My Issue With Themed Lands Built Around Franchises

[Bairstow]

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.

There's always a question of how much an individual attraction's theme is to be allowed to "bleed out" to the surrounding area. In the Magic Kingdom this area has usually been relatively small, if it exists at all- Peter Pan exists in its own contained tent across from It's a Small World and little, if any effort is put into explaining these attractions' relationship with each other or the surrounding area. So too with, say, the Tiki Birds and the Aladdin spinner, which clash horribly. By contrast, the newer Fantasyland stuff, particularly the Beauty and the Beast area, use a uniforming theme to connect attractions, restaurants, and shops. While this represents a significant dedication to one story for multiple themed areas, the newer approach does a better job at utilizing more of a guest's experiences in the park to convey a story.

I definitely prefer the Beauty and the Beast approach to the old one.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Ok....

Are you going to answer my question?

I am sure it factors into it

 

[mj2v]

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.

Ah, nope. It draws because they did an awesome job with the theme, rides, and even the quick service restaurant is superior to sit down restaurants.

Not that many people were drawn by a love of avatar.

TSL, however, is not great.

 

[Kamikaze]

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.

Like I said, describing Pandora as anything other than a massive success is silly.

Name one other addition that has required additional park operating hours on what is basically a permanent basis at this point.

 

[Bairstow]

Like I said, describing Pandora as anything other than a massive success is silly.

Name one other addition that has required additional park operating hours on what is basically a permanent basis at this point.

In the morning?

 

[TwilightZone]

#1 is a non-issue, because many of the films getting their own lands are timeless, and even if the film isn't timeless, like avatar, the land is still unique and fun enough to be considered timeless.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

Just my two cents, I was trying to figure why I just am not amped up about Disney World like I used to be.

Everyone always blames Disney and the decisions they make for their new disinterest in the parks. Yet at the same time attendance has risen along with increasing prices. Hmm, Disney must be doing something to right.

A little introspective exploration can never hurt.

 

[HansGruber]

It's incredibly smart marketing and very beneficial for short term revenue growth.

I do question the long term vision and sustainability though.

How viable is TS going to be as a franchise going forward?
Avatar/ Pandora is NOT a franchise...what if the next few movies flop?
Star Wars is pretty bullet-proof.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

It's incredibly smart marketing and very beneficial for short term revenue growth.

I do question the long term vision and sustainability though.

How viable is TS going to be as a franchise going forward?
Avatar/ Pandora is NOT a franchise...what if the next few movies flop?
Star Wars is pretty bullet-proof.

I'm of the belief TS is near bullet-proof as well. But, I agree, the long term prospects are a question mark.

I wonder what the 10 year plan for HS is, though? Could we see more themed lands built into a sort of "Pixar continent?"

 

[tomast]

I'm of the belief TS is near bullet-proof as well. But, I agree, the long term prospects are a question mark.

I wonder what the 10 year plan for HS is, though? Could we see more themed lands built into a sort of "Pixar continent?"

I think thats the right course of action, but they seem not to see it. A pixar park with monstruopolis, toy story with pizza planet and al´s barn, the incredibles, carsland, nemo, wall-e, rat. It will mostly work and it might fight face to face to MK in atendance levels. By the other hand, they could also make a marvel park and a star wars park and the 3 of them would be a success.

I can´t really think of a reason to build Star Wars land and Toy Story land so close one to another, with no posibility of expansion

 

[DisneyDoctor]

I think thats the right course of action, but they seem not to see it. A pixar park with monstruopolis, toy story with pizza planet and al´s barn, the incredibles, carsland, nemo, wall-e, rat. It will mostly work and it might fight face to face to MK in atendance levels. By the other hand, they could also make a marvel park and a star wars park and the 3 of them would be a success.

The potential really is something special. It could take 20+ years, but it would be a monumental park.

 

[Bairstow]

It's incredibly smart marketing and very beneficial for short term revenue growth.

I do question the long term vision and sustainability though.

