Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

[Curious Constance]

Looks cheap to me, but I guess I'm absurd for having that view.

I do believe the ride itself will be a better experience than before, but the outside looks dreadful.

Absurd? Noooooo, you're not absurd for thinking that! Not at all!

Crazy maybe, but NOT absurd!

 

[Curious Constance]

In all seriousness, even though I like it, I can see that this wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. All the back and forth over it, it really does just come down to differences of opinion.

 

[NobodyElse]

Scaffolding is down on two of the elevator shafts.
View attachment 196234

Someone was asking about that vertical black section earlier. It wasn't in the early art, but that's where the new waterfall is going.
People love waterfalls.

 

[BrianLo]

You do realize that if it does happen at this point you're going to have to leave the Disney fan community with your head hanging in shame?

I am ready to take that walk of shame! Will I be banished to WDW?

I'm melting, what a cruel world!

 

[October82]

im sorry, you're disagreeing with change? good grief, how selfish.

If you want to have a long and enjoyable stay on a discussion board, you should start discussing more and disparaging less.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Thats the whole issue with this project...a mandate that's focused on the short term to compensate for leadership that sat on the Marvel IP for 8 years and counting. As a fan and not a shareholder, "fast" and "efficient" aren't words that get me excited.

DLR isn't going to lose any fans over MB. In fact it'll probably gain some, which is what matters most to shareholders and board members.

 

[October82]

Test Track -- a much longer and more extensive ride -- was only closed 8 months and re-emerged with a completely new queue and on-ride experience... using the same track layout of course. With the Tower's much simpler on-ride experience of literally 2 scenes, I think a lot can be done in 5 months plus whatever pre-production was done off-site I obviously don't know anything for certain, but I would bet people will be surprised by how different the majority of the queue/ride experience (minus the boiler room) this will be when it opens in May -- assuming it does open on time.

I don't disagree with any of this. The context of the post you quoted was about the size of what is being invested. I expect the attraction itself will seem very different, while very little is actually done to the interior.

I'm referring to the giant t-shaped slab of concrete that houses the attraction. If you seriously see a ton that registers 'pueblo-deco' other than the pieces that are still being worked on, then I guess that's cool you can still tie it back to old Hollywood? I don't really know what else to say.

Well, all of the major architectural features (even ignoring the shape of the building's upper half) are still present. None of the features that are associated with pueblo-deco architecture were removed on the lower half, and many of the changes to the upper half were clearly intended to echo the original architectural style. Others in this thread have commented about this in relation to the appropriateness of the building from the rest of DCA. The building got a new coat of paint - they didn't remove any major architectural features. Of course, if you only focus on the shape and color of the building, it leaves a different impression.

 

[October82]

While we have all blamed this project on Chapek's incompetence, P+R does measure guest satisfaction/popularity of all of their attractions in guest surveys. Isn't the more interesting mystery here that Tower was actually ranking so low that it warranted replacement? Maybe it really was the second most popular attraction in the park, after RSR, but what could have also become the case is that WOC, Midway Mania, and Soarin' all topped it. For what we think of as the second-best attraction in the park to be ranking that low in their metrics, if that was the case, must have told a different story than we all tell ourselves. Of course, they could also just be lazy and incompetent, replacing soarin over CALIFORNIA with around the World (a lateral move that broke from the park's theme integrity and was ALSO/if not moreso beloved by californians) and then TOT with another non-california project. Or they are gearing up fora name change but given the amount of press we have already seen about the namechange for DHS and the announcement of investment/changes for EPCOT ahead of announcement, if that was really disney's intent, it would have found its way into the press by now. Isn't it fun to be a critic/fan?

There are a lot of business reasons why a name change doesn't make a great deal of sense for DCA. As far as ToT is concerned, there wasn't an alternative at the Disneyland resort if the directive was to convert a major attraction to Marvel. I doubt it had anything to do with guest satisfaction surveys and everything to do with logistics.

 

[The_Mesh_Hatter]

DLR isn't going to lose any fans over MB. In fact it'll probably gain some, which is what matters most to shareholders and board members.

Well LET IT BE KNOWN that this project was my breaking point and was the deciding factor in me buying AP's for Knott's instead of renewing my Disneyland AP like I have in past years...

 

[vancee]

If you want to have a long and enjoyable stay on a discussion board, you should start discussing more and disparaging less.

ok sry

 

[Phroobar]

Well LET IT BE KNOWN that this project was my breaking point and was the deciding factor in me buying AP's for Knott's instead of renewing my Disneyland AP like I have in past years...

Doesn't take much does it?

 

[October82]

DLR isn't going to lose any fans over MB. In fact it'll probably gain some, which is what matters most to shareholders and board members.

Disney clearly agrees with you. Over the short term, that might be a largely correct conclusion. In the aggregate, however, I don't think it is at all clear whether the direction the company is taking with its investment in Parks & Resorts is a good one.

 

[mickEblu]

DLR isn't going to lose any fans over MB. In fact it'll probably gain some, which is what matters most to shareholders and board members.

Like I said, I understand why Suits thought it was a good idea. But Disney isn't paying me so I'm going continue judging this as a Disney fan who appreciates quality and creativity over Disneys bottom line.

On another note they might not lose fans with just one of these bad decisions. But if they continue down this path I believe it would begin to hurt their brand long term.

 

[mickEblu]

There are a lot of business reasons why a name change doesn't make a great deal of sense for DCA. As far as ToT is concerned, there wasn't an alternative at the Disneyland resort if the directive was to convert a major attraction to Marvel. I doubt it had anything to do with guest satisfaction surveys and everything to do with logistics.

Exactly. It was a Perfect storm of bad luck that determined TOTs fate. Star Wars Land is going in Disneyland = Marvel Land has to go in DCA. Chapek, the marketing wiz, becomes in charge and can't understand how their is no major Marvel presence after 8 years so they begin to brainstorm on how to get it in the park ASAP. They decide to put Marvel Land In / around Hollywood land NOT because TOT was an underperforming E ticket but because where else would it go in DCA? The backlot is the least desirable area at the park with no traffic and nothing substantial. That plus the rumored expansion of DCA into the bus load area. TOTs location more than anything else sealed its fate.

As opposed to "geez..TOT Is underperforming and we need a Marvel IP in the park ASAP anyway. Let's overlay TOT and build Marvel Land around it."

 

[Deleted member 107043]

On another note they might not lose fans with just one of these bad decisions. But if they continue down this path I believe it would begin to hurt their brand long term.

You think replacing a non-Disney IP with an incredibly popular Disney controlled one won't strengthen DP&R's brand at its property in Anaheim long-term?

 

[October82]

You think replacing a non-Disney IP with an incredibly popular Disney controlled one won't strengthen DP&R's brand at its property in Anaheim long-term?

Not to speak for mickEblu, but I don't think this is a useful way of looking at this. The strength of the Parks & Resorts brand is dependent on more than the choice of IP.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Over the short term, that might be a largely correct conclusion. In the aggregate, however, I don't think it is at all clear whether the direction the company is taking with its investment in Parks & Resorts is a good one.

I don't believe that anyone can make the case that it isn't smart business strategy to infuse a popular attraction with IP that generated $773 million at the box office under a brand worth $4 billion as quickly as possible, especially when the film's sequel will be released right around the time the attraction reopens. I get what you guys are saying, and I understand why some fans might be philosophically opposed, but Disney's business case for executing this project as they've done seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[October82]

I don't believe that anyone can make the case that it isn't smart business strategy to infuse a popular attraction with IP that generated $773 million at the box office under a brand worth $4 billion as quickly as possible, especially when the film's sequel will be released right around the time the attraction reopens.

You're right. The business case for the franchise model is simple and obvious. That's why I don't see many people arguing that in the short term, this is anything other than a reasonable business choice.

I get what you guys are saying, and I understand why some fans might be philosophically opposed, but Disney's business case for executing this project as they've done seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Sure, there are philosophical or artistic criticisms, but there are also valid longterm business concerns. It isn't an accident that Disney's "franchise-only" model for Parks & Resorts is occurring at the same time that similar choices are being made more broadly. The choices that are being made reflect changes in how all businesses think about short and long term strategy. Whether any given choice is a reasonable one in that context is far less clear, and can not be reduced to such simple arguments about the box office performance of one film or another.

 

[mickEblu]

You think replacing a non-Disney IP with an incredibly popular Disney controlled one won't strengthen DP&R's brand at its property in Anaheim long-term?

I don't think this paints the whole picture. IMO attention to detail and nostalgia is what separates Disney from the rest and i don't see either on display with this project. You can't build nostalgia if you kill your classics and replace them with the flavor of the month every 10 years ( they would just be Universal Studios with Disney characters) and I think I've spoke ad nauseam of how the this project falls short in the theming/ quality/ attention to detail categories.

Like I said I don't think this will be a trend and that it was a series of unfortunate circumstances that killed TOT. But If they go forward with the same wreckless (KABLOOM) abandon they have displayed here I do think it would begin to hurt the brand. Not because I think Marvel is bad for the parks or because it doesn't fit with the DCA theme. They could have made Marvel work very well in a Hollywood or San Francisco area. But instead they rushed some half baked idea and it's looking some Alien Tower in NY is what we re getting.

 

[October82]

Not because I think Marvel is bad for the parks or because it doesn't fit with the DCA theme. They could have made Marvel work very well in a Hollywood or San Francisco area. But instead they rushed some half baked idea and it's looking some Alien Tower in NY is what we re getting.

It's a shame that the conversation around this seems to focus on the misconception that thinking GotG was a bad decision equates to not liking Marvel or Marvel in the parks.