WOL Demo coming ..

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I would rather have neither. The Magic Carpets are and have always been a horrible blemish on the Magic Kingdom's Adventureland. they are an eyesore that stick out like a sore thumb. Never mind that it is also a major bottleneck for guests trying to walk through Adventureland and of course the only reason it exists is because Michael Eisner believed that they should utilize every dead space in the park. See Leave a Legacy as another example of this which is thankfully gone now.

Would have rather had a canopy seating area instead...

 

[Kamikaze]

I also am done with clones. Do I appreciate not traveling the world to ride Tron and Rat? Yeah. But enough of that.

The best part of last year’s D23 was that we are getting so many non-cloned original rides. When I go to the foreign parks, or even the GOAT that is Disneyland, I want new and different experiences. And you know that if WoL does indeed get demolished next year, an original attraction will be going in there. If they were smart, they would wait until Bob is rolled out of the door so that they could build Horizons 2.0. The only problem with that is that Bob owns the door. It would be nice if they could maintain some modicum of original rides and IP rides. But if Josh is a clone of Bob, we can just forget that potentiality.

Clones are an easy way to save money for the Company. They're going to continue doing it. The audience for the Resorts doesn't have as much overlap as people think.

DLR is definitely 100% getting the Door Coaster. I would imagine WDW gets something back. Coco is what makes sense.

 

[jah4955]

I'd even be OK w/them retiring to One Man's Dream

(but my preference is Mexico staying exactly as it is!)

 

[LittleBuford]

my argument exactly. If frozen can go into Norway then Aladdin can go into Morocco. L

But Arandelle is based on Norway, whereas Agrabah isn’t based on Morocco. Most of the film’s references, including its opening song, suggest a setting much further east.

but id honestly prefer them build a UAE pavilion and put a Morocco ride there while promoting Abu Dhabi Disneyland.

Do you mean an Aladdin ride?

 

[KDM31091]

I also am done with clones. Do I appreciate not traveling the world to ride Tron and Rat? Yeah. But enough of that.

The best part of last year’s D23 was that we are getting so many non-cloned original rides. When I go to the foreign parks, or even the GOAT that is Disneyland, I want new and different experiences. And you know that if WoL does indeed get demolished next year, an original attraction will be going in there. If they were smart, they would wait until Bob is rolled out of the door so that they could build Horizons 2.0. The only problem with that is that Bob owns the door. It would be nice if they could maintain some modicum of original rides and IP rides. But if Josh is a clone of Bob, we can just forget that potentiality.

I think Josh is definitely a clone of Bob, and has a smug fake smile in all the photos I've seen as he helps (IMO) destroy the parks.

I wish there were more balance in IP attractions. I don't get why every single new thing has to be IP. It doesn't make any sense. Like we're not smart enough to appreciate or love something that isn't attached to a pre existing IP? Balance would be nice. Otherwise the parks start to feel like a gigantic Disney+ ad which is exactly what they want, I know.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

But Arandelle is based on Norway, whereas Agrabah isn’t based on Morocco. Most of the film’s references, including its opening song, suggest a setting much further east.

When an average Guest asks an Imagineer in this day in age...

 

[Sir_Cliff]

but id honestly prefer them build a UAE pavilion and put a Morocco ride there while promoting Abu Dhabi Disneyland.

Do you mean an Aladdin ride?

I can understand that line of argument: they should either put an Aladdin ride in the Morocco pavilion, or build a UAE pavilion and put a Morocco ride in that pavilion. Maybe even keep the Morocco pavilion and add an Aladdin ride then build a UAE pavilion with a Morocco ride on one of the unused plots? Best of both worlds!

 

[HMF]

I can understand that line of argument: they should either put an Aladdin ride in the Morocco pavilion, or build a UAE pavilion and put a Morocco ride in that pavilion. Maybe even keep the Morocco pavilion and add an Aladdin ride then build a UAE pavilion with a Morocco ride on one of the unused plots? Best of both worlds!

I am still telling you they likely won't lean into the Aladdin Franchise again because it has basically become the Middle Eastern equivalent of Song of the South or Dumbo according to the Disney+ content warnings.

 

[larryz]

FWIW, canonically, San Fransokyo is an alternate universe San Francisco, not an alternate universe Tokyo.

Look at it as though the Japanese invasion portrayed in The Man In The High Castle was amiable instead of adversarial and their Germany wasn't trying to start their version of WW III.

 

[wdw71fan]

When an average Guest asks an Imagineer in this day in age...

not really off base.. The team that gutted the Maelstrom and dropped in Frozen are VERY proud of the fact that the project came in millions of dollar under budget.

And it shows.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

I am still telling you they likely won't lean into the Aladdin Franchise again because it has basically become the Middle Eastern equivalent of Song of the South or Dumbo according to the Disney+ content warnings.

While I agree, I also believe Disney doesn't want to shelve Aladdin, Jasmine or Genie characters. Where as SotS, meh, not much of a loss.

 

[LittleBuford]

I am still telling you they likely won't lean into the Aladdin Franchise again because it has basically become the Middle Eastern equivalent of Song of the South or Dumbo according to the Disney+ content warnings.

I think this is an exaggeration. The reception of Aladdin among Middle Easterners is certainly far from negative overall.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I think this is an exaggeration. The reception of Aladdin among Middle Easterners is certainly far from negative overall.

Which is sad as the animated series won't stream on Disney+ and yet the pilot and series finale movies do just so they can show them as sequels in the movie section of the streamer.

 

[LittleBuford]

Which is sad as the animated series won't stream on Disney+ and yet the pilot and series finale movies do just so they can show them as sequels in the movie section of the streamer.

Are you referring to Return of Jafar and King of Thieves? I always thought those were direct-to-video sequels, so the way they appear on Disney+ (as sequels) seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Are you referring to Return of Jafar and King of Thieves? I always thought those were direct-to-video sequels, so the way they appear on Disney+ (as sequels) seems perfectly fine to me.

The tail end of these are fairly obvious as it ties in with the series as Aladdin states at the end of Return of Jafar he wants to explore the world and Jasmine says she can't be alone in the palace and wants to tag along..Also why Iago is part of the group now

And in King of Thieves Iago decides to join Aladdin's father at the end as he realizes his adventures with him are over..

This is also why the animation was oddly down graded when it was released..

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

I think Josh is definitely a clone of Bob, and has a smug fake smile in all the photos I've seen as he helps (IMO) destroy the parks.

I wish there were more balance in IP attractions. I don't get why every single new thing has to be IP. It doesn't make any sense. Like we're not smart enough to appreciate or love something that isn't attached to a pre existing IP? Balance would be nice. Otherwise the parks start to feel like a gigantic Disney+ ad which is exactly what they want, I know.

It’s actually very easy to see why and makes a lot of business sense. Look at the movie industry right now, almost anything that’s popular is a sequel, prequel, remake, etc. It’s massively easier to make something based on existing properties. The characters and fans are already there, you just put the pieces together. Right now, theme parks are being run sort of like a movie studio (which imo can be a bad idea as Disneys movie studio has not been the profitable part of the company) Big budgets that have to be reigned in and prioritizing existing IP as it’s simply put, easier.

Think about all that goes into your average attraction. They have an idea, have to match or invent a ride system to fit that idea, then you build the ride, but what if it’s a smash hit? You better atleast have some merch. T shirts maybe, pins definitely, is it worth a new pair of ears, who knows? You order all that ahead of time and… it flops. It’s not loved at all. All that stock sits there.


Same scenario with an IP attached. “hey do we have any movies that people love that aren’t represented well on the parks?” Now with the movie, the ride system is usually far more clear. The story is also easier to come up with. The characters and their personalities are already there. You already know what kind of fun they can get themselves in, heck sometimes you can just adapt a scene straight from the movie! Merchandise? No provlem, we already have a ton of Moana, Zootopia, etc merch. Doesn’t sell at the parks? Doesn’t matter, people will buy that stuff outside the parks still. Artists already know how to draw Hei-Hei or Judy fairly easily. Plus now you have a reason for people to actually plan a visit.

