-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Transformative Multi-Year Expansion Announced for WDS Paris
- Thread starter Jwhee
- Start date
DisneyDean97
Well-Known Member
It has been so frustrating being a fan for the past few years, there's so much potential and it gets squashed every time. I know people have their different opinions on him, but I know for a FACT Eisner wouldn't be sitting so idle while his competitor down the street in Florida was breaking ground on a brand new park...
The arrogance that Disney's management have had this past decade is astonishing
DisneyDean97
Well-Known Member
Perfectly said. Eisner / Wells was the golden era for Imagineering, it also helped that you had passionate and creative people in lead positions within WDI like Marty Sklar and Tony Baxter... not outsiders like they have now, unfortunately
Absolutely. As mentioned, Eisner/Wells was a golden time for the parks. Big, bold, and inspired. Post Wells' death and Eisner's heart attack, it was a completely different look and feel that laid the groundwork for today's uninspired, "de-risk", synergy-or-bust park philosophy that has been turned up to 11 by the Bob's. But I digress, I don't want to soil this thread with their stain.
DznyRktekt
Well-Known Member
I am finishing up reading Mr. Eisner's book "A Work in Progress" and it is very interesting to me how many aspects of media and pop culture he influenced from the 70's through the 90's. Eisner had a passion for the experience and the final product. The risks taken and his drive was truly remarkable. I have not seen current Disney management even come close to the successes of the restoration of the New Amsterdam Theatre in NYC, Disneyland Paris (hub park), and Animal Kingdom. Yes the studios park and DCA were also part of his portfolio, but those were in response to agonizing recovery from the tremendous risks of the aforementioned projects and the death of Frank Wells.
Last edited:
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
Is this in reference to Disney Studios Paris specifically, or across the parks portfolio?
What they really really do with mini GE, given the reaction to GE is to retool it and have Rise ride system based around "The Mandalorian" era, even if they don't bother dropping the timeline lock in the US parks. This seems like the perfect opportunity to make it a little unique and fix some of the mistakes, while capitalising on that Disney+ synergy.
Though WDSP could still do with another ride or two when all is said and done, all this effort and you only gain 1 attraction?! Infact, when Avengers Campus opens, it will still actually be down an attraction, from when construction begun?!
Though WDSP could still do with another ride or two when all is said and done, all this effort and you only gain 1 attraction?! Infact, when Avengers Campus opens, it will still actually be down an attraction, from when construction begun?!
sedati
Well-Known Member
If it were opening now or even next year, sure. By the time it does, the Mandalorian may be over or winding down. There may be a more popular carrot to chase.
Everything I know about.
Brummyboy92
Well-Known Member
I fail to understand why Frozen, SW & even Marvel to some extent, (space permitting), can't have some heavily themed flat rides to bulk out the offering a bit more.
I know we all want these big attractions, but 3/4 new flats, heavily themed to their IPs would be a good way of upping the attraction numbers, on the cheap.
It would not be costly for Disney to include a Frozen themed carousel, or some sort of Star Wars inspired Orbitron attraction. It seems so obvious to me, & these types of attractions do add more energy to an area.
I know we all want these big attractions, but 3/4 new flats, heavily themed to their IPs would be a good way of upping the attraction numbers, on the cheap.
It would not be costly for Disney to include a Frozen themed carousel, or some sort of Star Wars inspired Orbitron attraction. It seems so obvious to me, & these types of attractions do add more energy to an area.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
I long for the days when a mid-range C-Ticket Dark Ride wasn't too much to ask for. Even in 1955, Fantasyland's dark rides outnumbered the flat rides.
I think part of the reason so many of the recent mega-lands feel like they lack depth is because they spend so much money on the one showstopping attraction that they have little left for any other attractions, so we get flat rides. Na'vi River Journey is a nice example of a ride that's only maligned because people find themselves waiting an hour or more for it, which is hardly its own fault. But I don't think the solution is flat rides, it's some more C and D tickets. Things that contribute substance to the theme, take some heat off of larger attractions, and are more satisfying than another spinning something-or-other.
The Frozen land at DSP should be opening with a North Mountain E-Ticket (which Frozen Ever After is decidedly not), an Ahtohallan Cavern boat ride D-Ticket, some sort of Troll Dark Ride C-Ticket, and maybe a Sven-themed Mater-style Flat ride. At least. I don't get why we're supposed to keep accepting 1.5 rides as a land - especially in a park like DSP that so desperately needs them, and with a property like Frozen which has made them absolute bank.
fradz
Well-Known Member
Also because costs for developing attractions at Disney massively increased from the days when WED was a couple of (very talented) guys designing the rides. I know I’m taking this example often, but Symbolica, a quality trackless dark ride costs around 35M€… how much would it cost for Disney to build this? Just look at how much ratatouille was… for 35M you get a themed spinner (see the one at TDS). It’s a big issue when competitors like Universal or other independent parks have a smaller cost structure…
Because 1.5 rides per land is what the pixie dust defenders have decreed is acceptable by their verbal defense and continued spending. And "good enough" is good enough in the Bob era. Why do more than aim for the lowest common denominator?
I remember asking "why is 2 rides considered a land?" back in the NFL/Pandora days and was told "it's fine! We don't have to have more than that. You're just being negative!
" (in a nutshell). 3 rides should have been the minimum for GE, but instead one ride was axed and we get a dozen shops and eateries instead. At least it looks nice. NFL is sprawling and has one C/D ticket and a ridiculously short D ticket roller coaster that was value engineered. Pandora has an E and a C/D, but looks amazing (even if I don't care for the subject material at all). TSL... you get the idea. Flash over substance. They used to do dark rides to flesh out lands, but that was when they cared about the parks and had people at the top who had at least a clue about them. Even Eisner in his second decade cared about the parks, but his focus was skewed by then. Neither Bob knows what a theme park actually is, it's just a bunch of land to extract money from, market the latest fad, and push merchandise in their eyes.
EPCOTCenterLover
Well-Known Member
THIS is the only area in which I agree with Chapek.
Didn't know Uncle Walt was his own pixie duster trying to pass off his anemic lands as fully developed lands...
In the first five years of Disneyland, Fantasyland had 8 rides.
Frontierland, however, only had three "rides" (which were all boat rides: Riverboat, Columbia, canoes)
And Adventureland and Tomorrowland each had only one ride.
At modern WDW, Adventureland only has 3 rides because a spinner was relatively recently shoehorned into it. Frontierland only has 2 rides, unless you want to count Liberty Square's Riverboat as belonging to Frontierland, in which case that would leave Liberty Square with just one ride.
You know who else is a pixie duster? Universal!! At the opening of each of the Potter Lands, they only had two rides. To date, Diagon Alley's second 'ride' is the train (which is just a *box* pulled by a wire!!!).
Most of Epic Universe's lands will open with only one or two rides.
The "Walt did this in 19xx" or "Frontierland has two rides" argument is a cop out and you know it. 1955 is not 2022. They can do better, but they choose not to. When they start building two E-ticket rides like were built in Adventureland and ultimately in Frontierland, plus offer other attractions, we can discuss the merits further. Swiss Family Treehouse was something to do. The Tiki Room was something else to do. Country Bear Jamboree was something else to do. Tom Sawyer Island was something else to do. You also cannot discount that gate clicks were vastly different in 1981 than in 2021, so not having a second draw in Frontierland wasn't a detriment to the area. There are other things to do in both mentioned lands that aren't shopping or dining, as the current management regime is want to do for any addition.