Harry Potter theme park rights?

[HauntedMansionFan]

Does anyone know who owns the theme park rights to Harry Potter? I've heard a ton of different stories, that Warner Brothers still has control, Disney now has them, Warner Brothers is licensing it out to Six Flags for their US parks, etc, etc....

Any thoughts?

[AnNaNiCoLe]

Most likely SIX FLAGS due to the fact that those are Warner Bros. parks and Harry Potter is a Warner Bros. film. Not at ALL sure, though.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by HauntedMansionFan
Does anyone know who owns the theme park rights to Harry Potter? I've heard a ton of different stories, that Warner Brothers still has control, Disney now has them, Warner Brothers is licensing it out to Six Flags for their US parks, etc, etc....

Any thoughts?
Warner Bros. Parks has them. In Australia last year, at Warner Bros park on the Sun Coast, there was an entire Harry Potter 'land', with Diagon Alley and several other areas from the books/films brought to life. To my knowledge, they have not been leased out to Six Flags. Disney definitely does not have them.

:earsboy:

[manning]

And Eisner took a pass on Harry Potter.

One thing about Walt, he wasn't afraid to take a risk now and then.

[Lewisc]

A few years ago I read Universal had the rights to HP and LOR. About a year ago the rumor was Disney had the rights.

There seems to be some question as to if the rights belong to Rowlings (the book) or with Warner Brothers (the movie). I even read somewhere that it's possible both have the rights to license HP for theme park use. That would certainly account for the delay.

[jlambrig]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
Warner Bros. Parks has them. In Australia last year, at Warner Bros park on the Sun Coast, there was an entire Harry Potter 'land', with Diagon Alley and several other areas from the books/films brought to life. To my knowledge, they have not been leased out to Six Flags. Disney definitely does not have them.

WB has the rights for Australia alone, has nothing to do with any other country or the ability to have an HP land here. Rowlings still controls the rights for everything else. The only thing stopping Disney is Disney.

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by manning
And Eisner took a pass on Harry Potter.

At least that was one smart move he did. I would hate to see at HP attraction or themed land.

[manning]

At least that was one smart move he did. I would hate to see at HP attraction or themed land.

Sure was a heck of a price to pay!!

[BRERALEX]

One thing about Walt, he wasn't afraid to take a risk now and then.

what it even a risk? I mean HP is so loved throughout the world the books were proven to be gold. Its just stupid.

LOTR yeah ould have been a risk giving an unknown director all that loot. CSI would have been a risk noone knew if a jerry bruckheimer 'show' could create ratings but passing on Harry was just dumb.

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
what it even a risk? I mean HP is so loved throughout the world the books were proven to be gold. Its just stupid.
Well Harry Potter is kind of a fad, will he still be remembered years after the movie franchise and books have died out?

[mizlady]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
what it even a risk? I mean HP is so loved throughout the world the books were proven to be gold. Its just stupid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Harry Potter is kind of a fad, will he still be remembered years after the movie franchise and books have died out?


__________________
Since JKR is now talking about writing about harry in college and the fad continues, I guess we will get to see what happens when the fad dies out in another 5 or six year. ( The way shes putting out the books it will be more like in another 10 or 12 years)

[BRERALEX]

Well Harry Potter is kind of a fad, will he still be remembered years after the movie franchise and books have died out?

A fad? hmmm fads usually don't last this long.

Sorcerers stone did 975.8 worldwide

chamber did 869.4 worldwide

November 17, 2003
Harry Potter sales reach 250 million worldwide
LONDON, Nov 17 (Reuters) - The world's most famous boy wizard set a new record on Monday -- sales of the Harry Potter books have hit a quarter of a billion.

Rowling's agent, Christopher Little, told Reuters worldwide sales of the first five books have now reached 250 million.

They have been sold in more than 200 countries and translated into 60 languages, ranging from Gujarati to Ancient Greek. The latest, launched in India this month, was in Hindi.



doesnt sound like a fad. Actually hasnt harry been out long enough to not be considered a fad. there are hundreds of websites devoted to harry. Plus hasnt she said she may continue to write more books after harry graduates hogwarts
J.K. Rowling Hints at More 'Harry Potter'
Thu Mar 4, 7:42 PM ET


LONDON - Harry Potter (news - web sites) may be set to grow up. Writer J.K. Rowling (news - web sites) hinted Thursday that she may not stop at seven books about the adventures of the young wizard and may write a further installment featuring the adult Harry.
In a live Web chat to mark World Book Day, Rowling — who has always insisted she'll write only seven Potter books — was asked by a fan if she intended to write books about Harry after he leaves Hogwarts, the academy for wizards.


