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...

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[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?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[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...:D
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[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.

[DisneyKidds]

Actually Disney had ‘Lord of the Rings’ in development at Miramax.

It is too bad that ME dropped the ball as The Disney Company could have used the franchise. However, is the fact that Disney chose Miramax to develop the film kind of indicative that it wasn't 'Disney' fare. How many rides do you think you would ever see in a Disney park that are based on a Miramax film? (assuming Disney doesn't sell out to the thrill ride contingent)

[YoHo]

Disney didn't choose Miramax, Jackson did.

This is not the Debate board and I don't want to turn it into one, but a few points.
1) Tolkien was a Devoute Catholic.
2) The Lord of the Rings is in large part based on Myths and Ledgends of the ancient European peoples.
3) Tolkien's Good Friend C.S. Lewis wrote the Narnia books which contain much magic that are also based in biblical lessons. Lewis is preached at many pulpits to this day.


I would really suggest widening your outlook on these stories. There is more to them then simple Magic and Sorcery. But Again, I would never do more then ask or suggest such a thing.

DisneyKidds, out of curiousity, what is your stance on the Haunted mansion (in light of your opinions on HP and LOTR) I remember a couple years ago big debates going on in Rumours and news and the Debate board about the Evils of the Haunted mansion.

[larworth]

I'm a fan of both works.

The LOTR has so many good versus evil clashes I wonder if there is any single one which will resonate enough with the public to build a ride around. Would the franshise be doomed to a single attraction with some confrontation and defeat of Sauron as the main story. Trying to go from beginning to end in one 5 minute ride seems be impossible. I know alot of people who had problems keeping up with the movie.

Each of the HP books really has one major conflict. Any one of these events could be the subject of a good versus evil based attraction. Quidditch is another obvious basis for an experience. A dark ride around Hogswarth also seems viable.

LOTR has more depth as a story, but somehow seems less amenable to building attractions around???

[DisneyKidds]

I would really suggest widening your outlook on these stories. There is more to them then simple Magic and Sorcery.

You are right - I probably should, at least before I comment on them too much. However, I have never let my ignorance stop me before ;). All I know of these is what comes across in the advertising, merchandising, book covers, video games, etc. The general perception I take away hasn't drawn me to these works as they do not appear to be subject matter we are particularly interested in.

Haunted Mansion? Not a ride we frequent. Not because we are religious prudes who get turned off by ghosts and spirits (ok - maybe a little), but more so because we don't feel it is appropriate for our kids. Even before kids we rarely rode.

[YoHo]

LOTR has more depth as a story, but somehow seems less amenable to building attractions around???

SORIN OVER SAURON SOARIN OVER SAURON SORIN OVER SAURON!!!


DK, I understand, I must admit, in the debate I referenced, I was surprised that there were people actually phiscally afraid of the words of Madam Liota and some of the occult references. I don't feel bad when I say that it never occured to take these things as real. But I respect others views on them.

I respectfully suggest however that the Appeal of books like LotR and HP is selfevident. Especially in this day and Age. Fantasy has Sky Rocketed since Tolkien virtually invented its modern form and shows no signs of weakening.

Be afraid though, Its possible that we could end up with Dungeons&Dragons based attractions as Disney hunts about for a cheap alternative to LotR and HP, and That more then these books has questionable Sword and Sorcery backgrounds.

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by YoHo

Be afraid though, Its possible that we could end up with Dungeons&Dragons based attractions as Disney hunts about for a cheap alternative to LotR and HP, and That more then these books has questionable Sword and Sorcery backgrounds.

Most... if not all of the D&D was borrwed from Tolkien. They have since expanded on it though.

[YoHo]

Actually D&D comes from a variety of sources and Tolkien is only one of them. Most of it comes from the old Sword and Sorcery novels and Tolkien is absolutly not Swords and Sorcery.

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
The general perception I take away hasn't drawn me to these works as they do not appear to be subject matter we are particularly interested in.


