Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

[mickEblu]

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.

So are you saying Frontierland would not have been Lone Ranger Land? Lol. But seriously I don't mind IP rides as long as their done well. I'm not a huge fan of IP lands though. I just think it's kind of overkill. IMO there are just too many great IPs or too much possibility for originality to devote so much area to one IP.

 

[sedati]

Here's where I can admit to giving leniency to the "new" business model. At the top of this building is a logo for a fictitious man/organization named Tivan- a creation owned by the Disney company- as opposed to say... Monsanto. Inside I'll hear about The Collector's organization and its goals in the lead up to the ride, but it's all part of a story. I won't have to sit through a ten minute Kodak commercial, or have Rocket Raccoon speak some Pepsi tagline. This overlay may have come from the top down, but it's all still serving Disney. They'll pay for it with a gift shop and the perceived benefits of synergy. The imagineers are always pinned in by theme and budget, but at least now it's usually only their own corporate masters they have to answer to- go ride Autopia for a genuinely old school Disney model of doing park attractions with it's new Honda sponsorship overlay.

So, I will say flat out that I think some rule bending is fine if it keeps me from hearing about the glories of Exxon during my vacation. I'll sacrifice some site lines if United Technologies doesn't have the final say on how the Living Seas ride should be presented (even when I have to sit through another long commercial to ride.) Not all corporate sponsor-ships are built the same, but I think it got completely out of hand in the so-called glory days. Some were as subtle as a logo below the marquee (and who knows, Mission Breakout may even get one) but other's took a sledgehammer to the original concepts and inspirations for the sole purpose of better conveying their own brand. It may have been more subtle, but to me, it had a far uglier effect on the parks.

 

[Suspirian]

It actually does look like an oil rig from Pacific Wharf. We really do have our Cali connection!

http://www.westcoaster.net/home/201...star-wars-galaxy-with-asimo-pirate-fastpasses

 

[Disney Irish]

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 this is where I've disagreed with you. So I think its best to agree to disagree here before we go around in circles. I just see things differently than you. Doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong, or vice-versa, we just see things differently.

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

I'll reread that, but that I took that as a design critique not as a critique of the strategy to use IP vs non-IP.

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.

I really don't have an issue with the decisions management is making right now in terms of being IP focused.

 

[October82]

It actually does look like an oil rig from Pacific Wharf. We really do have our Cali connection!

View attachment 196684

http://www.westcoaster.net/home/201...star-wars-galaxy-with-asimo-pirate-fastpasses

Incidentally, I've heard that ToT with a new theme was once considered for Pacific Wharf.

 

[October82]

I'll reread that, but that I took that as a design critique not as a critique of the strategy to use IP vs non-IP.

It wasn't a criticism. It was a discussion of one small part of this larger issue. As @sedati illustrated with his post earlier on this page, design and business realities are intricately linked. Disney's design choices are often dictated by the realities of their business strategy, and that strategy changes over time. Obviously there are going to be differences of opinion about whether these are good or bad decisions, but we shouldn't ignore the reality that those decisions have been made.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I wasn't a fan when this was announced... at all. But I have come to like the new design. It's far more visually interesting and pleasing then the original design.. I showed it to my partner who could care less about Disney and theme parks, and his response was "That looks really cool" I showed him a comparison to the old version "that's a huge improvement" ... so that's my field research. I think the GP will like it, and the fans will sit and stew.

 

[October82]

Here's where I can admit to giving leniency to the "new" business model. At the top of this building is a logo for a fictitious man/organization named Tivan- a creation owned by the Disney company- as opposed to say Monsanto.

This is a really good point and very well said. Where there is disagreement arises from the differences between, say, The Seas with Nemo and Friends as opposed to the Guardians attraction that is slated to replace Ellen's Energy Adventure.

 

[Curious Constance]

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.

First the Haunted Mansion rap, now this. Are you always so funky fresh?

 

[mickEblu]

First the Haunted Mansion rap, now this. Are you always so funky fresh?

