Disney purchases Lucas Films for $4 billion

[Colonel_SoB_fan]

http://www.disunplugged.com/2012/10/30/disney-agrees-to-purchase-lucasfilm-for-4-billion/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=twitterfeed

I am beyond excited about this news.

[ahank]

http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?/topic/26719-disney-to-acquire-lucasfilm%3B-new-star-wars-films/

[Colonel_SoB_fan]

Nevermind I looked in the other parks section and didn't see this.

My bad.

[Browntggrr]

Your punishment:

"You will therefore be taken to the Dune Sea and cast into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlacc."

"In his belly, you will find a new definition of pain and suffering, as you are slowly digested over a thousand years."

[The Interpreter]

Mark Hamill speaks:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/10/31/mark-hamill-star-wars-episode-vii-disney/

[medford]

goodbye avatarland, hello star wars land????? I think that has the potential to trump Potter world.

[bkroz]

Doubtful. Disney probably paid a pretty penny for the exclusive rights to use Avatar, and the Pandora land is meant to fill a huge, mostly-empty expansion pad at Disney's Animal Kingdom that has been waiting for its expansion since 1999. Star Wars wouldn't fit there, and that area (and park) desperately needs something.

A popular thought that fans are salivating over: that all of Disney's "non-legacy" properties would create six themed lands in a third park at the Disneyland Resort: one land each for Star Wars, Avatar, Pixar, Muppets, Indiana Jones, and Marvel. It's the stuff of dreams, and certainly does fulfill the often-asked question of what a third park in California could be? With the San Diego zoo so near, an "Animal Kingdom" is out; with the real Hollywood an hour north, a "Studios" park is out; with plans for WestCOT already bashed against the rocks, an "Epcot" is out. Perhaps an Intellectual Property park (a la Islands of Adventure, for example, where each land is themed to a certain film) would be a great choice.

[The Interpreter]

Disney Theme Parks May See Force Of Star Wars:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-parks-star-wars-20121102,0,2437633.story

[upstop]

Update:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/05/star-wars-disney-parks_n_5653067.html

[bkroz]

This scares me tremendously.

Iger makes no apologies and firmly believes that any major addition at the parks Disney owns must be tied to an existing and proven film franchise. On this most recent conference call, he was proud to say that any parks additions will be based on successful franchises. Dangerous, dangerous path. It's exactly where Eisner went. It degrades both the Parks and Studio division - films are forced to be "epic" franchise starters that sacrifice story for that larger-than-life forced-saga appeal (see Lone Ranger, John Carter, etc) and ingenious original ideas and lands are absolutely and entirely off the drawing board, period. After all, if it's not tied to a successful film, how can you be sure that the ride will be a success?!?!? That would be a crazy gamble, and Walt would NEVER do that!

Man is that a scary mindset.

Especially when rumors swirl that Disneyland's Tomorrowland will be entirely cast as a "Star Wars Land." Oh man... Tomorrowland 2055 would've been so cool... (see #2 at link above).

[LordSkippy]

I'm all for an expansion of the presence of Star Wars at Walt Disney World, if it's mostly confined to Hollywood Studios.

As for the Disneyland Resort, where in the world could the presence of Star Wars be significantly expanded? Tomorrowland? I'd certainly hope not.

Either way, I can rest easy knowing that, considering Disney is involved, announced plans are subject to change drastically, and that's not always a bad thing. After all, I don't know very many people who would have taken three meet-and-greet locations over the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train.

[RailRider]

This scares me tremendously.

Iger makes no apologies and firmly believes that any major addition at the parks Disney owns must be tied to an existing and proven film franchise. On this most recent conference call, he was proud to say that any parks additions will be based on successful franchises. Dangerous, dangerous path. It's exactly where Eisner went. It degrades both the Parks and Studio division - films are forced to be "epic" franchise starters that sacrifice story for that larger-than-life forced-saga appeal (see Lone Ranger, John Carter, etc) and ingenious original ideas and lands are absolutely and entirely off the drawing board, period. After all, if it's not tied to a successful film, how can you be sure that the ride will be a success?!?!? That would be a crazy gamble, and Walt would NEVER do that!

Man is that a scary mindset.

Especially when rumors swirl that Disneyland's Tomorrowland will be entirely cast as a "Star Wars Land." Oh man... Tomorrowland 2055 would've been so cool... (see #2 at link above).

I understand what you are saying, but the majority of Disney's big attractions are based or themed around an iconic character(s). I would much rather it be an established character or franchise than something that fades away over time and makes you scratch your head as to why it exists in the park still. This is why I still scratch my head at Toontown at Disneyland, a whole area themed after Roger Rabbit? Really? My humble opinion it needs bulldozed.

[KIBeast]

I'm looking forward to the next Star Wars movie and being able to take my son to see it on the big screen. By the time it's released, he will be the same age I was when A New Hope opened in theatres.

I have nothing but confidence in Disney treating the SW franchise with respect. The only thing strange to me will be seeing the Disney logo in the beginning as opposed to Fox Studios which the previous six movies ran through. I agree with RailRider that a movie franchise like SW is something that people will enjoy and identify with for years to come, so this is a smart move by Disney. They now have rights to one of the hottest movie franchises of all time.

[stashua123]

It will be so weird walking into a Disney park with Star Wars characters and lands.

[bkroz]

^ It will be? Visit on Star Wars Weekends for a taste.

I'm all for an expansion of the presence of Star Wars at Walt Disney World, if it's mostly confined to Hollywood Studios.

