Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

marni1971

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
KingOfEpicocity said:
Oh it spins! How creative
Click to expand...
Sarcasm as you've found just gets you put on ignore.

Try and join in the chat. Stop arguing against it time and time again. You'll find many great people here with plenty of knowledge and stories to share. Or make your point and don't relentlessly pursue it if others don't agree with you. That's how you get a troll tag. And we don't want that.
 
KingOfEpicocity

KingOfEpicocity

Well-Known Member
marni1971 said:
Sarcasm as you've found just gets you put on ignore.

Try and join in the chat. Stop arguing against it time and time again. You'll find many great people here with plenty of knowledge and stories to share. Or make your point and don't relentlessly pursue it if others don't agree with you. That's how you get a troll tag. And we don't want that.
Click to expand...

So having nobody agree with you makes you a troll?
 
No Name

No Name

Well-Known Member
gmajew said:
The only land to date that is open in any park that was a true land is Cars and Harry Potter.... Of these Harry Potter is the one that stands for a longer time thanks to the books. Cars may run its course but then what boy does not like a fast race car when they are young.

Every other ride or IP that is going into any park is just a show building and can be easily changed out or reused when the time comes it needs it.

People are so worried about 20 years but most rides need to be replaced after that amount of time to something new. Very few Peter Pan and small worlds and even ET that become classics that stay long long periods.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's true and I get your point. But the prevailing problem with many IP attractions is that they hurt the theme of the park. Frozen in Norway is a big example, Avatar as well. If the IP is forced, it can hurt the theme which therefore hurts the overall experience. Epoct was so powerful when it opened because all of the rides had a purpose and a common theme. If it was just a jumble of rides that could've easily fit in Magic Kingdom, the park wouldn't have drawn so much attention. Notice IOA had a slow start and didn't see a major rise in attendance until there were quality additions because the theme was not strong enough. Animal Kingdom on the other hand has been able to draw crowds and get good reviews with so little to do because it has such a unified theme. A strong theme is a pretty good way to save money and make a very memorable experience. If a theme park can really get into someone's heart and move them, they will come back. A hodgepodge of unrelating rides may make for a fun day but does not lead to the same return rate. Which is why I believe some (not even the majority) of the recent and coming additions are more costly in the long term and why original attractions can be more profitable.

So thank you for commenting and I agree with what you said about replacing in the future. Maybe my lasting appeal point in that post was weak and I should've centered the arguement around this. The Avatar example was an instance where the IP doesn't even help at all, but in most cases, breaking the theme is really the crux of the issue. The IP may be popular and may bring in a rush of guests, but it sometimes comes at an expense that's hard for the execs to foresee.

Here are the current situations where I think an original attraction would've been better or that the land/ride is in the wrong place:

Frozen ride in the Norway Pavilion
Avatar Land (for the reason that it's not even a popular IP)
Star Wars Land in Disneyland park
Bugs life show in the Tree of Life.
Nemo and Friends in The Seas
maybe some stuff in DCA although the theme of the park in general has changed. The park itself doesn't have a good, strong theme which may be the bigger issue)
Dinorama gets an honorable mention for being just as bad

I'm sure there is a bit more that isn't coming to my mind, but the list is not even close to all IP-based rides. However many of the upcoming ones are on the list and it's more of a concern for the future.

Most of those not on the list aren't because they're bad attractions or unpopular IPs. It's because the IP causes the ride to make little or no connection to the theme and the rest of the park. For example, Nemo may get children interested in sea life, if the ride tried to make that connection (naturally, of course). I'm not saying the fun and cuteness should be taken out of rides. I'm saying that the theme can't go because it ruins a big, both short and long term factor: the overall experience.

To make this post on-topic, I will say that Star Wars land in HS is a great fit and I have absolutely zero complaint about that.
 
Last edited:
britain

britain

Well-Known Member
Maybe we could come to an accord here...

Projected effects are not new. If You Had Wings & El Rio de Tiempo pioneered it. You could go back even further and bring Leota and the Singing Busts (sounds like an interesting band name).

I personally love it when projections are brought in to add an extra layer of effect. I think we could all agree, however, that when a projection of a person is being used (not in a swift dynamic way that only cinema can) as a replacement for what would previously be an animatronic, there's a little flag - a really teeny one, but a flag nonetheless - that gets raised that says "Cheapened Out Here".

That doesn't ruin the attraction necessarily. It's about as disappointing as the black-lit painted skeletons in Indy's dart hallway.

When Dumbledore addresses you from the FJ queue, could that have been achieved by an animatronic? He's not swinging in and jumping in your face like Spiderman. He's even only seen from the waist up. That would have been an ideal animatronic spot, but instead it's a projection.

Now, I can appreciate the point of view that the designers perhaps felt that a projected Michael Gambon would be less destructive to the illusion of being at Hogwarts than an animatronic one. Perhaps we've gotten to the point where animatronics need to either be cartoony or top-of-the-line breakthroughs in engineering in order for them to avoid being perceived as ersatz relics of 20th century theme parks.

But as Ray Harryhausen said, keep them guessing. The best attractions mix it up so that your mind is constantly trying to figure out what they are looking at. If an attraction full of screens can keep you entertained swiftly enough to keep you from really attaching that little "cheap" flag, then more power to them. If not, then they've got to step up their game (I refer you to the recent additions to Gran Fiesta Tour).
 
KingOfEpicocity

KingOfEpicocity

Well-Known Member
britain said:
Maybe we could come to an accord here...

Projected effects are not new. If You Had Wings & El Rio de Tiempo pioneered it. You could go back even further and bring Leota and the Singing Busts (sounds like an interesting band name).

