Disney Playing catch up with Universal... Potter Disney's biggest mistake in 20 years...

[cw1982]

Yes. I want to snort...I want to snort big time! I want a nice big snort of some SERIOUS E-Ticket!

Agreed... but the post I'm quoted in there isn't mine. I'd love to take credit, but that would be tacky

 

[rioriz]

I know exactly what you're talking about but Universal has upped its game big time with Diagon Alley. It is without a doubt the most immersive theme park land I've ever been in.

And I wholeheartedly agree it is as a land! Cant wait to see it!

 

[WDWDad13]

The problem is that the pixie dust princesses take a simple compliment about Uni as a negative comment about WDW And Wdwdad13's agenda is quite obvious. He made many remarks (as noted by @lazyboy97o ) about DA and waited for someone to say something so he could make his, "people say negative things about Disney so why I can't I bash Uni" argument. It started with this:

then he says other stuff like "how's the Kool aid? " and when people call him on it he back peddles into "I was just making an observation" and has the nerve to call other people trolls. Then as usual he becomes "the victim" in all of this because "everybody is picking on him". That's really all that happened here today.

My agenda is quite obvious? Please enlighten us as I'm curious what my agenda is.

 

[Californian Elitist]

All of this will be in the past once Uni opens their new HP land in Hollywood and the focus shifts to DLR and CA where they will have to figure out a way to fold matter or bend space to squeeze something in. If I were local to SoCal, I don't think I'd have to think twice about which park to spend my money at once that new castle is open for business.

Disneyland does have to squeeze or fold anything in. There's space for a new attraction. But you're right, USH will be more exciting in 2016 when Potter opens. Even better, next year in 2015 will be exciting once Springfield and the new nighttime version of the studio tour opens. With that being said, I'm looking forward as well to the new offerings next year at the DLR, even if it's not a new ride. I'm patiently waiting until July 17th, when everything will be announced for next year's celebration.

I'm not looking forward to the crowds for Potter...it's a good thing I work for Universal and will get to see everything before the general public does. Hehe.

 

[TubaGeek]

The problem is that the pixie dust princesses take a simple compliment about Uni as a negative comment about WDW And Wdwdad13's agenda is quite obvious. He made many remarks (as noted by @lazyboy97o ) about DA and waited for someone to say something so he could make his, "people say negative things about Disney so why I can't I bash Uni" argument. It started with this:

then he says other stuff like "how's the Kool aid? " and when people call him on it he back peddles into "I was just making an observation" and has the nerve to call other people trolls. Then as usual he becomes "the victim" in all of this because "everybody is picking on him". That's really all that happened here today.

My agenda is quite obvious? Please enlighten us as I'm curious what my agenda is.

Or, if I may be so bold, let's NOT feed this troll. It'll be hard, but if we collectively ignore him, he'll lose interest and hopefully go away.
Ready... GO.

 

[Tony Perkis]

Disneyland does have to squeeze or fold anything in. There's space for a new attraction. But you're right, USH will be more exciting in 2016 when Potter opens. Even better, next year in 2015 will be exciting once Springfield and the new nighttime version of the studio tour opens. With that being said, I'm looking forward as well to the new offerings next year at the DLR, even if it's not a new ride. I'm patiently waiting until July 17th, when everything will be announced for next year's celebration.

I'm not looking forward to the crowds for Potter...it's a good thing I work for Universal and will get to see everything before the general public does. Hehe.

Weren't there rumors a year or so ago regarding Disneyland maybe folding Autopia and Finding Nemo for space?

 

[WDWDad13]

Or, if I may be so bold, let's NOT feed this troll. It'll be hard, but if we collectively ignore him, he'll lose interest and hopefully go away.
Ready... GO.

So you all have your own agenda to chase away those who actually see SOME good with WDW and not EVERYTHING perfect with Uni?

 

[TubaGeek]

Weren't there rumors a year or so ago regarding Disneyland maybe folding Autopia and Finding Nemo for space?

The 20K plot has been threatened for years, but I think it's safe now that it's in the hands of a strong IP.
Autopia, however... I know that DL's is better than MK's, but I still can't imagine it's worth the valuable real estate that it sits on!

