Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Absolutely no. I would never admit to something that awful. The geodesic sphere should stay as beautiful and majestic as it is!
PS I hated the wand…
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
EPCOT Spaceship Earth refurbishment coming soon?
- Thread starter MakeYourFancyFly
- Start date
PS I hated the wand…
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
There is no differentiation between "Disney the person" and "Disney the corporation" in modern discourse, its a stylistic label of whatever the corporation is presently doing. We also have various scions of that family with their own viewpoints which they are not too shy in sharing in hopes that they might hold some intrinsic value.
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
ManicMillennial
Well-Known Member
To me this is what made WDW such a great place. Each of the four parks original concepts represented a different aspect of what “Disney” means.
Magic Kingdom was meant to be a place where you could step inside of the stories Disney tells so it makes sense (at least to me) for it to be IP heavy.
Epcot was meant to be educational and highlight technological advances and the prospects of the future so it should keep IP at a minimum.
Hollywood Studios was intended to represent the place where the magic all began and take people behind the scenes of the story telling but that concept was mostly dropped before the park even opened. So IP makes sense to a certain level there.
Animal Kingdom was built in part to honor Walt’s love of nature and explore humanity relationship with the planet and its place on it. IP certainly works here under the right circumstances but on paper it probably should have the least amount of the four parks.
GordoInTheParks
Member
"More Walt" is what I would say to separate from saying More Eisner era, etc. Literally no two eras are the same, and Walt never stepped foot in a FL park. Roy Disney did not even REMOTELY build the same park that Walt imagined, despite trying to do the best with what he could.
I really don't think that anybody should claim that Walt's vision for EPCOT wouldn't have worked, because you really don't really know that, and it's the exact same reaction that people gave Walt about Disneyland. He was bold enough to announce both to the world first, so I believe that he was going to make it happen, had he lived longer.
I smell a money-making opportunity…As long as we would get a viewing area for thunderstorms
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
osian
Well-Known Member
Selling umbrellas for the thunderstorm viewing area?I smell a money-making opportunity…
HMF
Well-Known Member
There were rumors Tomorrow's Child was going to come back in the 07 version. There was supposedly going to be more to the current descent, but they ran out of time and money. I am assuming most of it went to making stupid staging changes in the ascent such as the Renaissance statue censorship.
HMF
Well-Known Member
The ironic thing is DL and MK were far less IP heavy in the early days outside of Fantasyland.
Hey, double-profit potential there! But renting umbrellas instead of selling them. But sales of ponchos? Totally in the cards. Plus, dynamic pricing!!! "What are you going to do, venture back down to ground level to find a poncho there? Just pay the premium up here!"
junglecruise93
Active Member
Thunderstorm dessert party with a lightning lane themed cupcake.
GordoInTheParks
Member
How is that actually ironic?
There was plenty of IP all over both parks in the early days. (not just Fantasyland) I think that WITHOUT A DOUBT, Walt would have actually had more IP in the parks if they had yet existed. Jungle Cruise as inspired by African Queen, which was someone else's IP.
Someone already mentioned Davey Crockett, but wasn't there also Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn movies in the 1950s? Swiss Family Robinson? That was a Disney movie. Magic kingdom opened with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in
Not IP related, but there were also tons of sponsors all over the place in Disneyland's early Tomorrowland days, even in the names of the attractions, like Monsanto House of the Future and TWA Moonliner. I'd argue that this wasn't any better than using Disney's own IP, when the attractions are just glorified PR advertisements for those companies.
Last edited:
GordoInTheParks
Member
MK had 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in Tomorrowland, and it was an IP.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
Do you mean the Submarines at Disneyland? Those weren't themed to 20k or any IP prior to its conversion into Finding Nemo in the 2000s. Even the sub designs were real world inspired, not the ones from the film.
20k at Magic Kingdom was based off the film but wasn't in Tomorrowland, it was in Fantasyland.
GordoInTheParks
Member
Oh, you're right. I forgot that 20K LUtS lagoon was considered Fantasyland in MK, while the DL lagoon with the subs are in Tomorrowland... My bad.
HMF
Well-Known Member
Yes in a sense but if Iger had built them the connection would be far more synergistic. It would have been Davy Crockett Land not Frontierland. All of the lands pre-Galaxies Edge were more genre-based and not specific IP based. Yes Davy Crockett had some presence in Frontierland back in the day, but the theme was broad enough to cover a wider variety of attractions and concepts. They obviously don't have that luxury with the lands they make today where everything has to be tied to a single movie or series of movies which means there is far less creative wiggle room in terms of expanding the concept.