The Status of Muppet*Vision 3D

FigmentJedi

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
WondersOfLife said:
If Disney owns the muppets franchise since they purchased it, how would they not own the rights to that muppets movie?
Click to expand...
Muppets from Space, Muppets Take Manhattan, and Kermit's Swamp Years were all distributed by Sony/Columbia and they kept those distribution rights seemingly in perpetuity. Like how Fox owned the original Star Wars distribution rights permanently.
 
O

ohioguy

Well-Known Member
What would be cool is if they would build a 5th themed park based on Star Wars, with Galaxy's Edge serving as a precursor and connector to the new park. The other park would be accessible by its own entrance OR via a transport of some sort between the parks. There's no rule against having two lands of the same theme, or even another park exclusively dedicated to an IP. As Harry Potter at Universal has shown, two thematic "lands" are quite possible, can be easily connected, and provide different experiences. An entire Star Wars park would take it to the next level.
 
Kman101

Kman101

Well-Known Member
danlb_2000 said:
Because it increases operating costs. People are still willing to pack the parks so there is no great incentive yet to reduce the crowds.
Click to expand...

I do think they realize they need to expand. They just still have their old mindset of replace, because, as you said, expanding increases operating costs. Look at DHS. Technically almost all replacements, just not the typical 'reuse the same building' (but MMRR covers that one ...). And with Energy, they've combined the old building with the new building, and technically the coaster portion is an expansion, but at the same time, it's really not ... they try so hard to get away without truly expanding .... (and to the defenders, yes, I'm aware there are some ACTUAL expansions going on, and I give them credit for that, but they need to do more/better ...)
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Kman101 said:
I do think they realize they need to expand. They just still have their old mindset of replace, because, as you said, expanding increases operating costs. Look at DHS. Technically almost all replacements, just not the typical 'reuse the same building' (but MMRR covers that one ...). And with Energy, they've combined the old building with the new building, and technically the coaster portion is an expansion, but at the same time, it's really not ... they try so hard to get away without truly expanding .... (and to the defenders, yes, I'm aware there are some ACTUAL expansions going on, and I give them credit for that, but they need to do more/better ...)
Click to expand...

Some replacement can also be considered expansions, if the new things will soak up more guests then what was there before. For the loss of LMA, Backlot Tour and the Jack Sparrow building, we gained GE and Toy Story Land which I think is a net plus for guest capacity.
 
Kman101

Kman101

Well-Known Member
danlb_2000 said:
Some replacement can also be considered expansions, if the new things will soak up more guests then what was there before. For the loss of LMA, Backlot Tour and the Jack Sparrow building, we gained GE and Toy Story Land which I think is a net plus for guest capacity.
Click to expand...

In some ways, sure. But in terms of actual attraction count? We've gained one attraction. But I absolutely see your point. Obviously TSL and GE are bigger draws than those three ever were and could have been. It's still not solving the problem of "we need more to do here". But I agree, in some ways, it is an expansion (GE will have two places to eat and numerous shops - while with TSL we gained a quick service but that sort of replaced Catering Co.), but I don't quite see it the same way. Tron is an expansion. Ratatouille is an expansion. Putting Star Wars Land, say where the hotel is going and next to Star Tours, I'd 100% call it an expansion. Just how I see it, LOL. But I see it from your perspective as well. It's a fine line.
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
An expansion would have been a 5th gate Star Wars park while expanding/ updating DHS as its own park.

Tearing down streets of America (which provided the space for the highly successful osbourne lights and could have been developed to have other seasonal offerings), LMA, and the tram tour is not necessarily the best choice imho.

As I’ve also mentioned, a Mickey ride needed to be added to the park, not replace an existing “classic” attraction. (Yes gmr needed help... as did everything I mentioned. But that’s a lack of upkeep and refreshes).
 
ppete1975

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
Kman101 said:
I do think they realize they need to expand. They just still have their old mindset of replace, because, as you said, expanding increases operating costs. Look at DHS. Technically almost all replacements, just not the typical 'reuse the same building' (but MMRR covers that one ...). And with Energy, they've combined the old building with the new building, and technically the coaster portion is an expansion, but at the same time, it's really not ... they try so hard to get away without truly expanding .... (and to the defenders, yes, I'm aware there are some ACTUAL expansions going on, and I give them credit for that, but they need to do more/better ...)
Click to expand...
There is so little of energy remaining just the outer shell, I really thought they were going to keep a lot more of it.
 
Missing20K

Missing20K

Well-Known Member
ppete1975 said:
honestly forget the rides, the loss of water and fountains at all the parks really seems to sterilize them
Click to expand...
FWIW, running water releases negative ions into the atmosphere. Some research claims negative ions are associated with lower rates of depression.

Water is a wonderful design tool and has been greatly minimized in the parks. Adds kinetic energy, auditory energy, cools the air in the immediate vicinity and can be a weenie of sorts. If you can't tell I really, really enjoy fountains and water features in theme and amusement parks.
 
ppete1975

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
Missing20K said:
FWIW, running water releases negative ions into the atmosphere. Some research claims negative ions are associated with lower rates of depression.

Water is a wonderful design tool and has been greatly minimized in the parks. Adds kinetic energy, auditory energy, cools the air in the immediate vicinity and can be a weenie of sorts. If you can't tell I really, really enjoy fountains and water features in theme and amusement parks.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, it adds a ton of zen. That's what I remember most about 1983 epcot was the water features. Whats funny is clearly disney designers agree... look at early Disneyland, the new fantasyland and the epcot blue sky design concepts... water everywhere
and the original entrance spires to tommorowland
 
GlacierGlacier

GlacierGlacier

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah, all that concept art without flowing water and nature. You know, I'm really going to miss the fountain in front of Epcot...

359219


Wait, it's staying? It's also getting an upgrade?


Well, the new projects like Pandora don't seem to have any - what's that? Pandora has a massive waterfall, flowing rivers, and various interactive water elements?

This isn't supporting my narrative at all. Maybe all those upcoming changes to Epcot (though an outdated image) could help, it's really just going to be a concrete jungle -

359218


Ah.

But they removed a water fountain next to the bathrooms adjacent to Crystal palace, so there. Disney HATES water and is never adding ANY MORE to the parks.

(no more sass)

Disney has lost a few water features. Small maintenance things like the fountain (though I haven't checked if that ever returned) and the Tomorrowland spires added a lot to the areas that they were in.

But I really don't understand what the "loss of water and fountains" is supposed to be about. Unless you're really nostalgic for the puddle out front of UoE.
 
Missing20K

Missing20K

Well-Known Member
GlacierGlacier said:
Oh yeah, all that concept art without flowing water and nature. You know, I'm really going to miss the fountain in front of Epcot...

View attachment 359219

Wait, it's staying? It's also getting an upgrade?


Well, the new projects like Pandora don't seem to have any - what's that? Pandora has a massive waterfall, flowing rivers, and various interactive water elements?

This isn't supporting my narrative at all. Maybe all those upcoming changes to Epcot (though an outdated image) could help, it's really just going to be a concrete jungle -

View attachment 359218

Ah.

But they removed a water fountain next to the bathrooms adjacent to Crystal palace, so there. Disney HATES water and is never adding ANY MORE to the parks.

(no more sass)

Disney has lost a few water features. Small maintenance things like the fountain (though I haven't checked if that ever returned) and the Tomorrowland spires added a lot to the areas that they were in.

But I really don't understand what the "loss of water and fountains" is supposed to be about. Unless you're really nostalgic for the puddle out front of UoE.
Click to expand...
I like puddles.
 
Missing20K

Missing20K

Well-Known Member
GlacierGlacier said:
Oh yeah, all that concept art without flowing water and nature. You know, I'm really going to miss the fountain in front of Epcot...

