Star Wars Launch Bay coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios later this year

note2001

note2001

Well-Known Member
MansionButler84 said:
Most people don't plan vacations far enough out to be planning their Star Wars vacation ;)
Click to expand...

I have to reserve my vacation time at work before anyone else gets to it ;)

In all honesty: it's more about allocating those DVC points, considering an add-on (or not), and deciding on budgeting and passes.

Would also be nice to know if we will have a chance to see the Launch Bay in December. "End of year" could very well mean 12/31/15.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
CinematicFusion said:
Who would be better?
He has a solid track record so far.
Click to expand...

Well, I would prefer someone who actually seemed to like Disney to be in charge of the company. Iger apparently just sees Disney as a collection of brands, and so he has no qualms about adding more brands to the Disney stable whether they're a good fit or not. I mean, come on. Star Wars, something Disney didn't create or had a hand in creating, gets 14 acres. Tangled gets a bathroom. And there is nothing substantial in any of the parks based on Walt's greatest film, Mary Poppins. Even the worldwide phenomenon Frozen doesn't get its own land in the States - it gets shoehorned into a cramped little ride in freaking Epcot of all places. And where's the Lion King's land? Or dark ride, even? So I really don't think Iger respects actual Disney creations much. I'd bet he thinks they're mostly kiddie stuff, and so he looks outside the studio for IPs he thinks will appeal to adults, like Star Wars and Avatar. He's got all the creative instincts of a cinder block. But oh yeah, no doubt, the stockholders love him. I guess that's all that matters now. :(

As for who would be better? Well, I had overblown hopes for John Lasseter at one time...oh well...
 
CinematicFusion

CinematicFusion

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
Well, I would prefer someone who actually seemed to like Disney to be in charge of the company. Iger apparently just sees Disney as a collection of brands, and so he has no qualms about adding more brands to the Disney stable whether they're a good fit or not. I mean, come on. Star Wars, something Disney didn't create or had a hand in creating, gets 14 acres. Tangled gets a bathroom. And there is nothing substantial in any of the parks based on Walt's greatest film, Mary Poppins. Even the worldwide phenomenon Frozen doesn't get its own land in the States - it gets shoehorned into a cramped little ride in freaking Epcot of all places. And where's the Lion King's land? Or dark ride, even? So I really don't think Iger respects actual Disney creations much. I'd bet he thinks they're mostly kiddie stuff, and so he looks outside the studio for IPs he thinks will appeal to adults, like Star Wars and Avatar. He's got all the creative instincts of a cinder block. But oh yeah, no doubt, the stockholders love him. I guess that's all that matters now. :(

As for who would be better? Well, I had overblown hopes for John Lasseter at one time...oh well...
Click to expand...

I could see john Lasseter. There will never be another Disney. He would run things differently because it was his company. No Ceo will ever be as good as an owner at the height of their powers.

There have been men like him. George Lucas comes to mind. He created ideas that matched Disney's imagination and sense of adventure. Having Star Wars and Indiana jones in Disney parks isn't a bad thing. I think they fit in the parks because they feel like Disney creations. Lucas has always been a huge fan of Disney. When Lucas retired he felt Lucasfilm was a good fit with Disney. Didn't even shop the company around.
Keep in mind Iger didn't acquire Lucasfilm, Lucas decided to give it to Disney. Anyway Iger was right place at the right time.
Iger has done some solid things though, acquiring Marvel was a heck of a move.

So why not more original content in parks?
I believe Harry Potter changed that. Huge imaginative ips with a proven drawing power contain less risk and more reward. Big companies are willing to spend big money bringing these ideas to the parks.

I believe Disney grabbed Avatar before they lost it to universal. Disney just so happened to have the perfect spot for the land in Animal Kingdom that just so happened to match the original idea of the park with creatures of fantasy. Universal gets Avatar and you have more competition from your biggest rival.

I have no problem with avatar, Star Wars. It's moves I would make.

