Disney to buy Marvel Entertainment

[jt04]

Still done under the "Disney" name, though. People psychologically link TS to Disney.

It's a weak excuse.


I already told you that I don't like Lucas in DL. MK Parks should be for Disney only. They are great attractions, yes. But do they fit in my eyes...No.

Blue Sky Disney did an excellent blog on this subject. Many purists still don't see Pixar as Disney but kids growing up with Pixar will always connect the two. Same thing will happen with Marvel in the long run.

I think Lucas fits because he is a Walt protege. I think he was even at Disneyland opening day.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Blue Sky Disney did an excellent blog on this subject. Many purists still don't see Pixar as Disney but kids growing up with Pixar will always connect the two. Same thing will happen with Marvel in the long run.

I think Lucas fits because he is a Walt protege. I think he was even at Disneyland opening day.

I see Pixar as Disney. I used to be a little more extreme on the subject, seeing it wasn't "original" Disney, but I've mellowed out.:lol:

I just see it as over used, and used in the wrong spots.

 

[EpcotServo]

Still done under the "Disney" name, though. People psychologically link TS to Disney.

It's a weak excuse.


I already told you that I don't like Lucas in DL. MK Parks should be for Disney only. They are great attractions, yes. But do they fit in my eyes...No.

They fit perfectly. In fact, the experiences from Indy, Star Tours, to Pixar, only makes Disneyland the diverse wonderful Walt Disney experience it is. While Magic Kingdom feels very stale and very...Un-Disney actually. Adventureland is like ten times bigger here, but ONE attraction makes the land feel more adventureous and ours look very small and lacking.

I know you theorize on negative aspects to parks you don't go too, but you HAVE to trust that everything becomes clear once you visit Disneyland. Disneyland is where everything makes sense and the world seems a much, much, happier place.

I know I did, so thank me when I tell you "Don't say anything you'll regret later."

Also, "Speak softly...And Carry a Big Stick"
:lol:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

They fit perfectly. In fact, the experiences from Indy, Star Tours, to Pixar, only makes Disneyland the diverse wonderful Walt Disney experience it is. While Magic Kingdom feels very stale and very...Un-Disney actually. Adventureland is like ten times bigger here, but ONE attraction makes the land feel more adventureous and ours look very small and lacking.

I know you theorize on negative aspects to parks you don't go too, but you HAVE to trust that everything becomes clear once you visit Disneyland. Disneyland is where everything makes sense and the world seems a much, much, happier place.

I know I did, so thank me when I tell you "Don't say anything you'll regret later."

Also, "Speak softly...And Carry a Big Stick"
:lol:

I'm not looking at it from that respect at all...

I'm just thinking that a MK park is a Disney Exclusive Park and outside influences kinda stick out in it. I don't like the IDEA of them being there. Factually, I think they are GREAT attractions and they do heighten the diversity and experience of the park.

It's more of a philosophical thought, than a "themeing" or a "park driven" thought. Relax... I already judge DL to be far better than our MK. I just need to see it. Badly.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I just don't understand why the MK parks worldwide (except for floridas because it has 3 parks next to it) are allowed to Pixar, Lucasfilm, Amblin, in them but NO marvel?

Is it that you don't understand, or you don't want to so you can keep making posts like this after the point has been explained?

I don't completely buy into it myself, but there is a logical consistency to saying that outside properties that have been released under the Disney umbrella (Toy Story, Roger Rabbit) are a better fit for Disney parks than properties that have never been released under the Disney name (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Iron Man).

Even if you don't agree with it, you do the whole discussion a disservice by just pretending the distinction doesn't exist because it muddies up the more simple argument you want to make.

 

[janoimagine]

No they did not. They were merely the distributor in fact they were so disappointed with Toy Story before its release they gave serious thought to severing the deal.

They were much more than the distrbutor, but I have made this point several pages back and do not feel the need to give you the run down again, do a little more homework. :wave:

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

I already told you that I don't like Lucas in DL. MK Parks should be for Disney only. They are great attractions, yes. But do they fit in my eyes...No.

You can't accurately judge that without having been there. You CANNOT. Sorry.

Indy fits in their Adventureland (and would fit in any Adventureland) much much better than Splash Mountain fits in our Frontierland, and certainly infinitely better than Stitch and Monsters in Tomorrowland. Indy, along with Jungle Cruise, defines Adventureland. You can't debate this, I'm sorry.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

You can't accurately judge that without having been there. You CANNOT. Sorry.

Indy fits in their Adventureland (and would fit in any Adventureland) much much better than Splash Mountain fits in our Frontierland, and certainly infinitely better than Stitch and Monsters in Tomorrowland. Indy, along with Jungle Cruise, defines Adventureland. You can't debate this, I'm sorry.

You didn't read my following post...:wave:


I said PHILOSOPHICALLY. Idealy, they don't fit in a MK. It's a Disney Exclusive setting, in a way. They do work, however, because they fit the theme perfectly. They do work, again, because they are superb attractions.

Marvel, on the other hand would feel like it's shoe-horned in.:shrug:

I'm not looking at it from that respect at all...

