Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

[October82]

I would respectfully disagree. The MCU is something different than those before it.

Additionally Superhero franchises have been around for a very long time, Marvel being one of the granddaddies of them all. In fact Marvel has been around for almost as long as TDC.

It's probably a good thing I'm not arguing that Marvel doesn't have a future. What I am saying is that we're not dealing with something unknown here.

So plans have been shown to state that MB will be replaced in 10 years or less? No there hasn't been. Which was my point in making that comment.

Did anyone say that there had been? If this was the point that you were making, it isn't really a response to the points that others were making about the longterm P&R strategy.

At this point there is nothing to indicate that GotG:MB won't be here for 10 years or longer. Especially since GotG is slated to get another standalone movie and be included in Infinity War over the next 5-10 years. So I would sort of expect them to include several refurbs/refreshes along the way to keep things fresh while keeping GotG the theme.

This hasn't historically been how things are done. Given the screen heavy nature of the attraction, you might see some cross-promotion, but there likely won't be anything substantive done.

We know the broad strokes and rumors (albeit some pretty good track recorded one), but we don't know full flushed out plans. Until its announced nothing is for sure, everything is fluid. And even then its still not for sure until its built and opened to the public.

The key implication of all of this, though, is that we know enough to reasonably assess the decisions that are being made.

 

[NobodyElse]

Damn @NobodyElse , now I want a waterfall!

Don't go chasing...

Never mind.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's probably a good thing I'm not arguing that Marvel doesn't have a future. What I am saying is that we're not dealing with something unknown here.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying the MCU has a shelf life and that shelf life is coming up?

The MCU will be hitting its 10 year mark next year. And is still going strong. Some films do stronger than others, but all have been box office hits.

Unless it hits some cliff I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

Did anyone say that there had been? If this was the point that you were making, it isn't really a response to the points that others were making about the longterm P&R strategy.

It was in response to the flavor of the month approach comment. While I understand that some don't like this. But from everything I've read not only on fan sites like this but in trade journals, GotG was chosen for many reasons. Not just because it was some flavor of the month to sell merch. It was chosen given the medium that was being used, the properties available from the MCU they wanted to use, the ability to tell a story, and more. They didn't just throw a dart at a list and say that's the one, which is what you would do with a flavor of the month approach.

This hasn't historically been how things are done. Given the screen heavy nature of the attraction, you might see some cross-promotion, but there likely won't be anything substantive done.

You are correct that hasn't been how things have been done. However given the nature of how the MCU is, things aren't done in the normal historical way. The displays and set pieces are meant to be changeable, refreshed with the latest props from the MCU. And yes even the screens can be updated with fresh content. As well as the ride profiles and music can change. Think for example in 5 years when GotG3 comes out, they can refurb it again to tell the next phase of the GotG story.

Point is there is no indication that GotG won't be here for 10 years or longer. As long as there is a story to tell, they can keep it around for a long time.

 

[October82]

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying the MCU has a shelf life and that shelf life is coming up?

Not specifically.

It was in response to the flavor of the month approach comment.

Which came in the context of a broader discussion about short and long term decision making.

Not just because it was some flavor of the month to sell merch. It was chosen given the medium that was being used, the properties available from the MCU they wanted to use, the ability to tell a story, and more. They didn't just throw a dart at a list and say that's the one, which is what you would do with a flavor of the month approach.

GotG absolutely chosen because of considerations about the longterm strategy that might be unflatteringly labelled in part as 'selling merchandise'. It wasn't the only factor - large portions of this thread have documented all of the different reasons for this - but concerns about Disney's marketing and contractual obligations concerning Marvel properties in the US parks were a far bigger factor than any creative concerns.

You are correct that hasn't been how things have been done. However given the nature of how the MCU is, things aren't done in the normal historical way.

Disney's decision making here is determined by the realities of major capital expenditures. The MCU is interesting and unique from a marketing perspective, but it doesn't change the underlying business realities.

 

[Disney Irish]

Not specifically.

So what are you saying then?

