Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[danlb_2000]

From ground breaking to open, what attraction has taken 5 years? I too wish they would move faster but the simple truth is they do not need to. KI builds rides in their 5 month down time and I would put Banshee over nearly every recent attraction ride enjoyment wise at both USF and WDW.

The longest one I have seen recently is 43 months for Mission Space.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Clearly Dinorama would look gorgeous with that sunset.

 

[No Name]

The longest one I have seen recently is 43 months for Mission Space.

Ahh but that wasn't just ground breaking.

That was heartbreaking.

 

[PorterRedkey]

Doesn't change the fact that they're side by side, hence making it impossible to make to screen-to-set transition as was claimed by danlb_2000.

So you have never ridden the ride.

 

[Mike S]

I actually liked Paradise Pier

 

[FigmentForver96]

I actually liked Paradise Pier

It's much better now than when the park opened. I remember going in 05 I believe was the year and it was so tacky.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Fast? Maybe by recent Disney standards, but with both being additions to rides that already exist, I'm pretty sure this is them again choosing to be deliberately slow even though the capacity is desperately needed.

I cannot speak for TSMM because I don't know what is involved with gutting a building and creating a whole new space. I do, however, know that Soarin is a whole new attraction that only owes it's entry point to an existing pavilion. Hardly the same thing as what would be called adding to an existing attraction. Besides constructing within an existing building that wasn't originally designed for the new attraction, can easily take much more time then starting from scratch.

Another avenue of confusion comes from where the timeline starts when building an attraction. I feel that many here decide that the amount of time it takes to build something starts at the time they announce it. Wrong! There are millions of preliminaries that must be dealt with before construction actually begins. I will allow that from the time the first land and base clearing starts would entail time of construction. Previous to that there may be all kinds of roadblocks and problems that must be solved, some of them even during construction that we know nothing about. Permits, survey, water tables, snotty co-sponsors (yes, I'm talking to you Mr. Cameron), all kinds of things. If you decide to build a house the time of construction doesn't include how long you take to get started. It is from the time you actually physically start building. Why Disney "seems" to drag their feet getting started probably has more to do with the layers of bureaucracy that must be walked through before hand. All business are a ruled by committee now, not the good old, one person has the say and away they go. Universal has been running from a behind status for many years and are trying, somewhat successfully, to catch up. Disney knows that no matter what they do, they have limited space, they are starting from way back and even if it takes 5 more years to redo WDW, once they do, poor old Universal will be behind the eight ball again.

All I'm asking is that people use common sense and understand that construction isn't a snap of the fingers and there it is. Splash was mentioned as taking "almost two years to build" and that was a basic flume ride with stuff built around it. Nothing that required a lot of creativity. The main part of the ride is supplied by gravity. Big whoop! Does anyone know how long it was in planning and engineering before construction was even started? No, because they didn't announce anything until it was ready to go. It was mentioned that it took only three years to build EPCOT. Does anyone know how many years it took for the R&D for that project? Is anyone able to understand that the entire park was being built simultaneously? Doesn't anyone see that it means that it took 3 years to build one attraction and landscape. All the attractions took 3 years, it's just that they were all being done at the same time, and still, there were many attractions not open on the opening day. Wonders of Life, wasn't there. Horizons wasn't there, The Seas wasn't there, Imagination wasn't open, just the 3D movie. Take each one of those attractions and add up the total time it took to build them if they were done separately. I think that you would find that everything is pretty much on the same time scale as it was back then.

 

[Mike S]

I cannot speak for TSMM because I don't know what is involved with gutting a building and creating a whole new space. I do, however, know that Soarin is a whole new attraction that only owes it's entry point to an existing pavilion. Hardly the same thing as what would be called adding to an existing attraction. Besides constructing within an existing building that wasn't originally designed for the new attraction, can easily take much more time then starting from scratch.

Another avenue of confusion comes from where the timeline starts when building an attraction. I feel that many here decide that the amount of time it takes to build something starts at the time they announce it. Wrong! There are millions of preliminaries that must be dealt with before construction actually begins. I will allow that from the time the first land and base clearing starts would entail time of construction. Previous to that there may be all kinds of roadblocks and problems that must be solved, some of them even during construction that we know nothing about. Permits, survey, water tables, snotty co-sponsors (yes, I'm talking to you Mr. Cameron), all kinds of things. If you decide to build a house the time of construction doesn't include how long you take to get started. It is from the time you actually physically start building. Why Disney "seems" to drag their feet getting started probably has more to do with the layers of bureaucracy that must be walked through before hand. All business are a ruled by committee now, not the good old, one person has the say and away they go. Universal has been running from a behind status for many years and are trying, somewhat successfully, to catch up. Disney knows that no matter what they do, they have limited space, they are starting from way back and even if it takes 5 more years to redo WDW, once they do, poor old Universal will be behind the eight ball again.

All I'm asking is that people use common sense and understand that construction isn't a snap of the fingers and there it is. Splash was mentioned as taking "almost two years to build" and that was a basic flume ride with stuff built around it. Nothing that required a lot of creativity. The main part of the ride is supplied by gravity. Big whoop! Does anyone know how long it was in planning and engineering before construction was even started? No, because they didn't announce anything until it was ready to go. It was mentioned that it took only three years to build EPCOT. Does anyone know how many years it took for the R&D for that project? Is anyone able to understand that the entire park was being built simultaneously? Doesn't anyone see that it means that it took 3 years to build one attraction and landscape. All the attractions took 3 years, it's just that they were all being done at the same time, and still, there were many attractions not open on the opening day. Wonders of Life, wasn't there. Horizons wasn't there, The Seas wasn't there, Imagination wasn't open, just the 3D movie. Take each one of those attractions and add up the total time it took to build them if they were done separately. I think that you would find that everything is pretty much on the same time scale as it was back then.

Good thing Universal just bought those 400 or so acres to expand their resort.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Good thing Universal just bought those 400 or so acres to expand their resort.

WDW uses 400 acres to store old trash cans. When they get up to 27K acres, let me know so we all can start to worry.

 

[Mike S]

WDW uses 400 acres to store old trash cans. When they get up to 27K acres, let me know so we all can start to worry.

How much of that 27K is used by the theme parks? I'll wait here.

 

[Andrew C]

How much of that 27K is used by the theme parks? I'll wait here.

The better question is how much could be used for theme parks. And if Disney would be willing to use it for theme parks once 2 of the current 4 get their act together.

 

[Goofyernmost]

How much of that 27K is used by the theme parks? I'll wait here.

I guess I'm not following the discussion. WDW is not just theme parks anymore then Universal is just theme parks, but, what I understand it's about 5500 acres that are currently in use for the resort. Even Universal is going to have to contend with wild area, wet areas and zoning. So they will never get to that and still be able to stay solvent. WDW paid $85.00 per acre, what do you suppose Universal pays?

 

[WildcatDen]

All I'm asking is that people use common sense .

And this is where you lost 90% of the people here. . .

 

[captainmoch]

I actually liked Paradise Pier

Glad I'm not alone on that. Say what you want about PP, but it has infinitely more charm then stuff like DinoRama and TSPL.

 

[Biff215]

I cannot speak for TSMM because I don't know what is involved with gutting a building and creating a whole new space. I do, however, know that Soarin is a whole new attraction that only owes it's entry point to an existing pavilion. Hardly the same thing as what would be called adding to an existing attraction. Besides constructing within an existing building that wasn't originally designed for the new attraction, can easily take much more time then starting from scratch.

Another avenue of confusion comes from where the timeline starts when building an attraction. I feel that many here decide that the amount of time it takes to build something starts at the time they announce it. Wrong! There are millions of preliminaries that must be dealt with before construction actually begins. I will allow that from the time the first land and base clearing starts would entail time of construction. Previous to that there may be all kinds of roadblocks and problems that must be solved, some of them even during construction that we know nothing about. Permits, survey, water tables, snotty co-sponsors (yes, I'm talking to you Mr. Cameron), all kinds of things. If you decide to build a house the time of construction doesn't include how long you take to get started. It is from the time you actually physically start building. Why Disney "seems" to drag their feet getting started probably has more to do with the layers of bureaucracy that must be walked through before hand. All business are a ruled by committee now, not the good old, one person has the say and away they go. Universal has been running from a behind status for many years and are trying, somewhat successfully, to catch up. Disney knows that no matter what they do, they have limited space, they are starting from way back and even if it takes 5 more years to redo WDW, once they do, poor old Universal will be behind the eight ball again.

All I'm asking is that people use common sense and understand that construction isn't a snap of the fingers and there it is. Splash was mentioned as taking "almost two years to build" and that was a basic flume ride with stuff built around it. Nothing that required a lot of creativity. The main part of the ride is supplied by gravity. Big whoop! Does anyone know how long it was in planning and engineering before construction was even started? No, because they didn't announce anything until it was ready to go. It was mentioned that it took only three years to build EPCOT. Does anyone know how many years it took for the R&D for that project? Is anyone able to understand that the entire park was being built simultaneously? Doesn't anyone see that it means that it took 3 years to build one attraction and landscape. All the attractions took 3 years, it's just that they were all being done at the same time, and still, there were many attractions not open on the opening day. Wonders of Life, wasn't there. Horizons wasn't there, The Seas wasn't there, Imagination wasn't open, just the 3D movie. Take each one of those attractions and add up the total time it took to build them if they were done separately. I think that you would find that everything is pretty much on the same time scale as it was back then.

