Big Reveal, New Logo

jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
New logo.. while park still flounders without new vision = Waste

Thx Phil
Click to expand...

Interesting how the narrative on social media has shifted from blaming Iger for everything to blaming Phil.

and before that Rasulo. Before that Eisner.

Good thing Walt didn't have to deal with social media.
 
wdisney9000

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member
jt04 said:
I guess I don't see minimal effort occuring. I see a pragmatic approach building towards a well thought out result.

Not unlike the MCU.
Click to expand...
You said it yourself, "pragmatic", which is based more on a realistic and sensible approach. Its the same thought process that gives us constant reboots of movies, tv series, cloned attractions, bland resort design, etc. The company used to take risks and attempt the unthinkable.

Pragmatic approach works for remodeling a grocery store, not a theme park. IMO of course.
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
jt04 said:
Lack of Indy reference could mean no Indy beyond the current show space.
Click to expand...

By that logic, I wonder what the lack of reference for everything else in the park that either didn't open last year, or isn't planned for this year or next means, then?
 
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
John park hopper said:
Not impressed, I'm with Mr Incredible MGM studios was great
Click to expand...
Mr Incredible said:
I'm getting ready to flash back to 30 years ago when my parents took me to Disney as a gift after graduation and we went to Disney-MGM studios in May only 2 weeks after it opened.
1) There was pretty much nobody there. It wasn't crowded at all.
2) They were still working out the kinks. Not everything ran as fluidly as it usually does with Disney...or did.
3) There was a sound effects show where Harry from Harry and the Hendersons came out to surprise the audience.
4) There was a cool visual effects show where two audience members can climb on the back of a giant bumble bee and be green screened into Honey I Shrunk the Kids.
5) There was a another cool show where they eventually held American Idol, where audience members chosen before the show were green screened into actual sitcoms (Cheers, The Golden Girls, etc.) and interacted with the cast members of certain scenes. That was really cool.
6) The backstage tour was ACTUALLY a back stage tour. Productions were actually made there.
7) Where Launch Bay is today, and you see the displays downstairs ...those were actually offices where the animators sat to work and you could see them actually animating cels for the features. It was the Animation Studio.
8) When I went to the 50's Prime Time Cafe' they were so new that they staff told us stories about how just a few weeks ago Michael Eisner stopped into the cafe and tested the dessert (which was ice cream in a chocolate car). He took one bite of the chocolate and said, "it's the wrong texture, send the entire lot back." Eisner actually cared about the quality of the food and it showed.

Disney-MGM studios had an old Hollywood charm and really was a fun studio experience.
Now it is kind of a Frankenpark made up of a little bit of everything but with no really overarching theme.

I miss the way it used to be.
Click to expand...

Just a heads up part of your memory may be combining two different Foley stage shows. Disney's had Chevy Chase and Martin Short.
Universal's had it as a Part of a Post Production Murder She Wrote Show. That I'd where you would see clips from Harry from Harry and The Hendersons or meet him nearby.
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
jt04 said:
I guess I don't see minimal effort occuring. I see a pragmatic approach building towards a well thought out result.

Not unlike the MCU.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd call Disney's approach to MCU as "pragmatic". Maybe with the first couple releases but after that, I'd call it both wildly optimistic and groundbreaking in the art and business of movie making.

If they'd been pragmatic about things, that last movie would have been titled "Marvel Cinematic Universe 22: End of First Quarter."

Or maybe it would have just been Iron Man 22.

I doubt they'd have made it to #22 with the kinds of movies they'd have made with that approach, though.

Like them or don't like them (obviously, your new avatar tells us you do) it is undeniable that they were incredibly ambitious and bold with this IP and these last few movies have demonstrated that even when they've gotten to a point where blockbuster status on follow-up films is a guarantee, they have chosen consistently not to cut corners or phone-it-in while still leaving space for creative risks and unique individual tones from film-to-film.

I wish that was how the company was handling their domestic parks, these days.

If TDO had been in charge of Marvel Studios, you can be sure there'd have been a BB8 cameo in that movie that opened last week. After all, Star Wars is in space. Parts of this movie were in space and as a droid, it makes perfect sense that he/it survived from a long, long time ago and made it to someplace touching our galaxy or the other ones shown, right?

Does that sound stupid?

If so, tell me Frozen in Norway and a Guardians of the Galaxy rollercoaster in Future World somehow make more sense?
 
Last edited:
mightynine

mightynine

Well-Known Member
Even though I posted a very cynical post in another thread, I do like the version of the logo without something in the Os, even if it’s a bit plain.
368854
 
jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
MrPromey said:
I don't know that I'd call Disney's approach to MCU as "pragmatic". Maybe with the first couple releases but after that, I'd call it both wildly optimistic and groundbreaking in the art and business of movie making.

If they'd been pragmatic about things, that last movie would have been titled "Marvel Cinematic Universe 22: End of First Quarter."

Or maybe it would have just been Iron Man 22.

I doubt they'd have made it to #22 with the kinds of movies they'd have made with that approach, though.

Like them or don't like them (obviously, your new avatar tells us you do) it is undeniable that they were incredibly ambitious and bold with this IP and these last few movies have demonstrated that even when they've gotten to a point where blockbuster status on follow-up films is a guarantee, they have chosen consistently not to cut corners or phone-it-in while still leaving space for creative risks and unique individual tones from film-to-film.

I wish that was how the company was handling their domestic parks, these days.

