Does Disney have an identity crisis with their parks?

[HansGruber]

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Beastly Kingdom was going to have attractions based on dragons and unicorns. There has been a dragon in the Animal Kingdom logo since the day it opened. There's been a YETI ride for over a decade. The entire marketing campaign when the park opened was about how it's not a zoo. Complain about Avatar all you want but there is absolutely nothing new or novel about the idea of fictional creatures at DAK.

But Beastly Kingdom didn't happen! So for roughly 19 years, the overwhelming majority of AK was based on living or extinct animals.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But Beastly Kingdom didn't happen! So for roughly 19 years, the overwhelming majority of AK was based on living or extinct animals.

Expedition: Everest was announced in 2003.

 

[HansGruber]

Expedition: Everest was announced in 2003.

Understood, that's why I wrote, "overwhelming majority".

 

[Amidala]

I agree with what many have already said on this thread. DHS and Epcot seem to have the least coherent themes at this point.

MK is a deliberate mix-and-match of different genres, and I think it would be more accurate to say that the theming of specific lands in MK has suffered. Tomorrowland definitely lacks cohesion, although I'm sure it will look very different in 2021 than it does now (still, I think Tomorrowland needs more than the Tron Coaster). But overall, to me, MK's theme can be preserved as long as new attractions are themed to fit the individual lands. The issue at MK is a lack of new attractions in general, and the fact that some of the older attractions could use a serious update, or even replacement.

DAK is personally my least favorite park, but undeniably has the strongest theming IMO. I don't care about Avatar in the least (I'm not even neutral on the movie, I actively disliked it), but I don't have an issue with Pandora @ DAK. I think a mythical land (with mythical flora and fauna to explore) was always in the cards for DAK, and just got put on the back burner for so long many forgot about it.

DHS is just a mess. I may be in the minority here, but the loss of the Hollywood/Backlot studio theming @ DHS is much more upsetting to me than the loss of Epcot Center. I loved the GMR, Studio Backlot Tour and Animators Academy, and I'll be gutted when the park loop of classic film scores (My Fair Lady, Sound of Music, etc.) is changed out for something more thematically appropriate. But I've made my peace with this, and I'm just hoping TDO can find a theme that works for DHS going forward...I'm excited for individual lands and attractions, but have a hard time understanding how a Mickey Mouse ride, the Star Wars and Toy Story lands, RnR and the old Hollywood feel of Sunset Boulevard and ToT will have anything to do with each other even in the loosest sense...

As for Epcot...World Showcase is fine as is, but I have no idea what's going on with Future World. I approach IPs on a case-by-case basis, but I'm not too thrilled about GOTG (although IMO, Universe of Energy had to go). It's very sad walking through FW and seeing unused or underutilized pavilions. Again, I'm absolutely willing to part with Epcot Center if TDO demonstrates that they have a new plan with a clear theme in mind...I'm not convinced yet that this is the case. I'm hoping there will be more Epcot announcements soon, since a new restaurant, upgrade to Mission Space and GOTG attraction doesn't seem like enough to fix this problem.

Obviously DHS is the worst off at this point, but at least we all know that will no longer be true by 2019...The same can't really be said for Epcot yet.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

But Beastly Kingdom didn't happen! So for roughly 19 years, the overwhelming majority of AK was based on living or extinct animals.

So what Beastly Kingdom didn't happen. AK always supposed to have fictional creatures outside of the Yeti. The nature of AK never was supposed to be mostly about living or extinct animals a first place. Disney and the imagineers always visioned AK as a park for living, extinct and fictional/mythical creatures.

Pandora does have a Mountain Banshee, a fictional creature. The Flight of passage as a simulation is supposed to the guest fly on a Mountain Bashee matter of fact. All Disney did is trying to go back to the fictional creature route of AK.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

MK, a somewhat "catch-all" or generally theme less park, so it's hard to critique. But, wouldn't Tron be better suited for Epcot (which lacks a roller coaster) or HS?

