Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Disneyhead'71

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
tl77 said:
My point is... why is a "Pre-existing Movie IP" the default setting in theme park design? The Yeti doesn't have a movie tie-in, it's a shame he don't work right, but why couldn't they just add some dragons to AK like they added one under Sleeping Beauty Castle in Paris?

And the big selling point with Epcot originally was how unique it was, Disney has lots of Magic Kingdom Parks and a few movie studio type parks now, and every Universal and Six Flags has stuff based on movies or comic book characters, but there's only one Epcot, and the theme of "Energy" is so broad that they could literately do anything with it, and Epcot's 2 most popular attractions, Soarin' and Test Track aren't based on any Pre-existing IP.

The movie "IP thing" reminds me of the "magic feather" in Dumbo, Dumbo didn't really need the magic feather to fly, and Disney doesn't really need movie IPs to build theme park attractions... they just don't seem to have the confidence try anything else anymore
Click to expand...
The ROI on an attraction associated with a popular IP increases attendance and merchandise sales far beyond what an original park originated IP does. Do you want to spend $265 million on Hogwarts or No Name Castle?
 
SpaceMountain77

SpaceMountain77

Well-Known Member
The more I read and reflect on this thread, the more I wish that The Good Dinosaur had been a success at the box office. Personally, I would have had a much easier time accepting Energy's conversion to paleontology.
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
tl77 said:
My point is... why is a "Pre-existing Movie IP" the default setting in theme park design? The Yeti doesn't have a movie tie-in, it's a shame he don't work right, but why couldn't they just add some dragons to AK like they added one under Sleeping Beauty Castle in Paris?

And the big selling point with Epcot originally was how unique it was, Disney has lots of Magic Kingdom Parks and a few movie studio type parks now, and every Universal and Six Flags has stuff based on movies or comic book characters, but there's only one Epcot, and the theme of "Energy" is so broad that they could literately do anything with it, and Epcot's 2 most popular attractions, Soarin' and Test Track aren't based on any Pre-existing IP.

The movie "IP thing" reminds me of the "magic feather" in Dumbo, Dumbo didn't really need the magic feather to fly, and Disney doesn't really need movie IPs to build theme park attractions... they just don't seem to have the confidence try anything else anymore
Click to expand...
This is the Harry Potter effect. If only somebody warned of this...
http://micechat.com/101023-tim-grassey-addicted-easy-money/
 
JWG

JWG

Well-Known Member
Color me not surprised. I think we've all watched the staged construction getting WDW ready for 2021 and have the DL 2005 work as reference. They expanded Fantasyland, they've moved to DAK and DHS hopefully getting all of that online 2017-2019, and then that leaves Epcot to get up and prepared 2019-2021.

I'd expect Epcot and maybe some additional MK work to land in that 2020-2021 space. No insider information, just precedent and need.
 
No Name

No Name

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Apparently Fitzgerald doesn't want Rohde playing in his sand box.
Click to expand...

Oh that's interesting because Joe Rohde is the head of imagineering for Marvel rides now. But Tom Fitzgerald is the head of imagineering for Epcot. Right? So that's kind of a conflict.

Joe Rohde as head of imagineering for Marvel rides... I'm still having trouble wraping my head around that one.

Anyway I wonder how they'll decide on that.

PhotoDave219 said:
All of this talk? All of this chatter or talk from brainstorming sessions? It's easily 5-10 years out.
Click to expand...

I don't get what you're saying. Should we all (including you) just stop discussing this since it's years out? I don't think so. Although the ride may not open for years, it'll become closer to reality each day as they plan it and become more "invested" in the idea. Eventually it'll be too late.

I also wouldn't doubt that us fans and discussion people played at least some part in them moving on from the ToT idea. The negative reaction can certainly sway them, even if only a tiny bit.

lazyboy97o said:
Theme Park University repeatedly just parrots whatever makes Disney looks best. It is not the grand expert source you keep pushing it as being.
Click to expand...

Well, that was Theme Park Tourist he linked the article from. Is that what you meant?

Phil12 said:
I agree with your explanation but I think it's important to add one more imperative factor. You touched on it when you mentioned GM. In phase 1 Epcot had big corporations that sponsored every attraction. The corporate sponsors included AT&T, Exxon, United Technologies, Kodak, GM, Met Life, Kraft, Smuckers, T. Rowe Price, Coke, Nestle, IBM, Sperry Univac, GE and Liberty Mutual to name a few off the top of my head.

In phase 2 those sponsorships were starting to dry up. It was becoming difficult for all of the Disney parks to attract big sponsors as easy as they once did. Disney has a history going back to Walt's time to let sponsors foot the bill for construction and upkeep of many attractions. Those days are coming to an end and we're moving to phase 3.

Without sponsors to pay for the construction and ongoing upkeep of attractions, that cuts into margins. Therefore, as Disney stops being paid to sing the praises of corporate sponsors, Disney will instead sing its own tune and sell its IP. They've got to keep both Mickey and Minnie supported in the style to which they are accustomed.
Click to expand...

Yes that is a good point. I had included more on that, but my post was way way too long (about twice as long as it wound up to be) and so I wound up cutting a lot.

To an extent, the sponsorship thing is inevitable, since there are so many other ways to advertise today. But I still believe Disney could do a fine job getting sponsorships if they actually improved the park and built something worth sponsoring. The problem is, as they build things like Frozenstrom and GotG while neglecting the other attractions, they're only asking for sponsors to continue dropping out. At least that's how I see it.
 
wannabeBelle

wannabeBelle

Well-Known Member
egg said:
Oh that's interesting because Joe Rohde is the head of imagineering for Marvel rides now. But Tom Fitzgerald is the head of imagineering for Epcot. Right? So that's kind of a conflict.

Joe Rohde as head of imagineering for Marvel rides... I'm still having trouble wraping my head around that one.

Anyway I wonder how they'll decide on that.
Click to expand...
Big swords and a large open field?? LOL LOL LOL Marie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom