Possible Attraction in France pavilion (Epcot) Update - new Attraction Greenlit

lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
rioriz said:
I have Zero issue with Rat in IPcot. It'll spread the crowds and does fit more In line that Frozen. I'd feel the same as Coco for Mexico. I work daily with kids and I tell you on fact the old vision for Epcot would not work today. No matter if Imagineers spent billions on original rides. I'd love it to be the other way but unless it's a park like Cedar Point, basing a park on all non IP would not work. Maybe a few like Epcot has now but hence why it isn't quite working now.
Click to expand...
Babies are not born knowing certain franchises and brands. At some point they are introduced, completely new and unknown to the child.
 
The real rescueranger

The real rescueranger

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
So Ratatouille did not appeal to the general masses? Guardians of the Galaxy did not appeal to the general masses? Toy Story did not appeal to the general masses?
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood me. Notice where I said IP driven rides are the money makers(last part of my post). I agree RAT and the others are well known to the masses, hence they are safe bets for Disney.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
The real rescueranger said:
I think you misunderstood me. Notice where I said IP driven rides are the money makers(last part of my post). I agree RAT and the others are well known to the masses, hence they are safe bets for Disney.
Click to expand...
It seems you are the one misunderstanding. I was talking about the films, which the general masses did not know until they saw them and reacted positively. The idea that attractions must be something known is a logical fallacy as even those known properties were once unknown.
 
Daveeeeed

Daveeeeed

Well-Known Member
rioriz said:
I have Zero issue with Rat in IPcot. It'll spread the crowds and does fit more In line that Frozen. I'd feel the same as Coco for Mexico. I work daily with kids and I tell you on fact the old vision for Epcot would not work today. No matter if Imagineers spent billions on original rides. I'd love it to be the other way but unless it's a park like Cedar Point, basing a park on all non IP would not work. Maybe a few like Epcot has now but hence why it isn't quite working now.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that Rat is a probably the best fit for the France pavilion, but the main reason EPCOT has its problems is because the park is unimaginably outdated.
 
ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
It seems you are the one misunderstanding. I was talking about the films, which the general masses did not know until they saw them and reacted positively. The idea that attractions must be something known is a logical fallacy as even those known properties were once unknown.
Click to expand...
Sure, but this is a company that views the theme parks as a support to the movie division. I gave up on logical arguments regarding this company's decisions long ago. Iger is absolutely obsessed with synergy and cross-marketing.
 
wdisney9000

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member
jaxonp said:
Interesting, so instead of having a discussion, on a discussion board after all, you've resorted to some random personal attack
Click to expand...
Says the person attempting to dictate the conversation while telling others they are going to look silly.

I am sure that my comment in regards to it not being an attack were completely over looked once you felt your mighty intellect was under siege, (which it was not). If I may ask you a question: If they announced they were building the Rattatouille Attraction in HS, would you disagree and say it should go in Epcot?
 
jaxonp

jaxonp

Well-Known Member
wdisney9000 said:
Says the person attempting to dictate the conversation while telling others they are going to look silly.

I am sure that my comment in regards to it not being an attack were completely over looked once you felt your mighty intellect was under siege, (which it was not). If I may ask you a question: If they announced they were building the Rattatouille Attraction in HS, would you disagree and say it should go in Epcot?
Click to expand...

I'm dictating the conversation so hard right now. I just can't get enough.
 
MrHappy

MrHappy

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Babies are not born knowing certain franchises and brands. At some point they are introduced, completely new and unknown to the child.
Click to expand...
Completely agree @lazyboy97o (it's like why do Australian kids love spam and hate hot dogs, and American kids love hot dogs and hate spam - it's a learned thing).

Not for you specifically lazyboy, but I would somewhat argue that a ride that features a character inherently gives the ride "character." I doubt 99% of kids who ride Splash have seen the movie, yet they get a kick out of the AA's and story - besides Splash just being awesome in every aspect.

