The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

[Mr. Moderate]

But thats the point. Disney wants people to go into AK, and spend more than half a day there. If executed right, AK will easily be a full day.

I agree with and at this point almost anything half way decent Disney adds to AK, which has always struck me as under performing park, will add to the attendance to it. I'll see it to check it out and experience it, but I never cared for Avatar and will not see any more of the movies. In all honesty, I fell asleep during the first one due to complete and utter boredom and then walked out. IMO, Disney panicked and grasped at straws when getting involved this franchise and only did so because of the overwhelming success of the WWoHP in 2010. That's what happens when your management team leads from behind and stopped being the leader of the pack, for which Disney was once known for. It's their fault for the condition of AK in the first place because Disney management had left AK to wither and become the half day park it's regarded as.

 

[Phil12]

Yes. Whenever anyone has made comments to me about how Disney will destroy Star Wars (like they can come up with something worse than Ep I and Jar Jar), I just point out what they are doing with Marvel. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been fantastic for the fans of the comics and I am optimistic that the new Star Wars movie will also be well done.

However when Star Wars Land is built in DHS there will be a huge Death Star pavilion. It will be amazing for about 13 months and then it will break. WDW will put a strobe light on it and hope that The Force will repair the damage.

 

[FigmentJedi]

But it doesn't really matter, because "Jaws" is still the best film of all time.

Except for all the panicky slaughtering of sharks that has continued to this day as a result of how terrified people were by the movie.

 

[Stevek]

Ill take that bet.

What odds or how much will you spot me? Ill bet dinner at California Grill when ever you want, I'm local so its no problem for me to get there anytime.

As big of a SW nerd as I am, I gotta agree with the OP. Menace didn't do it and the arguably much better ROTS didn't either. As I said earlier, if Abrams truly knocks it out of the park then it might have a chance. The prequel trilogy didn't get the repeated viewings that Avatar or even the original trilogy did which it would likely need to topple Avatar.

 

[xdan0920]

Except for all the panicky slaughtering of sharks that has continued to this day as a result of how terrified people were by the movie.

Yeah, well sharks are super dangers. Plus, now we have to worry about Sharknados. It's a real problem.

 

[Tony Perkis]

Except for all the panicky slaughtering of sharks that has continued to this day as a result of how terrified people were by the movie.

Not to mention the forceful actions we take against the genetically altered genius sharks.

 

[Stevek]

With all the Star Wars talk right now, and at the risk of going off-topic (as if that really matters here), I'd like to throw out a theory that I haven't seen before that helps explains the delay in announcing a Star Wars land, in addition to all the other reasons we already know about.

We know that Disney likes to spread out development costs by cloning at multiple resorts around the world. A project as big as a Star Tours land could conceivably save really big bucks by cloning. And of course Disney will want to leverage the LucasFilm purchase by seeding new Star Wars lands as widely as possible. The problem with Star Wars is that logically the new lands must include the already-existing Star Tours rides that are situated in vastly different local environments, and even completely different types of parks. A proposed ride that works perfectly at DHS may not fit at all at DL, and vice-versa.

I can easily visualize this situation leading to a kind of paralysis, since the cloning instinct is so strong and yet may be at odds with the physical reality on the ground, hence part of the reason for delaying a decision.

Perhaps this is the source of the Star Wars land rumors about no approved ride yet except a spinner, because, like Jello, there's always room for a spinner.

By the way, as cynical as I have been the last few years about Disney building new attractions, even I don't believe that a spinner will be the only new ride included in the new Star Wars lands whenever they finally get announced.

They could have 99% of the design done but waiting to build "synergy" across the parks with the release of the new movie. So maybe sometime next year they announce the new land and make it the "Year of Star Wars"

 

[lebeau]

No. This is having the benefit of nearly 40 years of empirical evidence regarding theatrical, home video, merchandising, video game, television, etc sales at my disposal to evaluate.

I know people who have never seen Star Wars.

I tried to get my wife to watch it when we were dating. She never made it very far.

Star Wars is deeply ingrained into pop culture but nothing is universal. Harry Potter, however, is at Universal.

 

[WDF]

Also not sure I would give "Disney" too much credit for the Marvel films. Release and marketing strategy? Perhaps. Content and quality of the actual films? No.

 

[lebeau]

I think it also has to do with the type of IP and what age range is the target audience.

People my age grew up with the Harry Potter books and are used to the midnight release of both the books and the films. These types of guests thrive on being the *first* one to witness their favorite franchise's new addition, whether it be a book, film, or theme park land.

