Movielover
Well-Known Member
You mean the ending break run? yeah its the same shape on both coasters, just at Disneyland they run the que down below and around it where as at WDW you are much further away from that area up in the station house
We don’t know yet if Disney has greenlit those Beyond Big Thunder plans yet. The recent layoffs are most likely to put those plans on hold for a while.I heard from someone in the know (same person who told me last July that Tron wasn't going to have guests on it till March) that Frontierland (and Country Bears) is not going away, but TSI will definitely be affected by the Beyond Big Thunder plans. CBJ might get hit by the inclusivity team, but the attraction itself and the Frontierland around it is NOT being replaced, from what I've heard.
I heard from someone in the know (same person who told me last July that Tron wasn't going to have guests on it till March) that Frontierland (and Country Bears) is not going away, but TSI will definitely be affected by the Beyond Big Thunder plans. CBJ might get hit by the inclusivity team, but the attraction itself and the Frontierland around it is NOT being replaced, from what I've heard.
They won’t impact the $17 billion considering the layoffs were announced before the $17 billion. Employee payroll and capital expenditures are funded independently of one another. This is why my college can be threatening layoffs while building a new academic hall……….the students will love walking past new, locked classrooms, I’m sure.We don’t know yet if Disney has greenlit those Beyond Big Thunder plans yet. The recent layoffs are most likely to put those plans on hold for a while.
Lots of labor is capitalized. Generally speaking, if you're working on a project that can be capitalized, your labor is capitalized as part of the cost of the project.Employee payroll and capital expenditures are funded independently of one another.
Are you suggesting they are lying about the $17 bn they announced or are you agreeing that they definitively will have staff on hand to actually complete those projects given that they were announced many months after the layoffs?Lots of labor is capitalized. Generally speaking, if you're working on a project that can be capitalized, your labor is capitalized as part of the cost of the project.
Disney is cutting 7,000 headcount; they never said how much of that is operating headcount versus capital headcount.
The latter.Are you suggesting they are lying about the $17 bn they announced or are you agreeing that they definitively will have staff on hand to actually complete those projects given that they were announced many months after the layoffs?
The thing with Disney Villains is that they don't really have enough in common to support a unified "theme" park. A few are alike enough in sensibility that it's fun to see them palling around, but that's not really enough to support a whole park.I'd rather have Beastly Kingdomme in Animal Kingdom, to be honest. There's still hope..
And I know the thread kind of moved past this subject, but I agree with some folks here in that villains wouldn't be my preference for a 5th gate. I think a villains land sounds great, but an entire park..? Eh, it never really appealed to me that much.
Not to mention that it'd be a total odd man out among the given themes for the existing four parks at Walt Disney World - A Magical Kingdom, a Magical Movie Studio, the Natural Realm, Whatever they think EPCOT is anymore, and . . . Mean People?
I don't see why different villain lands would need to tightly mesh. What does Tomorrowland have in common with Frontierland? And if the villains aren't related enough for their own disparate lands, why would it make more sense to basically put them in dorm?The thing with Disney Villains is that they don't really have enough in common to support a unified "theme" park. A few are alike enough in sensibility that it's fun to see them palling around, but that's not really enough to support a whole park.
People always talk about "Dark Kingdom", but what really would that be? Disney Villains tend to hail from totally different locales, with only a few that are similar enough aesthetically to shove together in a way that doesn't feel completely random. Those are mostly the older ones - Maleficent, Chernabog, The Wicked Queen, Captain Hook, and maybe The Horned King (not that I expect them to acknowledge him at all) could have a cohesive little Villainy Village formed out of their lairs and locations. A hive of skullduggery among rocky outcroppings with crumbling towers and creepy cottages, and other Villains could make appearances within that. But if you tried to bear that out across a whole park you quickly run out of places that both make sense to have in proximity and that guests are really dying to visit.
Other parks shove together disparate locations, but they do it under an overarching theme that's greater than "Imagine if these guys were all neighbors". The lands in MK are culturally aspirational in a way that, like, Cruella's House or Hans' Southern Isles just aren't. The list of strong, popular, and merchandisable Villains with great themed attraction potential really isn't all that long . . . not long enough to support a whole park.
Add to it that Disney hasn't really invested in creating a really good, really bad Villain character in almost 15 years, and it suggests a whole park is not something they could commit to no matter how fun it is to imagine. And it is fun. But a land makes more sense.
Not to mention that it'd be a total odd man out among the given themes for the existing four parks at Walt Disney World - A Magical Kingdom, a Magical Movie Studio, the Natural Realm, Whatever they think EPCOT is anymore, and . . . Mean People?
To that end, one wonders if they would even go the direction people want if they did build a full villains park. Like, would it actually celebrate the wholly evil villains of old, or would it be Descendants-level stuff? I suspect the latter given their core demographic. There's a reason the Halloween party is billed as not-so-scary.Add to it that Disney hasn't really invested in creating a really good, really bad Villain character in almost 15 years, and it suggests a whole park is not something they could commit to no matter how fun it is to imagine. And it is fun. But a land makes more sense.
I think it could have a few evil villain attractions that are really suspenseful, including shows, but on the whole the park would have to be more fun and family friendly. Otherwise you end up with a highly rated park that nobody goes to.To that end, one wonders if they would even go the direction people want if they did build a full villains park. Like, would it actually celebrate the wholly evil villains of old, or would it be Descendants-level stuff? I suspect the latter given their core demographic. There's a reason the Halloween party is billed as not-so-scary.
Wasn't a "land" the only thing actually mentioned as a possibility? Where did the idea of a park come from? There are several issues with a full park devoted to villains that people have pointed out on here. I honestly think a "Dark Fantasyland" is much more realistic. This could include a roller coaster or perhaps a ride using whatever system is being used for the new Peter Pan E-Ticket in Tokyo. Plus a C-ticket. That's what I could see them doing for real.I think there are ways to force it to work. I just question the appeal at scale and its place in the context of a traditionally child-friendly brand. One land? Fine. A half dozen evil lands with no palate cleanser? Doesn’t seem all that compelling to me, and there’s a reason why other parks (even those that want to be more serious or mature for teen/young adult appeal) don’t do this.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.