If TDO had been in charge of Marvel Studios, you can be sure there'd have been a BB8 cameo in that movie that opened last week. After all, Star Wars is in space. Parts of this movie were in space and as a droid, it makes perfect sense that he/it survived from a long, long time ago and made it to someplace touching our galaxy or the other ones shown, right?

Does that sound stupid?

If so, tell me Frozen in Norway and a Guardians of the Galaxy rollercoaster in Future World somehow make more sense?
Click to expand...

Some people questioned putting MD Jr in the IM suit but that seems to have worked out.

Frozen in WS may be a 5 or 10 year overlay and a test ground for Tokyo and elsewhere. Maybe even the MK.

Point is they have short term and long term plans. We know very little especially long term plans.
 
jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
MrPromey said:
By that logic, I wonder what the lack of reference for everything else in the park that either didn't open last year, or isn't planned for this year or next means, then?
Click to expand...

All I care about is GE personally. I trust Imagineering with the rest of the park's future. I will have more opinions after D23.
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
jt04 said:
Some people questioned putting MD Jr in the IM suit but that seems to have worked out.

Frozen in WS may be a 5 or 10 year overlay and a test ground for Tokyo and elsewhere. Maybe even the MK.

Point is they have short term and long term plans. We know very little especially long term plans.
Click to expand...

Oh, the RDJ was certainly a gamble but not quite as much as it now looks in hindsight, seeing what came after that first movie. If the first Iron Man had bombed, it would have been just like every other comic book movie that didn't succeed that had come before it.

They'd have probably already tried rebooting it with another actor by now.

MCU was more of one man's pipe dream than a solid plan at the time and Iron Man was distributed by Paramount because it would be a year after it's release to theaters, that Disney would buy Marvel. They then went on to buy out Paramont's distribution rights for Iron Man and a number of other as yet unreleased movies.

I know it's hard to remember all that given how long ago it was, how little attention anyone was paying to all of this back then, and how Disney has managed everything, since.

Point is, the groundwork and what would become the principal leadership for managing the MCU happened before Disney got involved.

It's interesting to contemplate what might have happened if they'd been in charge from the beginning. Would people be claiming "MCU fatigue" and seeing disappointing box office results the way another major franchise that they're more directly controlling seems to be trying to work through, at the moment?

Good point about the long term plans but based on how publicly traded companies seem to work these days, I'm not sure (save for MCU) even Disney has much of a handle on their own long-term strategies at this point... but that's a bigger discussion than just Disney.

With Frozen, I was alluding to the fact that a fantasy country would have a summer house and a ride uniquely in a section of a park devoted to a real country and people that have nothing to do with said fantasy country.

I only speak for myself but personally, I can get behind the ideas of Ratatouille in France and Coco in Mexico because thematically, they actually fit. Frozen feels like management just looked and said "Meh, close enough".

My feeling is that Frozen would have been a great addition with about twice the capacity and being located in Fantasyland but we all know there wasn't an existing ride system they could cheaply (understanding that there was nothing cheap about those animatronics) refurb into this attractions sitting underutilized over there.

If the author of the Ice Queen had been from Norway, it would have been a stretch but there would have at least been some real connection. Decisions like this just feel sloppy to me.

Likewise with Guardians. I expect it to be a cool ride but unless Disney formally announces* that they are redeveloping Future World and moving completely away from the original concept and replacing everything else in a few years to make it Tomorrowland 2.0, it's placement to me makes sense only to the degree that they recognized they needed to do something to help update Epcot and they have this property (GOTG) they want to capitalize on and the land was available in that spot so that's where it got put.

I mean really, can anyone argue that Disney doesn't already have a Florida park that would have been a better fit? Maybe one where Groot could be popping out of a letter in the logo? ;)

*I guess there is still time for this to happen between now and opening day for this attraction.
 
Last edited:
jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
MrPromey said:
Good point about the long term plans but based on how publicly traded companys seem to work these days, I'm not sure (save for MCU) even Disney has much of a handle on their own long-term strategies at this point... but that's a bigger discussion than just Disney.

With Frozen, I was alluding to the fact that a fantasy country would have a summer house and a ride uniquely in a section of a park devoted to a real country and people that have nothing to do with said fantasy country.

I only speak for myself but personally, I can get behind the ideas of Ratatouille in France and Coco in Mexico because thematically, they actually fit. Frozen feels like management just looked and said "meh, close enough".

If the author of the Ice Queen had been from Norway, it would have been a stretch but there would have at least been some real connection. Decisions like this just feel sloppy to me.

Likewise with Guardians. I expect it to be a cool ride but unless Disney formally announces* that they are redeveloping Future World and moving completely away from the original concept and replacing everything else in a few years to make it Tomorrowland 2.0, it's placement to me makes sense only to the degree that they recognized they needed to do something to help update Epcot and they have this property (GOTG) they want to capitalize on and the land was available in that spot so that's where it got put.

*I guess there is still time for this to happen between now and opening day for this attraction.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced there are very long term plans and stuff doesn't get approved that derails those. Again, Frozen may be temporary. (in Disney years) And it is possible not even highly placed Imagineers know the long term plans. IMO.
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
jt04 said:
I'm convinced there are very long term plans and stuff doesn't get approved that derails those. Again, Frozen may be temporary. (in Disney years) And it is possible not even highly placed Imagineers know the long term plans. IMO.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I hope you are proven to be right.
 
MickeyMouse10

MickeyMouse10

Well-Known Member
This may sound like sacrilege, but do they really need this sign anymore? It would be like Magic Kingdom having a sign after Main Street saying "Magic Kingdom".

It would have been better if they just made it a sign for a new land. Monstropolis, Toontown, MickeyMouse10land, whatever.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom