Disney Irish
Premium Member
So yeah then probably guest flow and seating.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Avengers Campus: E-Watch! (Waiting on the new ride)
- Thread starter MisterPenguin
- Start date
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
RIP Cars Land - Bugs Land path. Back in the day it was longer and had a charming off the beaten path feel to it. Now it’s shorter, less greenery, more concrete and more people. All in the name of progress I suppose.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I get the less greenery and maybe more concrete and people (something already done for AC previously), but shorter? Isn't it basically the same length as before?
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
No it got a little shorter when they opened up AC.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Ok, can't be by much then, maybe a couple dozen feet? And I wouldn't expect it to get any shorter even if they move the AC entrance over to the Sanctum as you suspect.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
No I’m not expecting it to get any shorter. I just lumped together all the ways it has changed since AC opened including the changes I expect when those construction walls go down.
I thought @chadwpalm pointed out that the entrance is staying in the same place? At least as shown in the concept art.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Yes that is the assumption that its stay, my point was that its not getting any shorter even if the entrance moved as you suspected.
I’ve always felt the MCU is better fodder for attractions over immersive lands.
What Marvel IP would make for the most compelling themed environments?
Wakanda gets mentioned,
Asgard could be cool,
X-men mansion + danger room
Time Variance Authority from Loki
Castle Doom
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
MCU works better as an attraction or two in another land. A NYC area with an Avengers ride or Doctor Strange/Spider-Man ride. 1940's Hollywood themed area with Captain America/Agent Carter themed ride. Sci-Fi land with a Guardians/Hulk/Fantastic Four themed attraction.
This is why I miss lands based on ideas and themes rather than one IP. Imagine if Universal built a Mummy Land instead of integrating it into the NYC area in Orlando. An area which allowed for Ghostbusters, The Mummy/Kong rather than trying to make a land about each. This is why the Monsters area of Epic Universe interest me the most. Its not some recreated movie set with one idea present, its an original land in the style of the Universal Monsters and they could have a Creature from the Black Lagoon ride opposite a Dracula dining area and a Romani wagon camp.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I'm not a Uni Parks person, never have been, never will be.... But I would be down for a Mummy Land, even if its just a mini land, over just having a single ride in a land that may or may not have anything to do with the ride. And I'm so over the movie set idea, I want a fully themed land so it feels like I'm immersed in it, not some recreation of the movie set.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
The Mummy did fit in New York, as it was set within a Museum. It's not like there are a multitude of different attractions to base on The Mummy. Give me a ride that fits the land and makes it better vs giving me a single attraction a lot of fluff around it.
I love Indiana Jones, but I'm very glad that Adventureland isn't Indiana Jones Land. The Tiki Room wouldn't match Indiana Jones, so the general 30's-50's exotic outpost theme allows for both Indiana Jones and a show where a Polynesian hut comes to life with singing birds, flowers, and totems.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to generic themed lands. I'm just saying in terms of IP specific attractions, I rather have an Arendelle themed land/mini-land with a couple Frozen related attractions centered around the town of Arendelle than a single Frozen ride in a generic themed land. Its more immersive in my opinion to have a land theme around the attractions of the IP rather than generic themed land with a few attractions from various IPs that are lumped together that may or may not fit the theme of the generic land.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
The older imagineers understood this. The newer ones? Well they're fine having Pooh in the Bayou for absolutely no reason.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
I think it depends on the IP. Zootopia is an interesting location to explore and the land works. I think Diagon Alley does the same. Although, both of these suffer from being single attraction lands.
The MCU doesn't have a world that I need to visit and explore. Wakanda was a small street set when not in the tech labs or the CGI battlefields. New York is New York, so I don't need a New York focused solely on MCU properties. It's the issue Star Wars runs into. The locales are pretty one-note and the fun is hey setting around the galaxy rather than spending tons of time in Mo's Eisley, a pretty bland barren outpost.
If you can create three quality and different rides around an IP and still have enough left over for walk around exploration, go with the IP land. If your land is pretty much limited to one type of attraction/story, find a bigger land for it to fit into.
For the Mummy, I can't imagine there would be much to explore world-wise. Maybe a lightly themed excavation-site coaster, but that's pretty darn close to the ride we already have. Would a Mummy omnimover or boat ride give us something that fits the franchise and is different enough from the current ride? Not really. Does exploring a faux desert landscape of ruins seem enticing to me? Not really. So set it in a museum as part of a New York section and I"m set for a stronger land.
As I said before, I'd love to see Universal Orlando have a NYC land with a Ghostbusters shooter, Ninja Turtle darkrides, and a Spider-Man thrill ride.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I agree I think it does depend on the IP, and really how its used. Anything that happens in a real world location is sort of blah to me, because you can see the real thing. But for a fantasy world (and I use the term broadly here, not to mean just the genre) that isn't available in the real world I think that can be exciting. Like I mentioned Arendelle, Zootopia as you mentioned, etc. Wakanda though I think could be an interesting land because its not a place you can visit in the real world, its more than just that single street set that you think it is from the movie. To me these type of lands are an attraction unto themselves, they add to the experience in my opinion, they have something over and above what a generic land can offer.
For example if Stranger Things ever got a land at a theme park, what is more interesting, having a single attraction in a generic land, or having an entire land based on Hawkins with the Upside Down bleeding through that you can explore, to me its the entire land based on Hawkins that is more exciting.