So, today, if Disney built a ride using unknown characters (I'm trying to avoid saying IPs) like Miss Adventures falls would it be better than using more popular characters like Elsa or the Rat? Is Miss Adventures better because it was an "original" idea? Or would that ride be better or worse if it was a Moana Falls ride? Or just a "generic" falls ride?
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
MrHappy said:
So, today, if Disney built a ride using unknown characters (I'm trying to avoid saying IPs) like Miss Adventures falls would it be better than using more popular characters like Elsa or the Rat? Is Miss Adventures better because it was an "original" idea? Or would that ride be better or worse if it was a Moana Falls ride? Or just a "generic" falls ride?
Click to expand...
This is the wrong question to be asking as you are making a value judgement of a themed experience by looking outside the experience. The problem is the view that themed entertainment is not a storytelling medium, that it is incapable of introducing new content and is only worthwhile if done in service of content created for another medium.
 
HMF

HMF

Well-Known Member
Scott Fassett said:
I think we all know you will not even consider the possibility of stepping foot into Epcot ever again in defiance of Iger's tyrannical and capitalistic reign.
Click to expand...
It's getting pretty close to that. There is a reason I have not been there in nearly a decade and probably won't be there again until 2020 at the earliest, assuming they have not completely destroyed all redeeming factors by then.
 
Last edited:
rioriz

rioriz

Well-Known Member
MrHappy said:
Completely agree @lazyboy97o (it's like why do Australian kids love spam and hate hot dogs, and American kids love hot dogs and hate spam - it's a learned thing).

Not for you specifically lazyboy, but I would somewhat argue that a ride that features a character inherently gives the ride "character." I doubt 99% of kids who ride Splash have seen the movie, yet they get a kick out of the AA's and story - besides Splash just being awesome in every aspect.

So, today, if Disney built a ride using unknown characters (I'm trying to avoid saying IPs) like Miss Adventures falls would it be better than using more popular characters like Elsa or the Rat? Is Miss Adventures better because it was an "original" idea? Or would that ride be better or worse if it was a Moana Falls ride? Or just a "generic" falls ride?
Click to expand...
It would garner more attention by far if it was a Moana Falls with Moana featured....
 
Stryker927

Stryker927

Member
wdisney9000 said:
That is somewhat of a dogmatic fallacy and very much an un-testable hypothesis.

Could you not apply "this is the world we live in", to justify any belief or claim?
Click to expand...
Haha, didn't intend for it to come across as dogmatic. Just experience from 20 years of consulting in marketing and retail with national brands. It sucks and is a frustrating part of my job. So many brands are caught up in this because it appears to be the easiest way to attract the multitudes. I love EPCOT and the idea of it. I wish it would always be like that but my point was that current market conditions and consumer interest may dictate otherwise. The idea that is EPCOT may not be viable today. Call it the dumbing down of America (or the world) or whatever you want.
 
jaxonp

jaxonp

Well-Known Member
I think it's also important to remember that Disney as a company didn't have the IP it had 10 years ago let along when the company first started. That forced them to rely on original ideas for many of the attractions. The problem is that there isn't a healthy mix anymore. It's just become too easy to pull from the the rich well. Almost every Pixar movie has been a massive financial success. You've got 10 solid IPs to draw from. Lucasfilm has only experienced success with it's two big heavy hitting franchise that Disney is just finally taping into. Imagine the potential with Indiana Jones... and now Marvel. Plus, on top of that, Disney is back to producing hits like they were in the mid 90s. Frozen, Zootopia, and Moana have all been hits. I just don't see a realistic option, where Disney says, let's ignore all these billion dollar properties that will give us the biggest ROI. It's the 3 M's and Disney has been working it for the last 7-8 years hard. Material, Marketing, Merchandise.
 
jaxonp

jaxonp

Well-Known Member
and then... compare Dis to Universal.

Universal tried original attractions with Dueling Dragons and Poseidon Fury. Well one of those was quickly reimagined to Potter and the other is not popular even though it is one of the coolest looking show buildings ever built, imo. Also, at least Disney owns all the rights to all of it's attractions, minus Avatar and ToT. Universal, on the other hand, is paying for Marvel, Harry Potter, MIB, Simpsons, Everything in Toon Lagoon and Dr. Seuss.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom