Universal Domination?

[EUROPA]

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/archives/singles/universal.html

Jim Hill latest article on Universal and Disney...

Found this intresting...

Speaking of Peter Jackson: Here's one reason that Disney's infamous Imagineers envy the folks at Universal Creative: Universal has the theme park rights to use all of J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" characters to build new shows and rides around. And here's another reason why Mickey gets jealous whenever anyone ever brings up Universal: You know J.K. Rowling's highly popular "Harry Potter" series. Universal Studios has the theme park rights to all of those characters as well

 

[YoHo]

Why does Universal have the rights to Either of those? they are both Warner Products, shouldn't they go to Six Flaggs?

If DIsney wanted Harry Potter or LotR rides, they should have bought the movie rights.

 

[Captain Crook]

Disney would have liked Harry Potter. ME was very upset that they didn't have a chance to bid on them. Universal outsmarted him and negotiated a deal with JK Rowling without any other bids being taken...

 

[DisneyKidds]

I think one of Disney's film distributors could have handled LotR or Harry Potter, but I don't know that I see these as 'Disney' fare and am not sure they would make for 'Disney' rides. Too much sorcery and fantasy, and not the Fantasyland like fantasy if you know what I mean. Yeah, I know, The Sorcerors Apprentice - but this was a Mickey cartoon, not 'real' sorcery. Maybe it's just that we are not fans of LotR or Harry Potter.

 

[YoHo]

DisneyKidds, the Black Cauldron was based on Loyyd Alexander's work which was heavily influenced by Tolkien. So, in fact they do have ties to that kind of fantasy.

 

[Captain Crook]

Does the Black Cauldron seem like a genre Disney should be anxious to get back into?

 

[All Aboard]

Captain, I ask myself that question each and every day. More Gurgi, I say, more Gurgi! John Byner needs the work!

 

[YoHo]

Hey, it could be a great realm to be into, the problem is that The book of three is too little too late in 2002.

Unless they go live action...

 

[Sarangel]

At the risk of fanning the flames:

Too much sorcery and fantasy, and not the Fantasyland like fantasy if you know what I mean.

What about the sea witch in the Little Mermaid, the enchantress in Beauty & the Beast, the Genie in Aladdin, or even Tinkerbelle in Peter Pan and the Evil Queen in Snow White? Sorcery and Magic are Disney's stock and trade, winding in and out of a variety of their films.

The only real difference is that most of these are 'fairy tales' that have been around for a very long time, in one form or another. Harry Potter, especially, is just another type of fairy tale, just more recent. And, just to add to the mix, if you read Rowling, there's very little actual magic occuring in her books. Tolkein is a more elaborate 'fairy tale', again with little actual magic occurring in the storyline.

JMHO.

Sarangel

 

[Bob O]

Apparently disney doesnt want to be involved in succesful films like LOTR or Harry Potter which can easily be used for synergy, their favorite buzzword. I guess instead why Universal has these films to use as vehicles for rides/attractions disney can use films like Reign of Fire and Bad Company. Not to hard to see why will more than likely be more successful.

 

[Captain Crook]

Reread my post Bob...

 

[Planogirl]

I hardly think that the genre is that important anyway. When I look at MGM, I see a variety of stories many of which have little to do with the traditional Disney story.

I sure do wish that Disney could have done something with either one of these films. And I don't mean a spinner but a good dark ride would have been super.

 

[manning]

Hopefully Eisner will be smart and consider cutting his losses on ABC by selling it, and putting WDW in position to compete with Universal. Some other assets should probably be dumped. Let's get lean and mean, and I don't mean by downsizing people.

Isn't Diller the one who values others' input and puts good managers in place?

 

[DisneyKidds]

At the risk of fanning the flames:

Come on, isn't that what we are here for .

Most of the Disney features have a villain - they are essential to a good story. Good story is essential for good show - just ask Baron. However, I think that LotR and HP are different.

All the things you mention - yes, Ursula conjures up a potion, the witch poisons the apple, the enchantress casts the spell on Beast, Tinkerbell - well she is harmless. But look at them all - they are simply one element to the story. While there is sorcery and magic, it is limited - it serves an important purpose - but it is not the focus. Heck, the enchantress is back-story. In all the films you mention the focus is on romance, relationships, choices, morals and the like - with the sorcery and magic forcing some of those choices, but not acting as a main focus of the story. Does that make any sense?

How are LotR and HP different? Well, the sorcery and magic is THE story, or at least such an integral part that is continually seen and focused on. Sure, there may be romance, relationships, choices, morals - but at best (from my perspective) they are on equal footing with the sorcery and magic, at worst they are secondary. To me it is classic fairy tale vs. new age lore. The classic fairy tale appeal to the masses - the new age lore doesn't.

Another thing that represents a big difference. In the films you mention it is the villain that performs the sorcery and the magic. In LotR and HP it is the hero - heck, it is everybody. That just doesn't seem 'Disney' to me.

Ah - what do I know? Baron likes to point out I don't have a clue what 'Disney' is. If he comes to play on this thread I'm sure I'll get an ear full - he likes LotR and HP.