Tron actually is a great fit for tomorrowland. The reason Disney picked Tron is easy for MK. Disney wanted a thrill ride for MK, but something that wouldn't increase the crowds like Guardians of the Galaxy would've.

Tron wouldn't be a great pick for DHS. The problem is You are dealing I think Disney wants more Pixar outside of Toy Story Land, but at the same time Disney wants to see how the next Indiana Jones movie will do.

 

[Christian Fronckowiak]

But Beastly Kingdom didn't happen! So for roughly 19 years, the overwhelming majority of AK was based on living or extinct animals.

And that mistake is being corrected. The plaque dedicating the park has been there since opening day.

Tony Baxter had it down to three and four word phrases.
Disneyland/Magic Kingdom parks are "Magic made real."
EPCOT is "The Magic of Reality."
Disney-MGM was "The Reality of Magic."

His belief was that "we put Mickey everywhere" so that the IP being used was irrelevant. His example once they licensed Indiana Jones (after they turned down the Kentucky Buck idea) was that Indiana Jones Adventure exists in Disneyland because that's "Magic made real." The Epic Stunt Spectacular runs at Disney-MGM showing "the reality of magic" and showing you how movies are made. He then continued that EPCOT could do a National Geographic-like art exhibit with Indiana Jones, sort of like the Agent P Adventure. The same IP used differently, and appropriately, for different parks.

There, easy. Too bad that current management doesn't think this way.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The reason Disney picked Tron is easy for MK. Disney wanted a thrill ride for MK, but something that wouldn't increase the crowds like Guardians of the Galaxy would've.

Disney picked TRON because it's an attraction that has already been designed and tested at another Disney theme park, and copying it saves them money on research and development (same for Ratatouille). It has nothing to do with the popularity (or lack thereof) of TRON.

 

[HansGruber]

Tron actually is a great fit for tomorrowland. The reason Disney picked Tron is easy for MK. Disney wanted a thrill ride for MK, but something that wouldn't increase the crowds like Guardians of the Galaxy would've.

I don't understand. Disney doesn't want to increase crowds at MK?
MK already has multiple thrill rides, including 3 roller coasters....why do they need another roller coaster next to their most famous and popular roller coaster? MK already has more roller coasters than the other 3 parks combined.

I'm guessing the rider 'load factor'-to-'real estate' ratio was horrendous for Tomorrowland Speedway, thus the removal. But Disney would love for Tron to increase attendance WHILE simultaneously holding more riders in a queue.

 

[Amidala]

I don't understand. Disney doesn't want to increase crowds at MK?
MK already has multiple thrill rides, including 3 roller coasters....why do they need another roller coaster next to their most famous and popular roller coaster? MK already has more roller coasters than the other 3 parks combined.

I'm guessing the rider 'load factor'-to-'real estate' ratio was horrendous for Tomorrowland Speedway, thus the removal. But Disney would love for Tron to increase attendance WHILE simultaneously holding more riders in a queue.

I'm guessing what they mean here is that it wouldn't draw crowds away from Epcot and the currently near-empty DHS? But I'm not sure that really applies...MK is an outlier compared with the other parks. Guests usually hit up the castle park at the beginning and end of their vacation–it's rarely considered potentially "skippable" based on preference, as w/ Epcot/DHS/DAK.

I will say that Tron will be the first coaster at MK to offer guests thrills in the modern sense of the word. Space Mountain, Big Thunder and 7DMT are family coasters. Tron will likely attract a much different crowd if it's an exact clone of the Shanghai version, which hits 60mph and apparently has a launch reminiscent of RnR and California Screamin' in DCA. For me, the only ride in MK that has a thrill factor of any kind is Splash Mountain, and once you've ridden it multiple times, even the drop starts to feel fairly mild.

(And as far as I know, Tomorrowland Speedway isn't being removed? Tron will be on a new plot of land next to Space Mountain, behind the speedway.)