 

[Disney Irish]

It wasn't a criticism. It was a discussion of one small part of this larger issue. As @sedati illustrated with his post earlier on this page, design and business realities are intricately linked. Disney's design choices are often dictated by the realities of their business strategy, and that strategy changes over time. Obviously there are going to be differences of opinion about whether these are good or bad decisions, but we shouldn't ignore the reality that those decisions have been made.

I think I will just say thank you for the conversation, because I think we are speaking past each other. This is the type of conversation better to be had in person. As opposed to a forum where things get lost in translation.

Because if I could get a couple of flow charts and power points going I could explain better how today's Disney is not all that different in terms of synergy compared to yesterday's Disney.

Maybe if I get a wild hair, I'll create a flow chart of how today's Disney synergy maps out with P&R.

 

[yookeroo]

Walt did have plenty of IP

Compared to today? It was just a drop in the bucket. What did he have? A dozen animated features? Some crappy live action movies? Lots of animated shorts? Mickey Mouse Club? Now they have all that plus the 2nd Disney Animation golden age. And we may be in a third. Plus Pixar. Plus Star Wars. Plus Marvel. Plus the Disney channel. Who can definitively say Walt wouldn't have built his park solely around IP that rich and deep?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Compared to today? It was just a drop in the bucket. What did he have? A dozen animated features? Some crappy live action movies? Lots of animated shorts? Mickey Mouse Club? Now they have all that plus the 2nd Disney Animation golden age. And we may be in a third. Plus Pixar. Plus Star Wars. Plus Marvel. Plus the Disney channel. Who can definitively say Walt wouldn't have built his park solely around IP that rich and deep?

Plus Muppets! (And Indy goes along with Star Wars/LucasFilm).

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

IP doesn't have to be a zero sum game. The parks have always been and should always be a mix of film IP and original IP. Current leadership is on the tilt toward all film IP, which is bad for the parks. It's fine to do some, even a lot, but when a whole park becomes a marketing tool for film franchises, you can't get classics like Pirates or HM or Big Thunder. If Walt had run the parks like Bob, Pirates would never have been built and there wouldn't be a 5 film multi-billion dollar franchise based on the ride.

 

[Curious Constance]

IP doesn't have to be a zero sum game. The parks have always been and should always be a mix of film IP and original IP. Current leadership is on the tilt toward all film IP, which is bad for the parks. It's fine to do some, even a lot, but when a whole park becomes a marketing tool for film franchises, you can't get classics like Pirates or HM or Big Thunder. If Walt had run the parks like Bob, Pirates would never have been built and there wouldn't be a 5 film multi-billion dollar franchise based on the ride.

They still could have made the movie without basing it on a ride and then when it was a hit, base a ride off of it. I don't know if it matters which comes first. I don't really have a strong preference either way. I would be fine with original non-IP attractions. I just don't mind the IP-based ones either. And I don't think a ride has to be original for it to become a classic. Radiator Springs racers, new Star Wars rides, fantasyland dark rides, all are, or will be, classics.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

I'm pleasantly intrigued by what we're seeing of GoG/Tower. But I'm terrified at the thought of encountering Zombie Mary Blair in some back corner on a foggy moonless night because that's what it makes me think of. < shudder >

 

[Phroobar]

... But I'm terrified at the thought of encountering Zombie Mary Blair in some back corner on a foggy moonless night because that's what it makes me think of. < shudder >

It's a Small Haunted World.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

It's a Small Haunted World.

Will we ever escape this???

 

[cheezbat]

I've finally figured out what this reminds me of.

The cake Castle. Something so iconic with more natural colors getting brightened up and made to look ridiculous.
Every picture I see of that bright building makes me laugh. All I see is the old hotel building painted with tons of crap slapped on it to try and hide what it once was. This is by far some of the ugliest work WDI has ever done. Why couldn't they have just built something else? Why not take over Bugs Land or Monsters Inc if they absolutely had to replace a ride or land?

 

[troy.]

Any chance of an AA here? or do you think the hole is just storyline appropriate?