Eastern Airlines?
Printable View
Eastern Airlines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiodisneydad
I agree! :thumbs:
Just think if they re-alignes the carpark entrance for DHS to come off Victory Way how much more land they'd have to play with near LMA and The Back Lot Tour. :yes:
Attachment 5234
I like the extra space they kept around all of the parks as it allows for some major expansion... We can see a Star Wars area having plenty of room for whatever they may want...
Exxon Mobil!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by supernova
They would have to move some DHS areas around backstage and push them out but agree, there is so much land to open up the parks. AK, well they left so much empty land in that park, wonder if it will need to be expanded.Quote:
Originally Posted by JNota0005DakMC
https://o.twimg.com/1/proxy.jpg?t=FQ...7FSLZE7Tifc49U
Good lord, people.
Let's wait for the ink on the contract to dry. Then hope they finally fix Epcot and the Yeti, at least, before all of the Star Wars crazy talk.
They can't create a viable land out of a movie franchise most people don't like (Avatar), but they can out of one that they do like?
What's the difference?
I guess in this case, Disney has more of a vested interest in the property since they will soon own it, over Cameron's franchises, which are still outside properties at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Noyz
Absolutely.
That doesn't address my point, though.
They're both movie franchises. Either you can build an entire land out of one, or you can't.
In regards to Star Wars you certainly can... The revenue generated I've over the years is proof... The franchise has huge following... Avatar cannot boast even a quarter of the fan base that Star Wars has... All I'm saying is there is room for expansion... And let's not act as though this expansion hasn't been rumored before...
So, the revenue generated by a movie determines whether or not you can base an entire land upon it?
Sorry, Joe. That simply doesn't make any sense.
Using that logic, Titanic would make for a great land.
Well considering Star Wars has had 6 movies, comics, tv shows, and more I think you have a lot more to base a land on over Avatar which has only one film so far. Plus, Star Wars has so many fans and tons of story lines and attraction ideas compared to Avatar. Honestly, nothing has happened with that movie since the film.
I don't mind expansion at all, I just don't want to see them crowd themselves in and have parks potentially butting up against each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by JNota0005DakMC
Why shouldn't we engage in crazy talk on an online Forum dedicated to the love of a World created by a dead genius and led by a mouse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Noyz
It's not that they can't create a viable land from Avatar. Star Wars is a franchise with a viable long term life span. It is loved by many people and has a huge universe behind it. Avatar is one film with rumored sequels and has yet to be deemed a viable long term franchise.
If anyone would make Avatar Land work, Disney will.
You're still missing the point. Either you can base an entire land on a movie franchise, or you can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zipadeedooda
Carsland says you can. It wasn't the most popular Pixar movie, AND it had an awful sequel.
And the bottom line here is WDW needs a whole lot of TLC in other areas long before they even start to blue sky for a Star Wars expansion in the parks.
So far Avatar isn't a franchise. It's a single movie with rumored sequels. Star Wars is a worldwide hit that has tons of source material to build from that appeals to grown ups and kids alike. I'm not certain what Avatar's draw with kids is like.
Cars is completely different. It may not have been the best movie but it has a huge following with kids due to the Disney merchandising monster.
And you are right, there are many other areas of WDW that needs taken care of before any more expansion is done. But that's what's great about the internet, we can speculate and debate all we want.
