What would Disney's answer be to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter?

[Disney Padawan]

Disney likes to cross promote - Disneyland in one sense was simply a huge advertisement for the companies movies. The movies, TV shows, parks etc. all cross promote.

Disney doesn't get as big of a bang for its buck when it builds attractions themed around someone else's movies. Sure there is some advantage in terms of attendance at the theme parks, but Star Tours promotes non-Disney films, Indiana Jones promotes non-Disney films.

It is worth it to a point to have these attractions, but it doesn't give Disney the value that an attraction based on a Disney film would.

JK Rowlings was very particular and any attractions based on her movies was going to be costly. If Disney had done the movies, they probably would have spent the money to put the attractions in the parks, as the attractions would promote the films and the merchandise and Disney would have had a piece of every pie.

But spending a lot of money on a Harry Potter attraction which promotes a Warner Brothers film doesn't make as much sense.

Some of your points make a lot of sense.

 

[EUROPACL]

Disney likes to cross promote - Disneyland in one sense was simply a huge advertisement for the companies movies. The movies, TV shows, parks etc. all cross promote.

I really missed those old movies Walt did of Haunted Mansion, Main Street, POTC, Its a Small World....no in fact Disneyland when built had very few movie tie-inns.

But spending a lot of money on a Harry Potter attraction which promotes a Warner Brothers film doesn't make as much sense.

Hello Welcome to MGM Studios.

 

[Disney Padawan]

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY EVERYONE!

 

[BlindTyldak]

*raises an eyebrow* Euro, you're presenting a lot of things as "fact" that I simply do not believe are true.

First off, I know that there was discussion of upgrading the ST film a while back to be podracing (one of the reasons that Endor Vendors was changed to Tattoine Traders, even though the movie trip is to Endor). Word from the LucasArts division - this came from Haden Blackman if I remember right - was that the changeover was in discussion when Ep 1 but when Disney saw how generally negatively people reacted to Ep 1, they opted to keep the original film, even though Lucas wanted to change it. I fully believe that Uncle Pappypants would be happy to change the SW area of MGM and that money isn't an issue, it's just a matter of the two of them agreeing on marketing, not money.

Second, a fifth park is definitely not out. It's not on the horizon, but it's definitely not out of the question EVER. When touring "One Man's Dream" in November I was chatting with a cast member in the model room who had been with the Florida parks pretty much from the start and he said that of course it would happen someday, but in his words, "a lot of lessons need to be relearned and I wouldn't be surprised if some more changes have to take place before we see it". From the rest of the conversation I got the very distinct impression that it's just a matter of waiting for the pendulum to finish swinging back toward the magic (can anyone say Lasseter and Rohde?) and not the money. I wouldn't expect to see one for another 15 years or so, but that's not saying it's not going to happen.

 

[mitros]

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY EVERYONE!

Thanks, same to you!

 

[EUROPACL]

Nevermind....I keep forgetting that it does not matter.

 

[Disney Padawan]

Nevermind....I keep forgetting that it does not matter.

To whom, yourself?

 

[Disney Padawan]

*raises an eyebrow* Euro, you're presenting a lot of things as "fact" that I simply do not believe are true.

First off, I know that there was discussion of upgrading the ST film a while back to be podracing (one of the reasons that Endor Vendors was changed to Tattoine Traders, even though the movie trip is to Endor). Word from the LucasArts division - this came from Haden Blackman if I remember right - was that the changeover was in discussion when Ep 1 but when Disney saw how generally negatively people reacted to Ep 1, they opted to keep the original film, even though Lucas wanted to change it. I fully believe that Uncle Pappypants would be happy to change the SW area of MGM and that money isn't an issue, it's just a matter of the two of them agreeing on marketing, not money.

Second, a fifth park is definitely not out. It's not on the horizon, but it's definitely not out of the question EVER. When touring "One Man's Dream" in November I was chatting with a cast member in the model room who had been with the Florida parks pretty much from the start and he said that of course it would happen someday, but in his words, "a lot of lessons need to be relearned and I wouldn't be surprised if some more changes have to take place before we see it". From the rest of the conversation I got the very distinct impression that it's just a matter of waiting for the pendulum to finish swinging back toward the magic (can anyone say Lasseter and Rohde?) and not the money. I wouldn't expect to see one for another 15 years or so, but that's not saying it's not going to happen.

Very interesting information, good of you to share it.

 

[EUROPACL]

To whom, yourself?

I was just in the process of writting out a long response saying its not Lucas that wants the money but the control and Disney that won't spend the money...and about how yes one day (like I've said before) there could be a 5th theme park(Not really climbing out on a limb there ) but not to hold your breath....and that its really not a huge prediction to say there will be a new park in 15..20..25 years.....but then again it really does not matter. Its like beating a dead horse at this point....Disney still is not spending money on the parks, They are still throwing money at bad TV and even worse movies....so it really does not matter.

Heck in 20 years the parks might be owned by someone else anyway (Eisner tried several times to dump them)...does anyone really think the current Disney is going to spend the money needed to update the parks and DVC units in the upcoming years?

 

[Another Voice]

Mr Euro - you're task is hopless. The forest has too many trees...

 

[Disney Padawan]

I was just in the process of writting out a long response saying its not Lucas that wants the money but the control and Disney that won't spend the money...and about how yes one day (like I've said before) there could be a 5th theme park(Not really climbing out on a limb there ) but not to hold your breath....and that its really not a huge prediction to say there will be a new park in 15..20..25 years.....but then again it really does not matter. Its like beating a dead horse at this point....Disney still is not spending money on the parks, They are still throwing money at bad TV and even worse movies....so it really does not matter.

Heck in 20 years the parks might be owned by someone else anyway (Eisner tried several times to dump them)...does anyone really think the current Disney is going to spend the money needed to update the parks and DVC units in the upcoming years?

I agree with what you're saying, though I thought Lucas didn't care too much who he sold his licensing to. (Darth Vader Mickey Mouse & Mr. Potatoe Head.)

I'm hoping Iger & crew are changing their ways of bad t.v. & movies. They say Little Mermaid 3 will be the last straight to DVD sequel. (Some of those sequels are awful.)

Even if Disney is owned by someone else in years time I sincerely hope they get their act together. I'd like to see major improvements & a new Florida park by at least 2015!

EUROPACL, I was just interested in what you had to say that's all. Since your strongly opinionated, and we all know by now a 5th gate is a long way off, what do you think Disney will do to answer HP?

 

[EUROPACL]

EUROPACL, I was just interested in what you had to say that's all. Since your strongly opinionated, and we all know by now a 5th gate is a long way off, what do you think Disney will do to answer HP?

In short...Nothing. If Harry Potter does well and draws away a big chuck of Disney's crowd then they might do something. They will wait and see and continue to drain the parks of cash. When IOA went on the drawing boards...Disney had plans to build a 5th park (Villians or Thrill) to combat the pull...but IOA opened and the attendance diddn't change much. Add to that the flops of AK,DCA and Paris Studios and the fact that Eisner hated the parks there was no way they were going to put money into a 5th park....I mean come on the rights to Underdog were up for sale.(at the same time losing the rights to LOTR and the HP movies) If three of the best resorts in Orlando and a great park like IOA can't get Disney to build something other then Dinoland and Primevil Hurl at AK then I don't see them worring about HP until they need to. They need that money to throw at Jerry Bruckheimer and a Lone Ranger movie, or the next great TV show like is Caveman Hot or Not.

 

[Disney Padawan]

In short...Nothing. If Harry Potter does well and draws away a big chuck of Disney's crowd then they might do something. They will wait and see and continue to drain the parks of cash. When IOA went on the drawing boards...Disney had plans to build a 5th park (Villians or Thrill) to combat the pull...but IOA opened and the attendance diddn't change much.

Somewhere in the deep, dark, crevices of my mind, where no dream dares to tread, lies buried the truth of what you've said. I've feared this but have never ignored it, hence why my first question stated, the "wait & see" approach. The way Disney has been running things as of late, it seems that this is what they'll do. MK holds the #1 spot in theme park attendance with Epcot 3rd & MGM & AK following. So Technically, there's no reason for them to panic. There is plenty of reason for them to improve, as many will agree. I hope with Iger on board that things will change for the better. He's got a lot of cleaning up to do & obviously not just with the parks. Regardless of the way things may seem, there's always hope for a better tomorrow. So, if any of you had Iger's job, what would you do differently? What would you change? What would you improve?

 

[raidermatt]

I'd find people to run the parks that believed in getting that pendulum back to the other side and also had the talent to make it happen.

Remember, the big praise for Iger was that he gave more control back to the divisions. All well and good, except that that the parks division is run by people who were put there by Eisner. Is that who you would give the reigns to?

I agree, Iger needs to clean house, but that's not what he's doing. The only place any significant change seems to be brewing is in Animation, and even that is shaky due to the internal power struggles. If Iger went in there and said, "Look, I don't care how Ratatouille does at the box office, Lasseter and Catmul are running this show until they no longer want to and anybody who doesn't like it can clean our their office.", then maybe I'd have some real hope.

Iger doesn't seem to be initiating many things are that are making the situation worse, but when it comes to the company's content creation, he also isn't doing much to change things either. And so inertia being what it is, most things are going along as they have for years.

 

[cxcelica]

I am willing to give Iger some more time. It's not an easy job to have to answer to Wall Street and to the dedicated fans of you company all at the same time, especially when the fans are as educated and enthusiastic as the Disney Fans are, and especially when you consider the circumstances in which he inherited control.

We have seen some things that are encouraging, most recently the decision to end direct to dvd sequels. A little something that I think alot of Disney fans can appreciate.

It's always easy to over romanticize the past and paint a doom and gloom picture of the future. Let's give Iger some more time.

 

[raidermatt]

Its not up to me to give him time or not. I'm a shareholder, but too small of one to matter.

I'm merely calling it like I see it. He is not making the changes many had hoped for.

It's nice that the dtv sequels are dead (for now), but really, if they were doing great business with them, do you really think the plug would have been pulled? The public has grown weary of them and the poor quality that went with most of them. That poor quality also damaged Disney's reputation with the public.

Still, as I said, animation is the only area showing any potential for change, but that situation is tenuous.

This isn't about romanticization and doom and gloom, it's about strategic vision. And from a creative standpoint, precious little has changed, especially with regard to the parks.

 

[mello]

I haven't followed the business aspect of Disney things til recently, so I don't know much about it at all. But I do have a couple questions, and a little bit of input.

First a question:

How did Eisner go about trying to "dump" the parks, as someone posted earlier?

and 2nd:

What happened when he tried?

Now for input. We have a friend who works for Disney Internet Group, and we were told by this friend that one of the first things Iger did was set them to work changing the website because he hated the old one. That was quite a creative endeavor. So, while it isn't huge by any means, it is indicative I think, of his desire to make some changes, and to allow the different departments to have some creative freedom too. I think that's a good direction. Also, DH said he read somewhere that Iger had said he wanted to put some money into the parks. Anyone know if that's true? I'll have to ask if he can remember where he read that. If correct, that's a good sign indeeed. At any rate, I think we've seen a few small signs that the company is moving in a better direction overall.

 

[EUROPACL]

So, if any of you had Iger's job, what would you do differently? What would you change? What would you improve?

I don't see Iger firing himself...so that is out of the question. (but the best thing for Disney) There is no simple fix for Disney. ABC his a huge burden and should have never been bought. They can't dump it at this point due to the billions put into it....and would never happen as Iger is the TV guy in the company anyway(and we see how well that is doing...gives you real hope for his skills outside of TV...Right?) The short answer is what Matt said...they need creative people in control and they need to put the parks and quality movies back on the front burner and dump the other units.

 

[ChrisFL]

I see some positives, Lasseter in charge of WDI and massive restructuring taking place that, from what I've heard, is much closer to the way it was back when it was called WED.

I've also noticed that DL has seen a lot of improvements over the past few years and WDW is hopefully starting to catch up with HM, SSE and other upgrades that might be coming soon (like Space Mountain)

 

[Another Voice]

How did Eisner go about trying to "dump" the parks, as someone posted earlier?

It’s said that when Eisner agreed to become CEO of Disney that he had never set foot inside a Disney park.

When Eisner was given the Disney gig, he had been second in command at Paramount Pictures and was in the process of being fired for his failure in the Paramount’s “Fourth TV Network” project (this was before Fox created their network). All he knew was movies and television series. So when he moved onto the Disney lot, his only interest was in making more movies and making more TV series.

He needed money to do this. Disney’s funds were low; they had just spent a billion dollars to create EPCOT Center in Florida. Eisner hated theme parks (they’re for low class people) and he especially hated EPCOT. Eisner didn’t like any of the future-y stuff, was confused by the rides and thought it was a horrible business decision. Because for all the money Disney would make from EPCOT Center over the next twenty-five years, Eisner could make a dozens movies and recoup the money in a couple summers (Eisner got his big break in Hollywood by being the “genius” who pushed Flashdance into production – he never let quality get in the way of a buck).

