My Issue With Themed Lands Built Around Franchises

[Skibum1970]

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.

Late to the game on this one. My biggest complaint/gripe is that Disney spends a huge amount of money to build these themed lands but only has a couple rides to show for it. If a standard ride costs $150-200 million (which still seems astronomical), they could build four to five rides instead of just two. Some theming to introduce the ride/queue is understandable but not every land requires massive concrete builds and incredible theming that most people wouldn't even notice. I will acknowledge that I've griped about this before. It's just that I would prefer more new rides than a mini-land that can't handle anything near the capacity.

Imagine a Frozen land in DHS. Three anchor rides (two "E" and one C/D ticket for those who use that nomenclature) with the exterior of the rides themed to store fronts from the village. Enough theming to push a motif but not a full-scale immersive environment.

 

[Skibum1970]

And that’s where we differ. If the ride was only so-so, I would tend to agree with you. Considering that the ride has a 120 minute wait time, the longest of any attraction right now, speaks to the fact there is very little risk of this area not being popular in the very long term.

My only question to this. The River Journey has a low capacity of around 1,000 PPH and Flight of Passage averages around 1,200. Low capacity drives the lines more than the popularity. Pirates has far lower wait times but has much higher capacity. So, if FoP that much more popular than Pirates or is Pirates more popular because it is pushing more people through?

 

[LuvtheGoof]

My only question to this. The River Journey has a low capacity of around 1,000 PPH and Flight of Passage averages around 1,200. Low capacity drives the lines more than the popularity. Pirates has far lower wait times but has much higher capacity. So, if FoP that much more popular than Pirates or is Pirates more popular because it is pushing more people through?

Taking into consideration the average guest count between MK and AK, I would say FoP is more popular. At any time, there are a lot fewer people in AK.

 

[HansGruber]

Late to the game on this one. My biggest complaint/gripe is that Disney spends a huge amount of money to build these themed lands but only has a couple rides to show for it. If a standard ride costs $150-200 million (which still seems astronomical), they could build four to five rides instead of just two. Some theming to introduce the ride/queue is understandable but not every land requires massive concrete builds and incredible theming that most people wouldn't even notice. I will acknowledge that I've griped about this before. It's just that I would prefer more new rides than a mini-land that can't handle anything near the capacity.

Imagine a Frozen land in DHS. Three anchor rides (two "E" and one C/D ticket for those who use that nomenclature) with the exterior of the rides themed to store fronts from the village. Enough theming to push a motif but not a full-scale immersive environment.

I hate this also.
Unfortunately, land design and theming has little to no residual overhead compared to a ride.
Same idea with the gondolas. Each car will have no electricity and not be occupied by an employee. Much cheaper to operate compared to the monorail or buses.

 

[Skibum1970]

Taking into consideration the average guest count between MK and AK, I would say FoP is more popular. At any time, there are a lot fewer people in AK.

Good point. Average riders per guests in park could be a good measurement. Still, since MK has so much more to do, you could then argue it the other way. Heck, I don't know the answer. FoP is supposed to be an awesome ride (hope to find out this fall) and I'm not knocking it. I just wonder about the impact of low capacity, which is another major sin for a ride at WDW. Peter Pan has wait times approximating FoP and low capacity as well. It is one of those arguments that could probably go in circles for eternity.

 

[Phil12]

What it all boils down to is that theme can be changed or eliminated at any time. Theme is really irrelevant.

 

[JustAFan]

I understand where the original poster is coming from, however I disagree. I see that some people want to preserve old Disney, but how long will that be sustainable? To excite kids today, you have to connect with them somewhere.

As to the example of Toy Story Land being introduced with nothing recent from Toy Story, Toy Story Land opened in 2018, 8 years after 'Toy Story 3'. Seven Dwarfs Mine Train opened in 2014, 77 years after 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs'. It often has the longest wait times in Magic Kingdom.

Toy Story Land is going to be popular. Pandora is wildly popular. Galaxy's Edge will be ridiculously popular. I enjoy the nostalgia of old Disney, but I also enjoy the additions. To each his own I guess.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

lol, Yes you did a long with the veiled insult about my artistry. or was that crack about paint by numbers posing as wit.
Well aren't you just precious.

No I was nearly saying

See, the thing is that I think healthy debate is good-but there are way too many people on here that don’t know how to do that. This forum is a microcosm of society in 2018, in that too many people think that a differing opinion than their own is a personal attack on them, and will react like a spoiled 5 year old that doesn’t get what they want. Add to that the fact that there are a number of posters on here who decry EVERYTHING that Disney does with respect to their theme parks, even complaining about attractions/shows/lands that are not complete or ones that they have not yet experienced. I would hate to see how miserable some people are on here in their day to day lives if something as unimportant in the grand scheme of things as a theme park makes them react so negatively.

It's true. I just find it amazing that someone gives a point of view and people assume that they are speaking for everyone. Honestly I did not approach this has a popularity monetary success thing but more of a creative point of view.
Let's look at some of the favorite rides AS A has offered us. If we start at MK Space Mountain, Haunted Mansion, POTC, Jungle Cruise none were attached to a "property" when they were cooked up. Head over to AK and we have the Everest, the same with Epcot. I realize you have your Frozen and Peter Pans too, it just seems though that building a while land around one property is limiting that's all. I stand by the thought that a Pixar land would be more interesting than a land just devoted to Toy Story, because we would never know what's next, and maybe the plan is to turn half of MHM into. Pic at World, and my argument against TSL is mute. I will say that I am wrong to lump in Star Wars, because it just has such a vast amount of cinema universe to use.

 

[HansGruber]

What it all boils down to is that theme can be changed or eliminated at any time. Theme is really irrelevant.

No, not in the slightest. To re-theme a land takes time, money and closure of the land. Disney is not in the business of wasting money.

 

[TheDuke]

Toy Story is never going to seem dated because it's classic Disney so it obviously fits in a Disney park. Star Wars is also so huge that I don't think they ever have to worry about it losing relevance. Avatar could have seemed lame for a while if not for FoP being so strong.

They could run into this problem down the line with Marvel stuff if the movies eventually decline in popularity and the attractions aren't strong enough to back it up.

 

[HansGruber]

Toy Story is never going to seem dated because it's classic Disney so it obviously fits in a Disney park. Star Wars is also so huge that I don't think they ever have to worry about it losing relevance. Avatar could have seemed lame for a while if not for FoP being so strong.

They could run into this problem down the line with Marvel stuff if the movies eventually decline in popularity and the attractions aren't strong enough to back it up.

Star Wars and Marvel ARE franchises. Regardless of their future popularity, both are solid bets.
Toy Story was a Pixar thing, not Disney; but is also a solid bet.
Avatar is NOT a franchise but they are clearly trying to build it into one.

 

[erasure fan1]

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.

Yup. While I wasn't keen on Pandora, I said many times over, if the ride is awesome, the IP doesn't matter. You could make battlefield earth land and if the ride is amazing, the land will be a success.

 

[ohioguy]

Disney is not beyond tearing down entire lands and altering the themed area to something else. Please see Bugs Land in Anaheim.

Disney Studios is the perfect park for these franchised lands, as others have stated. It'll finally give that park a modern focus and reason for being.

Toy Story has been around for over 20 years, and doesn't appear to be waning in popularity. Star Wars has had 40 years plus of success and definitely is not going anywhere, even if the last movie under-performed.

I'm hoping they expand the Studios with MuppetLand and an area centered around Indiana Jones. The Fox properties are coming on board soon, so no reason for those franchises not to be considered. Planet of the Apes might work better in Animal Kingdom, though.

 

[Lensman]

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.

I can't express how much I agree with you.

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.

Very interesting. Thanks for this.

Ultimately, I suspect the answer to the questions brought up by the OP will be found in answering the question of how to design a *theme* park and the question of how a theme park is different from a simple amusement park.

Pandora works because of the quality of the attractions in it but also the two additional things, the execution of the immersive world of Pandora and the fit of the theme of the IP with the theme of DAK, which could be stated as the natural environment and animal conservation - or, as stated on the dedication plaque:

Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined: a kingdom ruled by lions, dinosaurs and dragons; a kingdom of balance, harmony and survival; a kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn.

TSL isn't perfect, but it is a nice immersive concept and Disney has mostly pulled it off. The attractions in it are well-designed, though they could do with additional capacity. I would question how it fits with the theme of DHS, but I'd question whether DHS itself needs to be rethemed.

The World you have entered was created by The Walt Disney Company and is dedicated to Hollywood - not a place on a map, but a state of mind that exists wherever people dream and wonder and imagine, a place where illusion and reality are fused by technological magic. We welcome you to a Hollywood that never was - and always will be.

Then again, both TSL and SW:GE both fit into the concept if you think of the theme of DHS as turning dreams, wonder, and imagination into illusory reality through technological magic, but you'd have to buy into that interpretation of the theme. It a different kind of forcing than you see with RnRC and ToT, neither of which have much do with turning dreams into realities. But to @Master Yoda's point, ToT and RnRC are great attractions and that makes up for a any thematic fit issues.