I think most of us understand all that, but we're still going to disagree on your last statement. In most cases we're talking about the actual construction timeline, not the R&D that comes before. You can definitely make the case that the Internet has changed our expectations, but the concept of time has not. New Fantasyland was a prime example as much of the work took place right in the view of guests, making it fairly easy to count workers and gauge progress.

Anything can be built quicker if you throw more resources at it. Disney has simply chosen not to, likely to spread the cost out which many have pointed out and something Wall Street likes to see. This is certainly their decision and something we are forced to live with. It's just frustrating when parks like DHS and Epcot are in such dire need of capacity and quality attractions.

 

[Mike S]

The better question is how much could be used for theme parks. And if Disney would be willing to use it for theme parks once 2 of the current 4 get their act together.

I'm not really saying they should build more parks. I'm actually against that. The four they have now should be fine for much of the foreseeable future. Just invest in them properly.

I guess I'm not following the discussion. WDW is not just theme parks anymore then Universal is just theme parks, but, what I understand it's about 5500 acres that are currently in use for the resort. Even Universal is going to have to contend with wild area, wet areas and zoning. So they will never get to that and still be able to stay solvent. WDW paid $85.00 per acre, what do you suppose Universal pays?

My point is that Universal will have 3 parks of a comparable size to Disney's 4 that could be great draws on their own without the need of 27K acres. Remember that DL has about the same number of rides in 2 parks that WDW has in 4. Sure, Universal won't have the same amount of hotels or sheer size but imo they won't need it. Their parks will be enough.

I'm not saying they'll topple Disney though. I'm arguing "poor old Universal." They'll be more than fine with the way they're heading.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm not really saying they should build more parks. I'm actually against that. The four they have now should be fine for much of the foreseeable future. Just invest in them properly.

My point is that Universal will have 3 parks of a comparable size to Disney's 4 that could be great draws on their own without the need of 27K acres. Remember that DL has about the same number of rides in 2 parks that WDW has in 4. Sure, Universal won't have the same amount of hotels or sheer size but imo they won't need it. Their parks will be enough.

I'm not saying they'll topple Disney though. I'm arguing "poor old Universal." They'll be more than fine with the way they're heading.

I don't see any further expansion of parks either, at least not in the next couple of decades, but, common... I don't remember the numbers but I think that the Safari in AK is larger then the current parks at Uni. It's not that they cannot match attraction count for attraction count, but, the bigger question would be... If they did beat out WDW, where would they put the people that show up to Disney on any given day and fit them into Universal Florida?

I also agree that they will be fine and that is good. Heaven knows that Disney needs competition and Uni is a first class competition, however, they will never be physically able to forge ahead unless they buy out WDW and move the operation there. Disney finally realized that they needed to fix a few things and over the next 3 to 5 years they are going to, with the help of Pandora, Star Tours knock it out of the park, and firmly regain the giant status and Potter Swatter that they have been looking for. They won't stop Uni's popularity, but, they will slow their progress.

 

[marni1971]

Just fixing what's already standing would be a good start.

And take a few years.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Indeed. Which makes the completion of RSR, a much more impressive attraction than the projection screens of Forbidden Journey, in just 3 years, even more impressive. Either way, Micechat is reporting that things are moving extremely quickly on Star Wars Land in California, in comparison to their other recent projects.

Nevertheless, my original argument was that Universal does NOT build similarly advanced/sized attractions faster than Disney. danlb_2000 commented that Transformers took "only 11 [months]". Well, what do you expect? All they had to do what install the little bits of theming, the projection screens, and the ride system. Poof done.

A few bits of theming and a couple of movie screens...poof done!

 

[Disneyhead'71]

You are comparing apples and oranges. TSMM is a minor expansion, with 0 reasons to dedicate a large number of workers to the project. Transformers, was a new major attraction, nowhere near Disney-quality, but major. Also, adding an expansion to existing facilities without compromising the guest experience is much more difficult than constructing a building "on a plot of land entirely landlocked". If Disney opened an E-ticket attraction as cheap as Transformers people would be ticked.

You mean like TSMM? People seem to like it.