WDW & Star Wars: What's Next?

[wallrock]

A Star Wars themed park wouldn't work for different reasons in my opinion. More people than you think go to Disney World or Disney Land because they want to see Disney stuff.

A Star Wars park sounds to me like early California Adventures. John Lasseter said it himself: DCA's problem is that it didn't have enough Disney in it, even having a strong theme and great attractions.

Point is, everyone can relate to at least a few Disney characters, but not everyone knows what Star Wars is all about, especially since its popularity peak was a long time ago.

Disney content doesn’t make a Disney park. In fact, it’s been quite the opposite over the years. Throughout the 70s and 80s the attractions in the Magic Kingdom had very little to do with any of Disney’s intellectual property. Space Mountain, If You Had Wings, CircleVision 360, Mission to Mars, Star Jets, WEDway People Mover, Haunted Mansion, Hall of Presidents, Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean and Country Bear Jamboree just to name a few. When Epcot opened I don’t recall any Disney content being there. Animal Kingdom was overwhelmingly non-Disney and Disney-MGM Studios, while having a lot of Disney content, didn't rely solely on that material. Disney climbed to the top of the theme park world by being creative and engaging their customer base.

With respect to Mr. Lasseter, it’s not that DCA didn’t have enough Disney in it, it’s because the park lacked that creativity and imagination that Disney was known for. They (Disney) has proven that they can still produce solid, creative products with Cars Land, and they can do the same with Star Wars. I hope they take advantage of their imagineering talent.

 

[luisov]

Disney content doesn’t make a Disney park. In fact, it’s been quite the opposite over the years. Throughout the 70s and 80s the attractions in the Magic Kingdom had very little to do with any of Disney’s intellectual property. Space Mountain, If You Had Wings, CircleVision 360, Mission to Mars, Star Jets, WEDway People Mover, Haunted Mansion, Hall of Presidents, Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean and Country Bear Jamboree just to name a few. When Epcot opened I don’t recall any Disney content being there. Animal Kingdom was overwhelmingly non-Disney and Disney-MGM Studios, while having a lot of Disney content, didn't rely solely on that material. Disney climbed to the top of the theme park world by being creative and engaging their customer base.

With respect to Mr. Lasseter, it’s not that DCA didn’t have enough Disney in it, it’s because the park lacked that creativity and imagination that Disney was known for. They (Disney) has proven that they can still produce solid, creative products with Cars Land, and they can do the same with Star Wars. I hope they take advantage of their imagineering talent.

You do have a point, but I still think that for today's market it is very important for companies to brand their main product, which a couple of decades ago was not necessarily a priority. That's why nowadays you'll hear a lot of people at Disney Animation Studios describing their features as ''something that can be translated into merchandise and themed park attractions.'' For example, not that many people would attend Legoland if it wasn't because the park is branded as a part of the Lego experience.

As you mentioned, DCA, DHS, AK and EP didn't have much of that Disney vibe when they started, but it is undeniable that Disney characters have been slowly introduced to all those parks, not necessarily in the shape of attractions, but they are still there because that marks those parks as part of the Disney company.

In my opinion, a Star Wars Land is totally justified, even a smart adition to the park. Star Wars as a 5th gate? I don't think that would work.

 

[wallrock]

You do have a point, but I still think that for today's market it is very important for companies to brand their main product, which a couple of decades ago was not necessarily a priority. That's why nowadays you'll hear a lot of people at Disney Animation Studios describing their features as ''something that can be translated into merchandise and themed park attractions.'' For example, not that many people would attend Legoland if it wasn't because the park is branded as a part of the Lego experience.

As you mentioned, DCA, DHS, AK and EP didn't have much of that Disney vibe when they started, but it is undeniable that Disney characters have been slowly introduced to all those parks, not necessarily in the shape of attractions, but they are still there because that marks those parks as part of the Disney company.

In my opinion, a Star Wars Land is totally justified, even a smart adition to the park. Star Wars as a 5th gate? I don't think that would work.

I agree that studios are looking to obtain profits outside of ticket sales, and that theme park tie-ins are a big way to do it now. However I still don't see Disney going down that road. If they were, then why is their principal construction effort focused on a film that isn't in their library (a.k.a Avatar)? To me if they wanted to go down the road of using their own property Avatar Land would instead be something like "Up" Land. Making an immersive environment out of the table top mountains in South America would be just a big of a winner as Avatar, plus they would have the benefit of exclusive ownership. I can only surmise that they didn't go this route because James Cameron and/or Twentieth Century Fox decided to help fund the Avatar project.

Is an expansion of Star Wars related attractions justified? Of course. Will they go down that road? Given their history I'm ambivalent about it.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I agree that studios are looking to obtain profits outside of ticket sales, and that theme park tie-ins are a big way to do it now. However I still don't see Disney going down that road. If they were, then why is their principal construction effort focused on a film that isn't in their library (a.k.a Avatar)? To me if they wanted to go down the road of using their own property Avatar Land would instead be something like "Up" Land. Making an immersive environment out of the table top mountains in South America would be just a big of a winner as Avatar, plus they would have the benefit of exclusive ownership. I can only surmise that they didn't go this route because James Cameron and/or Twentieth Century Fox decided to help fund the Avatar project.

Is an expansion of Star Wars related attractions justified? Of course. Will they go down that road? Given their history I'm ambivalent about it.

I still have no doubts that Cameron is bringing significant capital/contract concessions/future considerations to the table to get his baby built. I can't imagine interest beyond Disney was much more than "tepid" at best.

That's why avatar is so appealing to them...diminished financial risk or low risk future high potential reward.

Even a billionaire shows up to Friendlys with the 20% off coupon...they can't help themselves.

In an ironic way...Disney buying Star Wars, while giving them the creative control and licensing they have craved forever, may now go cheap on bricks and lumber

Stranger things have happened

 

[MsDiz]

They could do a Star Wars land like they did Cars Land in California. Hollywood Studios seems the right place for this idea. Having it in Tomorrowland is a bit weird for me since Star Wars was in the past (A long time ago in a galaxy far far away). Star Wars should be in it's own 'time' in my opinion and Tomorrowland reserved for things imagined for the future. Otherwise, Tomorrowland as a name becomes a misnomer. Sci-fi land is more what it has become what with space age and alien themes. Is this what Walt was invisioning with Tomorrowland?

 

[101disneyfan]

Well you have to remember, Tomorrowland was what the Imagineers thought the future would be like. In a way, it has always been a science fiction land, however instead of being concept-driven, it's now also character-driven. The attractions can have more longevity that way.

 

[wallrock]

I still have no doubts that Cameron is bringing significant capital/contract concessions/future considerations to the table to get his baby built. I can't imagine interest beyond Disney was much more than "tepid" at best.

That's why avatar is so appealing to them...diminished financial risk or low risk future high potential reward.

Even a billionaire shows up to Friendlys with the 20% off coupon...they can't help themselves.

In an ironic way...Disney buying Star Wars, while giving them the creative control and licensing they have craved forever, may now go cheap on bricks and lumber

Stranger things have happened

And 'cheap' on the 'bricks and lumber' may be nothing more than a few meet and greets, a themed restaurant and an infusion of novelties in the gift shops. Attractions are an option, but it's cheaper to go the other way. That, or they could always lease out that property and the lessee can assume the risks of construction and maintenance. Sadly, I fear that the latter of the two options may be something Disney is pursuing.

 

[rteetz]

Well you have to remember, Tomorrowland was what the Imagineers thought the future would be like. In a way, it has always been a science fiction land, however instead of being concept-driven, it's now also character-driven. The attractions can have more longevity that way.

Exactly and as each tomorrow land opened at each park they are all different.

Disneyland in CA is 50-60 future

MK is 70s future

DLRP is 80-90 future

Hong Kong 90-00 future

And now shanghai will have a very futuristic look as it tries to look like what we today would think of the future.

 

[beer dave]

Exactly and as each tomorrow land opened at each park they are all different.

Disneyland in CA is 50-60 future

MK is 70s future

DLRP is 80-90 future

Hong Kong 90-00 future

And now shanghai will have a very futuristic look as it tries to look like what we today would think of the future.

A post apocalyptic land?

 

[rteetz]

A post apocalyptic land?

Good one but it looks like none of the other tomorrow lands at all.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

And 'cheap' on the 'bricks and lumber' may be nothing more than a few meet and greets, a themed restaurant and an infusion of novelties in the gift shops. Attractions are an option, but it's cheaper to go the other way. That, or they could always lease out that property and the lessee can assume the risks of construction and maintenance. Sadly, I fear that the latter of the two options may be something Disney is pursuing.

Agree 100%

 

[StarWarsJez]

+1 from me too.

No one would love a Star Wars land/park more than me but the reality is that Disney is just not looking to invest in new theme park rides. Any new projects they do embark on will span many, many years like the hugely underwhelming new FantasyLand.

 

[mbrou24]

And 'cheap' on the 'bricks and lumber' may be nothing more than a few meet and greets, a themed restaurant and an infusion of novelties in the gift shops. Attractions are an option, but it's cheaper to go the other way. That, or they could always lease out that property and the lessee can assume the risks of construction and maintenance. Sadly, I fear that the latter of the two options may be something Disney is pursuing.

