Originally Posted by lockedoutlogic
If that's the case...and its been been repeatedly pretty frequently for the last five years...then maybe we're not looking at the reason WHY it happened that way...
Maybe Ms. Rowling decided to hold the hard line with the theme park "bully"...and then went to the softer compensation when she couldn't get a promise of both generous control of the product and a reasonable share of the profits?
Cause that's what disney is...a profit bully. And everybody knows it.
It's water under the bridge...but if i could lay claim to a franchise such s harry potter at its peak of popularity - then i'd be sure that my "one shot" that i had would score the biggest hit possible.
She probably would have liked to have disney do it...but not if they would insist on being in the sole drivers seat...as they always do.
Reportedly, she was worried that Disney would "A.A. Milne" her. So she took a tougher line. She also was not enamored with Eisner, in general (seems to be a common theme..a la Pixar). So she took a tougher stance.
I'm not sure you can blame Disney for not giving in. I don't think they could have made her demands work and still operate the place (and I don't mean just at a profit..but actually operationalize the things she was insisting on).
I likewise understand why Rowling went elsewhere, and took a slightly more considerate stance.