lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Gee... If only The Walt Disney Company had a design unit tasked with creating compelling, imaginative experiences for their theme parks and resorts....
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Hollywood Studios expansion news!
- Thread starter WDWLover#1
- Start date
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Gosh, exactly. If the Imagineers sat and thought for some time, they could come up with a plethora of ideas. Like Cars Land is the only solution. It's called laziness.
jdmdisney99
Well-Known Member
And Meg Crofton said, "I know, right!?"
DisneyFan 2000
Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure they even need to take the time sitting and thinking. There are so many amazing ideas, at various forms of conception, that to say they even need to cook up something new is ridiculous. They just need to pick something off the shelf, like kids at a toy store.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
They have so many ideas shelved. They need to just pick one and go with it.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I hardly doubt the problem is creativity.
The problem is budget, as we hear over and over. And marketing.
While we as super-fans tend to dismiss clones as lazy (though I certainly do not), they make perfect sense:
* R&D for the ride is already essentially done, it just needs to be localized
* Most guests assume that all rides are at all parks. I rarely meet someone IRL that understands that Mr. Toad may still be at Disneyland, but not at WDW. It doesn't even occur to them that they would be different. They see some blurb somewhere about Carsland, and naturally assume there would be one at the Disney park they go to.
* The amount of guests who visit the parks on both coasts (especially "regularly") I would be willing to bet is very, very tiny. I am sure Disney runs the numbers, but I wouldn't think it crazy that less than 5% of the guests at WDW on any given day have ever stepped foot (or will ever step foot) into Disneyland.
Clones only irritate a portion of super-fans on the Internet because they are more likely to visit multiple parks, or expect each one to be a "unique" experience when it comes to the attraction line-up. Both of those things are in the severe minority when it comes to average guests, though.
It also makes sense marketing-wise - they don't have to localize marketing so much, and guest services doesn't have to explain at WDW where Carsland is when it's shown on TV, etc.
I whole-heartedly support Carsland, because by all accounts it's a smashing success, and MGM will most likely get a lot more bang for it's buck by reusing the concept. While I would love a wholly original Star Warsland, or some real Muppet attractions (D-ticket or better), to be honest, I'd rather have Carsland than some of the other concepts I have heard about them actually doing.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I couldn't care less about the guests who are unaware about certain rides only being in specific parks. I really couldn't care less about WDW fans who've never been/can't go/won't go to Disneyland, and same vice versa. You know my response to that? Oh well.
I don't think budget is a problem, considering Avatar Land. I could see if TDO had absolute nothing planned, but they did and do (?). It wasn't until Cars Land started working wonders for DCA when rumors started going around that WDW is considering building the same product in Florida, and apparently dropping Avatar Land. Laziness and I'll include cheapness too, while I'm at it.
spacemt354
Chili's
This discussion of clones, Carsland, and creative "laziness" at TDO has been debated on and on around these forums for the last few months. It's the same rhetoric back and forth every time from people who want Carsland to stay in DCA, and people who argue that they will never travel to the west coast, and people who think disney world is taking the easy way out in cloning Carsland.
Carsland at WDW would not be a lazy move, it would be a smart move. And the decision more than likely is not coming from the TDO. It's coming from a higher power that realizes the money maker and attendance booster for WDW that addition would be. It's quite simple really.
It's not creative laziness. It's a smart business move that I hope becomes reality. And if the insiders are correct, a unique to DHS Monster's Inc coaster should be coming as well, which should satisfy the people who want unique attractions at wdw.
Carsland at WDW would not be a lazy move, it would be a smart move. And the decision more than likely is not coming from the TDO. It's coming from a higher power that realizes the money maker and attendance booster for WDW that addition would be. It's quite simple really.
It's not creative laziness. It's a smart business move that I hope becomes reality. And if the insiders are correct, a unique to DHS Monster's Inc coaster should be coming as well, which should satisfy the people who want unique attractions at wdw.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They're not mutually exclusive.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
It most definitely is creative laziness. Fans and tourists will experience pretty much anything the company comes out with for its parks, and Disney knows this. They know as much as people complain about Avatar Land, people would flock to it, and pretty much anything, simply because it's a Disney created product. The company knows this; they just don't give a crap.
spacemt354
Chili's
Actually, budget was/still is a major player in the Avatar project. In addition, I've read that the next few Avatar films (which have been pushed back) tend to portray humans in an even worse sense then the first film did. Does that type of storyline scream Disney? It doesn't to me. And although the land itself would have probably looked fantastic, I don't see Avatar having the same merchandise boost that I see in Cars.
And as I said above, this whole debate about people who can't/won't travel to different coasts is kinda pointless, as everyone is on different budgets and has different schedules. You have said yourself that you haven't been to WDW. So idk why you are making such a big deal out of people who can't/won't travel to Disneyland, and thus would like Cars land to come to their "home" park. Yeah, I know you;ve said before how it's so special to the people in Cali, but building the land in DHS is not taking it away from DCA. The people who love it in Cali can still love it, even if it comes to WDW.
