T.Will
Well-Known Member
While a little exaggerated, this better shows the scale from the guest view before the queue.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney plus Imagineering
- Thread starter blocker.shane
- Start date
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
In a really sad way, I feel like Expedition Everest is an Imagineering swansong. I honestly think its the last, non-IP thrill ride we will see... UNLESS new management down the line figures out that we want originality back in our attractions.
We would be fortunate to have it here on the west coast.
We would be fortunate to have it here on the west coast.
MK-fan
Well-Known Member
I know DCA, WD Studios Paris and Hong Kong got a lot of bad press for being half day parks which what Eisner was shooting for after Disneyland Paris but what about Disney MGM studios? the park was extremely small with only 6 attractions and Star Tours not opening for 8 months after opening. It was the epitomy of a half day park and the first one to do so.
el_super
Well-Known Member
I think Screamin' was a better ride than Everest. Preferred Screamin' to Incredicoaster, but still think Incredicoaster is better than Everest.
el_super
Well-Known Member
You're right. The norm was opening cheaper parks with intent to expand (going back to 1955). Paris was an anomaly, based on Staggs and Wells continually telling Eisner it would make so much money, justifing the huge expense. Eisner took the risk of spending lavishly on a Castle Park, and it ended up biting him badly.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
el_super
Well-Known Member
Yeah... I think the chain lift and the hold point for the reversing section(s) break up momentum and stalls the thrill. Not only is Incredicoaster longer, the music also adds to the thrill on Incredicoaster. I preferred Screamin, but I can ignore all the new props and get a pretty similar experience with Incredicoaster. Everest is good, but it seems pretty short and the lack of Yeti really kills it.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
To each his own I suppose.
flynnibus
Premium Member
There are differences...
1) MGM's light schedule early was due to the park being so rushed... and already being an expansion of a smaller concept. It was also in a resort with two other massive parks
2) MGM was still a full day of entertainment. It was just light on RIDES as attractions. This wasn't such an issue at the time but became more so as the show experiences became stale and people simply stopped wanting to see them. Thus, less options for them to do, more complaining from the repeat guests
3) MGM quickly was slated for expansion and got significant add-ons
4) MGM wasn't small due to being cheap.. where as some of these later parks were bare bones and cheaply done
el_super
Well-Known Member
The "Studio" Park concept is inherently cheaper by design. The question is, did they build a studio park because it was cheaper, or did they build a studio park for other reasons, and it being cheaper was just a happy coincidence.
Both DCA and WDSP have "Studio" elements as well, so either Disney was artistically committed to the design, or the financials played a part in the decision making.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
They wanted a Studio park to compete directly with Universal, whom they knew would be opening a park in Orlando too. Disney beat Universal by 13 months.
The park was designed in halfs. Half working studio that originally had very restricted guest access and the other a proper theme park. The "theme park" area was not done on the cheap. As the park became more popular and the studios' production shrank more backlot areas became accessible to guests, showing how they were not designed to look good "on stage" from every angle.
There was also the genuine belief that these parks would be sustainable, working studios, but as we know that didn't work out for either company. If anyone wants to know more about why this didn't happen, check out the Blu-ray release of Matinee from Shout! Factory, one of the few features made at Universal Studios Florida. Lots of talk about the difficulties of movie production in Orlando at the time.
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
I think studio 'theme' parks are flawed by design. While it's cool to build a park allowing guests to peak behind the curtain, building a whole park around the idea that what you're experiencing is fake creates a convoluted and confusing message to guests when the park inevitably moves away from that for individual attractions... as DSH is seeing with GE and USH is seeing with Harry Potter. It's why I find USH a superficial experience that only needs to be experienced once a decade, with my most recent visit being a year ago and leaving me with no desire to return in the near future.
Theme lands are richer when they work to supplement what came before, not contradict... which is why the whole west side of Disneyland is flawless until the transition to GE.
Theme lands are richer when they work to supplement what came before, not contradict... which is why the whole west side of Disneyland is flawless until the transition to GE.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
I've only been to USH once in my lifetime and yeah, I have no pressing needs to return anytime soon.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Technically I'd give that to honour to Hong Kong. Grizzly Gulch (2012) and Mystic Point (2013) were the last real things from that "era" of parks not being an arm of franchise integration. Toy Story play land aside, but that's more the fault of the government asking for a redesign on the third aspect of the project after the modus operandi had switched.
Everest was an Eisner project holdover and principle design would have occurred while he was CEO.
Hong Kong's project were largely developed early in Iger's tenure (2006-2008)-ish.
Simultaneously though would have been Lassiter's influence into the DCA redo with the gravitation towards unified IP lands with Radiator Springs. Something that was actually announced prior to Hogsmead!
After those would have been planned and budgeted do we see really see Iger's principles overtake the Shanghai Disneyland project. Circa 2009-2010 (when a lot of that project came together) brings us the snapshot in time mix of IP like Tron and live-action POTC.
By 2011 it was totally a lost cause. Hogsmead blew the doors open, reaffirming Iger's mandate in a big way. Staggs went on a fishing expedition for their Harry Potter. Radiator Springs also brought Disney some Potter-like success in 2012 and that's when it was all a lost cause.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Look at Disney's 2010/2011 release slate and look at all the things at SDL based in part or whole from them:
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland
Toy Story 3 [another Buzz ride]
Tangled
TRON: Legacy
Winnie the Pooh (2011)*
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
*there's nothing specific from this version of Pooh, but it was still a new franchise installment at the time
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
I like Shanghai and it's a weird mix of not our current IP du jour, making it weirdly charming again.
But nothing is more of a time capsule of IP than it.
You can see their last second scramble at the park opening. Throwing up temporary pavilions' for their Marvel, Frozen, Star Wars acquisitions. Plus an actually successful WDS IP like Zootopia rapid fire being used for marketing material.
Shanghai Disneyland would be literally unrecognizable if it were delayed by 5 years... except I'm sure Toy Story Playland would have still made the cut.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
God bless OLC for opening an attraction with a Black Cauldron climax a year after that movie bombed. 
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Oh, I forgot! We can count Shanghai's Adventure Isle as the dying breath.
The only IP is Tarzan (which I think the show closed?) and very subtle acknowledgement that the River Ride is technically in a theme park micro-universe with Indiana Jones and Twilight Zone. Something I feel like isn't very well known here.
The only IP is Tarzan (which I think the show closed?) and very subtle acknowledgement that the River Ride is technically in a theme park micro-universe with Indiana Jones and Twilight Zone. Something I feel like isn't very well known here.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Just no
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
I did not know that! What's the connection?