I'm just thinking that a MK park is a Disney Exclusive Park and outside influences kinda stick out in it. I don't like the IDEA of them being there. Factually, I think they are GREAT attractions and they do heighten the diversity and experience of the park.

It's more of a philosophical thought, than a "themeing" or a "park driven" thought. Relax... I already judge DL to be far better than our MK. I just need to see it. Badly.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

You didn't read my following post...:wave:


I said PHILOSOPHICALLY. Idealy, they don't fit in a MK. It's a Disney Exclusive setting, in a way. They do work, however, because they fit the theme perfectly. They do work, again, because they are superb attractions.

Marvel, on the other hand would feel like it's shoe-horned in.:shrug:

Sorry, you posted that while I was typing my post.

Think of it this way: if Indiana Jones had never existed as movies or any other form of franchise, the Indiana Jones Adventure could very easily come out verbatim from the brains of Tony Baxter or any of the other Imagineers. It is both an Adventureland ride with the Indy name on it, and an Indiana Jones ride that's in Adventureland. A perfect blending of the two, one aspect of it would not work without the other. That's why I am dead set against it in Hollywood Studios, because it would be much, much less of an experience with the loss of the Adventureland surrounding.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Sorry, you posted that while I was typing my post.

Think of it this way: if Indiana Jones had never existed as movies or any other form of franchise, the Indiana Jones Adventure could very easily come out verbatim from the brains of Tony Baxter or any of the other Imagineers. It is both an Adventureland ride with the Indy name on it, and an Indiana Jones ride that's in Adventureland. A perfect blending of the two, one aspect of it would not work without the other. That's why I am dead set against it in Hollywood Studios, because it would be much, much less of an experience with the loss of the Adventureland surrounding.

Ah yes, I agree and understand, now. Glad you do too.

And I wouldn't worry about it heading to DHS...:lol:

Then again, it could work well there...Just look at how ToT fits in. :shrug:

Oh, Servo will like that...:lol:

 

[The Conundrum]

You didn't read my following post...:wave:


I said PHILOSOPHICALLY. Idealy, they don't fit in a MK. It's a Disney Exclusive setting, in a way. They do work, however, because they fit the theme perfectly. They do work, again, because they are superb attractions.

Marvel, on the other hand would feel like it's shoe-horned in.:shrug:

You have no idea what your talking about. Your only saying these things because your not used to it and you have some strange bias towards comic books.

Just like I have seen WDW1974 and others telling Disney fanboys that "sorry Pixar IS disney now" I have a right to say sorry Marvel IS Disney now.

Disneyland does a beautiful job of tying all these various properties together and I look foward to adding some Marvel attractions to an already legendary pantheon of rides, shows and attractions.

Plus, you've never been on Spider-Man and have no idea how awsome it is so I can't expect you to know what your missing.

"Many Disney purists weren't happy with rides based on non-disney properties, charging that the Imagineers were getting lazy and unimaginative. Walt, they cried, wouldn't have rented the Muppets; he would have created his own charecters. "A lot of people tell me it's sacrilege, but I tell them if they want to get technical, Walt Disney died in 1966, so movies made after that really aren't Disney movies" Tony Baxter responds...."But we were commited that Disneyland be the place where the very best of American myths reside." - Mouse under glass, David Koenig

Think of it this way: if Indiana Jones had never existed as movies or any other form of franchise, the Indiana Jones Adventure could very easily come out verbatim from the brains of Tony Baxter or any of the other Imagineers. It is both an Adventureland ride with the Indy name on it, and an Indiana Jones ride that's in Adventureland. A perfect blending of the two, one aspect of it would not work without the other. That's why I am dead set against it in Hollywood Studios, because it would be much, much less of an experience with the loss of the Adventureland surrounding.

Star Tours also works better in Tomorrowland because of the whole spaceport feal of the land. At DHS, they intentionally make it look like your walking onto an old film set which takes away from the fantasy of the whole thing.

 

[EpcotServo]

Ah yes, I agree and understand, now. Glad you do too.

And I wouldn't worry about it heading to DHS...:lol:

Then again, it could work well there...Just look at how ToT fits in. :shrug:

Oh, Servo will like that...:lol:

It could work, but he's a billion times right on the Adventureland setting.

Indiana Jones Adventure at Kingdom + Epic at Studios = Ideal

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

You have no idea what your talking about. Your only saying these things because your not used to it and you have some strange bias towards comic books.

Just like I have seen WDW1974 and others telling Disney fanboys that "sorry Pixar IS disney now" I have a right to say sorry Marvel IS Disney now.

Disneyland does a beautiful job of tying all these various properties together and I look foward to adding some Marvel attractions to an already legendary pantheon of rides, shows and attractions.

Plus, you've never been on Spider-Man and have no idea how awsome it is so I can't expect you to know what your missing.

