A nice article about interrelated concepts.

(1) Rowling's ideas for entering the park are interesting, but if she insisted on unfeasible approaches (and Jim points out a big flaw in the "right brick" puzzle) then the relationship could have been doomed from the start.  Her imagination and creativity should inspire a "can-do" attitude - in other words, instead of considering her to be a pain or finding ways to veto ideas, the approach should be "how can we make this work?" This story does, though, remind me of Pat Travers' relationship with Walt.  His attitude ws more along the lines of "we bought it already, we'll do what we judge right."

(2)  As for the robot arm, Disney and its partners will figure out a way to do it without infringing on the patent.

(3)  Interactive is good, but I worry that it, too, is designed for small groups.  I like the small group approach (such as the Jamitors in Epcot), but you can't hang big-time success on limited attractions.  A small interactive demonstration will enhance - not define - the theme park experience.  

Well now that Disney lost Harry Potter they should try to get the other wizard movie: Lord of the Rings.

Not being able to get the Kuka arm technology and the rights to a "Harry Potter" theme land isn't a huge loss. Disney can always come up with other ways to entertain visitors.

An interactive WALL-E sounds cute.

The "Living Character Initiative" is great, but, so far, it has been pretty limited.  I know there are some great examples in the parks, but it seems like every time I read about the newest project, I never get to see it.  I was excited to see Lucky, and I was thrilled to see the Muppet Mobile Lab. But, having not visited the parks in the brief time they were out, I guess I never will.  I know these were just tests, but if Disney wants to tempt me into the parks with something, they should make it at least a little permanent, like Turtle Talk and the Laugh Floor.

i am not too worried about the Harry potter loss.  Let universal deal with overprotective writers.

The kuka arm technology is another thing.  The attraction for theincredibles from what i had heard was going to be amazing.

I have faith WDI will comeup with another amazing idea for an attraction based on that movie as long as it isn't another darkride.  That movie really needs something amazing

I love the Muppet Mobile Lab concept, and I think using that technology for WALL*E is a great idea, as long as it's up and running by June of 08 when I'm down there. Otherwise, it just wouldn't be fair.

This is some of the best news for Disney Theme Park Fans. I'll tell you why:

1) Disney is notorious for its p*ssing contests with rival parks. i.e. Universal wanted to open a studio park in Florida, so Disney built MGM. Disney opens Living Seas to compete with Sea World. Animal Kingdom was an assault on Busch Gardens. There are countless examples of Disney throwing money at attractions to compete with rival parks (with mixed results). In the last twenty years the parks have constantly tried to one-up each other (with a bit of a lull the first half of this decade). Now Universal has upped the ante - TWICE! Disney has no choice to compete, which means bigger and better attractions for all of us. Plus we'll still get a chance to experience these great attractions -- except we'll have to travel 15 miles up the road to Universal.

2) Disney has countless properties of its own that have never had attractions built. Lately they seem obsessed with building Pixar themed attractions, even though the pixar properties have not yet stood the test of time (with the possible exception of the Toy Story characters), but let's not forget the countless Disney classics that have never received the theme park treatment... Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin (that Dumbo-ride clone doesn't count), Lion King, Mulan, Tarzan; then there's the classics like Mary Poppins, Jungle Book, Sleeping Beauty, and Bambi. I would love to see rides on these classic Disney movies.

Why bring in outside characters that are foreign to the Disney universe?

I wonder if last year's DL Christmas parade was part of the JKR negotiations or a nod to them... http://www.mpimages.net/dlr/compressed/Disneyland/Parades/SantasList-HPnames-AR.jpg

In any case, I'm curious just how unique the Kuka arm is. I mean, I've seen similiar enough robotic prototypes  from different companies and I imagine someone else is coming as close as patents will alow, etc.

Hmmm, doesn't Disney know they too have a library of characters? Why focus so much on Pixar's characters? Still, the "autonomous" Wall-E sounds great, but it isn't really an "attraction". It will make the overall experience at the parks greater, but won't improve the selection of attractions people can ride.

There's still the question of the rights for the Lord of the Rings, with the new Bilbo the Hobbit movie in the pipeline, Disney could bring in the theme parks a universe much more elaborate, big and for long term than with Harry Potter.

I think that Disney is just preparing the Theme Parks of the future, all in all, Universal is just going to open a "PotterLand", while Disney is trying to really bring to life all our dreams. Perhaps in the future we will not just ride in a fantasy world, but live in it.

How much would you be able to pay to live for a week or two in the "real" Middle Earth (for example) ?

Here in France, Disneyland Resort Paris will open in 2009 a new resort : "Les Villages Nature" where for a week you will be able to relax and do plenty of different sports (there will be different lands : Sports, Water, Forest). It's just a dream, but for me the theme parks of the future could be to just add theming on such experiences with the help of the Living Character Experiences (Something a little bit like a real Jurassic Park).

Nothing really new has been done on the Theme Park concept since 1955 with Disneyland. It's time to create something different and new, something that only Disney can do !

Jeff, you or anyone else ever watch the movie Westworld? I can't help but think of this movie when reading everyone's comments. Small park, hefty price, and guests interacting with robots. Mind you they were killer robots.

http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:53970

I'm so glad that Universal has the rights to "Harry Potter"- as much as I'm anti-Universal, HP has no place in a Disney park, IMO.

The Imagineers will just have to make a new technology instead of the Kuka arm- they can do it!

I think that having Disney-owned characters (whether Disney, Pixar, or Muppets), roaming around the parks is an awesome idea.  I loved seeing Lucky the Dinosaur, and, if Bunsen & Beaker ever come to WDW, I want to see them!  I hope that the WALL-E characters (or at least WALL-E himself) will be able to walk around the parks.  I think it's a great idea.  

I'm really ecstatic about Disney not having HP in its parks- I really am.  I don't read the books or watch the movies, but it does seem more fit to have HP at Universal.  "The Chronicles of Narnia" is a much more fitting series of movies (they're Disney owned!  Save $$$!) that should have some kind of attraction at the parks (besides the walk-in one they have now).

JohnLockamy said:

"2) Disney has countless properties of its own that have never had attractions built. Lately they seem obsessed with building Pixar themed attractions, even though the pixar properties have not yet stood the test of time (with the possible exception of the Toy Story characters), but let's not forget the countless Disney classics that have never received the theme park treatment... Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin (that Dumbo-ride clone doesn't count), Lion King, Mulan, Tarzan; then there's the classics like Mary Poppins, Jungle Book, Sleeping Beauty, and Bambi. I would love to see rides on these classic Disney movies.

Why bring in outside characters that are foreign to the Disney universe?"

I completely agree (except for the statement about the Pixar characters having not yet stood the test of time).  Disney is Disney- they have such a vast collection of movies and characters that they haven't even touched.  Part of what makes Disney Disney is their movies and characters.  Embrace them!

Disney doesn't need "Lord of the Rings"- they have their OWN movies!  Disney, out of all the parks in the world, doesn't need to borrow movies from other companies- they're Disney, for crying out loud!  They have about 80 years of material to use!  And, they can always create new, original attractions (such as Expedition Everest).

Personally, I'm THRILLED that they didn't land HP. I agree with blackcauldron that Potter just has no place in a Disney theme park. Plus, I can't stand him anyway and it would have irritated me if they'd spent a bunch of money bringing something to Disney World that I'd never bother with.

As far as the other stuff, maybe I'm crazy but I don't see those interactive characters as being a suitable replacement for any of the amazing sounding attractions they talked about. I mean am I going to be as WOWED by Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker as I would have been by that Incredibles attraction??? I think not ...

I hope WDI has a lot more up it's sleeve than that stuff, because thus far I've been immensely underwhelmed. If the new Monsters show in MK is any indicator, that trend will continue. I saw it on preview and it was just horrible.

I have never been to Universal and really have had no desire to.  However, a Harry Potter Land would definately get us to venture over there.  Obviously there is a huge fan base for the Harry Potter franchise.  I cannot imagine that this is not going to draw people to Universal and away from WDW for one day of their WDW vacation.  Families with younger children instead of teens will have a reason to visit Universal.  However if it is done poorly it will only be a temporary problem for Disney.  They do have more than enough to draw from in their own film library but now they may have to deal with some real competition.  

I think the living characters are amazing but it wouldn't get me to visit WDW to see them like a major new ride or land would.  They are just an added bonus.  I was disappointed that this is all Disney is saying they have on the horizon to counter Harry Potter at Universal.  I seriously hope that they have something on a much larger scale up their sleeve that has not leaked yet.   As a PP said maybe this competition will cause WDW to invest in their parks more.    

Forget Harry Potter...Disney has survived without Suess and Spider-man and the Sesame Street characters and NASA and Jesus.  They will get by wthout this IP.

What strikes me is that there were days--no too long ago--when Disney wasn't relying on outside parties to develop its new ride systems.  Certainly industrial innovation has made the Mouse's new ride experiences possible...whether it was platens moving on a Ford assembly line or the development of flight simulator technology, Disney has cherrypicked liberally from the "real" world.  But now, let's see, new roller coasters are essentially off the shelf product from Vekoma and Intamin, Soarin' is an Imax thing that Disney has an exclusivity license, and WDI-er's are sad because they couldn't get a leg up on Universal and have the right to buy this Kuka product.

This is clearly the way the industry is heading...all the operators buying from the same small stable of suppliers.  But this dependance will define what Disney is able to bring to the market in the future...an altogether different reality from the order of things two decades ago

Harry Potter would have been a great concept if done correctly, via JK Rollings way.

As for those naysayers, who say they dont know if HP has long term capability... I ask you to remember Disneyland was 'all started by a mouse' And simple concepts, that have lasted 50+ years.

There are enough people who starting reading HP ten years ago (such as myself. hi im 22) and who would not only visit an HP concept themselves but would love to expose my future children to it, and get them into the books/movies.

Anyway tho. Now that Universal has it, expect it to be done half-assed. and with minimal thought to detail and upkeep. Why do I feel that way? Go. Right now and ride Jurassic Park. The dinosaurs in that lagoon outside are in DEPLORABLE condition with so much mold growing on their waterline its easy to see they are bolted to the water underneath. The state of the cubicles in Spiderman is awful. garbage everywhere and most of the props hanging on by a thread. There are a lot of beautiful things at IOA, but the follow-thru is awful. Will they close Atlantis and Sinbad? Atlants was great, till they ruined it by 'updating it'. But different story different time.

Ill close with reminding everyone that Disney has Prince of Persia coming out. If that turns out to be a hit, and a series of epic movies, Disney may choose to recreate that world to explore. And for anyone whos played the games, man that would be cool.

Um...excuse me...has everyone here forgotten about NARNIA?????

C.S. Lewis' books have never gone out of print, they're still incredibly popular, and the first Narnia film did gangbusters. Why the heck is Disney angsting over the Potter property (and somehow I doubt Rowling's books will stand the test of time the way Lewis' have - because she's nowhere near as good a writer) when it has Narnia? Why haven't we heard anything about a new attraction based on Narnia? This is ridiculous! Narnia is a natural fit for the Disney parks and yet we haven't heard squat about any ride development. And I agree with those here who say "What about Mary Poppins?" And hey - what about Kingdom Hearts? Disney could really grab the tween video game crowd with an attraction built around that!

As for the Muppet lab, big freaking deal. A cute little sideshow using characters that don't really fit into the Disney pantheon and that Disney can't even merchandise worth a darn. Who cares about that! At least Lucky was an original Disney creation. I hope Iger and the crew get their act together or Universal and other parks are gonna eat their lunch (and what's the deal about gay weddings at Disneyland????)

I agree with most of what you said, gigglesock, but.. euh.. what do you mean with "what's the deal about gay weddings at Disneyland???" .. ?

how in the hell does this article relate to Jesus whatsoever misterjohnson. stick to the topic please. the real topic, and not criticize people, especially such honorable ones. wow. rudeness...

but yeah, Harry potter didn't belong in a Disney park anyways. Chronicles of narnia would be a much better idea. and that little "Disney surviving without Jesus" comment is kinda out of line.

once you think about it anyway. Disney does have a lot of christian family's that are pretty loyal because of this thing that they keep their films family oriented. And not a lot of nonchristians would even care otherwise, unless they were gay or something. But anyway. yeah. Christians don't really have to be targeted  AT ALL in this little thing. Let's keep things Disney talk...

Asla = Jesus

Hey.

Ok.  So I would love to be picked up by a robot arm and flung into some ride.

What a fantastic concept!

As for Potter . . . give it a couple year.  This too will pass.

rich

Disney IS upset about this? Come on disney single handedly came up with a new type of roller coaster all by themselves .Why coulnt they come up with their own ride system.

Heck if they want to make it cheaper then partner with say Six Flags or Cedar Fair? Those companies also have their own set of engineers also.

Even work with say B&M and partner with them.

I am hopiung that disney is not uspet about this.

Those robit arms just sound way to dangerous from a failure perspective.

