Calling all IP malcontents......

[Brer Oswald]

When you figure that Norway was very close to closing and becoming just another building with no use for now and forever, to me that is nitpicking to the point of not thinking about the alternatives. Especially with Epcot! Before I say more I was there in February 1983, just months after it opened. It wasn't much then but as the year(s) passed and they added more to it, it was my favorite park. The problem was that I don't have enough money to support Epcot all by myself and it was dying a slow and agonizing death. Why do you think they came up with food and wine (AKA.. the eat and puke) festival or the flower festival? Because the rest of the place was not drawing people in at the rate the was needed to support it.

Norway was in need of the last rites and instead they placed an attraction in the belly of the pavilion and gave a face lift the the surrounding areas and made it very popular with young kids who couldn't care less about what fit or didn't fit in Norway.. Do you know what comes with the young children? It is their parents that are paying on average for 3 or 4 admissions to a part that might never have been seen. What excited response did it get. Whining about how Norway was not where Frozen fit in. One can nitpick about it's location till the cows come home, but it injected life back into a sad location. The more they add that appeals to younger people the sooner it becomes a place worthy of visiting. Is it like it was in the 80's? Nope, in fact hardly even recognizable, but it isn't terrible, it has more entertainment that is family friendly and gives more and more incentive to bring the family. I hope they add more and more entertainment items to EPCOT and make it a truly fun two day park.

The fact of the matter is that they no longer give the Imagineers the free run of the place. It is more like Walt's days than the couple of decades after his death. When they are designing a NEW park with no particular theme they can be creative and the public will accept it because it is new and they will give it a chance, just like they did when EPCOT opened, but after a while the public needs to see something new or there is no reason to go there. Epcot (the old) was not a sustainable idea or even an easily accepted premise, but the people gave it a chance until they tired of it and then it could no longer continue in the way it started.

Now in the words of Forrest Gump.... "That's all I have to say about that".

This argument is exclusive to Frozen and World Showcase (due to the unique nature of the countries). I never cared for Maelstrom, nor do I care much for FEA. What they pick for these attractions doesn’t much matter to me, but if they have a movie that fits the bill (Three Caballeros, Saludos Amigos, Ratatouille) then it’s better.

I’m more specifically referring to just about anything else. The land’s of Disney’s own unique creation. If you’re shoving in a ride about superheroes in a land Disney built about the different elements of technology that man kind developed, it lessens the impact of the ride. And no, changing the theme of the land to something so broad that it basically becomes a land themed to “theme park rides” doesn’t really work. It’s creative bankruptcy.

 

[danlb_2000]

I think I am going to stick to the 2020 Election thread, that's a much less contentious topic.

 

[HongKongFooy]

Yes! I was all good with IP infestation, until they started buying IPs to infest the parks with.

Ya, that's pretty much how I feel, too.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

In general, I wouldn't call myself an IP malcontent, so maybe I don't belong in this thread. Changing the parks is always going to please some, and not please others. I'd say I'm less concerned about specific IP's than how well they are executed.

Over at Universal: Diagon Alley was excellently executed. Fast and Furious was terrible, and doesn't belong in any park. If both HP lands had somehow been added to HS, I'd probably still say they are excellent. (Though they totally wouldn't belong in AK or Epcot.)

The new Star Wars land feels a bit forced, and like something is missing to me.

I can mostly see adding Rat to France. The story is set in France, and the old movie was terrible.

I'm not sure Marvel belongs anywhere at WDW. I might be able to get used to a truly excellent ride, but only if it is really excellent.

 

[Shouldigo12]

The way I see it is, everything deserves a fair chance. I'm sure if Disney announced today they were building a ride based on a horror anthology show from the 50s or a roller coaster based on an 80's rock band, people would think it was crazy and had no place in a Disney park. And yet here we are today.

