Harry Potter

[MyGoofy26]

Yes, but what fueled part of the fire was not knowing how the game would end. Now that there aren't any more books to look forward to, I think that it will be a different dynamic. Hey, when I was a kid, Star Wars toys were about as hot as you could get, but 3 years after Return of the Jedi, while there was still interest, it wasn't even close to the same level.

And on that note... Let's just hope Rowling doesn't come out 16 years from now and lay a clunker like Episode I...

I think not knowing the end had a minimal effect on popularity. Sure, it drove people to the bookstore at midnight in record numbers, but to look at the series as a whole, the popularity is more than just finding closure. Not many people (especially kids) would stick with a series for 10 years just to find out how it ends. It takes something else to draw people in. The individual stories as they stand on their own, the characters, and just the world that was created is something that people latched onto - not just a "gotta know who's gonna die" interest. Those are the things that'll drive people back. Will it ever be at the same level it was a couple weeks ago? Probably not. But I'd be willing to bet there will be steady popularity. We have 3 years left of this first wave - new movie next winter, the park the following year, and the final movie the year after that. Plus Rowling's "Encyclopedia" that she's talking about, whenever she gets around to that.

One of my last classes in college was a Fiction for Adolescents class (geared towards those who want to teach English) and these books are already being analyzed for how they can be used in the classroom, how they can be springboards to more complicated works, how the interest in this series can be used to interest kids in books with similar themes. So beyond just pop culture, they're being looked at academically. At least in school systems that haven't banned them.

But then again, back to pop culture - I bet we'll see another round of movies in the future as well. May be 20 or more years, but we know how Hollywood likes to remake movies. And the movies left SO much out of the books, dropped certain secondary or tertiary storylines in favor of others, that a studio could easily adapt the books yet again to tell a completely new version of the same story.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

Personally, I think that Disney will have a wait and see attitude when it comes to Harry Potter. They would carefully monitor the successes and failures and then make something comparable.

They had that same attitude with MGM Studios. Expect it with Harry Potter.

Oh, and I do not think that Disney picked up Harry Potter because a lot of parents saw the books and movies as controversial. Many people saw it as something that perpetuated witchcraft, and I think Disney wanted no part of that.

Plus, they own the rights to the Chronicles of Narnia, which they are going to bring all 7 books into film. The imagineers at Disney would have a field day with Narnia, and it could rival the Wizarding World.

 

[swilphil]

Oh, and I do not think that Disney picked up Harry Potter because a lot of parents saw the books and movies as controversial. Many people saw it as something that perpetuated witchcraft, and I think Disney wanted no part of that.

Plus, they own the rights to the Chronicles of Narnia, which they are going to bring all 7 books into film. The imagineers at Disney would have a field day with Narnia, and it could rival the Wizarding World.

Disney was in the bidding for putting Harry Potter in the theme park, but Universal eventually won out. I'm not sure if it was because Universal bid the most money or was going to feature HP more promeniently. I'm not sure if Disney would want to have another castle overshadowing Cinderella.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

Disney was in the bidding for putting Harry Potter in the theme park, but Universal eventually won out. I'm not sure if it was because Universal bid the most money or was going to feature HP more promeniently. I'm not sure if Disney would want to have another castle overshadowing Cinderella.

Yes, but sometimes in business you bid on properties merely to raise to price in order to give yourself a competitive edge with a rival. Believe me, they have rival products that they've already invested in. If they really wanted to invest in Harry Potter, they would have invested in it when it was merely a book, like they did in CS Lewis' books.

And Disney has the land to start an entire theme park that could have been based open Wizarding.

 

[EUROPACL]

Yes, but sometimes in business you bid on properties merely to raise to price in order to give yourself a competitive edge with a rival. Believe me, they have rival products that they've already invested in. If they really wanted to invest in Harry Potter, they would have invested in it when it was merely a book, like they did in CS Lewis' books.

And Disney has the land to start an entire theme park that could have been based open Wizarding.

There is so much wrong here and filled with zero knowledge of the current Disney that I don't even know where to start.

 

[Another Voice]

they would have invested in it when it was merely a book, like they did in CS Lewis' books.

Disney does not own the rights to the 'Narnia' books - Walden Media does. They are the company that is making the movies as well, Disney is just the distributor. Walden had a relationship with Disney (Waldon's first movie was Holes which they released through Disney as well), but they've had such a bad relation their movies are now going to other studios. Only the 'Narnia' movies are under contract with Disney. And Disney can't even force the movies to be made, all they can do is agree to pay Walden more money to continue with the series.

Disney lost out on the 'Harry Potter' theme park rights for the same exact reason they lost the movie deal - Disney was unwilling to invest the proper level of money to make a project of sufficant quality.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

Disney does not own the rights to the 'Narnia' books - Walden Media does. They are the company that is making the movies as well, Disney is just the distributor. Walden had a relationship with Disney (Waldon's first movie was Holes which they released through Disney as well), but they've had such a bad relation their movies are now going to other studios. Only the 'Narnia' movies are under contract with Disney. And Disney can't even force the movies to be made, all they can do is agree to pay Walden more money to continue with the series.

Disney lost out on the 'Harry Potter' theme park rights for the same exact reason they lost the movie deal - Disney was unwilling to invest the proper level of money to make a project of sufficant quality.

This is the news release from Comic-Con:

At Comic-Con this year, the Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS) announced its commitment to make all seven of the Chronicles of Narnia books into feature films, releasing one a year starting in May '08 with Prince Caspian. This decision follows the success of the adaptation of the first book -- The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe -- which grossed almost $300 million.

This decision is not surprising, following the conclusion of Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, which has no immediate plans to continue. Disney is predictably looking for its next goldmine franchise, and what better to use than a seven book series which already had a successful start?

The only question is whether the quality of production will suffer in the sequels from such an ambitious filming schedule, and after Disney pulled off the Pirates trilogy with such dazzling effects, I doubt that will be a concern -- although the quality of the Pirates scripts did fade down the stretch. At least with these movies, the writers will have a classic source to guide them.

So, NO...

Disney is the PRODUCER of the Chronicles of Narnia movies now. And yes, they have the rights to create anything they want with their license, as well.

I may not know that much about certain theme parks, or how to get the most out of Disney World, but I know business! It would be entirely too easy for Disney to integrate Chronicles of Narnia into the existing Beastly Kingdom plans. And yes! Corporations and investors would bid on assets merely to drive prices up in order to place a heavier burden on the buyer that would be vested.

Think about it: Universal Studios still haven't placed a dent in Disney's theme park revenues even though they have opened up Islands of Adventure. As a result, Universal Studios NEEDS Harry Potter, but Disney doesn't need Harry Potter- especially with the investments in Chronicles of Narnia and other brands.

 

[MyGoofy26]

Oh, and I do not think that Disney picked up Harry Potter because a lot of parents saw the books and movies as controversial. Many people saw it as something that perpetuated witchcraft, and I think Disney wanted no part of that.

The number of people, although they may complain loudly, that think this way are minimal. If Disney thought they could make it worth their while, they wouldn't let such a small number of people dictate their decisions when millions would be willing to drop precious dollars to "outvote" the paranoid.

Honestly, I think the fact that Rowling knows what she wants was the "problem" with Disney. If you read or see any interviews with her, she's said that with the movies if she couldn't have a good level of say then she wouldn't sign the rights over to anybody. She wanted to make sure that any representation stayed true to her vision. I'm sure the same goes with theme parks. She would hold whoever bought the rights to very high standards - and rightfully so. Years ago when I did my college program, I worked in the Indy/Tattooine area and there was a little higher expectation on the managers because Lucas has a whole heck of a lot of say and if he didn't like how we were representing his product, all hell could break loose. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Disney wasn't up to putting up the money, space and time while deferring to someone else on most of the decisions (all those that would impact the "show") - it's a lot cheaper to use your own characters or those of people who aren't as particular on the details.

I'll be interested though to see how this works out for Universal. Keeping people in the parks is where the money is (hotels, food, drink, souvenirs, etc) and I'm not sure one land will do that. I know it'll drive more people to the park, but are they going to stick around? It'll be interesting to see. I know just for myself, I'm not interested in most of the characters, movies, etc represented in Universal parks so I rarely go (once every few years is enough for me) So Harry Potter will get me there maybe a little more often (half a day every couple trips to Orlando) but honestly I probably won't spend much time in the rest of the parks.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

The number of people, although they may complain loudly, that think this way are minimal. If Disney thought they could make it worth their while, they wouldn't let such a small number of people dictate their decisions when millions would be willing to drop precious dollars to "outvote" the paranoid.

Honestly, I think the fact that Rowling knows what she wants was the "problem" with Disney. If you read or see any interviews with her, she's said that with the movies if she couldn't have a good level of say then she wouldn't sign the rights over to anybody. She wanted to make sure that any representation stayed true to her vision. I'm sure the same goes with theme parks. She would hold whoever bought the rights to very high standards - and rightfully so. Years ago when I did my college program, I worked in the Indy/Tattooine area and there was a little higher expectation on the managers because Lucas has a whole heck of a lot of say and if he didn't like how we were representing his product, all hell could break loose. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Disney wasn't up to putting up the money, space and time while deferring to someone else on most of the decisions (all those that would impact the "show") - it's a lot cheaper to use your own characters or those of people who aren't as particular on the details.

I'll be interested though to see how this works out for Universal. Keeping people in the parks is where the money is (hotels, food, drink, souvenirs, etc) and I'm not sure one land will do that. I know it'll drive more people to the park, but are they going to stick around? It'll be interesting to see. I know just for myself, I'm not interested in most of the characters, movies, etc represented in Universal parks so I rarely go (once every few years is enough for me) So Harry Potter will get me there maybe a little more often (half a day every couple trips to Orlando) but honestly I probably won't spend much time in the rest of the parks.

You're correct about the "Vocal Majority." And I am keeping a close eye on Universal Studios as well. If Harry Potter does extremely well and takes some of Disney marketshare, I would like to see Disney's response. If it flickers out quickly, though, Disney would just do their cursory improvements and go about their business.

 

[Another Voice]

Disney is the PRODUCER of the Chronicles of Narnia movies now. And yes, they have the rights to create anything they want with their license, as well. I may not know that much about certain theme parks, or how to get the most out of Disney World, but I know business!

Welcome to the world of movie business: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0073388/

Then come back and will go over the differences between production companies, studio, distributorships and all the other fun elements that make up Hollywood.

I'll be interested though to see how this works out for Universal. Keeping people in the parks is where the money is (hotels, food, drink, souvenirs, etc) and I'm not sure one land will do that.

Universal's business plan had always been to siphon a day or two from Disney. They tried to change that to a "resort" strategy with Islands of Adventure, but it's turned out that teenagers seeking thrills really don't bring along the rest of the family with them. A decade of corporate disinterest has created a serious problem for the entire development and so Universal is going back to basics.

'Potter' is a way of getting people to Universal - that's where they hope to make the big money. There's no hope of getting people to spend three days when you can't get them for one. 'Pottler' will also be a massive draw for the huge British market that lands in Orlando by the 747-full. Disney is doing everything it can to lock people away on property, 'Potter' is Universal's way of prying them out again.

If it works, then I suspect Universal will then refocus back on length-of-stay problems.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

Welcome to the world of movie business: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0073388/

Then come back and will go over the differences between production companies, studio, distributorships and all the other fun elements that make up Hollywood.


As someone heavily vested in several production companies and movie studios, I do not think that I need to be lectured on the finer points of movie-making. I graduated from a liberal arts college and investing in these ventures is one of the ways in which I make money.

What you can show me is how Disney doesn't have the rights to Chronicles of Narnia to build rides and theme parks based upon the movie.

(By the way, Disney also is one of the main investors in Walden Media, and Chronicles of Narnia is jointly owned, not merely produced by one and distributed by another.)

 

[DancingBear]

According to IMDB.com, Walden Media is THE production company and Disney is the distributor.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0980970/companycredits

 

[Another Voice]

I graduated from a liberal arts college and investing in these ventures is one of the ways in which I make money.

You've obviously missed the First Rule of Hollywood - never invest your own money.

The question was about the movie rights - those are with Walden. Disney has theme park and merchandising rights should they wish to execrise them. And with any standard distribution deal, they can probably see The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe to their heart's content. But Disney can't go out and make another Narnia movie. It's my understanding that Walden owns those rights. Whatever Disney has is what Walden choose to give them.

It's all rather pointless anyway, I see little hope that Narnia will ever do more than a fraction of what Harry Potter did/will do anyway. Even the biggest supporters of the books say the quality is uneven. And all Disney will likely do with any "Narnia theme" is little more than a Flik's Fun Faire level of decoration ontop of store-bought amusement park rides. There's just not just that much corporate interest in the franchise.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

but Disney has production rights to the film as well... as the major financier of the entire project. Disney is not merely the distributor of this film.

