Disney and Universal working on Marvel deal for Florida?

[PhotoDave219]

the entire Speedway if removed
the space behind the Speedway and Space Mountain
a huge chunk behind IASW/Mermaid
space within the current Fantasyland if the Imagineers get creative with space.
a solid chunk behind Big Thunder and HM
a pad by Adventureland (earmarked for Fire Mountain 15 years ago)

There's hypothetically room for 10-15 more attractions at MK if TDO was willing to invest $200 million-$500 million in reworked infrastructure/backstage areas

Thats close to a billion of infastructure.

 

[doctornick]

Doesn't anyone else think it's frickin' hilarious that to combat the MK's capacity problems they built a low capacity small family coaster?

And aren't you glad I didn't call it a Kiddie Coaster?

I'm not sure what the capacity is for 7DMT (though I didn't think it was all that low), but the NFL did improve capacity quite a bit with the Little Mermaid and the doubling of Dumbo.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I'm not sure what the capacity is for 7DMT (though I didn't think it was all that low), but the NFL did improve capacity quite a bit with the Little Mermaid and the doubling of Dumbo.

Doubling Dumbo didn't really help. But LM is a large capacity ride so there is that.

And while Princess Fairy Tale Hall is exceptionally low capacity, it does keep a large number of guests corralled in the queue. Haha.

 

[lebeau]

I mean...if that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel. But I've seen plenty of great independent movies in the past 5 years, and more I want to see but didn't get around to them. I'm not seeing the death of the art form so many seem to tout. Do these smaller movies get the advertising dollars? No, of course not. But they're there, and they're really not all that hard to find.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Spielberg talk about how he almost made Lincoln for HBO because he couldn't get studios interested.

Yeah, indies get made. But those kinds of movies used to be in the mainstream as well. More and more they are being squeezed out of theaters and into VoD.

Stepping off soap box.

 

[Quinnmac000]

I think that's certainly possible, but I do think it's more likely to affect "other" movies more/worse than the MCU, which is well established and has more cache. For example, wouldn't be surprised to see this summer's Fantastic Four movie kinda bomb.

In terms of the DC universe, the Suicide Squad movie will be an interesting test. Batman vs Superman will do great, to be sure. But Suicide Squad has little brand awareness among "regular" people and the DC movie universe will not be established enough to draw people in on the strength of just that.

Suicide Squad will do well because the movies focus isn't on heroes but villians forced to be heroes which villians seem to resonant a larger interest more so than heroes nowadays.

 

[Progress.City]

Eh. I wouldn't have any problem with a Guardians of the Galaxy ride in Tomorrowland. That area is basically Sci-Fi fantasyland now anyway and it would actually be a better fit than Stitch or Monsters Inc.

Um, when I was at DLR this past August, I noticed Marvel taking over TL. It looked out of place and un-Disney-like. I didn't like it. Marvel is super heros. TL has become a Pixar sci-fi establishment and the super hero theme just doesn't work (with the exception of Buzz Light Year).

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Nothing screams futuristic like:

 

[khale1970]

Sorry, what?

Deathly Hallows - Part 2 - $1.3B
Marvel's The Avengers - $1.5B

This isn't a "bash the old guys" post, but Marvel IS pop culture for anyone under 35 right now.

Old guys? Is @Goofyernmost lurking around somewhere?

This isn't a "what do kids today know" post, but it's hard to understand the Star Wars phenomena of the late 1970s/early 1980s unless you experienced it. The closest thing I've seen since is the excitement that surrounded the release of the Harry Potter books and their impact on the generation who was coming of age as they came out. Who knows why they did, but those two franchises caught on in a way and with a depth of passion that I've not seen with anything else.

Then again maybe Marvel has it and I really am an old guy who is too out of touch with pop culture to see it. The good news is we hopefully won't have to debate the point for long. If TWDC decides to ever actually build the darn thing at WDW, we will get to see how a Star Wars land moves the needle as compared to the new and improved Marvel SHI coming to UNI.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I don't see Universal spending much on MSI unless they can attach a name like Ironman or Avengers to the upgrade. And since an upgrade is coming I am predicting that one of those will be the draw.

 

[Progress.City]

NFL has the waste of space tents that should've been the location of Frozen, but that's another story.

The land behind NFL is as available but it's not a designated expansion area.

Between Space and the CoP is. Land west of BTM is a long term expansion area, but so is part of Epcots parking lot.

As said earlier, other parks need adding to before the MK. What the MK needs is its existing attractions as good as they could be. In particular pirates, BTM and Space Mountain. And a major rethink of Tomorrowland.

You don't know how desperately I want them to fix Space Mountain! Maybe you do know... Lol

Space Mountain at DL is probably the only ride where I can completely trance into a true suspension of disbelief... And parts of DL's version of Pirates...