 

[The Empress Lilly]

it's not pathetic... it's the truth. I'm not bashing what they have created... all I am saying is that street is going to be massively crowded with no where to walk and you are surrounded entirely by tall, dull alley-way type buildings on either side.
I hope no one is claustrophobic

I actually think you make some good points. Alleys are the backside of buildings, drab and dull. Claustrophobic and nasty. Rowling's London harkens back to the imagery of Dickens and Conan Doyle here. Always a master of utilising established imagery. Her backalley London is the one of Jack the Ripper, dangerous, filthy, misty (the perennial smog of industrial era Britain that covered London like a black blanket).

It is a great setting for a book and movie. But is it also great for a build themed environment? Why would one want to visit an ugly surrounding? In many ways, Diagon Alley is the anthithesis of classic Disney imagineering. Not beauty, but ugliness. Not the architecture of reassurance, but of unsettling, dangerous disturbance. Perhaps a natural further development of the direction WDI itself moved into in the nineties, when the ugly backsides and underbellies came to be regarded as the most interesting areas for themed environments, probably as a reaction to the reassurance architecture of old, and because it was deemed to hold intrinsic storytelling appeal for evoking tense, dangerous feelings by default. ToT descends into the ugly industrial boiler room, RnRC takes you to the backalleys, DAK has 'authentic' warts and all as its theme, in contrast to the photoshopped version of distant lands in World Showcase.

The culmination is Diagon Alley. Whereas New Orleans Square shows the gorgeous side of New Orleans, DA shows the gritty side of London. A side that is at best dull, at worst ugly, claustrophobic, dangerous. Tall, inleaning buildings to instill fear, as opposed to the miniature forced perspective quaintness of Main Street. Dark colours, not a single trace of organic manner, versus the exorbitantly colourful areas of classic Disney, always full of flowers and greenery.
It is a far cry from the beauty and reassurance of classic Disney. Albeit mitigated by being the somewhat innocent Harry Potter version of backside London.

DA stands in stark contrast to its near exact contemporary, Ratatouille in WDSP. Which depicts not London but Paris, and does so with the wide open plaza instead of the narrow, dangerous, dull backalleys, the pretty front instead of the gritty backside. The front of houses literally show the façade instead of the grim reality behind. But personally I prefer them for a theme park for that precise reason - why should the fantasy version of reality exaggerate ugliness? Why not, if for once one does have the ability to augment reality, not exaggerate beauty instead?

 

[dstrawn9889]

 

[BaconPancakes]

The comments and gif's in this thread are cracking me up tonight. Thanks for the entertainment guys.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Weren't there rumors a year or so ago regarding Disneyland maybe folding Autopia and Finding Nemo for space?

Yes. Nemo is staying, at least for now. Nothing in regards to Autopia has been announced yet.

 

[TubaGeek]

I actually think you make some good points. Alleys are the backside of buildings, drab and dull. Claustrophobic and nasty. Rowling's London harkens back to the imagery of Dickens and Conan Doyle here. Always a master of utilising established imagery. Her backalley London is the one of Jack the Ripper, dangerous, filthy, misty (the perennial smog of industrial era Britain that covered London like a black blanket).

It is a great setting for a book and movie. But is it also great for a build themed environment? Why would one want to visit an ugly surrounding? In many ways, Diagon Alley is the anthithesis of classic Disney imagineering. Not beauty, but ugliness. Not the architecture of reassurance, but of unsettling, dangerous disturbance. Perhaps a natural further development of the direction WDI itself moved into in the nineties, when the ugly backsides and underbellies came to be regarded as the most interesting areas for themed environments, probably as a reaction to the reassurance architecture of old, and because it was deemed to hold intrinsic storytelling appeal for evoking tense, dangerous feelings by default. ToT descends into the ugly industrial boiler room, RnRC takes you to the backalleys, DAK has 'authentic' warts and all as its theme, in contrast to the photoshopped version of distant lands in World Showcase.

