I think this may prove to be a symbiotic thing. Where the toy sales dropped off as the movie ventures weakened I think that Universal will have a positive effect on the whole franchise.Just as the rides spawned movies at Disney and then found that those movies then spawned changes to their parent rides. I think that toy , book and DVD sales will get a much needed boost from Universal's Themed areas for Harry Potter. In turn those arms of the franchise will then encourage more interest in the Theme Park arm.I don't care too much for the books or the movies but am eagerly looking forward to visiting Universal's Harry Potter.And so it goes. One man's ceiling and all that. One thing is for sure : there's no such thing as bad publicity.More and more new readers,riders and viewers are out there and I can see that particular demographic increasing with the advent of Harry Potter World in Orlando.
So instead of getting the same old wands you could have bought anywhere else, Universal will offer wands that interact with the Wizarding World environment. Universal Creative got the green light to go nuts on Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey, in an attempt to create the enduring franchise that can overcome potential consumer fatigue with a brand. And the attractions become a new land within a compatible theme park, rather than a stand-alone destination that might not have enough "help," if you will, to achieve a critical mass with frugal consumers.
I'm in the camp that says Potter will be a success, though I do worry about hourly capacities and Universal's initial promotion for the land. But those are minor worries in comparison with all that I've seen Universal do right with the project to date.
Take a lot at the other theme parks out there:
Disney- Mickey Mouse. Cultural Icon that lasts generations.Universal- Marvel and Dr. Seuss. Cultural Icons that last generations.Sea World- Shamu and a theme of animal care. Cultural Icons that lasts generations.
Now my question to you guys is will Harry Potter be the next cultural icon that lasts for generations? No one is doubting the initial "cool" factor that it will have, but will it keep people coming back 10 or 20 years from now?
Disney likes to re release movies so that kids are familiar with Snow White, Dumbo, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Toy Story, etc.
I personally think Harry Potter will be fine. As mentioned, Indiana Jones and Star Wars attractions at DHS seem to be doing pretty well.
Also, while the merch. sales of Harry Potter Books are still pretty strong. The attractions are still based upon a very popular book series. It would seem that many of the stores and resturants in this new land are explained more in the books than in the movies.
Having spent the last paragraph knocking Harry Potter around, I'll now say this. The theme park is a funny place. It's where once popular TV/Movie characters can go to find new life. When's the last Mickey Mouse movie you saw. In fact, when's the last anything you saw with any of the classic Disney characters in it. Seen a new Popeye or Dudley Do Right cartoon lately? How about those Peanuts... anything from them since the 1970's? Has Scooby Doo or Dr Seuss made any appearances except for in underperforming movies.
I guess my point is this with theme/amusement parks. It doesn't really matter what character they use. If it's good, people will come. Nobody under 25 probably has a clue who Popeye the Sailor Man was until they rode the ride at Universal...you know, the one in the best ride tournament this year. I didn't know who Dudley Do Right was, until I rode a pretty good flume ride at Universal. All of those franchises enjoy a successful presence at a theme or amusement park while doing very little at the box office or on store shelves, and it's because the parks have packaged them well, either with an area of the park, or a themed ride. Theme parks can offer something that the TV and big screen can never offer, and that is real life interaction and immersion.
If Universal turns out a product that I know they are capable of, Harry Potter's fading pop culture status will have very little or no effect on the success of Wizarding World. They can even still make money with merchandise if it's unique. Some will show up because it's Harry Potter, but they will return because it's well designed and entertaining.
I Respond: What is notably absent from this analysis is a comparison between Marvel merchandise sales within a theme park verses Marvel merchandise sales outside of a theme park. Mr. Owen's comments related to lackluster Potter sales reflects performance outside of a theme park. It seems the only way to make a fair comparison between the franchises' merchandise is to measure sales within the same conditions.
It's hard to directly compare the sales figures of Marvel with Harry Potter because Marvel release different movies based around different characters, the Harry Potter series is based around one storyline which is close to its climax on the silver screen.
Whilst Spiderman merch may have seen a decline in sales in recent years, due to there being no new movies and no promotion, sales of Iron Man merchandise will have increased due to the movies release. Marvel are constantly producing movies based on different characters and they can release different merchandise to satisfy the movies fans. There's a limit to how much new Potter merchandise can be released, when a child has a Harry Potter figure then they may not want the same figure that comes with a broomstick, hence the continuing decline.
I do agree that sales within the parks are likely to be higher as when people are on vacation they are naturally much more easy-going with their money and pester power will most likely see generic merchandise sales, at least for the first few years. But in five or ten years time children will be flocking to Marvel Super-Hero Island and whilst they are there they will likely buy a t-shirt or similar product related to the latest Marvel character to be portrayed in a movie. Can you see the same amount of popularity for generic products for a movie franchise that ended several years ago?
Ask any gamer, it's rare for a movie-based game to be any good. There are only a couple exceptions, Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay and Wolverine being two.
I Respond: Two words: Star Wars.
I'd have to agree with this. It's almost a chicken and an egg argument; which came first? The overall popularity of the franchise? Or the theme park attraction's popularity? I think both have to lean on each other, really.
I think Robert had some good examples with the Tower of Terror, Star Tours, and Indiana Jones. I'll also throw in some instant classics: Peter Pan, and Dumbo. Are these overly complex attractions? No. Are these franchises still thriving? Other than frowned-upon sequels, no. Are these rides still popular? Absolutely. Why? Nostalgia--for both the rides and the classic movies.
I think that will be the key for Universal's success. As people grow up, will the current Harry Potter fans (notably teens to young adults, as many have grown up with it already) still have that same fuzzy feeling about Harry Potter as they do now?
