Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

[dweezil78]

That's what the "waa-waaaaaa" was referring to. Beaten to the punch.

Aha, I getcha.

 

[Stevek]

I think the majority of visitors have considered the new slick overlay a vast improvement over the boring drive through an open warehouse attraction that previously existed. Can't please 'em all though I suppose!

Yeah, I pretty much loved the old test track and was never bored.

 

[dweezil78]

Yeah, I pretty much loved the old test track and was never bored.

Sorry man, that came out wrong I guess... wasn't trying to talk smack on fans of the original. I didn't hate it. Just was moreso trying to say the overlay they did in a pretty short amount of time was, for all intents and purposes, pretty universally well-received. I personally happen to dig the new aesthetic and think it's a better match for Future World with more of an original EPCOT Center feel (by way of Tron).

 

[yookeroo]

see the resort through until the third park opens, at which point they can expand it again.

There seems to be a big assumption here that a third park will come. Is this based on anything other than wishful thinking?

 

[Deleted member 107043]

There seems to be a big assumption here that a third park will come. Is this based on anything other than wishful thinking?

Seems like mostly wishful thinking to me. There's no real justification for another park in Anaheim. Just looking at what it took to get DCA up to speed (and it still can't compete with DL) I don't see how Disney could generate the kind of returns necessary to invest in another theme park in SoCal.

 

[Disneysea05]

There seems to be a big assumption here that a third park will come. Is this based on anything other than wishful thinking?

Disney spent decades trying to acquire the property for the third theme park, a former strawberry field. It is already zoned to be used as a theme park. Who knows if it will ever happen, but they spent a lot of time and money to get the land.

 

[NobodyElse]

The ideal size would be at least 12,000 spots, which is enough to demolish Mickey and Friends (see my post) and see the resort through until the third park opens, at which point they can expand it again.

The Sybron/Pumbaa spot can easily accommodate a structure for 12,000 spots right now. Remember, Mickey and Friends is sized the way it is to accommodate the residential district across the road and to avoid it from peeking above the Rivers of America. None of those constraints exist on the Sybron/Pumbaa site. Which means they can go bigger. Much bigger.

But they don't need much bigger right now. They need somewhat bigger, just to handle the heavy load days. About 12,000 spots gets you there. So you build that now and have an expansion plan ready.

Building a parking structure that can one day expand with more floors upward is actually pretty easy. You simply design the foundation beforehand to handle all the future weight you think you'll need, then build it so that the support columns have a system that can add floors one by one whenever they're needed. You also design the ramps to keep going upward. It's done more often than people think.



I mean the shortest distance to get from parking to park gate. It is assumed that one wouldn't pass through the Esplanade if it isn't needed. The parking lot with the shortest walk to that gate would be from Pumbaa.

Ah, undersized based on the demolition of Mickey & Friends. While that's a possible scenario, I find it highly unlikely. If they tear down M&F in the next 15 years, come back here to remind me and I'll humbly stand corrected.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Who knows if it will ever happen, but they spent a lot of time and money to get the land.

They did, but the performance of DCA even now probably makes them reluctant to invest in building another park. At the time the purchase of additional land for a future theme park probably seemed like the logical thing to do, but the DLR expansion proved that you can't just slap the Disney brand on a park in Anaheim and expect Disneyland sized crowds to appear. Not saying it'll never happen, nor am I suggesting that the DLR expansion hasn't been a success, just wondering if a third park has been on anyone's radar since Eisner left the building given the bumpy ride DLR went through in the early 2000s.

 

[NobodyElse]

There seems to be a big assumption here that a third park will come. Is this based on anything other than wishful thinking?

It seems to me that the third theme park will be constantly just over the horizon until they build something like a large hotel on the lot (dashing the wishful thinking) or actually build the thing.

The concept however is not a figment of fan's imaginations. Didn't www.thirdthemepark.com once exist?

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Yep. I think it went live before DCA opened.

 

[NobodyElse]

Yep. I think it went live before DCA opened.

I can't really remember, but that sounds right. Those were the salad days of "DCA's going to be an awesome success. We'll have to use Disneyland as overflow. We'd better start thinking about another park now!"

 

[Deleted member 107043]

According to the Wayback Machine archive the site launched in 2000. Here's a bookmark from 2001:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010202124900/http://thirdthemepark.com/

 

[Variable]

Disney spent decades trying to acquire the property for the third theme park, a former strawberry field. It is already zoned to be used as a theme park. Who knows if it will ever happen, but they spent a lot of time and money to get the land.

Where is this?

 

[Stevek]

Where is this?

Harbor, south of Katella aka the Toy Story parking lot.

 

[Variable]

Harbor, south of Katella aka the Toy Story parking lot.

Ah, ok. Thanks!

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

I think that's only in Orlando, and Japan that Disney can't use Marvel in there parks.

No, Disney is prohibited from using the word Marvel in theme park marketing materials worldwide. They are permitted to build Marvel attractions everywhere except Walt Disney World, but they cannot use the word Marvel in the names of rides or lands because of this clause in the Universal contract.

That's why, if you look at the GOTG ride logo, the Marvel insignia is absent. The DPB article mentions "Super Heroes" (with caps) but not Marvel.

 

[Variable]

No, Disney is prohibited from using the word Marvel in theme park marketing materials worldwide. They are permitted to build Marvel attractions everywhere except Walt Disney World, but they cannot use the word Marvel in the names of rides or lands because of this clause in the Universal contract.

That's why, if you look at the GOTG ride logo, the Marvel insignia is absent. The DPB article mentions "Super Heroes" (with caps) but not Marvel.

For the theme park side of the ledger, Disney doesn't seem to have gotten much for its money.
And they didn't need marvel just to have super heroes in its stable. SH are a dime a dozen, all it takes is a little imagination - and I thought Disney had that.

 

[Suspirian]

this is wishful thinking, but i would really love to see The Twilight Zone implemented somewhere else in Hollywoodland. Maybe as part of a larger halloween event.

 

[Stevek]

this is wishful thinking, but i would really love to see The Twilight Zone implemented somewhere else in Hollywoodland. Maybe as part of a larger halloween event.

Sadly, I think that once it's gone....it's gone.

 

[Twilight_Roxas]

No, Disney is prohibited from using the word Marvel in theme park marketing materials worldwide. They are permitted to build Marvel attractions everywhere except Walt Disney World, but they cannot use the word Marvel in the names of rides or lands because of this clause in the Universal contract.

That's why, if you look at the GOTG ride logo, the Marvel insignia is absent. The DPB article mentions "Super Heroes" (with caps) but not Marvel.

and Japan.