Disney is one of the kings of robotics they can come up with their own version. Isnt it basically a bigger version of say an Animitronic arm?

I was really hoping that Animal Kingdom was getting it's Hogwarts. That way, I wouldn't have to visit Universal every time I'm down in Florida just to see Harry and friends. But really, I just want that expansion land to be built in Animal Kingdom, be it based on Bilbo Baggins, Mr. Tumnus, or the Weasley's flying car. Either way, it's fine with me. Now, between Narnia and Middle Earth, I really can't decide which I want to see more. But chances are that Narnia will win out.

And Ms. Rowling has every right to be so protective of her 'baby'. She must be doing something right. She's the richest woman in the entire United Kingdom! If not for her, we would've had an American Harry Potter and Hogwarts in upstate New York in the films; little creative shortcuts like that. No, thank you.

As for these super-duper robot arms? Meh. So what. What's that Imagineer Rule against saying, "No, we can't do that. It's impossible."? Give the Imagineers some time, and I'm sure they'll invent the rest of the robot that the Kuka arm belongs to.

I think some folks on this board may be vastly over-estimating WDI's capabilities these days.

Someone give me one example of amazing new technology they've developed in the last 10 years? Pretty much everything they use today is either some variant of existing technology or something they've bought from someone else.

Honestly, I can't even remember a time when WDI created something brand new ... I swear Audio-Animatronics was the last thing! I'm sure I'm missing something, but I really don't get all the kudos people are throwing their way. WDI is a shell of its former self AT BEST.

As much as I love Harry Potter, I can see where Narnia would be a better fit for Disney parks. (Maybe if Beastly Kingdom gets built in some form, even if it's not quite along the lines of original ideas...)

I totally agree with "what about Mary Poppins?" ...and I think Mary does too! ;-) You see, last year I was at Disney. Half the fun for me is interacting with the characters (tongue-in-cheek, of course) and watching them interact with others. (I happened to have a copy of Robin McKinley's "Beauty" on me for Belle to sign; likewise with Merlin and "The Once And Future King.")

So...Mary was holding court, with Alice, in the Toy Soldier shop in England in Epcot. Getting my picture taken with her, I told her I was ready to march on Iger's office to get them to give her an attraction. "I mean, what do you get? One scene in the Movie Ride and a character breakfast!"

She agreed..."They don't sell my dress to little girls, they don't have an attraction fo me...they don't do nearly enough to promote me!"

To think of the improv those face characters must have to do...

JoeHaro07, misterjohnson was referencing 'the holy land experience" park located in orlando...he was saying that no matter what others have tried to bring (by nasa he meant the kennedy space center), disney has overcome them all.  that's all.

as for my opinion, i feel that disney didn't need harry potter.  i haven't read the books/watched the movies, so i'm not much of a fan, but, as previously stated, disney does have a large array to choose from, and as also mentioned, if they do want to go the fantasy route, they do have narnia to go with.

as also mentioned, the 'living character initiative' won't bring too many guests to the park as much as a new attraction or land.  locals may want to go and see, but, tourists from afar are not going to come to disney because they have a new character you can see in the park.  i do like the idea and it's cool to see the character interacting and am not opposing it (lucky was cool to see), but, it won't bring a lot of visitors to the parks by itself as much as, say, everest has done for AK.

Nice article, I think the living character initiative has lots more potential. The idea of more character interaction makes Disney parks all the more appealing.

I believe Narnia has great potential at some kind of theme park attraction. There is so much content and character there they could take advantage of. And, aren't they doing Princ Caspian next? Why not use the properties/characters they already have and make it work.

Unbelieveable.  Sure, Harry Potter is an extremely popular series, but there are too many marketable series these days that losing one shouldn't be cried over like spilled milk.  For example, we now know that Disney is related to a Prince of Persia movie; I would like to see this develop into more use of video game stories into movie/theme park media (particularly Sonic the Hedgehog would be fun).  There are plenty of stories out there; even if Disney wanted to work on something other than their own, they have too many other choices to justify worrying about ONE.

As for the robocoaster, that kinda saddens me, but I don't think I understand.  Does the deal mean that Kuka can only sell to Universal for the next ten years?  I mean, there are already examples of the Robocoaster at various Legolands, do those need to be taken down or something?  As is, I think Imagineering does have the ability to make some pretty spectacular stuff, even if recent evidence shows the contrary.  Everest, anyone?  How about Turtle Talk?  Last thing I was aware of, WDI still had all the rights to the EMV (the Indiana Jones/Dinosaur ride system) that is still perfectly able to give a stunning experience.  Heck, even I can come up with some reasonable yet really cool ideas (let me explain the Rapids Coaster some time....)

I'm really not sure bout the Living Character Initiative, but it really sounds quite impressive than Audio Animatronic, I'm hoping Disney will make an area for Narnia but not replace any of the classic rides, so glad that Disney isn't buying Harry Potter, I'm a fan of the  books/movies yet the property doesn't seem Disney. I can seem mocking the franchise but not an attraction *shudders*

Six years ago, I visited WDW with my extended family, including six nieces and nephews between the ages of two and ten.  Everyone loved the rides, but when all was said and done, the favorite moment of FIVE of those children was interacting with a talking palm tree in Animal Kingdom.  A talking palm tree.  If they can take that technology further, they'll make thousands of people smile every day, and that's wonderful.

What they won't do is soak up extra crowds, or draw bigger ones, like a Potter park would do.  And despite those who say that the Potter series is a passing phase, I believe it will be quite lasting.  Its fans are numerous and far-reaching.  Sure, the park will be expensive and difficult to maintain, but I suspect it will be quite a boon for Universal.

I agree with Marjortom1981 about the safety issues regarding robotic arms involved in picking up vehicles with people in them. (At least as far as where the technology is right now) They better have a great fail safe system to avoid droping the vehicles, let alone accidentally tossing it half way across Disneyland. There are plenty of companies building those things anyway so if WDI wants to continue the idea of using them they can go to another manufacturer.

As for Harry Potter: I agree to let Universal have that one. Like Jim wrote, there is no guarantee how popular HP will be in just a few short years...Roger Rabbitt anyone?

Also Empoor: I may have an interesting idea regarding gay weddings at Disneyland & WDW. I do happen to be a born again christian thus my opinion about that you can basically see. However I was once told something by a minister regarding homosexuality. He stated to me: Warren, was it Jesus's love that brought you to Him or the threat of judgement that brought you to Him? I got his point. It was His love that brought me to him. Though I don't approve of the sin, I still have to love them.

