Fantasyland & Avatar "blown" / compared to WWOHP (Really)? + Star Wars Land thoughts

[beer dave]

Yellowstonetim, I love Star Tours too. In fact we are skipping DHS this year and my only regret is missing Star Tours. That aside, I think that Disney could come up with some amazing movies if they invest properly. Abrams is talented but I am hopeful that he will control the lens flare. I won't even think about the park expansion since my faith in that area is at such a low point right now.

By the way, we've been told that Universal is counting on trees and other vegetation to grow adequately to hide the building. I personally would have preferred that they hide it immediately or at least do something to make it interesting but we just pretend like it's not there.

If this is true, I think it is really funny. A 20 foot tall palm tree costs about a grand installed. Probably half that if you buy 20......

 

[twebber55]

I will never ceased to be amazed by how vast the reactions can be to the same ride.... what one person calls pathetic... others love. COunt me and my family in on the side that really likes Star Tours ... and yes we like even the giftshop. I love the photo-shop there, and have several treasured family photos, spanning the years since we started visiting, of us as various 'Jedi'. I cannot imagine that someone who professes to love Star Wars, not being excited at the moment in Star Tours when you drop into the run to the final shot.

i try to look beyond the brand /IP of the ride and recognize the ride for what it is..which is a simulator where i sit there...its a good ride just not special to me...i would rank it fourth in the park behind TSMM, RNRC, and TOT

but like you said to each there own, if you love it have at it, its your vacation

 

[DDLand]

i try to look beyond the brand /IP of the ride and recognize the ride for what it is..which is a simulator where i sit there...its a good ride just not special to me...i would rank it fourth in the park behind TSMM, RNRC, and TOT

but like you said to each there own, if you love it have at it, its your vacation

See that's why good IP/theme matters. If you don't have an attachment or you don't feel like you've been swept away to a new world then the ride starts to feel silly. The theme is the only thing separating Disney from Six Flags...

That's why I'm a little concerned about Avatarland. Does anyone have an emotional attachment to it? (except maybe Cameron)

 

[Reddog1134]

That's why I'm a little concerned about Avatarland. Does anyone have an emotional attachment to it? (except maybe Cameron)

That's the blessing and the curse of basing an attraction on an existing IP. Opinions have already been formed about the land with very little knowledge of what it's going to be like.

Avatarland/Pandora could be the greatest theme park area to ever be created and there would be people that would never know it because they've already decided it's the worst thing ever.

When they were building Expedition Everest, nobody said "Tibet is irrelevant. No one is going to care about this ride."

 

[DDLand]

That's the blessing and the curse of basing an attraction on an existing IP. Opinions have already been formed about the land with very little knowledge of what it's going to be like.

Avatarland/Pandora could be the greatest theme park area to ever be created and there would be people that would never know it because they've already decided it's the worst thing ever.

When they were building Expedition Everest, nobody said "Tibet is irrelevant. No one is going to care about this ride."

Spot on. I wish we'd go back to the days of original attractions. Alas.

The problem with Avatar is there's two groups of people.
1) I hate it.
2) The special effects were amazing. (at the time) There was the story too... But those special effects were really something!

There's no third group of people that loves and is willing to defend Avatar on places like this. If someone was attacking SW or HP you'd have tons of angry replies. With Avatar, you've got "give it the benefit of the doubt."

 

[twebber55]

See that's why good IP/theme matters. If you don't have an attachment or you don't feel like you've been swept away to a new world then the ride starts to feel silly. The theme is the only thing separating Disney from Six Flags...

That's why I'm a little concerned about Avatarland. Does anyone have an emotional attachment to it? (except maybe Cameron)

i guess i disagree...i never saw any Harry potter movies and went to IOA and loved it, my kids have zero connection to twilight zone yet love TOT

I could careless about cars but am fascinated by Cars land

does IP matter? maybe a little but quality over everything else

 

[DDLand]

i guess i disagree...i never saw any Harry potter movies and went to IOA and loved it, my kids have zero connection to twilight zone yet love TOT

I could careless about cars but am fascinated by Cars land

does IP matter? maybe a little but quality over everything else

Interesting... I probably take this stuff too seriously but when I see a movie I have intense feelings about it. If it's a movie that I didn't like I really don't want to immerse myself in it's world, whereas if it's a movie that I loved I couldn't be more excited to go inside. Completely irrational? Absolutely. Am I alone on this thinking? I don't think so.