"Many Disney purists weren't happy with rides based on non-disney properties, charging that the Imagineers were getting lazy and unimaginative. Walt, they cried, wouldn't have rented the Muppets; he would have created his own charecters. "A lot of people tell me it's sacrilege, but I tell them if they want to get technical, Walt Disney died in 1966, so movies made after that really aren't Disney movies" Tony Baxter responds...."But we were commited that Disneyland be the place where the very best of American myths reside." - Mouse under glass, David Koenig



Star Tours also works better in Tomorrowland because of the whole spaceport feal of the land. At DHS, they intentionally make it look like your walking onto an old film set which takes away from the fantasy of the whole thing.

And you have a strange bias FOR comic books. So, you can't really say that.

And Pixar has always has the Disney values and ideals instilled in them since the beginning. Disney wouldn't have joined up with them, if not. Pixar has always been Disney. You can't make the same comparison at all. Disney BOUGHT Marvel, something that they had no interaction in, until now.

The rest of your post is semantics. Good semantics, at that. But still will be seen differently and by each perspective.:wave:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

It could work, but he's a billion times right on the Adventureland setting.

Indiana Jones Adventure at Kingdom + Epic at Studios = Ideal

Well, like I said, look at ToT. That fits well...why can't Indy go to Studios too?

Studios could use another E Tic like that.

 

[Figment632]

You didn't read my following post...:wave:


I said PHILOSOPHICALLY. Idealy, they don't fit in a MK. It's a Disney Exclusive setting, in a way. They do work, however, because they fit the theme perfectly. They do work, again, because they are superb attractions.

Marvel, on the other hand would feel like it's shoe-horned in.:shrug:

So does Winnie The Pooh not belong in MK?

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

Ah yes, I agree and understand, now. Glad you do too.

And I wouldn't worry about it heading to DHS...:lol:

Then again, it could work well there...Just look at how ToT fits in. :shrug:

Oh, Servo will like that...:lol:

Oh, believe me, I have no worry about IJA coming to Hollywood Studios. I have no illusions about any plans for the ride in Walt Disney World. I'm just saying, if it were to go to the Studios, like so many on these boards strangely seem to have a hankering for, it would be a horrifically diminished experience. A thousand times worse than Star Tours, too, I might add.

And saying that it could fit in Studios because of how well Tower of Terror does is like saying Tower could fit well in Disneyland because of how well Indy does. The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is pitch perfect for the Studios because of story, theming, and content as it relates to the rest of the park, not because it is an entertainment franchise. Really, the key phrase of the ride is 'Amid the glitz and the glitter of a bustling young movie town at the height of its golden age, The Hollywood Tower Hotel was a star in its own right, a beacon for the show biz elite,' not 'you are in The Twilight Zone.' There is a parallel between the two rides, though: Indy is to Adventureland/Disneyland as Tower is to Sunset Boulevard/Hollywood Studios. They serve as a kind of thematic anchor for their respective realms, both thoroughly grounding you in the reality of each area, and solidifying your belief of the land as an expansive area beyond what's actually physically there. Not so coincidentally, they also represent the pinnacle of themed design within each park. That is why they work so well, way beyond any strength their branding give them.

 

[ILLmaticS0ldier]

Oh, believe me, I have no worry about IJA coming to Hollywood Studios. I have no illusions about any plans for the ride in Walt Disney World. I'm just saying, if it were to go to the Studios, like so many on these boards strangely seem to have a hankering for, it would be a horrifically diminished experience. A thousand times worse than Star Tours, too, I might add.

And saying that it could fit in Studios because of how well Tower of Terror does is like saying Tower could fit well in Disneyland because of how well Indy does. The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is pitch perfect for the Studios because of story, theming, and content as it relates to the rest of the park, not because it is an entertainment franchise. Really, the key phrase of the ride is 'Amid the glitz and the glitter of a bustling young movie town at the height of its golden age, The Hollywood Tower Hotel was a star in its own right, a beacon for the show biz elite,' not 'you are in The Twilight Zone.' There is a parallel between the two rides, though: Indy is to Adventureland/Disneyland as Tower is to Sunset Boulevard/Hollywood Studios. They serve as a kind of thematic anchor for their respective realms, both thoroughly grounding you in the reality of each area, and solidifying your belief of the land as an expansive area beyond what's actually physically there. Not so coincidentally, they also represent the pinnacle of themed design within each park. That is why they work so well, way beyond any strength their branding give them.

I don't think the indy ride will ever go to Disney World because of DINOSAUR. Isn't that ride a clone of the indy ride just a diffrent setting?? I think disney would never put two rides based of the same technology in the same resort imo.:drevil:

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

I don't think the indy ride will ever go to Disney World because of DINOSAUR. Isn't that ride a clone of the indy ride just a diffrent setting?? I think disney would never put two rides based of the same technology in the same resort imo.:drevil:

That is one of the strong reasons why we won't get an exact clone of Indy, yes. Not necessarily because it's the same ride system, but beyond that it's the exact same track layout.

 

[imagineer boy]

Who cares if its the same layout? You can barely tell. If you had a person ride Indy and Dinosaur having never ridden them before and you told him that they had the same layout, he'd probably be shocked.

 

[Dinoman96]

Besides, don't we have like, what, four versions of Dumbo?