"Probably not. But I'll never say never because every time I do I immediately break the vow," she replied.


Rowling, whose wealth was recently estimated at $1 billion, is writing the sixth Potter book. The most recent installment is "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix."


"I can't say when it will be released because that's down to my publishers," she said. "But it's going really well. I am loving writing it."


She promised the latest book would include more romance for the boy wizard, but hinted he would also face a terrible ordeal. She added that she planned to try a "completely different genre" of writing when she has finished the seventh book, but did not specify.


More than 16,000 Potter fans submitted questions during the hour-long discussion.

Plus she won book of the year five times in a row from USA TODAY Best-Selling Books.

Sorry i love me harry

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by manning
And Eisner took a pass on Harry Potter.

One thing about Walt, he wasn't afraid to take a risk now and then.
That's SO easy to say in hindsight.

:earsboy:

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
A fad? hmmm fads usually don't last this long.

Sorcerers stone did 975.8 worldwide

chamber did 869.4 worldwide


And the next ones up are expected to bring in less. Because people are realizing that the magic of the books is in the books. I love the Harry Potter books .... don't much like the Harry Potter movies. When I saw Sorcerer's Stone, I wanted to be amazed and delighted. But it was like watching someone read me the book. A scene would happen and you could almost hear the pages turning and someone saying, "OK ... chapter two ..." And I'd be sitting there thinking, "But you didn't show ...." or "Wait -- what about .... " There wasn't anything in the films that was more amazing than what my imagination had painted from the books. Even the Quidditch matches, for as wonderful as they were from a special effects standpoint, were somehow less than I'd imagined them. I saw Sorcerer's Stone the week it came out. I saw Chamber a couple of days before it left the first-run theatres. I don't imagine I'll see any of the others ... maybe I'll rent the DVD or something. But I'd much rather just read the books.

As for longevity -- the books will be around a long time, and I think end up as classics like the Narnia Chronicles. The films? I don't think so. And the Harry Potter merchandise -- action figures, LEGO kits, etc -- not doing well at all.

:earsboy:

[BRERALEX]

And the next ones up are expected to bring in less. Because people are realizing that the magic of the books is in the books.

But i dont think thats why i think its because they are tryin tto release one movie almost every year, and every year at hogwarts the books got bigger. I don;t know how POA is gonna be made into a 2 hour movie the book had too much in it.

A scene would happen and you could almost hear the pages turning and someone saying, "OK ... chapter two ..."

You could definatly see the actors mouthing each others lines.

the books will be around a long time, and I think end up as classics like the Narnia Chronicles.

which is what im trying to say, Hp is not a fad.

[manning]

That's SO easy to say in hindsight.

Risk is part of the equation. Something Eisner is now afraid to do. Without risk the company is ..... well where it is now.

Risk is where the big payoffs are. You have to know how and when to take them. It won't be 100 percent. That's why it's called risk. Like baseball, you don't swing the bat, you don't have any chances for a home run.

Do your research. Walt took some risks. If he didn't, you wouldn't be where your at right now. There wouldn't be a Walt Disney World.

[wtg2000]

That's SO easy to say in hindsight. Harry and Rings were pretty much no brainers. Instead Eisner opted for Reign of Fire - one of the worst movies in recent memory, the Titanic-ripped off Pearl Harbor, and the seven-years-too-late-to-jump on the Jurassic Park bandwagon Dinosaur. Of course, prior to Eisner Disney passed on Star Wars and tried to catch up with The Black Hole so it's nothing new. Reports said that Eisner complained that JK Rowling wanted too much money. I guess he was afraid she'd cut into his bonus.

Harry Potter a fad? Let's face it. Mickey Mouse would have been a fad if not kept alive in the Disney theme parks. Same goes for many other Disney characters. Any drop off in Harry box office can be attributed to the fact that kids know they can get it on DVD and don't need to return to the theatre for multiple viewings.

[manning]

Reports said that Eisner complained that JK Rowling wanted too much money.

Eisner also said it was too much money to build Splash Mountain and couldn't afford to build it. Thank goodness Frank Wells was still around. He said they couldn't afford not to build it.

