Future of the Hollywood Tower of Terror

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
Scarlett Johansson Confirms Tower of Terror Movie Still In Development Post-SAG Strike

This movie really terrifies me for Tower of Terror's future. If they remove the Twilight Zone theme and just keep it as "spooky hotel with Scarlett Johansson," it will not be nearly as perfect as it is. Everything about this ride is basically perfect. Is there a single flaw? I don't think so. And removing the Twilight Zone will eliminate so much of the charm.
You have seen the 1997 TV movie right? There was no Twilight Zone backstory to it and yet they somehow made a plot out if it..Not a great one but, something none the less..

893985677037e133062618664b9a59c7.png
 
You have seen the 1997 TV movie right? There was no Twilight Zone backstory to it and yet they somehow made a plot out if it..Not a great one but, something none the less..

893985677037e133062618664b9a59c7.png
No, I've heard it was terrible. But for me, having the Rod Serling narration and the idea that we are the stars of the episode is indispensableβ€”it's the best "ride the movies" attraction that has ever been done. I'm a huge fan of the Twilight Zone original series, so that's what makes it so special an experience. If they just make it a movie tie-in with Scarlett, it's going to feel totally different to me.
 

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
I mean with the way the opening of the film goes is pretty much the same plot..Minus the 5th dimension...I'm sure they would have kept the same plot but just say the Lighting struck the towers to their demise..
 

Magicart87

HOUSE OF MAGIC Member
Premium Member
re: the movie. Because commercialized merriment is in full swing around here, I had a somewhat perplexing thought. What if this thing turns out to be a holiday picture? And the ride is retooled around that. Scary or genius?

The ride's plot is inexplicably linked to Halloween, with October 31st being the date of the lightning strike, but what if, through the power of "movie magic retconning," this new movie were to take place during the Christmas season with hotel guests heading up to the Tip Tip Club for a holiday party? It's crazy, right? I can't decide if the entire hypothetical blip of an idea is blasphemous or if throwing a little merriment into the mix wouldn't be a bad thing. Sweet and salty. Naughty and nice. Would such a movie even make sense? And then it hit me: this would be a four-month-out-of-the-year super streamer. A companion of sorts to "Nightmare Before Christmas". I mean, if "Die Hard" can be a quote-unquote Christmas movie, why not Tower of Terror? Thoughts? I shudder to think.

unrelated: One things for sure. Disney's Jollywood Nights would have certainly benefited from a "seasonal" overlay.
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
re: the movie. Because commercialized merriment is in full swing around here, I had a somewhat perplexing thought. What if this thing turns out to be a holiday picture? And the ride is retooled around that. Scary or genius?

The ride's plot is inexplicably linked to Halloween, with October 31st being the date of the lightning strike, but what if, through the power of "movie magic retconning," this new movie were to take place during the Christmas season with hotel guests heading up to the Tip Tip Club for a holiday party? It's crazy, right? I can't decide if the entire hypothetical blip of an idea is blasphemous or if throwing a little merriment into the mix wouldn't be a bad thing. Sweet and salty. Naughty and nice. Would such a movie even make sense? And then it hit me: this would be a four-month-out-of-the-year super streamer. A companion of sorts to "Nightmare Before Christmas". I mean, if "Die Hard" can be a quote-unquote Christmas movie, why not Tower of Terror? Thoughts? I shudder to think.

unrelated: One things for sure. Disney's Jollywood Nights would have certainly benefited from a "seasonal" overlay.
My thought: don’t mess with perfection.
 

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
I would be surprised if the twilight zone theming disappears. It really seems like a win-win relationship between Disney and CBS.

Disney gets to keep the theming
CBS gets a little brand exposure for a brand that isn't typically in the public eye, but people might go check out on Paramount plus.
Doesn't Disney have to pay licensing fees to keep using the Twilight Zone theming? I think that's Disney main, money grubbing issue.
 

Purduevian

Well-Known Member
Doesn't Disney have to pay licensing fees to keep using the Twilight Zone theming? I think that's Disney main, money grubbing issue.
I assume so, I don't know the details, but I can't imagine the twilight zone licensing fee can be too much. If IOA can afford to pay the fees of Marvel, Suess, HP, and the classic cartoons at toon lagoon... DHS should be able to keep paying CBS and Aerosmith
 

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
I assume so, I don't know the details, but I can't imagine the twilight zone licensing fee can be too much. If IOA can afford to pay the fees of Marvel, Suess, HP, and the classic cartoons at toon lagoon... DHS should be able to keep paying CBS and Aerosmith

It's the only IP licensed attraction under Viacom/Paramount at Disney.
They can definitely afford to keep paying it. But they're greedy so I can see them not wanting to if possible. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a factor in the Great Movie Ride going away (that & animatronic repair costs).
 

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
They can definitely afford to keep paying it. But they're greedy so I can see them not wanting to if possible. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a factor in the Great Movie Ride going away (that & animatronic repair costs).
Shame that Paramount Parks (owned under Viacom) couldn't even keep the alternative to Twilight Zone in their parks..Now it's just Flight of Fear.
hqdefault.jpg
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
Doesn't Disney have to pay licensing fees to keep using the Twilight Zone theming? I think that's Disney main, money grubbing issue.
The Twilight Zone licensing is pocket change compared to the cost of redoing the attraction (properly, at least).

Mostly Disney has been content to keep paying it for the attraction and simply sell merch without TZ branding so they can keep that cash for themselves.

In the case of DCA's Tower, the attraction was redone because its GSATs were low for what was meant to be a marquee attraction - ask guests what they came to DCA to see and almost no one said Tower, despite it being something many did once there.

Add the fact that DCA's Tower was always known to be the less-precious cousin to WDW's, the strong desire to get a new major attraction opening in the park, the interest in getting Marvel quickly into the resort, Guardians having a movie coming out on a timeline that a retheme could be completed by (but a newly built attraction would take too long), the limited space in the park, the success of the first movie indicating the sequel would likely do well, and the property being suitable for a thrilling attraction and you have the basic recipe for why their Tower was reworked. Many have theorized it's because Disney wasn't interested in paying the Twlight Zone licensing fees, but that was so low on the list of reasons it was basically negligible.

Mission Breakout wasn't exactly cheap, but it was fast, synergistic, and turned the facility back into one that was massively popular and actively pulled people into the park. The WDW Tower, meanwhile, has always been massively popular and a significant draw for the park. Something would have to shift noticeably for WDW to gain real interest in retheming.

A new hit movie based on the ride could be enough to do that, but whether the movie will be a hit remains to be seen.
 

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
The Twilight Zone licensing is pocket change compared to the cost of redoing the attraction (properly, at least).

Mostly Disney has been content to keep paying it for the attraction and simply sell merch without TZ branding so they can keep that cash for themselves.

In the case of DCA's Tower, the attraction was redone because its GSATs were low for what was meant to be a marquee attraction - ask guests what they came to DCA to see and almost no one said Tower, despite it being something many did once there.

Add the fact that DCA's Tower was always known to be the less-precious cousin to WDW's, the strong desire to get a new major attraction opening in the park, the interest in getting Marvel quickly into the resort, Guardians having a movie coming out on a timeline that a retheme could be completed by (but a newly built attraction would take too long), the limited space in the park, the success of the first movie indicating the sequel would likely do well, and the property being suitable for a thrilling attraction and you have the basic recipe for why their Tower was reworked. Many have theorized it's because Disney wasn't interested in paying the Twlight Zone licensing fees, but that was so low on the list of reasons it was basically negligible.

Mission Breakout wasn't exactly cheap, but it was fast, synergistic, and turned the facility back into one that was massively popular and actively pulled people into the park. The WDW Tower, meanwhile, has always been massively popular and a significant draw for the park. Something would have to shift noticeably for WDW to gain real interest in retheming.

A new hit movie based on the ride could be enough to do that, but whether the movie will be a hit remains to be seen.
I hope you're right! I'm sure the ride would still be good without the Twilight Zone theming. But I don't think it'd be anywhere as special if they removed it.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom