Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
No, which is why I referred to that in my last couple sentences.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News bye bye bugs: Marvel Land announced, opens 2020
- Thread starter GiveMeTheMusic
- Start date
Disney Irish
Premium Member
But I'm willing to bet that those that would be interested in Marvel outnumber those that wouldn't be interested. To which I say that Disney is betting the same thing.
Last edited:
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Wait... I'm sorry, and I don't mean to pick on you personally... But are we really now lamenting the loss of A Bug's Land???
That was the biggest cheap-o rush job of a land, forced into DCA by Paul Pressler of all people in a panic in 2002 after DCA 1.0 fell flat on its face in 2001. Using a "theme" of bugs, from the least-liked Pixar movie that went straight into the $5 DVD bin, that had absolutely nothing to do with the then-weak theme of the park; the State of California.
And now they are going to spend huge amounts of money to bulldoze it and build big splashy new rides based on wildly popular movies that people actually love, and we are supposed to be upset at that? Because.... Heimlich's Chew Chew Train?
How dare you criticize the Chew Chew Train! Have you not seen that post Joe Rohde made on his earlobe's Instagram account?! Disney spent MILLIONS making those giant plastic forks look as authentic as possible. They're amongst WDI's finest work!
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that it won't be popular when it opens. It will be. I just don't think it will age well, stand the test of time, or be something everyone in the family will be equally excited to experience.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I think you're going to be surprise just how many families are going to be equally excited.
As for aging well and standing the test of time, we'll see. Marvel has been around for almost 80 years and is still as popular as ever. And just by judging the MCU numbers over the last 10 years, they haven't really dropped off overall. Maybe individual movies yes, but overall no.
So I think its safe to say that while you are not interested there is a large percentage of people that will be.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Never said I wasn't interested. I have always enjoyed the Marvel movies. I'd just prefer to leave it at that.
October82
Well-Known Member
You'll have to explain how you think that's the case. I don't think that hanging new signage amounts to themed design, but that wouldn't seem to amount to a "fixation on attractions" anymore than you talking about names amounts to a fixation on marketing.
This is sort of the fundamental problem - names and brands aren't theme or image.
They're names and brands. Hanging new signage on the park gates or on buildings doesn't amount to theme. Names and brands don't create coherency or consistency in experience. They're not a substitute for theme. They can be used to communicate ideas about parks, but those ideas have to be good ones to begin with.
DCA and DHS might just be parks for brands to inhabit, and a name change may or may not communicate that, but it won't make the park "make sense" in the way that DisneySea, Animal Kingdom or EPCOT Center, "make sense". People who are motivated to talk about names as substitutes for theme assume that it will.
No one said they aren't important topics. They simply aren't relevant topics when it comes to the question of theme and the quality and consistency of the park.
October82
Well-Known Member
One related point is that themed design works differently from other forms of entertainment, and while that doesn't mean that IP attractions can not work well, it does mean that in practice they often don't.
nevol
Well-Known Member
It is pretty revealing. It isn't an accurate perspective drawing to be taken to heart, but it is still revealing. There are recognizable elements. If you look also at the concept art collage for hong kong disneyland, it has the iron man experience stark expo building and the avengers stuff, and we know that they are getting an avengers ride next to their stark expo. It is more convention/institutional architecture while the stuff in the dca art is more steampunk and looks like it is striving to be a more lived in city. I for one am relieved it doesn't look more like the art for the hkdl one. And again, if you look at the disney studios paris poster, it is recognizably that park, and it looks somewhere between the DCA and hkdl lands that are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
Aside from editing in aspects of each park, I do feel like the majority is just a bunch of clip art.
nevol
Well-Known Member
It is pretty specific clip art then. The structures off to the left in the paris one are nothing like the facades in the dca one on the right. Why? Why go through any effort to get specific if those details being revealed in the specificity aren't useful? Why not have one poster for the entire announcement?
__r.jr
Well-Known Member
If I may piggyback off from your stance @Curious Constance,
The thing is that Disney has gotten so good at making massive franchises that, at a certain point, it will be unsustainable to even consider, never mind build, new attractions for all of them.
Too often lately Disney has been treating the parks solely as dumping grounds for their IP at full force all the while push original content back if not alt right replace it entirely. In which they have every right to do, but it overall diminishes the purpose and quality of said parks. There's a balance Disney needs to find - the parks have always been home to Disney's popular IP but they've also been home to original and unique content.
The knee-jerk reaction (Chapek being flabbergasted as to why the lucrative Marvel brand had yet to be capitalized within the parks especially after sitting with it for several years, as an example) now is that if an IP is a huge hit then they want to force it into the parks anyway possible. As I stated prior, that simply isn't sustainable for Disney unless they strategically redesign their parks to be easily re-themed and overlayed.
Which is easily possible. All they have to do is follow Universal's approach. Lots of screens, theaters, and simulators with land theming and placemaking being less intricate and much more cost effective that way it won't be expensive to change/swap out once an IP is stale or something bigger comes along.
I do believe Chapek is well aware of this. This is why we're seeing Walt Disney Imagineering go into attractions, lands and hotels that were initially designed to be permanent and now retrofit them with "quick" re-themes and redesign them to be flexible. See Mission: Breakout, Pixar Pier, Hotel New York - The Art of Marvel and Ant Man in Tomorrowland.
The questions bodes, will Disney fully commit to such a route? Have some attractions and lands be untouchable while everything else be ready to be totally and quickly be re-themed, when the time is right?
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
Uh, Disney is the same way. Was Frozen a sequel? Moana? The first Wreck it Ralph? Zootopia?
In the context of the parks, people would likely be very excited for a new original attraction that doesn't rely on IP, but it's much easier for Disney to approve funding, advertise, and produce merchandise for a ride that relies on IP.
nevol
Well-Known Member
Disneyland through Disneyland Paris have really strong land design. The parks are masterplanned so well. The tissue of the park supports all the other stories being told as the point of departure. The IP only parks have none of that connective tissue, and no matter how well each individual ride or land is, not having the lands as palette cleansers and transitions can sort of hurt the success of all the other efforts. For example, wandering from carsland behind Guardians. You very clearly feel backstage. Suddenly you're in a bug's land. and from there you see guardians. That whole thing was a mess and it hurt the individual components. Contrast this with DHS's sunset boulevard. You have anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour to wander down that street and feel the mood of the setting, with the suspense and curiousity of the tot at the end always clear in your mind. The non-ip land is half the ride! without all of that buildup, you have what we got in DCA. unthemed midway toward the attraction, get in line, with the menacing facade too close to really appreciate or build suspense. Not a strong exterior queue for placemaking and emotion. Industrial backstage visible on all sides but one. The indoor portions are very very similar, just iteratively updated and architecturally tweaked. However, it feels like it flies by compared to the orlando version. DCA's TOT was the same ride system and show scenes as Tokyo's. The difference there outside of the improved vacade is that it is visible all over the park and pulling you in. DCA's faces grizzly peak airfield and a bug's land.
Last edited:
TROR
Well-Known Member
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
Your comment mentioned people getting excited getting excited for Pixar movies to make a point about brand recognition. I was trying to make a counter point that Disney- which means by extension- Disneyland, has the same level of brand recognition, if not more so.
Disneyland, and Disney studios are heavily intertwined, always have been, and any recognition gained by either entity benefits the other.
VJ
Well-Known Member
The Country Bears (2002) would like a word.
Have there been any threads yet about the massive changes made at WDI today yet?
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Do tell
Have they been combined with Disney Store employees so they can cover each other's shifts?
Last edited: