News Country Bear Jamboree is getting new songs and acts

[McMickeyWorld]

Themed around Disney and animated IP. To the point where about every building has to have a character from a toon or movie on it.

View attachment 799994

It is the most recent hub land built from the company for a theme park, and is themed with Intellectual Properties. Less than half the real estate of other hub lands, and it is filled to the brim with IP.

So when this is brought up:


We have already had this answer in their most recent largest theme park investment.

I think it's quite out of context (and the actual hub of the park is Gardens of Imagination). We have to remember that it's a different market and culture that we only see from the outside. We don't really know what that audience is looking for. There’s also the fact that Disney doesn't fully own the park; we don’t know what agreements were made, but I’m sure the IP was an important factor. If Mickey Avenue had been built in the USA, I would totally agree with the criticism.

 

[WondersOfLife]

A much shorter, and more simplistic, Main Street/Buena Vista Street combo (in architecture) with the Toontown color scheme. Also features a few Toontown-style buildings like a version of Goofy's House, and a version of Carthay Circle.
Some shocking differences include the fact that nearly all buildings are facades only, the lack of a true Town Square, and the fact that it's just over 220 feet, compared to the US parks' 800' Main Streets. In addition, it has a modified version of Disneyland's train station, but you can't actually access it as the park has no railroad.

Mickey Avenue

Mickey Avenue is the main entry land at Shanghai Disneyland inspired by the colorful personalities of Mickey Mouse and his pals. A blend of Main Street, U.S.A. and Mickey's Toontown, Mickey Avenue is a hometown for imagination, a welcoming, whimsical neighborhood filled with lively shops and...

disney.fandom.com

Shanghai Disneyland – Mickey Avenue

Discover how this land of Shanghai Disneyland looks like.

www.designingdisney.com

So.. its a main street. Its a lackluster one but its not like walking through pure toontown. Still just a hub.

 

[WondersOfLife]

Themed around Disney and animated IP. To the point where about every building has to have a character from a toon or movie on it.

View attachment 799994

It is the most recent hub land built from the company for a theme park, and is themed with Intellectual Properties. Less than half the real estate of other hub lands, and it is filled to the brim with IP.

So when this is brought up:


We have already had this answer in their most recent largest theme park investment.

Ah I stand corrected then. Well. Case in point on your end then.

 

[TheCoasterNerd]

Which is of course the evidence that Iger and company care 0% about Walt and what he wanted from the parks - the train circling the park was everything.

IIRC it was because of some Chinese law, not them not wanting one.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

IIRC it was because of some Chinese law, not them not wanting one.

I’m not aware of that - and I try to keep up with all things trains! Haha

 

[celluloid]

I’m not aware of that - and I try to keep up with all things trains! Haha

I think that poster is confusing it with the similar railway law operations that Japan has. The work around was to make it an attraction more than transportation.

That being said, there are always work arounds and it was more budgetary to leave them out.

A rollercoaster is merely a thrilling train, just typically gravity powered in portions it coasts.

 

[The Leader of the Club]

Shanghai was the first time that Disney was able to build a castle park and not use any of the staples. No Main Street, railroad, jungle cruise, small world, Frontierland, Space Mountain, etc. In my opinion, it is to the park’s detriment as it lacks the classic charm that the other castle parks have.

 

[celluloid]

Shanghai was the first time that Disney was able to build a castle park and not use any of the staples. No Main Street, railroad, jungle cruise, small world, Frontierland, Space Mountain, etc. In my opinion, it is to the park’s detriment as it lacks the classic charm that the other castle parks have.

Other than a few E Tickets, it really does lack charm and depth and optimism that some of those classics have.

A lot of aesthetic, without substance.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

it really does lack charm and depth and optimism that some of those classics have.

A lot of aesthetic, without substance.

This was written about Shanghai but it applies to the Bears too :-/

 

[celluloid]

This was written about Shanghai but it applies to the Bears too :-/

It is a modern Disney theme park situation.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

We have already had this answer in their most recent largest theme park investment.

Not really. The fact Mickey Avenue is based around Disney IPs at Shanghai Disneyland doesn't mean today's Disney would never built a non-IP based hub, it just means they (kind of) didn't build one at Shanghai Disneyland. As @McMickeyWorld mentioned, even that is debatable as Mickey Avenue is really a truncated entry area (that doesn't look especially effective to me) while Gardens of Imagination is supposed to be the hub (which, at least from what I have heard, is also not that fantastic).

All of this is also in the service of trying to suggest Epic Universe is not a park made up of IP-based lands and attractions. Whether it's a great park or not, I really don't think there's any denying that's what it is and that IP-based lands and attractions are Universal's model as well as Disney's at the moment. This isn't meant to excuse either company, it's just being honest.

 

[celluloid]

Not really. The fact Mickey Avenue is based around Disney IPs at Shanghai Disneyland doesn't mean today's Disney would never built a non-IP based hub, it just means they (kind of) didn't build one at Shanghai Disneyland. As @McMickeyWorld mentioned, even that is debatable as Mickey Avenue is really a truncated entry area (that doesn't look especially effective to me) while Gardens of Imagination is supposed to be the hub (which, at least from what I have heard, is also not that fantastic).

All of this is also in the service of trying to suggest Epic Universe is not a park made up of IP-based lands and attractions. Whether it's a great park or not, I really don't think there's any denying that's what it is and that IP-based lands and attractions are Universal's model as well as Disney's at the moment. This isn't meant to excuse either company, it's just being honest.

It means what it means. I never said they couldn't. I said they have shown they don't right now which paints it unlikely. It is and not that it could not, but that it is not likely, and has not under exec leadership that has helmed the last two decades. In the future, they could absolutely do it again, but have shown no inclination that would be likely, as even original theme park lands are getting replaced by film synergy.

Existing lands of no outside park IP have gotten overlays and rethemes. 90 percent of Disney's work, if we are being generous to not say 100, are replacing original in house with film synergy choices.

A hub for a new park was crammed full of facades that feature only only outside park IP.

What was brought up is that Celestial Gardens did not count as an land because it is a hub land.

However, as stated by the person who made the peramiters, the case was made. It may not be the most rich, but it is not based on anything outside in film or media property.

When Disney builds a new park and has something on the level of Celestial Gardens or beyond with no movie or media outside theme to the attractions there, you have a point.

Celestial Gardens has two E-ticket scale attraction thrills and a unique ride with design and architecture elements original to the park with other than the auxillary Mario store, there is no focus on any outside property.

Every building in Mickey Avenue is like Downtown Disney of the 90s meets Toontown with characters residing on or in all of them.

Celestial Gardens may be light, but it is a hub land with attractions and has an astrological theme and motifs. Like an Astrological Lost Continent Lite. It is however, original and in-house IP.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

the most modern hub / entrance land built is Epcot - no IP in site.

Before Shanghai was DCA Buena Vista Street which is not IP either.

I also don’t consider Mickey Avenue IP based - it’s very small and a mix of architectural styles.

 

[celluloid]

the most modern hub / entrance land built is Epcot - no IP in site.

Before Shanghai was DCA Buena Vista Street which is not IP either.

I also don’t consider Mickey Avenue IP based - it’s very small and a mix of architectural styles.

Buena Vista Street and Mickey Avenue are not comparable. Beuna Vista street is a romanticized take on a time period and location.

Are you counting the EPCOT Hub redo? EPCOT is unique in that it is not really a spoke design and had Communicore into Future World. Not sure what specifically you mean. The entirety of Futureworld outside Pavilions was all original. Did Moana not just go into the neighborhood? Nemo completely took over The Seas before that.
We have Encanto Dance shows in this hub now.

Outside of Disney. Port of Entry is certainly the richest stateside hub/promenade entrance land. And completely original.

Literally every building on Mickey Avenue has characters in and on the moulding. If it did not have those, and had a fictional town with more depth and reference digetic, it would be more like Main Street USA, but it is not. It is an IP filled promenade. See above posted pic. Its an amalgamation to get any Disney property on the walls and carved into the structures. Proudly using IP of film and Disney's animation media.

I think it's quite out of context (and the actual hub of the park is Gardens of Imagination). We have to remember that it's a different market and culture that we only see from the outside. We don't really know what that audience is looking for. There’s also the fact that Disney doesn't fully own the park; we don’t know what agreements were made, but I’m sure the IP was an important factor. If Mickey Avenue had been built in the USA, I would totally agree with the criticism.

I would agree with this except France had the team permitted to work on its own version of Main Street USA, to keep the idea of an in house hub leading to spokes of the lands, but work to fit the culture. Disney was not the sole owner of that park either.

Are they enhancing Dinoland USA, or changing it to an IP land?
Did Paradise Pier become Pixar Pier?
Did Country Bears get new songs? Or novelty fitting songs? Or Disney songs from their country-western themed properties? Or frontier based properties?
Or did they get a medley of sing-alongs to greatest hits with a twang?

We can go back further. What happened to Tomorrowland from 2002-2018?
Frozen?
What was supposed to happen to Big Thunder Mountain?
What occured to Pirates in 2006?
What was supposed to happen to Haunted Mansion before its movie flopped?


It has been steadily increasing for a long while.

