News Announced: Mary Poppins Attraction in UK Pavilion

[CalebS]

This thread about DCA and the Mexico pavillion is great!

 

[brb1006]

This thread about DCA and the Mexico pavillion is great!

The Pixar Pier thread on the DL subforum is also getting interesting reactions in the past few days.

 

[CalebS]

The Pixar Pier thread on the DL subforum is also getting interesting reactions in the past few days.

I don't want to say too much and derail this thread even more, but it's safe to say if I considered that to be my home resort, I would be upset

 

[Princess Leia]

So how's this Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland ride coming along?

Shhhh, don’t say that, Disney might actually think that is a good idea

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Shhhh, don’t say that, Disney might actually think that is a good idea

How would Disney see that statement?

 

[RSoxNo1]

The queue situation was possibly one reason why at least one of the planned Cocos doesn’t look like it will happen.

I would think any Coco update would mean at least one of the shops would have to go for additional queue.

 

[CJR]

they actually should greenlight Coco, but not at the expense of other attractions needing to be built.

I agree with this. Poppins should most definitely be a higher priority, but we should really have both. Both will have a positive impact on park capacity.

While Coco would likely fill more boats, at least for a while, GFT is hardly the only attraction in Epcot not maxing out its capacity (thinking specifically of Imagination). My hope is that they'll find a way to make both projects work, but Poppins is definitely more beneficial, if not just since it'll pull some pressure away from the other three countries with rides (less-so Mexico).

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

How would Disney see that statement?

Disney has people who watch this forum.

But they're probably unlikely to go for Alice in Wonderland due to the previous live action movie apparently being a bomb.

 

[brb1006]

Disney has people who watch this forum.

But they're probably unlikely to go for Alice in Wonderland due to the previous live action movie apparently being a bomb.

Does the Shangahi Alice Maze count?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Disney has people who watch this forum.

But they're probably unlikely to go for Alice in Wonderland due to the previous live action movie apparently being a bomb.

Some foreign parks include imagery from the live-action AiW. It did make a billion dollars in the global box office. The sequel was the one that bombed. And a sequel bombing doesn't necessarily take away from utilizing the popular original (cf. Cars).

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

The sequel is the one I was referring to being a bomb, Through the Looking Glass. I know the first movie did quite well, which is why a sequel was made in the first place.

Does the Shangahi Alice Maze count?

Sure, but Shanghai Disneyland opened literally one month after the Alice movie released. Far too late to change their minds. If they want to cancel a park attraction, they're not going to do it when it's already 95% built.

 

[BrianLo]

Disney has people who watch this forum.

But they're probably unlikely to go for Alice in Wonderland due to the previous live action movie apparently being a bomb.

As far as I am aware a live action attraction was being worked on for Shanghai at the same time Tokyo was working on an attraction with the animation's motif.

I think the attraction was still planned for Shanghai after the movie bombed, but things out of Shanghai have been very quiet, probably until after Toy Story Playland grand opens.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Disney has people who watch this forum.

But they're probably unlikely to go for Alice in Wonderland due to the previous live action movie apparently being a bomb.

The last movie was a mess. Too bad Tim Burton wasn’t directing like the first one.

 

[Sped2424]

The last movie was a mess. Too bad Tim Burton wasn’t directing like the first one.

He directed the first one and it was still a mess.

 

[articos]

Right, but Paradise Pier's overall theme is 100% turn of the century. In terms of architecture at least.

Go with the Pier being built turn of the century, and current time period when you are supposedly there as late 20s. Then toss that out the window with Pixar moving in.

 

[articos]

But were they training that from the very beginning?

I mean, if people want to support the whole literary thing, go for it, but I'm not sure why it matters, to be able to justify the various lands that don't really tie anything together?

No. They weren’t. IOA was not designed around literature. It was designed around IP and storytelling. Universal anchored the park with Jurassic, which was an expanded play on the USH ride, based on the movies. They went after IP rights for the other islands to build out each world. If someone wrote that was based on literature into the training, they did not consult the design guidelines or original Planning & Development team. Sometimes people get overzealous and add things they think might be true, and it ends up sticking. The better way of describing it would be saying traveling to each island lets you inhabit various stories, from the stories of the comics to Seuss to the stories of mythology. However, when it came to Jurassic, you were specifically going to visit Isla Nublar, not the book. When you crossed the bridge and went through the gates, you were there. That was the original description. There was never any unifying theme in the original concepts for IOA. You were island hopping from theme to theme.

 

[articos]

One could argue the fact that JP uses the River Raft Ride as it's mode of transportation is directly in the book but that's just splitting hairs at this point.

It should also be noted that Universal Specifically teached in it's orientation that IOA is like a book case as all the lands presented in the park came from Literary sources (Even if they rely on the looks of their movie adaptations). I don't know if this is the case since Kong came on the scene though.

They shouldn’t be teaching that, unless someone in Marketing decided they needed to create the literature angle to help sell the park’s story. In the original concepts for IOA, there was no literature connection.

 

[disnyfan89]

No. They weren’t. IOA was not designed around literature. It was designed around IP and storytelling. Universal anchored the park with Jurassic, which was an expanded play on the USH ride, based on the movies. They went after IP rights for the other islands to build out each world. If someone wrote that was based on literature into the training, they did not consult the design guidelines or original Planning & Development team. Sometimes people get overzealous and add things they think might be true, and it ends up sticking. The better way of describing it would be saying traveling to each island lets you inhabit various stories, from the stories of the comics to Seuss to the stories of mythology. However, when it came to Jurassic, you were specifically going to visit Isla Nublar, not the book. When you crossed the bridge and went through the gates, you were there. That was the original description. There was never any unifying theme in the original concepts for IOA. You were island hopping from theme to theme.

Someone should tell the Vet Techs at the Discovery Center as they all talk about the Park being in Isla Adventura and it was a sequel park to the original Isla Nublar...

 

[Disneybear]

Queued onto the plaza last year. I was in shock.

Was it raining?

 

[articos]

Someone should tell the Vet Techs at the Discovery Center as they all talk about the Park being in Isla Adventura and it was a sequel park to the original Isla Nublar...

Originally Isla Nublar, then changed to the sequel park after opening. They are correct. There have been changes since opening. The question I was addressing was regarding original intent.