Disney wants more 'Star Wars' in its theme parks

The problem with Tomorrowland is that our concept of the future is constantly changing and what looked or seemed futuristic at one point is cheesey and old a moment later and it's a near impossible goal for Disney to be able to keep Tomorrowland always looking futuristic and never outdated. The only way possible is if Disney remodels/revamps Tomorrowland every 5 - 10 years but that would cost a lot of money and it would most likely end up pissing off a lot more people than it would please because of the disruptions that it would cause.
 
Riceball said:
I'd hardly call CA Adventure a waste,
Click to expand...

It would be better named "Ca World's Fair". Its a new park that had to be revamped due to poor choices all around. It was targeted as an adult oriented park that went and added a Cars land. All in the same, its a separate theme park crawling distance from an existing theme park. Remember at all when Disney tried to purchase Knotts on a few occasions? CA Adventure is exactly what Knott feared Disney would do to Knotts. In a sad twist, Knotts was ruined by modern rollercoasters and themed rides that didnt mesh with the original look and feel of Knotts as a whole. Its the exact downfall of CA Adventure, double irony.
 
California Adventure was largely an on-the-cheap, off-the-shelf park when it opened, but Disney recognized the error and fixed it. It isn't just Cars Land; they also completely revamped the entrance area, replacing the Golden Gate Bridge facade with an entrance based on the old Pan-Pacific Auditorium (as Disney's Hollywood Studios Park used from the beginning) and replacing the Sunshine Plaza area with Buena Vista Street and the new Carthay Circle theater building, evoking early 1920s Los Angeles. The resulting attendance bump has been substantial. I believe I heard that, at least for a while, it was outdrawing the original park or coming close.

Tomorrowland has always been iffy, and Walt knew it. As stated earlier, it is really difficult to be ahead of the curve of technology, especially these days. It is made even more difficult when you consider that if even if Disney were willing to spend the money to update the place every five to 10 years, it would be largely closed or hosting construction tarps a significant portion of the time. That's why the park in Paris went with the Jules Verne/HG Wells-inspired Discoveryland at opening in the '80s and why, 20 years ago, Florida's Magic Kingdom revamped their "futurist" Tomorrowland into Buck Rogers-inspired version with design cues from 1930s to the 1950s. Make it a view of the future as seen through the eyes of the past and it has a much longer life -- and is also much more colorful.

As for whether this or that belongs in Tomorrowland ... the strict theme of the future has been gone for a long time because it just wasn't viable. Star Tours has been in Disneyland's Tomorrowland for more than 25 years. To object now and say that Star Wars-inspired attractions don't belong there because it is supposed to represent the future is ... well, that starship has sailed a long time ago. And adherence to the theme of the future has been shaky from the very beginning ... Circarama? The Nautilus from 20000 Leagues Under the Sea( which was also set in the past)? The Skyway? The Kaiser Hall of Aluminum Fame? The Dutch Boy Color Gallery? Most of these were in Tomorrowland on opening day or within the first 10 years, when Walt himself was still very present. Even the Autopia was a bit of a stretch on opening; by the time the similar Tomorrowland Speedway opened in the Magic Kingdom in 1971, it was unquestionably not futuristic. And yet I hear people complain about theme violations in the Florida park by the Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor, Stitch's Great Escape, and Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin -- but if you ask those same people about the Speedway, most will say, "Yeah, but kids love it." And they don't love Buzz Lightyear? The mind boggles.

I think it would be a mistake to build an entirely new park in Florida at this time, when Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom really need upgrades and additions (and one could make a case for Epcot as well). Animal Kingdom is getting some major additions now in the form of "The World of Avatar" or whatever they wind up calling it, and the Studios park is likely getting quite a bit as well, including some of this Star Wars stuff, and eventually a version of Cars Land if we in Florida are fortunate. But Disney spent a jaw-droppingly huge amount of money to revamp DCA and do the major upgrades to Fantasyland at the Magic Kingdom, so it is unlikely they'd start an entirely new park in the next few years. I also think it would be a mistake to build an entire park around one franchise; the parks are supposed to have family appeal, and not everyone loves Star Wars (Philistines, yes, but they also spend money). I consider it extremely unlikely they'll announce a fifth gate in Florida any time soon -- certainly no sooner than the 2021 50th anniversary of Walt Disney World. It's already pretty close to too late to announce a new park that could open in 2021.

And there's nothing wrong with Imagineering -- one has but to look at the new additions to Hong Kong Disneyland and some of the stuff they're making for the Shanghai park to see that, as well as Radiator Springs Racers. The creativity is there. They need money to make ideas into reality.

Qapla'

SSB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pfft...LFL pulled a billion in licensing from the prequels before the first one was released - and that was just licensing, not the films themselves, or royalties, and whatever else they get off merchandise, or home video, etc.

