Is the Great Movie Ride next?

[Milla4Prez66]

Your list doesn't matter. The phantom is on there but put any kid born after the 60s who he is and they will stare at you and laugh

What matters is whats relevant today. That is why Universal revamp the theme park. That's why dispite the Back to the future movies and Jaws being some of the biggest properties of the 70s and 80s they are erased from the parks.

Spiderman is popular but his popularity is waning despite hitting a peak on the late early 2000s. His book sales are down and the amount of books he is in is down. His movies are also doing worse.

Iron-man , Captain America , Got , Avengers are all whats popular now and universal can't build rides on them and Disney will continue to try and decrease the popularity of the properties they don't have full control over


Fast and the Furious is a Franchise that continues to grow with each one making more than the last . Horror goes to the roots of Universal as they have some of the most famous monster movies of all time and the purge is another franshise that continues to grow .

Ummm, BS? Spider-Man book sales are not down, in fact the Amazing Spider-Man relaunch was the highest selling comic in April. The series is up there with Batman and The Walking Dead for highest selling book titles these days. Iron Man comics don't sell that well at all, Guardians of the Galaxy has boosted in popularity but it hasn't proven to be more than a fad. Spider-Man has consistently been Marvel's top dog for 30+ years.

Fast & Furious and Universal monsters DO NOT draw people. There is a reason despite being Universal owned, both properties are very seldom used in the parks. It's funny how you say Spider-Man isn't popular anymore but suggest they should replace it with Wolfman and Dracula in the parks.

Just stop, your fantasy of Universal selling Marvel rights back to Disney makes no sense for them. The brand is one of the most popular in the world, the rides are incredibly popular and Universal has no real reason to consider selling a hot item to Disney. Marvel Super Hero Island is here to stay, and as a fan of both Universal and Disney...I couldn't be more happier.

 

[Macca250]

Shouldn't confuse the kids any more than when they go to Disney and wonder why all the cartoon characters from Disney films have become either human or some human hybrid with a giant fixed expression foam head.

Touché

 

[Victor Kelly]

Chances are........there may be a shameless promotional scene or two in the GMR at the end in the film section. Which really is no biggie. I highly doubt GMR will be replaced by anything. Probably new stuff during a refurb. It needs TLC, but I would not want to see it go anywhere.

People just need to chill about Frozen. And Probably let it go. Sorry could not help myself

 

[FettFan]

The Bill Paxton Movie Ride.

 

[1023]

The Bill Paxton Movie Ride.

Paxton was fun in Edge of Tomorrow. I was hoping for a "Game Over Man" nod somewhere on the beach scene.

*1023*

 

[NoChesterHester]

The Bill Paxton Movie Ride.

The Kevin Bacon Movie Ride

 

[Mike S]

The Kevin Bacon Movie Ride

 

[erasure fan1]

Don't under-estimate Disney's ability to sit back and collect money>

I think it's more about them making money off of Universal and not having to make any more investments.

What do you think they would rather do? Spend 10 million to stop making money and then have to invest another couple hundred million into attractions and marketing? Or sit back and collect money from their most direct competitor?

I agree with this a hundred times over. This is the current MO of the company. If they can make money with as little investment as possible, then that is the number 1 plan.

 

[Fox&Hound]

I agree with this a hundred times over. This is the current MO of the company. If they can make money with as little investment as possible, then that is the number 1 plan.

But, as much as some might hate on it, it is a good business plan. Why spend the money to buy back the rights just to spend even more money investing on new rides that may or may not be a hit? They have so many IP's to draw from and a wealth of characters. Besides, most rides that would utilize the Avengers characters could use the Incredibles just as easily. I think Disney wants the "Disney's" before hit films like "Avengers" and "Iron Man 3." The purchase of Star Wars and Marvel has gone a long way to rebrand the Disney name to many consumers. It's not just princesses and cartoon mice anymore. When you think Disney you now think Star Wars, Avengers, Cars, Pirates of the Caribbean, Toy Story, as well as classic characters and princesses. That's worth more than a few theme park rides or experiences. Not every purchasing decision Disney made ties back to the parks, and the quicker we fans realize it, the better off we will be.

