News Disney Not Renewing Great Movie Ride Sponsorship Deal with TCM ; Attraction to Close

ElvisMickey

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry to sound nitpicky, but you can't say "these lands were based solely on..." and then proceed to list 3 or 4 direct influences. "Solely" would be if they were like the current developments, entirely based upon a single IP; if they're based on 3 or 4, then they're being influenced by an entire genre, albeit genres that Walt Disney Productions were certainly emphasizing in the mid 50s, as you indicated.

I agree with what a few others are saying here: the key, in my book, is to ensure that you never unnecessarily limit yourself from a creative perspective. Yes, any land that's developed requires theming, and theming in and of itself has a slightly limiting quality (e.g. not every concept can fit into Frontierland, or Future World, or Harambe Village, or Sunset Boulevard), but most of the lands Disney has developed up to this point have minimized the risk of limitation by making their themes quite broad and expansive. Lots of people can understandably ask why the MK Haunted Mansion is located in Liberty Square, but all it took back in '71 was some smart architectural theming by WED Ent. and, next thing you know, it blended right in.

Something like Avatar Land presents a big risk in this regard. While we're all hopeful that it turns out great, and while I'm sure there'll be some wonderful aspects to it, James Cameron's Avatar is simply not a red hot property, and it's questionable if its forthcoming sequels will propel it significantly back toward prominence in the public eye. If Avatar winds up being a decently successful but by and large unmemorable film franchise, then the themed area's relevance is given an unnecessarily short shelf life. This presents a potentially big problem should a retheme become necessary, though I've been thinking from the start that Disney is likely going to build this land in such a way that they can give themselves an out on it should they ever want to retheme. Still, there's the potential for the creative process to be hamstrung by a film franchise that as of now is no guarantee to be particularly popular over the next decade.

Star Wars Land presents a different challenge. Given that the franchise is about to hit its 40th anniversary and has a few more films in the immediate offing (and a very successful recent installment), it clearly has the legs, the cross-generational appeal, the rabid fanbase, and the relevance to support an entire themed area, much the way Potter works in Universal. However, it too also carries the possibility of unnecessary limitations from a creative point of view; I'm fully aware of how expansive the Star Wars universe is (I still have my old, mid 90s copies of Timothy Zahn's Grand Admiral Thrawn trilogy packed away), but any attractions, rides, or architecture you create must be influenced by Star Wars and Star Wars alone. While I think SW Land can have better staying power than Avatar Land, it's still more limiting than something with a broader theme, like a Sci-Fi land (1994 Tomorrowland?) or the original concept of Beastly Kingdom.

None of this is to say those areas are going to be failures, far from it, but it's my opinion that adding layers of unnecessary creative limitations as a rule of thumb rather than as an exception for a major property like Star Wars is an ill-advised direction to follow long term.

Aside from the fact that I didn't like Avatar at all, this is exactly my problem with Disney adding this to Animal Kingdom...it isn't a time tested, proven franchise. There has been one movie...ONE. And yes, I know it was a box office smash and there are three sequels in the works, but that doesn't mean anything. Star Wars, Harry Potter...time tested, proven franchises with a HUGE fan base. People just went to go see Avatar because it was supposed to look pretty and the 3D was going to be cool. If Disney is just going to take any old crap that made a bunch of money and bring it into their theme parks, I vote for a Sausage Party dark ride for the Germany pavilion at Epcot.
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
Yes, they obviously could've kept both.

However the situations aren't completely the same as the 2 Snow White attractions wouldn't have formed a mini-land of sorts like Alice does.

I agree, the two Snow White rides wouldn't be as seamless as Alice in DL, which are literally right next to each other. I could see a new guest being very confused if they kept the dark ride. Not to mention, I didn't find the dark ride to be that great.

