Indiana Jones Land?

[BlakeW39]

I love how you put "Snyder/Whedon" like they somehow belong in the same category.

well they both jointly worked on JL... and both versions were "stupid" as @Sirwalterraleigh stated

 

[Eric M Blake]

"feeder park?"



Agreed...100%. Needs more edge for sure. The MCU actually never took itself seriously enough for my taste. But right now the MCU's main issues are three-fold:

1. making the same mistakes as the comics.... messing up the continuity and making the stories too intertwined and complex. Makes it hard to just be a 'casual fan'

2. the constant quips and humor and laughing at its own jokes. It doesn't take itself seriously... so why should I? GOTG3 was a breath of fresh air. It had jokes, but it was mature. I think most of the MCU just isn't nearly mature enough for its audience right now. The "cheeky" stuff as you call it got real old. Tonally the films are just so samey and jokey. And I liked a lot of what the MCU did at times.

3. quality is just shot. the characters are like dumbed down lamer versions of their comics counterparts and they used to actually not be that way. cgi looks bad. writing is trash. etc.

The problem started with Whedon and his increasing obsession with "Must tell a joke." As his quality declined (see Josstice League 2017, but I doubt some people here are ready for that conversation...), he rested on the laurels of his old success, and Marvel refused to see it...instead seeking to follow his example with Waititi and his ilk.

I agree on the need for more edge--more need to be serious, to embrace the drama. Of course, it's doubtful Kevin Feige would call Zack Snyder....

 

[Eric M Blake]

well they both jointly worked on JL... and both versions were "stupid" as @Sirwalterraleigh stated

It...wasn't jointly. WB brought Whedon in to reshoot the movie to make it like a Marvel film. If you watch the Zack Snyder's Justice League version, you can see how the two versions are worlds different.

 

[Eric M Blake]

Well, there ya go. They also got Spidey, of course.

At any rate, looking at the GPS...even the area around the Stunt Spectacular is kinda full. Frankly, it looks like DHS has pretty much filled up all the space the service buildings have "allowed" for it. So even IF the show gets torn down, God forbid...it'd only have room for one ride, so what's the point?

HOWEVER...there is the other side of World Dr, adjacent to the DHS area.
View attachment 721294

Mind you, that spot cleared of trees is apparently used for fireworks. But regardless, most of the region is deemed "suitable." So another relatively small park that butterflies with DHS might be what the doctor ordered for Indy to have his own land.

Now let's go back to the actual theme of the thread....

 

[BlakeW39]

The problem started with Whedon and his increasing obsession with "Must tell a joke." As his quality declined (see Josstice League 2017, but I doubt some people here are ready for that conversation...), he rested on the laurels of his old success, and Marvel refused to see it...instead seeking to follow his example with Waititi and his ilk.

I agree on the need for more edge--more need to be serious, to embrace the drama. Of course, it's doubtful Kevin Feige would call Zack Snyder....

agreed with this 100%.... I NEVER liked Waititi for the MCU and Ragnarok just did Thor so wrong as a character. They didn't get him right in the earlier films, so they just decided to tear the character down and start anew. Which was entirely unnecessary and pretty annoying as a Thor fan

It...wasn't jointly. WB brought Whedon in to reshoot the movie to make it like a Marvel film. If you watch the Zack Snyder's Justice League version, you can see how the two versions are worlds different.

it was jointly though. Both Whedon and Snyder had influence over the 2017 film. They never worked together on the project and their tastes were clearly very different but even in Whedon's version of the film, the bones of the film were mostly from Zack.

 

[Eric M Blake]

agreed with this 100%.... I NEVER liked Waititi for the MCU and Ragnarok just did Thor so wrong as a character. They didn't get him right in the earlier films, so they just decided to tear the character down and start anew. Which was entirely unnecessary and pretty annoying as a Thor fan
...
it was jointly though. Both Whedon and Snyder had influence over the 2017 film. They never worked together on the project and their tastes were clearly very different but even in Whedon's version of the film, the bones of the film were mostly from Zack.

