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

[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.

 

[doctornick]

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

And it's not clear, but they could be able to use new characters who have inherited mantles (e.g. Kate Bishop's Hawkeye, Ironheart, maybe Ms. Marvel, etc.) especially if those characters were developed after IoA or are unrelated to anyone featured in Uni's land.

 

[WEDway Inc & Company LLC]

just. build. something.

 

[sedati]

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

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.

Not to say you can't also love EPCOT, but how does either end of this explain why IP is bad beyond it not what draws you in?

 

[Jrb1979]

Not to say you can't also love EPCOT, but how does either end of this explain why IP is bad beyond it not what draws you in?

Personally if they created better attractions with the IP then I would be ok with it. Outside of Rise the newest attractions are very unimpressive. Webslingers would be the worst one. They basically slapped a Spiderman IP on Midway Mayhem. I'm way more impressed with what Universal did with Secret Life of Pets then Remy.

 

[jinx8402]

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.

You really want to die on the hill that a movie based on Chinese culture isn't using mythological creatures from said culture? They were pretty faithful to historical depictions of each of these creatures:

Chinese guardian lions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Qilin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fox spirit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dijiang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FettFan]

IPs aren't the problem. IPs are allowed, they just need to be thematically appropriate. Shang Chi is thematically appropriate for a mystical animal section of DAK.

Using that logic, why not build GotG there and lean heavily into Groot and Rocket?

 

[Buried20KLeague]

just. build. something.

Careful what you wish for. That’s how you end up with Laugh Floor.

 

[Centauri Space Station]

Careful what you wish for. That’s how you end up with Laugh Floor.

Great attraction

 

[doctornick]

Careful what you wish for. That’s how you end up with Laugh Floor.

What’s wrong with Laugh Floor?

I mean, might not be one’s cup of tea, but it’s a perfectly fine attraction. Seems like a better example would be Flying Carpets or, well, Primeval Whirl.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

What’s wrong with Laugh Floor?

I mean, might not be one’s cup of tea, but it’s a perfectly fine attraction. Seems like a better example would be Flying Carpets or, well, Primeval Whirl.

It's both worse than what it replaced (Timekeeper) and the other attractions WDI has made based on the same movie.

I don't know what people see in it.

Turtle Talk works better because the smaller group size feels more intimate and like the character is talking directly to you. The screen aspect also makes more sense because you're supposed to be looking into an aquarium. Monsters Inc is a big empty theater. There's almost no effects. It looks fake and flat and generally cheap. It should have been more like Muppet-Vision if they wanted that kind of show.

 

[Centauri Space Station]

It's both worse than what it replaced (Timekeeper) and the other attractions WDI has made based on the same movie.

I don't know what people see in it.

Turtle Talk works better because the smaller group size feels more intimate and like the character is talking directly to you. The screen aspect also makes more sense because you're supposed to be looking into an aquarium. Monsters Inc is a big empty theater. There's almost no effects. It looks fake and flat and generally cheap. It should have been more like Muppet-Vision if they wanted that kind of show.

It’s hilarious, it’s more for the family while TT seems aimed toward kids. Timekeeper was dated and not that interesting

 

[JoeCamel]

It’s hilarious, it’s more for the family while TT seems aimed toward kids. Timekeeper was dated and not that interesting

But is it Tomorrowland?