The culmination is Diagon Alley. Whereas New Orleans Square shows the gorgeous side of New Orleans, DA shows the gritty side of London. A side that is at best dull, at worst ugly, claustrophobic, dangerous. Tall, inleaning buildings to instill fear, as opposed to the miniature forced perspective quaintness of Main Street. Dark colours, not a single trace of organic manner, versus the exorbitantly colourful areas of classic Disney, always full of flowers and greenery.
It is a far cry from the beauty and reassurance of classic Disney. Albeit mitigated by being the somewhat innocent Harry Potter version of backside London.

DA stands in stark contrast to its near exact contemporary, Ratatouille in WDSP. Which depicts not London but Paris, and does so with the wide open plaza instead of the narrow, dangerous, dull backalleys, the pretty front instead of the gritty backside. The front of houses literally show the façade instead of the grim reality behind. But personally I prefer them for a theme park for that precise reason - why should the fantasy version of reality exaggerate ugliness? Why not, if for once one does have the ability to augment reality, not exaggerate beauty instead?

 

[Tony Perkis]

Yes. Nemo is staying, at least for now. Nothing in regards to Autopia has been announced yet.

Shame. Both are kind of a waste.

 

[BaconPancakes]

who Dat?

Former Disney girl, Demi Lovato.

 

[AEfx]

It is a great setting for a book and movie. But is it also great for a build themed environment? Why would one want to visit an ugly surrounding? In many ways, Diagon Alley is the anthithesis of classic Disney imagineering. Not beauty, but ugliness. Not the architecture of reassurance, but of unsettling, dangerous disturbance.

Which is precisely why it's so popular and attractive to folks. And why the greater public views even the word "Disney" as synonymous with "homogenized".

While I love Classic Disney - it's not the only type of experience most folks want. Disney has resisted or undone anything "edgy" they ever have tried - which some may be grateful for, but it's insistence on doing such is why they can't compete with Universal attractions now that Universal is pushing the envelope.

I'm really glad that Universal got Potter - Disney would have never dared doing actual scares that get close to you. It's the next level - there will always be a place for the small-child oriented stuff (what folks often call "family", even though there are more families without small children than with), but it ignores the rest of the market, and the fact that eventually, those kids grow up.

That's the exact crux of the entire Disney issue right now - they are riding on nothing but nostalgia and milking the same folks over and over instead of being new, innovative, and taking risks by stepping outside that narrow box a bit. Why do you think folks salivate over the various villains rides/attractions that have been rumored but never been. Because folks grow up and there is a place for slightly more mature entertainment - it's no longer 1955 and there is a much broader audience out there that Disney entirely ignores, that Universal is capitalizing on now in spades.

Disney better the hell figure this out before they tackle Star Wars in the parks - because if it's not dirty, dusty, and dingy it ain't Star Wars.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I actually think you make some good points. Alleys are the backside of buildings, drab and dull. Claustrophobic and nasty. Rowling's London harkens back to the imagery of Dickens and Conan Doyle here. Always a master of utilising established imagery. Her backalley London is the one of Jack the Ripper, dangerous, filthy, misty (the perennial smog of industrial era Britain that covered London like a black blanket).

It is a great setting for a book and movie. But is it also great for a build themed environment? Why would one want to visit an ugly surrounding? In many ways, Diagon Alley is the anthithesis of classic Disney imagineering. Not beauty, but ugliness. Not the architecture of reassurance, but of unsettling, dangerous disturbance. Perhaps a natural further development of the direction WDI itself moved into in the nineties, when the ugly backsides and underbellies came to be regarded as the most interesting areas for themed environments, probably as a reaction to the reassurance architecture of old, and because it was deemed to hold intrinsic storytelling appeal for evoking tense, dangerous feelings by default. ToT descends into the ugly industrial boiler room, RnRC takes you to the backalleys, DAK has 'authentic' warts and all as its theme, in contrast to the photoshopped version of distant lands in World Showcase.

The culmination is Diagon Alley. Whereas New Orleans Square shows the gorgeous side of New Orleans, DA shows the gritty side of London. A side that is at best dull, at worst ugly, claustrophobic, dangerous. Tall, inleaning buildings to instill fear, as opposed to the miniature forced perspective quaintness of Main Street. Dark colours, not a single trace of organic manner, versus the exorbitantly colourful areas of classic Disney, always full of flowers and greenery.
It is a far cry from the beauty and reassurance of classic Disney. Albeit mitigated by being the somewhat innocent Harry Potter version of backside London.