View attachment 359219

Wait, it's staying? It's also getting an upgrade?


Well, the new projects like Pandora don't seem to have any - what's that? Pandora has a massive waterfall, flowing rivers, and various interactive water elements?

This isn't supporting my narrative at all. Maybe all those upcoming changes to Epcot (though an outdated image) could help, it's really just going to be a concrete jungle -

View attachment 359218

Ah.

But they removed a water fountain next to the bathrooms adjacent to Crystal palace, so there. Disney HATES water and is never adding ANY MORE to the parks.

(no more sass)

Disney has lost a few water features. Small maintenance things like the fountain (though I haven't checked if that ever returned) and the Tomorrowland spires added a lot to the areas that they were in.

But I really don't understand what the "loss of water and fountains" is supposed to be about. Unless you're really nostalgic for the puddle out front of UoE.
Click to expand...
"Greatly minimized" might have been too far, but you acknowledge there have been losses in water features at WDW. And they are plussing existing water features and adding new in some of the newest concept art. So it seems as though both arguments "hold water".......sorry couldn't help myself.
 
ppete1975

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
GlacierGlacier said:
Oh yeah, all that concept art without flowing water and nature. You know, I'm really going to miss the fountain in front of Epcot...

View attachment 359219

Wait, it's staying? It's also getting an upgrade?


Well, the new projects like Pandora don't seem to have any - what's that? Pandora has a massive waterfall, flowing rivers, and various interactive water elements?

This isn't supporting my narrative at all. Maybe all those upcoming changes to Epcot (though an outdated image) could help, it's really just going to be a concrete jungle -

View attachment 359218

Ah.

But they removed a water fountain next to the bathrooms adjacent to Crystal palace, so there. Disney HATES water and is never adding ANY MORE to the parks.

(no more sass)

Disney has lost a few water features. Small maintenance things like the fountain (though I haven't checked if that ever returned) and the Tomorrowland spires added a lot to the areas that they were in.

But I really don't understand what the "loss of water and fountains" is supposed to be about. Unless you're really nostalgic for the puddle out front of UoE.
Click to expand...
Youre comparing concept art that is never accurate with things removed. They have removed tons of water features or turned them off over the years, IF you visited wdw and epcot during the 80s (you may have) then you would realize what is missing. Even the castles moat has shrank.
To each their own. I think what some miss about epcot (and to a lesser point the MK) is the lack of awe. When epcot was originally built the architecture, the landscaping the flow of the area was perfect and felt like the future. With loss of water, questionable paint schemes, big awnings, removal of buildings, some of the beautiful design elements that they did perfectly have went away. But this is about the muppets so ill stop talking about it (btw the muppets fountain isn't what it was either). Someone feel free to start a post on the design and architecture of the parks and ill glad keep debating :)
 
ppete1975

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
GlacierGlacier said:
Oh yeah, all that concept art without flowing water and nature. You know, I'm really going to miss the fountain in front of Epcot...

View attachment 359219

Wait, it's staying? It's also getting an upgrade?


Well, the new projects like Pandora don't seem to have any - what's that? Pandora has a massive waterfall, flowing rivers, and various interactive water elements?

This isn't supporting my narrative at all. Maybe all those upcoming changes to Epcot (though an outdated image) could help, it's really just going to be a concrete jungle -

View attachment 359218

Ah.

But they removed a water fountain next to the bathrooms adjacent to Crystal palace, so there. Disney HATES water and is never adding ANY MORE to the parks.

(no more sass)

Disney has lost a few water features. Small maintenance things like the fountain (though I haven't checked if that ever returned) and the Tomorrowland spires added a lot to the areas that they were in.

But I really don't understand what the "loss of water and fountains" is supposed to be about. Unless you're really nostalgic for the puddle out front of UoE.
Click to expand...
Btw I just noticed your name, kind of ironic since the worlds glaciers are becoming puddles ;)
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom