lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Even down to Disney’s Hollywood Studios being able to handle an earthquake well and Disneyland a hurricane.
-
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
Imagine that.
nickys
Premium Member
So in your view this website is a load of crock then? It goes into quite a lot of detail as to the changes he envisaged in MK.
The Original Plan for Disney World
Everything from the parks to the resorts were supposed to be very different!
worldofwalt.com
To say that’s what Walt wanted could be stretching it. When he died plans for the “theme park” were barely off the ground. He personally didn’t originally want one; his aim was E.P.C.O.T. but was persuaded a second Disneyland was needed for revenue.So in your view this website is a load of crock then? It goes into quite a lot of detail as to the changes he envisaged in MK.
The Original Plan for Disney World
Everything from the parks to the resorts were supposed to be very different!
nickys
Premium Member
Interesting, thanks Martin.
So it does then raise the question: when they talk about Mary Poppins replacing Peter Pan, Thunder Mesa and so on, much of which didn’t happen obviously, whose ideas / visions were those?
Was it a case of Walt saying “OK, fine, if we have to have a Castle park then this is my suggestion”?
Or the ideas of other designers?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Yes. It doesn’t actually go into detail. It’s a bunch of bits of stories that have been that all vaguely come from about the late 60s. The one attributed detail is from 1968. Which is the common theme with these stories, this or that supposedly came from Walt, but nobody mentions the dates because they don’t match up. And yes, that means the story about not finishing Walt’s apartment in Cinderella Castle is also not true.So in your view this website is a load of crock then? It goes into quite a lot of detail as to the changes he envisaged in MK.
The Original Plan for Disney World
Everything from the parks to the resorts were supposed to be very different!
Go rewatch the EPCOT Film. They cranked out tons of art and drawings for EPCOT and the industrial park. He could have had Herb Ryman crank something out in a couple of days like with Disneyland but he didn’t. Ryman did some of the earliest art for Cinderella Castle but it was in 1967.
The Ryman Centennial: A Whole New Disney World
Herbert Ryman was working on Disneyland projects right up to the time of Walt’s death in 1966, doing quite a bit of artwork for both the New Orleans Square and New Tomorrowland expansions. It…
progresscityusa.com
Behind The Masterpiece, 1967
Fans of Imagineering will no doubt recognize this artwork by the great Herb Ryman; said to be the first painting of Walt Disney World’s Cinderella Castle, it became an iconic image during the…
progresscityusa.com
Just as Walt planned, it came from WED.
By April 1968 the Fantasyland attractions we know had been firmed up, although other parts of the park were yet to be designed. A lot of early planning was done by WED in 1967 but it was a game of moving goal posts even into 1970.
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
In general, what notable attractions were designed for cloning?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The Haunted Mansion
Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters / Laser Blast
Extra TERRORestrial Alien Encounter
A lot of Disney-MGM Studios might count since for a moment Eisner wanted one everywhere
denyuntilcaught
Well-Known Member
Really surprised at Mission: Space. All other attractions that you and lazyboy mentioned make total sense - even Alien Encounter.
But Mission: Space? Which park would the clone(s) even have gone to?
JackCH
Well-Known Member
1) where was mission space supposed to go? I never knew that.
2) Lion King seems so perfect for AK I’d be surprised if it’s not at least an option to dupe
I don’t recall. But Eisner was beyond miffed when it didn’t take off as hoped. Cloning it went out the window.
JackCH
Well-Known Member
Hehe. “Take off”
cjkeating
Well-Known Member
TBH... it would be better than what is there now.
denyuntilcaught
Well-Known Member
That's super interesting if at all true. Wouldn't make sense from a local audience perspective IMO - lacks repeatability for DLRs local base, too intense, on top of all the other known M:S issues, etc., but as usual, appreciate Eisner's creative thinking.
WaltWiz1901
Well-Known Member
How about option D: None of the above?
Cars Land at DCA should stay as a DCA-exclusive. The unoriginal, unimaginative, and limited think they need to clone rides and lands around the world.
Regarding the subject of to clone or not to clone, while there are certainly attractions that the public has come to accept as essential classics the park experience wouldn't be complete without and would want to see in a newly built park (and most of them have been estimated elsewhere on the forums), it's one thing to meet those expectations and a whole other thing entirely to (want to) clone attractions and lands purpose-built to give a park an identity to call its own or prop up a creatively and/or critically floundering park (as Cars Land undoubtedly was).
It's also one thing to make necessary changes to a replicated attraction to make it adapt to its new surroundings better and a whole other thing to just clone it lock-stock-and-barrel...which Disney has largely lost track of in its (unnecessary) quest to chase the Wizarding World
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
"During the planning process [with Walt], I don't think we spent more than a day or so on what the theme park would be, because [he] said, "We know how to do that. We've done it"
- Joe Potter
"When Walt passed away, and we were given the go-ahead to do the theme park in Florida, we had to start from scratch."
- Richard F Irvine
+ Toy Story Mania