I agree Tomorrowland needs fixing... But in "fixing", I mean Space Mountain, a good replacement for CoP, a high tech replacement for Grand Prix, and a new E-ticket (Tron?). The rest of MK needs DL's Alice in Wonderland, upgrades to BTMRR, IASW ripped out and the DL version built in its entirety in a new show building, effect upgrades to Peter Pan, and Fire Mountain. How much would that cost the company? The most expensive parts of my plan would probably be Fire Mountain and Tron. Okay, rebuilding IASW and building Alice would be expensive too. I'm guessing... Fire Mountain... $250 million... Tron... $250 million, IASW and Alice as one project (including demomolition and replacement of original IASW building)... $150 million... Ride upgrades... $50 million... TOTAL $700 million

 

[mahnamahna101]

Movies haven't always been full of fluff. The summer movie season wasn't even invented until Jaws. Movies have steadily gotten bigger and dumber over the years. These days, there's almost no room at the box office for smaller personal movies. For better or worse, times are definitely different. That's why Spielberg and Lucas predicted an industry implosion a while back.

1920s: Chaplin and Keaton knockoffs
1930s/1940s: Universal Monster movies, crappy gangster films/Westerns (films like Stagecoach and White Heat were rare)
1950s: B-movies/creature features/Alan Freed
1960s: Roger Corman/beach party films
1970s: blaxplotation
1980s: over-the-top action (Stallone, Ahnuld, van Damme, Seagal, Norris, etc)
1990s: disaster films

the 20th century had its fair share of big, stupid movies for the longest time. Independent films shine more now than ever before.

Studios just need to start balancing between small-scale, medium-scale and large-scale films

 

[lebeau]

1920s: Chaplin and Keaton knockoffs
1930s/1940s: Universal Monster movies, crappy gangster films/Westerns (films like Stagecoach and White Heat were rare)
1950s: B-movies/creature features/Alan Freed
1960s: Roger Corman/beach party films
1970s: blaxplotation
1980s: over-the-top action (Stallone, Ahnuld, van Damme, Seagal, Norris, etc)
1990s: disaster films

the 20th century had its fair share of big, stupid movies for the longest time. Independent films shine more now than ever before.

Studios just need to start balancing between small-scale, medium-scale and large-scale films

Yeah, I don’t want to come across like I think the good old days were always good and movies today aren't worth watching. There were bad movies then and there are good movies now. But there is an undeniable and unhealthy trend towards making big budget, CGI filled movies to the exclusion of everything else.

 

[lebeau]

Specific to the topic of Marvel movies, I do think a lot of audience members are going to be disappointed by Age of Ultron. Between that and Antman, I think Marvel fatigue may be a real thing this summer which may be the start of the entire genre cooling off.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I believe the pendulum will swing back the other way soon. In periods of geopolical violence, people tend to favor superheroes, particularly patriotic ones. In times of economic stress people lean towards comedy. Since we just came out of the worst recession in the history of the country while fighting 2 wars it is not surprising that the mega-plex is filled with Avengers and Paul Blart.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Specific to the topic of Marvel movies, I do think a lot of audience members are going to be disappointed by Age of Ultron. Between that and Antman, I think Marvel fatigue may be a real thing this summer which may be the start of the entire genre cooling off.

I believe that it is already cooling. There is a reason the term "Super Saturation Marketing" is a term. And you always see a flood before the consumers say, "meh". I believe we are about chin deep and the water is still rising.

 

[mahnamahna101]

Yeah, I don’t want to come across like I think the good old days were always good and movies today aren't worth watching. There were bad movies then and there are good movies now. But there is an undeniable and unhealthy trend towards making big budget, CGI filled movies to the exclusion of everything else.

Huh?

January-February is almost completely low to mid budget films.

April is relatively low-key (2016 and 2017 are a different story) most years

August is relatively low-key most years

September-October almost exclusively target older adults

December usually has one tentpole and then everything else is non-CGI fare targeted at adults.

Over half the year is predominantly non-CGI. And the Oscars almost solely recognizes non-tentpoles. Independent films, and dramas like Lincoln get their chance to shine. It's just that unlike tentpoles, low and mid budget films have to actually be high-quality to make money. You can't release a $35 million drama that's terrible and sell it and make $200 million DOM or even $75 million DOM tbh.

As a film buff, great non-CGI films are still out there, but there's also great CGI fare (Life of Pi, Hugo, Gravity, Interstellar, Inception, GotG, Avengers 1, most Pixar films, HTTYD 1, Shrek 1 and 2, District 9, the Star Trek reboots, Captain America 2, the Apes reboots, etc).