 

[erasure fan1]

My problem with IPs is how they seem to be using them recently. Imagineers are given a specific IP, and often a park or even a specific attraction, and then they must make the IP fit. I would rather the Imagineers be told what is needed in a specific park, say for example a new thrill ride in Epcot, and they determine what is the best fit whether it be an existing IP or something new. Balance is a big part of the problem now, everything needs to be tied to an existing IP, Im

As I always have said, it's not the IPs that are the problem. It's the shoehorning that I have the real issue with. If it makes makes sense for what is trying to be accomplished, great! What @Goofyernmost was saying about Norway is off base in my opinion. Frozen in Norway is a great example of IP shoehorning and doing the wrong thing. While Maelstrom might not have been the greatest representation of Norway. And the land might have needed a boost and needed something fresh. I can agree with all that. But what they did was take a hugely popular IP that they were dying to get into the parks. And instead of finding a spot to really do it justice. They opted to shove it into an area that fits even less than what was there before. All for the sake of the quick, relatively cheap overlay they knew would draw crowds. It's lazy and creatively bankrupt. I am not a fan of Frozen, but I have no problem with them wanting to put it in the parks. It deserved better but this is where we are at with current Disney. I expect IPs in Disney parks but I expect proper fit and theming first.

 

[WondersOfLife]

The way I see it is, everything deserves a fair chance. I'm sure if Disney announced today they were building a ride based on a horror anthology show from the 50s or a roller coaster based on an 80's rock band, people would think it was crazy and had no place in a Disney park. And yet here we are today.

They still are crazy ideas. But at least they were unique and fitting

 

[Sharon&Susan]

Even the objection to Star Wars in Disneyland is beyond my ability to understand. So, they added yet another land to the Magic Kingdom. It isn't in the middle of anything it is just a new land and a new fantasy. I swear that people just do everything in their power to not accept change and not allow themselves to enjoy the spectacular gifts that Disney has provided over the years. Who could possible give a damn about WHO thought of something as long as it is an original idea and Disney is able to put its own spin on the idea which is what Disney has done since the beginning.

Anyway, I know that I'm not going to convince anyone of the futility of it all, but I just wish there was a legitimate problem that could be identified and corrected, but there isn't. In my mind it is just an irrational, completely fabricated problem with no real basis for concern. The original five lands were Adventureland, Frontierland, Fantasyland, Tomorrowland and Main Street USA. And now there are six including StarWarsLand. A company in expansion.

If Galaxy's Edge is just another new land in Disneyland that fits with the rest of Disneyland's older lands, why did the Imagineers tasked with creating it make sure to hide SW:GE from the rest of Disneyland and vise versa unlike any other area at Disneyland?

Also would you not say that it's a problem that Star Wars Galaxy's Edge is one of the biggest, if not the biggest lands at Disneyland, but only has 2 rides? Especially when in the 70's even without taking out any part of the ROA there was a plan to have around triple the amount of rides in the same space?

Or are you just going to keep on complaining about people giving criticism towards a park that costs over one hundred dollars to get into and act as if we should see it as a "gift" and fanboy over anything that Disney gives us?

 

[Goofyernmost]

As I always have said, it's not the IPs that are the problem. It's the shoehorning that I have the real issue with. If it makes makes sense for what is trying to be accomplished, great! What @Goofyernmost was saying about Norway is off base in my opinion. Frozen in Norway is a great example of IP shoehorning and doing the wrong thing. While Maelstrom might not have been the greatest representation of Norway. And the land might have needed a boost and needed something fresh. I can agree with all that. But what they did was take a hugely popular IP that they were dying to get into the parks. And instead of finding a spot to really do it justice. They opted to shove it into an area that fits even less than what was there before. All for the sake of the quick, relatively cheap overlay they knew would draw crowds. It's lazy and creatively bankrupt. I am not a fan of Frozen, but I have no problem with them wanting to put it in the parks. It deserved better but this is where we are at with current Disney. I expect IPs in Disney parks but I expect proper fit and theming first.

Sure, but make-believe morals aside... the place is still operating with an overall increase in pre-Covid ticket sales since it opened. In other words no matter how critical we can get about how Disney runs their parks, people still flock to the place. And because of the success they are adding more. If I were to pick one thing that is out of place now it is Guardian. What the hell does that have to do with anything in Epcot? There are a lot of things that don't match in WDW, but Frozen in Norway is the least offensive, but the most complained about. Tell me what would you have done to bring life back to that Pavilion? The original ride had a one trip life for most Guests, just because a handful thought it was the end all of attractions didn't make it universally thought of that way.

 

[Goofyernmost]

If Galaxy's Edge is just another new land in Disneyland that fits with the rest of Disneyland's older lands, why did the Imagineers tasked with creating it make sure to hide SW:GE from the rest of Disneyland and vise versa unlike any other area at Disneyland?

Also would you not say that it's a problem that Star Wars Galaxy's Edge is one of the biggest, if not the biggest lands at Disneyland, but only has 2 rides? Especially when in the 70's even without taking out any part of the ROA there was a plan to have around triple the amount of rides in the same space?