Speaking only about Harry Potter, I felt the same way. I don't like sci-fi and sorcery, it has never interested me. But these books are about so much more than the advertising has made them out to be, and more than the christian groups have made them out to be.

Something to keep in mind: the books were written for kids. The advertising campaign is targeted towards the audience that the author was writing for. Saying that the books are about relationships and coming-of-age would NOT entice kids to read them.

They are tremendous books, and very quick reads at that. I finished all four books (including the 700+ page 4th novel) in about a month.

If anybody can make great attractions out of these novels and movie(s), it's Disney, and using them, they can most definitely conquer more than one of the "groups" they need. Slow, special-effects-intense dark rides, as well as thrill rides. (For those who have read them, how about a roller coaster that goes through the Gringotts vaults?!)

DK, we have our differences about resorts, but I'd highly reccomend that you check out at least the first two novels. The first one is simply introductory to the rest of the series, so it's not as good as the later ones, but the second one is amazing.

[EUROPA]

...I'll rephrase what I said but will not go into great detail and show my geekness...I played D&D for many years though.


Here is the list which D&D was based on. There are several things that were in the Hobbit or the Ring Tiliogy that was added to D&D but most of the characters were drawn from Tolkien

http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq7.html#I2


Anderson, Poul. Three Hearts and Three Lions; The High Crusade; The Broken Sword
Bellairs, John. The Face in the Frost
Burroughs, Edgar Rice. Pellucidar series; Mars series; Venus series
Carter, Lin. World's End series
de Camp, L. Sprague. Lest Darkness Fall; Fallible Fiend
de Camp, L. Sprague, and Fletcher Pratt. Harold Shea series; Carnelian Cube
Farmer, Philip Jose. The World of the Tiers series
Fox, Gardner. Kothar series; Kyrik series
Howard, Robert E. Conan series
Lanier, Sterling. Hiero's Journey
Lieber, Fritz. Fafhrd & Gray Mouser series [a.k.a. Lankhmar series]
Lovecraft, H.P. Cthulhu series
Merritt, A. Creep, Shadow, Creep; Moon Pool; Dwellers in the Mirage
Moorcock, Michael. Stormbringer, Stealer of Souls; Hawkmoon series
Offutt, Andrew J., ed. Swords Against Darkness III
Pratt, Fletcher. Blue Star
Saberhagen, Fred. Changeling Earth
St. Clair, Margaret. The Shadow People; Sign of the Labrys
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Hobbit; Ring trilogy
Vance, Jack. The Eyes of the Overworld; The Dying Earth
Zelazny, Roger. Jack of Shadows; Amber series


Here is the history on D&D if anyone is intrested...

http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq3.html

[DisneyKidds]

Be afraid though, Its possible that we could end up with Dungeons&Dragons based attractions as Disney hunts about for a cheap alternative to LotR and HP, and That more then these books has questionable Sword and Sorcery backgrounds.

Perhaps I have always thought about LotR and HP along these lines (kind of watered down D&D). They probably are not - but seems they might have something in common. Yoho and Snacky are right, I should find out for myself. My train time is my own time, as they say - but I am using it to read Disney books right now.

Funny thing about being afraid of D&D. A long time ago I, too, played D&D. It was quite fun, but that is all it was and we didn't take it seriously. Some people carry things too far though.

[fabdisbabe]

Fantasy, Schmantasy.

I can't stand SciFi/Fantasy. Zzzzz.

Loved Harry Potter. Why? Good storytelling.

Fab

[cleo]

While you're widening your outlook on HP and LOTR, you may also want to look into the original versions of many of our beloved fairy tales. In their original forms, many if not most were quite pornographic by today's standards. The brother's Grimm cleaned them up when they introduced them to Victorian audiences and then of course, Disney made them...well...Disney. Pale, sweet renditions of very earth tales--which, by the way, were also filled with 'magic'.

Quite the loss, really. The shards of a shattered diamond may still sparkle, but you've lost the true value of the full and complete gem.