• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Rumor Proposed Mary Poppins Attraction in UK Pavilion

peter11435

Well-Known Member
I am well known for the ridiculous... But seriously... the park needs everything, and each pavilion needs it's headliner... I think the idea of a carousel as the attraction in the UK pavilion is dreadfully sad... No attraction at all like it has been is worse...
But I don't want to applaud TDO for very least they can do...but applaud them when they meet or exceed expectations...
We agree a mix of things are needed... and three attractions in 30 years is pretty dismal (FEA, Guardianss Of The Galaxy, and Ratatouille) especially since two of those are replacements as opposed to additions.
So you’re not counting soarin, test track or mission space?

The park needs everything and this is part of everything. If the only new item being added to Epcot was a UK spinner I would agree with you. But it’s not.
 

Purduevian

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
That's a bit of a stretch. 30 years ago was 1989. Soarin? Mission Space? Test Track?
30 years would also give you:
Honey I shrunk the Audience (1994)
Circle of Life (1995)
Ellen's Energy Adventure (1996)
Journey into imagination with Figment (2002)
Turtle Talk with Crush (2004)
Gran Fiesta Tour Staring the Three Caballeros (2007)
Sum of all Thrills (2009)
Agent P's World Showcase Adventure (2012)
Disney and Pixar short Film fest (2015)
The Guardians of the Galaxy-Awesome Mix Live! (2018)
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Disney media is currently rehashing a lot of old media... but most of it doesn't have a large presence in the park. Aladdin has a spinner and meet and greet, Incredibles have a dance party, Ralph is non-existant, ect. On top of that there is an extreme back log of popular IP that could use a larger park presence such as Jungle book, Hercules, Tarzan, Mulan, Pocahontas, Stitch, Tangled, Moana, and many many more even if it isn't "current" IP. Finally Disney does have original movies still coming out such as Onward and Soul next year. Basically if they choose every ride to have a popular IP (and I get that strategy), they can do it without needing to get repetitive for a long long time.

Going back to Mary Poppins, the idea of this attraction kind of baffles me because
1)It is not a "hot" IP to get people to visit WDW/Epcot (box office numbers show that)
2)It is not going to be something unique you just have to go back to ride again (like Tot or Everest) based on the rumors
So why are they building it?
If they wanted to add a cheap C-ticket on that side of world showcase with an IP, put Big Hero 6 in Japan or move Aladdin into Morocco [I know neither of them fit perfectly, but they fit about as well as Frozen]
So...is Peter Pan a "hot" IP? No? Let's rip out the ride then and put, oh I don't know, Loki in it! And hey, who cares about Snow White, that movie is SO old. Let's get rid of the Mine Ride and put in Ant-Man! Or maybe some Ewoks! Or hey, the Hulk! Better than a yeti!

Dude, the question of whether or not a Mary Poppins ride ought to happen has nothing to do with the crappy sequel's box-office numbers. It has to do with the fact that the REAL Mary Poppins film was Walt Disney's crown jewel. It was a huge hit and major award-winner. It's a part of the Disney legacy, and the only real question is why an actual Poppins attraction hasn't already been built. If you don't dig that legacy, then you don't dig Disney. Period.
 

Purduevian

Well-Known Member
So...is Peter Pan a "hot" IP? No? Let's rip out the ride then and put, oh I don't know, Loki in it! And hey, who cares about Snow White, that movie is SO old. Let's get rid of the Mine Ride and put in Ant-Man! Or maybe some Ewoks! Or hey, the Hulk! Better than a yeti!

Dude, the question of whether or not a Mary Poppins ride ought to happen has nothing to do with the crappy sequel's box-office numbers. It has to do with the fact that the REAL Mary Poppins film was Walt Disney's crown jewel. It was a huge hit and major award-winner. It's a part of the Disney legacy, and the only real question is why an actual Poppins attraction hasn't already been built. If you don't dig that legacy, then you don't dig Disney. Period.
I am simply attempting to view things from Disney's perspective. From that perspective, I'm surprised Disney is going with Mary Poppins over something more current. Why would they not look at the remake to see how large of a fan base there is for Mary? Why would they ignore relevant and current data on an IP to make a multi-million dollar decision?

Also with the argument about ripping out of popular rides, you are engaging in Appeal to Extremes. I never stated anything about ripping out old rides or replacing existing features on already popular rides. This is a common tactic to make the other side of an argument look ridiculous even though nothing was ever said regarding that. There are tons of reasons for Disney not to rip of older, popular attractions that have nothing to do with how hot the current IP is. My discussion was focused on new additions to the park that would attract the Millennial (22-37 year olds) to the parks and why Disney would probably be going after that market right now.

