My Issue With Themed Lands Built Around Franchises

[Club Cooloholic]

So this has been discussed before but I just wanted to reiterate my issue with these recent lands built around themed franchises(can we even call Avatar a franchise since so far it's just one movie?).
1. The franchises are already dated. Toy Story has not put out a movie in years, Avatar, the same, and while Star Wars is still packing them in, the recent flop of Han Solo shows that even that franchise has it's limits. By tying these lands to one franchise, it forces the park to be looking backwards instead of forwards.
2. The land and development of it becomes boxed in. So you have Toy Story Land, and all theming has to be around Toy Story, no way to work in a new attraction that might be things people want to see. Incredibles 2 is proving a monster hit, well where to put a ride built around that? See if it had just been a Pixar Land instead, problem solved.
3. The vicious cycle created, so we are getting more Pandora movies, did anyone really scream for this? No, but you build a land, you need more movies, I am sure more Toy Story productions of some type will appear, if only to fuel the interest in these parks. More movies help require more attractions and yadda yadda yadda. I find it just stifles creativity for Imaginaneers. Yeti is a great ride, built without any restrictions that tying a movie brings, same with Jungle Cruise, POT etc, these rides inspire movies (and imagination), not the other way around....
Just my two cents, I was trying to figure why I just am not amped up about Disney World like I used to be.

 

[WDWTank]

Yeah I’m not fond of single franchise based lands. It’s limiting because you’d have to like the franchise represented. I would LOVE to see a Men in Black Land or Terminator Land, same with Hill Valley for BTTF. I prefer genre themes, such as sci-fi, adventure, fantasy, discovery, etc.;what Disney is known for.

 

[Kamikaze]

Toy Story 4 releases next year.

You can put an Incredibles attraction anywhere. Just not a land themed to a single IP.

They don't own Avatar, and the movies were always planned by James Cameron. Or at least he says they were.

Avatar proved that single IP lands work, because its not a beloved IP and it draws crowds. That means your 'issue' is not one that matters.

 

[Master Yoda]

Avatar proved that single IP lands work, because its not a beloved IP and it draws crowds. That means your 'issue' is not one that matters.

I have said it from the beginning...all that matters long term is the quality of the attractions. Build good attractions and the people will come regardless of the IP.

 

[larryz]

So this has been discussed before but I just wanted to reiterate my issue with these recent lands built around themed franchises(can we even call Avatar a franchise since so far it's just one movie?).
1. The franchises are already dated. Toy Story has not put out a movie in years, Avatar, the same, and while Star Wars is still packing them in, the recent flop of Han Solo shows that even that franchise has it's limits. By tying these lands to one franchise, it forces the park to be looking backwards instead of forwards.
2. The land and development of it becomes boxed in. So you have Toy Story Land, and all theming has to be around Toy Story, no way to work in a new attraction that might be things people want to see. Incredibles 2 is proving a monster hit, well where to put a ride built around that? See if it had just been a Pixar Land instead, problem solved.
3. The vicious cycle created, so we are getting more Pandora movies, did anyone really scream for this? No, but you build a land, you need more movies, I am sure more Toy Story productions of some type will appear, if only to fuel the interest in these parks. More movies help require more attractions and yadda yadda yadda. I find it just stifles creativity for Imaginaneers. Yeti is a great ride, built without any restrictions that tying a movie brings, same with Jungle Cruise, POT etc, these rides inspire movies (and imagination), not the other way around....
Just my two cents, I was trying to figure why I just am not amped up about Disney World like I used to be.

I hear you. But there are many, many ways to cook a chicken.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Toy Story 4 releases next year.


Avatar proved that single IP lands work, because its not a beloved IP and it draws crowds. That means your 'issue' is not one that matters.

It draws crowds because people were desperate for something new, and the place is overcrowded, I think you could have built a land around "Buffalo Rider" and people would have flocked there because it was different, that doesn't mean it was a good idea and that something better could not have been done.

 

[eliza61nyc]

Toy Story 4 releases next year.

You can put an Incredibles attraction anywhere. Just not a land themed to a single IP.


Avatar proved that single IP lands work, because its not a beloved IP and it draws crowds. That means your 'issue' is not one that matters.

lol, this made me giggle because if disney did that, the purist here would decry that it doesn't "belong". ie, the uproar over the Frozen ride being in Epcot and the coming GoTG being in Epcot

back on target.

There is a difference imo between "Dated" and "Timeless". Disney is the master of "timeless" movies. basically every new generation gets it's Disney/Pixar groove on. LOL, every notice that Disney will re-release a movie, call it "platinum edition" and hook a whole new generation. The incredibles had a 15 year gap. definitely not "dated" .

 

[brb1006]

So this has been discussed before but I just wanted to reiterate my issue with these recent lands built around themed franchises(can we even call Avatar a franchise since so far it's just one movie?).
1. The franchises are already dated. Toy Story has not put out a movie in years, Avatar, the same, and while Star Wars is still packing them in, the recent flop of Han Solo shows that even that franchise has it's limits. By tying these lands to one franchise, it forces the park to be looking backwards instead of forwards.
2. The land and development of it becomes boxed in. So you have Toy Story Land, and all theming has to be around Toy Story, no way to work in a new attraction that might be things people want to see. Incredibles 2 is proving a monster hit, well where to put a ride built around that? See if it had just been a Pixar Land instead, problem solved.
3. The vicious cycle created, so we are getting more Pandora movies, did anyone really scream for this? No, but you build a land, you need more movies, I am sure more Toy Story productions of some type will appear, if only to fuel the interest in these parks. More movies help require more attractions and yadda yadda yadda. I find it just stifles creativity for Imaginaneers. Yeti is a great ride, built without any restrictions that tying a movie brings, same with Jungle Cruise, POT etc, these rides inspire movies (and imagination), not the other way around....
Just my two cents, I was trying to figure why I just am not amped up about Disney World like I used to be.

