Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

[mickEblu]

It has a fun drop and the best parts of the ride are when you're actually moving.

Unfortunately, this is something that imagineers seem to be forgetting as they continue to try and push the envelope to develop new ride systems and modern hybrid attractions. WE WANT TO MOVE. Nothing will ever replace that.

 

[Curious Constance]

Just filed permit:

Received BLD2017-01271 MARK HOLLINGWORTH 1515 S HARBOR BLVD 313 (Guardian of the Galaxy) DCA - Hollywood backlot - Guardians of the Galaxy Press Event - Temporary permit: Installation of press riser and truss structures to be anchored by concrete block ballast. ( Installed May 21st,2017 thru May 28th, 2017)

Guys, we're getting a concrete block ballast!!!!!

 

[yookeroo]

I definitely was among the many 'W.T.F.'ers when this thing was first a rumor. There still a huge element of W.T.F. in it for me. It's a crazy idea and it looks crazy. By all accounts, it's crazy. Maybe even stupid. Who knows... But at the end of the day, like so many other things, it's happening and I can't do a single thing about it. At nearly 40 years old, I've come to realize there is no point in putting negative energy towards things that are out of my control. What's the point? All I can do is hold out hope the thing is fun and becomes something I want to do when I visit the parks in between going on other rides, eating junk food, and having the occasional adult beverage.

Disney message forums have created too many armchair Imagineers and CEOs. I get people are passionate about Disney theme parks, but I mean c'mon, some people here think they have to write a freaking thesis every time they reply to a message on here full of big words as if they are going after a doctorate and are going to be published in some high profile theme park publication.

Not trying to downplay Disney's masterful work in the theme park industry over the past 60 years, but the world isn't going to stop if a sightline is ruined or we're forced to endure more IP-based attractions. I'm not going to lose sleep at night because a theme park ride is based on a popular movie instead of something that could have been a movie but instead was a ride, or maybe a ride that later became a movie.

You're not a true a Disney fan. That way way too rational.

I am guessing that I'm the person people are criticizing for writing long posts with big words. I'm embarrassed for others when somebody asks a question and I give the clearest, most objective response in 180 pages, and people refuse to read it because its "too long." Notice how you continue to ask the same question over and over and over again; if you could sit through my 1000 words, which would just take 5 minutes, I'd actually end up saving you a heck of a lot of time. It is on page 177, people. I numbered and lettered my points and sub points, so if you want the cliff's notes, jump to those for a one sentence summary of the attached paragraph.

If you have numbered and lettered points and sub points, I'm skipping the post. Even if it is the "clearest mist objective" response. We're discussing an amusement park ride. I don't quite care that much. Who needs a long lecture on a discussion board for an entertainment conglomerate?

 

[MisterPenguin]

So this thing will be the Marvel version of Star Wars Launch Bay with a ride attached. I bet the props are fake just like in Launch Bay. Boo!

Some of the props are indeed from the movie. Read the plaques.

 

[October82]

I don't want to completely dis-rail this thread any more than it already is, but I will kindly disagree. I don't feel the current model is really all that different than back when those flow charts were created.

The flowcharts that were posted are illustrations of a very different kind of approach to synergy - one that has been well documented even in the last few pages of this thread. I'll again point to the excellent post by @nevol - a post that even then only addresses a subset of how today's approach to cross-promotion, marketing and investment differs from the past.

Even in recent times launching complete movie franchises.

I'd like to see the parks create franchises of their own, as opposed to be mere extensions of franchises that the studios produce or that Disney acquires.

 

[Phroobar]

Some of the props are indeed from the movie. Read the plaques.

The props from Star Wars Launch Bay say they are from the movie except they are just poor replicas made from wood. They are no where near the quality of professional replicas from Gentle Giant or others. We will see. The ones from Super Hero HQ were nice.

 

[Disney Irish]

The flowcharts that were posted are illustrations of a very different kind of approach to synergy - one that has been well documented even in the last few pages of this thread. I'll again point to the excellent post by @nevol - a post that even then only addresses a subset of how today's approach to cross-promotion, marketing and investment differs from the past.

Again, I will kindly disagree. The types of mediums used and the degree to which they are used may have changed, due to changes in markets and technology. But the idea of one flowing into the other has been there since day one and continues to this day.

I'd like to see the parks create franchises of their own, as opposed to be mere extensions of franchises that the studios produce or that Disney acquires.

What do you mean franchises of their own? You mean like Disney Parks across the land like a McDonald's?

Or do you mean a franchise as in movies? To which I will say there have been, including a very large movie franchise created out of a little attraction called Pirates of the Caribbean. Book franchises have been created out of the parks, such as Kingdom Keepers. Disney Music, put out albums on music from the parks.

So I'm not sure what else you would like them to do?

 

[Curious Constance]

I always like to bring up Walt's castle naming decision when speaking to early synergy decisions. The castle was going to be named Snow White's Castle after his very first princess, feature length movie, but at the last minute he decided to change it to Sleeping Beauty's castle because that move was coming out and he wanted to promote it.

I think this is a good indicator that while synergy may have not always been the primary focus, or applied exactly like it is today in a vastly different time, but it was always there and a driving factor behind many decisions made.

 

[October82]

Again, I will kindly disagree. The types of mediums used and the degree to which they are used may have changed, due to changes in markets and technology. But the idea of one flowing into the other has been there since day one and continues to this day.

If all you're trying to argue is that Disney has used the parks to market and promote the company's other properties, we're not really disagreeing. No one denies that the parks have been used for cross promotion, that they will continue to be, or even that it's a bad thing. These points just don't address the facts of the history of the company and its strategy. The changes are real, and they are well documented.

What do you mean franchises of their own? You mean like Disney Parks across the land like a McDonald's?

No, I mean that the parks have historically produced their own largely original intellectual property that found its way into studio properties and into other large parts of the Disney brand. As long as the parks are marketing vehicles for the studios, you won't see another example of this, and as you point out in this post, there are numerous prior examples.

 

[October82]

I always like to bring up Walt's castle naming decision when speaking to early synergy decisions. The castle was going to be named Snow White's Castle after his very first princess, feature length movie, but at the last minute he decided to change it to Sleeping Beauty's castle because that move was coming out and he wanted to promote it.

This is another example of how things have changed. Sleeping Beauty Castle is an original WED design, it isn't an attempt to replicate a castle from an animated feature.

 

[Curious Constance]

This is another example of how things have changed. Sleeping Beauty Castle is an original WED design, it isn't an attempt to replicate a castle from an animated feature.

I wasn't referring to the design. Just the name.

 

[October82]

I wasn't referring to the design. Just the name.

Which is, in this case, misleading.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

Can't we just focus on how ugly this thing is

 

[Disney Irish]

If all you're trying to argue is that Disney has used the parks to market and promote the company's other properties, we're not really disagreeing. No one denies that the parks have been used for cross promotion, that they will continue to be, or even that it's a bad thing. These points just don't address the facts of the history of the company and its strategy. The changes are real, and they are well documented.

Then I don't know what you are trying to say I'm wrong in.

And since I don't really feel like searching 186 pages to find what you are saying is a good post on current strategy, why don't you please copy it to a post.

No, I mean that the parks have historically produced their own largely original intellectual property that found its way into studio properties and into other large parts of the Disney brand. As long as the parks are marketing vehicles for the studios, you won't see another example of this, and as you point out in this post, there are numerous prior examples.

And I believe there will be original IP created in the parks again someday. As some have said in this very thread, things are cyclical. Right now its the era of the IP push into the parks. The pendulum will swing back the other way someday.

 

[yookeroo]

I always like to bring up Walt's castle naming decision when speaking to early synergy decisions. The castle was going to be named Snow White's Castle after his very first princess, feature length movie, but at the last minute he decided to change it to Sleeping Beauty's castle because that move was coming out and he wanted to promote it.

I think this is a good indicator that while synergy may have not always been the primary focus, or applied exactly like it is today in a vastly different time, but it was always there and a driving factor behind many decisions made.

I wonder if Walt had the massive amount of IP to choose from that imagineers have today whether we might not have had a very different park, one that was 100% existing IP. I think it's plausible that this might be the case. Maybe not, but who can say for sure?

 

[October82]

Then I don't know what you are trying to say I'm wrong in.

Put in overly simple terms, falsely equating Disney's past cross-promotions between the parks and studios with the modern franchise-only business model. The post that you originally responded to was making this point - that there are differences between the past and what we're seeing today. The point that was being made was never that Disney has never seen the parks and studios as marketing platforms and the like.

And since I don't really feel like searching 186 pages to find what you are saying is a good post on current strategy, why don't you please copy it to a post.

It's quite lengthy and only covers a small aspect of this in depth, but it is on page 177.

And I believe there will be original IP created in the parks again someday. As some have said in this very thread, things are cyclical. Right now its the era of the IP push into the parks. The pendulum will swing back the other way someday.

I'm certain that there will be IP-free attractions in the not to distant future, but not because it is is cyclical. These sorts of decisions are being made for reasons. Although you might disagree with those reasons, for the foreseeable future they will dominate Disney's strategy with the parks.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I think this is a good indicator that while synergy may have not always been the primary focus, or applied exactly like it is today in a vastly different time, but it was always there and a driving factor behind many decisions made.

And it bears zero resemblance to the castle in the film yet here we are freaking out over how MB's exterior has no references to the GoTG movie.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I wonder if Walt had the massive amount of IP to choose from that imagineers have today whether we might not have had a very different park, one that was 100% existing IP.

I would say Shanghai Disneyland comes pretty darn close. It only has a handful of attractions not directly linked to an existing Disney IP.

 

[October82]

I wonder if Walt had the massive amount of IP to choose from that imagineers have today whether we might not have had a very different park, one that was 100% existing IP. I think it's plausible that this might be the case. Maybe not, but who can say for sure?

Walt did have plenty of IP to choose from for his park and didn't shy away from including studio properties in Disneyland. Of course, Disneyland wouldn't look like it did in 1955 if it were built today, but I doubt it would be as IP-heavy as Shanghai.

 

[mickEblu]

Oh geeez. Bring on all the IPs! Just no E ticket overlays please. And don't ruin sightlines in every direction I can sees.

Yes I meant to rhyme. And see(s), plural, was the best I could do at the end.