What I do wish is that they'd put a new dark ride in its place. It doesn't need to be a $100 million attraction either.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Aside from the fact that I didn't like Avatar at all, this is exactly my problem with Disney adding this to Animal Kingdom...it isn't a time tested, proven franchise. There has been one movie...ONE. And yes, I know it was a box office smash and there are three sequels in the works, but that doesn't mean anything. Star Wars, Harry Potter...time tested, proven franchises with a HUGE fan base. People just went to go see Avatar because it was supposed to look pretty and the 3D was going to be cool. If Disney is just going to take any old crap that made a bunch of money and bring it into their theme parks, I vote for a Sausage Party dark ride for the Germany pavilion at Epcot.
I'm thinking that Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean and others had no time tested, proven franchise. We complain that Disney doesn't take chances and then we complain if they do. There are so many other attractions that were based on existing franchises, however, ones like 20K were franchises that I had never seen, yet somehow I managed to like them. Who had the original idea is a made up problem and has no real bearing, other then familiarity, in whether or not it will be done well and be interesting. Why do we have to have a complete knowledge of the detail of every story. Have we lost the ability to have a little imagination and enjoy something for what it is and not where it came from?
 

ElvisMickey

Well-Known Member
I'm thinking that Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean and others had no time tested, proven franchise. We complain that Disney doesn't take chances and then we complain if they do. There are so many other attractions that were based on existing franchises, however, ones like 20K were franchises that I had never seen, yet somehow I managed to like them. Who had the original idea is a made up problem and has no real bearing, other then familiarity, in whether or not it will be done well and be interesting. Why do we have to have a complete knowledge of the detail of every story. Have we lost the ability to have a little imagination and enjoy something for what it is and not where it came from?

I'm all for (and prefer) original, well thought out, creative attractions...that Disney imagineers create. Not ones that they pull from outside sources. However the point is that they're devoting an entire land to this, not just one attraction. Avatar does not warrant an entire land. They have plenty of space in Animal Kingdom and a wealth of characters and stories from their own film library that they can come up with several attractions that fit into a mythical theme. Or, as you stated, they can create new characters and stories and come up with some original attractions. Like they used to do pre Iger.
 

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member
Today with the proven long term popularity of Star Wars and Toy Story it makes perfect sense to create lands exclusively devoted to those IP's
Star Wars, yes. Toy Story, no. Toy Story is a great frnchise, but has nowhere near the fan base and merchandise power os Star Wars.

The more I look at the Toy Story LAnd concept art, the more I think it will not be anything amazing. They are using a very large piece of land to build a spinner and a naked roller coaster that appears as if will stretch all over the area. I dont think the coaster will be anything more than another Barnstormer style ride. Very mild and in no way a must-do attraction. Same goes for the spinners. And I think thats what bothers me. All that land and the best they came up with is a spinner? Thats a shame.

I honestly feel that Toy Story Land was just to give a little extra oomph when they made the announcement for Star Wars at D23. T USO was blazing hot with the opening of Diagon, Skull Island underway, Saphire Falls, and Volcano Bay. And FWIW, ALL of those announcemens from Uni are either complete, or will be very soon. Disney hasnt even barely moved dirt yet.

The real problem is what will Disney do if they actually have a unique and original concept for a ride? Where will it go? Where will it fit? Theyve panted themselves into a corner which doesnt allow the imagineers to design anything outside of the IP.
 

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
I'm thinking that Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean and others had no time tested, proven franchise. We complain that Disney doesn't take chances and then we complain if they do. There are so many other attractions that were based on existing franchises, however, ones like 20K were franchises that I had never seen, yet somehow I managed to like them. Who had the original idea is a made up problem and has no real bearing, other then familiarity, in whether or not it will be done well and be interesting. Why do we have to have a complete knowledge of the detail of every story. Have we lost the ability to have a little imagination and enjoy something for what it is and not where it came from?

That's true, they were not directly connected to pre-existing franchises, but the reason Pirates and Mansion have done so wonderfully over the years is because they instead drew inspirations from an entire genre of story/film/etc. Like I said on the last page, they kept their themes broad: everybody has a mental image of a pirate movie or haunted house story, and Pirates and Mansion offer those experiences in spades.

It goes back to the old "experience vs. story" debate: Pirates and Mansion aren't reliant on a clear beginning-middle-end narrative put upon them by a pre-existing film or story. They DO have stories in them, no doubt, but they are very much secondary to the experience of piracy, and the experience of a haunted house. This leads a broad area for the Imagineers to be very creative and interpretive, as they're not restricted by having to include certain characters, scenes, or dialog from a pre-existing film, things that people who know those films would want to see or else they'd say "wait, it can't be a </whatever movie> ride without THAT!"