I've got to agree with the majority here. Disney has a treasure trove of proven properties that deserve the theme park treatment. I used to bring friends down to DL and I'd hear the same thing: We enjoy the Star Wars and Indiana Jones rides, but what do they have to do with Disney? Where's the Little Mermaid ride,or the Aladdin ride?

I always thought they could move the Theatre near ToonTown over to DCA and build "FantasylandI"I with new rides based on their recent (Mermaid is almost 20 years old!)cartoon features. DAK could use a permanant "Tarzan"  themed dark rideand NARNIA seems like a reasonable trade off for the never made "Beastly Kingdom".  

Wow that sucks That Robotic arm thing sounds Awesome I think sadly things are looking good for universal.

I don't see it as a big deal.  Forget building a new Harry Potter land.  I'd like to see more efforts spent on plusing or replacing existing attractions.

BrerArtist said:

"I've got to agree with the majority here. Disney has a treasure trove of proven properties that deserve the theme park treatment. I used to bring friends down to DL and I'd hear the same thing: We enjoy the Star Wars and Indiana Jones rides, but what do they have to do with Disney? Where's the Little Mermaid ride,or the Aladdin ride?"

I agree 100%!! Has anyone ever noticed that the newer films get total short-shrift in terms of their attractions??

I mean what does Little Mermaid have?? A weak stage show and some playground in MK? Aladdin did even worse ... all it got was a Dumbo-copy! And Belle ... all she got was a stage show too?  My daughter can never figure out why Snow White has her own ride and all the other princesses don't.

When you really think about it, it's like they've completely given up on the notion of the dark ride. Yeah, they built the Monsters one in DL and they put Pooh in at MK (although that was almost 10 years ago now), but other than that?

Call me crazy, but I always thought the dark ride was what set Disney apart from the "other" theme parks. When I think Disney, I think dark ride. It's time to step up and start capitalizing on some of their own under-utilized properties instead of worrying about going out and spending money buying someone else's.

I'd really rather see a Middle Earth attraction/land rather than one based on Narnia. I always found the Narnia series to be trite and far too heavy-handed and, consequently, hokey and preachy. That is just MY opinion, of course, and I have every respect for the series and those who love it. I just think that Tolkein created a far more elaborate, living world that would lend itself better towards developing an immersive experience around.

That said, I'd ultimately rather that Disney stick with Disney characters. Of course, I wouldn't mind a Kingdom Hearts attraction of some sort, nor a Prince of Persia one, either. The latter, in fact, could be exceptionally cool...well, unless they really botch the movie version, that is.

It's sad to see that Universal is keeping in front of Disney in terms of ride technology and major attractions. I still haven't seen Disney come up with anything to rival the Spiderman attraction at IOA. Fortunately (for Disney), Universal keeps shooting themselves in the foot with guest service levels, maintenance, etc. that degrades the overall theme park experience.

As someone who enjoys the Harry Potter books and films I'm sad to see that it will be Universal that brings them to life in a theme park rather than Disney. If the folks at WDI really think that a couple of muppets running around the grounds is going to compete with a full blown Harry Potter attraction then I submit they've been spending too much time on the Jungle Cruise because they are obviously in a "state of d'Nile". No one other than the most arden Disney fans is going to schedule a trip to WDW to see a couple of roving muppets. On the other hand there are going tens (if not hundereds) of thousands of kids begging their parents to take them to see Harry Potter when this new attraction opens.

WDI and Disney used to be the leaders in theme park innovations. Sadly, since they've laid off most of the folks from WDI and contract as needed, that experience is available to anyone and Universal seems to be using it to good effect.

Harry Potter is perhaps the most successful family book/film franchise yet. I think it will have very long legs similar to Star Wars. While I love both Narnia and Middle Earth, neither are as adaptable to the theme park attraction. The characters in Narnia change from book to book, where as the HP genre has the same core characters in each adventure. The Lord of the Rings is a fantastic trilogy and a much more sophisticated story than HP, but throughout most of it, the main characters are seperated on their own adventures making it difficult to adapt to a theme park ride.

(For those who feel HP will shrivel and die after the 7th and last book, let me remind them that there hasn't been a new Narnia book for 40, maybe 50 years and the same with the Lord of the Rings. Also the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland is still one of their most popular e-rides).

I think Disney needs to develop rides / lands after Narnia.  If Disney gets the rights to Lord of the Rings I think it would be great, but should be a totally seperate park as I do not feel Lord of the Rings fits into a Disney park.  It can be too dark or scary for kids.  I really don't think the Harry Potter laqnd at Universal will have too much of an impact on Disney long term.  Disney will need to open some great stuff the same summer Potter opens.

Theoretically, what Disney could do, is buy all the existing Kuka robot arms from the Legolands around the world and find someone to make them run on coaster tracks.

Apart from that, I think those living characters do not at all make up for an outstanding e ticket, let alone a Harry Potter theme park.

I wonder how Universal could persuade J.K. Rowling to do the deal with them. If she is so protective with her characters and wanted so much from Disney, why is she now signing a deal that brings her so much less? (flying car ride, uhh great!)

I'm happy about both these news pieces

Harry Potter- I am happy Disney didn't get HP. They have a whole franchise in Chronicles of Narnia they have not even touched upon. Narnia could prove to be just as popular if not moreso than HP.

Kuka Robot- If this means one less Pixar attraction, I am more than happy. Why can't Disney build attractions around their 90s popular movies which have for the most part been neglected recently. Those have proven to be classic remembered years later. While Incredibles & Cars might prove similar, it needs time to do so. And of course Disney should be creating attractions on original concepts instead of just movies. I mean some of their most popular attractions have no movie tie-ins (Soarin, Everest, Mission:Space, Test Track, Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, Kilimanjaro, etc).

At first when I heard of Disney begging J.K for the rights to Harry Potter, I was excited! But as time passed I realised more and more that Harry Potter just does not fit inside a Disney Park. Even though Im a big Potter fan, I am glad they did not get it. Even though I do not like Narnia, I agree it would be a better fit for the Disney parks than lets say Middel Earth, as an exstention idea or a ride.

I agree 100% that the Disney movies from the 90s are not used to their full potential! Everyone is talking about the Little Mermaid attraction, but what about the blockbuster movie The Lion King! I mean, they have a freaking park based around an "Animal Kingdom" idea with sections from Africa ect, but it has no Lion King ride!!!! Explain that one please WDI.... I just dont understand how they can put in a Dinosaurs ride (Oh btw, the movie was a complete bomb) and not a Lion King ride, when the Lion King has brought in SOOO much money for the company and the movie is one of the greatest classics.