[AnNaNiCoLe]

STOP FIGHTING!!!

[WDSearcher]

Anna Nicole ... there is a difference between fighting and having a conversation where not all the parties agree. Nothing in anyone's tone has been mean or cruel, and there is no name-calling or nastiness. We are simply having a discussion. If it makes you uncomfortable that we do not all agree, then just bypass this topic and move on to something else.


:earsboy:

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Harry and Rings were pretty much no brainers.
If they were no-brainers, then why did other studios turn them down as well? Disney was not the only studio who said no. Plus ... there's no indication that the films, had they been made at Disney, would have been the same blockbusters they were. Harry Potter, I'd like to believe, would have been better. LOTR would, I fear, have been less. And if we're going to talk about people making sure that their pockets are lined, let's talk about JK Rowling. Yes ... she wrote some amazing books and she should be compensated. But check out her rate for a personal appearance sometime. The woman is more expensive than Oprah.

:earsboy:

[wtg2000]

If they were no-brainers, then why did other studios turn them down as well? Are we even sure about this? I would imagine that someone has held the film rights to LOTR for some time. The books have been around for years. Whenever a movie is a hit, stories abound about how every other studio turned them down - as if the studio that produced the movie was the one true light. More often I think it's a case of which studio makes the best offer.

In the case of Harry and Rings - Warner Bros. appears to have made the best offer. (Rings is New Line which I believe is Warner Bros.) Hmmm. The world's biggest entertainment company makes movies based on two of the best selling series of books of all time. Coincidence?

Saying the other studios all turned them down makes it sound like they all went, "Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings. No one will want to see them on the big screen. What else have you got?" I would imagine there was a war to get these properties with perhaps some studios not being able to fund them. Disney was at the time spending similar budgets on much riskier products. Where was the risk with Harry? The first film's budget was covered completely with a soft drink deal!

You are right though that Lord of the Rings may have turned out very differently in different hands.

What is JK's rate for a personal appearance? She's worth over a billion dollars and her time is incredibly valuable. I'm sure she's going to pop out for appearances for nothing.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Saying the other studios all turned them down makes it sound like they all went, "Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings. No one will want to see them on the big screen. What else have you got?"
Not at all. Look at how wonderful the Harry Potter books are and how kids are nuts about them. They know every in and out and can recite spells and incantations in their sleep. They walk around with Hogwarts crests on their notebooks and make wizard costumes for Halloween. Then think about putting that on film and getting it right. Look at how much Warner Bros. paid for it, and I don't like the films at all ... I don't think they did the books justice. As a studio, I imagine it's hard to look at something like the Harry Potter books, knowing how high the expectations are and how much money is going to have to be put into them for special effects alone, and say, "Oh yeah ... we can make this up in box office easily." As it turned out, Warner Bros. didn't do badly. But that certainly doesn't mean that any other studio would have fared as well.

LOTR, on the other hand, was probably a sight easier. You still have high expectations, but the books hadn't been a huge part of the public consciousness for a while. Always on the periphery, but not center stage like Harry Potter. But still ... when you consider that you're buying a trilogy -- and in Disney's case, live-action fantasy had never been anything the studio had truly excelled at -- that's alot of money going out on a multi-year commitment.

Looking back now, of course, we can all say "Disney should have gotten those!" Hopefully, Disney's response will be Narnia.

:earsboy:

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by manning
Risk is part of the equation. Something Eisner is now afraid to do. Without risk the company is ..... well where it is now.

Risk is where the big payoffs are. You have to know how and when to take them. It won't be 100 percent. That's why it's called risk. Like baseball, you don't swing the bat, you don't have any chances for a home run.

Do your research. Walt took some risks. If he didn't, you wouldn't be where your at right now. There wouldn't be a Walt Disney World.
Bringing Down the House was a risk (Steve Martin and Queen Latifah in a romantic comedy?) -- that one paid off in quadruplicate. Lilo & Stitch was a risk (2-D animation in a post-Shrek world?) -- that one paid off too. Even Pearl Harbor was a risk. That one just didn't pay off. (Well ... it cost $200m and took in $198m, so it was close.) So to say that Walt took risks and Michael didn't simply because Disney turned down LOTR and HP isn't telling the whole story. As you've said ... do your research.

My point about hindsight is that if LOTR hadn't made the money it did, no one would be saying, "Gee ... should have taken the risk." It's easy to criticize someone for not grabbing something after you already know it's successful.

:earsboy:

[wtg2000]

Bringing Down the House only had a budget of $33 million and odd couple comedies have always been pretty safe. Lilo and Stich wasn't a risk but just the next animated feature in a long line.

When I first heard about Pearl Harbor I didn't like the idea. Same for Dinosaur and Reign of Fire. When I first heard about LOTR I thought "what took them so long?" I thought it would be a massive hit, especially after seeing one preview. Pearl Harbor I didn't see as a hit but it did better than I thought. I also didn't think Pirates would be a big hit, but that was before I saw how good the movie was, that it wasn't just a lame attempt to cash in on the ride.

Miramax had the rights to LOTR but had a budget cap that Eisner would not lift. If these executives receive millions of dollars in compensation to make these decisions then they can be criticized!

The poor excuse is that "we had no idea at the time that Star Wars would be such a hit." Gee, then why were people lined up around the block on opening day. Same for Harry and LOTR. It's not like it took weeks for the audience to be prodded into the theatre.

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by wtg2000
When I first heard about Pearl Harbor I didn't like the idea. Same for Dinosaur and Reign of Fire. When I first heard about LOTR I thought "what took them so long?" I thought it would be a massive hit....For God's sake, get yourself a job at Disney! They need someone with your prescient abilities!

[wtg2000]

For God's sake, get yourself a job at Disney! They need someone with your prescient abilities! It's simply being a consumer.

For example, in 2000 I had to decide to spend my vacation money for a trip to Tokyo Disney Sea or Disney's California Adventure. I looked over the specs for both parks. The decision was easy. I went to Tokyo. Now, TDS is a big hit and critically praised, whereas DCA isn't. Does that give me clairvoyant abilitiies? Of course not. I'm simply a consumer and I know what I like. I'm wondering if many Disney execs these days think like consumers. Remember Bill Murray in Caddyshack? Think like the gopher!

[raidermatt]

At $33 million, Bringing Down the House was not much of a risk. More of safe oddball comedy at wtg2000 said.

Pearl Harbor was a risk in $$$'s, but was done in a formulaic way. The special effects, cast, and marketing budget meant it had little risk of being a colossal box office failure.

Calling Disney 2D animation a 'risk' above and beyond the risks necessary to survive in the entertainment world is questionable. Disney's entire animated strategy is a mess right now.

I'm not very familiar with the specifics of the Potter negotiations, but Disney had LOTR in their lap. They weren't one of many studios on equal footing who all passed. They had it, and let it go.

Its not that there are individual stories of risks not taken, or more accurately, judgement mistakes made, that is the problem. Every studio/network has these. Its that Disney is missing more often than they hit in later years. At least the studios are up and down... the network is just down.

Plus ... there's no indication that the films, had they been made at Disney, would have been the same blockbusters they were.
And that's also part of the problem.

[crusader]

The world's biggest entertainment company makes movies based on two of the best selling series of books of all time. Coincidence?

Careful. WB is equally challenged.

Sure they took a risk on the trilogy and Jackson's brilliance paid off so where is he now? Making a movie for Universal.

That's Hollywood!

I hope you will agree that Pirates was a risk.

Not every big budget film pays off domestically. You really have to consider the worldwide box office before you start to criticize a film's success. Many Disney films were very profitable - including Pearl Harbor (252 mil internationally) and Dinosaur (218 mil internationally) despite the U.S. response. Both are impressively ranked on a global scale.

http://www.moviemarshal.com/boxworld.html

It's really not all about us.

[YoHo]

Pirates became a risk when it went from small budget to big budget.

You people forget that Disney HAD LOTRs. Miramax did the initial development work. They optioned out, because Harvey wanted it as two pictures and Mike would only do it in one.
Jackson took his nerds and moved to somewhere that would let him do it right.
Harvey and Bob still get money out of the LOTR deal even.

What I've heard is that Disney doesn't have the rights yet, but that they have been developing an attraction already.

[BRERALEX]

for a movie that was supposed to be of such magnitude and substance 42 alltime worldwide isnt that good. wasn't this suposed to be the next Titanic?

dino #82 that was hard to find

[crusader]

#42 alltime is pretty good for this movie when you consider over 150 films are released every year. If you want to criticize the hype then go right ahead but you really can't refer to it as anything less than a success at the boxoffice.

#82 for Dinosaur deserves a round of applause.

YoHo - I believe Jackson wanted over 600 mil upfront as part of the deal and no less than a three picture commitment. That is very rare in Hollywood and many suitors turned him down. He had two days left on the rights to secure something before WB inked it. This was almost every studio's loss.

[YoHo]

Well, I hadn't heard the 600mil bit. I mainly heard that HArvey was pushing for this pick, but wanted to do it in two. Jackson was okay with that.

Eisner said 1 or nothing.

[BRERALEX]

#82 for Dinosaur deserves a round of applause.

Havent even seen it since it didn't get my attention and probably never will. It deserves a round of applause cause it did so well? didnt they get rid of the cgi department entirely? surely if it was a surefire hit they would have kept pumping out dinosaurs. even Lilo and stitch had a sequal even Treasure Planet had a sequal. I hate the sequals but darn even dino aint get one.

[crusader]

600 mil seems high. I've got to go back and check on that one. But the three movie deal vs two may have been a major concession on Jackson's part probably due to the clock ticking.

I guess the Towers would be split under Harvey's proposal. How many here would have heavily criticized that move given the resounding success of these films?

How did Disney wind up with a cut anyway?

[BRERALEX]

Towers is my favorite. ROTK has alot of problems with it i like Towers beginning to end. Its my empire strikes back.


How did Disney wind up with a cut anyway?

i thought just the Weinsteins* get a cut not disney.

[raidermatt]

Because of Disney's actions, you're in a no-win scenario with Dinosaur. If you consider it a success, it just makes the decision to stop doing "CGI" all the more boneheaded. (A decision that has since been reversed)

#42 all-time isn't bad, but you also have to factor in the budget (including marketing), which I'm quite sure would be higher than #42 all-time.


On LOTR and Jackson, I've read in several places that they had an agreement with Miramax to do 2 movies, but Miramax needed
Disney's approval. Disney said nope, only one movie.

Jackson was given a deadline and was told if he could get somebody else to make the deal he wanted, he could go with them. 1 or 2 days before the deadline, New Line came on board and asked why they were only doing 2 movies when there are three books. So Jackson got his deal before the deadline, with the Weinsteins retaining executive producer credits, and getting a nice check...in effect, a buyout.

Not that I believe everything I read of course, but I haven't read anything that says Jackson was demanding a 3 pic deal. I think he WANTED a 3 pic deal, but had essentially agreed with Miramax on the 2 pic deal.

[raidermatt]

I guess the Towers would be split under Harvey's proposal. How many here would have heavily criticized that move given the resounding success of these films?
In retrospect, of course.

The point here is that NL/WB showed the most "vision". Miramax didn't see the full potential, but did see a portion of it (or perhaps they simply knew they would never get approval for more than 2 pics). Eisner was in a windowless room with the lights out.

[BRERALEX]

#42 all-time isn't bad, but you also have to factor in the budget (including marketing), which I'm quite sure would be higher than #42 all-time.

Production Budget: $140 million
Est. Marketing Costs: $70 million

but that doesnt include the backend which of course bruckheimer probably had a nice piece of and maybe bennifer too

[crusader]

surely if it was a surefire hit they would have kept pumping out dinosaurs.

I think the bar was set too high vs. Lion King and that move hurt the in-house animation development.

Enter the Pixar regime.

The irony is that overall, Disney still profited. The tragedy is that it came at the expense of the one division predominantly responsible for this company's leadership in family entertainment.

I think they can safely argue that the market was there even for a movie of this caliber. They just failed to implement change within their own company. It that due to Eisner, Roy or both?

[YoHo]

I don't know that Miramax Profited. I assumed that As exec producers the company gets a cut. Similar to a contracting firm gets a cut on the contractor's salaries.

[VintageKnight]

just a heads up..

to this day starwars is a joke....every critic hates it yet the public loves it. the movies do suck, but i'll still pay to go see them everytime there re-released...

an early poster said it was a hit off the top... it took 2 yrs for it to get were it did and a stunningly new type of toy line from kenner toys to get the kids to get there parents to go see it time after time, it was the late seventies "titanic". starwars was still in theaters when empire came out in some areas of this country.. only in the last 20 years have films only been in theaters for maybe 6 months then go to video ( vhs only popped up in numbers in the early eighties)

if disney had any options on starwars, at the time they were correct in passing it buy.


