Disney and Universal working on Marvel deal for Florida?

Tony Perkis

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
mahnamahna101 said:
Both look so similar in theme (jungle, both have dinos, etc) that guests really wouldn't mind too much IMO. If you've ever listened to the average theme park visitor, they still think Harry Potter/Universal Orlando are at Disney World, etc.

Removing Dudley, Comic Strip Lane and JPRA gives JP/JW a ton of room. You could fit (along with the Trikes plot):
  1. Helicoptours D-ticket (Soarin' esque)
  2. Gyrospheres E-ticket (Mystic Manor esque)
  3. Jeep E-ticket (Spidey/Transformers with the physical sets/AAs of Indiana Jones)
  4. Aviary flying coaster (B&M)
  5. Pteranodon Flyers replaced by Canopy Flyers (passes through Aviary)
  6. Popeye retheme to Jurassic World Rapids Adventure -
  7. Observatory tower with rotating theater concept
  8. Petting Zoo
  9. Revamped Discovery Center
  10. Amber Mine family coaster (SDMT-esque)
  11. Mr. DNA dark ride
  12. Flat ride to replace Pizza Predatoria
4 of those things wouldn't need the expansion area... JPRA could fit the Helicoptours/Gyrospheres and the station for the B&M flyer. Dudley/Comic Strip could fit an observatory tower, the Jeeps and the Amber Mine coaster.

If they're not going to do LOTR there, they ought to go big on JP/JW, while also expanding Marvel into the 'dead zone'. Then split LC between Potter and Seuss.

With all of those IPs crammed into the first two gates, it leaves room for an original 3rd gate
Click to expand...

Um.....no. They both have jungle themes that look similar, but they aren't the same property and don't exist in the same fictional universe. Meshing them together because of perceived guest ignorance is lazy and thematically wrong. Like placing Frozen in Norway.
 
Last edited:
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Tony Perkis said:
Um.....no. They both have jungle themes that look similar, but they aren't the same property and don't exist in the same fictional universe. Meshing them together because of perceived guest ignorance is lazy and thematically wrong. Like placing Frozen in Norway.
Click to expand...

What in the hairy heck are you talking about?

I guess you've never been to Disneyland, where Indy and Jungle Cruise entrances are a matter of feet away from each other (your head might have exploded if they had actually connected the two rides as originally planned). Or about 40 other examples one could pull from every other theme park. But I'm sure to you, it's all done "wrong". There is a point, though, where when everyone else is doing everything "wrong" all the time that maybe you should consider they aren't the one with the issue - perhaps it's your expectations that need adjusting.

I might disagree about Frozen/Maelstrom, but I at least understand what planet folks who believe differently come from - we are at least in the same solar system. I wouldn't want to go to the park that doesn't exist that you fantasize about in your head, because what a sprawling boring place that would be. Both are in tropical jungles, both have dinosaurs, that's about as close in theme as is is necessary. It's not like they are sticking it in the middle of Hogsmeade or Seussland or MSHI.

I don't think any theme park in the world will ever satisfy what you are looking for. The visuals will go very well together, they are never going to cater to the .0000000000001% of folks who have such outlandish demands as you do.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
What in the hairy heck are you talking about?

I guess you've never been to Disneyland, where Indy and Jungle Cruise entrances are a matter of feet away from each other (your head might have exploded if they had actually connected the two rides as originally planned). Or about 40 other examples one could pull from every other theme park. But I'm sure to you, it's all done "wrong". There is a point, though, where when everyone else is doing everything "wrong" all the time that maybe you should consider they aren't the one with the issue - perhaps it's your expectations that need adjusting.

I might disagree about Frozen/Maelstrom, but I at least understand what planet folks who believe differently come from - we are at least in the same solar system. I wouldn't want to go to the park that doesn't exist that you fantasize about in your head, because what a sprawling boring place that would be. Both are in tropical jungles, both have dinosaurs, that's about as close in theme as is is necessary. It's not like they are sticking it in the middle of Hogsmeade or Seussland or MSHI.

I don't think any theme park in the world will ever satisfy what you are looking for. The visuals will go very well together, they are never going to cater to the .0000000000001% of folks who have such outlandish demands as you do.
Click to expand...
Except when Indy was added they actually made Adventureland fit more into a 1930's/40's style so it would work, and it does. Jurassic Park and Skull Island are two very distinct and different places. Here's just one major difference:

Jurassic Park T-Rex
image.jpg


Skull Island V-Rex (yes, it's not a T-Rex) http://kingkong.wikia.com/wiki/Vastatosaurus_Rex
image.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tony Perkis

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
What in the hairy heck are you talking about?

I guess you've never been to Disneyland, where Indy and Jungle Cruise entrances are a matter of feet away from each other (your head might have exploded if they had actually connected the two rides as originally planned). Or about 40 other examples one could pull from every other theme park. But I'm sure to you, it's all done "wrong". There is a point, though, where when everyone else is doing everything "wrong" all the time that maybe you should consider they aren't the one with the issue - perhaps it's your expectations that need adjusting.
Click to expand...

Come on. This is a major stretch on your part. Adventureland is not bound by specific IP's. There is no reason why Jungle Cruise and Indiana Jones can't exist in the same "land" when the land in question is fairly generic in its theme.

The lands in question at Universal are very specific to their respective properties. Jurassic Park isn't code name for "jungle land". It's Jurassic Park. King Kong/Skull Island is its own specific property, and the mini land its located in does not exist in the same fictional world as Jurassic Park. You can't connect the two when there's no logical, cohesive theme.

Adventureland is able to connect two independent, disconnected attractions under the general theme of adventure. It works.

I might disagree about Frozen/Maelstrom, but I at least understand what planet folks who believe differently come from - we are at least in the same solar system. I wouldn't want to go to the park that doesn't exist that you fantasize about in your head, because what a sprawling boring place that would be. Both are in tropical jungles, both have dinosaurs, that's about as close in theme as is is necessary. It's not like they are sticking it in the middle of Hogsmeade or Seussland or MSHI.
Click to expand...

It's lazy, and when you're dealing with lands themed to specific IPs, you don't have the luxury to plopping an unrelated attraction in because they "look similar".

So yes, I think placing an attraction based on the fictional land in Norway when that part of EPCOT is to highlight, enlighten, and entertain guests about foreign cultures and traditions destroys not just the purpose of Norway, but also calls into question the long-term purpose of World Showcase.

I don't think any theme park in the world will ever satisfy what you are looking for. The visuals will go very well together, they are never going to cater to the .0000000000001% of folks who have such outlandish demands as you do.
Click to expand...

Not buying this. In no way is it outlandish to assume that placing unrelated IP's in lands very specific to those IP's is a monstrously poor idea. You can't just mesh IP's because of aesthetic similarities. You can't have Batman save the day with Spider-Man in MSHI. You can't place the Eye of Sauron next to Hogwarts, despite the fact that both properties deal heavily with wizards and fantasy. You can't have Skull Island and Jurassic Park because they're both largely located in jungles.

If the theme of the land was generic, such as every land at the Magic Kingdom, you can get away with it. Not when specific IP's are the basis for the land.
 
Tony Perkis

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
Except when Indy was added they actually made Adventureland fit more into a 1930's/40's style so it would work, and it does. Jurassic Park and Skull Island are two very distinct and different places. Here's just one major difference:

Jurassic Park T-Rex
View attachment 98876

Skull Island V-Rex (yes, it's not a T-Rex) http://kingkong.wikia.com/wiki/Vastatosaurus_Rex
View attachment 98877
Click to expand...
Also, Jurassic Park is located on Isla Nublar. Kong is on Skull Island. Very different islands very specific to their respective IP's.
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Tony Perkis said:
The lands in question at Universal are very specific to their respective properties. Jurassic Park isn't code name for "jungle land". It's Jurassic Park. King Kong/Skull Island is its own specific property, and the mini land its located in does not exist in the same fictional world as Jurassic Park. You can't connect the two when there's no logical, cohesive theme.
Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you that when it opens, just maybe, that might no longer just be called "Jurassic Park"?
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
Except when Indy was added they actually made Adventureland fit more into a 1930's/40's style so it would work, and it does. Jurassic Park and Skull Island are two very distinct and different places. Here's just one major difference:
Click to expand...

Two tropical/jungle islands with large monsters (and mutually including dinosaurs)...

It's not really a stretch. ;)
 

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

Back
Top Bottom