User:Propaniac/potter

Okay, below is the text I would like to include in the article, to replace the current content of the "Previous attraction attempts" section:

Universal first contemplated building an attraction around Harry Potter in the late 1990s or early 2000s, according to entertainment blogger Jim Hill.^[1] Universal's original vision was for an elaborate stage show at one of the Universal Studios theme parks; the show would have been similar in format to the Wild Wild West Stunt Show, and would have featured Harry, Ron and Hermione in a showdown with an animatronic Voldemort, culminating in the villain's spectacular death.^[1]

According to Hill, Universal was unable to pursue the idea with Rowling, as they were told that another company, which Universal assumed to be Disney, owned Potter theme park rights.^[1] Following a 2003 comment about the matter by Universal Orlando president Bob Gualt, a storm of rumors erupted that Disney had a Potter project in development, leading AOL Time Warner to publicly assert their control of the rights.^{[1] [2]} From 2001-2003, the Time Warner-owned Australian theme park Warner Bros. Movie World offered a walk-through attraction called the Harry Potter Movie Magic Experience. The attraction featured props and re-creations of sets from the first two Potter films.^[3][4]

In late 2006, Hill reported that Rowling had signed a letter of intent signifying her willingness to partner with Disney on a theme park attraction^[5]; this was denied by a spokesman for Rowling.^[6][7] It was later reported that negotiations between Rowling and Disney had broken down due to creative differences.^[8][9] According to Hill, Rowling's vision would have brought each guest into the attraction through an experience mimicking Harry's initation to the wizarding world:

J.K. allegedly wanted each and every guest who was experiencing the theme park version of Harry Potter's world to do so by first entering the Leaky Cauldron pub. Where – by tapping on just the right brick ("Three up and two across ... ") – they'd then gain access to Diagon Alley, that odd collection of Wizards-only shops and restaurants that's hidden away in the heart of London.

From this area (Which was...supposed to have been the equivalent of Main Street U.S.A. at Disneyland...), these folks were then supposed to have made their way to Platform 9 and 3/4 at King's Cross Station. Where – after magically piercing the barrier that separates the Muggle world from the Wizard world – guests would have then been able to board a full-sized version of the Hogwarts Express for a trip to Hogwarts.

— Jim Hill, Jim Hill Media^[10]

In terms of reliable sources: I assume the newspapers are all fine, and I don't really care either way about including MuggleNet or Warner Bros. Movie World, if those are problematic, which leaves Jim Hill and Melissa Anelli. Melissa Anelli, the author of the Leaky Cauldron item, is quoted and referenced constantly in the media as a Potter expert; has published a bestselling book about the Potter phenomenon, for which JK Rowling wrote the foreword; and has interviewed Rowling on many occasions, for the book, for the website, and for the TLC podcast (Pottercast), which Anelli co-hosts. So if Anelli says TLC talked to a spokesman for Rowling who denied a report, that seems pretty reliable to me.

So, Jim Hill. I went back to Google News to look for sources backing up his expertise. What I was surprised to find were so many articles that didn't just look to him for an informed opinion or perspective, but that in fact simply reported that he had reported something, in exactly the way I'm seeking to do here. Examples include: The Guardian, Wired, Animation Magazine, St. Petersburg Times ([1], [2]), and New York Magazine ([3], [4], [5], [6]). In addition, examples of articles that did just provide his input as an expert include The Hollywood Reporter, Charlotte Observer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as well as these for which I'm only able to provide a Google News excerpt or no link at all: Palm Beach Post, San Jose Mercury News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Miami Herald, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Associated Press, and about a zillion articles from the Orlando Sentinel. None of these lists should be considered at all complete. However, based on these, I don't believe that the way I'm attempting to use Hill should pose a significant obstacle.

To address whether this information is worth including, unlike the January 2007 "rumors", I feel that this content provides the article with real additional value and depth. Looking at previous attraction concepts, and how they were derailed, is relevant to better understanding the attraction that eventually came to exist. The description of the original Universal show idea doesn't seem to have been widely reported, but it was historical, not news, so that makes sense, and as far as I can tell there's absolutely no requirement that every bit of information in a GA or an FA must have made headlines. The comment that "Disney has Harry Potter wrapped up" was widely spread on the Web, and the Orlando Sentinel source supports that there were a lot of rumors about it around that time. The letter-of-intent business also made a significant impact online, especially in the fan community and Rowling specifically responded to it. (I know these Google searches are lazy and perhaps quite unconvincing, but to be honest I'm tired at this point and want to get this out there.) And Hill's description of Rowling's alleged vision for the Disney park is, again, not really "news" but simply very interesting (at least I find it so) in light of the park that was actually created. It was also reported by New York Magazine and the blog ComicsBeat. (And there are the two cited newspapers that mentioned the creative differences between Disney and Rowling.)

Okay, that's all I've got for now. FYI, I likely won't be returning to Wikipedia or this discussion until Monday. Propaniac (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)