To be honest I don't see the big deal of it all.
And to clarify...Yes, TDO probably has other projects on the drawing board, but they are not proven to be successful. Yes it's true, when Walt built Disneyland, he was taking a risk. It wasn't a proven success already, but he took that risk and look what happened. Yes, I would like WDW to take risks, to push the envelope, to amaze me. But DHS cannot afford to take any risks. Maybe it's because you haven't been there, but if you saw the state of the park, you would realize Cars land is just such a no-brainer that it would be very foolish to pass up in favor of something else.
And besides as I said, the unique and original monster's inc coaster should be coming along with Cars land if the plan works out as the insiders suggest
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
How am I making it a big deal? I said I didn't care about people who've never been to DLR. How is that making it a big deal? It doesn't bother me that I've yet to go to WDW, because I know I'm going someday.
That's all I'll say in response to your post. Like you said, this debate can and will go on and on, and we already know each other's stance on the subject. I don't feel like going back and forth again.
ctxak98
Well-Known Member
I am just going to say this. If we keep focusing on how Avatar is too mature for kids and innapropriate! then Universal will eventually take over the themepark world. The world is changing and changing fast...especially the next generation and how things are displayed towards kids and teens. Seeing scary movies and more thrilling movies is like no big deal anymore. Universal has a majority of BIG BLOCKBUSTER films being used at there parks. Disney only relies on PIXAR nowadays for there HUGE projects. Atleast for there U.S. themeparks. Sure Disney can create the coolest and most IMMERSIVE world created by Imagineers but everything is now coming down to Property....atleast in my eyes
SO i agree with Raven that copying Carsland is a bad choice. Disney should either create some other PIXAR related ride OR go with something Starwars, Idiana Jones, or Avatar...those are the only things Disney has right now that will steal some fire from UNis Harry Potter 2.0 and Transformers.
SO i agree with Raven that copying Carsland is a bad choice. Disney should either create some other PIXAR related ride OR go with something Starwars, Idiana Jones, or Avatar...those are the only things Disney has right now that will steal some fire from UNis Harry Potter 2.0 and Transformers.
spacemt354
Chili's
It's just a pattern I've seen in reading and commenting on these forums. This debate has gone on for months and I'm really kinda tired of it.
Not trying to be insulting in any way, but when debate comes up on these forums about Cars land, from my impression you get so defensive about it remaining in DCA because if WDW wants to build it then that's just lazy. Then to the people want Carsland to come to WDW because they can't travel out west, you've said to them (which is a fair point) that each resort should have their own attractions.
But I do feel that there is another side to this argument (which also provides fair points) which is why I think this debate goes on forever. Because there are reasons why people feel the way they do, that you would only understand if you were in their shoes.
For example, a logical person would argue that if a family spends $10,000 in WDW for 6 days, then they should have enough money for the flight and a 4-5 night stay at Disneyland. A logical thought process. But not very practical for some families. There are components of that decision that are not factored into that logical argument. Some people can't fly, some people don't want to fly, some people like staying close to home, some people just don't like the hassle of long flights for their vacation And some people just simply like WDW better, because there is more to do, it's more of a vacation destination, and they already enjoy it. Some people have the philosophy of "if it aint broke, don't fix it"
If you don't care about these people, that's fine, but that also means you don't care about the reasons behind their opinion, which is why I feel these debates go on forever because one side can't understand the other. Again, not trying to insult, just trying to provide a more in depth view from a regular visitor to WDW who wouldn't mind Cars land coming to DHS. Actually, It'd be a really warm welcome to DHS, because it needs some love. I've been to Disneyland before as well and I agree traveling to different disney parks that not everything should be copied. But I don't think Cars land constitutes as everything. And it's still in DCA. So the people who want it in DCA can still go to it. That's why I don't view it as a big deal.
It's not a big deal that 7dmt is also being built in china. It's not a big deal when the tower of terror is "cloned" throughout Disney parks around the world. But when a clone of cars land could be coming to Disney world, then it's lazy. If that's lazy then the idea of the magic kingdoms in Orlando, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc are lazy concepts as well, as they all "copied" the same format as Disneyland. I'm sure people around the world are thankful they can enjoy the Disney magic closer to their home. And there are always differences despite copying an idea. There are minor differences in the orlando's little mermaid ride, although it is considered a copy of dca's version. The magic kingdom in paris is different than the magic kingdom in flordia, although they have similar attractions/layouts. I could go on and on but the point is, to me, Cars land in DHS is following that same notion.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Well, that's lovely. If you care or not is irrelevant to the point, though.
It does not change the facts of the matter, which I quite clearly stated above. Maybe 1 out of 20 people who walk through the gates of WDW will ever see Disneyland, so it's in their best interests to have the attraction on both coasts. And that's in Disney's best interests to keep guests happy.
