News 'Beyond Big Thunder Mountain' Blue Sky concept revealed for Magic Kingdom

[SplashJacket]

Cosmic Rewind and Tron are stand-alones…

Exactly. A Villain’s Land wouldn’t even be single IP.

As for a mini-land like Encanto, as a Colombian, if they’re building a ride, they need to give me a Colombian restaurant across the street.

That said, Orlando (and south Florida as a whole) has absolutely and plentiful delicious Colombian food, so absolutely recommend, especially La Bandeja Paisa on John Young Pkwy and its delicious bakery nearby if you have a car and some extra time.

Personally, I’m not the largest fan of Colombian empanadas (like the ones sold in the restaurant) but some utterly fantastic ones are sold in the bakery.

 

[FigmentFan82]

They are trying so hard to make encanto and coco more popular to Disney fans than they really are vs other ideas for sure

this is laughably wrong

 

[FigmentFan82]

Exactly. A Villain’s Land wouldn’t even be single IP.

As for a mini-land like Encanto, as a Colombian, if they’re building a ride, they need to give me a Colombian restaurant across the street.

That said, Orlando (and south Florida as a whole) has absolutely and plentiful delicious Colombian food, so absolutely recommend, especially La Bandeja Paisa on John Young Pkwy and its delicious bakery nearby if you have a car and some extra time.

Personally, I’m not the largest fan of Colombian empanadas (like the ones sold in the restaurant) but some utterly fantastic ones are sold in the bakery.

Actually the food aspect alone is a very good idea for these proposed mini lands. Would help MK a lot in that department if even 1 was table serve and one was quick serve

 

[tanc]

An attraction of walking through the woods and encountering the headless horseman would be top tier. Although since they changed Snow White's Scary Adventures, that will never happen. HH is such an incredible antagonist with so much potential.

Another one is the Horned King from the Black Cauldron. Sometimes I wish the mystery tour in Tokyo was still around.

 

[GhostHost1000]

this is laughably wrong

So a coco / encanto hispanicland would be overall more popular than a villiansland?

 

[MisterPenguin]

So a coco / encanto hispanicland would be overall more popular than a villiansland?

Club Evil only lasted two years.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

So a coco / encanto hispanicland would be overall more popular than a villiansland?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Encanto isn't popular...

 

[GhostHost1000]

Encanto isn't popular...

I didn’t say people didn’t like it, but if you think that deserves a land before some other Disney movies or would be more popular than a villiansland you’re wrong

 

[James Alucobond]

I didn’t say people didn’t like it, but if you think that deserves a land before some other Disney movies or would be more popular than a villiansland you’re wrong

But … there is no proposal for an “Encantoland” or “Cocoland”. There is a proposal for an area that would be fitting for Latin American-centering IP or even non-IP attractions of that aesthetic (not that that’s ever happening again) beyond the American Southwest that Big Thunder Mountain represents. It could host any number of things. I don’t remember people accusing New Fantasyland of being Bellewood or whatever. Not sure why this is all that different.

 

[BlakeW39]

Maybe I'm crazy, but Villains Land seems like the most original idea we've had in a Domestic Disney theme park in a very long time. I guess since Everest? Might be wishful thinking, but maybe it's a sign that Disney could start bringing fresher and more original ideas to their parks soon.

I mean I know franchise tie-ins and synergy will always be a part of Disney's parks, but Disney will surely have to create something new again, eventually. I mean eventually they'll have to start making new films again at least, they only have so many from 30 years ago they can remake...

 

[GhostHost1000]

But … there is no proposal for an “Encantoland” or “Cocoland”. There is a proposal for an area that would be fitting for Latin American-centering IP or even non-IP attractions of that aesthetic (not that that’s ever happening again) beyond the American Southwest that Big Thunder Mountain represents. It could host any number of things. I don’t remember people accusing New Fantasyland of being Bellewood or whatever. Not sure why this is all that different.

I have my theories but I’ll stay quiet

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Maybe I'm crazy, but Villains Land seems like the most original idea we've had in a Domestic Disney theme park in a very long time. I guess since Everest? Might be wishful thinking, but maybe it's a sign that Disney could start bringing fresher and more original ideas to their parks soon.

While I love and hope for Villains Land, it's not really original. It's a way to tie in multiple IPs, and further the Villains "franchise".

I mean I know franchise tie-ins and synergy will always be a part of Disney's parks, but Disney will surely have to create something new again, eventually. I mean eventually have to start making to films again at least, they only have so many from the 30 years ago they can remake...

Disney is creating new and remaking the old, for example, the new films Coco & Encanto that many in this thread are protesting against getting attractions.

 

[BlakeW39]

While I love and hope for Villains Land, it's not really original. It's a way to tie in multiple IPs, and further the Villains "franchise".

