-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier
- Thread starter iHeartDisneylandCats
- Start date
D
Deleted member 107043
TROR
Well-Known Member
No wait I'm writing some nonsense. Keep fighting please.
Let's call a truce. It's really not that serious.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Let's call a truce. It's really not that serious.
LOL. Truce. You can’t see me but I’ve been waving a white flag since 5pm.
D
Deleted member 107043
Really? It didn't feel that way. Boards like this suck in a way because it's difficult to have real time conversations with people. We need Slack for Disney Park nerds.
TROR
Well-Known Member
To be fair, I think the "AP culture" is very different between what it was in 1998 and what it is now. Disneyland, for that matter, is very different than what it was in 1998. Back when I was a kid so long ago in the early 2000's, when my classmates went to Disneyland, it was a special event, but nowadays there are kids who get to go every month. Simply put, more people have AP's. Now I don't know when Disney started offering monthly payment plans for annual passports, but I would be willing to bet that the increase in APs correspond with it.
That's also ignoring the fact that, while the park has always been popular, Disney as a brand is reaching new heights that it's never seen before which is creating more interest. Even though I think the animation division is about to come crumbling down with Wreck-It Ralph 2, their animated movies have been doing really well lately. Marvel, which I also believing is about to come crumbling down after Avengers 4 in 2019, has been very successful. Pixar isn't in a good place, not since Cars 2 has it been with the exception of Inside Out and Coco, but there's still interest in The Incredibles 2. However, if that disappoints, I think we'll be seeing the crumbling of Pixar. Lastly we have Lucasfilm, which is crumbling down right now after the divisive film The Last Jedi and is about to take another hit with Solo, plus the fact they keep firing directors and have like 7 films scheduled, also isn't in a good place but people still love Star Wars.
Anyways, this isn't the point I intended to make but it is the point I'm making and that's that Disney's really popular right now but it's about to all come crashing down over the next 5 years if there's not some serious change.
That's also ignoring the fact that, while the park has always been popular, Disney as a brand is reaching new heights that it's never seen before which is creating more interest. Even though I think the animation division is about to come crumbling down with Wreck-It Ralph 2, their animated movies have been doing really well lately. Marvel, which I also believing is about to come crumbling down after Avengers 4 in 2019, has been very successful. Pixar isn't in a good place, not since Cars 2 has it been with the exception of Inside Out and Coco, but there's still interest in The Incredibles 2. However, if that disappoints, I think we'll be seeing the crumbling of Pixar. Lastly we have Lucasfilm, which is crumbling down right now after the divisive film The Last Jedi and is about to take another hit with Solo, plus the fact they keep firing directors and have like 7 films scheduled, also isn't in a good place but people still love Star Wars.
Anyways, this isn't the point I intended to make but it is the point I'm making and that's that Disney's really popular right now but it's about to all come crashing down over the next 5 years if there's not some serious change.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Haha true that. What’s Slack?
D
Deleted member 107043
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Why are you so hip?
nevol
Well-Known Member
"shade"
nevol
Well-Known Member
The distinction is that we have to pay to revisit old attractions. Their past successes haven't been fully erased. But if they got rid of pirates, haunted mansion, and space mountain and expected me to pay 200$ a day to go ride guardians, a ride I have zero desire to reride, then no I would not pay to go back. I am holding off on visiting right now because I'm waiting for R...DCT and for the walls to be gone. There is a 63 year strong classic tradition still in play, that I'm still willing to pay for, and all of the changes that seem severe in these discussions are hardly even noticeable in the parks because they are one of 60 experiences, though they trend in a direction away from what we love and toward things we don't like. It is perfectly possible to visit the parks still and appreciate the best of experiences old and new and tolerate some of the meh. But it doesn't mean that we pretend to hate new, mediocre attractions just because we continue to visit to see other stuff, and it doesn't mean anybody is lying when they say they'd rather ride a new non-ip attraction. God forbid tomorrowland and california adventure stood for anything anymore, and the 4 parks at walt disney world weren't all devolving into IP parks to imitate the competition that gets half the attendance of the Magic Kingdom.
I'd rather visit disneyland, tokyo disneyland, etc than visit shanghai. because shanghai is all new rides and ride systems and none of the classic castle park soul. There are millions of people who might like that, a completely refreshed castle park, but I'd venture to say many repeat visitors to disneyland aren't interested in that. There's something missing entirely from the equation in the theme park design culture right now, despite how advanced ride system technology has gotten, how impressive the rockwork is and how out of control the budgets are.
nevol
Well-Known Member
The ride was closed 8 years or so before it reopened as Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage. Disney spent 150 million dollars on that overlay. Bog Iger let that happen. And then it opened, and while purists were happy to just have the subs back given that they were gone for 8 years, did anybody really like the ride? Has it stood the test of time? It wasn't a hit then and it isn't a hit now. So that comparison would only work if they'd closed a popular attraction and replaced it right away. And that isn't moving the goalpost at all. Disney never said "hey folks, we are closing this mega popular attraction and turning it into finding nemo, something nobody asked for." 8 years went by where it sat there rotting. Walt Disney World's subs were ripped out of the ground. They spent a boat load to give us the subs back thanks to tony baxter, but they didn't have the guts to do anything with it that didn't include pixar IP. Most popular pixar movie in the world does not make it the most popular ride. Tarzan's treehouse is no better than swiss. Tiki room under new management is not a better experience. Stitch encounter is a joke. IP doesn't save the day.And Mission Breakout is still an elevator drop ride inside a highrise tower.
You conveniently keep shifting the goalposts. You said, "If they started permanently converting some of the DL classics I think you would see some folks start to drop off". The Submarine Voyage, er, Finding Nemo's Submarine Voyage was a classic attraction dating back to 1959 that was given a half-baked Studio IP overlay unrelated to the themed land it sits in, and thus should fit the criteria you referenced. Also, APs were definitely a thing in 1998 when the original Subs closed.
In any case, my point, as it relates to the topic of this thread, is that the sum of any argument against the over abundance of Studio IP at Disney Parks, including silly overlays like Pixar Pier, ought to acknowledge that the strategy is working extremely well because customers are fully embracing it.
Last year, before Pandora, attendance was down despite the Frozen ride opening at epcot. Clearly there are many variables in this equation, and IP isn't the one that deserves credit. Could it be, I don't know, that Pandora was actually a good project? Disney right now is turning every one of their theme parks into a studio park with little to no differentiation. They're imitating what is working at Universal. But Universal is gearing up for Nintendo and several new theme parks in Orlando. What if Universal successfully pulls off gamification with Nintendo? Or throws a curve ball and opens a park that is pedagogical like Epcot, once Disney has diluted their own epcot? The Disney parks are their own IP, and rides can be their own original content as well, and yet the company is more comfortable following Universal's lead with their crappy 3d motion simulators.
Last edited:
nevol
Well-Known Member
People trust Disney because they've done well in the past, but as we saw with DCA, they can't take that for granted and start making awful products.
TROR
Well-Known Member
Don't forget that Disney considers Pandor a failure because it didn't crush Potter like they wanted it to. They thought huge box office for Avatar would equal huge guest turnout and that simply wasn't the case. I fear, however, Disney's takeaway isn't going to be not to rush into a project because it's based off a franchise with big numbers, I fear their takeaway will be that no matter how much money and craftsmanship they put into it, it won't pay off. That was what they "learned" with Disneyland Paris and it's part of the reason the early late 90's and 2000's were so awful for Disney parks.
nevol
Well-Known Member
They always manage to learn the wrong lessons because the people making these decisions are trying to deduce "insights" from excel sheets instead of getting out of the office and into the parks where these things are self explanatory.