And it makes sense budget wise - let's say they have 100M to spend, we could get an original D-ticket once you factor in all the R&D, etc., or they could go with an already designed attraction and get an E-ticket for the same price because virtually all the R&D (which is a considerable amount of the cost of building an attraction) is done.
I have to giggle at people thinking it's "lazy" - it's smart. Smart for everyone, except for a small group of online fans who for some crazy reason resents the idea and fails to recognize all the benefits, caring only for their personal wishes. Disney parks are not designed for you, they are designed for the majority of guests.
You should check out Eddie Soto's thread if you think of Imagineering as "lazy". There are thousands of ideas out there they have, but they have to work with what kinds of budgets they are provided with, and to give people what they want the best they can with what they can work with. I'm very critical of a lot of what WDW has done over the past decade or so - which isn't very much, mind you - but I don't think it's about "laziness", it's about penny pinchers in the management level.
It's kind of an absurd argument - "They have this massively popular ride that is getting one audience (at Disneyland), and a resort that has more guests per year where they could put it so even more people could enjoy it, but they shouldn't, because...a bunch of people online who sit around and talk about theme parks year in and year out think it's lazy/tacky/whatever." To that, I'll have to return your, "Oh well..." to those people who want experiences to remain "unique" for the tiny percentage of people who will ever visit parks on both coasts.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Walt Disney World as a whole has become stale because there is no risk taking. The identity crisis at the Disney-MGM Studios is because of that same aversion to risk taking. The park has become a place to toss brands because the brand "needs" a place in the parks. I would think now, more than ever, a truly groundbreaking project that helps to reinforce whatever identity the park is to have is needed. Not one that only furthers the tossing in of known brands.
HTF
Well-Known Member
Just to chime in, adding Carsland to DHS is a great business move. The team in Glendale has already picked up the check on the biggest bill outside of the rock work which is the R&D. The amount of ticket sales, annual passes, and most importantly food and merchandise sales it would bring to WDW's stale step child couldn't be matched by any other project for the cost WDW would have to invest.
Another way to look at it is Universal Studios. Singapore footed the bill for all the R&D on Transformers as well as all the animations through ILM. So that left the door wide open on bringing it to Hollywood at a fraction of the price and the same goes for Orlando as well. Hollywood is also getting their version of Potter a a fraction of the price because all the R&D is done.
It's also not unusual for parks that launch clones to split part of the R&D. Osaka and Orlando are doing it now with phase 2. So while yes clones may not be as creative, they are the best bang for the buck for these mega resorts. And how could anyone complain about Carsland, it's easily the greatest Disney experience since the mid 90's.
Another way to look at it is Universal Studios. Singapore footed the bill for all the R&D on Transformers as well as all the animations through ILM. So that left the door wide open on bringing it to Hollywood at a fraction of the price and the same goes for Orlando as well. Hollywood is also getting their version of Potter a a fraction of the price because all the R&D is done.
It's also not unusual for parks that launch clones to split part of the R&D. Osaka and Orlando are doing it now with phase 2. So while yes clones may not be as creative, they are the best bang for the buck for these mega resorts. And how could anyone complain about Carsland, it's easily the greatest Disney experience since the mid 90's.
Because I hate Cars. And no matter how fantastic it may be, a land about a property that I care 0% about would never be appealing to me. Not trying to be devil's advocate here, but people need to keep in mind that Cars is not something that is universally loved like many other Disney/Pixar properties are.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
But there are more then enough people who don't feel as you do to make it worth while. Harry Potter isn't universally loved but Universal is (pun unavoidable) making a killing on it.
RandySavage
Well-Known Member
At this point it looks like cloning Carsland is a sound & prudent decision, particularly from a business perspective. Hard to argue that. But naming it the single "best" or "greatest" thing TWDC could do to improve DHS, the best bang for the buck, etc....
I posit that visionary, bold leadership would try to top Carsland with something even better (akin to making original mega-budget films vs making sequels (or re-boots) to successful films)... The old axiom of creative genius: "don't give the people what they want, give them what they don't know they want yet." My feeling is that the right talent with the right budget could create something (a number of things) better & more popular than a 2015 Carsland clone... a fresh idea, which despite the much higher upfront costs, could (there's the risk, but sometimes bigger buck = bigger bang) outperform a Carsland and raise the standards even further.
I posit that visionary, bold leadership would try to top Carsland with something even better (akin to making original mega-budget films vs making sequels (or re-boots) to successful films)... The old axiom of creative genius: "don't give the people what they want, give them what they don't know they want yet." My feeling is that the right talent with the right budget could create something (a number of things) better & more popular than a 2015 Carsland clone... a fresh idea, which despite the much higher upfront costs, could (there's the risk, but sometimes bigger buck = bigger bang) outperform a Carsland and raise the standards even further.