News Primeval Whirl, Stitch's Great Escape and Rivers of Light permanently closed

[Touchdown]

No, not really. The mythical animals of Beastly Kingdom were based on thousands of years worth of myths, having played a large part in many different cultures. They were an aspect of human relationships to animals, which is the theme of the park. A few CGI Pokémon from Shang-Chi is not equivalent and is very thematically inappropriate.

You do realize that the mythical animals in Shang-Chi are from Chinese myths and have an equally long (if not longer) historical record right?

 

[sedati]

For me IP has never been a draw. IMO the best Disney rides were the original Epcot ones that had no IP attached.

I don't get it. They're still based on something previously established. There's no purity to the concepts. What's worse, is how those Epcot ones you pine for were filtered through outside corporate interests.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

You do realize that the mythical animals in Shang-Chi are from Chinese myths and have an equally long (if not longer) historical record right?

That's like saying that the mythical creatures and animals from the Thor films are thematically appropriate as well. Obviously, they're inspired by real cultural mythology, but they're still comic book versions, inappropriate for the theme of the park.

 

[Touchdown]

That's like saying that the mythical creatures and animals from the Thor films are thematically appropriate as well. Obviously, they're inspired by real cultural mythology, but they're still comic book versions, inappropriate for the theme of the park.

Asgard isn’t exactly presented as a paradise where people are in harmony with nature though (you know the guiding theme of the whole park.) That’s why Asguard doesn’t fit, but Tai-Lo is presented that way. That’s the difference, it’s why I would be ok with it and why I’m not ok with Zootopia (where the goal of the animals are to become civilized and deny their animal nature.)

 

[ToTBellHop]

Asgard isn’t exactly presented as a paradise where people are in harmony with nature though (you know the guiding theme of the whole park.) That’s why Asguard doesn’t fit, but Tai-Lo is presented that way. That’s the difference, it’s why I would be ok with it and why I’m not ok with Zootopia (where the goal of the animals are to become civilized and deny their animal nature.)

I would be fine with it if Rohde was still present, since I know he’d make sure it still worked for the park. I don’t trust The Zach, et. al.

 

[Jrb1979]

I don't get it. They're still based on something previously established. There's no purity to the concepts. What's worse, is how those Epcot ones you pine for were filtered through outside corporate interests.

World of Motion, Horizons, Journey into Imagination, and all the World Showcase attractions had no Disney IP in them. Corporate interests doesn't bother me. For that matter the best attractions at Disney have no IP attached to them. Those are Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Big Thunder and Space Mountain.

 

[sedati]

World of Motion, Horizons, Journey into Imagination, and all the World Showcase attractions had no Disney IP in them. Corporate interests doesn't bother me. For that matter the best attractions at Disney have no IP attached to them. Those are Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Big Thunder and Space Mountain.

If corporate interests don't bother you then why does Disney's own corporate interests (the company you're actually paying to visit)? Exxon is fine, but Roxxon is heresy?

 

[sedati]

That's like saying that the mythical creatures and animals from the Thor films are thematically appropriate as well. Obviously, they're inspired by real cultural mythology, but they're still comic book versions, inappropriate for the theme of the park.

But they yeti is fine? It's not actually a real yeti- just an imagineered version. How is that different from a comic book version. Or any? They're all interpretations, but one is seen as legit and the other as unspeakable.

 

[UNCgolf]

I would be fine with it if Rohde was still present, since I know he’d make sure it still worked for the park. I don’t trust The Zach, et. al.

Yeah, I don't think there's any way they'd build Ta-Lo and not turn it into an MCU hub somehow. It would be about Marvel characters, not animals/nature.

 

[Jrb1979]

If corporate interests don't bother you then why does Disney's own corporate interests (the company you're actually paying to visit)? Exxon is fine, but Roxxon is heresy?

Cause what draws me most is the attraction not what IP is attached to it. I don't have an emotional attachment to any Disney IP. If I had to pick between a Disney dark ride and Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point. I would pick Dragster 10 out of 10 times. That physical rush of going 120 mph in 4 secs does more for me then a slow moving dark ride.

 

[UNCgolf]

If corporate interests don't bother you then why does Disney's own corporate interests (the company you're actually paying to visit)? Exxon is fine, but Roxxon is heresy?

