Lutz talks about breaking the news on DCA, as well as other stories over the years.
It didn't make the cut for the OJR interview, but Lutz shared his take on why Disney didn't make the deal to get Harry Potter at Walt Disney World, leaving the deal for Universal Orlando to make. Lutz said that the deal, as proposed to Disney, was a 15 year license, with H.P. author J.K. Rowling given the exclusive right to opt out after those 15 years. If she did, that would have left Disney in position where it had to either tear down or entirely retheme its Potter development.
Presumably, Universal's in the same boat now. But I still think the deal makes sense for Universal.
As the market leader, Disney probably would not have been able to bring in enough additional visitors to make a Potter development to both pay for itself and provide the same sort of return on investment that Disney could get spending the money elsewhere. Heck, Disney World's parks are often maxed out on visitors as it is.
But Universal lags Disney significantly in attendance. Simply, Potter would have far more "bang for the buck" in those parks than they would in Disney's. So it is more likely that Universal would be able to get the necessary return on investment with Potter in just 15 years.
Anyway, there's more good stuff over on OJR, so I hope you take a look.
I have no doubts that Ms. Rowling has standards. Standards that shape her representatives have demands. But while Ms. Rowling may not have wanted Harry chugging a Coke in a TV commercial, sitting six inches from my keyboard is an 8 oz. bottle of Coke bearing a logo promoting the release of the movie 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.' Why on earth would association with soda be less tacky than presence in a theme park?
Further anecdotal evidence has been shown in the production of the films. While she was heavily involved with the first flick, it's known that she made only one trip to the set of the second.
Make no mistake, I have read all the books (big fan) and respect Ms. Rowling as an artist. But I have to approach ANY "inside info" related to this licensing negotiation, with a degree of skepticism.
Universal must be rubbing their hands together with all this free publicity, just in time for its 2008 advertising campaign, which has the subtle introduction of Harry Potter.
If Disney wants to build a land with magical creatures and castles, wouldn't they prefer to use Narnia, now that it has been a success? Why build theme park attractions that will help sell books and DVDs that you don't profit from, when instead you could focus on your own product, which you are planning to turn into a whole series of movies.
Not that there seem to be any plans out there to build Narnia in one of the parks. But both Narnia and Harry Potter are in the same fantasy genre, and Universal's alignment with Harry Potter wasn't finalized until after Narnia was a success. So it just makes me wonder.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
Either way, its a great opportunity for Universal.