Disney shows Star Wars theme park land models at D23, Internet loses its mind

Title: 👍🏻

Ha! People talk about the crowds at Disney now...

The lines for something like this would rival Gringotts when it first opened. I believe the posted wait time was like 450 minutes in the standby line, and a fully immersive Star Wars attraction would probably be similar.

I'd love to see it, for sure. But ride something in the first few years? I'll pass. Heck, I haven't ridden Goliath at SFGAm yet, because I'd have to wait an hour.

I rode Goliath twice and didn't wait an hour...

Luck of the draw, I guess. I only go once a year.

This will be the answer to Harry Potter, Pandora was just a stopgap solution.

A new land opening a decade later is not an answer to Harry Potter. If they really thought they needed an answer, they would have thrown something together for the next summer.

I look at it this way, Disney wins hands down with small children. However for the adult, and older child market, Universal is a strong competitor at this point. Prior to Harry Potter the crowd levels at Universal were much less.

Think of it from the minds of a prospective guest, Disney has opened what since Potter? New Fantasyland? Pandora? Frozen?

Disney has not done anything spectacular since Potter, mind you I have not seen Pandora, but from what I gather it isn't truly spectacular (unless you were a big fan of the movie). Star Wars will be, and it will appeal to a huge customer base, Pandora simply doesn't do that.

Star Wars will have the ability to drive massive attendance over the entire year, and also drive increases in gate and lodging costs. If they can create huge demand, and provide a one of a kind experience, then they can charge anything the market will allow, which in the case of Disneyland is apparently not been reached, even at $1k price points for passes.

I would like to know what the evidence is that Disney needs an answer to Harry Potter. They seem to be doing fine without one.

And we're way too early into Pandora to judge anything about its appeal or its success or failure. "I haven't seen it, but I don't like it" doesn't mean it lacks appeal.

^^^That there. Disney World chugs along just fine, drawing massive crowds willing to spend lots of money. And WDW has more to offer, thanks to the amount of land they have compared to Universal.

Don't get me wrong. Every time I can visit Uni for free, I have a great time. The Potter parts are astounding. (Well, I did pay once and still had a great time.)

TheMillenniumRider said:

This will be the answer to Harry Potter, Pandora was just a stopgap solution.

Why did they need an answer to Harry Potter? Their attendance didn't slide during any of those years. Even if you believe that it's down this year, as best I can tell it was because the price hikes had that desired effect.

Let's not forget that prior to Universal, Disney was in talks with J.K. Rowling. Potter was slated to be installed in the Magic Kingdom, but the deal fell through. Probably a good thing since the Disney version was not planned to be near the scale of Universal's.

Trust me, Disney took note of Wizarding World, did they need an answer, based on attendance no. But this is the theme park world.

So now you're saying that they're responding for non-business reasons like ego 8 or 10 years later? The more you talk, the less sense you make.

All of the "evidence" that Disney was ever serious about Potter is rumor and innuendo, and immaterial to the question of whether or not UO has had any real impact on Disney. WDW showed continuous investment in attractions during that time and suffered no ill effects from Potter.

Hell, if anything the massive influx of park-goers to Orlando probably helped Disney or at least broke it even.

Disney doesn't have to respond to Potter. Their attraction quality is still much higher. Universal did a great job with overall theming and atmosphere, but way too many of their attractions are movies. Disney provides many more real 3d experiences in the form of animatronics.

I still feel Universal is an occasional side trip (not every trip) when visiting Florida. Once I have spent a day enjoying the theming and watching movies attractions, I have had enough for a few years. Especially considering it is more expensive than Disney when the Xpress pass if factored in.

On the flip side, Disney is a near must on every Florida trip. The biggest turn off there is the crowds.

Save for the fact that the screen rides are getting a little long in the tooth at Universal, I feel like the overall quality of the guest experience between Disney and Universal is pretty much neck and neck right now. Universal is absolutely a destination resort, and I'm not sure I would have called them that at the beginning of this decade. They are both outstanding guest experiences, but the offerings are very different. I really don't agree with the "Universal is better because" or "Disney will always be superior because" arguments - I feel that you prefer whichever one delivers the kind of experience you are seeking (save for some of the pixie dusters who feel Disney has never made a mistake and to quote Mrs. Boucher from the Waterboy, "Universal is the devil"). I prefer Universal, but a lifetime of Disney trips and being a bit jaded after six and a half years of working there has done that to me. I also feel that certain parts of Disney are getting more than a little outdated, but the announcements of this weekend sure changed a lot of that.

When either place puts in something new and exciting, it only helps the entire Orlando area bring the people in. When Potter opened and Universal attendance skyrocketed, it only brought more folks to Central Florida, which is a good thing for Disney as well.

I dunno, I had an AP at UO for years (2005 to 2008), because I'd go down and spend three or four days at a time there. It was a destination to me, at least.

I dropped the AP after that partly because I moved from Cleveland to Seattle, but partly because they opened so few new things during that time. Then I had a child. His first Orlando parks were UO when he was 10 months old, and it wasn't until we moved there and he was 3 that we did Disney AP's. We've had them ever since. I just think they have "better" stuff for us to do as a family at this age. Also, I never realized this because I always stayed on-property at UO, but the whole parking garage and walking through City Walk thing kind of sucks now that it's more crowded than it was in the oughts.

I think overall Disney draws a more diverse set of demographics, and UO still doesn't make a great case for families with sub-teen children. I've been a few times with my wife on comps from friends, but I've never been compelled to bring my kid along just yet. He's 7 now, and he's definitely getting close.