DA stands in stark contrast to its near exact contemporary, Ratatouille in WDSP. Which depicts not London but Paris, and does so with the wide open plaza instead of the narrow, dangerous, dull backalleys, the pretty front instead of the gritty backside. The front of houses literally show the façade instead of the grim reality behind. But personally I prefer them for a theme park for that precise reason - why should the fantasy version of reality exaggerate ugliness? Why not, if for once one does have the ability to augment reality, not exaggerate beauty instead?

In many ways the acceptance of the aged and dirty was sparked by Main Street, USA as it taught so many to appreciate the old and not just cast it aside with the latest. But part of that lesson was the proliferation of poor imitations, with many strip malls, shopping centers and subdivisions still seeking to emulate the image of Main Street, USA. Postmodernism, philosophically and architecturally, became too self aware but its response, deconstruction, questions the very concepts of theme, thus making it wholly inappropriate for a theme park. Unable to abandon its very nature and faced with the realities of self awareness, themed entertainment is now ever constantly challenged to provide more and more "authenticity."

 

[Tony Perkis]

View attachment 58542

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

I've said it before.

/meme

 

[Californian Elitist]

Shame. Both are kind of a waste.

I actually really love Autopia. I don't want it to go away. It just needs an update. It does take up a ton of space, though.

 

[Mike S]

I actually think you make some good points. Alleys are the backside of buildings, drab and dull. Claustrophobic and nasty. Rowling's London harkens back to the imagery of Dickens and Conan Doyle here. Always a master of utilising established imagery. Her backalley London is the one of Jack the Ripper, dangerous, filthy, misty (the perennial smog of industrial era Britain that covered London like a black blanket).

It is a great setting for a book and movie. But is it also great for a build themed environment? Why would one want to visit an ugly surrounding? In many ways, Diagon Alley is the anthithesis of classic Disney imagineering. Not beauty, but ugliness. Not the architecture of reassurance, but of unsettling, dangerous disturbance. Perhaps a natural further development of the direction WDI itself moved into in the nineties, when the ugly backsides and underbellies came to be regarded as the most interesting areas for themed environments, probably as a reaction to the reassurance architecture of old, and because it was deemed to hold intrinsic storytelling appeal for evoking tense, dangerous feelings by default. ToT descends into the ugly industrial boiler room, RnRC takes you to the backalleys, DAK has 'authentic' warts and all as its theme, in contrast to the photoshopped version of distant lands in World Showcase.

The culmination is Diagon Alley. Whereas New Orleans Square shows the gorgeous side of New Orleans, DA shows the gritty side of London. A side that is at best dull, at worst ugly, claustrophobic, dangerous. Tall, inleaning buildings to instill fear, as opposed to the miniature forced perspective quaintness of Main Street. Dark colours, not a single trace of organic manner, versus the exorbitantly colourful areas of classic Disney, always full of flowers and greenery.
It is a far cry from the beauty and reassurance of classic Disney. Albeit mitigated by being the somewhat innocent Harry Potter version of backside London.

DA stands in stark contrast to its near exact contemporary, Ratatouille in WDSP. Which depicts not London but Paris, and does so with the wide open plaza instead of the narrow, dangerous, dull backalleys, the pretty front instead of the gritty backside. The front of houses literally show the façade instead of the grim reality behind. But personally I prefer them for a theme park for that precise reason - why should the fantasy version of reality exaggerate ugliness? Why not, if for once one does have the ability to augment reality, not exaggerate beauty instead?

Funny, I would list those exact same reasons as why it is such a winner. It is just so different from everything else. Universal wasn't afraid to create Diagon Alley and even Knockturn Alley exactly as they should be. Don't even get me started on all the little details from the sounds of a train passing overhead to all the animatronics littered around.

(Absolutely love this little guy, adds so much to the magical menagerie).

Now we get to the Dragon. At first I was skeptical about it but now I can't imagine the area without it. It really does act as an amazing "weenie" that draws you in.

Universal hit an incredible home run right into the parking lot smashing Disney's windshield. They're not even done expanding yet, with even more to come.