Indiana Jones Land?

[BlakeW39]

Toy Story Land should have been an indoor pavillion type concept. That is the only way they could have effectively conveyed the perspective of being as small as a toy.

The problem with Toy Story Land isn't budget, it's once again, poor decision making and a lack of imagination at WDI.

 

[BlakeW39]

Honestly, since the yellow is where the entrance is, I'd see any "yellow expansion" would be the clearing of the trees for more parking, to replace the parking lot in the orange.

That said, the orange alone is pure Chef's Kiss for park expansion.

THIS. Honestly, it should be a given if they ever intend to truly expand DHS. Indy Adventure right "behind" the Stunt Spectacular, courtesy of the orange.

It's "What The People Want."

So many endless possibilities, and frankly they can all be achieved with the orange alone.

I like Indy (the OT at least) but I'm seriously going to advise you to not have high hopes for more Indy in the parks. Put simply Indy is a franchise that has seen decreasing relevance for decades and it doesn't appear that its relevance will increase any time soon.

 

[Bocabear]

but a new attraction would boost relevance... they can control that if they want to...

 

[MagicHappens1971]

but a new attraction would boost relevance... they can control that if they want to...

I think this is another side of the "IP-war" that we've gotten into on here that no one has really discussed. Disney infusing new life into an IP like Indy into the parks, while the property is dwindling in popularity, can bring new people to the franchise, whether it be through merchandise, or maybe they decide to finally give it a watch on Disney+, etc.

I think still though, for them, they'd rather just use the more popular "proven" IPs to infuse into the parks, so they know they will get more bang for their buck but adding those attractions to the parks.

Some on here say that I'm wrong and that adding IPs to the parks, doesn't mean more revenue for Disney, but I disagree.

 

[BlakeW39]

but a new attraction would boost relevance... they can control that if they want to...

I think this is another side of the "IP-war" that we've gotten into on here that no one has really discussed. Disney infusing new life into an IP like Indy into the parks, while the property is dwindling in popularity, can bring new people to the franchise, whether it be through merchandise, or maybe they decide to finally give it a watch on Disney+, etc.

I think still though, for them, they'd rather just use the more popular "proven" IPs to infuse into the parks, so they know they will get more bang for their buck but adding those attractions to the parks.

Some on here say that I'm wrong and that adding IPs to the parks, doesn't mean more revenue for Disney, but I disagree.

I find it very doubtful that a theme park attraction would significantly increase the relevance (which I use here to indicate 'contemporary marketing appeal) of an IP. It wouldn't for Indy and it won't for TRON. theme park rides get very little exposure from the broader public and aren't relevant to most people. The popularity "boost" to an IP, like TRON, just because it has a new ride at Disney World, would likely be quite small. And keep in mind that theme park attractions operate on larger time scales than movies do, so even if new rides could boost broader IP popularity, it would take much longer for them to do so than would be ideal for increasing contemporary marketing appeal.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I find it very doubtful that a theme park attraction would significantly increase the relevance (which I use here to indicate 'contemporary marketing appeal) of an IP. It wouldn't for Indy and it won't for TRON. theme park rides get very little exposure from the broader public and aren't relevant to most people. The popularity "boost" to an IP, like TRON, just because it has a new ride at Disney World, would likely be quite small. And keep in mind that theme park attractions operate on larger time scales than movies do, so even if new rides could boost broader IP popularity, it would take much longer for them to do so than would be ideal for increasing contemporary marketing appeal.

I understand your POV on this, but then there's also the Pirates franchise that launched based on a Theme Park IP.

 

[Eric M Blake]

but a new attraction would boost relevance... they can control that if they want to...

I think this is another side of the "IP-war" that we've gotten into on here that no one has really discussed. Disney infusing new life into an IP like Indy into the parks, while the property is dwindling in popularity, can bring new people to the franchise, whether it be through merchandise, or maybe they decide to finally give it a watch on Disney+, etc.

I think still though, for them, they'd rather just use the more popular "proven" IPs to infuse into the parks, so they know they will get more bang for their buck but adding those attractions to the parks.

Some on here say that I'm wrong and that adding IPs to the parks, doesn't mean more revenue for Disney, but I disagree.

I mean, Sean Patrick Flannery is still around. They could resume the Young Indiana Jones Adventures on Disney+ if they wanted to. Focus on his adventures working under Professor Ravenwood and alongside Miriam....

 

[Eric M Blake]

I understand your POV on this, but then there's also the Pirates franchise that launched based on a Theme Park IP.

Plus the fact that they DID do the Tron ride. Old IP or not.