None of their insights make any sense. Tron did so poorly at the box office that its sequel got cancelled. Yet the ride comes to walt disney world because it is a strong experience. It is entirely possible to have a strong experience and a poor script and poor box office performance. The opposite is true too. You can have a great movie that would be the most boring theme park attraction. If Tron is something they are proud of, despite its box office performance inspiring skepticism about basing a theme park project on it, imagine if they hadn't built it. They have no confidence to develop something as strong as lightcycles without an IP, which is sad, and they very well could have not even built Tron. Will they ever build Space Mountain ever again? It was a magic kingdom staple. Every castle park had one. Not anymore! This should scare people, honestly. And think about how they were rumored to be waiting to greenlight Coco for the Mexico Pavilion, Spain with whatever movie they were about to make based there, etc. These could all be incredible projects that management allowed to begin development because they are IP related, that may never see the light of day because of box office performance. What if they are actually better theme park experiences than movies?
When will theme parks and their component parts again be designed with the consideration of the strength of each project and the strength of the collective whole rather than based on some abstracted logic? Disney built Disneyland Paris, Animal Kingdom in the 90s. They designed Westcot and Port Disney, both of which blended fantasy with pedagogy/edutainment. Port Disney was built over in tokyo as Disneysea while the domestic parks became lesser versions of themselves run by retail execs. Now the company is playing catchup with Universal and is only confident in theme park principles when IP is attached, when really they should have the awareness that what doesn't work with audiences is the abandonment of best theme park design practices.
Last edited:
Darkbeer1
Well-Known Member
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/02/...toy-story-land-in-orlandos-walt-disney-world/
>>
Unofficial Disneyland historian David Koenig, author of Mouse Tales and other books about the world’s first theme park, described the new land as “a quick patch to a theme park that has a giant crater sized hole in it.”
The Hollywood Studios will be the location for the eagerly anticipated Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge land (that will be mirrored in Anaheim’s Disneyland,) slated to open in 2019, but otherwise was lacking ride capacity, Koenig said.
He said the new land was hurriedly created to offer something new to guests, similar to the way A Bug’s Land was created and opened in October 2002 in Disney California Adventure to meet criticism that that park had too few rides for children when it opened in 2001.
According to Koenig, the new Alien Swirling Saucers is built on the same design as Mater’s Junkyard Jamboree in Cars Land, just with a different theming, and the Slinky Dog coaster was also built with off-the-shelf plans. The new Woody’s Lunch Box will replace the former Pizza Planet restaurant, he said.<<
>>
Unofficial Disneyland historian David Koenig, author of Mouse Tales and other books about the world’s first theme park, described the new land as “a quick patch to a theme park that has a giant crater sized hole in it.”
The Hollywood Studios will be the location for the eagerly anticipated Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge land (that will be mirrored in Anaheim’s Disneyland,) slated to open in 2019, but otherwise was lacking ride capacity, Koenig said.
He said the new land was hurriedly created to offer something new to guests, similar to the way A Bug’s Land was created and opened in October 2002 in Disney California Adventure to meet criticism that that park had too few rides for children when it opened in 2001.
According to Koenig, the new Alien Swirling Saucers is built on the same design as Mater’s Junkyard Jamboree in Cars Land, just with a different theming, and the Slinky Dog coaster was also built with off-the-shelf plans. The new Woody’s Lunch Box will replace the former Pizza Planet restaurant, he said.<<
truecoat
Well-Known Member
Rich T
Well-Known Member
Junky toy boxes littering a suburban back yard. Who hasn't dreamed of paying top dollar for a dream vacation destination like that?
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
Let's just remind ourselves of why we're here with this project...
"Per the Micechat article, "this was a project that was fast-tracked with major political pressure inside WDI, and it’s designed by WDI to prove to Bob Chapek that they can still project manage a park concept quickly to completion with good results, which is something Bob feels WDI is not very capable of." In other words...very little of this project is being approached with the guest satisfaction in mind, aka, kind of their first priority."
...carry on!
"Per the Micechat article, "this was a project that was fast-tracked with major political pressure inside WDI, and it’s designed by WDI to prove to Bob Chapek that they can still project manage a park concept quickly to completion with good results, which is something Bob feels WDI is not very capable of." In other words...very little of this project is being approached with the guest satisfaction in mind, aka, kind of their first priority."
...carry on!