I've been doing a lot of interviews with newspaper and radio journalists ever since Disney announced Star Wars Land last weekend at the D23 Expo in Anaheim. And those three questions have figured into almost every interview. They represent an attempt to cast Disney's plans in a classic underdog narrative, where an established industry leader is forced to change its ways to meet a challenge from an upstart — in this case, Universal with its Harry Potter lands.
But that narrative really doesn't fit what's happening here. First, casting Disney's plans for Star Wars as a response to Potter is simplistic. Like any smart, successful company in the entertainment business, Disney competes with much more than any single competitor. The question consumers ask themselves isn't: "Should I go to Disney or Universal?" It's "What I am going to do with my vacation time this year?"
Disney competes with Universal for people's vacation time, but it also competes with national parks, beaches, spa resorts, Broadway shows, family visits, and even stay-cations at the local movie theater, mall, or amusement park. That is why Disney, and Universal, have created resorts that offer a wide range of experiences to compete with all those alternatives... and why their marketing encourages you to bring the extended family with you, so that you don't have to decide between Disney or Universal and visiting your relatives for the week.
Despite all the fancy pools, man-made beaches, shopping districts, Broadway-style shows, movie theaters, on-site spas and awe-inspiring vistas that they offer, however, theme parks' unique selling point remains the opportunity to walk into and experience a fully immersive themed physical environment where you can spend time with beloved characters. Natural environments are wonderful, but they offer something different that the opportunity to engage yourself (and your imagination) in an ongoing narrative. Movie and stage shows provide amazing entertainment, but viewers are limited by their seats in the audience. They can never walk into the action and experience it on their own terms, they way they can in a great theme park attraction.
Universal's Wizarding World of Harry Potter lands, especially the new Diagon Alley at Universal Studios Florida, have illustrated how powerfully a theme park land can engage and reward visitors' imaginations. The Harry Potter franchise appeals across generations and genders, and it offers a rich encyclopedia of detail that empowers designers to create an environment that can fill not just an entire land in a theme park, but multiple lands. Star Wars offers the same opportunities for Disney's designers.
But Harry Potter was hardly the first example of a theme park devoting an entire land to a single IP [intellectual property]. And that's the second point upon which we depart from the proposed narrative. Single-IP lands have been around for decades... and date to the opening of Disneyland itself.
A single-IP land is nothing new in Disneyland. The very first single-IP land may have been the park's Adventureland, which was themed to Disney's True Life Adventure nature documentaries. The land opened in July 1955 with a single attraction, the Jungle Cruise, which represented the opportunity for visitors to take a "true life" tour through exotic scenes they might have seen in Disney's nature films.
(If the idea that Jungle Cruise was based on a nature documentary seems strange today, remember that the current 1930s theme for the ride dates only to the introduction of the Indiana Jones Adventure next door in 1995, and that the ride's famous campy humor has only intensified over the years. Today's Jungle Cruise simply isn't anywhere near the same experience that it was in 1955.)
What about a land based on an IP developed by an outside source? Disney created the first immersively themed outdoor attraction space devoted to a single IP developed outside the company just one year after Disneyland opened, with debut of Tom Sawyer Island in 1956. No, Tom Sawyer Island isn't an official "land" within Disneyland, but at a little over three acres (nearly seven if you count the surrounding Rivers of America), TSI is comparable in size to some theme park lands.
Disney opened another land based on a single property in 1972, when it opened Bear County, based on the Country Bear Jamboree show developed for the proposed Mineral King ski resort and opened the previous year at Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom in Florida. Disneyland's most recent single IP land was Toontown, which opened in 1993 and was based on the characters and imagery of the 1988 Touchstone/Amblin production Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (Disney included only its own characters in Toontown, omitting cartoon characters from Warner Bros. and other studios that appeared in the film, so one can argue that Disney's Toontown is not a single-IP land, but a partial IP land. Still....)
And if we walk across the esplanade to Disney California Adventure, we will find the most immersively detailed example of a single-IP land at a domestic Disney theme park in Cars Land, based on the Disney/Pixar animation franchise. Outside of the United States, at Tokyo DisneySea, Disney has created single-IP lands devoted to the works of Jules Verne (Mysterious Island) and the Disney animation hit The Little Mermaid (Mermaid Lagoon). A Frozen-themed land is also under development at the same park.
Even if we want to restrict the narrative to single-IP lands based on properties not in the public domain and licensed from an outside company, Universal's Harry Potter still wasn't the first to the table. Knott's Berry Farm established that model with its Camp Snoopy back in 1983. And half the lands at Universal's Islands of Adventure theme park in Orlando were based on single outside IPs when the park opened in 1999: Seuss Landing, Marvel Super Hero Island, and Jurassic Park. (The first two were licensed. Only Jurassic Park was owned by Universal.)
So single-IP lands are not the future of the theme park industry. They are the past and present of the business, as well as part of its future. Star Wars Land will not disrupt Walt Disney's vision for Disneyland, as a single IP-based land was part of his park from the very beginning. And Star Wars Land is no more a response to Harry Potter than Harry Potter was a response to all the other IP-based attractions that preceded it.
The theme park industry has been evolving since even before the moment that Disneyland opened in July 1955. Star Wars Land will represent another step in that evolution, as did Harry Potter, Cars Land, Toontown, Camp Snoopy, and even Adventureland before them all. As with all those other lands, Star Wars Land ultimately will be judged on the quality of entertainment and value that it provides to its guests.
And like all the theme park fans who eagerly awaited those previous themed lands, I can't wait to see what Disney does with Star Wars.
Tweet
On another note, I had hoped that Disney would rework Tomorrowland with Star Wars Land. I figured that there just wasn't enough space to do what they wanted but Tomorrowland is so tired and struggles with a good identity. Disney's ability to tell great stories gets lost there. Mostly because tomorrow comes so much faster than it did in Walt's day. I am not completely against making it the Tomorrowland of Yesterday. Bring back some of the old attractions and show people what tomorrow looked like a long time ago and let them marvel at how far we have come. Sorry for going off topic. This article got me thinking...again.
Star Wars is a space fairy tail. The planets are just backdrops but it's hardly a fleshed out world. Except for Lord of the Rings I have a hard time finding another movie franchise that does that perfectly and is such a great fit for an immersive experience. In tv we have the Simpsons that fit that bill and it's also at Universal.
With the way Disney is going to do is probably the only way it could work. Building a new backdrop (planet) and inhabit it with stuff fans could recognize from the movies. The difference is that you will never feel you are walking in the Death Star or on Endor or Cloud City so it will never feel like walking in Diagon Alley. It will feel like Star Wars Land at a Disney theme park.
@Karen Potter won't outdate, the same like Snow White won't outdate. These stories are timeless. Potter is a coming of age story with a package that is timeless. Sure the movies will be remade like Disney is remaking their movies. I'm sue Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them will add to the life of Potter even more. But in the end Universal is not afraid to pick up a wrecking ball and mow everything down to build new experiences. Wasn't it Walt himself who said Disneyland would never be finished. He would always tinker with it, change it and keep it relevant. It's the current conglomerate that resembles only his name but not his philosophy that keeps a huge museum running on the broken nostalgia record of their advertising spindoctors.
On a somewhat related note, we all love the new attractions attractions that Universal has put out lately (shocking, I know.) I mean, even being the biased Disney fan that I am, I have to admit that Universal is catching up. But apparently there are some who prefer Universal Studios as...well...a studio! A few weeks ago, I read an article written by someone who claimed that UOR's theme park rides are trying to be more like movies and how movies are trying to be more like theme park rides. I don't remember the specific details of the article, but he was basically one of those people who constantly complains of how cgi is killing cinema. For his theme park example, he used a Universal attraction that has long been closed called Murder, She Wrote Mystery Theater, which apparently pulled back the curtain to show how the show was made. But now that space is occupied by Transformers, which, rather than taking you behind the scenes, actually tries to make you feel like you're in a movie and is nothing but action and explosions. For his movie example he used Paciffic Rim, a movie that has an overly-cliched plot and seems to focus more on giant cgi robots fighting giant cgi monsters. This was a bit of a culture shock to me as I spend so much time on this website whose users constantly praise everything Universal does. What's my take on this? Well, I've always seen Transformers as an overrated Spider-Man clone, but I still enjoy the ride and find it to be one of the better offerings of the park. And I love going to theme parks because they help me forget about the troubles of everyday life, so why not make me feel like I'm in a movie? And I agree that a lot of films nowadays do seem to focus a lot on big action sequences. A lot of the action flicks that I've seen this year, such as Jurassic World, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and even the critically-acclaimed Mad Max: Fury Road, seem to practically be begging on their knees to be turned into theme park rides. (And one of them technically already is!) But those are still really good, amazing films that I could watch again and again. And, quite frankly, not all modern-day action movies are like that! The first film I saw this year, American Sniper, is a war drama filled with lots of depth and emotion. It was pretty successful (especially for an R-rated film!) and, if I'm correct, even won an oscar. So what do you guys think?
If they do a good job, DHS might surpass MK in popularity, at least for the first couple of years. That would be quite a feat!
The real winner in that whole debacle is Disney fans. Yes, Universal has raked in untold sums of cash since the new lands opened, and yes, the Disney expansion moves are a direct result of that success and attention.