Well, very liberal definition of "jointly," but regardless...what was painfully clear was their creative styles are so inherently different there was absolutely no way to combine the two like that and expect it to somehow work.

It's like taking The Dark Knight from Christopher Nolan and having Taika Waititi reshoot it with Nolan's "bones."

And I agree, Ragnarok sucks.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

De facto heads? Together?

Sir, in a "hot minute" you unveil you have absolutely NO idea what happened there in 2017.

Incidentally, you're talking with a guy who was a major player in the Snyder Cut movement. The very idea of Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon worked TOGETHER on anything, let alone running a studio together, is laughable.

So the “whedon stepped in on Justice league as Snyder dealt with a personal issue” was all an elaborate smokescreen?

Ok…could be.

You might have more insight on this than Disneys park history/future…things are looking up

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

"feeder park?"

the other parks have much higher overhead…Disney kinda abandoned that with recent changes to studios but I doubt they lean in anymore now.

At the end of the day…they’d rather people gravitate towards the others to lesson the overhead burden.

But we’re getting into the complex…better ask Eric how the place runs

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Ragnarok did suck. Rare agreement. I got laughed at for saying that…but it was a step towards MCU becoming far too stupid to gain more solid footing…and it has gone the other way since.

Comic book movies can be successful if they don’t start to have the characters “not believe” the scenarios they’re in. That’s always been the secret. Act it like it’s all “real”

Sci fi is like that too.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It...wasn't jointly. WB brought Whedon in to reshoot the movie to make it like a Marvel film. If you watch the Zack Snyder's Justice League version, you can see how the two versions are worlds different.

They both ended up like Megamaid

 

[BlakeW39]

I’ll remind: Disney is not in the market for an expansion to studios. They haven’t hinted they were once

the other parks have much higher overhead…Disney kinda abandoned that with recent changes to studios but I doubt they lean in anymore now.

At the end of the day…they’d rather people gravitate towards the others to lesson the overhead burden.

But we’re getting into the complex…better ask Eric how the place runs

oh okay, interesting. so they want to keep studios smaller so that overhead costs are kept low? or rather, so that overhead can be justified at the other three. I definitely wouldn't have thought they'd invest substantially in the park over the next decade, but you don't think longer term they'd want to invest either? I think either way Indy is not viable. The franchise doesn't fit that pop-IP appeal Disney seems to gravitate to right now... and with a box office failure on the way, I doubt.Disney would invest substantially in the franchise at the parks.

DAK has the highest overhead right? so my assumption would be they'd prefer to invest there, which I'll be real, kind of scares me.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

oh okay, interesting. so they want to keep studios smaller so that overhead costs are kept low? or rather, so that overhead can be justified at the other three. I definitely wouldn't have thought they'd invest substantially in the park over the next decade, but you don't think longer term they'd want to invest either? I think either way Indy is not viable. The franchise doesn't fit that pop-IP appeal Disney seems to gravitate to right now... and with a box office failure on the way, I doubt.Disney would invest substantially in the franchise at the parks.

DAK has the highest overhead right? so my assumption would be they'd prefer to invest there, which I'll be real, kind of scares me.

For 20 years…they were content to have dak and mgm feed people into the other 2 parks and downtown in the evening. Obviously the older are the more fleshed out places with more name tags

But they did pivot in the last 10 years a bit. And they should. I give credit for that. In the end - studios isn’t much better than it was - but they tried. More of a refresh than an expansion based on capacity.

DAK is the enigma for them. Eisner forced that through and zoos cost a TON of money. High overhead. Unavoidable.

That would never…ever..be greenlit today. Not for a second.

 

[Eric M Blake]

oh okay, interesting. so they want to keep studios smaller so that overhead costs are kept low? or rather, so that overhead can be justified at the other three. I definitely wouldn't have thought they'd invest substantially in the park over the next decade, but you don't think longer term they'd want to invest either? I think either way Indy is not viable. The franchise doesn't fit that pop-IP appeal Disney seems to gravitate to right now... and with a box office failure on the way, I doubt.Disney would invest substantially in the franchise at the parks.

DAK has the highest overhead right? so my assumption would be they'd prefer to invest there, which I'll be real, kind of scares me.

Word IS, they're gonna revamp Dinoland into Zootopia.

Understandable, since the Dinosaur ride is now pretty much the one guaranteed short waiting line in the whole park, all day. Plus the "Chester & Hester" carnival part is pretty dead. (Especially since they tore down the little roller coaster. It seems...it's way past its heyday.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Word IS, they're gonna revamp Dinoland into Zootopia.

Understandable, since the Dinosaur ride is now pretty much the one guaranteed short waiting line in the whole park, all day. Plus the "Chester & Hester" carnival part is pretty dead. (Especially since they tore down the little roller coaster. It seems...it's way past its heyday.

That’s not the “word”…that was what they floated at their fan fest last year when chappie was under duress.

Now…Iger is under duress…so it breaths more into that idea now than the hoax it was then.

Maybe they’ll put it in the 5th park?

 

[Eric M Blake]

That’s not the “word”…that was what they floated at their fan fest last year when chappie was under duress.

Now…Iger is under duress…so it breaths more into that idea now that the hoax it was then.

Maybe they’ll put it in the 5th park?

Ha. Your sarcasm aside--much as I love the Dinoland theme, the area SERIOUSLY needs an energy shot, one way or another. Considering, again, the tearing down of the small coaster, that "carnival" part of it in particular needs replacing.

I'd personally prefer more dino action, but the whole "institute" and "paleontological dig" theme kinda limits what you can do, there...hence the carnival, which again is kinda dying.

(That's why I've argued a "real" Dinoland is best suited for a Beastly Kingdom 5th Gate concept, but whatever.)

So replacing what's there is fairly inevitable, be it Zootopia or "real" Dinoland. Take your pick.

Unless you think maybe that'll be where they can put the Indy stuff?

"Indiana Jones & The Jurassic Relm"?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Ha. Your sarcasm aside--much as I love the Dinoland theme, the area SERIOUSLY needs an energy shot, one way or another. Considering, again, the tearing down of the small coaster, that "carnival" part of it in particular needs replacing.

I'd personally prefer more dino action, but the whole "institute" and "paleontological dig" theme kinda limits what you can do, there...hence the carnival, which again is kinda dying.

(That's why I've argued a "real" Dinoland is best suited for a Beastly Kingdom 5th Gate concept, but whatever.)

So replacing what's there is fairly inevitable, be it Zootopia or "real" Dinoland. Take your pick.

Unless you think maybe that'll be where they can put the Indy stuff?

"Indiana Jones & The Jurassic Relm"?

I’m still trying to find where they feel the need to add anything?

After overspending on things for iger’s last 5 years more than the 10 years he had prior by a lot?
And it really didn’t produce much.

It’s not about parks…it’s about the management philosophy

 

[Eric M Blake]

I’m still trying to find where they feel the need to add anything?

After overspending on things for iger’s last 5 years more than the 10 years he had prior by a lot?
And it really didn’t produce much.

It’s not about parks…it’s about the management philosophy

You just said, yourself--

Now…Iger is under duress…so it breaths more into that idea now than the hoax it was then.

Thus, by your own admission, the odds are better now than a year ago.

So, let's get to the point: What do YOU think they're gonna do with Dinoland USA? Tearing down the little coaster surely means they're gonna do SOMETHING....

 

[BlakeW39]

For 20 years…they were content to have dak and mgm feed people into the other 2 parks and downtown in the evening. Obviously the older are the more fleshed out places with more name tags

But they did pivot in the last 10 years a bit. And they should. I give credit for that. In the end - studios isn’t much better than it was - but they tried. More of a refresh than an expansion based on capacity.

DAK is the enigma for them. Eisner forced that through and zoos cost a TON of money. High overhead. Unavoidable.

That would never…ever..be greenlit today. Not for a second.

Yeah I mean they made an attempt to 'refresh' DHS but it was a sorry @$# attempt imo. I mean the park lost its themes and added generally mediocre new lands/attractions. All the while not even adding much capacity. Indy would do the park some good but I agree that any expansion to the park is far fetched for at least the next decade or so.