Black hole rollercoaster in Epcot? Eh sure, that’s cool or whatever

Guardians Coaster? Oh my gosh that’s favorite ride

Now you can dip into the “worlds” of that Ip. Meet and greets! Food! Specialty merch! It’s all there and not something most non IP rides can get

 

[jah4955]

It’s actually very easy to see why and makes a lot of business sense. Look at the movie industry right now, almost anything that’s popular is a sequel, prequel, remake, etc. It’s massively easier to make something based on existing properties. The characters and fans are already there, you just put the pieces together. Right now, theme parks are being run sort of like a movie studio (which imo can be a bad idea as Disneys movie studio has not been the profitable part of the company) Big budgets that have to be reigned in and prioritizing existing IP as it’s simply put, easier.

Think about all that goes into your average attraction. They have an idea, have to match or invent a ride system to fit that idea, then you build the ride, but what if it’s a smash hit? You better atleast have some merch. T shirts maybe, pins definitely, is it worth a new pair of ears, who knows? You order all that ahead of time and… it flops. It’s not loved at all. All that stock sits there.


Same scenario with an IP attached. “hey do we have any movies that people love that aren’t represented well on the parks?” Now with the movie, the ride system is usually far more clear. The story is also easier to come up with. The characters and their personalities are already there. You already know what kind of fun they can get themselves in, heck sometimes you can just adapt a scene straight from the movie! Merchandise? No provlem, we already have a ton of Moana, Zootopia, etc merch. Doesn’t sell at the parks? Doesn’t matter, people will buy that stuff outside the parks still. Artists already know how to draw Hei-Hei or Judy fairly easily. Plus now you have a reason for people to actually plan a visit.

Black hole rollercoaster in Epcot? Eh sure, that’s cool or whatever

Guardians Coaster? Oh my gosh that’s favorite ride

Now you can dip into the “worlds” of that Ip. Meet and greets! Food! Specialty merch! It’s all there and not something most non IP rides can get

I wish I could disagree. The initial appeal to disney theme parks was mostly, "something different...something that can't be experienced anywhere else." We take for granted just how truly "original" Disney's most timeless attractions were/are. IP was largely limited to fantasyland (and almost all of those ips were based on properties much older than Disney).

As I mentioned before, I'm guilty of thinking, while watching various movies/shows since the 80s: "this would make a great ride!" Disney notices when many think the same thing and sees a safe bet. So it seems, comparatively speaking, less and less likely, more and more risky, to have an attraction completely based on a-non-previously-extant IP.

 

[Bocabear]

I wish I could disagree. The initial appeal to disney theme parks was mostly, "something different...something that can't be experienced anywhere else." We take for granted just how truly "original" Disney's most timeless attractions were/are. IP was largely limited to fantasyland (and almost all of those ips were based on properties much older than Disney).

As I mentioned before, I'm guilty of thinking, while watching various movies/shows since the 80s: "this would make a great ride!" Disney notices when many think the same thing and sees a safe bet. So it seems, comparatively speaking, less and less likely, more and more risky, to have an attraction completely based on a-non-previously-extant IP.

everyone talks about it being risky... there is no risk whatsoever if they build a good quality attraction... building value engineered crap is risky...IP or not...but there is no risk to the company to build an amazing attraction without an IP...
Disney has a case study of decades of success...

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I think this is an exaggeration. The reception of Aladdin among Middle Easterners is certainly far from negative overall.

Yes, I certainly don't get the impression they're trying to bury Aladdin. If anything, it seems one of the films that they find almost mandatory to include in some way in new parades and shows.

 

[flynnibus]

everyone talks about it being risky... there is no risk whatsoever if they build a good quality attraction... building value engineered crap is risky...IP or not...but there is no risk to the company to build an amazing attraction without an IP...
Disney has a case study of decades of success...

That's circular logic.. you presume 'good quality' will lead to success.. so 'good quality' is guarnteed success. But "good quality" doesn't necessarily mean something that resonates with the audience. The movie industry understands this and doesn't sweat it when the public passes over their gem.. they just reload and try again.

There is also the problem of diminishing returns... chasing perfect can often lead to waste itself.