Roxxon isn't heresy, but a Roxxon ride is almost by definition going to be a heavily IP based Marvel ride. Corporate sponsored attractions don't necessarily have to have much of anything to do with the corporation. Journey into Imagination was sponsored by Kodak, but the ride wasn't remotely an advertisement for Kodak.

The original EPCOT attractions make up a significant portion of the top 15-20 rides Disney has ever built, and the fact that they weren't constrained by IP usage is likely a big reason why. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of their other best rides also don't rely on an IP.

It's not that IP rides can't also be great -- it's that they tend to limit what you can actually do. Splash Mountain is an IP based ride that's one of the best at WDW, and Rise of the Resistance is too (apparently; I haven't been on it yet). So was Great Movie Ride, but it's gone. I'm not sure there are any others that apply, outside of maybe Flight of Passage (I like it, but I'm not as enamored as others and think it's only the third or maybe fourth best ride in DAK) or MMRR (which I have also not been on).

Based on Disney's history, it sure seems like it's easier for them to build a great ride when it doesn't rely on an IP.

EDIT: I forgot about Tower of Terror, although I don't think the Twilight Zone IP is absolutely necessary for that ride to work the way it is with something like Rise of the Resistance.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

But they yeti is fine? It's not actually a real yeti- just an imagineered version. How is that different from a comic book version. Or any? They're all interpretations, but one is seen as legit and the other as unspeakable.

It is definitely an artistic interpretation from the people in Imagineering, but it's done with respect to the original legends. It draws from real world culture directly and continues the theme of human and animal relationships. I like Marvel films, but the highly polished and colorful blockbusters have no place other than Hollywood Studios. Even Avatar was a poor choice for the park, but it works so well because of how Rohde and his team were able to devolve away from the source material, exploring that same concept of fictional animals, but this time in the context of sci-fi. By directing Pandora in such a way as to contribute to the themes of conservation and human-animal relationships of the park, it doesn't manage to feel shoe-horned in, though I will always consider the idea a folly of Iger's. Now though, I have zero trust in the leadership of Chapek and the Imagineers to make any shoe-horned property fit into the theme of the park. As we've seen, Epcot has continued to crumble into a mess with no theme, full of aggressive mediocrity. With perhaps the exception of Mission Breakout, Disney can't even seem to get Marvel attractions right either. Almost all of them have ranged from "somewhat acceptable" to outright bad.

 

[sedati]

Cause what draws me most is the attraction not what IP is attached to it. I don't have an emotional attachment to any Disney IP. If I had to pick between a Disney dark ride and Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point. I would pick Dragster 10 out of 10 times. That physical rush of going 120 mph in 4 secs does more for me then a slow moving dark ride.

Then Disney by default isn't really for you. Old-school EPCOT Center is absolutely not for you. Which is fine, but this has nothing to do with IP or even theme.

 

[sedati]

Journey into Imagination was sponsored by Kodak, but the ride wasn't remotely an advertisement for Kodak.

The original EPCOT attractions make up a significant portion of the top 15-20 rides Disney has ever built, and the fact that they weren't constrained by IP usage is likely a big reason why.

I'm assuming you very intentionally only specified the RIDE at Imagination. Because the Magic Eye Theatre pre-shows were nothing but ten-minute commercials for Kodak.

The original EPCOT attractions were highly constrained by corporate interests. They threw away whole pavilions to cater to their donors.

 

[UNCgolf]

I'm assuming you very intentionally only specified the RIDE at Imagination. Because the Magic Eye Theatre pre-shows were nothing but a ten-minute commercials for Kodak.

The original EPCOT attractions were highly constrained by corporate interests. They threw away whole pavilions to cater to their donors.

They weren't constrained nearly as much as IP constrains attractions, which is the only thing that matters in this discussion. Non-IP rides have a much stronger track record at Disney than IP rides.

Again, it's not that it's impossible to make a great IP attraction. It's just much harder than making a non-IP attraction great, because there's far less freedom to be creative.

