• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

Advertisement
Internally, they wish they had used the IP as a part of a Universal-equivalent of Fantasyland.
Despicable Me? I don't see how that becomes an entire land. The value of the IP is 99% driven by the minions and 1% driven by the fluffy unicorn. There's nothing especially unique about the world.

FWIW, I feel the same way about Batman, Superman, and Marvel. They can lend themselves well to specific attractions but Metropolis, Gotham, or Marvel Manhattan are little more than "generic city land".
 

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Despicable Me? I don't see how that becomes an entire land. The value of the IP is 99% driven by the minions and 1% driven by the fluffy unicorn. There's nothing especially unique about the world.

FWIW, I feel the same way about Batman, Superman, and Marvel. They can lend themselves well to specific attractions but Metropolis, Gotham, or Marvel Manhattan are little more than "generic city land".
Asgard would be amazing to walk through.
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
Despicable Me? I don't see how that becomes an entire land. The value of the IP is 99% driven by the minions and 1% driven by the fluffy unicorn. There's nothing especially unique about the world.

FWIW, I feel the same way about Batman, Superman, and Marvel. They can lend themselves well to specific attractions but Metropolis, Gotham, or Marvel Manhattan are little more than "generic city land".

totally agree
hard to make a land about Marvel or Transformers but easy to make a great attraction
thats why i think Cars, Pandora, or Potter are different
You gotta be able to sell the environment
 
totally agree
hard to make a land about Marvel or Transformers but easy to make a great attraction
thats why i think Cars, Pandora, or Potter are different
You gotta be able to sell the environment
It's also why Star Wars is probably the only IP that could be the "Potter Swatter" that people have been looking for since 2010. Pandora has huge potential from a world-building perspective but it doesn't have the cultural cachet of Potter. Marvel has the cultural cachet but not the world-building. Star Wars is the only thing out there with both.
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
It's also why Star Wars is probably the only IP that could be the "Potter Swatter" that people have been looking for since 2010. Pandora has huge potential from a world-building perspective but it doesn't have the cultural cachet of Potter. Marvel has the cultural cachet but not the world-building. Star Wars is the only thing out there with both.
i agree

EDIT: if they go all in
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
That would be a terrible decision. A retheme might make sense, but that ride gobbles up crowds and it would be a mistake to give up that capacity.
And that would be a huge waste of money too. We complain about Disney cutting budgets or being wasteful and here are people saying to tear down a perfectly good ride. Re-theming would cost some money but not that much (the type of ride system is very easy to change to a different theme) and would keep a high capacity ride in a park that desperately needs attractions -- whatever theme that section of Echo Lake ends up being, Star Tours can be converted into something appropriate.

That said, I'm still a fan of keeping it as a Star Wars ride and just having a second mini-land around it with a different setting than the main Star Wars area.

Edit: I'll add that if they do end up re-theming Star Tours that that I hope whatever new thing goes there keeps the randomization of scenes. I think that really adds to the impact.
 
Last edited:

doctornick

Well-Known Member
The ST ride system is very limiting. Maybe not as far as what IPs you can stick in there (virtually anything), but as far as doing the IP justice.
I don't see how it is "limiting". Well, I mean any system is "limiting" in some fashion, of course, but the ride system is perfectly fine and enjoyable. In fact, Disney and other parks continue to use the technology, as for example with the Iron Man ride being built in Hong Kong.

I've said before, but I think people harp way to much on fancy new ride systems, when execution is far more important. You can use old technology and have a fantastic attraction if done well -- and you can use new tech and have it be poor. There's nothing about the Star Tours system that prevents it from housing a good and popular ride (as Star Tours 2.0 most certainly is) and the specifics of the system make it conducive to being re-themed if necessary unlike some other more custom ride layouts.

Take Despicable Me at Uni for example... you think they don't regret putting their most popular animated IP into a limiting Ride system? They most certainly do.
Not sure what this means. The "issue" with the Depicable Me ride is capacity, not the ride system per se. Capacity is absolutely horrendous for that attraction -- but Uni is limited by space issues. I they had the land availability of WDW, they sure wouldn't have added more rooms for DM and allowed capacity to be more appropriate. That wouldn't have required a different ride system.
 
I don't see how it is "limiting". Well, I mean any system is "limiting" in some fashion, of course, but the ride system is perfectly fine and enjoyable. In fact, Disney and other parks continue to use the technology, as for example with the Iron Man ride being built in Hong Kong.
I've already said the system could be used for almost any IP in the world. That doesn't mean they should though.

Also, since when are we defending the use of the ST system for HK's Iron Man ride? It's laughable that they would take a property with so much popularity and theme park potential and shoehorn it into a ride like that.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
I've already said the system could be used for almost any IP in the world. That doesn't mean they should though.

Also, since when are we defending the use of the ST system for HK's Iron Man ride? It's laughable that they would take a property with so much popularity and theme park potential and shoehorn it into a ride like that.
You haven't really indicated any reason why that ride system is bad, other than comparing it to a "D-Box" theater (which sells it way short IMHO). I think Star Tours is a fantastic ride. Certainly, the Iron Man Experience could be as well.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using "old" technology as long as it works for the experience you are building.
 
You haven't really indicated any reason why that ride system is bad. I think Star Tours is a fantastic ride. Certainly, the Iron Man Experience could be as well.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using "old" technology as long as it works for the experience you are building.
Though we don't know much about Iron Man yet, I think there needs to be some obvious thematic reason to set a ride inside a vehicle for the system to work effectively. Star Tours works because the in-universe Starspeeder 3000 is the same size and shape of the simulator and it looks and feels like it belongs in that world. Since Iron Man is set in the "real world," I don't see anything immediate analogous that will feel as natural.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
totally agree
hard to make a land about Marvel or Transformers but easy to make a great attraction
thats why i think Cars, Pandora, or Potter are different
You gotta be able to sell the environment
Indeed. Many things are far more conducive to individual attractions than full lands. That's a reason why I have a concern about the trend to build IP focused lands rather than more generic places with IP attractions that fit. It's only the occasional IP that works well to making an immersive land.

To be honest, that's why I'm not that bothered if "Phase 3" doesn't end up as a full land, but is just individual attractions in different places. In fact, I think I'd prefer if any new land at DHS be more generic -- like a non-specific Pixar Place -- because it is far more flexible.
 
Top Bottom