For sure. There's no chance Iger would have greenlit DAK. I do think the park was a good decision though for WDW because, despite higher overhead costs, it added considerably to the breadth of entertainment offerings at WDW. But I do agree it is an enigma for WDC management. If they could I have no doubt they'd prefer to pivot away from the live animals, but that's not really an easy thing to do and based on how much they market the live animals at DAK, I don't believe that's the current direction they're taking.

Word IS, they're gonna revamp Dinoland into Zootopia.

Understandable,

Not understable man. Very very exceedingly stupid actually. Eisner built a good attraction in a beyond crappy, underbudgeted land, and stuck it over in the corner of that land too by the way, so that no one would be directed to it. Then Iger.... instead of fixing the problems that caused its lack of popularity.. actually changed Dinosaur from being a good ride in a bad land to a bad ride in a bad land. That is still tucked away from park goers. And now he uses this as an excuse to dump Zootopia there...? nah. stupid.

 

[Eric M Blake]

Yeah I mean they made an attempt to 'refresh' DHS but it was a sorry @$# attempt imo. I mean the park lost its themes and added generally mediocre new lands/attractions.

I agree to an extent, with one particular example:

Replacing The Great Movie Ride with what can best be described as Mr Toad's Wild Ride, But With Mickey.

As for replacing the Backlot Tour with Galaxy's Edge and Toy Story Land...GE can pretty much be constantly counted on to be packed. It's paying off well. TSL you may think doesn't live up to potential...but Slinky and Toy Story Mania are certainly popular.

It is what it is.

All the while not even adding much capacity. Indy would do the park some good but I agree that any expansion to the park is far fetched for at least the next decade or so.

Alas, as both Walter and I noted...there ain't any space left.

Unless, of course...

They clear away and move the few "service buildings" or whatever north of Rock N Roller Coaster, and use that tree-filled corner. There's your expansion!

Only question is, do they do it?

Not understable man. Very very exceedingly stupid actually. Eisner built a good attraction in a beyond crappy, underbudgeted land, and stuck it over in the corner of that land too by the way, so that no one would be directed to it. Then Iger.... instead of fixing the problems that caused its lack of popularity.. actually changed Dinosaur from being a good ride in a bad land to a bad ride in a bad land. That is still tucked away from park goers. And now he uses this as an excuse to dump Zootopia there...? nah. stupid.

I actually agree--I'd much prefer a better Dinoland.

Hence why I wrote...

Much as I love the Dinoland theme, the area SERIOUSLY needs an energy shot, one way or another. Considering, again, the tearing down of the small coaster, that "carnival" part of it in particular needs replacing.

I'd personally prefer more dino action, but the whole "institute" and "paleontological dig" theme kinda limits what you can do, there...hence the carnival, which again is kinda dying.

(That's why I've argued a "real" Dinoland is best suited for a Beastly Kingdom 5th Gate concept, but whatever.)

So replacing what's there is fairly inevitable, be it Zootopia or "real" Dinoland. Take your pick.

Unless you think maybe that'll be where they can put the Indy stuff?

"Indiana Jones & The Jurassic Relm"?

What do you think?

 

[MisterPenguin]

I agree to an extent, with one particular example:

Replacing The Great Movie Ride with what can best be described as Mr Toad's Wild Ride, But With Mickey.

As for replacing the Backlot Tour with Galaxy's Edge and Toy Story Land...GE can pretty much be constantly counted on to be packed. It's paying off well. TSL you may think doesn't live up to potential...but Slinky and Toy Story Mania are certainly popular.

It is what it is.

Alas, as both Walter and I noted...there ain't any space left.

Unless, of course...
View attachment 721436
They clear away and move the few "service buildings" or whatever north of Rock N Roller Coaster, and use that tree-filled corner. There's your expansion!

Only question is, do they do it?

I actually agree--I'd much prefer a better Dinoland.

Hence why I wrote...

What do you think?

That's a cypress grove and it's protected.

There are a few small pads throughout DHS, as well as the option to raze most of the Back of House still left.

There is also the entirety of the parking lot and forest between DHS and CBR. That has all been rezoned as developable.