 

[twebber55]

Interesting... I probably take this stuff too seriously but when I see a movie I have intense feelings about it. If it's a movie that I didn't like I really don't want to immerse myself in it's world, whereas if it's a movie that I loved I couldn't be more excited to go inside. Completely irrational? Absolutely. Am I alone on this thinking? I don't think so.

i think the majority of the public just want a great immersive experience but i do agree with you non IP lands are great because of no preconceived notions like an adventure land
i cant think of a single theme park land in teh world where i would think to my self i m not gonna like it because of the IP attachment, simpsons comes to mind, never got into the show actually thought the land was pretty neat and had a good ride with nice food offerings

anyways great discussion

 

[DDLand]

i think the majority of the public just want a great immersive experience but i do agree with you non IP lands are great because of no preconceived notions like an adventure land
i cant think of a single theme park land in teh world where i would think to my self i m not gonna like it because of the IP attachment, simpsons comes to mind, never got into the show actually thought the land was pretty neat and had a good ride with nice food offerings

anyways great discussion

Agreed, interesting talk. Eventually we'll have the answer about Avatarland (I'm always going to call it that) when we and the guests get a look at it. This is basically untrodden territory for Disney. We'll see how it plays out ...

 

[nkosiek]

i try to look beyond the brand /IP of the ride and recognize the ride for what it is..which is a simulator where i sit there...its a good ride just not special to me...i would rank it fourth in the park behind TSMM, RNRC, and TOT

but like you said to each there own, if you love it have at it, its your vacation

I think the theming of the building and the inside is spot on. I think the CMs outfits don't fit at all. I get sick as hell on simulators like ST but yet I do get immersed in the world of Star Wars from the moment I step foot under the At-At. Looking and hearing the different destinations, the droids, etc. I think the CMs could have better outfits/costumes but otherwise I like it. It's my joint second in the park with TSMM (and if I could ever beat my wife on the stupid game, this would be a clear #2)...ToT is #1.

All this said, if they are going to do a Star Wars land, they do need to do it right and not just go for the peanut shells in the concrete a la new Fantasyland.

 

[PACVII]

Just hope that Disney does not go the path of Universal and build a motion simulator park. I enjoy Star Tours but will not enjoy a whole land of MS rides like Universal. If I want that, can just go there. Disney has the space to build out a land and have no need to put rides on top of themselves. MS rides no matter how well done are cheap and easy way out and I really hope that Disney just does not phone it in and start to expand out on MS rides. I am not an fan of avatar land and maybe the last person who has never watched the movie (have seen some of it). However, I will say I am looking forward to the addition to AK and will enjoy going. But again, it needs to be done right and not just a stuffing in a MS type ride in a building and painting the outside to look like some other world.The same for Star Wars Land, please Disney just do not pack in a MS ride and call it a land. It does not have to be a large scale Everest ride but please just do it right.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I will never ceased to be amazed by how vast the reactions can be to the same ride.... what one person calls pathetic... others love. COunt me and my family in on the side that really likes Star Tours ... and yes we like even the giftshop. I love the photo-shop there, and have several treasured family photos, spanning the years since we started visiting, of us as various 'Jedi'. I cannot imagine that someone who professes to love Star Wars, not being excited at the moment in Star Tours when you drop into the run to the final shot.

It's not the final shot anymore (2009-2010 redo)...

But I know for me of the Star Wars generation - it's always been underwhelming...

I don't and will never expect cedar point...but it seems as concept was always a cop out. I want a taste of the action of the movies...not a motion simulator themed around travel and pre jar jar binks silly jokes.

Simulators...in general...are an outdated concept. Body wars was way better...but of
Course they not only closed that - but mothballed the whole pavilion.

Universal...with "next generation" simulators such as spider and Harry potter... Has well exceeded the experience and Disney had never come close.

I need some gravity and speed...it fits Star Wars much better...everything is speed, quickness, turns, action. Simulators don't.

Now I know it's Florida... And temperature control/enclosure is preferable... But the 3 best ride experiences are still part or mostly enclosed and use speed and gravity:
Splash, tower, and rockin roller coaster..

Take that for what it's worth. They haven't built anything close to as ingenious - but using established and broad appeal technology - like splash or tower of terror since.
Just not putting the urgency, money, and resolve into it anymore.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

i try to look beyond the brand /IP of the ride and recognize the ride for what it is..which is a simulator where i sit there...its a good ride just not special to me...i would rank it fourth in the park behind TSMM, RNRC, and TOT

but like you said to each there own, if you love it have at it, its your vacation

Agree

Simulators sacrifice excitement and reride characteristics for upfront "inclusiveness"...

Which is probably why you don't want them as "front line" attractions for 25 years, huh?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

See that's why good IP/theme matters. If you don't have an attachment or you don't feel like you've been swept away to a new world then the ride starts to feel silly. The theme is the only thing separating Disney from Six Flags...

That's why I'm a little concerned about Avatarland. Does anyone have an emotional attachment to it? (except maybe Cameron)

Nope

 

[DDLand]

Just hope that Disney does not go the path of Universal and build a motion simulator park. I enjoy Star Tours but will not enjoy a whole land of MS rides like Universal. If I want that, can just go there. Disney has the space to build out a land and have no need to put rides on top of themselves. MS rides no matter how well done are cheap and easy way out and I really hope that Disney just does not phone it in and start to expand out on MS rides. I am not an fan of avatar land and maybe the last person who has never watched the movie (have seen some of it). However, I will say I am looking forward to the addition to AK and will enjoy going. But again, it needs to be done right and not just a stuffing in a MS type ride in a building and painting the outside to look like some other world.The same for Star Wars Land, please Disney just do not pack in a MS ride and call it a land. It does not have to be a large scale Everest ride but please just do it right.

100% agree.

TVs are getting better and better, and the same goes for Virtual Reality gear. Disney and Universal are both pursuing technologies that will be available at home. Give it a couple years and I can see people asking why would you go to a glorified movie theatre park playing movies that were cool years ago? Sure they have nice queues, but I can play the same thing at home. (and it's a lot cheaper)

Disney needs to differentiate with the physical world. The Soarin projector issues are proof that Disney cannot compete with the consumer technology at home.

Essentially Disney Parks is giving up both advantages it has.
1) Mastery of Robotics, ride system, and illusion
2) Creating original stories

I have a bad feeling about where this is going...

 

[twebber55]

100% agree. TVs are getting better and better, and the same goes for Virtual Reality gear. Disney and Universal are both pursuing technologies that will be available at home. Give it a couple years and I can see people asking why would you go to a glorified movie theatre park playing movies that were cool years ago? Sure they have nice queues, but I can play the same thing at home. (and it's a lot cheaper) Disney needs to differentiate with the physical world. The Soarin projector issues are proof that Disney cannot compete with the consumer technology at home. Essentially Disney Parks is giving up both advantages it has. 1) Mastery of Robotics, ride system, and illusion 2) Creating original stories I have a bad feeling about where this is going...

Well said

 

[Yellowstonetim]

I will never ceased to be amazed by how vast the reactions can be to the same ride.... what one person calls pathetic... others love. COunt me and my family in on the side that really likes Star Tours ... and yes we like even the giftshop. I love the photo-shop there, and have several treasured family photos, spanning the years since we started visiting, of us as various 'Jedi'. I cannot imagine that someone who professes to love Star Wars, not being excited at the moment in Star Tours when you drop into the run to the final shot.

Agreed!

Yellowstonetim, I love Star Tours too. In fact we are skipping DHS this year and my only regret is missing Star Tours. That aside, I think that Disney could come up with some amazing movies if they invest properly. Abrams is talented but I am hopeful that he will control the lens flare. I won't even think about the park expansion since my faith in that area is at such a low point right now.

By the way, we've been told that Universal is counting on trees and other vegetation to grow adequately to hide the building. I personally would have preferred that they hide it immediately or at least do something to make it interesting but we just pretend like it's not there.

That building was pretty huge, I don't know how they would ever cover it with trees unless they get some redwoods!

I am very hopeful about Star Wars. He is a fan. I also believe that Disney is in a class all by itself when it comes to protecting canon and goodwill. I think Lucas sold to Disney for that very reason. He knew, like we do, that Disney would do SW right and better even than Lucas! It is going to be big. REAL big. Maybe, just maybe, Avatar big.

i think the majority of the public just want a great immersive experience but i do agree with you non IP lands are great because of no preconceived notions like an adventure land
i cant think of a single theme park land in teh world where i would think to my self i m not gonna like it because of the IP attachment, simpsons comes to mind, never got into the show actually thought the land was pretty neat and had a good ride with nice food offerings

anyways great discussion

In a park that already draws people, rides do not need IP, but it can be a bonus. IP was Important for Universal with HP because it caused a lot of new people to come to Universal just to see HP. That is why they had to put HP in both parks. Disney IS the IP. The idea that IP is of primary importance is ridiculous and clearly proven wrong by rides like TOT and especially Splash Mountain. I love the Twilight Zone and have seen Song of the South, but neither are significant IP's now. Yet, each ride is considered one of the most popular rides in their prospective park.

In other words: Not having an IP won't matter for a good ride like Splash & TOT, but a good IP will pay extra dividends like anything Frozen, HP, or Star Wars.

 

[DDLand]

That In a park that already draws people, rides do not need IP, but it can be a bonus. IP was Important for Universal with HP because it caused a lot of new people to come to Universal just to see HP. That is why they had to put HP in both parks. Disney IS the IP. The idea that IP is of primary importance is ridiculous and clearly proven wrong by rides like TOT and especially Splash Mountain. I love the Twilight Zone and have seen Song of the South, but neither are significant IP's now. Yet, each ride is considered one of the most popular rides in their prospective park.

In other words: Not having an IP won't matter for a good ride like Splash & TOT, but a good IP will pay extra dividends like anything Frozen, HP, or Star Wars.

I agree that parks don't need IP to survive. Disney Parks has the capability to build brands more powerful then any movie that the studio could create. Small World, Pirates, and The Mansion come to mind... But they've all but exited that business now. Everest was the last time they made a bold move in original content creation. (Grizzly Gulch is a bit unambitious on the story front)

Splash Mountain and TOT I keep seeing be brought up here as an example that old/bad IP doesn't matter. The brilliance of those two rides was they were built during a time that these IPs were still in the minds of millions. That started a spark. However IP fuel can only last so long. It has to transfer into Disney Classic territory to continue to draw crowds. Both those franchises in the parks could stand up on their own without their associated brands being popular because they've been so loved by millions in the parks.

The problem with Avatarland is the IP fuel may be bad or expired. The initial spark may not be able to catch at all. This means that it would have to stand up solely on its own merits. That's risky. Disney doesn't like risks. That's why they got IP in the first place.

It's true that parks don't need IP to thrive, but they better make kick butt rides with captivating stories if they're going to go down that route. The jury is still out on Avatarland...

 

[twebber55]

Agreed!



That building was pretty huge, I don't know how they would ever cover it with trees unless they get some redwoods!

I am very hopeful about Star Wars. He is a fan. I also believe that Disney is in a class all by itself when it comes to protecting canon and goodwill. I think Lucas sold to Disney for that very reason. He knew, like we do, that Disney would do SW right and better even than Lucas! It is going to be big. REAL big. Maybe, just maybe, Avatar big.



In a park that already draws people, rides do not need IP, but it can be a bonus. IP was Important for Universal with HP because it caused a lot of new people to come to Universal just to see HP. That is why they had to put HP in both parks. Disney IS the IP. The idea that IP is of primary importance is ridiculous and clearly proven wrong by rides like TOT and especially Splash Mountain. I love the Twilight Zone and have seen Song of the South, but neither are significant IP's now. Yet, each ride is considered one of the most popular rides in their prospective park.

In other words: Not having an IP won't matter for a good ride like Splash & TOT, but a good IP will pay extra dividends like anything Frozen, HP, or Star Wars.

well said

 

[twebber55]

I agree that parks don't need IP to survive. Disney Parks has the capability to build brands more powerful then any movie that the studio could create. Small World, Pirates, and The Mansion come to mind... But they've all but exited that business now. Everest was the last time they made a bold move in original content creation. (Grizzly Gulch is a bit unambitious on the story front)

Splash Mountain and TOT I keep seeing be brought up here as an example that old/bad IP doesn't matter. The brilliance of those two rides was they were built during a time that these IPs were still in the minds of millions. That started a spark. However IP fuel can only last so long. It has to transfer into Disney Classic territory to continue to draw crowds. Both those franchises in the parks could stand up on their own without their associated brands being popular because they've been so loved by millions in the parks.

The problem with Avatarland is the IP fuel may be bad or expired. The initial spark may not be able to catch at all. This means that it would have to stand up solely on its own merits. That's risky. Disney doesn't like risks. That's why they got IP in the first place.

It's true that parks don't need IP to thrive, but they better make kick butt rides with captivating stories if they're going to go down that route. The jury is still out on Avatarland...

that's just it...Starr tours is the fourth most popular ride (theme park insider) and when it opened back up a couple of years ago by the after noon it was a 25 min wait...so hear you have a great IP with a solid to decent ride with very little wait.....the ride matters the most