One of the takeover plans that caused the crisis which brought Eisner to the company in the first place involved a plan to break up Disney. Led by oil man Marvin Davis, a group would have bought The Company then sold off the bits and pieces. Eisner thought this idea was swell as far as the parks went.

The focus was the hated EPCOT Center. Eisner would sell the entire park to a capital firm and receive a huge chunk of cash up front. Disney would then “lease back” the park and operate it, paying rents and royalties to the capital firm. The outside company would also be free to lease out or sell more restaurant and retail space, build hotels and otherwise use the land to make money beyond Disney’s rent payment. Over time, the capital firm would receive back more in rent, lease payments and additional revenue than they would have paid Disney up front. And Eisner would have several million dollars immediately to throw at Robin Williams, Bette Midler, Warren Beatty and other people much more important than theme park goers.

By all accounts Frank Wells was appalled at the plans. While the margins at EPCOT Center weren’t as good as from the Magic Kingdom, the new park was radically changing the nature of Walt Disney World. Instead of just being a day stop for the family, WDW was finally becoming the vacation destination that Walt had envisioned. Adults without children soon outnumbered families. Conventions and meetings were clamoring for space. The average length of stay was growing longer and per guest spending was soaring as people enjoyed the fine dining of World Showcase instead of the quick hamburgers of the Magic Kingdom. For the first time in a decade, WDW was a “must see” attraction for the average vacationer.

Selling EPCOT Center would endanger all this new found money.

But Eisner wanted his “movie funds” now! So an alternative form of movie financing had to be developed. This turned out to be the Silver Screen Partnerships. Instead of having investors put up money for just one movie at a time, Disney would go after large capital firms to give them lots of money, which would be pooled and used to make several movies. The risk normally associated with movies would be minimized (if you make ten movies at least one should be a hit) which would interest mainstream financial types. And with the potential huge windfalls coming in from a hit film, the up side was much greater than any traditional type of corporate investment. While Disney would loose profit on the back end, they would get the cash up front and also be insulated against the flops that were bound to happen.

Eisner agreed, if only because the partnership was going to be faster to arrange than a billion dollar real estate transaction. Then EPCOT Center really got lucky. Disney hit upon a string of low budget hits that generated huge windfalls for Silver Screen – Down and Out in Beverly Hills, Three Men and a Baby, Ruthless People and all the other “Betty Ford Clinic Comedies[/i] of that period. Investors were demanding to be allowed to invest in Disney’s hit machine and the company was flooded with more money than it knew what to do with. There was no need to sell anything.

Then a second stroke of luck hit. Eisner had always been a big architecture fan. When the dust settled from a lawsuit over hotel development near EPCOT Center, Eisner found himself in a position to indulge his whims. He hired an architect he long admired, Michael Graves and let him loose. The Swan and Dolphin Hotels, whatever you think of them, were major buildings in the world of high fashion architecture. Suddenly Eisner found himself being hailed as a hero, as a Patron of the Arts, and as Benefactor of Merit, and all the other accolades an industry throws on someone who gives them lots of undeserved money.

All of this went to Eisner’s head. Along with all the press he was getting about the rebounding Disney Studios and the booming parks – he saw himself as a Master of the Universe and the parks as one of his precious realms. The thought of losing any of them was unthinkable. And Eisner discovered that the parks were his playthings too. He could force “hip and happening” into EPCOT Center by using ‘Saturday Night Live’ characters in “The Wonders of Life”, he could fill an entire park with the right kind of people with the Disney/MGM Studios…his business genius would fill every corner of Disney theme parks just as his brilliant mind filled every movie that Disney made!

…and then Euro Disney opened. But that’s another thread.

By the time Eisner got around to wanting to sell the parks again, the merger with Capital Cities was well underway. While Euro Disney had destroyed all the expansion plans Disney had, the purchase of ABC destroyed the company’s financial position even through today. The network required boatloads of cash. The studio was no longer churning out hit after hit. The stores were marginal businesses to begin with and without new plush characters they were on a slope they would never recover from. The only bright spot in the company remained the parks. Year in, year out, they pumped cash out of the ground like oil.

Disney could no longer afford to part with the parks.


P.S. Bob "The Poddle" Iger was an executive at ABC long before Disney bought CapCities. He ran the network for over a decade. If the executive ran a single business unit so poorly that it directly lead to a decade's long crash in the stock price, calls for his removal, and year after year of disasterous ratings and earning...what makes you think he's going to run the parent company well?