ride, the Toby films weren't even on the drawing boards. (Alright, Spidey took several years and was going to be directed by James Cameron after Terminator, but I digress). Spiderman was "the ride to go on" that year because it was so good, not because it was based on a current hip film.

Chasing after what was the hot property three years ago isn't the answer. If you offered the world's best flight simulator, with a 3D experience, an interactive AA co-pilot, different shows every time, that you could personally control how rough the ride was - you could theme it to "Plane Crazy" (a fairly unhip Disney property) - because word would get out that the ride was amazing.  You still gotta have a new E ticket (or at least D+) ready to open next year to keep 'em coming back.

Quality actually sells. Especially in today's internet world, where you can quickly find out if the vacation you're considering holds up to the resort's press release. If you just want to get people in the gates this fiscal year - great, sign up Harry Potter, and next year LOTR, etc etc. If you want people to keep coming back - take all that witchcraft and sorcery stuff, spend the money you saved by not paying Ms Rowling, make the best ride you can, and base it on the wizard's duel section of Sword in the Stone - sell a few more DVD's of a property your company owns outright. Or be real daring, and create a new storyline for the ride. The Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Country Bears, Small World, Carousel, America Sings, etc were not (gasp) based on movies, but were original ideas for park entertainment that somehow entertained people.

Even if Disney had accquired the HP film rights, what I said still would stand. Disney would be building an attraction for something that already has a built-in fan base of millions, many of whom wouldn't normally travel to Disney World. And assuming they made the attraction on par with, say, Everest, then this could become something of a Mecca for Harry Potter fans.

That being said, I do realize that Narnia also has a large fan base, although I don't think it's quite as big as Potter's.  I do think it's foolish to not use capitalize on this lucrative franchise, but I can see why Disney wants to grab Potter as soon as it can. Let's be reasonable, Potter is a much more viable cashcow at this point. What will be interesting to see is if the wizardboy has staying power.

Arguments aside, I think the idea to create new storylines for old Disney attractions is a really good one. On a completely unrelated subject, I wish Disney World would learn to take care of the attractions it has. I was just on the Haunted Mansion down there, and during the library scene, the floating candlabra was so dimly lit that the only people who even saw it were the people who knew to look for it. It was a real bummer.

I don't think Harry Potter would be specifically associated as a Disney film. I certainly don't think Narnia is either- especially since it's a co-production with Walden.

If Disney's keen on bringing creators into ride development, I think they should go with someone either cheaper, someone who's created content for Disney (meaning Disney owns it already), or both. A HP or LOTR ride is going to bring attention and ticket buyers before its level of quality makes or breaks it, but I'm not so sure the license fees are worth it. I think going with some sort of Gargoyles attraction would be an idea to think over. It's a property that has annual fan conventions, and if you could transfer that into resort business, it's a potential source of both revenue and publicity with minimum cost. Just a thought.

Most everyone on here has been quick to jump and say the theme park rides that are new have been crap.

Only 2 rides have opened under Lasseter. Everest, and The Seas with Nemo and Friends. Everest, regardless of whether you like coasters or not, is a beautiful ride. The que has rich storytelling, and the ride is top notch.

Having recently ridden Nemo this past weekend, the imagineers have redeemed theirselves, I actually got a little fverklepmt in the last scene of the ride, where the nemo characters are swimming in the tank with the real characters. Its a beautiful, and well made dark ride. Proving that Disney Imagineering, still had what it takes to create an awesome family oriented ride, despite the crapfest that is Stitch.

Anyway, I'll be dissapointed if they outsource the HP concept to another country. Idk if HP's numbers are big stateside... but I would think so. And building JUST a roller coaster or dark ride would be a waste of time. There was a concept I read about, where you get to go explore Hogwarts Castle, because its open house day or something. Now that would be worthwhile. Go sit in on one of Snape's classes... Go out and pet an animatronic Hippogriff.  Just go up into the owlrey and see the owls. Ntm all the room for character look-alikes. DIsney has to know how nuts most every person in this country would go for a concept like that.

Same thing for LOTR.

Peeps, this is the same company that turned down a chance to make a LITTLE MERMAID dark ride, ferchristsakes - something that would have nonstop lines all day.

I don't have my hopes up for Disney to recognize flaming hot properties that would bring hordes to the park.  

Looks like Jim is incorrect on this. Just read on MuggleNet that it's not true. Surprise, surprise.

http://mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/397

Tomoyo said:
I think going with some sort of Gargoyles attraction would be an idea to think over. It's a property that has annual fan conventions, and if you could transfer that into resort business, it's a potential source of both revenue and publicity with minimum cost.
---
Well, you probably missed the Goliath (the gargoyle, not Jojo's pal) character M&G's, if he's still making them--
Probably because he's one of the obscure characters relegated to Halloween-party appearances only, along with the Three Caballeros and Kingdom Hearts' Sora...Which is a relative indicator of how hot Gargoyles is on Disney's current audience-identification radar.
(Oh, and of course, he can only come out at the after-dark events--Would look strange during the day.)  :)
====
scottshelton said:
"Peeps, this is the same company that turned down a chance to make a LITTLE MERMAID dark ride, ferchristsakes - something that would have nonstop lines all day. "
---
Probably because they thought that a dark ride would be more expensive to maintain than a live show or a character area...Not sure if it was, but the live show and character areas were a heck of a lot more imaginative than those first few out-of-the-gate ideas--
Which is the one idea any aspiring Imagineer has to learn, particularly when looking at a HP-style "outside" franchise:  Not EVERY single tie-in attraction has to be the freakin' Peter Pan Ride!  :)

. . . .and to be fair I should add to my above post that I'm not aware that Jim has ever billed himself as a journalist. It's the audience and the mainstream media, unfortunately, who have sorta moved him away from blogdom and closer to "real journalist". And frankly, what the heck is a real journalist anymore anyway?

At the same time, as DizHawk points out, there is also now blog evidence that this is a fabrication. Not that Jim himself fabricated it, necessarily. Just didn't corroborate the story with journalistic discipline before publishing it. Unless Mugglenet is being untruthful about having heard from "a representative for Jo."

I'm glad this is just Disney and the Potterverse rather than something really important.

But it's all fun anyway, isn't it? The speculation, the rumor, the debunking. . . .

a representative for JK Rowling informed www.mugglenet.com today that there was no truth to this "letter of intent" story

I read the Mugglenet blurb. It's also on Leaky Cauldron as well. Emmerson (of Mugglenet) and Melissa (of Leaky) were the two webmasters given exclusive access to Rowling at the release of Book 6 - interviewing her in her home, receiving praise for their websites from Rowling, yada, yada, yada. Unless "a representative of Jo" has fed them a line, it would seem they would get the inside info from a pretty reliable inside source. What gives Mr. Hill?  

DerekJ - who are you to speak for the entire HP fandom? You obviously know nothing about how true HP fans feel about book 5 or the upcoming release of book 7. If you visit any of the major HP fan sites like Mugglenet and Leaky, you will quickly see that the fandom is not just wanting it to be over nor thinks that book 5 was a "long hard slog." Perhaps someone with a limited attention span might think so...

Well, that's not the experience I've had--
I remember the fan debate when "Order of the Phoenix" came out: "It's wrist-slittingly depressing and pointless, nothing happens by the end of the book, and somebody SLAP Grumpy-Wumpy Harry!" vs. "Yeah!...He's growing up and now it's -really- getting exciting!"...
I had to be stuck with at least three personal friends and family members who were in the diehard enemy "exciting" camp, and weren't aware they were in the minority.

Then when "Half-Blood Prince" came out two years later, and finally did the plot right, I'd mentioned it was so good, JK even wrote off explanations for the two or three bits of book canon #5 did contribute (so what the heck did we have to read it for, then??)--
Their unanimous reaction, those two years later, and I quote?:  "...Wait, what happened in Book 5, again?"    :)

This is the stupidest article JHM has ever printed. HP rumours have been around since the late 90's and they won't happen at Disney. WETA is contributing to the NARNIA movies for Disney, not Lord of the Rings.

Good Gandalf.

Crap articles like these and negative anti-Lasseter hit jobs are why I laugh at this site these days. I can't believe Roy Disney ever linked to it back in the SaVe Disney years.  

PingBack from http://mugglenetinteractive.com/index.php/2006/10/17/no-truth-in-potter-disney-park-rumors/

PingBack from http://www.horsegroomingsupplies.com/horse-forums/harry-potter-land-113051.html#post1627367

PingBack from http://www.gryffindorgazette.com/2006/10/16/harry-potter-theme-park-sign-me-up/

Jim Hill zeroes in on just one question this week. Which is which theme park company now has the rights to the "Harry Potter" characters? Just so you know: There's lots of waffling ahead ...

PingBack from http://blogweber.com/harrypotter/?p=136