 

[BlakeW39]

I understand your POV on this, but then there's also the Pirates franchise that launched based on a Theme Park IP.

that's true, but POTC gained popularity over decades of guests going to the parks and building memories. that kind of thing inherently takes a long time. it's just the nature of the parks as a business, they deal with longer time frames. So I doubt a new parks attraction would be an effective way of increasing the short term, modern relevance of an IP

 

[UNCgolf]

that's true, but POTC gained popularity over decades of guests going to the parks and building memories. that kind of thing inherently takes a long time. it's just the nature of the parks as a business, they deal with longer time frames. So I doubt a new parks attraction would be an effective way of increasing the short term, modern relevance of an IP

More importantly, the Pirates franchise became successful because they made a good movie people enjoyed. It wasn't because of the tenuous connection to a theme park ride.

 

[BlakeW39]

More importantly, the Pirates franchise got big because they made a good movie people enjoyed. It wasn't because of the tenuous connection to a theme park ride.

Agreed. POTC got big because it was quality (almost like that's the main reason art gets popular) and because it had Depp (more well known name than POTC really....THAT was 80% of the brand power here). it's not indicative of much strength in the ride as an IP, beyond the fact that Disney was confident enough to base a big budget movie on it in the first place

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It must be “amnesia Tuesday”

Big shot Bob bought grand IP…years later he put his grand ip into mothballed areas of mgm and built a new driveway and a ski lift from the bunny slopes to it.

It was a “legacy build”…a monument to himself.

What is this talk of “expansion”?

I think the situation is being missed. But as always I’d love for them to get off their @$$ and prove me wrong.

 

[BlakeW39]

It must be “amnesia Tuesday”

Big shot Bob bought grand IP…years later he put his grand ip into mothballed areas of mgm and built a new driveway and a ski lift from the bunny slopes to it.

It was a “legacy build”…a monument to himself.

What is this talk of “expansion”?

I think the situation is being missed. But as always I’d love for them to get off their @$$ and prove me wrong.

all this is very fair and I do agree. If we see parks investment soon I don't think it will be at the studios. and certainly it won't be Indy. Current philosophy seems to be DHS "got their share" and for better or worse that park just is what it is. That said I do think we see TWDC invest more over the next, say, 10 years in their parks, than they did in the first 10 under Iger

 

[Eric M Blake]

That said I do think we see TWDC invest more over the next, say, 10 years in their parks, than they did in the first 10 under Iger

Agreed. And I certainly look forward to what that investment will entail.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Agreed. And I certainly look forward to what that investment will entail.

They’ve shown very little commitment to putting tangible expansions in that park since day 1…for a variety of reasons

 

[Eric M Blake]

They’ve shown very little commitment to putting tangible expansions in that park since day 1…for a variety of reasons

Define "since day 1". I doubt too many folks would refuse to count the additions of Twilight Zone Tower Of Terror and RnRC as "tangible expansions." Fantasmic too, while we're at it.

 

[BlakeW39]

Agreed. And I certainly look forward to what that investment will entail.

I'm glad you're looking forward to it my friend. Is DHS your favorite park?

 

[Eric M Blake]

I'm glad you're looking forward to it my friend. Is DHS your favorite park?

To an extent. The loss of the Great Movie Ride kinda made it less so my "favorite."

 

[SpectreJordan]

They could create a tram/train/skyliner to take people from the main Studios park to the expansion area.

Brilliant! AK already has that kinda thing with Raffiki's Planet Watch aka Conservation Station. So why not have a "ride" like that, with DHS?

I love it.

Both of these would be awful for any major expansion. The train only works for Raiki's because it's a small scale attraction that doesn't draw many crowds (I love it though). The only thing that would work here is an overpass. But I don't see this ever happening; if that land is used it'd be for a hotel or maybe some shopping.

 

[SpectreJordan]

I enjoyed Dial of Destiny, it doesn’t hold a candle to the original 3 movies but I had fun with it. But despite what I think, this movie is just landing with a giant “meh” from audiences.

I’m thinking this is going to kill any chances of an any Indy expansions to WDW anytime soon. Unless we get someone in charge soon who just loves Indy & would push through regardless. That would be a dream come true but that’s not going to happen lol

If Lucasfilm is truly adamant about not recasting (I love Ford but I say let’s try to James Bond the series ), then they should really look into continuing it through animation. Spider-Verse has proven that American audiences are open to action oriented animations that aren’t entirely aimed at kids. Let’s continue the Indiana Jones series in that fashion. Nothing in the adventure film genre has been able to live up to the Indiana Jones series, it should live on for generations to come.