What about Toy Story 4?

 

[Robbiem]

Attractions need to be able to stand on their own even if they are based on IPs. The issue for me is when to enjoy an attraction you need to have an understanding of the various movies, books etc or when they are based around a personality and become stuck in a time period because of it. For example splash mountain works well if you haven’t seen song of the south and i would say pandora is the same. On the ther hand objectively would you really understand whats going on in snow white or peter pan if you didn’t know the plot already? Similarly as someone who hasn’t seen many Harry Potter films or read any books i didn’t really understand what forbidden journey was about, although i did enjoy the environment of potter land. For all the complaints about the movie ride or ellen being dated and based on things from the past what will pirates look like in 20 or 30years time when Johnny Depp,is far older than his animatronic?

 

[flynnibus]

So this has been discussed before but I just wanted to reiterate my issue with these recent lands built around themed franchises(can we even call Avatar a franchise since so far it's just one movie?).
1. The franchises are already dated. Toy Story has not put out a movie in years, Avatar, the same, and while Star Wars is still packing them in, the recent flop of Han Solo shows that even that franchise has it's limits. By tying these lands to one franchise, it forces the park to be looking backwards instead of forwards.
2. The land and development of it becomes boxed in. So you have Toy Story Land, and all theming has to be around Toy Story, no way to work in a new attraction that might be things people want to see. Incredibles 2 is proving a monster hit, well where to put a ride built around that? See if it had just been a Pixar Land instead, problem solved.
3. The vicious cycle created, so we are getting more Pandora movies, did anyone really scream for this? No, but you build a land, you need more movies, I am sure more Toy Story productions of some type will appear, if only to fuel the interest in these parks. More movies help require more attractions and yadda yadda yadda. I find it just stifles creativity for Imaginaneers. Yeti is a great ride, built without any restrictions that tying a movie brings, same with Jungle Cruise, POT etc, these rides inspire movies (and imagination), not the other way around....
Just my two cents, I was trying to figure why I just am not amped up about Disney World like I used to be.

The same thing could have been said about 'Frontierland' - who watches westerns anymore?
'Tomorrowland', etc etc

You can always create new content in your franchise - see what Star Wars did for 20 years with no new movies.

 

[Kamikaze]

It draws crowds because people were desperate for something new, and the place is overcrowded, I think you could have built a land around "Buffalo Rider" and people would have flocked there because it was different, that doesn't mean it was a good idea and that something better could not have been done.

Right. Its a single IP land based on a property that no one really cares about. And the land is a massive success (calling it anything else is silly). Is it because it was new and people were desperate for new things to do at WDW? Absolutely. But it means you can theme a land to a single thing and have people attend.

 

[disneygeek90]

A quick IMDB search would negate nearly your entire first argument. I'm pretty certain the Avatar movies were planned far before the land was agreed upon.

 

[Kamikaze]

lol, this made me giggle because if disney did that, the purist here would decry that it doesn't "belong". ie, the uproar over the Frozen ride being in Epcot and the coming GoTG being in Epcot

I think you misunderstood what I meant - I meant you can drop Incredibles into an existing land or area - somewhere else in DHS would probably make the most sense - but putting it into TSL or another single IP land is basically the only place you can't.

A quick IMDB search would negate nearly your entire first argument. I'm pretty certain the Avatar movies were planned far before the land was agreed upon.

Cameron has said he always planned on sequels.

Cameron, who had stated in 2006 that he would like to make sequels to Avatar if it were successful, announced the first two in 2010 following the widespread success of the first film, with Avatar 2 aiming for a 2014 release.

Avatarland/Pandora was announced in 2011.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

What about Toy Story 4?

My point, they are making another one to help keep the interest level up.

 

[Kamikaze]

My point, they are making another one to help keep the interest level up.

They are making another one because of the endless quest for more money. The last one did well.

 

[Master Yoda]

My point, they are making another one to help keep the interest level up.

Are you actually suggesting that they are making Toy Story 4 to keep the interest level up in the new section of DHS?

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Right. Its a single IP land based on a property that no one really cares about. And the land is a massive success (calling it anything else is silly). Is it because it was new and people were desperate for new things to do at WDW? Absolutely. But it means you can theme a land to a single thing and have people attend.

Massive success? I think a massive success is something I know people are traveling to honsee just because of the land and attractions. Pandora is not there yet, at least among Disney fans and visitors I know. I had to talk a friend into making sure he went there on his last trip because it was been. Now granted he thought it was great and maybe it will prove to grow the fan base of the film but I still think it was kinda a weird land to build because despite what box offices say, I never heard anyone say they can't wait for another Avatar movie. Unlike Star Wars ...or Harry Potter. Massive success is what Harry Potter was for Uni...toys, rides, lines...droves...people going to Orlando just to see that. I do think Star Wars will be that for Disney.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Are you actually suggesting that they are making Toy Story 4 to keep the interest level up in the new section of DHS?

Oh well I think they want to sell toys as well.

 

[JIMINYCR]

Almost all of Disney attractions are based on old dated films, cartoons, characters and we keep enjoying them. The guests fondness to an IP defenitely has a draw but as long as the attraction gives enough of a thrill to keep guests willing to stand in line, it warrants existence.

 

[Master Yoda]

Oh well I think they want to sell toys as well.

Ok....

Are you going to answer my question?