On the opposite side there are attractions like the Swiss Family Treehouse and Stitch's Great Escape. I may be the minority here, but I don't think the Treehouse has aged very well and it's WAY past it's prime (if there was one).
As far as oft-maligned Stitch's Great Escape, I don't think the character of Stitch will stand the test of time, seeing as how people are already calling for his proverbial head.
Where will the "Wizarding World" land? Only time will tell.
The question is what will happen to Potter after the last movie is released? Consumers may lose interest quickly, like we've seen with Lord of the Rings, or it could remain popular for decades to come, like Star Wars.
Regardless of what does happen Universal have to prepare now, which they have done by adding unique products not available outside of the parks. This way if Potter remians popular for years to come they can still sell generic merch, but if it doesn't they have something else to generate extra revenue outside of tickets, food and drink.
Universal will know consumer trends are different inside the park gates than out, but they can't stick their heads in the sand when it comes to what is happening to Harry Potter products outside the park.
My point is this: Harry Potter will do fine if the rides are amazing in themselves because it falls into the realm of fantasy. Wizards, dragons and castles have been around since the early days of storytelling. You don't need to know anything about Harry Potter to enjoy an adventure in that world. To me, theme park rides are all about living an adventure that takes one out of the mundane world. It can be a trip to outer space, a visit to a haunted house or a trip through a storybook forest. Universal already had a fantasy area up and running. Harry Potter just adds to that.
If the ride and themed areas are fun, they should be able to sell merchandise exclusive to the ride that people will want as a memento. Generic Harry Potter action figures? Not so much, but items tied specifically to scenes in the attraction. Yes!
If we're going to discuss a franchise that can't support a themed land, we should be talking about Carsland at Disney's California Adventure. Harry Potter is a franchise of 7 books and 8 movies, all of which have been enormously successful; Cars is a single movie (with a pending sequel) that is widely considered to be the weakest in the Pixar archive. Disney's decision to change their Route 66 concept to Carsland reflects two facts: Cars does great merchandise, and John Lasseter (who is neither an Imagineer nor any sort of architect, planner, or designer) has a big boy crush on that movie. Is that enough? Will people really still care about "Cars" in 10-20 years, or will DCA just end up needing yet another rehab?
word to your mother!
The Harry Potter books are among some of the best selling novels of all time. From a popularity standpoint, J.K. Rowling may well be the Charles Dickens of the modern era. Even Stephen King (a cultural phenomenon in his own right) once stated that the Potter novels would "...stand time's test and wind up on a shelf where only the best are kept; I think...this is one series not just for the decade, but for the ages." Furthermore, as long as J.K. Rowling is alive the potential exists for more Harry Potter adventures to keep the franchise relevant for years to come.
And while I am not a fan of the film adaptions, no one can deny their popularity. With two movies still in the pipeline, the series has already amassed the most money of any franchise in box office history: $5.5 BILLION in worldwide grosses.
As far as Universal goes, all they have to do is stay true to the HP universe, keep the rethemed rides up to snuff, and make sure Forbidden Journey is at least close to being the Spider-Man killer every other theme park company has been striving to build for the last eleven years. If they can accomplish those tasks, the Wizarding World of Harry Potter will provide Universal Studios with a license to print money for decades to come.
I Respond: Warner Bros. announced today that the Harry Potter film series has become the most successful movie franchise in history, based on worldwide box office returns.
According to the official press release:
With the success of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Warner Bros. Pictures' Harry Potter films have now become, worldwide, the top-grossing motion picture franchise in history. The announcement was made today by Barry Meyer, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer and Alan Horn, President & Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros.
The combined worldwide box office gross for the five Harry Potter films to date is in excess of $4.47 billion, surpassing the box office totals of all 22 James Bond films and the six Star Wars movies.
And PLEASE NOTE: That release was offered in September 2007 -- There had been six Star Wars films released and only five Potter films released.
Star Wars (seven films, incl Clone Wars) - $4,411,410,761Harry Potter (six films) - $5,420,026,613James Bond (23 films) - $5,074,402,453.
Potter is averaging $900 million per movie, so after two more films the franchise will gross about $7.2 billion total.
As I said, phenomenal.
And the most AMAZING achievement of the Potter film franchise is that, when it is complete in 2011 (eight films -- Deathly Hallows to be released in two parts [clever!]), they will have released the entire franchise in just twelve years (from commencement of production on the first film through the release of the eighth).
I mean ... WOW!
My kids (6, 8, & 10) are a little behind on Harry Potter but are already asking me when we are going to Universal. They understand the significance of the brand.
I think a lot of people want to discount the brand or even Universal. But I see no reason not to expect big things from this. I am not going to say this is Universal's ticket to overtaking Disney or this puts them on par with Disney. But I definitely don't think this is going to hurt them or be a disaster.
I am afraid, however, that people are over-hyping this attraction. Some believe it will be an entirely new theme park of its own. The Ottawa Citizen declared the new Wizarding World the top reason to "celebrate" in 2010. That's scary - what could they possibly expect?
When we went for a meal after the movie I had no recollection of things like Sqibbosh or Widditch or Squabbage or whatever it's called because I'd fallen into deep slumber by then.My narcoleptic episode disturbed only by the end titles music.
What I couldn't get out of my mind was why magic spells of obvious early Celtic origin were being delivered in Latin.( ??? ). I went to that sort of school when I was kid and can only reason that it's to make children today believe that the teaching of Latin still has some value.Anyway...nil desperandum.
But I am still looking forward to Universal's offering.
Universal are experts at milking a long-dead franchise
One word, WATERWORLD
Still going after almost twenty years.