Harry Potter theme park rights?

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?