I will believe it likely that Disney could build an IP-less land or hub land, when they can build an E-ticket stateside that is not an outside IP or any featured in it.

The leadership of Disney, is very different to what it was 20-30 years ago to make such originality in a land not likely. That was the point.

 

[lazyboy97o]

the most modern hub / entrance land built is Epcot - no IP in site.

Before Shanghai was DCA Buena Vista Street which is not IP either.

I also don’t consider Mickey Avenue IP based - it’s very small and a mix of architectural styles.

The redrew the map of Epcot and a large chunk of what was considered the center of the park is now a franchise attraction. A lot of what is new is also referential with the triangles being meaninglessly overused throughout as a “Disney® Big Ball” reference.

Buena Vista Street is all about Disney history references. So obsessed with references that it misses that it turns Walt into a plagiarist.

Being small and eclectic doesn’t negate that Mickey Ave, like Buena Vista Street, is supposed to just be an overload of character references.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Are they enhancing Dinoland USA, or changing it to an IP land?
Did Paradise Pier become Pixar Pier?
Did Country Bears get new songs? Or novelty fitting songs? Or Disney songs from their country-western themed properties? Or frontier based properties?
Or did they get a medley of sing-alongs to greatest hits with a twang?

We can go back further. What happened to Tomorrowland from 2002-2018?
What was supposed to happen to Big Thunder Mountain?
What occured to Pirates in 2006?
What was supposed to happen to Haunted Mansion before its movie flopped?

It has been steadily increasing for a long while.

I will believe it likely that Disney could build an IP-less land or hub land, when they can build an E-ticket stateside that is not an outside IP.

The leadership of Disney, is very different to what it was 20-30 years ago to make such originality in a land not likely. That was the point.

I think the last point about Disney leadership being very different to 20-30 years ago is valid (though it wasn't that great 20 years ago, either). This conversation, though, began by mentioning people complain about Disney stuffing the parks with IPs and then point to Epic Universe which is also stuffed with IPs as though it is showing Disney how it should be done. You can argue Universal handles IPs better, but I don't think you can argue that they are less IP-focussed than Disney.

As for your list of ways in which Disney has retrofitted IP into attractions that didn't have it, the reason you can't say the same about Universal is not because they never replace attractions or lands with newer IPs. It's because, when they do, it has always (or almost always?) involved replacing one IP with another. In other words, I get the argument IP is what Universal does and that's what it has always done whereas Disney used to be different. I don't get the argument that Universal provides some kind of refuge from those who don't like the IP overload at Disney parks.

 

[celluloid]

As for your list of ways in which Disney has retrofitted IP into attractions that didn't have it, the reason you can't say the same about Universal is not because they never replace attractions or lands with newer IPs. It's because, when they do, it has always (or almost always?) involved replacing one IP with another. In other words, I get the argument IP is what Universal does and that's what it has always done whereas Disney used to be different. I don't get the argument that Universal provides some kind of refuge from those who don't like the IP overload at Disney parks.

False. Universal does. Their now most famous land is an example of just that. There are also lesser examples of their original things being replaced by more direct synergy and outside property based.

Hogsmeade replaced their original celtic mythology inspired portion of Lost Continent plus an expansion attraction plot.

And the rest is likely going to become Zelda.

I don't recall anyone here saying there was refuge, just excitement over a hub being original in a park so action packed with IPs, that still happened. Something Disney has not done or kept since 2006 in the states.

What Universal has done, more specific to what started this discussion, is in 1999 built Port of Entry and Lost Continent.
And what they are about to do, is have Celestial Gardens.

Three original lands, one likely to be no more at all in the next few years.
One still remaining.

And one opening soon.

EPIC has one original. It may not be the best, but it is what is being done and starting with three promoted attractions, entertainment and other venues.

What original outside IP-less land has Disney done since Hong Kong Disneyland?

Yes, Disney leadership 20-30 years ago was not a whole lot better. Eisner's era was coming to a close and new blood was needed because the loss of Welles and structure was catching up to change as 2004/05. But the IP Mandate was not the same yet. It was accelerating. That was the point.

Because the answer to the question of what was the last, would be Serka Zong and Expedition Everest.

Also, if you want to get technical, Universal actually took an IP attraction that was dated, and made it an original in 2008. It was not great, but it lasted a decade and the thing that replaced it, is completely detested in comparison to where most would certainly take the previous.

 

[The Chatbox Ghost]

And I suppose Teddi's swing works as a stand-in for the carpet.

Anyways, now that I think about it if they had Blood on the Saddle for Big Al's reprise, it could have been seen as Big Al trying to rebel against the Disney song IP mandates lol. Like Al giving up on Remember Me could have been viewed as him not wanting to go on doing the IP song and he tries sneaking Blood On The Saddle in later.

