I think we’re going to see a lot of British mannerisms within the more ‘micro’ elements of the park, in terms of architectural motifs, gags and performing characters but from a more ‘macro’ perspective, such as IP selection and general marketability, it’s going to be led by what appeals to a broader European market.I'm not sure how popular Lord of the Rings is versus Potter, but it's certainly a big IP that has a certain Britishness about it in a similar vein. I think it could definitely work!
They may have the rights for it in Australia but not for Europe or America, you can see an example of this with marvel, universal had the american (I think) rights, then Disney brought them up and now universal negotiated to have the rights east of the Mississippi or something like that. often for a park which isn't global it makes sense to only buy the license for a region, they pay less and the rights holder can resell the rights else where.I doubt it as Warner Bros Movie World has the rights doesn’t it? The one in Australia is literally opening it new Wicked land with new rides in a few weeks?
The original Wizard of Oz book is public domain, however any changes that belongs to the movie (Ruby Slippers, Over the Rainbow) belong to MGM. Wicked is based off of a book, and when it became a musical and then transferred to broadway they brought the rights to use the Ruby Slippers, but not the motif for Over the Rainbow.Surely the OG Wizard of Oz film was MGM? Dunno who hold the rights to their back catalogue now, but I'm sure I've heard in the past that between that, Return to Oz being Disney, and whatever the hell is going on with Wicked, the question of "rights" is now so messy that no one wants to touch it.
I'm still baffled why we need a live action version of that.So live action How to Train Your Dragon area rather than based off the animated one then?
They could do include Shrek in some way but I doubt it would get a full themed area. It's definitely not as bit as it wasIs Shrek still popular enough to warrant a land? Quite liked the Puss in Boots ride and Far, Far, Away land in Singapore.
They would have had to license the rights from Universal. I’d assume universal only gave them the Australia rights.I doubt it as Warner Bros Movie World has the rights doesn’t it? The one in Australia is literally opening it new Wicked land with new rides in a few weeks?
They're not opening a Wicked land. They're opening a land around the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz", to which Warner Bros. Discovery already own the rights.They would have had to license the rights from Universal. I’d assume universal only gave them the Australia rights.
Warner Bros own the rights to the 1939 film and distribute the film nowadays. This is how WB Movie World in Australia were able to do the Wizard of Oz themed area.They would have had to license the rights from Universal. I’d assume universal only gave them the Australia rights.
He's getting a new film in a few years time.They could do include Shrek in some way but I doubt it would get a full themed area. It's definitely not as bit as it was
Which is an important difference as @TBoy535 stated it’s a Wicked Land not a Wizard of Oz land. I expect many people would actually notice the difference as there is basically no Dorothy in Wicked and no Shiz University in Wizard of Oz.They're not opening a Wicked land. They're opening a land around the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz", to which Warner Bros. Discovery already own the rights.