Star Wars themed land announced for Disneyland

[TP2000]

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Dumbo the Flying Elephant, and the Mickey Mouse Club Theater all opened in August while you dropped the Canal Boats of the World, Space Station X-1, the Horse-Drawn Fire Wagon, the Horse-Drawn Surreys, Pack Mules, Golden Horseshoe Revue, the Indian Village, Main Street Penny Arcade and Main Street Shooting Gallery.

I've got a list that has Canal Boats not opening until July 21st, Space Station X-1 not opening until later in July, and I read an interview by Bob Gurr that the smaller horse-drawn vehicles (Surreys) on Main Street were all kept out of operation on the 17th due to opening festivities and crowds on Main Street USA, but that they did try and run the bigger streetcars for a few hours. And when you see pictures like this from July 17th 1955 when the park only operated for a shortened day, it's no wonder they kept the horses backstage.

Then there's the age-old argument of what is and what isn't an attraction, and you get into stuff like the penny arcade and shooting gallery or the Indian Village and Golden Horseshoe which are really stage entertainment than attractions/rides.

Which is kind of why I originally put the list at a time a few months after park opening, after they'd gotten all the kinks worked out and the late arrivals finally opened. Plus they fixed all those drooping ears on Dumbo.

Regardless of what you count and don't count on July 17th 1955 versus July 25th or August 18th, Disney and historians have continually stated there were 18 operating attractions on opening day. Since so many of those were in Fantasyland and based on Disney IP, it skews the numbers heavily towards the IP side. Then by early 1956 they were opening stuff like Storybook Land Canal Boats and Mike Fink Keelboats and skewing it even more heavily towards the IP.

Regardless, your original statement that only 25% of Disneyland's 1955 attractions was based on Disney IP seemed very off to me. It's more like 40%, with another giant chunk of silly corporate exhibits like Crane Bathroom of Tomorrow.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Who cares what the percentage was on opening day? The point is that literally nothing can get the green light now unless it is based on an existing brand/franchise. That's the difference between now and then.

 

[TP2000]

Who cares what the percentage was on opening day? The point is that literally nothing can get the green light now unless it is based on an existing brand/franchise. That's the difference between now and then.

Quite true. I can't think of anything that's opened at any Disney park in the last decade+ where it wasn't attached to a Disney IP. The one exception is Tower of Terror at DCA.

Can anyone else think of any attraction that's opened in the last decade or so in North America not attached to a Disney IP?

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Even ToT is based on a TV show. Not a Disney show, but still.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Who cares what the percentage was on opening day? The point is that literally nothing can get the green light now unless it is based on an existing brand/franchise. That's the difference between now and then.

Because it speaks to the role of the park in its inception and the legitimacy of themed entertainment. Disney only focuses on franchises because they do not see themed entertainment as a true creative medium, but only a marketing platform, and repeat the lie that everything has always revolved around promoting film franchises.

Can anyone else think of any attraction that's opened in the last decade or so in North America not attached to a Disney IP?

Expedition Everest: Legend of the Forbidden Mountain is still only 9 years old. Test Track if the revamp is counted separately. The Red Car Trolley was a long held dream of Weis' and did not get the history franchise overlay that hit the rest of Buena Vista Street. Glow Fest was also not attached to a property. If you're limiting to Disney properties, then the American Idol Experience would count and Star Wars was not yet owned by Disney when Star Tours: The Adventures Continue debuted.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Can anyone else think of any attraction that's opened in the last decade or so in North America not attached to a Disney IP?

Though it isn't based on a Disney IP the Red Car Trolley is rooted in Disney nostalgia, which is basically a brand in itself at this point.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Though it isn't based on a Disney IP the Red Car Trolley is rooted in Disney nostalgia, which is basically a brand in itself at this point.

Nostalgia is not intellectual property.

 

[TP2000]

Red Car Trolley, of course! Expedition Everest too. There's a lot of Red Car Trolley merchandise they sell too. Perhaps more than Everest even?

Soarin' The World next year could count too, although you've got the finale for each park that has the landing take place over the park the attraction is based in.

All the Pier rides got Disney IP makeovers in 2009-10, so if Toontown really does get bulldozed for Star Wars Land those IP's still live on in the parks with their own attractions. Except for the various stage/animatronic shows, Mickey and the Fab Five have never had actual rides before. But now they do in the Pier.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Nostalgia is not intellectual property.

It is in this case. Universal certainly isn't going to build a replica of the Carthay Circle Theater, plop a restaurant inside and decorate the place with pics of Walt Disney, his friends, and his family. Or name shops and businesses after 1930s Disney cartoon characters. The whole land references Walt's arrival to California and early artistic works produced by his studio.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It is in this case. Universal certainly isn't going to build a replica of the Carthay Circle Theater, plop a restaurant inside and decorate the place with pics of Walt Disney, his friends, and his family. Or name shops and businesses after 1930s Disney cartoon characters. The whole land references Walt's arrival to California and early artistic works produced by his studio.

That is specifically selling Disney history as a commodity, but there is no such connection to the Red Cars.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

That is specifically selling Disney history as a commodity, but there is no such connection to the Red Cars.

I never said there was. I said Disney nostalgia is basically a brand now.

 

[dweezil78]

Quite true. I can't think of anything that's opened at any Disney park in the last decade+ where it wasn't attached to a Disney IP. The one exception is Tower of Terror at DCA.

Can anyone else think of any attraction that's opened in the last decade or so in North America not attached to a Disney IP?

Expedition Everest and Mission Space (2004, just on the cusp). Otherwise, I think that's it in North America. Overseas though, they've got two new great attractions in Hong Kong not based on existing IP -- Mystic Manor and Grizzly Gulch.

Honestly though, I really don't have any problem with attractions based on Disney IP in Magic Kingdom style parks. If it weren't for Pirates and Haunted Mansion (maybe Small World too, but that was created for Pepsi at the NY Worlds Fair originally) all we'd really have to point to is a bunch of transportation/sponsor attractions not tied to existing IP. It's how they insert this stuff into Epcot that really drives me bonkers and goes against everything that park originally stood for.

I think, interestingly enough, if you really step back and look at things -- some of Disney's biggest and unique attractions were developed with sponsors in mind, hence the reason they weren't tied to Disney IP. Because of this, those stood out to many of us as we grew up with them. Attractions like Small World, Adventure Thru Inner Space, Carousel of Progress, Horizons, Journey Into Imagination, the PeopleMover, etc.... they were all created in partnership with corporate sponsors. These days, corporate sponsors -- and especially attractions created with them -- are largely absent from all of the parks and as such Disney really has not much reason to create things not tied to their own properties.

 

[dweezil78]

Wow looks like I started a little argument with the whole Disneyland is a marketing vehicle thing... neat!

Some valid points. And sure not every "attraction" from the get go was tied to IP... but... I'd argue that just about anything that survived the hands of time certainly was. Obviously the bar for what was deemed an "attraction" in the 55-59 era was significantly lower than what it was later on. Anything story-related certainly was linked directly to existing Disney IP.

Also don't forget that Sleeping Beauty Castle itself and the walkthrough that followed in 1957 were both essentially commercials for a movie that wouldn't even hit theaters until 1959!

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I wonder what role the initial failure of DCA played on Disney's willingness to do non IP attractions?

When DCA initially opened most of the major rides were non IP attractions. Soarin, Grizzly River Run, Cal Screamin, Golden Zephyr, Maliboomer, Golden Dreams, Mulholland Madness, Superstar limo, and the Sun wheel were all original attractions but as a whole the park was poorly received. During the few years after it opened and the eventual redesign almost everything they did was tied to an IP and the park has become very popular.

DCA wasn't a failure because of a lack of IP based rides but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't linger in the back of the Imagineers and accountants minds when they have 2 concepts in front of them and 1 is a popular franchise and 1 is an unknown property.

 

[Longhairbear]

Quite true. I can't think of anything that's opened at any Disney park in the last decade+ where it wasn't attached to a Disney IP. The one exception is Tower of Terror at DCA.

Can anyone else think of any attraction that's opened in the last decade or so in North America not attached to a Disney IP?

I loved finding this IP on the revamped area at Soarin' and the huge map next to the Rambler station wagon. On it you'll find a graphic pointing to which direction Camp Inch is.

 

[Stevek]

I wonder what role the initial failure of DCA played on Disney's willingness to do non IP attractions?

When DCA initially opened most of the major rides were non IP attractions. Soarin, Grizzly River Run, Cal Screamin, Golden Zephyr, Maliboomer, Golden Dreams, Mulholland Madness, Superstar limo, and the Sun wheel were all original attractions but as a whole the park was poorly received. During the few years after it opened and the eventual redesign almost everything they did was tied to an IP and the park has become very popular.

DCA wasn't a failure because of a lack of IP based rides but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't linger in the back of the Imagineers and accountants minds when they have 2 concepts in front of them and 1 is a popular franchise and 1 is an unknown property.

No, it was just a matter of them deciding to cut budgets and go cheap...a series of poor decisions that led to arguably the second worst Disney park in the world. Tying something to IP certainly helps consumers accept it but what was brought in was also addressing needs like Bug's Land for kids. Three of the most popular attractions then (and now) had no IP attached...Soarin', Screamin' and Grizzly. At the end of the day, a great attraction will succeed on its own merits.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Well even that awful Mission: Space seemed to be tied into the Mission to Mars movie. But maybe when that was so poorly received, they decided to mostly scrap that idea, but kept the Gary Sinise movie.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I've never ridden Mission Space. Is it really that bad?

 

[Stevek]

I've never ridden Mission Space. Is it really that bad?

The concept is interesting but a) the centrifuge can get you really sick, hence the tame version added and b) you really are just watching a video and whether or not you push the correct buttons at the correct time, the outcome is the same. Any thrill, in my book, is gone after riding it the first time.

This is one time where I'm guessing the majority of folks believe that the replacement was far inferior to the original ride aka Horizons

 

[dweezil78]

I've never ridden Mission Space. Is it really that bad?

It's basically a souped up version of the Gravitron ride you'd find at any local carnival. The effect is pretty neat and kind of convincing for the first time you ride it. I think had it not replaced Horizons (or, you know, killed people), people generally wouldn't hate on it so much....