Wed 12/12/2012 5:55a
|<<That's an interesting example, because IMO it doesn't really even need the Twilight Zone connection to work. I'm of a 'certain generation' that never really watched the TZ at any point. >>|
Me neither - I don't think you need to know the series intimately but I think a broad understanding of TZ gives you an immediate "in" to the conceit. It helps to establish the overall concept without needing to force the story in the library. Rod Serling's voice and image is so iconic that it needs little else.
That is the genius of ToT - if you know the conceit then you can appreciate the story within that universe and if you don't know it then there is sufficient backstory to enjoy the attraction.
I think ToT is a better attraction for the TZ conceit.
Wed 12/12/2012 6:30a
|I'm sorry for asking, if I missed the info in this huge tread.|
Is Avatarland still coming to DAK? And is WDI planning to bring it to other Disney resorts as well?
Wed 12/12/2012 7:00a
|>> Math, too? Try "a little over ONE year." Fifteen months, to be precise. So it makes sense that they would start dropping crumbs about this time. Cars Land and FLE are open, and it's time to start tub thumping for the Next Big Thing. <<|
I was under the impression they'd been very slow releasing any kind of conceptual art and publicity about Avatarland. You're saying 15 months after the announcement and we have this one photo of a vague model. Is that par for the course with Disney? Maybe I'm just surprised after 15 months they haven't started construction -- when's this thing supposed to open 2015?
Wed 12/12/2012 7:04a
|<<Hey, I've had this discussion before! It was all about how Uni was putting all their eggs in one basket with a WHOLE LAND based on a single literary/film franchise, which had been experienced by only a single generation. Pretty risky, eh?>>|
Based on a single multimedia franchise that was the defining one and the Star Wars of its generation?
Yup. Totally risky.
Wed 12/12/2012 7:06a
|<<Maybe I'm just surprised after 15 months they haven't started construction -- when's this thing supposed to open 2015?>>|
That's what Iger said earlier in the year. But it was after he was asked about it during a shareholders meeting where it wasn't discussed at all, and he clearly had no desire to speak of it.
If this thing opens before 2017, I'll be shocked.
Wed 12/12/2012 7:20a
|<<Based on a single multimedia franchise that was the defining one and the Star Wars of its generation?>>|
There is implicit risk in the decision to invest so heavily into Potter as you never know what franchise will last - particularly after the last movie. The books aren't best sellers any more and the merchandise has largely been sold through. The next generation could shun Potter as uncool - we have no idea. We can have a hunch that it will transcend generations but nothing more than that.
Personally I think the stories are so derivative that another franchise will come along that will usurp Potter. Literary houses around the world are looking for the next Potter and when you fling that much mud at the walls some of it is bound to stick.
That doesn't detract from the perceived quality of the IoA installation and I'm sure guests will continue to enjoy that quality. My concern is that Uni will convert huge swaths of their Orlando parks into Potter land which is a big gamble.
Wed 12/12/2012 7:25a
|<<Personally I think the stories are so derivative that another franchise will come along that will usurp Potter.>>|
But by the same token, so are the Star Wars stories. There's nothing overly original about them. They take standard archetypal characters and place them in a different setting.
Wed 12/12/2012 7:34a
|<<But by the same token, so are the Star Wars stories. There's nothing overly original about them. They take standard archetypal characters and place them in a different setting.>>|
And I agree - to a degree. However the SW universe isn't built around one singularly unifying character like Potter. People tend to fixate on Harry in my experience whereas the SW character universe is much wider and you also have more popular non-human characters too.
I get your point Hokie - I just wouldn't dismiss the Uni decision as risk-free.
Wed 12/12/2012 7:46a
|<<And I agree - to a degree. However the SW universe isn't built around one singularly unifying character like Potter.>>|
Well, the 7 existing novels are about Harry, true.
But the six existing Star Wars movies are also about Anakin.
Both have a vast amount of popular side characters and other main characters.
Potter is probably more focused on its central character, of course. But future stories can (and will, IMHO) change that.
Wed 12/12/2012 7:55a
|<<But the six existing Star Wars movies are also about Anakin. |
Both have a vast amount of popular side characters and other main characters.>>
Who the films are about is almost irrelevant - it is how the public embrace. Potter is all about Harry - even girls would rather dress up as Harry than Hermione. The supporting cast just aren't as popular as those in the SW canon - Fortune had a great photo of all these girls dressed as Leia next to Jabba from the recent issue:
This might all come across as nit-picky and it probably is - but I'm not convinced that Potter will have the lasting influence that SW has managed to have under Lucas' watch. As always time will tell.