 

[wdwfan4ver]

I don't understand. Disney doesn't want to increase crowds at MK?
MK already has multiple thrill rides, including 3 roller coasters....why do they need another roller coaster next to their most famous and popular roller coaster? MK already has more roller coasters than the other 3 parks combined.

I'm guessing the rider 'load factor'-to-'real estate' ratio was horrendous for Tomorrowland Speedway, thus the removal. But Disney would love for Tron to increase attendance WHILE simultaneously holding more riders in a queue.

A first place Tron is going to location in an area that isn't part of an existing attraction and the speedway is staying. Since its WDW's 50th in 2021, Disney wants that park to have a true e-ticket. If you compare Tron to Guardians of the Galaxy, Tron is the weaker franchise and would draw less guess than Guardians although I personally don't like Guardians of the Galaxy in Epcot.

It is odd to explain this but, Disney wants to add capacity to MK without drawing more guests if possible. Disney tried this for New Fantasyland and explained why they didn't have a true E-ticket.

Disney is pushing that farther with the new theater announced at D23. What Disney wants is draw more guests to other parks, but at the same time they want MK to have more capacity for the busiest times of the year such as the holidays. Disney always has problems with MK during certain times of the year.

According to the 2016 theme park attendance numbers from the Themed National Entertainment that MK drew over 20.3 million guests. AK, Epcot, and DHS isn't close to those numbers. DHS needs more than Star Wars for getting closer to that. Epoct drew less than 12 million guests last year and that was WDW's 2nd highest attended park in 2016.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

Disney picked TRON because it's an attraction that has already been designed and tested at another Disney theme park, and copying it saves them money on research and development (same for Ratatouille). It has nothing to do with the popularity (or lack thereof) of TRON.

What you mentioned has nothing to do with why they pick Tron Coaster for MK instead of Epcot. You quoted me for a statement that I was referring to selected one theme park at WDW over another theme park at WDW.

What you said about costs for tron coaster can be said for putting into any Disney theme park after it opened in Shanghai.

 

[Beacon Joe]

I don't understand. Disney doesn't want to increase crowds at MK?

They do. Well, not crowds per se, but they do want increased volume in the park. They just want a more efficient distribution of guests throughout all spaces of the park. At least according to cased studies of of MyMagic+ I've read.

 

[_caleb]

It seems to me that the parks have all changed their identities a long time ago. Fans on these boards like to compare what IS to what WAS or what COULD BE. So we see the parks as "disjointed" and "lacking cohesion," but Disney's just tying to manage crowds (massive despite ticket hikes), PR (competition from Uni), and budget (for shareholders).

Of course, much of this is Disney's own fault. If you name a park "Hollywood Studios" and open it as a clear knockoff of Universal Studios and the same "moving making magic" premise, people are going to scratch their heads when you add anything non-movie related.

But all they're really doing is treating each park like the Magic Kingdom- a mixture of attractions, roughly organized into "lands" with increasing amounts of immersive theming. I know it's called "Animal Kingdom," but it's one of my favorites because of its immersive, realistic theming. But for the name, it could EASILY be considered the "cultures" park rather than the "animal" park, as it is so rich with cultural attitudes toward art, the environment, and other people.

All this to say that I don't really have a problem with the patchwork of identities and theming. I'm ok with IP integration. I just want it all to be done to Disney standards of quality and imagination.

 

[NickMaio]

Total identity crisis -
Starbucks on Main Street USA ????? We loved the old bakery.
Those crazy up sell tents in tomorrowland - such an eyesore
GOTG in Epcot???

It seems that Disney has intentions to up their IP's and cram them into anywhere they see fit - as opposed to theming and their environment.
Call me an old nerd but I really love edutainment - - Epcot was my hands down fav as a kid.
So much loss/change at that park

Perhaps its all part of a much bigger scope that us little people are not privy to - Maybe it will all make sense in 10 years?