 

[erasure fan1]

But, as much as some might hate on it, it is a good business plan. Why spend the money to buy back the rights just to spend even more money investing on new rides that may or may not be a hit? They have so many IP's to draw from and a wealth of characters. Besides, most rides that would utilize the Avengers characters could use the Incredibles just as easily. I think Disney wants the "Disney's" before hit films like "Avengers" and "Iron Man 3." The purchase of Star Wars and Marvel has gone a long way to rebrand the Disney name to many consumers. It's not just princesses and cartoon mice anymore. When you think Disney you now think Star Wars, Avengers, Cars, Pirates of the Caribbean, Toy Story, as well as classic characters and princesses. That's worth more than a few theme park rides or experiences. Not every purchasing decision Disney made ties back to the parks, and the quicker we fans realize it, the better off we will be.

While I do think Disney has a lot of things they need to invest in before they worry about the theme park rights for Marvel, there are still reasons why it would be a good decision. Aside from spider-man, the rest of Marvel at Uni is just basic theme park rides with Marvel slapped on the front. Not up to Disneys name in my eyes. A lot of companies would buy it back just to insure the integrity of the brand so it doesn't get diluted and they have all the control. I don't think that there is any chance that a marvel ride would not be popular and Disney wouldn't be able to recoup the investment fairly quick. I also believe that the average guest expects to see Marvel in the parks and wonders why they are at Uni and not Disney.

 

[216bruce]

I agree with this a hundred times over. This is the current MO of the company. If they can make money with as little investment as possible, then that is the number 1 plan.

And it's, unfortunately, the way most businesses operate nowadays (and really have for quite some time). The company was different when Walt was there and he and Roy poured much of the profit back into the product. I think that the Eisner regime, if you liked him or not, also developed the parks a great deal. The Iger years have been more about acquisition/expanding and re-branding other intellectual property as 'Disney'.
The focus is on satisfying large shareholders and the board- like other companies do. Again- not at all uncommon. We just wish it was different. The saddest part is that what used to set the company apart is dwindling and Disney is not as unique anymore.

 

[Goofyernmost]

And it's, unfortunately, the way most businesses operate nowadays (and really have for quite some time). The company was different when Walt was there and he and Roy poured much of the profit back into the product. I think that the Eisner regime, if you liked him or not, also developed the parks a great deal. The Iger years have been more about acquisition/expanding and re-branding other intellectual property as 'Disney'.
The focus is on satisfying large shareholders and the board- like other companies do. Again- not at all uncommon. We just wish it was different. The saddest part is that what used to set the company apart is dwindling and Disney is not as unique anymore.

The real problem is that the old Disney Company probably would never have made it to this point. Walt was a one of a kind, and if they hadn't altered their way of doing business, in today's world, they would have been trampled to death. Fantasy would have lost out to profit. His ideas might have still been relevant, but, his ability to finance, even what we have today, I believe, would have been greatly compromised.

I think that rebranding those IP's that everyone seems to hate so much is what is keeping the places that we all like, the theme parks, operating and the company strong enough to withstand most any challenge.

 

[1023]

The real problem is that the old Disney Company probably would never have made it to this point. Walt was a one of a kind, and if they hadn't altered their way of doing business, in today's world, they would have been trampled to death. Fantasy would have lost out to profit. His ideas might have still been relevant, but, his ability to finance, even what we have today, I believe, would have been greatly compromised.

I think that rebranding those IP's that everyone seems to hate so much is what is keeping the places that we all like, the theme parks, operating and the company strong enough to withstand most any challenge.

What? Walt (and Roy) adapted with the times to achieve Walt's goals. They even used underhanded means to acquire the immense tracts of land to build the Florida Project.