Disney is creating new and remaking the old, for example, the new films Coco & Encanto that many in this thread are protesting against getting attractions.

I mean, I agree that Villains Land isn't a completely original idea, but it also isn't a specific location that is just replicated 1:1 from some film or television series. So the premise of the land will likely be at least partly original, some new fictional land where all of Disney's greatest villains reside.

And I kind of disagree with your latter points. Right now, Disney is only creating new IP in their animated film divisions. In the parks, live action film studios, etc. Disney is pretty much exclusively trying to leverage extisting IP. I have doubts the company can sustain itself long term with this strategy. And I think many divisions of the company will suffer if they continue it. Lucas Film, Marvel, Live Action Remakes, like all things in life have a limited lifetime. They're already starting to lose a lot of interest from consumers. Once those franchises use up their last bit of consumer interest, they have to move on to something else, and it'll have to be something new that Disney creates.

Creation of IP is important part of any entertainment company. That includes the parks, in my opinion. Current, Iger-Disney wouldn't create anything new in the parks, but I reject the notion that there is no economic value in creating new IPs for the parks and therefore we'll never see anything new again. Maybe it'll be a while, but eventually I think original attractions could start popping up.

 

[Villains0501]

I mean, I agree that Villains Land isn't a completely original idea, but it also isn't a specific location that is just replicated 1:1 from some film or television series. So the premise of the land will likely be at least partly original, some new fictional land where all of Disney's greatest villains reside.

I feel like it could easily be one of the most exciting, totally blue-sky concepts in recent memory. Aside from the characters themselves, there's nothing else about this concept that's really an easy given -- what would the ride vehicles be like? The restaurants? The shops? There's no real template here -- even unlike something like Star Wars, which has distinctive locales, modes of transport, place-setting, cuisine even. This Villain land would be completely new, never-before-seen, just amazing...hopefully.

Obviously likely drawing inspo from Diagon Alley, and very likely from the new Universal Monster land in EU -- but still a total blank page, blue sky for Imagineering. I hope they really run with it!

 

[MagicHappens1971]

And I kind of disagree with your latter points. Right now, Disney is only creating new IP in their animated film divisions. In the parks, live action film studios, etc. Disney is pretty much exclusively trying to leverage extisting IP. I have doubts the company can sustain itself long term with this strategy. And I think many divisions of the company will suffer if they continue it. Lucas Film, Marvel, Live Action Remakes, like all things in life have a limited lifetime. They're already starting to lose a lot of interest from consumers. Once those franchises use up their last bit of consumer interest, they have to move on to something else, and it'll have to be something new that Disney creates.

While I agree that creating new IP's is an important part of an entertainment company, it's not black and white. Yes, Disney should continue to create new IPs across all of their entertainment divisions, they are leveraging their existing IP's into franchises.

The MCU is an interconnected franchise that relies on existing IP's, whether it be its comic origins, or new twists on existing characters. And some of the newest MCU projects haven't been the best, I don't think interest in the franchise is dying.

Star Wars can continue to exist forever, and it has existed for nearly 50 years. While the sequel trilogy was handled poorly, shows like Mando, Obi-Wan, and Andor have received praise, and is an example of how to do Star Wars right. I think they are using Disney+ to experiment with Star Wars as they plan for a theatrical return. And to argue your same point, I would say shows like Mando & Obi-Wan have reinvigorated the consumer interest that may have been dwindling.

As for creating unique IP's for the parks, IMO, it's futile, and not the best business decision. Synergy is the bedrock of Disney and its parks, and while some may disagree but executing great attractions based on existing IP is a better business decision than creating new ones for the parks. The only way I can see them creating new IP's for the parks is if they were to leverage those new IP's into either films/shows.

I could probably write a thesis paper on IP in the parks and the business logic behind it, but to summarize, and in short: I would say the vast majority of Disney Park guests would prefer IP-infused attractions rather than original ones. Similarly, I would say that Disney prefers IP-infused attractions as 1)it's "more relevant, more timeless, more Disney" and 2) Visiting Galaxy's Edge or riding Frozen Ever After sparks renewed interest in those characters and stories and leads to more merchandise sales, and streaming/Disney+ subscriptions.

 

[BlakeW39]

While I agree that creating new IP's is an important part of an entertainment company, it's not black and white. Yes, Disney should continue to create new IPs across all of their entertainment divisions, they are leveraging their existing IP's into franchises.

The MCU is an interconnected franchise that relies on existing IP's, whether it be its comic origins, or new twists on existing characters. And some of the newest MCU projects haven't been the best, I don't think interest in the franchise is dying.

Star Wars can continue to exist forever, and it has existed for nearly 50 years. While the sequel trilogy was handled poorly, shows like Mando, Obi-Wan, and Andor have received praise, and is an example of how to do Star Wars right. I think they are using Disney+ to experiment with Star Wars as they plan for a theatrical return. And to argue your same point, I would say shows like Mando & Obi-Wan have reinvigorated the consumer interest that may have been dwindling.

As for creating unique IP's for the parks, IMO, it's futile, and not the best business decision. Synergy is the bedrock of Disney and its parks, and while some may disagree but executing great attractions based on existing IP is a better business decision than creating new ones for the parks. The only way I can see them creating new IP's for the parks is if they were to leverage those new IP's into either films/shows.

I could probably write a thesis paper on IP in the parks and the business logic behind it, but to summarize, and in short: I would say the vast majority of Disney Park guests would prefer IP-infused attractions rather than original ones. Similarly, I would say that Disney prefers IP-infused attractions as 1)it's "more relevant, more timeless, more Disney" and 2) Visiting Galaxy's Edge or riding Frozen Ever After sparks renewed interest in those characters and stories and leads to more merchandise sales, and streaming/Disney+ subscriptions.

I don't think my original statements were black-and-white.

I mean you say creating new IPs is an important for any entertainment company, but then you go on to say that creating any new IPs for the parks is futile and not a good business decision..

I mean, yes I agree there are advantages to using established, popular IPs in the parks. But surely there are also advantages to creating new IPs in the parks as well. Otherwise, why would new IPs ever have been created for the parks? Sure, in the past Disney had fewer IPs to choose from but they're still restricted now, despite the often-held belief that Disney just has an infinite library of great IPs to choose from. I mean do you really think there are no economic benefits to innovation of any kind? That all new lands and rides will be more successful if they are based on things that already exist, rather than being something completely new?

You say my argument was black and white, but at the same time you are the one who speaks in absolutes. Original IPs in the parks are a bad business decision, the vast majority of guests would prefer character/franchise tie ins. Established IPs always the better solution. I don't see how this is a particularly nuanced take, I'm sorry. I'd bet it is, like you said, not so black-and-white. There are at least some advantages that come with doing both.

 

[BlakeW39]

While I love and hope for Villains Land, it's not really original. It's a way to tie in multiple IPs, and further the Villains "franchise".

Disney is creating new and remaking the old, for example, the new films Coco & Encanto that many in this thread are protesting against getting attractions.

I also never said Marvel Studios or Lucasfilms were "dying." I said they have a limited lifetime. They aren't on their death beds currently, but both studios are in decline. I am a massive Marvel Comics fan and I simply have no good will for the MCU left in me, ditto for many of my friends who are also Marvel Comics fans. While I am not a big fan of Star Wars, would you really argue that the brand is in as good a position now as it was, say, in 2015? Or that the Disney+ shows have made up the good will they list due to the sequel trilogy?

 

[James Alucobond]

I mean, yes I agree there are advantages to using established, popular IPs in the parks. But surely there are also advantages to creating new IPs in the parks as well. Otherwise, why would new IPs ever been created for the parks? Sure, in the past Disney had fewer IPs to choose from but they're still limited now, despite the often held belief that Disney just has an infinite library of great IPs to choose from. I mean do you really think there are no economic benefits to innovation of any kind? That all new lands and rides will be more successful if they are based on things that already exist, rather than being completely new?

They have to live with any new attractions and lands they build for a long time, and they have to rely on them to maintain guest interest for the foreseeable future. Yes, that's perfectly possible using IP developed specifically for the parks, but it's easy to see why they might prefer to rely on proven properties, particularly when you factor in potential merchandising opportunities in gift shops and whatnot. A bad film or television show, while still expensive, is much easier to put in the rear-view mirror. That said, it would be nice to see a bit more balance even if I understand the logic of not doing so.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I don't think my original statements were black-and-white.

I mean you say creating new IPs is an important for any entertainment company, but then you go on to say that creating any new IPs for the parks is futile and not a good business decision..

I mean, yes I agree there are advantages to using established, popular IPs in the parks. But surely there are also advantages to creating new IPs in the parks as well. Otherwise, why would new IPs ever have been created for the parks? Sure, in the past Disney had fewer IPs to choose from but they're still restricted now, despite the often-held belief that Disney just has an infinite library of great IPs to choose from. I mean do you really think there are no economic benefits to innovation of any kind? That all new lands and rides will be more successful if they are based on things that already exist, rather than being something completely new?

You say my argument was black and white, but at the same time you are the one who speaks in absolutes. Original IPs in the parks are a bad business decision, the vast majority of guests would prefer character/franchise tie ins. Established IPs always the better solution. I don't see how this is a particularly nuanced take, I'm sorry. I'd bet it is, like you said, not so black-and-white. There are at least some advantages that come with doing both.

I apologize if my points seemed like an absolute, they are my opinions based on years following these boards and being a life long Disney fan.

Making a land/attraction off an established IP would be a more financially sound choice. Most of what I was saying was about the business side of it.