Also, we were talking Disney having the right to do what they want with the Chronicles of Narnia brand, albeit movies, posters, rides, theme parks, etc. Disney has those rights. That's why it was Disney who announced that THEY will produce all 7 books into films.

So, in short, Disney has no legal hinderances in creating whatever they want using the Chronicles of Narnia brand... and they are not merely distributors.

But the discussion of Harry Potter vs. Chronicles of Narnia is a matter of choice.

 

[Another Voice]

THEY can't make the movies on their own:

http://www.walden.com/walden/press/2004/030104_01.php

March 1, 2004
BURBANK - The Walt Disney Studios has entered into an agreement with Walden Media to co-finance and distribute the long-awaited motion picture The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the first book published in C.S. Lewis' famed series, it was announced today (3/1) by Dick Cook, chairman of The Walt Disney Studios, and Cary Granat, chief executive officer of Walden Media. The live-action film will be directed by Andrew Adamson (Shrek, Shrek 2) and is scheduled to be released Christmas, 2005, by Walt Disney Pictures. The agreement allows for the continuation of the partnership for future films in the series. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, the first in an exciting series of films in the making and based on the phenomenal bestselling novels, concerns a war between good and evil, pitting the magnificent lion Aslan against the forces of darkness in the magical world of Narnia. A White Witch has used her dark powers to keep Narnia in winter for 100 years, but it is foretold that four humans will be able to help Aslan break the spell. When the Pevensie siblings—Lucy, Susan, Edmund, and Peter—discover the magic of Narnia by entering the enchanted world through a wardrobe, the stage is set for a classic battle of epic proportions.

 

[raidermatt]

On the topic of the Potter films, they seem to have a pretty static audience. The domestic grosses, in order, have been:

$317m
$261m
$249m
$290m
$260m

With the last one being Order of the Phoenix, which is still going. Looks like it will end up around the $290m mark, probably a little short of that if I'm extrapolating correctly.

So none have reached the popularity of the first, especially when you factor in ticket price increases over the last 6 years or so.

I think the original question was why is nobody here banging on Potter for the lack of growth in the franchise, while Disney has taken heat over At World's End.

The easy answer is Potter isn't Disney. If we railed on every movie that came up short of hopes/expectations, there'd be 3 or 4 new threads on it every week.

The other thing to consider in the comparison is that, according to Box Office Mojo, AWE had twice the production budget of Phoenix. Probably a bigger marketing budget, and since it has bigger stars/names attached to it, bigger payouts.

 

[EUROPACL]

That's why it was Disney who announced that THEY will produce all 7 books into films.

Well that is not entirely true either....from another thread on this same subject which also came out of Comic Con this report did a better job at listening to what was really being said.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1532730

-A lot has been made of Disney committing to make all 7 books. That’s been exaggerated a bit. The producer said that the plan is to make all 7, but only if the box office stays strong. If it does, then expect a new Narnia movie every May.

You will never see all 7 Narnia books go to film...there is simply not going to be the box office for them. In fact I've got my money on this being the last one.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

THEY can't make the movies on their own:

http://www.walden.com/walden/press/2004/030104_01.php

I never said they madde movies on ther own. I said they own the rights to the movie to do what they want to with the brand. Plus, check your date, 2004... the agreements have changed twice since then.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

Well that is not entirely true either....from another thread on this same subject which also came out of Comic Con this report did a better job at listening to what was really being said.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1532730

Make=Produce. Same thing.



You will never see all 7 Narnia books go to film...there is simply not going to be the box office for them. In fact I've got my money on this being the last one.

And I've got my money on the box office being strong enough to warrant all 7 movies. They made over $300 million with the first one. And Prince Caspian is going to be made on bigger stages with stronger technology.

Plus, I think that Disney would pull out all stops in the marketing of this film.

 

[EUROPACL]

And I've got my money on the box office being strong enough to warrant all 7 movies. They made over $300 million with the first one. And Prince Caspian is going to be made on bigger stages with stronger technology.

Plus, I think that Disney would pull out all stops in the marketing of this film.

Just make sure that your roots and pot stays planted and we'll have this same conversation later. I would love to see all 7 books make it to film. I would also love for the next film to be leaps and bounds better and above the first. The cartoon version of The Lion the Witch and Wardrobe that came on CBS every year was better than what made it to the big screen.