They are not giving the 90s movies any kind of treatment when they are so freaking popular!  The Little Mermaid PE sold 1.6 million units on its opening DAY! That is incredible for a 20 year old movie! It just shows how popular these films still are.

The living characters are funny, but as mentioned before will not make more people come to the parks as they are just a small bonus. And im so NOT excited to ride that new Toy Story ride with the 3d glasses.

Disney still WOW's me with attractions like Soaring or Mission Space, but I love the Spider Man Ride at IOA because it really includes you in the story with the use of the new technologie. I hope Disney has something brewing in response to Robotic Arm Technologie and Flying cars through Hogwarts.  

Chill

I'm glad so many people feel the way I do. Harry Potter would seriously cramp Disney's style, in my opinion. It isn't apart of the Disney legacy - as cool as it could be, I'd rather they stick to their own material. I also agree that they shouldn't shy away from their classics. PIXAR attractions are all well and good, but they aren't what Disney is known for. They are known for films like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...not to mention older films like Sleeping Beauty. Like the previous poster brought out, people still love these movies. They were good 20, even 50 years ago, and are still great today.

It just disappoints me that Disney is only interested in the latest over the greatest. I love "Monsters, Inc" for example, but it isn't "The Lion King". I don't know how popular Disney would be today if it was only known for projects like "Finding Nemo".

Time to weigh in. I'm going to paraphrase here:

Statement #1. "Harry Potter wouldn't fit in with the Disney style."

No one's explained how they've come to this conclusion. Here's what I see: Family entertainment (no cussin'). Likeable characters. Intelligent story. Celebrates morals (love, forgiveness, loyalty). So we're not sure that the franchise is gonna stick around, huh? And why's that? It's been around for a decade now and, if anything, has picked up steam since its inception. 300 million books don't walk off the shelves for no reason. And Roger Rabbit? Sorry, but it's not really a surprise that he isn't in the limelight anymore. Though I like the movie, the character's kind of a one-trick pony, not to mention a bit grating. Sorry, but it's true.

Statement #2: "Disney needs to stick to their own films and characters!"

Right. Except for Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Muppets, Twilight Zone, Aerosmith, Winnie the Pooh, and Mary Poppins. Rememeber, even the ones you think of as classic weren't necessarily created by Disney.

Statement #3: "Why bother with Potter when we've got the Narnia and Prince of Persia franchises coming soon?"

Um, perhaps because Potter has been proven repeatedly. Whereas Narnia, not so much. One movie does not a franchise make. And yes, I know that the next one is coming out at as well, but until that (and the one that follows) proves to be as successful, you can't say it's a bona fide franchise hit. And Prince of Persia? Really? Don't count your chickens before they hatch, folks. How many people thought a Star Wars prequel trilogy would equal instant classic?

Statement #4: "It's better that Disney isn't dealing with JK Rowling, since she's sooo protective of her characters."

Yeah, because it's simply dreadful to think that a creator should demand quality and respect given to their properties. Truly awful, that. Come on. You can't seriously hold that against someone. Otherwise, you might as well start expecting Pixar to release junk like Hoodwinked and Disney to clone Six Flags.

And what's with the gay-bashing again? Seriously, this is becoming a multiple-article thing now. Really oughta knock that crap off.

Oh yeah, and in my opinion, Lord of the Rings is too mature for Disney parks. There's a fine line between evil dark wizards (Voldemort) and lopping off orc heads by the dozens (Aragorn).

I would really like to see Disney use the technology they use in the Pooh Ride in Japan. So many possibilities and an attraction unique to Disney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-65hTGDowJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K01-kPT4t8I

I personally think it would work well with the Jungle Book or Woody's Roundup, but I am sure there are lots of other ways to use it.

//I just dont understand how they can put in a Dinosaurs ride (Oh btw, the movie was a complete bomb) and not a Lion King ride, when the Lion King has brought in SOOO much money for the company and the movie is one of the greatest classics.//

Well, to be fair, Dinosaur (or Countdown to Extinction, as it was known before) was built before the movie came out.  And it seems to have had a fairly decent run, popularity-wise.  The lines have probably greatly decreased since the park first opened, but for a few years, it was always the first thing I'd ride after Kilimanjaro Safaris.  Obviously, it was intended as a movie tie-in, but it stands on its own without any knowledge of the movie.

Lion King...well, there's still Festival of the Lion King at Animal Kingdom, and Lion King is represented in Mickey's Philharmagic (which is located in the former home of Legend of the Lion King, which was a stage show largely featuring puppets), and I believe Circle of Life is still located in the Land.  It doesn't have a dark ride, but it is at least represented in 3/4 parks (I won't bother including its involvement in the final film montage at the Great Movie Ride as a "representation").

In fact, stage shows seemed to be the follow-up for the dark ride, as many of the "new classics" received stage show versions in Florida: Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Hunchback, Tarzan...

For the record, I still miss the Hunchback show.

//Statement #1. "Harry Potter wouldn't fit in with the Disney style."

No one's explained how they've come to this conclusion. Here's what I see: Family entertainment (no cussin'). Likeable characters. Intelligent story. Celebrates morals (love, forgiveness, loyalty). //

Ive come to this conclusion (dont know about other people) by asking myself if Harry Potter would feel alright in any existing Disney Park. My feeling is a no.... Is it because the movies are made by Warner Brothers? I really could not say, it just does not feel Disney for me. ALso where I think Universal would be a better fit, is because of the style of IOA. Disney has theme parks, with already exisiting lands with certain theme's. Non of these theme's are connected to on movie or franshise alone. In IOA they do have 'lands' connected to one movie or franshise alone, and thus could dedicate a land to the Harry Potter franshise. Which for me sounds better, as they could really bring the Harry Potter world to life, like they did with Jurrasic Park (I still get goosebumps when I enter that huge gate)

//Statement #2: "Disney needs to stick to their own films and characters!"

Right. Except for Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Muppets, Twilight Zone, Aerosmith, Winnie the Pooh, and Mary Poppins. Rememeber, even the ones you think of as classic weren't necessarily created by Disney.//

Most people are not saying that they should not buy HP just because it is not created by Disney. They are saying that Disney has a huge pool of their own characters and story's that never got a ride or any sort of treatment! So instead of spending HUGE amounts of money to by characters, they should look in their own vault.

"Also where I think Universal would be a better fit, is because of the style of IOA. Disney has theme parks, with already exisiting lands with certain themes. None of these themes are connected to on movie or franchise alone. In IOA they do have 'lands' connected to one movie or franchise alone, and thus could dedicate a land to the Harry Potter franchise."