But if you set a land just in generic NYC with a few attractions vaguely tied together because they're set in NYC, its not that exciting to me, because I can experience NYC without spending theme park prices. I'm not there to see the land, I'm there to get on a few attractions and leave as quickly as possible. There is nothing to keep me there longer because its a generic land.
I think Mummy is hard because its based on real world locations, but one built in a fantasy world. So yeah I can see it being its own themed land, but something like that is hard and can see why it doesn't interest you.
As I said I'm not a Uni Park guy, and this is part of the reason why, I'm just not into generic lands that just have a bunch of thrill rides. I can go to my local amusement park for that, for cheaper.
I think I agree with your overarching point, but I take issue with the idea that somehow Zootopia is an IP worthy of exploration in themed worlds but Star Wars isn't?
Talk about one-note locales....in Zootopia it's literally "Rainforest District" "Sahara Square" "Tundra Town" - not much more "one note" than that.
The failings of Galaxy's Edge lie entirely with Disney's execution, not the possibilities presented by the IP.
Architectural Guinea Pig
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Zootopia’s storyline takes place almost completely in Zootopia, which is very fleshed out and specific. Star Wars is not centered on a singular planet, and is a space opera taking place in different planets every few minutes. The basis of an exploitable and explorable IP is one that is easily recognizable and interesting for a person to explore. Star Wars fits recognizable with Tatooine, but is not interesting in any way, as a hot desert planet in hot climate with no shade is depressing. If it were to have been a different planet, it’s not recognizable to the consumer. Galaxy’s Edge feels star wars but just doesn’t give you that “Harry Potter” feeling. There aren’t enough fleshed out worlds to make it amazing enough. Harry Potter, Zootopia, Frozen, etc are all ips based on a solidified location that make them better for consumers.
Just food for thought, if you were in Disney’s shoes, how would you have done Galaxy’s Edge aside from changing the time period?
Last edited:
As an IP Star Wars, across 3 trilogies and innumerable books, comics and video games is "fleshed out" to a level that does not bear comparison to a single film like Zootopia. Other points are debatable but let's not argue that Star Wars lacks for fleshed out content. As others have already said, I think the real challenge is how to anchor a land around a single location.
huh?
I mostly agree with this part ^
Hard disagree. Tatooine is far from the only recognizable destination in Star Wars. To claim it's not interesting in any way is both a personal value judgement and rather unimaginative. Mos Eisley, Mos Espa, Jabba the Hutt's palace, pod-racing courses, tusken raider caves, camps, canyons,
Again, this is kind of an insane take. Just off the top of my head, the "consumer" (I prefer guest...) would be able to recognize:
the Death Star,
the ice planet Hoth,
the redwood forests of Endor,
Coruscant's Jedi temple, Galactic Senate and city-scape
Dagobah, Yoda's swamp
Bespin the cloud city,
Mustafar, the hot lava planet that birthed Darth Vader
Even less iconic locations like Naboo's palaces, the Wookie home world of Kashyk, Yavin 4 where the Rebels had their base, Geonosis,
Hopefully we can at least agree there are sufficient fleshed out worlds to work with. As for how to execute a Star Wars world that can only pull from a couple of the above places, that's a far trickier question to answer.
I won't pretend I have a perfect answer for exactly how Disney should have implemented Galaxy's Edge. I think avoiding a specific time period would be wise, but I'd take a Tatooine with Mos Eisley and Jabba's Palace over the very mid Batuu that we did get. Having part of the land take place on a Star Destroyer you can explore beyond the portion of the queue we got on Rise would also be interesting.
I'd also say saving room for future expansions that could take place on Coruscant or Mustafar, maybe accessible through hyperspace tunnels of some kind would be preferable than simply expanding Tatooine.
chadwpalm
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I personally would have preferred a planet similar to Felucia where, like Pandora, could have showcased more exotic and possibly luminescent flora. Or.....stick with Batuu, but at least put in more exotic flora to at least make it feel other-worldly.
Architectural Guinea Pig
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
When I mean fleshed out I’m referring to the world building of a singular location. Star wars has great story building but again there isn’t a planet with an iconic weenie, detailed villages, food, and culture that will be instantly recognizable and fun to explore. Star Wars is very spread out and in doing so many of the locations are way to grand in size and scale to be built out. This is a wayward rephrasing of the “anchoring on a single location.”
explorable! It’s autocorrect being stupid as usual.
Tattooing has its interesting places, but it’s all sand (“I hate sand!” -Anakin) and no natural greenery. Green is very important to make something feel fresher and grandiose. When you see all the same color pallets everywhere it gives a placebo effect making the entire land ~10 degrees hotter in florida climate.
Exactly what I’m talking about. Star Wars goes over way too many planets in its films in a matter of minutes, and very little are visited twice aside from Tatooine. Too many mini lands in a Star Wars land makes it a mess (+way too expensive) yet a big land won’t pay off if it really only covers a planet seen once. In both scenarios you’re left wanting more.
Trees > Sand!
What this really comes down to is two elements to make a IP land-worthy or attraction-worthy. First, it contains a singular built out area that is recognizable and relevant, and second, it has potential for cool attractions. Star Wars and Avengers both don’t have the first, which makes strong attractions necessary. That’s why star wars has attraction potential and not land potential.
Now that I think of it, why exactly are we talking about this?