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

[Castle Cake Apologist]

Because they're proud not to use the ignore function?

I'm not gonna lie... in fifteen years of posting here, I've never put anybody on ignore. I do like being able to see all parts of the conversation.

HOWEVER, with that being said, he really makes me think twice about this personal policy. His trolling is so blatant that it's laughable at times.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm not gonna lie... in fifteen years of posting here, I've never put anybody on ignore. I do like being able to see all parts of the conversation.

HOWEVER, with that being said, he really makes me think twice about this personal policy. His trolling is so blatant that it's laughable at times.

Come to the happy place... we have cookies

 

[TeriofTerror]

Man, I swear I've said that out loud at least ten times reading through the last few pages of this thread. I really don't understand why people argue with him.

I have crappy self-control (I said, while pouring another glass of wine).

 

[TeriofTerror]

So when does the contract with TMC run up?
Also, is their a rumored closure date for this ride in its current state and also a rumored opening date of the updated Mickey attraction?

Darn; I looked this up a while ago, but can't remember what I found (did I mention the wine?). I'm thinking it could end November/December. But again, wine.

 

[Cesar R M]

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.

Agree, Disney is all buzz, zero real work lately in the states. At least they proved they can still do something good if they wanted (see pirates Shangai)

 

[Cesar R M]

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.

I'm pretty sure that the original concepts ideals are dead with Iger and Co.
They all want "synergy" to sell something else than just an attraction (aka, games, movies, toys)

 

[Cesar R M]

You don't understand the licensing agreements. Let me give you an example.

If I am running a day care center and I want to paint Mickey Mouse on my business front door, I need permission from Disney to do that. I will have to pay a licensing fee to Disney for the privilege of using Mickey and any of his friends on my business. Disney is extremely strict about the control and use of their IP.

As for the Seven Dwarfs, as long as I don't use the Disney names (i.e. Happy, Dopey, etc.) or use the Disney cartoon drawings of the dwarfs, then I can use either my own depictions of the dwarfs or the drawings from the Brothers Grimm.

For your information the clock is ticking on Mickey because his copyright is running out. That's the major reason why Mickey is the trademark of TWDC. As long as they use Mickey as a trademark he's protected.

And contrary to your assertion that "no character in Fantasyland whose status in the Public Domain is an issue for Disney", you have overlooked the fact that Disney has a huge legal department that spends a lot of time and money on protecting their IP. Here a recent article concerning "Disney's Snow White": http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nd-rights-as-snow-white-appears-at-wanda-park

And the clock is ticking on "Disney's Snow White" as well, as opposed to "Public Domain Snow White". The bottom line is that it's up to the courts to decide what is and is not copyright infringement. Disney IP is the heart and soul of the company which is the reason why they lobbied so hard to have The Mickey Mouse Protection Act passed by Congress.

Isnt Disney trying to claim Mickey is a national treasure to make the copyright and ownership of the character/story to last forever?
I remember it was news 3 or so years ago as they were lobbying various groups.

 

[Biff215]

So when does the contract with TMC run up?
Also, is their a rumored closure date for this ride in its current state and also a rumored opening date of the updated Mickey attraction?

Someone said contract ends in 2017 but it could be closed sooner.

 

[Cesar R M]

I have crappy self-control (I said, while pouring another glass of wine).

Just remember, dont try to do a drinking game based on this thread.

 

[doctornick]

So, when this idea was first brought up by @marni1971 it was presented that there was going to be an additional ride developed to open along with Star Wars to help with the additional crowds. But if all that is happening is one high capacity ride is being replaced with a different/new high capacity ride, it does absolutely nothing to solve any crowd control issues.

Do the folks who run the Parks division even understand anything about guest flow and managing that?

 

[RoysCabin]

I'm pretty sure that the original concepts ideals are dead with Iger and Co.
They all want "synergy" to sell something else than just an attraction (aka, games, movies, toys)

Sure seems that's where we're at nowadays, eh? Creatively, it's pretty disheartening.

More than that, it's pretty perplexing from a business point of view. I don't blame anybody who goes into a Disney theme park expecting to see some kind of Disney film/TV character presence, be it overt or subtle, but I do really wonder if the IP tie-ins draw in new crowds or do a lot to boost overall numbers. On individual attractions, sure, currently Frozen is drawing better than a neglected Maelstrom did, but is there going to be a rash of kids saying "we don't want to go to Disney World, I heard they only have a Frozen meet and greet and not a ride or fully themed land for it"? WDW already sells based on its theme park brand recognition and its history of positive customer relations, and the kids who are going to get on rides themed to the latest movies likely already have a t-shirt, or plushies, or whatever from said movies; some synergy is entirely understandable, and some rides or attractions based on those films is perfectly reasonable, but to make it your exclusive strategy? What, will a lack of a Frozen ride in EPCOT lead to Frozen 2 underperforming in theaters? Meantime, history has borne out that original theme park ideas can lead to lucrative new IPs for the company to make bank on: Pirates is obviously the biggest, but they're still interested in trying again with Mansion (is the del Toro film still on track at all?), Jungle Cruise is coming, and on a smaller scale Imagination has led to a pretty solidly successful comic series for Marvel. It's building a new revenue stream rather than relying on one that's likely already tapped or potentially maximized.

I guess that's what at the heart of the confusion over the perplexing decision here to gut GMR for Mickey, rather than adding a Mickey attraction into what's really at the moment a very barren park. Deep down there isn't much reason, at least currently, to gut GMR; it takes in a ton of people, it's a well done attraction (though it could definitely use some TLC), its an old favorite for multiple generations of park goers, plus the sheer fact that Studios needs as many attractions as it can muster right now.

Yet rather than do what many of us think makes sense, adding Mickey to the animation area and maybe theming that whole part of the park around that ride, we have to take an old favorite and bring in the synergistic characters? I'm perfectly happy with the idea of a Mickey ride, especially if it can have some theming from the current online cartoons they've been doing the past couple of years, but why the desperate rush to put it in the park at the expense of GMR, the park's thesis statement ride? Is there a fear that people are walking out of WDW vacations saying "it was nice, but not enough Mickey, I won't be coming back"? What's with the seeming desperation, here?

 

[Haymarket2008]

@marni1971 I had read somewhere that there may be a second attraction built within the confines of the Great Movie Ride show building. Alongside the Mickey attraction. Is that what you referenced when you said there was a "chapter two" to this story?

 

[marni1971]

So, when this idea was first brought up by @marni1971 it was presented that there was going to be an additional ride developed to open along with Star Wars to help with the additional crowds. But if all that is happening is one high capacity ride is being replaced with a different/new high capacity ride, it does absolutely nothing to solve any crowd control issues.

Do the folks who run the Parks division even understand anything about guest flow and managing that?

So far the whole DHS project is managing to move numbers around, not increase them.

 

[marni1971]

@marni1971 I had read somewhere that there may be a second attraction built within the confines of the Great Movie Ride show building?

Not from what I know.

 

[discos]

I quite seriously forgot what thread I was in and what I was hoping to find out in reading these last 2 pages.

just before i got to this post I was thinking the same thing

 

[Scrungo]

Maybe they can move the Xenomorph into Stitch's Great Escape.

 

[huwar18]

So far the whole DHS project is managing to move numbers around, not increase them

So they are not expecting to increase attendance? Or do you mean spread out crowds from other parks? That does not make sense to me. I see a bunch of people booking trips during this time and all flocking to Hollywood Studios.

 

[Seabasealpha1]

If they close this one up too soon, they might as well shut the whole thing down...no point in charging people a hundred bucks to walk around a construction zone...

 

[Bocabear]

If they close this one up too soon, they might as well shut the whole thing down...no point in charging people a hundred bucks to walk around a construction zone...

It seems like that would have been the best idea...just close the whole park for one year and re-introduce it in it's new form when all construction is complete...that would be amazing and really be an exciting new reason to visit... versus 3+ years of construction walls and (if they close TGM), a ride count down to 4... That would be really super pathetic... a new low

 

[CanadianGordon]

The problem I believe if they had just decided to close the park temporarily, while they could have fast tracked the work better, we might have lost out on TOT and Muppetvision as well as a few others that might have been on the chopping block. Since they needed some rides to be open that "ate" people I think we lucked out.
Also the whole not allowed to do Marvel stuff at WDW helps immensely. And you know what? I don't want duplicate rides and experiences. I want unique reasons to VISIT other parks when I go on vacation. Give me a reason to go to Shanghai, and Disneyland, and Hong Kong and Paris. I don't want to go for familiarity I want to see something NEW.
As depressing as the state of the park is, I'm happy they're keeping it open. It's keeping some good rides running.