At the very least, Remember Me fits his backstory of being on an eternal farewell tour. He just doesn't have the heart to quit.

I completely agree. The finale feels a bit rushed and each bear's dialogue is indistinguishable from one another, except Henry and Sammy.

It's funny you bring up the turntable Ernest/Trixie situation. I've wondered about this for a while and originally thought they might finally integrate Trixie into the new finale, moving Henry and Sammy to Shaker's spot, based on the concept art we got plus how heavily they've promoted the involvement of Emily Ann Roberts. I think it's a huge missed opportunity not showcasing either of them considering Al's absence for "Bare Necessities" and there's already such a lack of female characters in the show (especially since the Sun Bonnets are now just backup singers). View attachment 799659

Yeah, that's what I was expecting too! But I guess they decided to keep Shaker for the finale. Would've been awesome to have Trixie and possibly Ernest in one, but oh well. If they ever build a new CBJ, like people are thinking will happen in DCA, I hope they redo the theater layout to allow every single bear to be in the finale. Either adding more curtains, or making the center stage larger and moving some bears to it, like moving Trixie over to be with the Sun Bonnets or Ernest over so he can be in front of the Five Bear Rugs since he often performs with them.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

False. Universal does. Their now most famous land is an example of just that.

Ok, so they always do it then.

What Universal has done, more specific to what started this discussion, is in 1999 built Port of Entry and Lost Continent.
And what they are about to do, is have Celestial Gardens.

Three original lands, one likely to be no more at all in the next few years.
One still remaining.

And one opening soon.

EPIC has one original. It may not be the best, but it is what is being done and starting with three promoted attractions, entertainment and other venues.

What original outside IP-less land has Disney done since Hong Kong Disneyland?

By that standard, Disney opened a whole park full of non-IP based lands the year before Port of Entry and Lost Continent. It opened big non-IP attractions like Expedition Everest and Mission:Space more recently, as well. I wouldn't argue any of that shows Disney is not overly reliant on IP-based attractions now.

I don't really understand why we're arguing about this as I am not claiming Disney does not rely on IP-based lands and attractions. I particularly dislike single-IP based lands. You seem to be hanging a lot on the main hub area of the new park to prove Universal isn't also reliant on IPs, when that is very much their model. Far more so than Disney, they go out of their way to buy the rights to IPs in order to use them in their parks. In terms of Celestial Park, its main attractions are a rollercoaster and what I'm sure will be a nice carousel along with a fairly eclectic selection of retail and dining (a Nintendo store, a seafood restaurant, and a Pan-Asian restaurant attached to the hotel). It's not exactly peak theme park design.

 

[celluloid]

Ok, so they always do it then.

By that standard, Disney opened a whole park full of non-IP based lands the year before Port of Entry and Lost Continent. It opened big non-IP attractions like Expedition Everest and Mission:Space more recently, as well. I wouldn't argue any of that shows Disney is not overly reliant on IP-based attractions now.

I don't really understand why we're arguing about this as I am not claiming Disney does not rely on IP-based lands and attractions. I particularly dislike single-IP based lands. You seem to be hanging a lot on the main hub area of the new park to prove Universal isn't also reliant on IPs, when that is very much their model. Far more so than Disney, they go out of their way to buy the rights to IPs in order to use them in their parks. In terms of Celestial Park, its main attractions are a rollercoaster and what I'm sure will be a nice carousel along with a fairly eclectic selection of retail and dining. It's not exactly peak theme park design.

Now you are getting it! That all stopped for Disney owned parks plans moving forward post Everest in 2006, Mission Space was 2003. Your more recently are my 20-30 year ago of how the mandate has progressed. and instead of being a balance, has gone Iger bonkers. Not overly reliant. Subjectively only at this point to where even the bears have to sing A Whole New World and Frozen songs.

The new hub concept was brought up pages ago as not being original. But if we are being fair, it is and I think your description is oversimplifying a bit. Concept art is just that, but now that we see fly overs and see what is going in, it is a bit more than you disingenuinely described. Not peak design, but certainly superior to Mickey Ave, or the EPCOT plaza redo. It has unique and detailed architecture throughout with scenic. It has a backstory of inspiration for the parks throughline.

And Disney has not built an original land or attraction since 2006 be it retheme or new build.
Besides Tiki Room, what near that scale or larger has been original in the states since Expedition Everest? I could be forgetting something, but is totally that dire to where we can realistically say they are not doing an original IP-less land, that would even be on Celestial Gardens scale.

Universal has, for better or for worse, built original attractions and lands since Disney stateside and some overseas.