If you don't believed Disney is currently targeting Millennials or the Millennials are driving the entertainment industry, look at the films Disney is remaking, and look at how they are doing in the box office.

Incredibles 2 (2004 OG) $608,000,000
Beauty and the Beast (1991 OG) $504,000,000
Finding Dory (2003) $486,000,000
Toy Story 4 (1994 OG) $357,000,000
Aladdin (1992 OG) $335,000,000


Compared to remakes of older movies:
The Jungle Book (1967 OG)$364,000,000
Cinderella (1950 OG)$201,000,000
Mary Poppins Returns (1964 OG) $171,000,000
Dumbo (1941 OG) $114,000,000
Christopher Robin (1977 Disney OG) $99,000,000
Pete's Dragon (1977 OG)$76,000,000

Finally, it's really sad I'm not able to "dig Disney" because I am not a big fan of 1 of the ~200 movies Disney has made. Everyone has an opinion on everything, I don't think Disney cares about yours or mine... They care about the masses of people that have not yet decided where to spend money on their next vacation.
 

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
So you’re not counting soarin, test track or mission space?

The park needs everything and this is part of everything. If the only new item being added to Epcot was a UK spinner I would agree with you. But it’s not.
those were all remodels or replacements...not really net gains...
Why defend the fact that the prices continue to rise and the attraction count doesn't...
FINALLY they are starting to add some attractions... and I am glad, but I think they could do better than a carousel I nor any of my family or friends will ever ride...
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
I am simply attempting to view things from Disney's perspective. From that perspective, I'm surprised Disney is going with Mary Poppins over something more current. Why would they not look at the remake to see how large of a fan base there is for Mary? Why would they ignore relevant and current data on an IP to make a multi-million dollar decision?

Also with the argument about ripping out of popular rides, you are engaging in Appeal to Extremes. I never stated anything about ripping out old rides or replacing existing features on already popular rides. This is a common tactic to make the other side of an argument look ridiculous even though nothing was ever said regarding that. There are tons of reasons for Disney not to rip of older, popular attractions that have nothing to do with how hot the current IP is. My discussion was focused on new additions to the park that would attract the Millennial (22-37 year olds) to the parks and why Disney would probably be going after that market right now.

If you don't believed Disney is currently targeting Millennials or the Millennials are driving the entertainment industry, look at the films Disney is remaking, and look at how they are doing in the box office.

Incredibles 2 (2004 OG) $608,000,000
Beauty and the Beast (1991 OG) $504,000,000
Finding Dory (2003) $486,000,000
Toy Story 4 (1994 OG) $357,000,000
Aladdin (1992 OG) $335,000,000


Compared to remakes of older movies:
The Jungle Book (1967 OG)$364,000,000
Cinderella (1950 OG)$201,000,000
Mary Poppins Returns (1964 OG) $171,000,000
Dumbo (1941 OG) $114,000,000
Christopher Robin (1977 Disney OG) $99,000,000
Pete's Dragon (1977 OG)$76,000,000

Finally, it's really sad I'm not able to "dig Disney" because I am not a big fan of 1 of the ~200 movies Disney has made. Everyone has an opinion on everything, I don't think Disney cares about yours or mine... They care about the masses of people that have not yet decided where to spend money on their next vacation.
Is it even up to TWDC? I know Martin said Brazil might be privately financed but I'm not sure that is the case with the UK pavilion.

Will Brazil -if it happens - be the exception or the norm?

We need a list of which are private and which are gov't tourist bureaus.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
those were all remodels or replacements...not really net gains...
Why defend the fact that the prices continue to rise and the attraction count doesn't...
FINALLY they are starting to add some attractions... and I am glad, but I think they could do better than a carousel I nor any of my family or friends will ever ride...
Remodels or replacements are still improvements in most cases and they are still new attractions.

Nobody is defending price increases. That’s not what this is about.

They are doing better than a carousel. Again the UK project is not the only attraction coming to epcot. If it was I would agree with you. But it’s not.
 