History does not dictate the future. So just because some other franchise has faded away quickly doesn't mean the MCU will. Typically when a franchise has faded away its because their stories have become tired and the source material is worn out. The MCU has a large category of characters and stories to draw from, almost 100 years worth. So they can continue to expand and tell more and draw from many more sources. Additionally partnerships can be formed to expand to characters the MCU didn't originally have access to, see Spider-Man as an example.

The Super Hero construct has be one that has been apart of movies for a long time. They continue to come around and be popular for many reasons for long periods of time.

Which came in the context of a broader discussion about short and long term decision making.

To which I made a comment.

GotG absolutely chosen because of considerations about the longterm strategy that might be unflatteringly labelled in part as 'selling merchandise'. It wasn't the only factor - large portions of this thread have documented all of the different reasons for this - but concerns about Disney's marketing and contractual obligations concerning Marvel properties in the US parks were a far bigger factor than any creative concerns.

Correct, it was chosen for many reason. Least of which was some flavor of the month.

Disney's decision making here is determined by the realities of major capital expenditures. The MCU is interesting and unique from a marketing perspective, but it doesn't change the underlying business realities.

The 9 Billion dollars that the MCU continues to grow and pile up is a major mover of business realities. Once MB opens and shows to be popular you will see more and more of these Marvel projects in DCA get green lit and announced. That capex will be allocated and construction will start.

 

[cheezbat]

For those of you who are embracing this change and don't understand those of us who mourn it, I pose a question: how would you feel if instead of Tower of Terror, Disney decided to change the Haunted Mansion into Guardians? Or Big Thunder Mountain into a Spider Man roller coaster? You can say it's totally different, but honestly it's very similar...placing something that is thematically out of place into an attraction that is popular and doesn't need something like this. It hurts. It looks gaudy. Reguardless of the ornamentation, it looks cheap. Disney took the cheap way out. They should've built a NEW attraction elsewhere...even redoing Star Tours with GoG would've made more sense than this chaos.

 

[yookeroo]

If MB is the first step in a greater Marvel land, it's not out of place.

 

[Californian Elitist]

For those of you who are embracing this change and don't understand those of us who mourn it, I pose a question: how would you feel if instead of Tower of Terror, Disney decided to change the Haunted Mansion into Guardians? Or Big Thunder Mountain into a Spider Man roller coaster? You can say it's totally different, but honestly it's very similar...placing something that is thematically out of place into an attraction that is popular and doesn't need something like this. It hurts. It looks gaudy. Reguardless of the ornamentation, it looks cheap. Disney took the cheap way out. They should've built a NEW attraction elsewhere...even redoing Star Tours with GoG would've made more sense than this chaos.

It seems that some folks here accept any and all change, and find an excuse for everything. You might be wasting your time with this question.

I have a friend who is always proposing to get rid of "everything old" at Disneyland and California Adventure, and is completely for all of the changes occurring, including GotG. In saying that, none of her arguments ever have any weight to them, in terms of why some things should be taken out and why the intrusions are okay. She's really not that type of fan, and simply enjoys the upcoming changes because "they're cool."

 

[October82]

So what are you saying then?

What I'm saying is that although we might disagree in the details, we know enough to speak intelligently about what is likely to happen over the short and long term.

To which I made a comment.

It seems like the conversation has gone far enough off course that important context is being lost.

Correct, it was chosen for many reason. Least of which was some flavor of the month.

The flavor of the month comment is not an inaccurate statement, but it does oversimplify things. Focusing on that comment (which someone other than myself made) to the detriment of the larger context makes this a difficult conversation to have.

The 9 Billion dollars that the MCU continues to grow and pile up is a major mover of business realities. Once MB opens and shows to be popular you will see more and more of these Marvel projects in DCA get green lit and announced. That capex will be allocated and construction will start.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this comment just doesn't reflect the reality of how corporate decision making works. We know that Marvel will receive a large investment at the Disneyland Resort, but that fact is not contingent upon the success of Mission: Breakout. The success of the films doesn't change the underlying realities of the theme park business. You won't see another round of major investment in the GotG attraction anytime in the near future.

 

[October82]

If MB is the first step in a greater Marvel land, it's not out of place.

The Marvel area at DCA will mostly likely be located on the expansion pad behind ToT. From what is rumored of that land, MB will likely remain out of place in that land and with respect to the rest of DCA.

Disney's PR has been surprisingly quite open about this.

 

[Professortango1]

If MB is the first step in a greater Marvel land, it's not out of place.

Still doesn't fit into Disneys CALIFORNIA Adventure.

 

[Disney Irish]

The flavor of the month comment is not an inaccurate statement, but it does oversimplify things. Focusing on that comment (which someone other than myself made) to the detriment of the larger context makes this a difficult conversation to have.

I made a comment to another posters comment, to which you interjected and took over said comment with your own comments, to now say a conversation cannot be had between me and the original poster to whom I made the comment? Ok, sorry for making a comment

Don't take this the wrong way, but this comment just doesn't reflect the reality of how corporate decision making works. We know that Marvel will receive a large investment at the Disneyland Resort, but that fact is not contingent upon the success of Mission: Breakout. The success of the films doesn't change the underlying realities of the theme park business. You won't see another round of major investment in the GotG attraction anytime in the near future.

The success of the films does equate to how much or little is spent on P&Rs for said properties. Failed properties will get far less to those who are successful. Its the nature of an entertainment business.

As for more investment into GotG, only time will tell. To write it off completely to me is a little short sighted, as attractions have and continue to get investments over their history. Will it get a major overhaul, maybe not. But can they continue to change it over the course of its history, absolutely. I gave examples of how, including updating the story.

 

[Disney Irish]

Still doesn't fit into Disneys CALIFORNIA Adventure.

I agree, it doesn't fit into Disney's CALIFORNIA Adventure, today, with the focus on the name/word/place that is California... That may not always be the case. Things can always change including the name and the focus of the park.

 

[mickEblu]

I agree, it doesn't fit into Disney's CALIFORNIA Adventure, today, with the focus on the name/word/place that is California... That may not always be the case. Things can always change including the name and the focus of the park.

But it could have with a little extra care and planning

 

[Disney Irish]

But it could have with a little extra care and planning

Its possible it still might. Once it opens and we know the story that may make all the difference.

But I agree they could have done things a little different and made things more seem-less. But we are where we are now.

 

[mickEblu]

Its possible it still might. Once it opens and we know the story that may make all the difference.

But I agree they could have done things a little different and made things more seem-less. But we are where we are now.

I agree with the second half of your comment but very doubtful about the first half. The story won't change the whole KABLOOMNESS of the matter.

 

[Disney Irish]

I agree with the second half of your comment but very doubtful about the first half. The story won't change the whole KABLOOMNESS of the matter.

True, but until it opens and I see it and the story for myself, I still hold out hope.

 

[dweezil78]

 

[The_Bellringer]

"As long as there's imagination in the world, Disneyland will never be complete."

I think change is good. I think THIS change is good. I never considered ToT a classic, maybe because it's not that old and the original, BETTER version is still in Florida?

Idk. Call me crazy but I'm excited for this and actually think it looks more interesting and not just a lightly themed refrigerator-looking thing you see from the freeway.

EDIT: I will concede that the attraction is out of place in Hollywoodland, until it's inevitably re-themed to Marvel land or until MB is incorporated into a new, as-of-yet unannounced land.

 

[October82]

I made a comment to another posters comment, to which you interjected and took over said comment with your own comments, to now say a conversation cannot be had between me and the original poster to whom I made the comment? Ok, sorry for making a comment

That's not what I said. I was responding to your comments about our knowledge of Disney's long term planning and whether franchises are likely to have long term success. I didn't say anything about you having a conversation between yourself and anyone else, nor does one responding to a comment mean that you agree with everything someone else says.

The success of the films does equate to how much or little is spent on P&Rs for said properties. Failed properties will get far less to those who are successful. Its the nature of an entertainment business.

No one disagrees with any of that. Of course a majority of investment is directed at successful properties. but it doesn't mean that any further major investment will be made into M:B of the kind you've described. That's just not how it works.