For Cars Land, its target audience was families, who might not necessarily want to walk around in a crowded area, just so that they can be there on opening day. Harry Potter fans are a different genre of fan, which is why I think these opening days are so crowded.

That being said, Cars Land was still pretty crowded on opening day...

Rope-drop.

Cars Land.

Radiator Springs Racers line.

And Disney would get similar crowds like that if they opened something as good as Carsland in Orlando.

 

[WDF]

I know people who have never seen Star Wars.

I tried to get my wife to watch it when we were dating. She never made it very far.

Star Wars is deeply ingrained into pop culture but nothing is universal. Harry Potter, however, is at Universal.

I know people who have never seen Harry Potter...or read the books.

 

[doctornick]

Also not sure I would give "Disney" too much credit for the Marvel films. Release and marketing strategy? Perhaps. Content and quality of the actual films? No.

Letting the creatives in charge of Marvel do their thing is a good thing. They put faith in Marvel putting out movies that would appeal to their core. If they let Kennedy and the folks at Lucasfilm do the same -- and I think they will -- it should pay off.

 

[lebeau]

I don't like the "adjusted for inflation" charts. Where I live, a normal movie runs $13 per ticket. That number is turning a lot of people off from seeing movies. I know it does for me. I will only see a handful per year in theatres because I don't like being ripped off. As recently as 8-10 years ago, I went way more often, because I didn't feel ripped off.

Yes, A New Hope adjusted comes close to Avatar(which I dislike btw) but it was cheaper to go see a movie then, so more people saw movies.

A 3d ticket to SW7 is going to run me $17-19. I need to be pretty confident in the experience I am getting to drop that kind of coin on a movie. And the 2nd trilogy did not leave me full of hope. I am sure I'm not alone.

Also, in the 70s movies didn't have to compete with home video, video games or dozens of other distractions. If you wanted something more than TV (which consisted of three networks), you bought a movie ticket. Also, movies had much, much longer theatrical runs. A hit movie like Star Wars ran for most of the year and then was re-released the following year.

It's not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[lebeau]

I know people who have never seen Harry Potter...or read the books.

I didn't claim Harry Potter was universal now, did I?

The point I was making is that no matter how ubiquitous something may be, nothing is universal.

 

[lebeau]

Bayformers 4 is about to topple Avatar. I think Star Wars 7 has just as good a chance.

Yeah, except that's not true.

 

[John]

I know people who have never seen Harry Potter...or read the books.

Never read the books and only seen the first HP film and that's because of some serious chiding by my gf. I have experienced FJ and HP1.0 and cant wait to see 2.0 and Gringotts....I have absolutely no idea what a Gringotts is.

 

[lebeau]

Not only is Transformers over 2 Billion off the pace of toppling Avatar, there has already been speculation that Paramount inflated the opening-weekend box office numbers, and that they were actually less than the $100+ million that was being reported.

That report was discredited. Paramount's opening weekend numbers were as accurate as you can expect from any studio.

 

[Stevek]

I know people who have never seen Star Wars.

I tried to get my wife to watch it when we were dating. She never made it very far.

Star Wars is deeply ingrained into pop culture but nothing is universal. Harry Potter, however, is at Universal.

My wife, while I convinced her to see Phantom Menace with me, would never watch the SW movies again...nor would she ever read or watch the Potter flicks. Heck, I couldn't even get my daughters to read the Potter books. Bottom line, they're both incredibly popular but to sit and argue about relative popularity of a nearly 40 year old franchise versus one that is nearly 20 years old is a waste of time. They both have their strong fanbase, have worldwide appeal but both have people that have never heard or don't care about either.

 

[WDF]

I didn't claim Harry Potter was universal now, did I?

The point I was making is that no matter how ubiquitous something may be, nothing is universal.

My comment supports your point. Right?

 

[ChrisFL]

I want to mention something about Harry Potter, and why Universal is at an advantage going forward.

I don't know what the Star Wars target audience age was....Harry Potter was first written for children around 8 and up from what I know.

Things that we first experience around that age have more importance to us than things later on...the same way Disney was introduced to millions of children, who now go back and take their children when they grow up.

Although I am a grown man, there was a recent event that drove home the point to me. When I was young, there was a cartoon on Nickelodeon called "The Mysterious Cities of Gold"....great show, had one season and went off the air.

About 2 years ago, (30 years since the first season ended)....the show's producers came back to the original story and characters and made a NEW second season.

The moment I heard the news, I literally cried. It was an amazing thought that people enjoyed the show as much as I did, would bring a 30 year old dead series back and instead of re-starting it, or forgetting the first one ever existed...added to it, so the story continued.

If I had been 15 or 16 when the series first came out, I don't think I would have had that reaction.