could there be a possibility of a new 3rd party contract for an attraction?

[cubswinnow]

I was wondering if there was any chance that there could be new attractions based on movies not from disney , like when they made attractions through Lucasfilm?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I was wondering if there was any chance that there could be new attractions based on movies not from disney , like when they made attractions through Lucasfilm?

There was a time after Michael Eisner took over as the head of Disney that the company thought it was a good idea to license creative properties from other companies. Eisner's gut reaction (with input from his then-young son) was that Disney's own creative properties weren't hip, cool, or relevant. In fact, Disney-MGM Studios was designed to distance itself from Disney. Even though MGM had nothing to do with the ownership or design of the park, Disney even licensed the MGM name.

That changed over the years. Toward the end of the Eisner regime, the whole idea was synergy with Disney-owned creative properties, including Pixar (Disney owned the rights to the Disney-distributed Pixar films, even before Disney bought Pixar). In fact, almost everything had to be synergy, and the company didn't want to promote any other company's creative properties.

It remains to be seen if this changes now that Bob Iger is calling the shots. It will take a few years before post-Eisner, Iger-approved projects start showing up in Disney's theme parks.

Supposedly, Disney owns the US theme park rights to Harry Potter. I don't know if this is really true. I recall reading a believable report that this was stated by a Universal executive. However, the Universal executive could be mistaken, or the report could be inaccurate. It is true that Disney (ABC) paid a fortune for the TV rights to the Harry Potter movies, so I suppose it's possible that this contract could have a clause about theme parks. Sometimes, interesting clauses creep into legal agreements — such as NBC-Universal returning the Oswald the Rabbit rights to Disney (after almost 80 years), as part of the agreement for Al Michaels to jump from ABC to NBC.

 

[cubswinnow]

thanks for the info, another question i have regarding this was that one of my buddies said he was watching a news station (dont know which one it is), and mentioned something of Disney supposedly acquiring the rights of Lord of the Rings movies to make an attraction. Is there any info on that or is it just *dreaming?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

thanks for the info, another question i have regarding this was that one of my buddies said he was watching a news station (dont know which one it is), and mentioned something of Disney supposedly acquiring the rights of Lord of the Rings movies to make an attraction. Is there any info on that or is it just *dreaming?

Is there a chance that your buddy actually heard about the possibility of Disney leveraging the 7-part Chronicles of Narnia series for theme parks? There have been news reports of Bob Iger hinting that The Chronicles of Narnia will translate into Disney's theme park realm.

Disney's Miramax subsidiary was originally going to make The Lord of the Rings. However, Michael Eisner would not approve the substantial funding that the project would require. New Line Cinema, a TimeWarner company, took over. If I recall correctly, Disney still made some money off The Lord of the Rings movies — but I've never heard that Disney retained any theme park rights, nor that Disney subsequently acquired theme park rights to The Lord of the Rings.

The real issue is not that Disney needs rights to outside creative properties. What The Walt Disney Company needs is a willingness to invest in the growth of its Parks and Resorts segment through large-scale attractions in the tradition of the "E" Ticket classic rides. There are plenty of creative properties and plenty of good ideas within Disney. And, as the Imaginneers of the 1950s and 1960s proved, a great attraction doesn't have to be based on a movie — for examples, just look at Pirates of the Caribbean, the Enchanted Tiki Room, the Submarine Voyage, it's a small world, and the Haunted Mansion.

 

[2Xited4Disney]

or examples, just look at Pirates of the Caribbean, the Enchanted Tiki Room, the Submarine Voyage, it's a small world, and the Haunted Mansion.

I was hoping that Expedition Everest was the restarting of this trend

 

[cubswinnow]

ah, sounds pretty good to me, keep up the good work!!!

 

[ChrisFL]

thanks for the info, another question i have regarding this was that one of my buddies said he was watching a news station (dont know which one it is), and mentioned something of Disney supposedly acquiring the rights of Lord of the Rings movies to make an attraction. Is there any info on that or is it just *dreaming?

I've considerd Lord of the Rings as a potential theme park attraction for a long time, whether Universal or Disney gets the rights to it, I just cannot see how either of them could develop a single attraction that would live up to the massive amount of things in the story. However I could see a whole park devoted to LOTR...that would be something to see.

 

[MJMcBride]

The thing I heard was that Disney passed on Lord of the Rings because they already had the rights to Narnia and were working on that. Who knows. If they do have the rights to Potter, I would love to see an attraction at MGM based on Hogwarts- maybe even a Haunted Mansion type ride: ghosts, warlocks, werewolves, etc...