Alright, place your bets. Which classic attractions does Simpsons get shamelessly slapped "Re-imagined" into?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Walt Disney Company brands, franchises, and offerings survey, including The Simpsons
- Thread starter Drew the Disney Dude
- Start date
Moth
Well-Known Member
Launch Bay. But that's not classic.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Sunset Blvd. becomes Springfield, with ToT swapping Twilight Zone for The Simpsons.
No actual new rides.
Loose Pebble
Active Member
Ultimate big brain play - tank the MCU and then get the rights from Comcast on the cheap and then suddenly stop pushing out bad content.
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
Brian
Well-Known Member
Spaceship Earth: Journey to Springfield
In the words of Bob Chapek: "...and it works because The Simpsons once referenced EPCOT in one of their episodes!"
I am ok with this. Multiple reasons.
- We have never had a ground up Simpsons land. Both springfields were basically rethemes of bttf and it’s surrounding area. As a Simpsons fan, I’m willing to let imagineering cook on a purpose built Simpsons area
- I know you said alien and planet of the apes, but idk if alien is really “themed land” material, but am very down for a ride (revive alien encounter you cowards, villains is going into MK, all bets are off. I think it’d be better received today too). I know you said planet of the apes, and I assume you are a big fan of the franchise (I am too!), so maybe not yet. Apes in my eyes, match made in heaven for DAK.
- I think the “non ride” area stuff could be cooler than the universal one already is. Maybe they’ll make the flaming moe actually purple.
- I love the Simpsons. I am Biased. Honestly all I want is to walk around the Springfield square with a moes tavern, quik-e-mart, krusty burger, and lard lad. Any ride is an extra plus.
I apologize for the rambling.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
I seriously need someone to explain to me how anyone could find this appealing aside from the very brief novelty of “walking on set”. The beer is canonically mediocre, the fast food is canonically terrible (“meat-flavored sandwiches”), and the convenience store is rundown and operated by a character they’re too afraid to voice anymore. Most of the structures are varying shades of beige or orange stucco. I’m not saying you couldn’t subvert expectations to some extent, but, like, WHY? They have a billion other properties where the environment is already interesting instead of cheap and tawdry by design.
I’ve been the
the locations of Springfield are very iconic, and it’s sort of the same reason for potter imo. You wanna actually GO TO these iconic locations synoinous with your favorite moments and characters. I feel like Simpsons works because the locations are actually distinct and stand out as almost “characters” in the show in a way.
I just think it’s neat.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
The universal simpsons land is very well themed and executed
That being said…not at all what the Disney crowd looks for…and kinda gross
This entire thread is trending towards the absurd
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
The legacy fan is the crowd that isn't into it. If you look at the things they are adding now and what they are getting rid of your statement is opposite to that. The new generation of park fans don't care about that.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Steel superstructures aren’t new…which is what you advocate for…
Disney parks have thrived - the most successful by far - by not offering such a dumbed down vision.
The “new generation” isn’t a wise one. Don’t mistake preference for wisdom
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
I'm not advocating for that at all. I would love them to go back to parks full of immersive dark rides that last 15 minutes. That's when Disney was at its best. The problem is today's guest don't want that. If they did, they would continue to make rides like that.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
The Simpsons is a brand acquired by the current regime that drives engagement and subscribers to their streaming platform.
That's it. That's why it's being considered for the parks.
Your post illustrates why not literally everything that does well on Disney+ or the box office is suited for their theme parks.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Universal's Simpsons attraction is based around Krustyland, a setting made up for the ride.
Springfield was the redo of an existing food court, with additional food trucks and a beer garden added.
It's not necessarily a given that a Disney Simpsons land would just be the same locations in Springfield.
Springfield was the redo of an existing food court, with additional food trucks and a beer garden added.
It's not necessarily a given that a Disney Simpsons land would just be the same locations in Springfield.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
You know that it’s never gonna happen
Hell…there’s about a 90% chance they don’t build what they’ve committed to build
Bobism 101
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Nominally, sure ...
No ...
Also no ...
The structures, if converted to something less cartoonish (as is generally the path Disney takes), could literally not be less architecturally interesting or distinct. Some character is delivered through unique signage and statuary, but that's about it. Most of the buildings are either strip mall-level frontages or ultra generic visual ideata (e.g. town hall, elementary school).
Hogwarts, Pandora, Galaxy's Edge (conceptually), etc.—all of these work because they're places that you'd want to visit even if the associated IP diminished into relative irrelevance. "Magic castle", "alien Garden of Eden", and "intergalactic spaceport" are compelling settings even if you completely subtract the Harry Potter, Avatar, and Star Wars brands. Springfield is nothing without the Simpsons. Krustyland in Universal is kind of okay because it's just theming for what would otherwise be a generic carnival, but absolutely everything related to the town itself only has the slightest of value because of the attached IP. It is otherwise completely mundane. It would be about as dull as building Gilmore Girls Land or Seinfeld Land. Get some minestrone from the Soup Nazi, check out Magic Eyes with Mr. Pitt, catch a showing of Sack Lunch, and enjoy the Festivus overlay during the winter months.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
I get your point. I would agree if World Showcase and Hollywood Blvd didn't exist. None of those are places that are exciting to visit.Nominally, sure ...
No ...
Also no ...
The structures, if converted to something less cartoonish (as is generally the path Disney takes), could literally not be less architecturally interesting or distinct. Some character is delivered through unique signage and statuary, but that's about it. Most of the buildings are either strip mall-level frontages or ultra generic visual ideata (e.g. town hall, elementary school).
Hogwarts, Pandora, Galaxy's Edge (conceptually), etc.—all of these work because they're places that you'd want to visit even if the associated IP diminished into relative irrelevance. "Magic castle", "alien Garden of Eden", and "intergalactic spaceport" are compelling settings even if you completely subtract the Harry Potter, Avatar, and Star Wars brands. Springfield is nothing without the Simpsons. Krustyland in Universal is kind of okay because it's just theming for what would otherwise be a generic carnival, but absolutely everything related to the town itself only has the slightest of value because of the attached IP. It is otherwise completely mundane. It would be about as dull as building Gilmore Girls Land or Seinfeld Land. Get some minestrone from the Soup Nazi, check out Magic Eyes with Mr. Pitt, catch a showing of Sack Lunch, and enjoy the Festivus overlay during the winter months.