RobbinsDad

Well-Known Member
So again, about this ride... I'm seeing a lot of press about the launch of the Inside Out spinner/swings hybrid ride at Pixar, so I'm thinking Disney may want to clone this one - maybe with kites and balloons, tying the two Poppins films together. Boring but it makes sense as a C-ticket.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
those were all remodels or replacements...not really net gains...
Why defend the fact that the prices continue to rise and the attraction count doesn't...
FINALLY they are starting to add some attractions... and I am glad, but I think they could do better than a carousel I nor any of my family or friends will ever ride...
Soarin replaced a relatively small theater show. So I'd put that one as a net gain.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
So again, about this ride... I'm seeing a lot of press about the launch of the Inside Out spinner/swings hybrid ride at Pixar, so I'm thinking Disney may want to clone this one - maybe with kites and balloons, tying the two Poppins films together. Boring but it makes sense as a C-ticket.
That attraction had already been operating in the park for nearly two decades. I think if they were interested in cloning it would have happened years ago.
 

RobbinsDad

Well-Known Member
That attraction had already been operating in the park for nearly two decades. I think if they were interested in cloning it would have happened years ago.
I get that but it's not at WDW (not technically). If it's a spinner, it makes sense for them to do something a little different with it.
 

Movielover

Well-Known Member
Hey, according to Hong Kong Disneyland, Guest Services was an opening-day attraction there.
What? You don't hang out in the corner of GS listening to all the self entitled brats screaming at the poor front line CM's for something completely out of their control? It's one of my favorite attractions!

"Great Moments With Dumb-&sses"
Presented by Coca-Cola
;)
 

Lensman

Premium Member
I am simply attempting to view things from Disney's perspective. From that perspective, I'm surprised Disney is going with Mary Poppins over something more current. Why would they not look at the remake to see how large of a fan base there is for Mary? Why would they ignore relevant and current data on an IP to make a multi-million dollar decision?
I do think that the current popularity of a particular IP is part of the equation. OTOH, I think the following also need to be taken into account:
1. How much will an attraction help the longevity of a particular franchise? This is the opposite side to the coin where an attraction can help keep interest in a franchise going between releases in movies or tv. Pandora would be the headline example of this.
2. How good of an attraction can be designed off of IP? I think everyone agrees that execution is essential in determining the success of an attraction. Attractions can cost more than a movie does, so it's not a trivial concern.
3. How much longevity is there in a franchise? Is there a franchise at all? A trivial example is that a Titanic themed attraction is a bit of a dead end as far as future movies and television are concerned.

By these measure, I think Mary has a lot going for her.
 

WDW Pro

Well-Known Member
I've seen one of three proposals for the upcoming Mary Poppins carousel attraction at the UK pavillion. I was led to believe that I was looking at the leading candidate, and that the other candidates were similar. This was several months ago, and now that enough time has passed, I'll share a little of what I know:

1) The carousel is a double-decker carousel with the two levels spinning in opposite directions.
2) The southwest side of the carousel is not open and features screens which are animated to appear as if the rider is entering and exiting an animated world. This section of the carousel is interior to a small show building, though the carousel itself does not do any non-traditional movements.
3) The attraction's creatures are designed to resemble the creatures from Mary Poppins, and are distinctly different than the carousel in Magic Kingdom.
4) Widening of the path to Lords and Ladies will occur during construction.
5) A spiraling ramp is used to access the top of the carousel, but a themed lift is also available for guests with mobility needs.
6) The lift has a redundancy secondary power system built in so that it can maintain power in the event of an electrical failure to the rest of the attraction.
7) Both levels of the carousel have significant lighting packages built in which are used to maintain thematic consistency in a three song rotation.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
I've seen one of three proposals for the upcoming Mary Poppins carousel attraction at the UK pavillion. I was led to believe that I was looking at the leading candidate, and that the other candidates were similar. This was several months ago, and now that enough time has passed, I'll share a little of what I know:

1) The carousel is a double-decker carousel with the two levels spinning in opposite directions.
2) The southwest side of the carousel is not open and features screens which are animated to appear as if the rider is entering and exiting an animated world. This section of the carousel is interior to a small show building, though the carousel itself does not do any non-traditional movements.
3) The attraction's creatures are designed to resemble the creatures from Mary Poppins, and are distinctly different than the carousel in Magic Kingdom.
4) Widening of the path to Lords and Ladies will occur during construction.
5) A spiraling ramp is used to access the top of the carousel, but a themed lift is also available for guests with mobility needs.
6) The lift has a redundancy secondary power system built in so that it can maintain power in the event of an electrical failure to the rest of the attraction.
7) Both levels of the carousel have significant lighting packages built in which are used to maintain thematic consistency in a three song rotation.
Now that sounds like a solid C ticket? A very dressed up carousel sounds much better then "another spinner". I still wonder what the other proposals were.
 
Top Bottom