A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Magenta Panther]

I agree with you on this one. Frozen was a massive success, but it wasn't a movie with built in sequel potential. To be honest, Disney's track record with sequels to it's major animated films has not been stellar (with the exception of Toy Story). With Frozen, I fear that they may end up with something that feels tacked on, but we'll see.

Star Wars is a much bigger IP for Disney right now, in terms of potential. In addition to the upcoming movie this December, which is easily the most awaited film of this year, they plan to roll out a steady stream of sequels, side stories and other films in the Star Wars universe. That is something Frozen will never be able to do.

Marvel is like that as well with The Avengers and the individual movies (both released and upcoming) from each of the heroes featured. Much more long term money making potential.

I have no doubt the new Star Wars film, starring much of the original cast, will be huge. Heck, I want to see it. But as for future adventures...I truly have my doubts that there's enough interest there to keep the franchise rolling (as far as movies are concerned). Lucas never did come up with new characters that are as compelling as the originals. And that matters, a LOT.

As for Marvel, yes, it has a huge fandom, but you gotta wonder...how many Spiderman films can be made before the public finally yells "ENOUGH!!!" Half-a-dozen movies about the same characters doing the same things, mainly beating up bad guys...I dunno, that says "saturation" to me. Of course, that kind of thing worked for James Bond...

 

[TalkingHead]

Legitimate point, but would you really advise basing your park investment decisions on the public reaction to a long-overdue upgrade to an old attraction?

If it was a "long-overdue upgrade," shouldn't that have increased its popularity? As in, people were frothing to experience a "new" Star Wars adventure?

I admit I don't understand why the Star Tours upgrade hasn't been more popular in Orlando, especially when TSMM's long lines are often attributed to the park having so little to do. I'm surprised the same isn't true for Star Tours.

 

[bhg469]

If it was a "long-overdue upgrade," shouldn't that have increased its popularity? As in, people were frothing to experience a "new" Star Wars adventure?

I admit I don't understand why the Star Tours upgrade hasn't been more popular in Orlando, especially when TSMM's long lines are often attributed to the park having so little to do. I'm surprised the same isn't true for Star Tours.

It is surprising, maybe parents have a lot to do with it. They don't see star wars as family friendly as toy story and just refuse to even give it a second thought.

 

[Cousin Huet]

The bottom line i my opinion is that Star Tours is cool and we always ride it but it's just not that impressive of a ride. The que and building are cool as well as the too small but nicely themed gift box but the ride is all screen based and a lot like rides you can do at even some malls with higher end arcade set ups. I like it because it is Star Wars but if it were based another movie I'm not that into I wouldn't ride it.

If they come with a new big time attraction, another mid level attraction, a smaller kid friendly ride, a better set up for the Jedi Academy and a cool restaurant all in an immersive environment like what is being done at Animal Kingdom or Universals Potter offerings, then it will be a huge draw. I'm talking utilizing all the area from Echo Lake back through muppets to lay this out.

The same can be said for the Pixar stuff......if you run radiator springs down the streets of America and it leads to the radiator springs racers back there, throw in the Mater ride reworked to the Woodys roundup rumor and then the Toy Story Playland area as well and you get that area locked down to really make this park something to experience. Since the Cars stuff already exists I would rather see that part reworked into another IP like Wreck it Ralph or Monsterstropolis myself but that seems unlikely because of their track record as the clones seem to win out more often. I would think changing streets of America to monstropolis leading into a pretty cool Doors Coaster in place of RSR would be a new and better option to keep people going to both coasts but what do I know.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sorry, but that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

Star Wars has lots of great locations, and they're easy to expand upon. Just because adding small scenes in a ride refresh didn't create much excitement (it's a refresh of an existing ride, what did you expect) doesn't mean that some of those locations translated to a physical space wouldn't create tons of excitement.

Star Wars has plenty, plenty of material to build theme park locations around, be it indoor or outdoor. Only talent and budget sets the constraints here.

Great location doesn't mean great cohesion. And that's what a theme park needs. Not an eclectic variety of terrains that don't fit together.

Lord of the rings has great locations as well. Where is its land in a theme park?

Sure Star Wars has plenty of matierial. And yes I would love to see a fully fleshed out hoth or Endor, etc. But in order to make a cohesive land, you have to pick one planet and flesh it out. Not a much of random planets mixed together. It wouldn't make sense.

I know there's a lot of excitement for SW coming to the parks, but the practicalities seem problematic. Desert planet, swamp planet, ice planet... Not sure those are as park-friendly or as eye-catching as antique "hidden" shopping district in London or Scottish village with castle school on the edge of town.

Short of building a Death Star or some of its interiors, there's not a lot of places I'd want to explore in the SW universe. If I want to see a swamp, I'll go to one of the cypress swamps that hasn't been destroyed by Florida developers. I guess Mos Eisley would be a setting you could explore, but it's not very whimsical.

Maybe that's it. The SW settings that I'm familiar with don't have much whimsy which the Potter settings have ample amounts of. SW will be successful when it's built, I'm sure, but I'm still skeptical about how it's implemented.

This is the problem with this latest initiative to create "lands" around brands: they're not all as adaptable as Hogwarts or Radiator Springs (the latter is so perfect I almost suspect Lasseter of creating Cars with theme parks on his mind) even though I think there's more people who would feel right at home on Tatooine than you realize. It's not impossible (more so it can be really successful), but they'll need to be creative because for all lot of people Star Wars is nothing more than the death star and lightsabers, whereas everyone big or small attributes HP with Hogwarts. Who knows--maybe Iger's given Abrams the nudge nudge to think of theme park potential too.

At the very least it'll work out in Anaheim (where the new Star Tours did generate a lot of excitement) if it doesn't take off here in Dagobah.

Obviously you don't want a "bunch of random planets", but transitions between lands (and varied themes) have worked for nearly sixty years; No reason it wouldn't work for Star Wars. Indeed, World Showcase thematically works just fine over at Epcot, where we're dealing with a collection of (somewhat) random countries on widely separate continents.

I am going to quote all of these at once instead of repeating myself. Star Wars features a lot of named locations, but it is almost completely without places. Without fail there is only ever one location that repeatedly and consistently comes up as a "must build," the Mos Eisley Cantina. Not even Mos Eisley itself, just this one bar that people think is some fun place because of the upbeat music being played in the one scene that takes place there despite it being described as a very nasty, not fun place. But there is nothing special about the Cantina. It is a bunch of sand colored blank walls. The only unique "theming" element would be the contraption behind the bar. There is NOTHING about the Cantina as a built space that is interesting. What is interesting is the characters that inhabit the space.

The locations presented in Star Wars are also a lot of landscapes, not city scapes. Even Coruscant is treated more as landscape than built space, a very literal treatment of the term "concrete jungle." This is what makes them different from other jumps in place like at World Showcase. Lands are constructed around built space, not expansive landscapes that require flying to effectively get around. You're never going to get that endless, expansive feeling within a walkable place when it is without constructed spaces that shape and control the experience. Star Wars' universe is very open ended and expansive, the direct opposite of the tight, controlled theme park experience.

So you're saying Disney should NOT build anymore Star Wars attractions? Scrap SW plans?

Unless there is a compelling themed entertainment-based reason for doing so (a reasoning wholly rejected by current leadership), then I would say no to more Star Wars.

 

[asianway]

Legitimate point, but would you really advise basing your park investment decisions on the public reaction to a long-overdue upgrade to an old attraction?

It would give me great pause especially given the re-ridability of ST2. I'd go so far to say that the Frozen Sing-a-long did more for DHS attendance than the Star Tours refresh.

Hey I like Star Tours but I need to look at this objectively

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I am going to quote all of these at once instead of repeating myself. Star Wars features a lot of named locations, but it is almost completely without places. Without fail there is only ever one location that repeatedly and consistently comes up as a "must built," the Mos Eisley Cantina. Not even Mos Eisley itself, just this one bar that people think is some fun place because of the upbeat music being played in the one scene that takes place there despite it being described as a very nasty, not fun place. But there is nothing special about the Cantina. It is a bunch of sand colored blank walls. The only unique "theming" element would be the contraption behind the bar. There is NOTHING about the Cantina as a built space that is interesting. What is interesting is the characters that inhabit the space.

The locations presented in Star Wars are also a lot of landscapes, not city scares. Even Coruscant is treated more as landscape than built space, a very literal treatment of the term "concrete jungle." This is what makes them different from other jumps in place like at World Showcase. Lands are constructed around built space, not expansive landscapes that require flying to effectively get around. You're never going to get that endless,e expansive feeling within a walkable place when it is without constructed spaces that shape and control the experience. Star Wars' universe is very open ended and expansive, the direct opposite of the tight, controlled theme park experience.

Unless there is a compelling themed entertainment-based reason for doing so (a reasoning wholly rejected by current leadership), then I would say no to more Star Wars.

You're missing the most obvious place of all: space itself.

 

[Lee]

If they didn't jump the gun on Pandora I believe they could easily have made DAK a home for part of the star wars universe.

Dude...no.

 

[VJ]

Actually, they do.
City Hall gets a message that "Space Mountain has broken down" and they spring into action.

If they are too slow, they get another message:
"Space Mountain has still not been fixed. Check where your mechanics are, or consider hiring extra mechanics."

I, too, appreciate this reference. I'm not sure many others will get it, although that's the best kind of reference.

 

[TalkingHead]

I am going to quote all of these at once instead of repeating myself. Star Wars features a lot of named locations, but it is almost completely without places. Without fail there is only ever one location that repeatedly and consistently comes up as a "must built," the Mos Eisley Cantina. Not even Mos Eisley itself, just this one bar that people think is some fun place because of the upbeat music being played in the one scene that takes place there despite it being described as a very nasty, not fun place. But there is nothing special about the Cantina. It is a bunch of sand colored blank walls. The only unique "theming" element would be the contraption behind the bar. There is NOTHING about the Cantina as a built space that is interesting. What is interesting is the characters that inhabit the space.

The locations presented in Star Wars are also a lot of landscapes, not city scares. Even Coruscant is treated more as landscape than built space, a very literal treatment of the term "concrete jungle." This is what makes them different from other jumps in place like at World Showcase. Lands are constructed around built space, not expansive landscapes that require flying to effectively get around. You're never going to get that endless,e expansive feeling within a walkable place when it is without constructed spaces that shape and control the experience. Star Wars' universe is very open ended and expansive, the direct opposite of the tight, controlled theme park experience.

Agree with all of that. The cantina part, especially.

This was mentioned in the umpteenth "Catch LMA Before It Goes Away" thread.

I'd say Star Tours is on the safe list.

I think that's sorta too bad. I'd be interested in what WDI would do for Star Wars if they were starting from scratch. I think Star Tours is a bit of speed bump in an expansion. An expansive space port could be interesting given the nature of the IP, but Star Tours is sort of leeching that space port theme -- and doing it on a relatively small scale.

This isn't the place to armchair Imagineer, but I do think the (eventual?) expansion would be more interesting if they scrapped the 1980s technology of Star Tours.

 

[bhg469]

Dude...no.

Dude, Give me one reason why Dagobah and or Endor wouldn't have fit instead of the coveted giant cat smurfs...

 

[Crazydisneyfanluke]

Actually, they do.
City Hall gets a message that "Space Mountain has broken down" and they spring into action.

If they are too slow, they get another message:
"Space Mountain has still not been fixed. Check where your mechanics are, or consider hiring extra mechanics."

That's when you remove a piece of track from Space Mountain and watch the fireworks

"Space Mountain has crashed."
"12 people have died on Space Mountain."

"Space Mountain has its restraints stuck"

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Dude, Give me one reason why Dagobah and or Endor wouldn't have fit instead of the coveted blue smurfs...

The scenes that took place on Dagobah had nothing to do with Dagobah. They could have happened on any remote system in any kind of terrain, including an abandoned ship on the edge of space with no nature whatsoever. Vis a vis Avatar, the nature is the story.

 

[ParentsOf4]

The bottom line i my opinion is that Star Tours is cool and we always ride it but it's just not that impressive of a ride.

Star Wars was very impressive ...

When I first road it 25 years ago.

 

[BrerJon]

The locations presented in Star Wars are also a lot of landscapes, not city scapes. Even Coruscant is treated more as landscape than built space, a very literal treatment of the term "concrete jungle." This is what makes them different from other jumps in place like at World Showcase.

Yup, all this. Lucas didn't have a huge budget when shooting Star Wars so there wasn't a lot of time paid to intricate tiny details. Tatooine was Tunisia with a few props, the Death Star corridors were pretty featureless, Hoth was just a ski resort... Star Wars works on natural environments, not man-made, and that's hard to reproduce in a park.

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter on the other hand spent millions crafting tiny details, props and things that lend themselves well. I can see exactly how Universal could do Rings - you have the Hobbit village, with all the shops and hobbit houses crammed with detail to explore, then the main ride which takes you off to Mount Doom, facing the dragon etc.

Disney needs the equivalent of a hobbit village, a richly detailed area with shops, houses, and tons of things inspired by the films but not literally trying to reproduce them. Make it better than what was on screen. I could see a nice Tatooine village with market traders, animatronic salesmen, houses you can explore, Droids rolling around... if they made it all about the streetmosphere, then before you know it people wouldn't notice if the sets were a bit bland.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I could see a nice Tatooine village with market traders, animatronic salesmen, houses you can explore, Droids rolling around... if they made it all about the streetmosphere, then before you know it people wouldn't notice if the sets were a bit bland.

We'll see what they do with Avatar, but animatronics outdoors in that heat and sun in an uncontrolled environment and in close proximity to guests screams "red flag."

I think the "star" (no pun intended) of Star Wars will have to be the attractions much more than the land itself.

 

[bhg469]

The scenes that took place on Dagobah had nothing to do with Dagobah. They could have happened on any remote system in any kind of terrain, including an abandoned ship on the edge of space with no nature whatsoever. Vis a vis Avatar, the nature is the story.

So because there is a nature theme it belongs at DAK and some majestic natural environments that the star wars universe has isn't? And Dinorama fits how? Please, Im really wanting to know how theme and flow totally matter until they don't. World showcase theme is going down the porcelain throne, why not DAK too?

 

[BrerJon]

We'll see what they do with Avatar, but animatronics outdoors in that heat and sun in an uncontrolled environment and in close proximity to guests screams "red flag."

PUSH was popular for years, and people liked Lucky when he was around, so it's not unheard of.

 

[bhg469]

PUSH was popular for years, and people liked Lucky when he was around, so it's not unheard of.

Just to add one more, Muppet mobile lab was nothing short of a marvel.

 

[spacemt354]

So because there is a nature theme it belongs at DAK and some majestic natural environments that the star wars universe has isn't? And Dinorama fits how? Please, Im really wanting to know how theme and flow totally matter until they don't. World showcase theme is going down the porcelain throne, why not DAK too?

Dinorama is the parking lot to the Dino Institute. The "Chester and Heaster Dinorama" is a spoof on the technical nature of the institute next door. It may not be the best looking, but there is a pretty lengthy story behind it.

As for Star Wars, I can't possibly see how that fits anywhere into what DAK represents. The nature aspects of Star Wars are never expanded upon. Not saying Avatar is the best fit for DAK, but when compared to Star Wars, it wins.

Just because one place is being ruined doesn't mean the park with the most cohesive theme out of all WDW parks should be ruined.