D
Deleted member 107043
No, but it is the overarching theme that ties it all together. Disneyland Park's less restrictive "yesterday, tomorrow, and fantasy" theme is a better fit thematically for Marvel IMO.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Star Wars themed land announced for Disneyland
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
No, but it is the overarching theme that ties it all together. Disneyland Park's less restrictive "yesterday, tomorrow, and fantasy" theme is a better fit thematically for Marvel IMO.
D
Deleted member 107043
How do you know that these things will be lost?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That is a time period you just made up to discount Marvel. It is not at all supported by the content of the park.
D
Deleted member 107043
Um, no, I did not make it up. Have you been to DCA since the refresh? Everything they did for the reopening and since has squarely placed the park's storytelling in the time frame between Walt's arrival to California in 1923 to the ~1950s. The new Grizzly Airfield is a perfect example of this.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
You're not totally wrong, but at the same time, I'd hate them to adhere too strictly to that timeline as most people who visit DCA have absolutely no connection -- emotionally or otherwise -- to that time period.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Yes I have been, and the big centerpiece, that you ignore, is set in the present.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
I seriously doubt that the new land will mess up the sight lines for ROA or illusion of coherency. What do you think they are going to do? Put the Millennium Falcon on the shores of ROA right next to the Mark Twain. You are totally not going to see the new area. There will probably be a nice canyon wall much like BTMRR rocks. This is Disney not Six Flags.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
No, they aren't. If they wanted to design and build attractions that aren't based on popular films, they'd do it.
Again, how would I know that? How would any of us know if Disney never tried to build Tomorrowland attractions with the concepts from 60 years ago?
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I see why you think this, but it's not true.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The vistas will be gone. There is no arguing that. You can't look off into the distance if there is no distance.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
I think the popularity of Tomorrowland went hand-in-hand with the popularity of World's Fairs at the time which had a very similar model of corporate sponsors showcasing products and innovations of the future. Sadly the public doesn't have nearly as much interest and excitement in the future which, coincidentally, was the point the Tomorrowland movie awkwardly attempted to make.
There is an older generation of us who remember old Tomorrowland and EPCOT's Future World and fully embrace when Disney tried to both entertain AND educate at the same time. With some exception (a little at Epcot and AK), that education part of the parks has fallen by the wayside.
D
Deleted member 107043
Is it? Seems more like some strange alternate cartoon universe to me.
The only point I was making was that Marvel fits better in DL because it has a broader theme than DCA. Maybe every single detail at DCA isn't an authentic representation of California during a certain period, but it's apparent that was the intent. With a few exceptions I don't see how Marvel fits into the current narrative as well as it could at DL.
D
Deleted member 107043
Intuitively we know that it would be extremely risky for Disney to attempt to build a $30 billion franchise from scratch with Tomorrowland, that's how. As dweezil78 said, the standards that Tomorrowland were founded on are so outdated that they've lost favor with the American public.
What do you suppose the new vistas will be? Are you assuming that the trees and vegetation won't return? Will we be looking into SW Land from the ROA?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Read the next sentence in the post and you'll have your answer.
D
Deleted member 107043
Trees and the berm in the foreground block what's actually in the distance along the ROA. In other words, you currently cannot see what's in the distance when traveling around the north end of the ROA where SW Land will be located. Thus I'm still lost as to what lazyboy97o means when he says "the vistas will gone". What vistas?
1023
Provocateur, Rancanteur, Plaisanter, du Jour
Vista:
a view or prospect, especially one seen through a long, narrow avenue or passage, as between rows of trees or houses. such an avenue or passage, especially when formally planned. a far-reaching mental view: vistas of the future.
*1023*
GiveMeTheMusic
Well-Known Member
I'm sure WDI will make Star Wars Land's Frontierland-facing butt as pretty as possible. That doesn't change the issue of depth loss - the river and island being cut in half removes the "just around the riverbend" arc of the river that fools your mind into thinking it extends much further than it does.
There will be no wilderness to explore from the safety of your canoe or riverboat. It will all be in plain sight from the banks of NOS.
As I've said in other threads, if you can't figure out why neutering the ROA is a bad thing, I can't help you. There's nothing I can say or do that will illuminate the situation. Either you appreciate the ROA and think it should be fixed, or you view it as expendable and don't care. I understand why a lot of 2015 Disney fans would see it as expendable, but that doesn't make it actually so.
There will be no wilderness to explore from the safety of your canoe or riverboat. It will all be in plain sight from the banks of NOS.
As I've said in other threads, if you can't figure out why neutering the ROA is a bad thing, I can't help you. There's nothing I can say or do that will illuminate the situation. Either you appreciate the ROA and think it should be fixed, or you view it as expendable and don't care. I understand why a lot of 2015 Disney fans would see it as expendable, but that doesn't make it actually so.