Very true, though I think that if Disney had secured the Harry Potter rights, they could've worked it into Disney-MGM without much trouble. Plus, as we've seen from numerous "abandoned parks / rides" strories, the imagineers have created entire lands around a prevailing movie or book theme (Discovery Island=Jules Verne and his novels), it's just that these ideas usually get shelved for various reasons. So I don't think it would necessarily be unreasonable for them to create an entire Harry Potter land.

Nevertheless, my original point was that it's odd that one of the prevailing overtones in these comments is that HP wouldn't fit in with Disney, yet Narnia or even Lord of the Rings would be just fine.

<<I just dont understand how they can put in a Dinosaurs ride (Oh btw, the movie was a complete bomb)>>

To add to what anonymous said, CTX came out 2 years before Dinosaur the movie. And while TLK doesn't have a ride, it does have an immensly popular show.

<<They are not giving the 90s movies any kind of treatment when they are so freaking popular!>>

Completely agree

<<For the record, I still miss the Hunchback show.>>

Me too. It ranks as my favorite non-nighttime show ever and one of my favorite attractions ever.

<<Right. Except for Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Muppets, Twilight Zone, Aerosmith, Winnie the Pooh, and Mary Poppins. Rememeber, even the ones you think of as classic weren't necessarily created by Disney.>>

Ummmmm........ Winnie the Pooh and Mary Poppins ARE Disney characters (Both are very much associated with Disney and the unless I'm missing something, Poppins doesn't have an attraction). Muppets are now also Disney property (as are Pixar characters)

<<Um, perhaps because Potter has been proven repeatedly. Whereas Narnia, not so much. One movie does not a franchise make.>>

You might have a valid point.... if the Narnia series hasn't been out for 50 years. It has sold over 100 million copies in 41 languages. It has more than proven itself over the test of time. Harry Potter on the other hand is a brand new and still-being-created series. Will the HP-craze still exist 10 years after the books have been finished? What about 10 years after the movies are done? I think they will be, they might not. They could just be a fad.

<<lopping off orc heads by the dozens>>

How many characters have died in HP? A whole lot by my count (and most in a very dark way). Contrast that with Narnia where relatively few die (and many who initially "die" are brought back to life).

"Ummmmm........ Winnie the Pooh and Mary Poppins ARE Disney characters (Both are very much associated with Disney and the unless I'm missing something, Poppins doesn't have an attraction). Muppets are now also Disney property (as are Pixar characters)"

Correct, they are Disney characters now, but they were not created by Disney - they were purchased and/or licensed. So then, let's hypothetically say the Harry Potter franchise was purchased by Disney. Would everyone all the sudden say 'Okay, now you can put these characters in a ride'?

"You might have a valid point.... if the Narnia series hasn't been out for 50 years. It has sold over 100 million copies in 41 languages. It has more than proven itself over the test of time."

Can't fault you there. Good point.

"How many characters have died in HP? A whole lot by my count (and most in a very dark way)."

True, several characters have died in Harry Potter. Characters have also died in Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Incredibles, and Star Wars. But not as graphically as some of the deaths in LOTR. It's simply a different playing field.

I just wanted to add one more thing.

Last weekend I was at MGM. Standing near the Hat courtyard, next to the bronze statue of the movie maker with my parents. I heard the opening bars of some VERY familiar music and because John Williams is amazing, the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I looked at my mom and she was looking back at me.

It was Harry Potter music. Not the central theme, but recognizable to a music major like myself, or a movie music fanatic like my mom.

Im sure this means nothing, as techincally its the 'great movie courtyard'. But doesnt Disney have to own *some* of the rights to that to play it?

A theme from hook can be heard in the que for Soarin' and of course 'Flying' from (the non disney) Peter Pan is their new theme music.

As much as Jim wants us to believe his insiders. I say wait it out. I havent heard any HP music at Universal lately. And im there monthly too.

<<Im sure this means nothing, as techincally its the 'great movie courtyard'. But doesnt Disney have to own *some* of the rights to that to play it?>>

Yes, Disney does have the music rights to play it in DMGM (along with Bond and various other movie themes). Just as Disney has the TV rights to show it on ABC & ABCFamily. Completely seperate rights from the movie rights (TW) and the theme park rights (aparently Universal).

Just FYI it's not "apparently Universal" ... it IS Universal. I think they've even put out a press release on it.

Okay, my being against gay marriage - and um, BTW, hasn't it gotten rejected by a large majority of voters in just about every state in which it's been proposed? - is not gay-bashing. I'm saying that Disney should be for families, TRADITIONAL families - remember, Walt himself, while being a visionary,  was still very much a traditionalist - not for people wanting to partake in a ceremony they have no right to. Surely anyone with any sense would agree that the best family for a child consists of a male father and a female mother who are happily married to each other. That's the ideal. And I happen to think that children deserve the ideal. Period. Otherwise when it comes to gays, I believe in live and let live. I'm glad the anti-sodomy laws have been repealed. But when it comes to gay marriage, I believe that a small group of gays are trying to force people - through the courts - to accept their lifestyle as being as legitimate as those of heterosexuals, which is absurd. When people say "you can't legislate morality", well, it works both ways. And that's all I'm going to say about the matter. If you want to bash ME, go ahead.

gigglesock, I respect your opinion, not going to bash you for it. But.. Much you make some ungrounded statements there.. "best family for a child consists of a male father and a female mother", well, studies have shown that there isn't really a consistent conclusion to that. And many, many, MANY "heterosexual" families are dysfunctional, while most "homosexual" families have been stable. It is harder for the child concerning school life and all, but the family life is good.

Secondly, separating hetero versus gay marriages is as much discrimination as opposing black, Asian or (in the US) European people to marry.

"hasn't it gotten rejected by a large majority of voters in just about every state in which it's been proposed?"

For the US yes, but I happen to live in the Netherlands, and we had no (serious) problems here after gay marriages where allowed. Why make a big fuss out of it? And isn't it morally incorrect to restrict someone to marry their beloved one, while it really doesn't concern you. He or she isn't marrying you, so why oppose it?!

"not for people wanting to partake in a ceremony they have no right to"

Says you, but you actually have no right to restrict them or do you?

Hey!  I love that video at Pixar...especially since I'm in it! :)  I've got some pictures as well and yes, it is as great as it looks in the video.  Pixar employees (including Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter and others) brought their families and the joy on the kids' faces was wonderful to see.

Later in the day it was parked upstairs for people to look at up close.  This would be a PERFECT fit with Wall-E, there is no doubt about that.  John Lasseter himself had a big smile on his face...and that's probably all that matters!

//But when it comes to gay marriage, I believe that a small group of gays are trying to force people - through the courts - to accept their lifestyle as being as legitimate as those of heterosexuals, which is absurd.//

When I hear stupid talk like this, I am sooo happy I live in Europe....

Timerman, you got me. When people hurl a stupid insult and run, that just attracts my attention. Care to elaborate why you think my point of view is "stupid"? What I described is exactly what's happening. When gay marriage is put to the vote, it is just about always defeated. It's only through the arbritrary judgement of certain courts that it's been legalized. If you like the idea of the will of a free people being overridden by a single judge, then I'm glad you live in Europe too.

Hate to get into this, but...

The statement of "the idea of the will of a free people being overridden by someone else" kinda points out one of the many hypocrisies in the argument against gay marriage. Y'see, opponents to gay marriage say that they don't want their choices overridden by someone who doesn't share their beliefs, yet that's exactly what those opponents are doing to gay people. Behold:

Free people (homosexuals) have their will (equal benefits / rights as heterosexuals), but someone else (heterosexuals who DON'T believe in said equality) is overriding them.

See? It's a shame that, in America at least, the heterosexuals who are in power aren't too keen on granting these rights. Ultimately, this is the question: Is it right for heterosexual intolerance win over equality? If you think so, perhaps you ought to consider what it must be like to be unable to marry the one you love, simply because someone else thinks it's wrong.

12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society...

1.Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

oh wait...  ;)

greenyskp: LOL!!

1. Homosexuality is comparable to polyester, eyeglasses and birth control, all of which are not found in nature. Yep, I agree with that.

2. "Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children." This flat generalization is considered erroneous because of the fact that some heterosexuals are unfertile. But by that logic, homosexual marriages are always invalid because in natural practice homosexual sex NEVER produces children. Interesting twist of logic, no?

3. "Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children." Since in my view gays shouldn't be raising children at all, I'll pass on this one.

4. "Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful". I have read this pathetic argument elsewhere. So you're saying that since marriage is so meaningless, gays should be allowed to partake of it. Wow. Doesn't that insult both gays AND straights?

5. "Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal." So once again, you're trying to assert the validity of gay marriage by attacking the validity of heterosexual marriage. Really, if marriage is such a joke, why on earth would gays want any part of it?

6.  "Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities." So you're saying that voting is not the way to bring about societal change. That the will of the people means nothing if the majority view does not agree with your own. Socialist much?

7. "Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America." What an interesting view you have of people who disagree with you. BTW, I'm an atheist.

8. "Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall." Well, given that most people are against gay marriage, you have managed to resist becoming so ignorant despite hanging out with such ignorant people. However did you manage that?

9. "Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license." Heh. Funny. But of course a dog's legal status could be changed in the courts. Crazier things have happened...(yeah, that's nuts. But I'm just going along with the logic here...)

10. "Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children." All of these amusing arguments of yours are based on caricatures, but let's take this one seriously for a moment: it's a fact that many child-related problems of today's current society are blamed on single-parent households, most of which consist of a single mother and children, with a father nowhere in sight.  This is a regrettable situation. And I do find it amusing that you're comparing it with gay parenting. I do indeed.

11. "Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans." Well, humans have been known to adapt to social norms that were negative, such as the values of the Third Reich. Your point?

12. "Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians." Um, using the civil rights movement as an argument for gay marriage doesn't sit well with many black leaders. For what it's worth.

So as you can see, there are valid arguments against gay marriage that can't be shouted down by insult and mockery. Can we move on now?

OMG.. You seriously commented on his (OBVIOUSLY) humorous remarks, which he only made to make fun of you? .. That's so.. so.. :P

Actually, gigglesock, you really didn't manage to provide ANY valid arguments against gay marriage. In fact, given several of your responses to those, you appear to have missed the point completely. Some examples:

"1. Homosexuality is comparable to polyester, eyeglasses and birth control, all of which are not found in nature. Yep, I agree with that."

And yet, you fail to mention that society has still marched on, and has even been further enriched, by these and other things not found in nature. (Although, in all fairness, homosexuality DOES appear in nature. There's documented evidence proving it.)

"3. 'Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.' Since in my view gays shouldn't be raising children at all, I'll pass on this one."

The "Gay parents will raise gay kids" argument is consistently made by those who oppose gay marriage, and it's a stupid one at that. I know you don't believe gays should raise kids at all, but still, why would you avoid even addressing this fallacy?

"4. 'Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful'. I have read this pathetic argument elsewhere. So you're saying that since marriage is so meaningless, gays should be allowed to partake of it."

Wrong. The point of bringing up these joke-marriages is not to imply that all marrige is meaningless. It's to show how ludicrous the idea is of gays somehow cheapening straight marriage. You wanna target those who cheapen the idea of marriage? Go after the ones who do it for money, fame, power, and publicity. Not the ones who do it for love.

"6.  'Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.' So you're saying that voting is not the way to bring about societal change. That the will of the people means nothing if the majority view does not agree with your own. Socialist much?"

Are you seriously making this argument? For a long time blacks had to drink from different water fountains than whites. And you know what? The majority of whites thought that was just fine. So nothing changed until a small group of people made it change. (And I'll get to your Civil Rights comment in a minute.)

"7. 'Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.' What an interesting view you have of people who disagree with you. BTW, I'm an atheist."

Me too. But I fully understand that the majority of those in this country who propose legislation banning gay marriage are either Christian or Catholic. You cannot deny that there is an air of growing unchecked fundamentalism in American government  right now.

"12. 'Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.' Um, using the civil rights movement as an argument for gay marriage doesn't sit well with many black leaders. For what it's worth."

Good for them. Too bad no one has the right to prevent a group that's being descriminated against from using similar examples from the past. Even if there are black people in this country who don't like the Civil Rights movement being referenced / used (and frankly, I'm going off of your word here, as that I've never heard of this), there really isn't anything they can do about it. You can't restrict people from citing history, even if you don't agree with them. Besides, I'd imagine that people who are both black AND gay see an awful lot of parallels. Just a hunch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin

Brendan and Tomoyo, here is a link regarding black leaders' position on comparing the campaign for gay marriage with the civil rights movement:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040315-122503-3346r.htm

And Brendan, you're basing much of your arguments on the peculiar notion that marriage is about two people who love each other. Who decided that? Marriage is about *a man and a woman* who love each other. That other stuff about blacks not marrying whites, women as property, divorce being illegal - none of those things, when rightfully discarded, changed the nature of marriage itself, as would allowing two people of the same gender to marry. That is why the vast majority of people in this country are opposed to it - and I proudly stand with them. Now, since we have both expressed our opinions on this matter, can we move on?

