PizzaPlanet
Well-Known Member
The queue for the attraction will basically be a walk through anyway.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios
- Thread starter CheekBoys
- Start date
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
It's part of the trickery of Disney design. Just like the Haunted Mansion. So little of it is actually within the confines of the building that you see from the outside that it is almost humorous. I have shown the following picture to a number of Haunted Mansion fans and they have been shocked by just how much of an illusion it all is. Humans have such a high powered ability to deny what they don't want to acknowledge.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Either that or WDI has (had?) such an amazing ability to trick your senses into believing their magic. HM's facade is incredibly effective.
roj2323
Well-Known Member
this is very true but the important take away here is they have the math figured out for a 1:1 version which will save a ton of time. They also have the movie prop to make molds from (for the fiberglass exterior shell) and take measurements from for the detail bits. All of this saves time and ultimately money.
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Sped2424
Well-Known Member
All the plans attached to that are more or less dead and based off what insiders said about that version of Star Wars land thank goodness they are lolView attachment 140269 What ever happened to the Orange Harvest Crates at the D23?
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
The contents of the crates were brought to the board of directors who promptly told Chris Beatty that we're not going to do a show where kids tell the story of Star Wars using cardboard cut outs.View attachment 140269 What ever happened to the Orange Harvest Crates at the D23?
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Is that how we got a new person in charge of the SWL?
djkidkaz
Well-Known Member
I remember hearing on this site that when the plans for SWL were shown to Iger he said it looked like a bunch of trees and to go back to the drawing board. The art we currently have looks exactly like a bunch of trees with a couple things sprinkled in. I'm wondering how similar this is to what Iger saw originally?
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that the original pitch was done by Chris Beatty and it was considered "not ambitious enough". Presumably akin to New Fantasyland's style over substance problem. I'm sure it would have looked great, but either way it was considered not ambitious. Scott Trowbridge then came in and evidently came up with new concepts for it. It's entirely possible he maintained some of the design elements but added more substance.
WildcatDen
Well-Known Member
So, it's a race? Good to know that is how we keep score. As much as I would like things faster, I will gage the speed thing when Uni has their 4 theme parks, 2 water parks, golf courses and resorts, and when City Walk is the same size as Disney Springs. Then we can talk Apple's and poisoned apples.
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Wasn't Trowbridge involved with the early stages of PotterLand? I have high hopes for the project. I wish Star Tours is somehow connected with the rest of the land which would be the end of Muppets. 14 acres in a lot of land to just have two rides. Is Jedi training still in the plans? The restaurants look pretty cool. I guess we have to watch and see.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Yes, Trowbridge was very involved with IoA.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
When a resort like Disneyland has just as many rides in their two parks that Disney World has in four, I think Universal will be just fine with three. I don't see them needing more than one water park either but I think they do have the space for one on that new land if they wanted. Also, the vast majority couldn't care less about golfing. It's boring. Same with malls. What we do care about are the parks.
More like a look at how blindingly slow it can be.
WildcatDen
Well-Known Member
It is all about SCOPE. Not the mouthwash even though I did have onions last night. . . Like I said, I am not necessarily happy with the speed in which Disney moves, but their operational scope is a wee bit larger than USF. An excuse? Maybe. I am sure our financial guru has all the charts necessary to show spend between the two companies but it is my personal opinion that when you are the smaller competitor, you tend to be playing catch-up and that is, at times, an expedited process. The amount of rides is not really a factor when you talk overall scope.
I truly believe Disney does not build fast because they believe they do not need to?
As for the Golf comment, well, we all can't be civilized. . .
That is part of the reason. Another is it looks better on the books to spread the cost of construction across as many quarterly reports as possible.
JohnWD
Well-Known Member
Master Yoda, since you are also a master accountant, can you explain why it looks better to spread it out as many quarterly reports as possible? Also, what limits the number of quarters? Would it be best to never do the project and just save the money?
I am not a master accountant. I just know how construction works (engineer for 20+ years) and what motivates a company to build at either a rapid or leisurely pace.
As I understand it the guys on wall street that really don't know or care about construction would like to see a the lowest capital expenditure possible along side high profits. In short spend less, make more is a good sign to them. In that respect, 1 billion spread across 12 quarters looks better than 1 billion spread across only 6.
Since Disney is using cash and not a construction loan, there is very little financial upside to building rapidly. When you build fast you spend more on labor due to overtime, night time pay differentials, etc. Contractors and suppliers can also demand premiums due to tighter schedules. The Readers Digest version is you only build fast when you have to and it makes sense on the books.
There are numerous factors that dictate how long a project should or could take and @Tom would be better suited for that question.
Doing or not doing a commercial project almost always comes down to a return on investment. For a positive ROI, a project must make back the investment and operating costs in a particular amount of time. If projections show that is likely, a project will get built. If projections show the opposite, it won't get built.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
@Master Yoda was on the right track, but I'll modify his answer slightly. Wall Street doesn't really care about how long it takes to complete individual projects, they care about capital spending in total. It's also a mistake to assume they want to see small capital expenditures. What they really care about most is that capital expenditures are relatively smooth. In other words, they like to see steady, robust investments in capital assets. They do not want to see peaks and valleys of huge spending followed by inactivity. Predictability good, volatility bad.
With that in mind, it's easy to see why long projects that overlap here and there are more attractive than quick-burst projects that are banged out quickly. The Disney Dream gave way to the DCA relaunch and Cars Land, which gave way to the Disney Fantasy (with MM+ going along the whole time in the background), which gave way to New Fantasyland, which gave way to Avatar (with Shanghai going on the whole time in the background), which will give way to Star Wars, which...
It's always better to have a revolving list of ongoing projects. As projects wrap up, others are beginning, and the cycle continues.