olegc
08-08-2013, 12:21 PM
[edit - title should have said "but not other lands?]
I am curious to folks' opinion on this topic.
over the last few weeks/months the topic of a complete "land" based on a movie (or movies) has been debated. Some folks really love Carsland the way it is. Others say its OK - but don't do it again. And others are completely against the ideas of retheming parts of the Backlot to Monster's Inc.
Now comes the rumor of Star Wars Land redo of Disneyland's Tomorrowland. What is interesting to me is that the number of "yays" versus "nays" in terms of percentage is significantly higher. And - that's expected from a franchise as wide and vast as Star Wars.
There are those who don't want to give up classic attractions such as Space Mountain, Buzz, and others (me included) but would gladly be rid of EO, Innoventions, and sometimes even Autopia.
Its fascinating to me, though, that such an imbedded franchise, without even a hint of what it may or may not be in an official announcement, is looked upon as being the green light for an entire land redo. THere are obvious factors working here - the SW universe is vast, characters abound, sets and locations could be wonderous. Then again, there is always the chance that if they just plop characters out there with a couple of attractions and call it "just like WWoHP" it won't fly with the Disney community.
To me - all bets are off until, well, they execute any idea. If Carsland was built like DCA 1.0 - folks would not be clamoring for it. They made the huge investments and its paying off. Everyone assumes they will do the same for SW. Will they? I don't know. The psychology of it just fascinates me. So many said "oh yes most definitely" right away when the rumor came out. An equal number said "Heck no" when anything of another "franchise land" came out.
There is even negative speculation of Avatarland - which I hold as well - just because its so new and not really a franchise (does something have to be almost 40 yrs old to get cred?).
This post already rambled too much - but I think the notion of single themed lands is going to continue at Disney parks because for now it works and makes money. I just wonder what happens when they try to "redo" instead of "new".
Thoughts?
I am curious to folks' opinion on this topic.
over the last few weeks/months the topic of a complete "land" based on a movie (or movies) has been debated. Some folks really love Carsland the way it is. Others say its OK - but don't do it again. And others are completely against the ideas of retheming parts of the Backlot to Monster's Inc.
Now comes the rumor of Star Wars Land redo of Disneyland's Tomorrowland. What is interesting to me is that the number of "yays" versus "nays" in terms of percentage is significantly higher. And - that's expected from a franchise as wide and vast as Star Wars.
There are those who don't want to give up classic attractions such as Space Mountain, Buzz, and others (me included) but would gladly be rid of EO, Innoventions, and sometimes even Autopia.
Its fascinating to me, though, that such an imbedded franchise, without even a hint of what it may or may not be in an official announcement, is looked upon as being the green light for an entire land redo. THere are obvious factors working here - the SW universe is vast, characters abound, sets and locations could be wonderous. Then again, there is always the chance that if they just plop characters out there with a couple of attractions and call it "just like WWoHP" it won't fly with the Disney community.
To me - all bets are off until, well, they execute any idea. If Carsland was built like DCA 1.0 - folks would not be clamoring for it. They made the huge investments and its paying off. Everyone assumes they will do the same for SW. Will they? I don't know. The psychology of it just fascinates me. So many said "oh yes most definitely" right away when the rumor came out. An equal number said "Heck no" when anything of another "franchise land" came out.
There is even negative speculation of Avatarland - which I hold as well - just because its so new and not really a franchise (does something have to be almost 40 yrs old to get cred?).
This post already rambled too much - but I think the notion of single themed lands is going to continue at Disney parks because for now it works and makes money. I just wonder what happens when they try to "redo" instead of "new".
Thoughts?