Just lacking CGI doesn't make a film "great" or indicate that I should support it over a better CGI spectacle. I do agree that practical effects should be utilized more, but I don't think CGI automatically makes a film of the lowest common denominator,

Not to mention, 9 out of the 12 major tentpoles this summer aren't remotely focused on superheroes. I also left out the numerous comedies, dramas and horrors (Ted 2, Pitch Perfect 2, Spy, Trainwreck, Paper Towns, Southpaw, The Gallows, Poltergeist, Hot Pursuit, etc). Superheroes aren't taking over, any more than aliens or spies or cartoon animals or pirates or wizards or any other popular character type.

 

[lebeau]

Huh?

January-February is almost completely low to mid budget films.

April is relatively low-key (2016 and 2017 are a different story) most years

August is relatively low-key most years

September-October almost exclusively target older adults

December usually has one tentpole and then everything else is non-CGI fare targeted at adults.

Over half the year is predominantly non-CGI. And the Oscars almost solely recognizes non-tentpoles. Independent films, and dramas like Lincoln get their chance to shine. It's just that unlike tentpoles, low and mid budget films have to actually be high-quality to make money. You can't release a $35 million drama that's terrible and sell it and make $200 million DOM or even $75 million DOM tbh.

As a film buff, great non-CGI films are still out there, but there's also great CGI fare (Life of Pi, Hugo, Gravity, Interstellar, Inception, GotG, Avengers 1, most Pixar films, HTTYD 1, Shrek 1 and 2, District 9, the Star Trek reboots, Captain America 2, the Apes reboots, etc).

Just lacking CGI doesn't make a film "great" or indicate that I should support it over a better CGI spectacle. I do agree that practical effects should be utilized more, but I don't think CGI automatically makes a film of the lowest common denominator,

Not to mention, 9 out of the 12 major tentpoles this summer aren't remotely focused on superheroes. I also left out the numerous comedies, dramas and horrors (Ted 2, Pitch Perfect 2, Spy, Trainwreck, Paper Towns, Southpaw, The Gallows, Poltergeist, Hot Pursuit, etc). Superheroes aren't taking over, any more than aliens or spies or cartoon animals or pirates or wizards or any other popular character type.

Disney's Success And The Death Of Mid-Budget Movies

That Forbes article is just one of may documenting the sea of change in the movie industry over the last several years. I picked it due to the Disney connection. The signs are all over. Spielberg and Lucas, actual movie moguls, can't interest studios in mid-budget movies. Steven Soderburgh announced his retirement from filmmaking because he was disgusted with the direction the industry was taking. Heck, just yesterday Robert Downey Jr gave an interview in which he said he was no longer interested in any independent movies, so don't even ask.

Some of the points you are arguing against aren't points I made. I don't feel like having that conversation. My only point is that mid-range movies and movies geared towards adults are becoming harder and harder to get into theaters. If you don't see that trend, I don't know what I could say to convince you. Just agree to disagree I guess.

 

[mahnamahna101]

Disney's Success And The Death Of Mid-Budget Movies

That Forbes article is just one of may documenting the sea of change in the movie industry over the last several years. I picked it due to the Disney connection. The signs are all over. Spielberg and Lucas, actual movie moguls, can't interest studios in mid-budget movies. Steven Soderburgh announced his retirement from filmmaking because he was disgusted with the direction the industry was taking. Heck, just yesterday Robert Downey Jr gave an interview in which he said he was no longer interested in any independent movies, so don't even ask.

Some of the points you are arguing against aren't points I made. I don't feel like having that conversation. My only point is that mid-range movies and movies geared towards adults are becoming harder and harder to get into theaters. If you don't see that trend, I don't know what I could say to convince you. Just agree to disagree I guess.

In wide releases, I'd agree. But limited releases have plenty for adults.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Specific to the topic of Marvel movies, I do think a lot of audience members are going to be disappointed by Age of Ultron. Between that and Antman, I think Marvel fatigue may be a real thing this summer which may be the start of the entire genre cooling off.

Have you seen Age of Ultron? It was brilliant and the audience last night was buzzing through the whole thing. Ant-Man won't be anywhere near as successful, but it doesn't need to make Avengers or Iron Man levels of money. Interestingly, I made note of the audience's reaction to various trailers last night. Ant-Man got the biggest reaction (because it had humor and it was a decidedly pro-Marvel crowd) followed by BvS (because it's Batman and Superman). Fantastic Four got absolutely no reaction whatsoever. I think superhero fatigue might set in well before "Marvel fatigue" but I don't think that means audiences are going to give up on comic book movies all together. Rather, they'll be more discriminating and only see the good ones. I fully expect F4 to suck (and therefore flop).

No, I can't explain Ninja Turtles or Transformers.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Nothing screams futuristic like:

Come on man, at least debate honestly. I don't think ANYONE here would suggest that a World War II era Steve Rodgers would be an appropriate fit for Tomorrowland. Stark Expo, on the other hand?

Compare that to the 1964 World's Fair (you may have heard of it... Walt was a fan).