You could not possibly believe that great leadership inspired by vision can't develop in "today's' world. The entire development of the tech and it's use in the last 20 years has been based on this. There is nothing to say that things based on fantasy could not be built on a grand scale or find financing to do so. Look down the road at the Wizarding World. Fantasy has made the author of those books one of the wealthiest people in the world and inspired the material creation of parts of that fantasy world.

Every breakout industry has had a dynamic, charismatic leader that put the right team around themselves to develop and drive an industry. "Walt was one of a kind" is true, but it is also true about everyone on this planet. Based on the current biotech company I am involved in, financing great vision has not been as difficult as one might think.

Theme Parks and Resorts was operated more profitably by other regimes. IPs or parts of them via license, have always been folded into the company. (Pooh and Mary Poppins come to mind from back in your day. Muppets and parts of Lucas during my youth.) People hate acquiring Marvel and Lucas? (I have seen some angst here about the Avatar license.)These are 2 fantasy creations built by others with vision and creativity. I suspect most contributors here would like to see something innovative created in the parks based on these IPs. Isn't that what Star Wars (land) has the possibility to be? While I have some concerns over what we'll get in the end because of current trends, I am at least hopeful that before my 50s I can experience some new and innovative things.

At this point, I think most of the fans and contributors here would love tangible improvements in the parks. I'll take a substantial addition to DHS and AK executed with classical Disney quality and never before seen innovation. They are still capable of it, just not in this country. I would even welcome updated show scenes and finale improvement of GMR since that is what this thread is about.

I hope I just misunderstood you.

*1023*

P.S. Samuel Adams (brewing company SAM) is a recent example of putting it all on the line to make something great and unique.

 

[216bruce]

The real problem is that the old Disney Company probably would never have made it to this point. Walt was a one of a kind, and if they hadn't altered their way of doing business, in today's world, they would have been trampled to death. Fantasy would have lost out to profit. His ideas might have still been relevant, but, his ability to finance, even what we have today, I believe, would have been greatly compromised.

I think that rebranding those IP's that everyone seems to hate so much is what is keeping the places that we all like, the theme parks, operating and the company strong enough to withstand most any challenge.

I agree that in modern business climates the company wouldn't be around and I don't object at all to the acquisitions- they all 'fit', some more than others, and the vertical build of the company- distribution with ABC networks, and additional product with Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm (perfect fit) and Muppets with films are all within the realm of family entertainment. Like I've stated before- they didn't acquire Playboy or partner with Quentin Tarantino, etc. It's really a damning of business today that someone like Walt and Roy couldn't 'cut it' in today's 'bottom line only' environment.

 

[Oriolesmagic]

these type of threads seem to come true, anyone else notice this?

please leave GMR alone por favor

ETA:an update and/or refurb would be appreciated

If it makes you feel any better, I remember a few years back when there was speculation that Rock N' Roller Coaster might treat riders to a soundtrack of either Hannah Montana or the Jonas Brothers.

 

[Goofyernmost]

What? Walt (and Roy) adapted with the times to achieve Walt's goals. They even used underhanded means to acquire the immense tracts of land to build the Florida Project.

You could not possibly believe that great leadership inspired by vision can't develop in "today's' world. The entire development of the tech and it's use in the last 20 years has been based on this. There is nothing to say that things based on fantasy could not be built on a grand scale or find financing to do so. Look down the road at the Wizarding World. Fantasy has made the author of those books one of the wealthiest people in the world and inspired the material creation of parts of that fantasy world.

Every breakout industry has had a dynamic, charismatic leader that put the right team around themselves to develop and drive an industry. "Walt was one of a kind" is true, but it is also true about everyone on this planet. Based on the current biotech company I am involved in, financing great vision has not been as difficult as one might think.

Theme Parks and Resorts was operated more profitably by other regimes. IPs or parts of them via license, have always been folded into the company. (Pooh and Mary Poppins come to mind from back in your day. Muppets and parts of Lucas during my youth.) People hate acquiring Marvel and Lucas? (I have seen some angst here about the Avatar license.)These are 2 fantasy creations built by others with vision and creativity. I suspect most contributors here would like to see something innovative created in the parks based on these IPs. Isn't that what Star Wars (land) has the possibility to be? While I have some concerns over what we'll get in the end because of current trends, I am at least hopeful that before my 50s I can experience some new and innovative things.