People, this conversation does not belong here and you all know it. Bring it to the forums if you must, but please, let's not make JHM into a bash site (or at least not a non-Disney/Pixar/Entertainment-related bash site).

Gigglesock> Unless it's an extremely small group of people you can and will find all sorts of opinions among them. I think the links we posted show that. But that's all I'm going to say here.

Shaking hands and moving on...

Agreed. Moving on...

Would someone explain why so many people on this board think "Harry Potter" would be a lousy addition to a Disney park, but "Narnia" would be a delightful one? This sounds like the biggest rationalization I've ever heard.

I should state that I'm perfectly happy to see neither in a Disney park--I can think of a lot more things they could do that would be more fun than rides based on either of these movies.

(Oh, and the robot arm thing...if Disney really wants one badly enough, it'll be no trouble finding someone to build it for them.)

Narnia's going to be more synergy-friendly, but Power Rangers or Digimon would be as well.

I suspect theme park presence is going to be something that secures HP, though. I mean, a new SW trilogy followed Star Tours and now Indy 4 is a go.  

When Harry Potter opens...I'm there with my school tie on!

And why should JK be difficult! It's her baby...her vision

I wish it was a whole separate park like discovery cove!

go pay $300 come out with your wizarding o- levels

Heaven!

<<Would someone explain why so many people on this board think "Harry Potter" would be a lousy addition to a Disney park, but "Narnia" would be a delightful one?>>

The Narnia movies are made by Disney, HP is WB. Narnia has proven itself over the test of time, HP has not yet done so. Narnia "rebirth" has just begun, Potter movies (and books) are coming to an end.

HP is huge right now, but the book series is over this summer and WB's film franchise will probably end early in the next decade. It's a very active fandom right now but it's unknown how long it will keep up after the story's over. It may be the next Star Wars, or settle into a smaller fandom akin to something like 80s toons. I don't think Narnia's nearly as big but I think existing Disney properties should take priority provided they do well.

Wow, after years of reading this sight, I FINALLY felt compelled to join the conversation...

Everyone keeps talking about Disney vs. non-Disney characters (and Brendan has covered this idea a bit), but can anyone count how many feature film characters were actually created by Disney?  Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty...all were well-known fairy tales before Disney ever got a hold of them.  Dumbo was loosely based on a children's book by Helen Aberson which was itself an adaptation of a true story.   Pinnochio was acquired from Carlo Collodi's estate.  Austrian Felix Salten wrote Bambi around 2 decades prior to the Disney movie. 101 Dalmations was a novel prior to Disney's take on it and The Jungle Book was, of course, a book by Rudyard Kipling.  The story of King Arthur was around long before The Sword and the Stone, and Robin Hood was a man before he was a fox.  Hunchback, Pocahontas, Tarzan, and Hercules are all evident in their historical/literary backgrounds. And there are several good articles around the web (possibly this site, I'm not certain) and many  books about the hoops Walt jumped through to get the movie rights to Peter Pan (James Barrie) as well as his acquisition of the Alice in Wonderland (Louis Carrol) characters.  Beauty and the Beast- another well known fairy tale.  The Little Mermaid- Hans Christian Anderson.  The Rescuers come from Margerie Sharp's children's novels.  Alladin is an adaptation from a portion of Arabian Nights. The Pooh rights case between Disney and A.A. Milne's family have us all up to date on that.  

I think I covered most of the majors, and some that weren't, which leaves us with The Lion King, Lady and the Tramp, Lilo and Stitch, Brother Bear, The Emporer's New Groove, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and The Aristocats.

I don't know about you guys, but for the most part (there are some exceptions), I think Disney does a better job with its character acquisitions than it does when they are conceptualized in house.  

Maybe Disney really did miss out on Harry Potter...it seems that most of the people who have actually read the books are convinced (myself included) it will be around for our children as well.  Most of the criticism appears to come from people who are tired of the hype and marketing and have never read the books.  Of course these are broad generalizations, but for the most part...

Uh, little correction there "lasttuesday".. :P

I think most people were talking about Disney-owned characters (no acquiring costs, already associated with Disney, etc), not specifically about Disney-created characters.

But Disney only "own's" these characters to the extent that they have negotiated the rights with their creators or their estates.  Disney doesn't "own" Snow White, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Alice, or most of their other characters.   They have simply marketed them enough to give Disney a monopoly on them in the public consciousness.  Go to your local discount store and see how many knock-offs of these stories are in the dollar bin.  Disney simply negotiated the rights to these characters- the same of which it was hoping to do with the kids from Hogwarts.  Sure, the movies have already been made, but Peter Pan was already a theatrical success and Alice in Wonderland had been produced by 2 other filmmakers prior to Disney's version as well as Lou Bunin's stop-motion version being released the same year.  Snow White was a silent film and a Betty Boop cartoon....there are others that could be referenced, but I think you get the point I was trying to make.  If Disney had been able to get the rights from Rowling, they would become as much "Disney characters" as any of the others.  If we wanted everything purely Disney-created, we'd basically be stuck with Mickey and pals.

You too can ride the Hogwarts Express.Photo by Murray Close/Courtesy of Warner Brothers Pictures Though we have fond memories of ditching our girlfriend on Main Street USA during a high-school band trip to Disney World, we don't really love amusement..

My son is an aspiring imagineer at age 11.  The beauty of someone being this age and knowing what they want as far as imagineering is the ability to know no boundries.  Thinking outside the box comes naturally for children who don't know there are boundries to face.  So with that said he is already coming up ride ideas for Disney (his favorite theme park) and is always inspired when we visit.  A  hint to one of his ideas is a "Meet the Robinsons" hovercraft car ride amongst many others.  The loss of Harry Potter and Kuka to Disney is small compared to the ideas that up and coming imagineers have to offer.  The imagination is awesome and far outweighs these items.  

The way Jim Hill hears it, "Star Tours 2.0" could be just the start. Hill shares what he's heard about a possible "Lucas Land" area going into Disney's Hollywood Studios as well as Mickey's efforts to land the broadcast rights to George's new "Star Wars"

Jim Hill shares several short food-related stories from Central Florida. Including Universal CityWalk's new concept restaurant, how Little Chef is now entertaining Guests at Les Chefs de France and when Goofy's Liberate Your Appetite Character Dinner