Or are you just going to keep on complaining about people giving criticism towards a park that costs over one hundred dollars to get into and act as if we should see it as a "gift" and fanboy over anything that Disney gives us?

First off, you would have to ask them why it was put in the corner, however if I were to take a logical guess it is because that is where the available land existed. Disneyland is pretty full already and Star Wars was supposed to be a big draw over time. Why clutter up other areas more if there is room to expand and keep the NEW land segregated from the historical one.

As far as number of rides, well if you looked at the history of the parks you would find that almost none of them opened with a full house like Disneyland itself, Magic Kingdom in WDW along with Epcot, DHS and Animal Kingdom. A lot of the the design of Star Wars was they detail of the land itself and the answer to all those that are in love with immersion. There is no finer detailed land that I have seen in all my years of theme park visiting.

Obviously, you have not followed anything else I have posted because if your did you would know that I am hardly a "fanboy". I have pointed out many things that Disney has done wrong. But one thing that doesn't even come close to my opinion of erroneous is the placement is SWL. The gift is the detail, something that Disney hasn't seem inclined to include in attractions again until recently. But, no lets instead jump on the point that they did something different that spoiled your vision of keeping Disney parks as historical museums.

 

[Mickey5150]

The manner in which the parks integrate the IP is more important than the nature of the IP (excluding Marvel, but that's just my own personal dislike). Executed well, we get examples like Cars Land. Poor execution gave us the adjacent Chapek Village...er, I mean Pixar Pier, and that Up-themed bird show at Animal Kingdom.

The Pixar Pier overlay is particularly frustrating because the original theme, although maybe not the most elaborate in Disney park history, basically worked well for what they were attempting. The Pixar addition was also done unimaginatively on the cheap, and further, it then negated the tie-in theme to the Paradise Pier hotel next door.

Not in California Cars Land is poor execution for a park about California. Pixar Pier is still an amusement pier based on piers in California. You may not like the theme but it was a better fit.

 

[erasure fan1]

Sure, but make-believe morals aside... the place is still operating with an overall increase in pre-Covid ticket sales since it opened. In other words no matter how critical we can get about how Disney runs their parks, people still flock to the place. And because of the success they are adding more.

I didn't say it wasn't. In fact, I said they did it because they knew it would draw. And again, no one's arguing attendance. I'm on record in many threads saying nothing will really change because no matter what they do, attendance goes up. That said, the point was about theme and fit, not what would bring more people to the area. Hopefully the goal from Disney is to achieve both. If they would have put any of their popular IPs in norway, they would have achieved the same outcome.

If I were to pick one thing that is out of place now it is Guardian. What the hell does that have to do with anything in Epcot? There are a lot of things that don't match in WDW, but Frozen in Norway is the least offensive, but the most complained about.

Of course Guardians doesn't fit and once it opens, guess what? It will be wildly popular, with HUGE lines and merch sales. Is it worse than Frozen? Probably. But I believe that Frozen paved the way for Guardians. But who cares right! Disney will be making bank.

Tell me what would you have done to bring life back to that Pavilion? The original ride had a one trip life for most Guests, just because a handful thought it was the end all of attractions didn't make it universally thought of that way.

First off, most all of the supporters in no way thought it was "end all be all". Most thought it was a cute ride that needed an update, myself included. What would I have done? First I wouldn't have let it sit rotting for decades. If I was in charge, I would have known Norway needed an update a long time ago. So when someone pitched me the idea for Frozen and they said, it's inspired by Norwegian culture. I would have said why not just make it set in Norway? Then if it's a success, we have an option for an update in Norway.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

First off, you would have to ask them why it was put in the corner, however if I were to take a logical guess it is because that is where the available land existed. Disneyland is pretty full already and Star Wars was supposed to be a big draw over time. Why clutter up other areas more if there is room to expand and keep the NEW land segregated from the historical one.

Certain rockwork in Galaxy's Edge to hide Disneyland is designed to hide Disneyland sights that would normally be seen like the Matterhorn and BTM from the rest of Star Wars Galaxy's Edge, even from the second floor of Smuggler's Run. It's not just another land like any other as you made it seem in your initial post, it's designed to be separate from the rest of Disneyland in terms of location, design, feel, etc.