I want great attractions. We are far more likely to get great attractions when IP isn't mandated -- all you have to do is look at EPCOT to see that, but there are plenty of other non-EPCOT examples. I'm not opposed to IP attractions (they can be great as well), but requiring it really limits what designers can do and will almost inevitably lead to lesser attractions overall. Unfortunately, that's not likely to change anytime soon.

 

[sedati]

They weren't constrained nearly as much as IP constrains attractions, which is the only thing that matters in this discussion. Non-IP rides have a much stronger track record at Disney than IP rides.

Again, it's not that it's impossible to make a great IP attraction. It's just much harder than making a non-IP attraction great, because there's far less freedom to be creative.

I want great attractions. We are far more likely to get great attractions when IP isn't mandated -- all you have to do is look at EPCOT to see that, but there are plenty of other non-EPCOT examples. I'm not opposed to IP attractions, but requiring it really limits what designers can do and will almost inevitably lead to lesser attractions overall. Unfortunately, that's not likely to change anytime soon.

I get what your saying, but I think you're comparing two things that really can't be compared. Your comparing the modern IP era with the golden age of corporate open wallets. That doesn't really exist anymore. I don't think a partnership attraction today would be handled in at all the same way as in the early eighties. Conversely, how would Disney have handled the parks back then if they had a far more vast interior library to work with.

 

[UNCgolf]

I get what your saying, but I think you're comparing two things that really can't be compared. Your comparing the modern IP era with the golden age of corporate open wallets. That doesn't really exist anymore. I don't think a partnership attraction today would be handled in at all the same way as in the early eighties. Conversely, how would Disney have handled the parks back then if they had a far more vast interior library to work with.

Oh, I'm not even directly comparing the corporate sponsored attractions to the IP ones. I'm talking about attractions like Expedition Everest too, not to mention rides like Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Big Thunder Railroad, and so on. It's that requiring every ride to have IP means you're eliminating any other creative possibilities and kind of putting people in a box.

They had a pretty solid IP base when the Magic Kingdom was built, but they only used it for a few of the opening day attractions, and almost all were located in Fantasyland. Then they barely used it at all for major attraction additions over the next decade+ (Space Mountain, Big Thunder Railroad, and Pirates of the Caribbean). Splash Mountain was the first time they added a major new attraction that involved an IP, and it was one that wasn't really relevant anymore.

Again, I have no issue with using IP to build attractions. I'd just prefer they be located in specific areas for the most part. It is possible to have an IP fit in an area that would generally be IP free -- Frozen Ever After is an example of what not to do, whereas Pandora generally works quite well. Ratatouille is in a middle ground, where it's much better than FEA but not really a great overall fit IMO. m

Basically I wish that designers were allowed to come up with great ideas that did not require IP. The idea that any good idea without an IP is dismissed out of hand (or more likely at this point, never even considered in the first place) is unfortunate for a company that has a long history of building fantastic, unique attractions without such constraints.

 

[Jrb1979]

Then Disney by default isn't really for you. Old-school EPCOT Center is absolutely not for you. Which is fine, but this has nothing to do with IP or even theme.

I loved the original Epcot. My wish has always been to see them finish World Showcase like it was originally planned, attractions included.

 

[RSoxNo1]

No it’s not.

No, not really. The mythical animals of Beastly Kingdom were based on thousands of years worth of myths, having played a large part in many different cultures. They were an aspect of human relationships to animals, which is the theme of the park. A few CGI Pokémon from Shang-Chi is not equivalent and is very thematically inappropriate.

You do realize that the mythical animals in Shang-Chi are from Chinese myths and have an equally long (if not longer) historical record right?

Yeah, I don't think there's any way they'd build Ta-Lo and not turn it into an MCU hub somehow. It would be about Marvel characters, not animals/nature.

Change Everest and the surrounding area to a mythical animals area. The emphasis is on Asian mythology instead of European mythology (Potter). A journey to Ta Lo attraction that preaches the importance of the natural world fused with the mythical animals represented in the movie would be 100% thematically appropriate.

As for the MCU hub, they can't legally do it in Florida.

 

[UNCgolf]

As for the MCU hub, they can't legally do it in Florida.

Of course they can. They can't use the Avengers, but they could push Shang-Chi, the Eternals (I think), Doctor Strange, and some others from upcoming films and shows there.