The difference is, Universal has had 5 years of record attendance and profits whereas Disney is probably 2-3 years out on Avatar and a couple years longer on the others.
Disney does not skimp on theming or details, they are just cheap when it comes to construction costs and timelines. I hope they step it up to a fever pace on these new additions.
Theme park fans win, period. Maybe TH and I will meet up for a drink at the Mos Eisley Cantina. I'm buying the Butterbeers...er... whatever the signature drink is.
I doubted the ability to bring Star Wars to life, but the solution they came up with is brilliant.
Star Wars Land, while by name is single IP, isn't based on the original six movies, but a new creation that includes Star Wars characters and vehicles. The land doesn't look like anything from the movie. It gets it's own backstory and look and rides. It is quite unique that it will get a cantina, but not from Tatoonie. It will get a Millennium Falcon, but not have a space port at any place it actually landed in in the movie. The extent of immersion depends on whether it matters to you if it isn't based on the two movie trilogies. Therefore, you have to say Disney succeeded again in giving us a general topic Star Wars and not different in approach than general topic Toontown or Adventureland, whereas the Wizardling World of Harry Potter is a definite place with Hogswarts Castle, Hogsmead, and Diagon Alley.
Maybe Disney succeeded in kicking the can only so far. In the past, I thought Star Wars could have been built in DCA with a desert landscape like Tatooine and built beyond Cars Land. They will do a Star Wars style "Hogwarts Express" by having a train that travels from Disneyland (near Star Tours) to DCA. Not having a specific place from Star Wars featured in Star Wars Land is its biggest weakness and risk.
I also wouldn't consider a "Jules verne land" to be a single IP.... his works are all their own IP. By that standard, isn't Disneyland a single IP park on the basis that everything in there is Disney?
Everything else seems spot on though.
^^^^
Anon, In theory, from a creative standpoint, it would be more impressive to have a specific location, but realistically, the "Star Wars universe" doesn't take place in a singular location. That franchise is way too large (How many locations does the revamped Star Tours showcase?)
Yes, a single location could have been chosen, but even then, everyone wouldn't be pleased. (Tatoonie, hoth, death star, cloud city. etc.)
By creating a hub "at the end of space", even if it is general, you'll be able to incorporate any & all characters. The land will most likely have folks from the prequels to the upcoming films.
If an entire Star Wars theme park were being constructed, individual lands / locations would be expected, but for a single land within an existing park, this seems like the most logical choice.
It seems most characters make a trip to Tatooine. It is more correct to say everyone comes to Tatooine to do their business plus R2D2 and C3PO.
While Potter enthusiasts were wrong, they also raised a valid point. Massive lands like Disney creates didn't need to be built to accommodate the masses. They could be smaller in scale thus creating a much better immersive feel.
It will be interesting to see how many acres Disney's STAR WARS land dedicates to explore/experience vs retail, bathrooms, back of house, rides. Disney will need to balance guest immersive satisfaction vs ride pass through vs possible lost sales from people leaving an over crowded land.
It will also be interesting to see if STAR TOURS in Anaheim is moved? If moved, will it be repurposed as one of the two eTickets or will moving it offer a third eTicket?
If it's not moved, will that immediately destroy the immersive experience because you may have walked by STAR TOURS to get to STAR WARS land? Or while you're enjoying the immersive STAR WARS land, will it not be a complete immersive experience because you'll know to ride STAR TOURS you have to leave STAR WARS land?
It's important to remember STAR WARS land is not a reaction to Comcast's quarterly earnings PR machine. During the period of Comcast's ride/attraction update/replacement build Disney's Park earnings were also exceeding expectations. Every theme park enthusiast always knew more STAR WARS and Indiana Jones were coming, from the minute they read/heard about the Lucasfilm acquisition.
Due to limited land and aging rides/attractions Universal will continue to update/replace. Disney will continue to address their half day parks and step-up their classic rides enhancement program. Each offering a better experience to their guests.
I'm certain that plot points from the new trilogy are being hidden (Everything from the casting to character names has been slowly revealed, so I'm not surprised about anything being concealed from the public)
Plus, by the time this land opens the second (or third) movie will have already been released, so I'd also expect to see some sort of "reference", or even a scene or 2, based in this new land.
Plus how will Frontierland and Fantasyland transition to Star Wars? I think that space would have been better to expand Fantasyland with an Aladdin or Lion King ride. Star Wars would have been better used to fix Tomorrowland. Speedway could be Pod racing, people mover could have been land cruisers and astro orbiter could be x- wings and tie fighters. Now the weakest Land at Disney is going to go at least another decade before an update.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