 

[JCO]

DisneyKidds:

"The classic fairy tale appeal to the masses - the new age lore doesn't."

I wouldn't call Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter new age lore, but it sure seems to me they appeal to the masses. Book sales and movie receipts prove that. LOTR has been around for decades and has staying power. We'll see if Harry Potter does, but I think it will.
I think they will also be very popular attractions at Universal theme parks.

I believe Disney would love to have the opportunity to base rides on either property, but maybe not?

True, there would be a fundamentalist element up in arms about basing attractions on magic use, but those factions are already mad at Disney over a myriad of other issues — and many have already boycotted Disney. But that's another story.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I wouldn't call Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter new age lore, but it sure seems to me they appeal to the masses. Book sales and movie receipts prove that. LOTR has been around for decades and has staying power. We'll see if Harry Potter does, but I think it will.

Maybe new age lore isn't a good description - but I think you know what I'm trying to say. The whole magic thing in these works is a different kind of fantasy than the fantasy that Disney has made a living off of.

I agree, LotR and HP do appeal to an awful lot of people - to masses of people. However, when I say masses I mean that the Disney fairy tales have wider appeal. I guess it is a Disney core market issue. That core market is families. I think that LotR and HP do not appeal to all families, or as many families as the Disney fairy tales.

Not sure if I'm verbalizing this very well, but I'll do my best.

True, there would be a fundamentalist element up in arms about basing attractions on magic use, but those factions are already mad at Disney over a myriad of other issues

My wife an I are no fundementalists. We think the boycots and animosity toward Disney are rediculous. However, we are not into the whole magic thing that LotR and HP are about. I think there are a lot of families that might feel the same way. Not that there aren't tons of families that feel otherwise, but I think these works could divide the general Disney public somewhat. JMO and I could be wrong.

 

[Sarangel]

DisneyKidds said, regarding the storylines of HP & LotR:

Well, the sorcery and magic is THE story, or at least such an integral part that is continually seen and focused on.

Have you read these books? I've been racking my brains over both books & haven't been able to come up with any points at which magic is anything but tangentel to the story.

Harry Potter deals with a displaced boy (who lives with awful relatives) attending school, finding friendship and a sense of self, and who just happens to have a serious bad guy who wants Harry dead so that he can control the world.

Frodo in Lord of the Rings is your everyman placed in a situation where an object needs to be destroyed in order to save the world. And the story deals more with battles, travel, and heroism than sorcery.

I dunno, I suppose we should just chalk this up as 'diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.'

Sarangel

 

[DisneyKidds]

I dunno, I suppose we should just chalk this up as 'diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.'

You are right. The question becomes, of Disney's core market which strokes are more people into?

I'll admit ignorance on LotR and HP. All I know is what I see in the advertising, merchandising and video games. These are all much more sorcery and magic focused than the usual Disney stuff. They probably don't do the literature justice. However, when someone makes rides based on the works what do you think the focus will be on?

 

[BRERALEX]

i read all four books

Harry has almost nothing to do with magic and more with a boy growing up and his relationships with the people around him.

parents died, stepparents hate him. lots of fame, close friends, the magic is barely in the books at all. It's more about a displaced kid growing up. next movie we'll get to see how puberty affects the kids with their voices cracking lolol

LOTR is the same thing. I only read the hobbit and parts of "fellowship" and "two towers" (dreadful)but saw the movie 5 or 6 times. Gandlag the "wizard" does almost not magic or sorcery at all. I think Sarangel hit it right on the head, Frodo is your average joe just trying to the right thing

 

[Another Voice]

Actually Disney had ‘Lord of the Rings’ in development at Miramax. By “development”, I mean Peter Jackson wrote the screenplay, the costumes and sets were designed, the locations were scouted, and the construction was started on the props and weaponry all using Disney Dollars. The movie you saw are in every sense what you would have seen from Disney except for our good friend….

Harvey Weinstein, who runs Miramax, understands Disney and was intent on keeping costs down. While Peter Jackson wanted to do three movies (one for each book), Miramax pressured him into making only two. After some negotiating, they agreed. And then they all went to Burbank to get the check.

Michael Eisner looked at all the amazing storyboards, read the scripts, looked at the test footage and decided that the project was really wonderful and exactly what Disney was looking for. But only if they made only one movie for the entire trilogy and at for less money them just one of the planned two original films.

Mr. Jackson was furious and quit. Mr. Weinstein, not willing to face the wrath of Michael, gave up. A deal was struck that if Peter Jackson could find someone to buy ‘Lord of the Rings’ in thirty days, Disney would dump all the rights. It took one meeting between Mr. Jackson and New Line/Warner Brothers for them to agree to the deal.

As for Eisner’s “brilliant risk-adverse” strategy – the theatrical release from the first film has covered the production costs of the entire trilogy. The home video release, merchandising and the all the money that will be made from the other two movies are simply gravy. To pinch a penny, Eisner has lost a revenue stream that will pour cash for decades.


P.S. – "Magic” is nothing more than a metaphor for power and mystery.