DisneyVK

[wtg2000]

to this day starwars is a joke....every critic hates Leonard Maltin gives it 3 1/2 stars out of four. It was nominated for Best Picture, and well received by many other critics. an early poster said it was a hit off the top... it took 2 yrs for it to get were it didIt was lined up for blocks on opening day without the huge publicity budgets films receive today. The toys came out when they realized what a massive hit the movie was. if disney had any options on starwars, at the time they were correct in passing it buy. Huh?

[Planogirl]

If you look up Star Wars at boxofficemojo you'll see that the movie took off like a juggernaut almost immediately. I think that Disney made a huge error bypassing this if they actually had the chance to grab it.

[YoHo]

First of all, Star Wars invented the Event movie.
Prior to Star Wars, movies had to be in and out of theaters for Decades to make that kind of money.
Star Wars changed all that.

Now, nobody lined up on the first day, people just didn't do it back then, but after the first week, it was a certifiable phenoma.

But, at the same time, you can't blame Disney for missing the boat. Fox didn't think much of the project either that's why they gave Lucas so many of the rights. Lucas only made the film because of the success of American Grafitti. NOBODY in hollywood expected what it became.

[VintageKnight]

I've been paraphrased...=D

nominations happen after a film has been released, critics jumped on the band wagon after it came out when the fans refused to listen to them.

starwars would have been stuck on the theater floor if it hadnt been for everything they invented ( special effects etc) that no one knew of... the film company didnt know what they were passing up...thus the good decision (not with 20/20 hindsite ) to pass on it....

I am an avid starwars fan, you dont have to prove things to me... but get the facts straight before just thinking what happened for episode one happened in 76 when it first came out.. the media just wasnt into it back then.... the hype was not there, the money wasnt there...

Yes, fox took a monumental risk in letting starwars be made.. and with out the special effects, flash gordon would have been a better film ( that said with chills going up my spine while starting to seizure.....)

Im rambling... later...


DisneyVK

[wtg2000]

but get the facts straight before just thinking what happened for episode one happened in 76 when it first came out.. the media just wasnt into it back then.... the hype was not there, the money wasnt there... The movie Star Wars was released in 1977. But anyway. Get what facts straight? Who's said the releases of Star Wars IV and I were the same?

To say it was good to pass on it because it didn't look like a hit doesn't make sense. They get paid to find the next big thing. It's easy to pick out the tried and true.

Ask yourself this: If George Lucas had approached Walt Disney himself do you think Walt would have said no? Walt - whom everyone said would strike out everytime he stepped up to the plate?

This is from The Best of Disney by Neil Sinyard: "A year rarely went by when he (Walt) was not trying out something different and innovative in one of his films...(regarding 20,000 Leagues) Most sci-fi film historians give credit to Disney's film for elevating the status of the sci-fi movie."

Ironic that this same company after Walt had left turned down the biggest sci-fi series of all time. It's too bad they hadn't asked themselves: What would Walt have done?

[YoHo]

I'm a Star Wars fan to saw it in 77 (granted, I was 2) and your initial statement is disingenuous. Star Wars was a risk and you can't blame Disney for passing on it, but it didn't take Two years to become a success, it took a single week.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by YoHo
I'm a Star Wars fan to saw it in 77 (granted, I was 2) ...
I was a junior.


In college.


Feeling old now ...... :faint:

[Rence]

Star Wars did not take two years to take off. It was huge from the start. One of the first movies to become that type of phenomenon.

The movie opened May 25th 1977. I was a college student in Montana. A week or two after it opened Time did a piece on this huge movie, Star Wars and how lines were forming around the block. Right after that I was driving cross country to return home. I stopped in the Twin Cities for the night and on the news they were showing the lines at the theaters for Star Wars and interviewing people standing in line who had already seen it a dozen times.

After getting home I took my girl friend to see it. We had seen the news and read the news articles. She was on crutches from a knee operation. We packed lawn chairs and waited in line for 4 hours to see the movie. This was all within the first month of release.

No one expected Star Wars to be that big, but it was big and it happened fast and caught everyone off guard.

[fella]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
Warner Bros. Parks has them. In Australia last year, at Warner Bros park on the Sun Coast, there was an entire Harry Potter 'land', with Diagon Alley and several other areas from the books/films brought to life. To my knowledge, they have not been leased out to Six Flags. Disney definitely does not have them.

:earsboy:
Gold Coast actually...i can confirm that at least in Australia WB. Has control...and i cant imagine them selling it to their closest compeditor!