 

[Club34]

I think people are getting caught between the lore/nostalgia of what the parks were first introduced or intended as and what time, changing attitudes, and economics are pressuring for. So does that make EPCOT not a world's fair or a community of tomorrow? Perhaps. I too said 'what the heck does GotG have to do with EPCOT'. But I thought that picture thing was clever and funny. The reality is, we cannot change or stop what's coming. We can discuss, give opinion, and perhaps write a letter or take a survey, if we're lucky. But the mouse is far from stupid. He will continue to maximize his audience in order to get the dollars. It pains me to say it, but nostalgia will always lose out to economics.

Having said all that, I think Disney has opportunities to give us new experiences with attractions and to get creative with story in order to build cohesion into the parks. Will be perfect? Heck no. They are working with an already formed product as well as against the public's nostalgia of what they think the parks/experiences should be. You will never satisfy everyone. But are there that many people who haven't applauded Disney's acquisition of their IP's over the past decade or so [Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel, etc]? Did we really think these wouldn't start finding their way into parks? I hate Frozen in Norway, yet I am very excited for Ratatouille in France. Am I crazy? Inconsistent? Maybe. That's just me. I am not right or wrong. Its just how I feel. GotG has an opportunity in EPCOT to tell a story about energy or the importance of energy along with giving a great attraction [that's assuming they will even keep an energy theme]. Will that story end up feeling forced? Wouldn't surprise me. But that's on Disney and their creativity. Is there anyone better for that challenge?

 

[_caleb]

They are working with an already formed product as well as against the public's nostalgia of what they think the parks/experiences should be.

This.
The clear trend is toward immersive theming and technology. I think this is a good thing, as it affords Disney the opportunity to flex their creative muscles. But the jumping-off points for these attractions won't be "blank slate" anymore, they'll be the valuable IPs that millions of people know and love. It seems to me that this is actually a good way to go- so much time money, and creative energy has gone into developing movies and shows that do a really effective job of telling stories and capturing consumer interest and imagination. Why not build on that with real-world attractions (rides, shows, etc.) that allow the user to enter into these stories?

I'm a HUGE fan of Imagineering, but when an attraction originates with them (not based on any existing IP), the entire story has to be told in the promotional materials, ride queue, ride scenes (and gift-shop!) with little to no background for the guest. As a result, you have rides with storylines known only to uberfans (see Big Thunder Mountain, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, etc.). If I were an Imagineer, I would appreciate the opportunity to build an attraction that "begins" telling its story in a movie theater long before a guest visits the park.

 

[Amidala]

I agree w/ a lot of what's already been said! I would rather see DHS and Epcot given coherent themes (whatever those themes may be) than with classic rides and areas left intact but gathering dust and beginning to feel more and more piecemeal. I'm as sad to see the vision for MGM go as others are to see the vision for Epcot Center go. I wish Future World in particular hadn't been left to rot in such a huge way, but it was and this is what TDO has to work with now. A complete overhaul for both parks really does feel necessary at this point.

 

[jimbojones]

Personally, I couldn't care less about the "identity" of the parks. They are either a fun place to be or they aren't. If a park has a bunch of fun attractions, that's all I need. It makes no difference to me if they are somehow related or not.

If that is the case then Disney is a very expensive way to do fun attractions. Disney's uniqueness IMHO is the identity of the park, they are theme parks after all. Hershey Park has more rides (with very short wait times) if all you want is rides that are not somehow related, and it is a heck of a lot cheaper than WDW. Take away the identity (theme) and its no longer a theme park it is just an amusement park, and it would be a pretty lame amusement park with a small number of rides at very high prices and three star level level hotels that charge five star level room rates. The identity is the "magic" that makes it special.

 

[KINGLOUIS1993]

EPCOT for sure lost its identity 15 years ago. That's gone.

Maybe the new EPCOT will start a new beginning and it might not all be bad.

DHS is a shambles and the closing of the GMR is just a travesty. An EPIC Star Wars land will help, but it still won't right all the wrongs.

I agree they got rid of the "Heart" first (Backlot tour) and then the "Soul" (TGMR). I really wonder what they will actually re-name/brand the park.