How viable is TS going to be as a franchise going forward?
Avatar/ Pandora is NOT a franchise...what if the next few movies flop?
Star Wars is pretty bullet-proof.

Toy Story is more or less certifiably immortal at this point, at least as much as Lion King or Beauty and the Beast. Nearly everyone shows their kids these movies.

Avatar is already nearing total pop cultural irrelevancy, but the land continues to be a tremendous draw. At this point, further exposure could only draw more attention to the world, so if the sequels bomb, the attraction will likely continue to be extremely popular and well regarded. I would view Pandoraland kind of like the Tower of Terror or 20,000 Leagues in that the attractions (Flight of Passage, at least) are so well crafted that they stand on their own even as their donor IP moulders into distant memory. Even if the decision to base these attractions off of certain IP was a bust from a corporate synergy standpoint, the creative triumphs during their design process makes later criticism kind of moot.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Everyone always blames Disney and the decisions they make for their new disinterest in the parks. Yet at the same time attendance has risen along with increasing prices. Hmm, Disney must be doing something to right.

A little introspective exploration can never hurt.

Please elaborate on what you mean by introspective exploration? I mean seriously I said why I don't like something what further exploration do I need?
And by your logic, we should all be happy shoveling McDonald's into out mouths...I mean they must be doing something right. Right? Never confuse popularity with quality.
You and others also miss my main point, which is not that the rides are bad but that this approach is creatively stifling.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

Please elaborate on what you mean by introspective exploration? I mean seriously I said why I don't like something what further exploration do I need?
And by your logic, we should all be happy shoveling McDonald's into out mouths...I mean they must be doing something right. Right? Never confuse popularity with quality.
You and others also miss my main point, which is not that the rides are bad but that this approach is creatively stifling.

It's plausible that more personal experiences or issues are to blame for the distaste some experience. For instance, new experiences constantly shape how we perceive the world. It's not out of the realm of possibility to think that some of these everyday experiences can alter our perception of something we previously valued so heavily ie WDW.

I don't follow your McD's comparison and I'll leave it at that. I will say, though, that quality is relative.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

A quick observation: the "general discussion" thread arena has devolved into weekly posts about peoples' WDW aversions. Is the horse dead yet? Or should we keep beating it?

 

[Raineman]

A quick observation: the "general discussion" thread arena has devolved into weekly posts about peoples' WDW aversions. Is the horse dead yet? Or should we keep beating it?

The horse's carcass has pretty much rotted to nothing, but people are still whacking away. This part of the forum should be called "General B****ing and Moaning About Every Minor Detail That People Don't Like About WDW That Breaks Down Into Petty Arguing And Personal Attacks".

 

[eliza61nyc]

Please elaborate on what you mean by introspective exploration? I mean seriously I said why I don't like something what further exploration do I need?
And by your logic, we should all be happy shoveling McDonald's into out mouths...I mean they must be doing something right. Right? Never confuse popularity with quality.
You and others also miss my main point, which is not that the rides are bad but that this approach is creatively stifling.

YOU think the approach is creatively stifling, you may have simple outgrown disney. That's not Disney's fault. . Many, many others do not. that's where the introspective exploration comes in.
Not sure the Mcdonalds analogy is appropriate. No one in the right mind believes Mcdonalds is a "quality" product. It's tasty, priced cheaply and quick. No one has ever said Mcky D's burgers were the best burger, although I swear they must put crack in the fry grease because I am addicted to them.

And while popular does not exclusively mean quality, there usually is an "element" of expertise to them.

 

[larryz]

No one has ever said Mcky D's burgers were the best burger, although I swear they must put crack in the fry grease because I am addicted to them.

The crack is actually in the ketchup... but don't tell anyone.

 

[Master Yoda]

The crack is actually in the ketchup... but don't tell anyone.

I disagree. It has to be in the fries as I hate ketchup but will still steal McDonald's fries from my own children.

 

[WDWTank]

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

They have more stories to tell!