As far as number of rides, well if you looked at the history of the parks you would find that almost none of them opened with a full house like Disneyland itself, Magic Kingdom in WDW along with Epcot, DHS and Animal Kingdom. A lot of the the design of Star Wars was they detail of the land itself and the answer to all those that are in love with immersion. There is no finer detailed land that I have seen in all my years of theme park visiting.

Other than the space where the dinner show theater was going to go where else is there to expand in DL's GE without demolishing major chunks of the land? Star Wars Galaxy's Edge wasn't designed for expansion (at Disneyland at least, not sure about WDW).
Also the lack of the live entertainment and streetmosphere (That was advertised!) really weakens the immersive portion of the land. I don't feel like I'm in a Star Wars movie, but more like I'm walking around a Star Wars set with a giant shopping mall in the center.

And at least for me I tend to prefer areas that are pleasant to just sit around and soak up the surroundings while I'm at Disneyland. A war torn marketplace with Autbesh smeared over the walls isn't what I really want from Disneyland and seemingly looking the low attendance that Galaxy's Edge has received for anything but Rise of the Resistance I'm in the same boat as many other people.

Obviously, you have not followed anything else I have posted because if your did you would know that I am hardly a "fanboy". I have pointed out many things that Disney has done wrong. But one thing that doesn't even come close to my opinion of erroneous is the placement is SWL. The gift is the detail, something that Disney hasn't seem inclined to include in attractions again until recently. But, no lets instead jump on the point that they did something different that spoiled your vision of keeping Disney parks as historical museums.

I've been wanting Disneyland to have a new E, D Ticket or new land all the time I've been going to Disneyland these last 20 years, please don't tell me that I want Disneyland to be a museum.

If I wanted Disneyland to remain a museum, I wouldn't have wanted any expansion like the ones I mentioned above. I just don't like the execution of Galaxy's Edge specifically. In fact the initial plan of retheming Tomorrowland to Star Wars, honestly sounds better to me than what we ended up with. A giant ugly shopping mall that looks like its going to crumble, a simulator ride worse than Star Tours from over 30 years ago and takes up more space + one great ride.

 

[UNCgolf]

Sure, but make-believe morals aside... the place is still operating with an overall increase in pre-Covid ticket sales since it opened. In other words no matter how critical we can get about how Disney runs their parks, people still flock to the place. And because of the success they are adding more. If I were to pick one thing that is out of place now it is Guardian. What the hell does that have to do with anything in Epcot? There are a lot of things that don't match in WDW, but Frozen in Norway is the least offensive, but the most complained about. Tell me what would you have done to bring life back to that Pavilion? The original ride had a one trip life for most Guests, just because a handful thought it was the end all of attractions didn't make it universally thought of that way.

That's the opposite of what happened, though.

Disney didn't put Frozen there because they thought the Norway pavilion needed more life. It was already one of the only pavilions with an actual ride. They put it there because they desperately wanted to get a Frozen ride in the parks and that was the easiest (and probably only) place to do it without having to build something new from scratch -- which is of course what they should have done, because it would have almost certainly resulted in a much better ride than FEA.

The point was to get Frozen somewhere in the parks; not to upgrade the Norway pavilion.

 

[Capt. Hook]

Cars Land is poor execution for a park about California.

It's still a nicely themed land which goes with the region. Adding a genuine California story wouldn't be that difficult if ever the park decided to go full-on with its parks roots. Simply remove the racing factor of RSR, line all the cars into one slow-moving traffic jam, close all shops & eateries indefinitely, price-out anyone not earning six figures, and set all landscaping on fire.
But as it is today, I still think it fits the overall theme of DCA.

 

[LastoneOn]

I prefer "inspired by the IP" rather than "ride the IP" if that helps

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I prefer "inspired by the IP" rather than "ride the IP" if that helps

I think that reflects just the Buzz & Nemo attractions...I don't recall any other ones in the "inspired by" collection.

 

[Chicken Guy]

I think that reflects just the Buzz & Nemo attractions...I don't recall any other ones in the "inspired by" collection.

Stitch before it closed, perhaps? Tough to be a Bug if you include shows?

 

[HongKongFooy]

It is well understood by most people on these message board, that when we talk about "IP" in the parks we are talking about the use of an existing IP as opposed to developing an new IP specifically for an attraction.

Yes, indeed

I thought that it was so painfully obvious that I didn't have to qualify that in my opener.

 

[danlb_2000]

Yes, indeed

I thought that it was so painfully obvious that I didn't have to qualify that in my opener.

It is painfully obvious to ALMOST everyone.