Not saying SW will or could pay for it all, but that one property will generate more than that for the sequels plus there's 2 additional flicks in it as well. Toss in the money Disney makes from all their other studios and parks and what not, they have the money to do whatever they want. It's just the decision on whether to do it. While I dont' know if SW needs it's own park, it should have a large/huge presence if inside another park.
 
I agree.

It's viable logic to keep SW-land attached to other parks. But at the same time, there isn't another single franchise comparable to SW. IMO it could justify double whatever money & space & resources they have invested in Harry Potter.
 
cboath said:
Pfft...LFL pulled a billion in licensing from the prequels before the first one was released - and that was just licensing, not the films themselves, or royalties, and whatever else they get off merchandise, or home video, etc.
Click to expand...
There's no question Star Wars makes a ton of money -- otherwise, Disney wouldn't have bought it. However, don't mistake revenue for profit. Not the same thing. That aside, I fully expect Disney to announce something within the next six to eight months related to Star Wars going into the parks. But Disney doesn't just forge ahead wildly. They have a reputation with regard to theme parks, and they'll want to make sure they're getting a good mix of attractions, food, and so on. Those things have to be designed and re-designed, partly because Imagineers start with no limits and then have to take costs into consideration. They will also probably want to include tie-ins to the new film(s). And they'll want to play things close to the vest until they at least think they know what they're going to do. They do have a lot of money, but they spend a lot of money as well. In the last eight years, they've spent just over $16 billion to acquire Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm. They spend a lot on keeping their theme parks and resorts running, movies being made, and so forth and so on. A new Star Wars park the size of Disney's Hollywood Studios park, which I believe is the smallest Disney park in the US, would cost at least $1 billion to design and build (possibly double that) and would take years to be profitable.

Despite how we here see it, it is true that not everyone is interested in Star Wars. And Disney also has some recent experience that would make them proceed with caution with regard to Star Wars in their parks. They spent a lot of money to update and upgrade Star Tours a couple of years ago. It was a massive change that made the ride much better and gave it a ton of re-rideability, with the random sequences making it unlikely most guests would experience the same thing twice. But in Walt Disney World, they saw almost none of the expected attendance bump when it opened.
cboath said:
Toss in the money Disney makes from all their other studios and parks and what not, they have the money to do whatever they want. It's just the decision on whether to do it.
Click to expand...
The decision is when, not whether. No question in my mind that it will happen. But enough "money to do whatever they want"? Nope. They have shareholders.

Qapla'

SSB
 
Well, the licensing agreement for the PT was a billion of what should be profit aside from paperwork really. I don't expect them to build a new park, but a new full on casino in vegas probably costs more and those run 2-3B.

At the end of the day, even if they built an entire park - do they have the money to do it? Yes. Would they make a profit? Of course. Being subject to shareholder approval doesn't make them less financially capable. Probably would help if they banned studio accounting practices and made them follow standard accounting rules ;)
 
cboath said:
Well, the licensing agreement for the PT was a billion of what should be profit aside from paperwork really. I don't expect them to build a new park, but a new full on casino in vegas probably costs more and those run 2-3B.

At the end of the day, even if they built an entire park - do they have the money to do it? Yes. Would they make a profit? Of course. Being subject to shareholder approval doesn't make them less financially capable. Probably would help if they banned studio accounting practices and made them follow standard accounting rules ;)
Click to expand...

Profit is a given but the question is, as sbaxter mentioned, how long is it going to take for them to turn a profit after opening and just how much profit annually? If it's going to take them 15 - 20 years to see a profit and then only a tiny profit margin then I doubt they'd go through with it, one bad year or another serious recession and they'd be back in the red. The best thing to look at to get an idea of what Disney considers a good profit/loss margin to be is Euro Disney; they spent a lot of money on it and it wasn't a huge hit for several years after it first opened but it's still open today although I don't know if it's gained in popularity or not. At the same time it's not quite an apples to apples comparison being that Euro Disney is another Disneyland park (as it were) and not an ancillary park like CA Adventure, Epcot which is what a Star Wars based park would be.
 
Hopefully it's a mix of all movies and the comments are they want to ensure 7-9 are covered as well so as not to leave anyone's preference out. It'll be disappointing if it's all 7-9.
 
They need not overthink this. No one needs Star wars themed rides.

What we need is a death star we can walk around in and an echo base with a full sized falcon
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

Captain Dunsel
Back In Theaters: Star Wars OT & PT
Replies
9
Views
516
Rawktrooper
Rawktrooper
JediG60racer
Star Wars Outlaws (video game)
2
Replies
24
Views
621
Solo4114
Solo4114
_Lee_
Star Wars sequel trilogy.
6 7 8
Replies
144
Views
7,347
Greenie
Greenie
janglesworthy
Star Wars Tales of The Empire D+ animated series
Replies
12
Views
521
NakedMoleRat
NakedMoleRat
division 6
Star Wars and Gremlins Actor Mark Dodson Dies
Replies
0
Views
221
division 6
division 6
Back
Top