Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
phruby said:
The general public doesn't know what they want. No one was running around saying Disneyland needed a pirates ride until Walt built it. The general public is going to want something they already saw but then won't like because it isn't original.
Click to expand...

I am just having trouble understanding why adding a super hero area to DCA is a no-go for some. Is it because it is IP that was bought and is "unoriginal". Is it because they don't feel like Disney can transition properly from a Hollywood themed area into a super hero themed area right next door? Is it because this moves DCA away from its overall theme (or what is left of it)? Or all of the above?
 
Brad Bishop

Brad Bishop

Well-Known Member
NobodyElse said:
Without addressing the pros and cons of a "land" based on one film (or series), How would that break the theming? I would think being more fully immersed would enhance the theming.
Click to expand...

I think that the theming of RSR works really well. The rest of Cars Land is more "meh". Yeah, it's neat that it's all like Cars Land but it's not as important as Universal and their HP lands. I think people imagine themselves going to HP Land (both London and Hogwarts) but Cars Land? Not so much. It's neat and they did a good job on it but the crowning achievement is RSR. They could have integrated that the same that they did with Grizzly Falls w/o making an IP land out of it.

To me it's the difference between, say, having a Wizard of Oz ride and having that ride in a more generically themed area or having a Wizard of Oz Land (a park, not related to Disney, did exist at one time) and then it kind of fades off into history. The Flying Monkey Ride may be great but many would ask why there's an old farmhouse there..

I'd think that WoO would be a far stronger IP, at least generationally, than Cars is. They weren't particularly great movies. Disney could have re-themed Autopia with Cars and people would have been happy.
 
V

Variable

Well-Known Member
Brad Bishop said:
I think that the theming of RSR works really well. The rest of Cars Land is more "meh". Yeah, it's neat that it's all like Cars Land but it's not as important as Universal and their HP lands. I think people imagine themselves going to HP Land (both London and Hogwarts) but Cars Land? Not so much..
Click to expand...


There is a space, an openness in DCA, that Potter just doesn't have.

Diagon is kind of grimey feel, tight, heck its even got a roof over a lot of it - so perfectly themed that is - and while its done well, its just different. Hogshead feels more open, but its brown and gray and blah, and still only one short sort of street. For both of these the action is more about what's inside, and that's fine if a couple of rides is what you want.

I'd much rather go "hang out" in DCA than in Potter, it just feels more inviting and natural.
 
Phroobar

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
I am just having trouble understanding why adding a super hero area to DCA is a no-go for some. Is it because it is IP that was bought and is "unoriginal". Is it because they don't feel like Disney can transition properly from a Hollywood themed area into a super hero themed area right next door? Is it because this moves DCA away from its overall theme (or what is left of it)? Or all of the above?
Click to expand...

At one time, Walt Disney considered putting in a Wizard of Oz ride (the Rainbow Road to Oz) in a large Rock Candy Mountain in Fantasyland. MGM had the rights to first book but Walt had the rights to the other 12 books. There was suppose to be a movie with the Mousketeers. I wonder how much the internet would have complained about that if it existed back then.
 
Stevek

Stevek

Well-Known Member
Old Mouseketeer said:
OK, I admit I was a little harsh. I'm sorry for that. The "suckitude" comment was especially egregious. But my point still stands. I offered a lot of context on IP in the parks, which you completely ignored. I know I haven't established my bonifides here. I haven't volunteered the particulars of the depth and breadth of my Disney knowledge or my experience in this industry. So you are free to doubt me. However, I think my analyses can be judged on their own merits.

Fact: Disney has spent billions of dollars acquiring numerous IPs and they are not going to let them lie fallow. Muppets, Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, and ABC/ESPN are part of the Disney family now, and rented IPs like Twilight Zone, Indy, and Avatar will be for the life of their contracts. That's not "IP disease". That's business. No matter how much I may dislike it (and believe me, I do much of the time), that's reality. So the issue can't be "there is too much IP in the parks", but rather how good it is.
Click to expand...

I've made a similar argument in another thread, that the park was founded upon IP and filled with IP...which by the way, Disney really didn't own but made their own (pretty much every FL ride for example). I personally have zero issue with Disney continuing to utilize IP though I would kill for non IP attractions like they've built in Grizzly Gulch & Mystic Point over in HKDL. At the end of the day, it's all about how you make it fit within the overall theme of the resort. Star Wars really doesn't fit in Disneyland as it's own land but would thematically fit in a Tomorrowland based on science fantasy or fiction. Avatar, maybe a stretch but still works as much as the Beastly Kingdom section in the original DAK plans would have. Now while I'm not opposed to Marvel going into DCA it's really about how it's done and as many folks have said throughout this thread, it feels like it's being forced into the park purely to capitalize on the IP. So unless they are going to completely re-theme and rename all of Hollywood Land or make it into a Hollywood of the Future where Guardians and the other Marvel characters reside, I just don't get it, regardless of what they are saying in the press release.

Ultimately, we all pretty much have to understand that the concept of what we previously knew and loved about Disney parks, Disneyland and Epcot for example, really won't hold true anymore. Yes, the core will likely remain for both parks but changes are clearly in the works that will pull them further away from what many of us grew up loving. At the end of the day, it's really up to each of us to decide whether you can live with those changes or they are deal breakers. If it's the latter, those folks should act with conviction and really stop giving their hard earned dollars to Disney instead of ranting and raving here. Hating the changes with so much passion but $till $upporting Di$ney really makes zero sense. #disneyaddiction
 
Stevek

Stevek

Well-Known Member
Rich T said:
Remember when the rumor about Frozen taking over Maelstrom started and people vowed to "lie in front of the bulldozers?" When it all went down, I noticed a distinct lack of people lying in front of construction equipment. And if they had, they'd have been munching pastries they'd paid too much money for in World Showcase.
Click to expand...
Those people were either first in line (hi bloggers) or waited six hours (hi more bloggers) to ride Frozen on the first day.
 
Stevek

Stevek

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
I am just having trouble understanding why adding a super hero area to DCA is a no-go for some. Is it because it is IP that was bought and is "unoriginal". Is it because they don't feel like Disney can transition properly from a Hollywood themed area into a super hero themed area right next door? Is it because this moves DCA away from its overall theme (or what is left of it)? Or all of the above?
Click to expand...
I think the transition part is a lot of it, not being themed or relevant to CA is another big part.
 
dweezil78

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
I think people would be less upset if they announced they were just going to tear the whole thing down and build a Guardians ride from scratch in its place. At least then there'd be excitement over a new attraction instead of the feeling that something beloved was being altered in some way. The current plans, as they are now, just seem more April fools'ish in nature -- especially when you look at the artwork of the new overlay on the building. It feels like the alternate 1985 from Back to the Future 2 when the corrupt Biff became powerful. Thankfully that was just a plot of a movie and could never happen in real -- oh... wait. It all makes sense now. :(

I'm sure the end result will be well done and fun, but there's just something timeless and inherently cool about the Twilight Zone and the 1930s vibe. On the plus side, I'm pumped to finally get random drop sequences out here and hopefully a better/more interesting ride during the drop!!!
 
Brad Bishop

Brad Bishop

Well-Known Member
dweezil78 said:
I think people would be less upset if they announced they were just going to tear the whole thing down and build a Guardians ride from scratch in its place. At least then there'd be excitement over a new attraction instead of the feeling that something beloved was being altered in some way. The current plans, as they are now, just seem more April fools'ish in nature -- especially when you look at the artwork of the new overlay on the building. It feels like the alternate 1985 from Back to the Future 2 when the corrupt Biff became powerful. Thankfully that was just a plot of a movie and could never happen in real -- oh... wait. It all makes sense now. :(

I'm sure the end result will be well done and fun, but there's just something timeless and inherently cool about the Twilight Zone and the 1930s vibe. On the plus side, I'm pumped to finally get random drop sequences out here and hopefully a better/more interesting ride during the drop!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah. Retreads are seldom good. I can name a few that seemed to work out but most of them are cheap and feel cheap or suffer from other such issues like capacity or location.
 
Last edited:
hawkfam

hawkfam

Active Member
So, people want to believe that if they protest enough Disney will listen and make change to rides and attractions just because the most vocal fans say so? Do you know how deep that black hole would become? Every time Disney announced something they'd have to first get the approval of fans before deciding to move forward? I think if any of us have learned anything from our time on message boards it's that you can't get everyone to agree on one thing. So, what's the barometer? If 50,000 fans sign a petition that's enough for Disney to cancel an attraction? Or should it be 100,000? What's the magic number?

As people have said before, speak with your wallet because that makes the most noise. Apple Watch? Yeah, panned by the fans and purchases are poor and it's failing. That's how you show a company to your disproval. You can be upset all you want about SW land and it's location and theme and how it fits but when Disneyland reports record numbers of people going thru the turnstiles every day they'll report it as a massive success. They don't need to count numbers of who only goes to Tomorrowland and who skips SW land. If you're inside the gates that's good enough for Disney. So, again, show your displeasure by not stepping foot into CA or DL and not giving Disney your money. Sure, I may not like some of the things they are doing at either of the parks but I love the parks too much to stop going. So, I just go with the flow knowing my message board opinions mean nothing, nor would any sort of protest or petition. I also don't agree with some things my Fortune 500 employer does either but I know that my opinion means nothing to the BoD so I again just go with the flow. If I really wanted to voice my displeasure I guess I'd prove my point by leaving the company but I'm not about to do that either.

Save Disney worked because of investors who had million or tens of million of dollars tied to the company in the form of stocks whose worth definitely depended upon who the CEO was. Those are the voices that were listened to.

I'm glad we have message boards to voice our opinions but for people to think there is any chance of their opinions making a difference to Disney the answer is just a flat out no.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom