Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Because if the ride experience sucks no one is going to care about how popular the franchise is. In the broadest sense, yes they are comparable, but until Disney tells us what they plan to do at the parks there's nothing to talk about.>> In that sense, I completely agree. So far, all we've gotten from Star Wars and Disney is a decent simulator attraction. I want to see them do so much more, but until they give it a whack, this is all "what if"s
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I think both have become deeply ingrained in the public psyche, and neither will really lose their overall appeal." I've said this before, but the HP films were boooring to me and I can't distinguish one from the other. That said, I'm very interested in experiencing the HP attraction in Orlando when it comes here to California.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<I've said this before, but the HP films were boooring to me and I can't distinguish one from the other. That said, I'm very interested in experiencing the HP attraction in Orlando when it comes here to California.>> Right, but I know plenty from my generation that find Star Wars dull as dirt and love HP. But both are undeniably the most popular things to come out of their eras, and both are at a level nothing else can reach. IMHO of course.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Right, but I know plenty from my generation that find Star Wars dull as dirt and love HP." Sure, but my point was to underscore that when it comes to theme parks the franchise is less important than the ride experience.
Originally Posted By leobloom Star Wars died for me with the prequels. The *only* thing I'm interested in is getting the original-original trilogy on Blu-Ray. I hope Mickey will make that happen. I'm curious what they'll do with it in the parks, though I fear any addition would skew toward the prequels or the new trilogy. But even then, as long as any new attraction is Potter-quality I'd be excited to see it. On the other hand, if they pump up the Indiana Jones presence in the parks, I'll buy an AP yesterday. Even with the stinker that was Crystal Skull, I love that character and adventures.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper << The *only* thing I'm interested in is getting the original-original trilogy on Blu-Ray.>> Leo... <a href="http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Star+Wars%3A+Original+Trilogy+%5B3+Discs+/+Blu-ray%5D+-+Blu-ray+Disc/2550155.p;jsessionid=49759466A36D7900F3D775A870FE7222.bbolsp-app06-39?id=2208593&skuId=2550155&st=star%20wars%20blu%20ray&lp=3&cp=1" target="_blank">http://www.bestbuy.com/site/St...p=3&cp=1</a>
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Sure, but my point was to underscore that when it comes to theme parks the franchise is less important than the ride experience. << So true. The geeks geeking out over geekland at the fifth gate based on geekdom make it sound like anything with Star Wars on the marquee will make them poop their pants. I'd prefer to think I only poop my pants when it's a top-notch attraction. (Not just a themed restroom.)
Originally Posted By leobloom C'mon Hokie. You know I mean the OT pre-special editions and George Lucas tinkering. Han shoots first. No Vader screaming NOOOOOOOOOO as he kills the Emperor. Etc. Just gimme the pristine trilogies and I'll buy those suckers. The rest of the universe, I'm just not too hung up on.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> OHHHH. Nevermind. You meant non-"upgraded" versions. << Hey, man, I gotta bitch about something, right?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper I agree. I bought the new blu ray set. The films looks AMAZING, but the "upgrades" he made really stand out as the worst parts.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 The most painful addition for me was the Jabba the Hutt scene in Ep IV it looks horrible and really out of place.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I'll bet there are executives from Warner Brothers and Random House or whomever published the books with a blank check in their hands flying to the UK to "persuade" Rowling to write another novel or two.>> Her HP publisher is British - and I'm sure they are always pressurizing her to write more! Rowling is worth something like $1bn so she doesn't need the money. She does seem to need to write though - so even though her first non-HP book was pretty universally panned it has shifted something like 1m physical copies in its first month of sales - so as long as people buy her "adult" stuff I'm sure she will steer clear of the HP series.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Sure, but my point was to underscore that when it comes to theme parks the franchise is less important than the ride experience.>> Can't agree with that Hans. Today franchises in theme parks are more valuable than the experience. Marketing needs something to push out there and the success of Cars Land and HP means it is a lot easier to market those experiences to guests. It is far harder to do that. It is far easier to make a connection with guests when it is a recognizable brand.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Marketing needs something to push out there and the success of Cars Land and HP means it is a lot easier to market those experiences to guests.>> But isn't Walt Disney World enough of a brand already on it's own? Do they really need a movie franchise to help convince guests to come down? Can't they just show the new attraction, along with all of Disney World's other offerings, in commercials? Would Everest or Soarin have been any more popular if they were tied to specific movie franchises? They seemed pretty popular even without a movie tie-in. I agree that it's probably easier to come up with a commercial to sell and already recognizable concept - but I'd think selling WDW itself as the concept would be easy enough already.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But isn't Walt Disney World enough of a brand already on it's own? Do they really need a movie franchise to help convince guests to come down?>> Marketing seem to think so. All of the recent big pushes for WDW have been driven by a specific product - think Nemo, Toy Story etc. The generic message (dreams, wishes, magic etc.) can only get you so far - folks want to know what is new and why they should be coming - and in this age of instant messaging it is a lot easier to market something linked to a product that folks already know - like Cars Land.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Rowling is worth something like $1bn so she doesn't need the money>> Well did Lucas need the money?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Well did Lucas need the money?>> Comparing George and JK is way off base, IMO. Through the history of his franchise, he's shown the desire to whore it out as much as possible. Rowling, for all intents and purposes, has tried to keep Potter focused and within itself, not going for every quick cash in she can get. She won't write a new Potter book until she's good and ready.
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ He needed to liquidate his investment - he wanted some cash and some stock for his kids (also to defray some of the tax liabilities on getting paid out in cash) - and also to shield Lucasfilm now that he isn't at the helm. He sees this as win/win. I'm not sure you can draw the same parallels with JK Rowling. Worth saying that a huge amount of Rowling's worth is in cash - i.e. her past royalties on books, merchandise etc. Lucas' was tied up in Lucasfilm.