As for the Disneyland Resort, where in the world could the presence of Star Wars be significantly expanded? Tomorrowland? I'd certainly hope not.

Either way, I can rest easy knowing that, considering Disney is involved, announced plans are subject to change drastically, and that's not always a bad thing. After all, I don't know very many people who would have taken three meet-and-greet locations over the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train.

Yep, it would be Tomorrowland at Disneyland. No other place it fits. Certainly not in Disney California Adventure. Here's a whole write-up on the rumored happenings in Tomorrowland.

This scares me tremendously.

Iger makes no apologies and firmly believes that any major addition at the parks Disney owns must be tied to an existing and proven film franchise. On this most recent conference call, he was proud to say that any parks additions will be based on successful franchises. Dangerous, dangerous path. It's exactly where Eisner went. It degrades both the Parks and Studio division - films are forced to be "epic" franchise starters that sacrifice story for that larger-than-life forced-saga appeal (see Lone Ranger, John Carter, etc) and ingenious original ideas and lands are absolutely and entirely off the drawing board, period. After all, if it's not tied to a successful film, how can you be sure that the ride will be a success?!?!? That would be a crazy gamble, and Walt would NEVER do that!

Man is that a scary mindset.

Especially when rumors swirl that Disneyland's Tomorrowland will be entirely cast as a "Star Wars Land." Oh man... Tomorrowland 2055 would've been so cool... (see #2 at link above).

I understand what you are saying, but the majority of Disney's big attractions are based or themed around an iconic character(s). I would much rather it be an established character or franchise than something that fades away over time and makes you scratch your head as to why it exists in the park still. This is why I still scratch my head at Toontown at Disneyland, a whole area themed after Roger Rabbit? Really? My humble opinion it needs bulldozed.

And I agree and I'm one of those who absolutely gets that Disney attractions are themed around iconic characters, and I'm more than okay with it. Indiana Jones Adventure California is - bar none - my favorite attraction on Earth. My problem is with the idea of all of Tomorrowland being re-themed to Star Wars. Truth be told, I never got into Star Wars. What does that do to people like me, when every ride in the land is given a Star Wars spin? What if - God forbid - they actually name it Star Wars Land. (Don't think they wouldn't do it! Look at "Cars Land" which could've reasonably been named "Radiator Springs." Which is easier to market: New Tomorrowland or Star Wars Land?)

And Disneyland is something unique. Walt's original. He designed Tomorrowland to conform to his own futuristic ideas about the Space Age. Like Epcot, it predicted the future, and it did it well. Now it's more about fantasy space adventures. I guess that's fine. But to make it "Star Wars Land" (like Toy Story Land or something) is quite a perversion of the land's purpose. It would also be the only IP-based land in the park. Fantasyland. Adventureland. Frontierland... Star Wars Land? Nah, don't like that.

Toontown DOES need removed and would make a great spot for a "New Fantasyland" with Seven Dwarfs Mine Train, a new classic dark ride, new meet-and-greet, and new restaurant. But at this point, it's Roger Rabbit related in name only. It's more Minnie's house and Mickey's house and all that. Seems like it would be more or less simple to turn it into a New Fantasyland, too.

[RailRider]

^

Agreed Indiana Jones is the best ride/attraction I have ever experienced as well. I am one of the few who likes the ride experience of both Indiana Jones and Dinosaur over something like Spider Man and other similar styles.

I also understand the sentiment about Walt's Original design, but does that mean that no original Walt attractions can be removed or changed?

[shark6495]

I think Walt would be the first to tear down something he built to put in something else that people would enjoy more

[bkroz]

Absolutely he would.

But you're not talking about taking out an older attraction and replacing it with something else. You're talking about a shift in the purpose of the park.

Tomorrowland's dedication reads:

A vista into a world of wondrous ideas, signifying Man's achievement. A step into the future, with predictions of constructed things to come. Tomorrow offers new frontiers in science, adventure and ideals. The Atomic Age, the challenge of Outer Space and the hope for a peaceful, unified world.

Disneyland Park's is:

To all who come to this happy place: Welcome. Disneyland is your land. Here age relives fond memories of the past, and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America, with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world.

Star Wars completely overtaking a land shifts both of those, doesn't it? Which, I guess, is fine. Business is business, and business must grow. It's alright (and even makes sense) for Tomorrowland to bend in the direction of "science-fiction" rather than purporting to actually predict a rapidly-accelerating future. Fine.

But Magic Kingdom's does that as a sci-fi alien spaceport based on Buck Rogers type 20th century pulp comic adventures.

Paris's does it through a reverent and floor-to-ceiling fantasy-style retro-future of Jules Verne inspired rides and attractions with organic architecture and bubbling lagoons.

There are dozens of Tomorrowland concepts that were designed but never came to be: Sci-Fi City. Tomorrowland 2055. Discovery Bay.

I guess I just sort of refuse to believe that a floor-to-ceiling Star Wars overlay is the right answer for Disneyland's Tomorrowland.

For a third park, great. Go for it. I myself designed an Islands of Adventure style park for Disney that has a whole "island" dedicated to Star Wars (which I don't even care for). It does deserve a place. Probably a whole land. But not in place of Tomorrowland. Not to me. What would become of Buzz Lightyear? Just odd man out? Or would it, too, get a Star Wars overlay? Space Mountain? Housed in the Death Star? There's a line somewhere...

Nevermind that classic defense of fans... Tomorrowland... "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." Space does not necessarily equate future, much less the idealized and streamlined future Walt loved.