However, I hear you and have no idea why for example animal kingdom doesn't have a children's fantasy land section (again, fantasy was park of the original AK idea). This section could have had your jungle book dark ride or lion king ride.
I would have taken a chance a made ride based the 1937 short "the old mill" a short that one the Oscar.

Why not a tangled, frozen ride in fantasyland? Not sure? Space may be an issue. Frozen in world showcase is strange. I always felt it's a lead in to also bring ratatouille to France and start a slow change of the world showcase concept.

I'm with you, it would be nice to also see rides like splash mountain created while building the marvel, Star Wars stuff.
They did do a nice job with new fantasyland, my little girls love it.
 
Kman101

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Star Wars, Pixar, Muppets and Marvel all, IMO, fit very well within Disney. I would like some actual Disney properties represented, of course, but it's not just an Iger thing. Star Wars has been in the Disney family for almost 30 years and Muppets nearly as long. They're part of it whether you like it or not. Marvel ... well, I think it fits.

I do agree they are shoving Disney out in a lot of ways but there's going to be a time these properties fade and we will see a better balance.

I mean, Snow White at 70+ years old just got a coaster. It's not like they aren't doing nothing with their older properties. And many things have already been done. And they're also making live action movies for just about every classic Disney animated film. Cinderella didn't bomb at the box office. Alice, well Tim Burton isn't for everyone (I liked it for what it was), we have Beauty & the Beast, Jungle Book ... all of them keep those classics in the spotlight. And last I checked, Lion King and Tangled are getting tv shows.

And while not the best representation, Silly Symphony/classic Mickey is represented at Paradise Pier and Oswald meeting guests on Buena Vista Street. Plus, again, last I checked, Mickey has new shorts airing.

I mean, what else can they do?

So ... how about that Star Wars land :D
 
HiYa Pal

HiYa Pal

Active Member
So is it just me or does this seem like its a large scale "focus group" for some of their concepts for Star Wars land? If it is, its kind of brilliant.
 
Ragetti

Ragetti

Member
Magenta Panther said:
Well, I would prefer someone who actually seemed to like Disney to be in charge of the company. Iger apparently just sees Disney as a collection of brands, and so he has no qualms about adding more brands to the Disney stable whether they're a good fit or not. I mean, come on. Star Wars, something Disney didn't create or had a hand in creating, gets 14 acres. Tangled gets a bathroom. And there is nothing substantial in any of the parks based on Walt's greatest film, Mary Poppins. Even the worldwide phenomenon Frozen doesn't get its own land in the States - it gets shoehorned into a cramped little ride in freaking Epcot of all places. And where's the Lion King's land? Or dark ride, even? So I really don't think Iger respects actual Disney creations much. I'd bet he thinks they're mostly kiddie stuff, and so he looks outside the studio for IPs he thinks will appeal to adults, like Star Wars and Avatar. He's got all the creative instincts of a cinder block. But oh yeah, no doubt, the stockholders love him. I guess that's all that matters now. :(

As for who would be better? Well, I had overblown hopes for John Lasseter at one time...oh well...
Click to expand...

Thanks for laying that out. I'll give my input. I love Disney, pretty much all of it, and I'm a 50-year-old guy. But I disagree on Star Wars not fitting Disney, and here's why: Star Wars, ultimately, is myth. Sure, it's set in space, but it has more in common wait fairy tales, than with, say Battlestar Galactica. I think it's an ideal "brand" for Disney to have picked up. I'm a member of the 501st Legion, and I can say that sure that Star Wars appeals to MANY ages. It's something can unite me and my 13-year-old daughter. I see kids' face light up when we walk into a room. I do think that Iger recognizes that Disney must be more than the classic animations, and I don't see anything wrong with that. The Magic Kingdom is soaked in traditional Disney characters, and frankly, we see 'em everywhere else too. I think that's cool, but adding other stuff, especially at other parks is all for the better IMO. And at a place like DHS, which is all about the magic of the movies, Star Wars is a natural fit, IMO. The Indy show has been a long time favorite. It never felt out of place, and neither did Star Tours. In fact, they fit very comfortably in that setting. A Star Wars land is a complete natural, and I thinj Iger is just doing what a lot of us would have preferred to see happen a long time ago.

I'm more with you on Pandora.... it was odd choice for DAK, IMO. I would have preferred to see the original mythical creatures land. That would have been awesome IMO. But I do think Pandora can work if it is handled correctly, as sort of a safari to another world.

Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't done more with Marvel in DHS. They seem to have kept more of a distance from Marvel in the parks, which, frankly, is fine with me. I do think Star Wars is a much more natural fit. Still, I appreciate you explaining your opinion.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Ragetti said:
Thanks for laying that out. I'll give my input. I love Disney, pretty much all of it, and I'm a 50-year-old guy. But I disagree on Star Wars not fitting Disney, and here's why: Star Wars, ultimately, is myth. Sure, it's set in space, but it has more in common wait fairy tales, than with, say Battlestar Galactica. I think it's an ideal "brand" for Disney to have picked up. I'm a member of the 501st Legion, and I can say that sure that Star Wars appeals to MANY ages. It's something can unite me and my 13-year-old daughter. I see kids' face light up when we walk into a room. I do think that Iger recognizes that Disney must be more than the classic animations, and I don't see anything wrong with that. The Magic Kingdom is soaked in traditional Disney characters, and frankly, we see 'em everywhere else too. I think that's cool, but adding other stuff, especially at other parks is all for the better IMO. And at a place like DHS, which is all about the magic of the movies, Star Wars is a natural fit, IMO. The Indy show has been a long time favorite. It never felt out of place, and neither did Star Tours. In fact, they fit very comfortably in that setting. A Star Wars land is a complete natural, and I thinj Iger is just doing what a lot of us would have preferred to see happen a long time ago.

I'm more with you on Pandora.... it was odd choice for DAK, IMO. I would have preferred to see the original mythical creatures land. That would have been awesome IMO. But I do think Pandora can work if it is handled correctly, as sort of a safari to another world.

Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't done more with Marvel in DHS. They seem to have kept more of a distance from Marvel in the parks, which, frankly, is fine with me. I do think Star Wars is a much more natural fit. Still, I appreciate you explaining your opinion.
Click to expand...

Thank you for respecting it. :)

The reason there's no Marvel (thank god) in DHS is contracts, as I understand it. Disney can't use most Marvel characters in Florida because Universal holds the rights. But, Disney does get a nice piece of coin from Universal exercising those rights. Win/win, I guess.
 
note2001

note2001

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
The reason there's no Marvel (thank god) in DHS is contracts, as I understand it. Disney can't use most Marvel characters in Florida because Universal holds the rights. But, Disney does get a nice piece of coin from Universal exercising those rights. Win/win, I guess.
Click to expand...

The contract does not exclude Disney from working with the Marvel Universe characters in other theme parks. They're inching that way, but other than the Iron Man Experience over in Hong Kong, I don't see any other plans on the board.

One of the reasons I'm happy to see Disney putting some true effort and money into developing out Star Wars in two theme parks is this shows they have fully adopted the Star Wars brand as theirs, just as they have done with Pixar. Could they still sell it off and then lease rights to it from another owner? Sure, unless there is verbiage in the contract with Lucas films that prevents them from doing so, won't happen though.
 
Last edited:
note2001

note2001

Well-Known Member
tjjwelch said:
Related-ish, but the the Magic of Disney Animation sign is now down.
Click to expand...
Ugh. In my opinion, until DHS is given a new official theme, this is a huge blow to the park. I will always remember DHS as MGM, and the wanna-be theme park that wanted to be a studio, it just wasn't quite sure how to blend the two ideas.

Changes are good. (fingers crossed)
 

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

Back
Top Bottom