That's what I mean by unnecessary limitations. Yes, sometimes Disney should make rides or attractions that are based on a Disney film, absolutely, and they've made many good to great ones over the years, but defaulting to that in the creative process is what winds up being much more limiting than making your only limit an entire genre and general atmosphere, instead.
 
Last edited:

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member
We complain that Disney doesn't take chances and then we complain if they do.
But Disney didt exactly "take a chance" with Avatar. It was a decision born of desperation when Universal handed them their hat when Potter opened so Iger decided he wanted what Uni had and he made a knee jerk reaction. Thats not a creative process. Thats just flat out copying someone elses idea. Iger is the kid in the sand box who didnt want the toy shovel until aother kid picked it up and had fun with it.

Are they taking a chance with Toy Story? Nope. A spinner and Barnstormer 2.0. Nothing risky. Nothing creative. Its minimal. The whole "being shrunk down" aspect is nothing new either. Honey I Shrunk the Kids playground already did that.
 

Phil12

Well-Known Member
I agree with what a few others are saying here: the key, in my book, is to ensure that you never unnecessarily limit yourself from a creative perspective. Yes, any land that's developed requires theming, and theming in and of itself has a slightly limiting quality (e.g. not every concept can fit into Frontierland, or Future World, or Harambe Village, or Sunset Boulevard), but most of the lands Disney has developed up to this point have minimized the risk of limitation by making their themes quite broad and expansive. Lots of people can understandably ask why the MK Haunted Mansion is located in Liberty Square, but all it took back in '71 was some smart architectural theming by WED Ent. and, next thing you know, it blended right in.
You have some very ridged rules you like to follow. Fortunately the rest of the world is not restricted by your rules. May I point out to you that the Haunted Mansion is located in four different lands in various Disney parks. It could also be located in AK or DHS (ToT is close to the same concept).

What you have done is limit yourself with your line of thinking. Contrary to your order of thought, every concept can fit anywhere with some creativity and imagination. For example, the Jungle Cruise which was once a "serious" ride, was turned into a corny joke ride. That was done out of necessity to improve attendance. And let's not forget the Tiki Room Under New Management. The parks change with the times and attractions have to change as their attendance diminishes.

You just can't limit Stitch to Tomorrowland. I'd like to see Stitch Elvis take over the Swiss Family Robinson tree house. It would be a perfect fit!

 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
But Disney didt exactly "take a chance" with Avatar. It was a decision born of desperation when Universal handed them their hat when Potter opened so Iger decided he wanted what Uni had and he made a knee jerk reaction. Thats not a creative process. Thats just flat out copying someone elses idea. Iger is the kid in the sand box who didnt want the toy shovel until aother kid picked it up and had fun with it.

Are they taking a chance with Toy Story? Nope. A spinner and Barnstormer 2.0. Nothing risky. Nothing creative. Its minimal. The whole "being shrunk down" aspect is nothing new either. Honey I Shrunk the Kids playground already did that.
Tell you what... you invest that much money in a single area and a single theme and tell me that you aren't taking a chance on something. The common argument is that Pandora isn't based on a currently popular property. Potter was and still is. That wasn't a gamble. Pandora is a big time gamble.
 

Next Big Thing

Well-Known Member
I agree, the two Snow White rides wouldn't be as seamless as Alice in DL, which are literally right next to each other. I could see a new guest being very confused if they kept the dark ride. Not to mention, I didn't find the dark ride to be that great.

What I do wish is that they'd put a new dark ride in its place. It doesn't need to be a $100 million attraction either.
Completely agree
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
I clearly did not say such a thing.
I mean, it sure sounded like it . . .
Disney has got to be careful to make sure they reap all the profits they can get from their IP's. Some of their Fantasyland characters are in the public domain so it makes little sense for Disney to promote those properties.

A good example of this is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. All of these characters are in the public domain, except that the Seven Dwarfs are still under Disney copyright if the Disney names of the dwarfs are used. In the Brothers Grimm story the dwarfs did not have individual names.

Either way, there is no character in Fantasyland whose status in the Public Domain is an issue for Disney, and no need to "make sure they reap all the profits they can from their IP's". They're good.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom