I definitely respect your opinion (to each his own), but I actually had the opposite feeling when I visited Disneyland for the first time (having frequented WDW my whole life).
I agree there. While they need to expand some of the other parks first, if they just build a villiansland in an existing theme park especially MK that’s going to limit expansion to villians attractions and things long term
While I wouldn't call villains a "phase", I think the over-the-top fascination with them is definitely something of a trend, and I don't feel it makes sense as the overarching theme for an entire park. It doesn't really fit with Disney's brand image and would probably feel really oppressive and one-note as its own thing.
Oh come on, who wouldn't want a reverse MK? Considering most here feel Epcot and DHS are already moving to another MK, you could do the same with the 5th gate but do it with Disney IP ...
Me, I guess. Having a pseudo-opposite to every ride doesn't sound terribly compelling, nor do I want to go to a park where the theme will likely frequently hinge on darkness and malice. I like EPCOT because it's a beautiful park that's a joy to simply inhabit. While you could probably fit some beauty into a villains park by incorporating, say, a Gothic cathedral or something of the sort instead of a castle, I imagine there would ultimately be a lot of focus on dead trees, jagged rocks, thorns, etc. To me, that's fine in doses, but I don't want to wander through that for hours on end.
I totally agree, which is why I think the talk of a Villains area is pie-in-the-sky.
I think it can work in isolation, especially as a fully covered mini-land courtyard of eternal night with a couple of rides and supplementary shops or restaurants. I just don't think it would be that great if extended across multiple lands. It's an aesthetic that gets tired quickly.
I would call that a prediction rather than an opinion. And I must say, Mr. Abrams, I would call that a very bold prediction!
Or the Muppets live in a LA/NYC hybrid city and there's a star wars planet in the subway tunnel
Having thought about this I disagree. What is the main draw of WDW - MK. Why would an "opposite" MK NOT be a draw? You get the same rides, less crowding as its spread over two parks, and the advantage of a new "difference" in that its toward the villian side. I get you could really play up the option for Halloween and such, but to me this really could make a dent in over crowding of MK. Now obviously you would not copy every ride over, especially the newer stuff like Encanto or such ... but it is Disney so its like Haunted Mansion expanded so not all that scary or malevolent
that's a good thought
Because it is. DL is a slightly smaller mirrored version of WDW. Plus the surrounding paths and buildings are much closer to the ride area than at WDW.
Is the actual track smaller? I knew it was mirrored, but I always thought they were identical.
Yes. think of it as Disney took the plans for the WDW version which was designed first. Placed those plans in photoshop and mirrored it then scaled it down 10 percent. Its the same layout but they built the Disneyland version first and scaled it to fit the available space.
From @marni1971's fantastic Big Thunder Mountain video (part 2!):
What about the part up top where you cruise past the model houses? I always assumed DL had to be longer because of thise section . Looking at the layouts posted after this it seems like it must just be a slight change and not a major departure.
