Electricsoup
Well-Known Member
That's why it's great there still are both.
-
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
That's why it's great there still are both.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I'll take a well executed ride over anything. The ride mechanics is a means to an end and people put way too much importance on them.
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
That's an IP thats probably good that Disney didn't get their hands on.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Depends which rides they are. If the omnimover was Mermaid and the sim was Star Tours give me the sim all the way (sticking with Disney examples here).
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Hardly its how to bring a world to life its like saying to film makers that there is no difference in shooting on 35mm, 70mm and Imax each one of those gives a different feel to the overall world the film makers choose to deliver. Same is true for ride systems.
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
I hope there is an SWL expansion that will connect ST with the rest of the land. I know Muppets is getting an upgrade in dining but that will be a few years down the road after everything is up and running.
I assume Indy is staying around for awhile. They need Indy and ST when SWL pens to help with crowd control. It will be interesting to see the foot traffic that goes into Muppets Courtyard since 3D seems to be a walk on attraction
I assume Indy is staying around for awhile. They need Indy and ST when SWL pens to help with crowd control. It will be interesting to see the foot traffic that goes into Muppets Courtyard since 3D seems to be a walk on attraction
Kman101
Well-Known Member
I understand everyone wanting to save Star Tours and have it be part of the new land. I love the attraction. I do. It's great. It takes us to different lands of the Star Wars universe, it includes many different characters. But we're getting another simulator. We don't need two. I'd rather pilot the Falcon than the Starspeeder (sorry not sorry ... lol). I'd rather they give us a third ride in the land than use Star Tours. I think the Falcon ride will basically be a Star Tours replacement, hence the need to not have both.
I'm open to them re-theming Star Tours if it gives us another property in the park that desperately needs new experiences. I wish more of you were open to the idea of letting it go and getting something new. I know it sucks to lose that experience and I don't like losing it either, but wouldn't it be a nice change to get, say, Guardians of the Galaxy in Star Tours while we go pilot the Falcon in a simulator and battle it out in an impressive LPS ride?
I know some will say the money could be better used elsewhere. Of course it could. But two simulators in the same land? Redundant. I have a sinking feeling Star Tours would have become the Falcon ride if they put the land closer to that and in the Indy area.
This leaves us the chance to get an Indy attraction as well as a new attraction at Star Tours (and potentially a new very-mini land). I think it's a win personally. It shouldn't be about "ride count" in this case.
I'm open to them re-theming Star Tours if it gives us another property in the park that desperately needs new experiences. I wish more of you were open to the idea of letting it go and getting something new. I know it sucks to lose that experience and I don't like losing it either, but wouldn't it be a nice change to get, say, Guardians of the Galaxy in Star Tours while we go pilot the Falcon in a simulator and battle it out in an impressive LPS ride?
I know some will say the money could be better used elsewhere. Of course it could. But two simulators in the same land? Redundant. I have a sinking feeling Star Tours would have become the Falcon ride if they put the land closer to that and in the Indy area.
This leaves us the chance to get an Indy attraction as well as a new attraction at Star Tours (and potentially a new very-mini land). I think it's a win personally. It shouldn't be about "ride count" in this case.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
In my mind you cannot have enough simulators or Omni's. It all depends on individual taste. I will repeat, nothing should ever leave. Re-imagined, OK! They don't need to tear anything out to build something new. The place is 40 something square miles.
Last edited:
It'd be a great "loose" if the Indy ride turned out to be Temple of Peril as opposed to Crystal Skull. It's WDW remember.
Still, this is way down the road. If ever.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
Oh I know. We're years and years away. I sadly recognize how WDW operates
And I've also thought it very well could be the coaster. My expectations are in check.It would also be a loss if the Star Tours replacement isn't up to par with the ride it is now. I just see the two simulators serving exactly the same purpose so I'm OK with a replacement. But expectations are in check.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
That's sort of what I'm now hoping for as well. It sounds like it's what could be in the cards but we know how this team operates. LOL.
I had the same thought, though I think Gotham might work if you use some of the design elements from the Burton/Schumacher films.
JohnWD
Well-Known Member
You are right - Gotham could work. But do you think Disney would want such a "dark" place?
I didn't mean for Disney necessarily, just in a general design sense.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Kman101
Well-Known Member
I think Gotham/Metropolis could work just fine. I'd like to see Universal do away with the cartoon versions of their superhero city and have it be more realistic buildings. It would have worked great as DC property like Gotham or Metropolis. I'm fine with Marvel being at Universal but I think DC could have fit there better. Anyway .. back to Star Wars Land.
Brian Swan
Well-Known Member
I love Marni's videos, and I think I've watched most, if not all, of them. But the guy who did the Inner Space one actually created the entire attraction in 3D using software such as 3DSMAX or Blender. Having used software such as that I can attest to the fact that a simulation as complex and detailed as that took 100s (1000?) of painstaking hours to create. I've considered trying a similar simulation of a different attraction, but I realized that although I have the skills to do architectural renderings, I don't have the skills to take on the complex animations and theatrical lighting effects (nor the amount of time needed to see it through to completion).
Magic Feather
Well-Known Member
Is it just me, or does the layout of that look scarily similar to the layout of Diagon?Like this?