I personally love it when projections are brought in to add an extra layer of effect. I think we could all agree, however, that when a projection of a person is being used (not in a swift dynamic way that only cinema can) as a replacement for what would previously be an animatronic, there's a little flag - a really teeny one, but a flag nonetheless - that gets raised that says "Cheapened Out Here".

That doesn't ruin the attraction necessarily. It's about as disappointing as the black-lit painted skeletons in Indy's dart hallway.

When Dumbledore addresses you from the FJ queue, could that have been achieved by an animatronic? He's not swinging in and jumping in your face like Spiderman. He's even only seen from the waist up. That would have been an ideal animatronic spot, but instead it's a projection.

Now, I can appreciate the point of view that the designers perhaps felt that a projected Michael Gambon would be less destructive to the illusion of being at Hogwarts than an animatronic one. Perhaps we've gotten to the point where animatronics need to either be cartoony or top-of-the-line breakthroughs in engineering in order for them to avoid being perceived as ersatz relics of 20th century theme parks.

But as Ray Harryhausen said, keep them guessing. The best attractions mix it up so that your mind is constantly trying to figure out what they are looking at. If an attraction full of screens can keep you entertained swiftly enough to keep you from really attaching that little "cheap" flag, then more power to them. If not, then they've got to step up their game (I refer you to the recent additions to Gran Fiesta Tour).
Click to expand...
I very much agree with this point. However, my mind is never wondering which is which...
 
KingOfEpicocity

KingOfEpicocity

Well-Known Member
egg said:
Yeah that's true and I get your point. But the prevailing problem with many IP attractions is that they hurt the theme of the park. Frozen in Norway is a big example, Avatar as well. If the IP is forced, it can hurt the theme which therefore hurts the overall experience. Epoct was so powerful when it opened because all of the rides had a purpose and a common theme. If it was just a jumble of rides that could've easily fit in Magic Kingdom, the park wouldn't have drawn so much attention. Notice IOA had a slow start and didn't see a major rise in attendance until there were quality additions because the theme was not strong enough. Animal Kingdom on the other hand has been able to draw crowds and get good reviews with so little to do because it has such a unified theme. A strong theme is a pretty good way to save money and make a very memorable experience. If a theme park can really get into someone's heart and move them, they will come back. A hodgepodge of unrelating rides may make for a fun day but does not lead to the same return rate. Which is why I believe some (not even the majority) of the recent and coming additions are more costly in the long term and why original attractions can be more profitable.

So thank you for commenting and I agree with what you said about replacing in the future. Maybe my lasting appeal point in that post was weak and I should've centered the arguement around this. The Avatar example was an instance where the IP doesn't even help at all, but in most cases, breaking the theme is really the crux of the issue. The IP may be popular and may bring in a rush of guests, but it sometimes comes at an expense that's hard for the execs to foresee.

Here are the current situations where I think an original attraction would've been better or that the land/ride is in the wrong place:

Frozen ride in the Norway Pavilion
Avatar Land (for the reason that it's not even a popular IP)
Star Wars Land in Disneyland park
Bugs life show in the Tree of Life.
Nemo and Friends in The Seas
maybe some stuff in DCA although the theme of the park in general has changed. The park itself doesn't have a good, strong theme which may be the bigger issue)
Dinorama gets an honorable mention for being just as bad

I'm sure there is a bit more that isn't coming to my mind, but the list is not even close to all IP-based rides. However many of the upcoming ones are on the list and it's more of a concern for the future.

Most of those not on the list aren't because they're bad attractions or unpopular IPs. It's because the IP causes the ride to make little or no connection to the theme and the rest of the park. For example, Nemo may get children interested in sea life, if the ride tried to make that connection (naturally, of course). I'm not saying the fun and cuteness should be taken out of rides. I'm saying that the theme can't go because it ruins a big, both short and long term factor: the overall experience.
Click to expand...

This is what worries me about Disney parks. If they stuck to the parks themes, then they would have no problem implementing non-ip attractions
 
Disneyhead'71

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
BrianLo said:
Not to take away from Universal's accomplishments, but Carsland was announced around the same time frame as Uni acquiring the rights to Potter. People often don't remember that because Carsland actually took two additional years to open.

The IP land came to be within both companies fairly independently of one another. Not to say Dis hasn't learned several lessons from their competition and is reaffirmed in their current beliefs that IP is the way to go, but Universal didn't 'invent' the current trend as much as people seem to think.

They have certainly perfected it more so in their second go, and that certainly has done a lot to shape Star Wars.
Click to expand...
Actually, Cars Land was announced after Potter broke ground.
 
tl77

tl77

Well-Known Member
bakntime said:
I think it's just a pre-viz easter egg. This attraction won't be taking over Star Tours. Especially not with the way it was described as you being able to control the Falcon and shoot at things. There's no way 30+ people on board a Star Tours simulator could all control the vehicle and shoot. I expect the vehicles to be low capacity (maybe 3-5 people?), but there will probably be dozens of them running at once.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about taking over the current Star Tours building/ride vehicles, but the "tongue in cheek/light hearted" tone of Star Tours doesn't seem to fit with this concept art they've been rolling out. So I'm guessing if they are going to keep the current Star Tours building/ride vehicles they will get re-themed and renamed

This "Millennium Falcon" ride is also clearly a flight simulator as well, that's obvious from the few seconds of video they ran on the Disneyland 60th TV show, but you're right if you can control it, it will be different from Star Tours. I get the impression that it will be similar to the small 2 seat, Cyber Space Mountain flight simulators at Disney Quest from the looks of that video. If they had like a 12 of them, and each ride holds 2 people and lasts about 2 minutes, then they could load 2 people every 10 seconds, and I'm assuming you will get to this ride by entering the life Sized Millennium Falcon are building... because it seems would be kind of a dumb ride if that's not the case
 

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

Back
Top Bottom