1 day after disney Universal annouces HP land details

[donaldduck352]

What bothers me is all the people saying Uni "stole" HP away from Disney. JK Rowling herself chose niversal over Disney. It was her decision. Both had a right to have some competition to get JK to give them the rigths, and Uni obviously blew her away or she would have given the go ahead to Disney.

You're so right.If Disney did it,it would be way to fluffy for adults to enjoy.Universal is not scared to push the envelope.I'm so glad that JK went with uni.

 

[picktails]

I don't believe for a minute that the passion for the Potter world is on it's way out. It's sure to be a classic series of books for many generations to come, because it is timeless. Think of all the beloved Disney stories that carry on in people's hearts!

I, for one, cannot wait to walk through those gates and experience the world of Harry Potter!!

 

[damo]

Just a minute. Why are we pitting one company against the other? Geez louise. It should just make people excited about what a great power competition is! New rides! Yay!!!!!

 

[DOOM1001]

Just a minute. Why are we pitting one company against the other? Geez louise. It should just make people excited about what a great power competition is! New rides! Yay!!!!!

I agree,I've always been for competition between the parks and I enjoy all of the parks for what they offer so I try not to compare parks,however one thing I do see in similarity is that both IOA and MK are both popular parks that in my opinion desperately needed not just a new ride,but a total refurbishing of at least a big portion of the parks,which is what they're both doing.An example is over at IOA which is a park that's heavily geared to outdoor rides,just last month I went and since it was raining with lightning pretty much every ride in the park was closed,same thing when it's cold in the winter not many people will be riding the three water rides,suddenly there's less for you to experience so a new major E-Ticket style ride like the Robocoaster Harry Potter ride will be huge especially since it will be indoors.At Magic Kingdom what they're doing is obviously more geared at the under 10 crowd,but with so many changes coming in such a big area of the park most adults will be intrigued as this park doesn't get many changes throughout the years.Now I'm not a big Harry Potter fan but when Universal is building a new castle and a what appears to be an incredibly themed area with restaurants and attractions like the new state of the art Robocoaster ride and Disney is adding another Dumbo ride (possibly Aladdins Carpets)with a Circus tent between them and the Little Mermaid ride which appears to be another Nemo style ride,it's no question,ADVANTAGE UNIVERSAL!!!

 

[Rip]

That was sort of my point. They announced the building a while ago, why the need to make this announcement the day after Disney announces a major upgrade to one of it's park? Ok so maybe I'm one of those conspiracies nuts.

Or is this an old article making a resurgence?

I hate to burst your bubble, but UO announced the date of this several weeks ago - before Disney decided to try to steal a little of their thunder with their announcement over the weekend.



Edit: I guess I should read the entire thread before responding, since this has already been pointed out.


BTW, I'm pretty sure that the agreement with Rowling stipulates that there must be some representation of every movie in WWHP. They have 2 movies coming out after the park opens, so it's likely that there will be additions to the area sooner rather than later.

 

[FloraFauna]

I don't believe for a minute that the passion for the Potter world is on it's way out. It's sure to be a classic series of books for many generations to come, because it is timeless. Think of all the beloved Disney stories that carry on in people's hearts!

I, for one, cannot wait to walk through those gates and experience the world of Harry Potter!!

This is so true. The Snow White and Cinderella movies are both over 50 years old, and people still love them. Same with Wizard of Oz.

Harry Potter will be around for a long time.

 

[MineMail]

I agree that Universal had this scheduled to catch people's attention for next year's vacation planners. When it was originally announced, way back when, the rumor mill thought it would be open for Fall 2009, not 2010. The HP rumor boards say that the date was pushed back to help continue the franchise (still two movies yet to come) and to help the construction timeline.

As much as I love Disney, I think JKR made the right choice. To me, the logical places to incorporate HP into WDW would be either as a ride at the Studios or as an add-on to the World Pavilion. I don't think that either option would give HP the same "enchantment" that the IOA park can provide with their themed area and multiple rides. Just mho.

I'd complain if the Imagineers added Disney characters, like they added Nemo to The Living Seas in Epcot. It's just cheesy. Hidden Mickeys would be okay, though.

ETA: The SnitchSeeker website said that the Universal contract with JKR has a clause that states the park MUST be open by June 30, 2010 or the contract is void. That's not to say that they couldn't sign a rider agreement that allows for a later date. The announced date of Spring 2010 shows they're keeping to the original contract for now. They also said that Universal spent five years just planning the HP attractions. That's promising.

I don't think that the HP fervor will disappear. The movies-only fans will go, but there are a lot of booklovers that will want to walk through the gates.

 

[damo]

I hate to burst your bubble, but UO announced the date of this several weeks ago - before Disney decided to try to steal a little of their thunder with their announcement over the weekend.



Edit: I guess I should read the entire thread before responding, since this has already been pointed out.


BTW, I'm pretty sure that the agreement with Rowling stipulates that there must be some representation of every movie in WWHP. They have 2 movies coming out after the park opens, so it's likely that there will be additions to the area sooner rather than later.

I understood it differently; that not just one book or movie was going to be represented but not that they all were going to be represented.

I think some people were talking about the ride being taken directly from one book and we were told that would not be the case.

 

[jade1]

See that's what we thought about the Fantasy land announcement. Big Whoo. Our kids are older so Fantasy land is no big news and Disney really hasn't any thing new for boys since, well they still don't have any thing for boys. The new fantasy land is still geared toward little princesses so we'll split our time and no matter what it will definitely always be cheaper than Disney.

We are in the same boat-however, with 3 kids around 20 now, I started thinking of grandkids . That will be a great addition when those days arrive. Especially staying at BLT.

 

[Rip]

I understood it differently; that not just one book or movie was going to be represented but not that they all were going to be represented.

I think some people were talking about the ride being taken directly from one book and we were told that would not be the case.

You may have the right of it, I can't remember where I read that now but it could have been a misunderstanding of the agreement.

 

[troobabiee7]

I love both Disney and Universal and am all for competition between the two since it's us who benefit. However, how in the world is Harry Potter already outdated? The books are modern classics that gots kids to read 700-page novels. There are still movies coming out, which my cousins (and even my 19 year old brother) are counting down to.

While I love Disney World, they're going to have some major competition on their hands when the Wizarding World of Harry Potter opens. And I just don't think that a Little Mermaid ride, based on a 1989 movie and a Broadway show that just tanked, is a more modern and advanced idea. I actually think it's a pretty bad idea. Shouldn't they be moving forward rather than just rehashing the same old, same old?

 

[SNylund]

I think Disney has had a history of copying Universal really, MGM studios to me was just their response to Universal, like hey we have a studio type park too, I know the official Disney line is that MGM was in the works before Universal, but I don't buy it, to me it looks like it was an answer to their only competition in Orlando at the time, now they are refurbing to keep up with what Universal is doing.

Doesn't really matter, I still will like and go to both parks. More the merrier, competition is good.

 

[Rip]

I think Disney has had a history of copying Universal really, MGM studios to me was just their response to Universal, like hey we have a studio type park too, I know the official Disney line is that MGM was in the works before Universal, but I don't buy it, to me it looks like it was an answer to their only competition in Orlando at the time, now they are refurbing to keep up with what Universal is doing.

Doesn't really matter, I still will like and go to both parks. More the merrier, competition is good.

Universal originally pitched the idea to Paramount in 1982. It didn't go through for various reasons, but do you want to guess who what the CEO of Paramount at the time?

Universal finally was able to go ahead with their plans a few years later, and the only reason that Disney got MGM opened first was because they got around the normal permitting process and barely had 1/2 day worth of attractions just to beat Universal.

Disney definitely got the idea of a movie park from Universal.

 

[xipetotec]

That was sort of my point. They announced the building a while ago, why the need to make this announcement the day after Disney announces a major upgrade to one of it's park? Ok so maybe I'm one of those conspiracies nuts.

Or is this an old article making a resurgence?

Well THIS announcement actually gave never revealed before attraction details and a better idea of when it will open.

 

[xipetotec]

Universal has had this pres conference planned for quiet a while. Press junket invites, etc went out well before disney announced anything. The Disney announcements at d23 were probably planned but Disney didn't hype D23 as a press conference/or big announcement they smartly used an audience and fan base that was already there to launch thier new plans. Score another one for Disney.

For what its worth, I love HP books and movies but we won't waste out time heading to Universal for it. One new ride is not worth the money and since (again IMO only) HP is on its way out in popularity in a few years I think you will be able to walk on those rides with no wait so why rush over w/ the crowds to see some repainted coasters and one new ride.

I find what makes Disney special ( vs any hometown Six Flags ) is how things are themed in and around the attractions. Universal is similar. That being said, the HP part of the park is not just about the "rides" but HEAVY theming. Which I honestly ammore excited about than the rides. I can't wait to see it.

 

[xipetotec]

I love both Disney and Universal and am all for competition between the two since it's us who benefit. However, how in the world is Harry Potter already outdated? The books are modern classics that gots kids to read 700-page novels. There are still movies coming out, which my cousins (and even my 19 year old brother) are counting down to.

While I love Disney World, they're going to have some major competition on their hands when the Wizarding World of Harry Potter opens. And I just don't think that a Little Mermaid ride, based on a 1989 movie and a Broadway show that just tanked, is a more modern and advanced idea. I actually think it's a pretty bad idea. Shouldn't they be moving forward rather than just rehashing the same old, same old?

Well while I agree with you on HP fandom when something has a "following" it could last forever! It's ridiculous to think it's on its way out, what about Star Wars? Star Trek? )

That being said, you go back on this sort of thing with talking about "moving forward" and no old ideas. If anything I, for one, am delighted by the Little Mermaid dark ride. I find that after the Disney/Pixar merger, there's been a LOT of attention given to integrating Pixar into the parks. Which is fine, I love Pixar too! But I've been wanting to see a little attention given to Disney Classics again, AND ever since The Little Mermaid DVD, our family has been pretty excited by the idea of the conceptual dark ride presented on there...

That being said... I'm WAY more excited about The Wizarding World than the FantasyLand expansion...

 

[troobabiee7]

That being said, you go back on this sort of thing with talking about "moving forward" and no old ideas. If anything I, for one, am delighted by the Little Mermaid dark ride. I find that after the Disney/Pixar merger, there's been a LOT of attention given to integrating Pixar into the parks. Which is fine, I love Pixar too! But I've been wanting to see a little attention given to Disney Classics again, AND ever since The Little Mermaid DVD, our family has been pretty excited by the idea of the conceptual dark ride presented on there...

I'm just comparing it to Harry Potter. I love The Little Mermaid and am actually looking forward to the ride! But there were comments on here about how Harry Potter will be outdated in a few years and how it's stupid to create a whole land themed around it, at least compared to Disney's expansion news. How can you compare a current phenomenon that's only gotten more popular throughout the past ten years and still has upcoming movie releases to a 20-year old cartoon when it comes to being outdated?! I'm not even a Harry Potter fan (I've only read the first book and haven't seen any of the movies) and I've probably seen The Little Mermaid a million times since I was little (I love it!), but it just doesn't translate well to other mediums.

I can see rehabbing older rides, but the why go back and create new attractions based on older movies, especially when there are already existing attractions based on the same movie? There's a whole special feature on the Little Mermaid DVD about the ride that never was. It's a 15-year old idea. Why not create a ride based on The Princess and the Frog, or do something completely new with the new Marvel acquisition? It just doesn't make sense to compete with the new technology and ideas Universal has with a 20-year old cartoon.

 

[xipetotec]

I can see rehabbing older rides, but the why go back and create new attractions based on older movies, especially when there are already existing attractions? Why not create a ride based on The Princess and the Frog, or do something completely new with the new Marvel acquisition? It just doesn't seem to make sense to compete with the new technology and ideas Universal has with a 20-year old cartoon.

I suppose that's true. Still looking forward to ti though ...

They are supposed to have some sort of show on the riverboat for Princess and the Frog. As for Marvel, I'm not sure they're allowed to make attractions outright. Not sure what Marvel's contract with Universal stipulates, but I'm not sure it doesn't have some sort of exclusivity clause... then again maybe not. But THAT acquisition is very new, even if they do make some attractions, it would take the Imagineers a while to come up with something worthwhile ( as opposed to some thrown together stage show like that Stitch show that came and went... )

 

[SNylund]

For that matter you could make an argument mickey mouse is outdated, didn't he come out like in the 1940s?

Universal doing Dr. Suess, one could make an argument that they are old books and outdated, but it works great, and is not outdated at all IMO.

Plus kids don't know about how old or long some things have been around. For my soon to be 3 year old, it is all new to her so who cares how old or outdated some things get. Great art/literature etc., is timeless and never wears out if its truely great. After all, you wouldn't spend a million dollars on a Picasso painting and then throw it out a few years later saying its out of date would you?

 

[troobabiee7]

For that matter you could make an argument mickey mouse is outdated, didn't he come out like in the 1940s?

Universal doing Dr. Suess, one could make an argument that they are old books and outdated, but it works great, and is not outdated at all IMO.

Plus kids don't know about how old or long some things have been around. For my soon to be 3 year old, it is all new to her so who cares how old or outdated some things get. Great art/literature etc., is timeless and never wears out if its truely great. After all, you wouldn't spend a million dollars on a Picasso painting and then throw it out a few years later saying its out of date would you?

That's true, but there's a difference between a Picasso and The Little Mermaid Art becomes classic with age, whereas theme parks are about new technology and staying ahead of the game. When it comes to Dr. Seuss, those stories and characters are still relevant to this generation, just like Mickey Mouse. Cat and the Hat and Grinch movies have been made within the past few years. The Little Mermaid isn't even around anymore. Nothing new is being made, besides the Broadway show which had horrible reviews and attendance rates, and recently closed.

Harry Potter will draw in a whole new set of visitors to Universal. It's something new, different and unique. Harry Potter rides and attractions aren't offered anywhere else in the world. It caters to the current generation of fans... kids who love the characters and stories on their own terms.

The Little Mermaid doesn't cater to this generation of fans. My 8-year old cousin has absolutely no interest in The Little Mermaid, but she loves Harry Potter. I grew up with The Little Mermaid since it was released when I was little, but my aunt couldn't care less about it so she never bothered showing it to my cousin. Unless their parents are Disney fans, kids today aren't going to care about The Little Mermaid, or even know what it is. Disney would've been better off creating a Hannah Montana ride! Also, the ride doesn't offer anything new or unique. Adding another princess-themed dark ride to a park full of princess-themed dark rides isn't going to draw in people who otherwise wouldn't think of going to Disney World. When it comes to competition, you have to try to to draw in new demographics, and a Little Mermaid ride isn't going to attract people who aren't already Disney World fans.