Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks

[Slowjack]

I don't see Marvel as any different than Pixar - an acquisition that Disney made that is now part of the "family".

The Marvel deal is a lot different from Pixar. Pixar's films target the same audience as Disney feature animation, while Marvel was presumably purchased to target a different demographic (which may turn into a problem). Also, Pixar's films were, from the start, released by Disney. Pixar characters never had an identity entirely separate from Disney. This is pretty new territory for Disney. The closest analogy might be Winnie-the-Pooh and Peter Pan, characters and stories that were popular before Disney gobbled them up, but even then, Disney made new versions, and it was the Disney versions that were incorporated into the parks and such.

 

[wedenterprises]

Agree. Put all of the miscellany in the DHS and don't pollute the family aspect of the MK. It's too bad that WDA has nothing recent to put in the attraction pipeline then you could justify putting Pixar elsewhere. Other then marketing tie ins, with "Princess and the Frog" or "Tangled" (live stuff), there is little that can be a permanent part of the DL legacy.

Long time listener, first time caller.


I think they need to be careful with DHS and make sure that it doesn't become a dumping ground for concepts that don't fit anywhere else.

Right now there is a tug of war at DHS between 3 concepts: 1. Hollywood as a real place, a Celebration of the movies. 2. Where movies are being made. Both a real working studio and a theme of "in production" with facades and behind the scenes attractions. 3. a new concept has arisen which is "if it's been in a movie, slap it into DHS".

cat. 1. You have the first half of the park, Hollywood Blvd and Sunset Blvd. Tower of Terror and RnR are real places. Great Movie ride is a celebration of the movies.

cat. 2. New York Street, Indiana Jones, Backstage Tour, Animation building, Car stunt show, muppets.

cat. 3. Star Tours, Toy Story, Mermaid.


Now the rumors we are hearing fall greatly into category 3. That would be a Monsters Inc coaster, a Radiator Springs ride, an expanded Indy/Star Wars area and now the thought of Marvel being "plopped" in.

DHS needs to find a focus. Toy Story Mania really opened up this third category which Star Tours had established. The story of TSMM does not fit. It fits with Paradise Pier, but not DHS. Star Tours fits with Disneyland's Tomorrowland, but not DHS. I wish Disney at least tried to change the storylines.

I think DHS needs to focus on the first 2 categories because it's more magical. And Disney does magic better than anyone. It's in their best interest to make DHS unique to Universal.

If Marvel needs to fit in to the parks then DHS makes the most sense, I agree, but let's make sure that we are approaching any potential attraction in the right context. How about a stunt show where bad guys start to take over and then the super heros save the day. How about a new sound show about special audio effects based on the Iron Man franchise? How about a digital effects show, showcasing how CGI and compositing is being used these days based on whatever Marvel franchise is popular.

The idea of a Stark Expo fits better into DHS as well, as a really-for-real place in Hollywood (category 1) where you come face to face with Iron Man when things go drastically wrong. Timelines get skewed (modern Stark vs. old world hollywood) but that has been established with RnR. Maybe the Stark expo could take place in a famous hollywood building, or a version of the LA Coliseum or Rose Bowl.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Long time listener, first time caller.


I think they need to be careful with DHS and make sure that it doesn't become a dumping ground for concepts that don't fit anywhere else.

Agree. I think the way to deal with that is to segregate the franchises into themed areas (marvel backlot, etc) to avoid clutter as was said earlier. The alternative is that the MK becomes the dumping ground. One way to look at this is from the guest perspective. Where would you as a guest intuitively EXPECT to find an Iron Man ride?

 

[ChrisFL]

Agree. I think the way to deal with that is to segregate the franchises into themed areas (marvel backlot, etc) to avoid clutter as was said earlier. The alternative is that the MK becomes the dumping ground. One way to look at this is from the guest perspective. Where would you as a guest intuitively EXPECT to find an Iron Man ride?

Universal Studios

 

[redshoesrock]

Universal Studios

HEYYYYYY-OOOOO!!

But seriously, yes anything Marvel should be in Hollywood Studios. I tend to think of DHS as sort of the "adult" Magic Kingdom, the attractions are a little more topical and/or intense, both of which can define Marvel. MK, on the other hand, has become the epitome of "Classic Disney". Regardless of how you choose to define "Classic Disney", to me if you're going to add an attraction to MK it better be over 100% obvious it belongs in MK. And Marvel doesn't fit the bill.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Universal Studios

Good one!

 

[RSoxNo1]

Agree. I think the way to deal with that is to segregate the franchises into themed areas (marvel backlot, etc) to avoid clutter as was said earlier. The alternative is that the MK becomes the dumping ground. One way to look at this is from the guest perspective. Where would you as a guest intuitively EXPECT to find an Iron Man ride?

I look at the Iron Man Franchise the same way as I look at Tron. I could hear a reasonable argument for either franchise to be placed in MK, DHS or Epcot.

 

[flavious27]

Agree. I think the way to deal with that is to segregate the franchises into themed areas (marvel backlot, etc) to avoid clutter as was said earlier. The alternative is that the MK becomes the dumping ground. One way to look at this is from the guest perspective. Where would you as a guest intuitively EXPECT to find an Iron Man ride?

A themed land in a 5th gate?

 

[flavious27]

I look at the Iron Man Franchise the same way as I look at Tron. I could hear a reasonable argument for either franchise to be placed in MK, DHS or Epcot.

Tron makes more sense in the current gates, there isn't the land and right theming to add a marvel land.

 

[wizards8507]

Where would you as a guest intuitively EXPECT to find an Iron Man ride?

Tomorrowland
FutureWorld
Backlot area
Camp Minnie-Mickey

:lookaroun

 

[Missing20K]

Agree. I think the way to deal with that is to segregate the franchises into themed areas (marvel backlot, etc) to avoid clutter as was said earlier. The alternative is that the MK becomes the dumping ground. One way to look at this is from the guest perspective. Where would you as a guest intuitively EXPECT to find an Iron Man ride?

That could be dependent on the type of attraction. Stunt show or dark ride, DHS. Stark expo-type exhibit, Epcot. Meet and Greet, stick it anywhere.

About the idea of segregating the franchises into themed areas, I wonder how one might avoid visual intrusions? Anyone have any ideas on how one might resolve the transitions between the themed lands, and not end up with an Islands of Adventure style park? One in which the transistions are far more abrupt and jarring than most anything in a Disney park, not too mention lacking much of a cohesive theme other than "adventure." Seems difficult to me, though I'm no professional (cough, Eddie, cough). :animwink:

 

[Disneyparksgeek]

^Even though I have never been to Islands of Adventure, the only other theme I see that links all the themes together is literature, or some form of it. Each is themed on something you would read, examples :Jurassic Park (novel), Toon Lagoon (comic strips), Marvel Island (graphic novels), Harry Potter (book series), Seuss Lagoon (children's books) Lost Continent (fairy tales/myths). Other than that extremely loose cohesive theme, I don't see any other besides the one you mentioned.

 

[flavious27]

That could be dependent on the type of attraction. Stunt show or dark ride, DHS. Stark expo-type exhibit, Epcot. Meet and Greet, stick it anywhere.

About the idea of segregating the franchises into themed areas, I wonder how one might avoid visual intrusions? Anyone have any ideas on how one might resolve the transitions between the themed lands, and not end up with an Islands of Adventure style park? One in which the transistions are far more abrupt and jarring than most anything in a Disney park, not too mention lacking much of a cohesive theme other than "adventure." Seems difficult to me, though I'm no professional (cough, Eddie, cough). :animwink:

Agreed, I see any lands that are placed near each other need to have some kind of element that threads through them as guests walk through the story. FantasyL into LS works in the way it is done, the same with LS into FrontierL. If there is a marvel land next to say a lotr land, it would make sense that x mansion is the last part of marvel land before the transition to the shire.

 

[RandySavage]

^Even though I have never been to Islands of Adventure, the only other theme I see that links all the themes together is literature, or some form of it. Each is themed on something you would read, examples :Jurassic Park (novel), Toon Lagoon (comic strips), Marvel Island (graphic novels), Harry Potter (book series), Seuss Lagoon (children's books) Lost Continent (fairy tales/myths). Other than that extremely loose cohesive theme, I don't see any other besides the one you mentioned.

I think an overarching theme for a park that links its component lands together can work well (Animal Kingdom, DisneySea), but I don't think it's a necessary condition for a great park.

I would argue that Disneyland has an extremely loose overarching theme (Yesterday, Tomorrow, Fantasy - virtually anything could fit under those banners, particularly the last one), as much so as IOA (Adventure).

Parks don't require a tight, overarching theme to be great - just great design. I don't think the designers of IOA went into creating that park with the constraint of "we're building a park based on things you read." (Jurassic Park, Harry Potter being based on the filmic worlds, Lost Continent and Port of Entry having nothing to do with specific works of literature). Yes, the land-to-land transitions are done better at some of the very top tier parks - but that is the result of more artful design rather than one park having a cohesive overall theme and one not, IMO.

Franchise-Collections seems to be the current trend in park design. The most recent major park - Universal Singapore - follows the IOA model more so than the Studios one (e.g., Egypt-land, not a movie set), as do many of the currently proposed majors (Universal Korea, Paramount Movie World Korea, etc.)

 

[AEfx]

The Marvel deal is a lot different from Pixar. Pixar's films target the same audience as Disney feature animation, while Marvel was presumably purchased to target a different demographic (which may turn into a problem). Also, Pixar's films were, from the start, released by Disney. Pixar characters never had an identity entirely separate from Disney. This is pretty new territory for Disney. The closest analogy might be Winnie-the-Pooh and Peter Pan, characters and stories that were popular before Disney gobbled them up, but even then, Disney made new versions, and it was the Disney versions that were incorporated into the parks and such.

There are certainly differences in different specific aspects; I was simply stating that I don't see any conceptual difference with Disney using them in the parks.

I can make a better comparison, though. Muppets. Muppets (especially originally) were a bit more mature and not exactly as squeaky clean as Mickey Mouse either. But I think people are also really comparing the Marvel characters in the current film cycles, not so much as characters in-general.

As I said above, if Spidey starts filling in for Tink during Wishes, I'll be right on the front lines with a picket sign. But I see this flip, "NOT IN MY PARKS!" mentality (sort of like Universal-hate) that I just don't really see. They are characters now controlled by Disney, so like other characters I don't have a problem with them at Disney. In appropriate places, which likely wouldn't include MK. But I'd have no problem with an Epcot pavilion on a scientific topic set up around a Marvel theme, or just about anything at the Studios. Don't really see much AK action to be had, but that park needs so much I probably wouldn't object to anything reasonable.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The Marvel deal is a lot different from Pixar. Pixar's films target the same audience as Disney feature animation, while Marvel was presumably purchased to target a different demographic (which may turn into a problem). Also, Pixar's films were, from the start, released by Disney. Pixar characters never had an identity entirely separate from Disney. This is pretty new territory for Disney. The closest analogy might be Winnie-the-Pooh and Peter Pan, characters and stories that were popular before Disney gobbled them up, but even then, Disney made new versions, and it was the Disney versions that were incorporated into the parks and such.

Here's my take as this issue has been raised at WDI many times. It gets "messy" right away if you take the position that only "wholly" Disney stuff should be the only thing in a Disney park (which I used to say), then you question the historically drawn properties, like Tom Sawyer (a fictional character) the SS Columbia and the Matterhorn, etc. You can rightly argue that they are part of the story of the lands, but are still foreign fiction at some level. Then you look at the fact that Walt recycled other's pre defined stories for most all his features like Alice. Toad, Pan, Cinderella and on and on. Pretty much all of it. So what is the difference? Execution. They were made and adapted into his point of view and became for better or worse a "Disney version". Disneyland by it's design is the "Disney version" of whatever is inside, from Swiss Alps to Spook Houses, it's the Disney's take of the outside world. So Disneyland to me should be restricted to the Disney "version" and tone applied to anything, even history and not be a literally retelling of another's properties. "Star Wars" and "Indy" were not as reinvented through the Disney lens (yes, Indy is it's own new adventure) as Pooh was, so I would have preferred to put them in the Studios, but Pixar was released through "Disney" so I guess that's ok. I know there are "holes" in this and you'll find them, but if there had to be a rule book, that's the way I'd slice it.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Agreed, I see any lands that are placed near each other need to have some kind of element that threads through them as guests walk through the story. FantasyL into LS works in the way it is done, the same with LS into FrontierL. If there is a marvel land next to say a lotr land, it would make sense that x mansion is the last part of marvel land before the transition to the shire.

I think an overarching theme for a park that links its component lands together can work well (Animal Kingdom, DisneySea), but I don't think it's a necessary condition for a great park.

I would argue that Disneyland has an extremely loose overarching theme (Yesterday, Tomorrow, Fantasy - virtually anything could fit under those banners, particularly the last one), as much so as IOA (Adventure).

Parks don't require a tight, overarching theme to be great - just great design. I don't think the designers of IOA went into creating that park with the constraint of "we're building a park based on things you read." (Jurassic Park, Harry Potter being based on the filmic worlds, Lost Continent and Port of Entry having nothing to do with specific works of literature). Yes, the land-to-land transitions are done better at some of the very top tier parks - but that is the result of more artful design rather than one park having a cohesive overall theme and one not, IMO.

Franchise-Collections seems to be the current trend in park design. The most recent major park - Universal Singapore - follows the IOA model more so than the Studios one (e.g., Egypt-land, not a movie set), as do many of the currently proposed majors (Universal Korea, Paramount Movie World Korea, etc.)

I think IOA is a great example of very good theming within lands, without a cohesive theme.

Comparitively DCA had a cohesive theme, but lacked the theming within the individual lands.

I actually feel that MGM/DHS's dedication plaque is the most insightful of any at Walt Disney World. Celebrating a "Hollywood that never was, but always will be" is a great theme - they just haven't quite accomplished it yet. The front half of the park (save Rock 'n' Roller Coaster) is very well done in accomplishing the Classic interpretation of Hollywood.

I do think a "production area" would make sense and that could include the Animation Courtyard and more logically Rock 'n' Roller Coaster. The obvious problem is, you can't just pick up buildings and move them where you want to after the fact. I'd love to see the Animation Courtyard area opened up to include the expansion area between it and RnR. In theory you could also move Flying Carpets of Aladdin, give it a bit more of a DHS theme with the Genie "directing" and you would have another component of production included in that area.

The rest of the park can effectively be the individual studios and the make believe interpretation of what those studios would be like. This has been discussed over and over again here, but just to reiterate it won't be too difficult to define Lucasland, Pixar Place, Muppets Studios and possibly Marvel Studios.

 

[HBG2]

Speaking of the "Disneyfication" of existing literature, I think the world owes a big thank you to Disney for saving a lot of valuable things from slipping into obscurity. For a long time (and this was still true when I was younger), people would sneer at Disney for dolling up and toning down classic fairy tales and such. That was when most people, the culture in general, still had independent exposure to the stories in older (and frequently darker) forms. People read fairy tales to their kids growing up. Everyone knew them, it seems.

Now, with literacy so very low, I'm afraid that if Disney hadn't made Snow White, a shocking percentage of the population would not even know the story exists. People buy storybooks to read to their kids because they and their kids saw the Snow White film first.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I think an overarching theme for a park that links its component lands together can work well (Animal Kingdom, DisneySea), but I don't think it's a necessary condition for a great park.

Agree. In fact, just based on the parks I've visited, I think the best are those that don't have a tightly-defined theme. You mentioned Disneyland celebrating what was, is, could be and never was (which as you note, could be just about anything).

I also think of Epcot, which if it has a true theme, would have to be a general sort of salute to human achievement (both in technological and cultural terms). Lot of ground to cover there obviously.

I'm not sure this is a result of some intrinsic superiority to the weak theme model as much as simple circumstance. Disney seemed to take developing its parks more seriously before the newer, more tightly themed parks were designed. I think DHS could be a great park if the "production" half were as well executed as the faux Hollywood half.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Parks don't require a tight, overarching theme to be great - just great design. I don't think the designers of IOA went into creating that park with the constraint of "we're building a park based on things you read." (Jurassic Park, Harry Potter being based on the filmic worlds, Lost Continent and Port of Entry having nothing to do with specific works of literature).

While the imagery of Jurassic Park may be based in the films, the River Adventure is a big component of the novel that is absent from the film adaptation. With Harry Potter, I think that the goal is uniformity and had The Wizarding World of Harry Potter been first I think Rowling would have instructed the fim makers to follow the theme park look. Lost Continent may not draw from specific works, but the Merlin legends, Sinbad stories and Greek mythology are all present (though I do not know where the villains that look like they belong in Power Rangers came from).