At this point, I think most of the fans and contributors here would love tangible improvements in the parks. I'll take a substantial addition to DHS and AK executed with classical Disney quality and never before seen innovation. They are still capable of it, just not in this country. I would even welcome updated show scenes and finale improvement of GMR since that is what this thread is about.

I hope I just misunderstood you.

*1023*

P.S. Samuel Adams (brewing company SAM) is a recent example of putting it all on the line to make something great and unique.

No you didn't misunderstand me at all. His EPCOT would have killed the Disney Company in my opinion and if it hadn't, Walt had lost interest in Theme Parks anyway. To him it was been there, done that. He also had a micromanagement style. Do you really believe that he could have kept his vigilance on everything that Disney Co. is today? Walt, (and don't misunderstand this, I think he was a creative genius and I admire the impact that he had on the entire world almost 50 years since his death), really believed that, due to the fact that Disneyland was such a success, he could make fantasy a reality in every instance. He failed many times before he hit the jackpot, but EPCOT didn't have a chance of success in this country. He was a genius in the entertainment realm of things, creating a community filled with live people, that he couldn't control by a stroke of a drawing pencil, may very well have been a problem that couldn't be overcome.

I don't see where he might have been inclined to add other IP's to the family and that, at this point in time, would have weakened the financial ability of whole company. Remember that he and Roy really only had one financial institution that was willing to take a chance on basically whatever the brothers thought would be good. Besides that at 114 years old, he might have gotten a little goofy by now.

 

[216bruce]

No you didn't misunderstand me at all. His EPCOT would have killed the Disney Company in my opinion and if it hadn't, Walt had lost interest in Theme Parks anyway. To him it was been there, done that. He also had a micromanagement style. Do you really believe that he could have kept his vigilance on everything that Disney Co. is today? Walt, (and don't misunderstand this, I think he was a creative genius and I admire the impact that he had on the entire world almost 50 years since his death), really believed that, due to the fact that Disneyland was such a success, he could make fantasy a reality in every instance. He failed many times before he hit the jackpot, but EPCOT didn't have a chance of success in this country. He was a genius in the entertainment realm of things, creating a community filled with live people, that he couldn't control by a stroke of a drawing pencil, may very well have been a problem that couldn't be overcome.

I don't see where he might have been inclined to add other IP's to the family and that, at this point in time, would have weakened the financial ability of whole company. Remember that he and Roy really only had one financial institution that was willing to take a chance on basically whatever the brothers thought would be good. Besides that at 114 years old, he might have gotten a little goofy by now.

Well stated. I've always been intrigued by the real EPCOT and if it would have 'flown' or not. I KNOW it wouldn't now, regardless of Walt's presence (even if he wasn't 114). I can't say for sure that it wouldn't have back in the 60's. During that time the country and private companies seemed to be able to pull off enormous capital and infrastructure undertakings, regardless of the motivation and cost- the manned space program is a great example, as are World's Fairs, Interstate Systems, etc. Now I know that these are mostly government programs and publicly funded. But, you have to admit that the US did some huge things back then. In a public/private partnership with government funding and the urge towards urban renewal back in the 60's- this had a snowball's chance in hell of at least getting off the drawing board and becoming real in some regard. At least I'd love to think so. There was no intensely critical media, we weren't as cynical and actually trusted in government and big business much more then than now. Even if that trust was somewhat blind in retrospect. If anyone could have sold the idea to the Fed, Florida and business to get it done, it was Walt. Would have been something to behold. Would it have worked, even if built is a whole other question. To me that would have been much, much harder.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Well stated. I've always been intrigued by the real EPCOT and if it would have 'flown' or not. I KNOW it wouldn't now, regardless of Walt's presence (even if he wasn't 114). I can't say for sure that it wouldn't have back in the 60's. During that time the country and private companies seemed to be able to pull off enormous capital and infrastructure undertakings, regardless of the motivation and cost- the manned space program is a great example, as are World's Fairs, Interstate Systems, etc. Now I know that these are mostly government programs and publicly funded. But, you have to admit that the US did some huge things back then. In a public/private partnership with government funding and the urge towards urban renewal back in the 60's- this had a snowball's chance in hell of at least getting off the drawing board and becoming real in some regard. At least I'd love to think so. There was no intensely critical media, we weren't as cynical and actually trusted in government and big business much more then than now. Even if that trust was somewhat blind in retrospect. If anyone could have sold the idea to the Fed, Florida and business to get it done, it was Walt. Would have been something to behold. Would it have worked, even if built is a whole other question. To me that would have been much, much harder.