It's just so infuriating because Star Wars being an older ip really should be something that targets a bit of an older crowd like teens and 20s. As much as I love Disney it's becoming very apparent that their sole focus is becoming kids. I don't fault them for it, but avatar land should also be something geared toward teens and 20s because that's what the movie targets. I just think something new needs to come that doesn't cater to kids. Just my opinion

 

[mvk]

It's just so infuriating because Star Wars being an older ip really should be something that targets a bit of an older crowd like teens and 20s. As much as I love Disney it's becoming very apparent that their sole focus is becoming kids. I don't fault them for it, but avatar land should also be something geared toward teens and 20s because that's what the movie targets. I just think something new needs to come that doesn't cater to kids. Just my opinion

Disney always has and always will be geared towards families. Building something entire families can enjoy together has always been the goal. In my opinion, that is one thing that is causing DHS to lag behind. There's just not much for families to do together there. A big expansion at DHS needs to have at least 2 attractions that the entire family could enjoy, in addition to a bigger E-ticket, or that park will continue to stagnate. Basically, something similar to what they did with CarsLand.

 

[luisov]

It's just so infuriating because Star Wars being an older ip really should be something that targets a bit of an older crowd like teens and 20s. As much as I love Disney it's becoming very apparent that their sole focus is becoming kids. I don't fault them for it, but avatar land should also be something geared toward teens and 20s because that's what the movie targets. I just think something new needs to come that doesn't cater to kids. Just my opinion

Well, I personally love thrill rides and I would love to have a couple more at WDW, but to be fair, Disney has been targeted to families since its origins.

I remember an anecdote of an Imagineer proposing the idea of creating some sort of thrill ride to Walt on the very first stages of DL, but he didn't really want to build thrill attractions. At the end he accepted to build Matterhorn, but the reality is that Disney has always appealed to children and families more than teenagers and thrill lovers.

 

[mbrou24]

Well, I personally love thrill rides and I would love to have a couple more at WDW, but to be fair, Disney has been targeted to families since its origins. I remember an anecdote of an Imagineer proposing the idea of creating some sort of thrill ride to Walt on the very first stages of DL, but he didn't really want to build thrill attractions. At the end he accepted to build Matterhorn, but the reality is that Disney has always appealed to children and families more than teenagers and thrill lovers.

Notice I didn't say thrill ride nor did I say coaster or non family attraction. I would just like something that is not focused on kids. Something along the lines of spiderman at ioa. I feel like that type of ride would work well with the Star Wars ip, still being a majority family attraction and not a slow moving boat ride.

 

[wallrock]

Notice I didn't say thrill ride nor did I say coaster or non family attraction. I would just like something that is not focused on kids. Something along the lines of spiderman at ioa. I feel like that type of ride would work well with the Star Wars ip, still being a majority family attraction and not a slow moving boat ride.

They used to have that. It was called Epcot.

Future World was a place to expand your knowledge of humankind's history and the potential for tomorrow - things that catered to adults and all without having your back thrown out on a turbulent ride. I'd be happy to see Star Wars, but I also long for Future World in its heyday.

 

[mvk]

Notice I didn't say thrill ride nor did I say coaster or non family attraction. I would just like something that is not focused on kids. Something along the lines of spiderman at ioa. I feel like that type of ride would work well with the Star Wars ip, still being a majority family attraction and not a slow moving boat ride.

They have two of those at DHS already with Tower of Terror and Rock N Roller Coaster. Neither are focused on kids, both are more focused towards teens and adults.

They have a few of these types at the other 2 parks (non-Magic Kingdom, which is of course kid focused)... Expedition Everest at AK, and it looks like at least the main attraction in Avatar will not be kids-focused. I don't think Mission Space and Test Track are kids-focused at Epcot.

 

[rteetz]

Notice I didn't say thrill ride nor did I say coaster or non family attraction. I would just like something that is not focused on kids. Something along the lines of spiderman at ioa. I feel like that type of ride would work well with the Star Wars ip, still being a majority family attraction and not a slow moving boat ride.

I disagree DHS has those things already DHS needs more family oriented rides and maybe one more thrill ride but tower of terror and RnR are thrills. They may not be six flags thrills but they are disney thrills that are geared towards teens and adults.

 

[mbrou24]

They have two of those at DHS already with Tower of Terror and Rock N Roller Coaster. Neither are focused on kids, both are more focused towards teens and adults. They have a few of these types at the other 2 parks (non-Magic Kingdom, which is of course kid focused)... Expedition Everest at AK, and it looks like at least the main attraction in Avatar will not be kids-focused. I don't think Mission Space and Test Track are kids-focused at Epcot.

No but they also have height restrictions and can be considered not to be family rides. I'm talking about a quality dark ride that isn't a soarin over pandora. Something like a mystic manor ride where it's family oriented but not along the lines of under the sea. I'm not saying a coaster or a tot style ride but a dark ride that isn't an omnimover could be something that adds a lot of value to HS.