Oh, he would have gotten it started, no problem. But the concept is what was unsustainable and required massive investment from private companies. Any economic downturn during that period would have knocked it flat. (check out what's left of World Showcase sponsorship) As time moved along those companies no longer could or wanted to invest in it, it would have died on the vine leaving the Disney Company bankrupt and done.

Then there was the people (resident factor). It might have seemed like a good idea at the time of purchase, but it would have gone the same route as Celebration did. Too many rules with the Disney Company having the final say no matter what any local committee's decided. They found out fairly quickly that the American public does not like third party inflicted rules. Celebration was at least set up like a normal community of housing and business and could be sold along with the Disney right to govern it. Walt, wouldn't have given up that easily. He would have wanted to see it through regardless of the cost. Sorry, I just don't think it was a practical idea. It was a very idealistic one, that was motivated by many good things, but, with the good comes the bad.

 

[MattOrk]

I agree that in modern business climates the company wouldn't be around and I don't object at all to the acquisitions- they all 'fit', some more than others, and the vertical build of the company- distribution with ABC networks, and additional product with Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm (perfect fit) and Muppets with films are all within the realm of family entertainment. Like I've stated before- they didn't acquire Playboy or partner with Quentin Tarantino, etc. It's really a damning of business today that someone like Walt and Roy couldn't 'cut it' in today's 'bottom line only' environment.

They used to partner with Tarantino. Disney released many of his classics. I especially like the scene with Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction.

As for Walt/Roy Disney and the modern business climate.... You think Walt Disney didn't care about the bottom line? He gave Ken Anderson a stroke because he didn't like the way 101 Dalmations was going. I somehow doubt it was Cruela's eyeshadow color that started it. Walt was such a shrewd businessman that 50 years after his death people still think he was mythical. Anyone wanna talk about Harry or Jack Warner? Harry Cohn? Anyone?

 

[216bruce]

They used to partner with Tarantino. Disney released many of his classics. I especially like the scene with Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction.

As for Walt/Roy Disney and the modern business climate.... You think Walt Disney didn't care about the bottom line? He gave Ken Anderson a stroke because he didn't like the way 101 Dalmations was going. I somehow doubt it was Cruela's eyeshadow color that started it. Walt was such a shrewd businessman that 50 years after his death people still think he was mythical. Anyone wanna talk about Harry or Jack Warner? Harry Cohn? Anyone?

I should have stated that the films weren't released as "Disney". Miramax, etc. were quite independent and the public for the most part wasn't aware of the ownership.
Also, yes, Walt was aware of the 'bottom line'. It just wasn't his driving force. He was much more of a risk taker- financially and artistically speaking- than many, if not all, studio heads today in the era of multi-national conglomerate studio ownership. Basically, if he wanted it done it usually got done. Was everything a financial success? No. Not at first- financially speaking. Artistically- open to discussion. "Fantasia", "Sleeping Beauty"- huge cost overruns and money losers on initial release. Both in the long haul did make money and are, in retrospect, triumphs in animation. Today, they wouldn't likely have been made. As far as other studio heads of the time- the only one that is even thought of, and it isn't much- Louis B. Mayer at MGM. Mostly because of the pure size and power of that studio. They were the New York Yankees to Disney's St. Louis Browns as far as power goes.