News Wakanda joins Coco, Zootopia, and Encanto on Disney Parks' future blue sky expansion list, reveals Josh D'Amaro

[JD80]

It's the wrong question, as that's not a point that's being debated. But I'd answer it by saying look at it the other way around. When a movie has been based on an attraction in recent times, has it been better than the attraction? Can the same story be told either in a similar way or in different way to make it better than the first incarnation of it? I don't think so. I think that probably where it was "first" is where it is better. Is Star Wars Galaxy's Edge better than the Star Wars movies? (Well, I suppose it depends on which one you're looking at lol!)

Sorry to rewrite your question but to make it relevant to the case in hand...

"What makes an attraction/experience better when it's an original idea rather than being based on an existing MCU or Pixar movie?"

My answer is, because it's not targetted to any particular demographic and anyone can be interested in it.

Everything is targeted to some demographic. Some concepts have broader audiences than others. Not sure what the difference is. It's all about storytelling, I don't think it matters if it's a movie/show first or ride first.

To a business it's easier to justify $100M++ themepark investment when you know you have an audience for it rather than investing that money in an unknown.

 

[JD80]

I’d agree with you there regarding confidence in the current WDI but with the right people it can certainly be done. Who knows, maybe the current team CAN do it if they weren’t shackled down to a franchise mandate. Look at Mystic Manor.

I don't care where the idea for an attraction comes from as long as it's fun and enjoyable.

I don't understand why people do care so much that it's a debate of "IP" vs. "Non-IP". In the end it's all Disney IP. No one is clamoring for non-IP disney toys.

 

[JD80]

Do you think Frozen would have been a better movie with Mickey Mouse in it? Encanto? Moana? Were you confused when they didn’t have Mickey Mouse? Was it odd that Woody isn’t in Elemental?

Are you suggesting that Disney is looking to make a blended attraction with both Moana and Toy Story?

 

[JD80]

Attraction only, 100%.

We don't need them to blow half the budget on a fancy restaurant and bathrooms and then give us the equivalent of a web slingers attraction while taking up an extra 6 acres of land for place-setting on an IP a significant chunk of park goers won't even care about.

But I feel this way about their modern direction in general. We don't need new entire lands devoted to 1.5 attractions.

Just think if they'd built out all the parks that way originally.

Did we need Toy Story Land?

In the end, did we get anything substantial out of Galaxy's Edge or would we have been better off with Rise and a full scale model of the Falcon with all that other budget spent on the lesser ride and the lifeless area around them that could have been used for another e-ticket, instead?

Now we still have all that space being taken and it'll just sit there like that until they slowly need to start chipping away at it to make room for something else they need to fit into the park 15-30 years down the road.

I think Toy Story deserved a land, not sure the word "need" is the correct word to use. It's a massive franchise and it was put in a park that is (slowly) moving to a park about franchises.

 

[MrPromey]

I think Toy Story deserved a land, not sure the word "need" is the correct word to use. It's a massive franchise and it was put in a park that is (slowly) moving to a park about franchises.

I think Pixar deserved a land which would have allowed for Toy Story, Monsters Inc. and others. I don't think Hollywood Studio guests deserved two amusement park style rides bolted onto the back side of a decade old attraction so they could call it all a land, though.

There have been more POC films than Toy Story films. I'm glad POC is still a single attraction in Adventurland and not the anchor attraction of Pirate Land.

 

[JD80]

I think Pixar deserved a land which would have allowed for Toy Story, Monsters Inc. and others. I don't think Hollywood Studio guests deserved two amusement park style rides bolted onto the back side of a decade old attraction so they could call it all a land, though.

Sounds like a you problem.

 

[MrPromey]

Sounds like a you problem.

Sounds like something you could say to anyone who's opinions you don't share.

Next time you invite discussion, I'll be sure to not waste my time.


EDIT: just to be clear, JD80 replied further down saying they were having a rough morning and apologizing which I have mountains of respect for because it's hard to do that, even after the fact but super hard to do when you're still in the middle of the crap.

I wish I could always be that big of a person and I've gotten a few likes to my response here so I wanted to highlight that it was all about a human-moment and hopefully, nobody else piles on them for it because they came back and took the high road and deserve respect for that.

 

[Mike S]

I don't care where the idea for an attraction comes from as long as it's fun and enjoyable.

I don't understand why people do care so much that it's a debate of "IP" vs. "Non-IP". In the end it's all Disney IP. No one is clamoring for non-IP disney toys.

Yes it’s all Disney IP in the end. But why wouldn’t you want WDI to be allowed the same creative freedom offered to the studios?

Then again, the studios are more and more being forced into sequels it seems so maybe Disney as a whole just isn’t allowed as much creativity as they used to be.

 

[Introvert]

I don't get some of these decisions, by no means do I think Encanto, Coco, and Wakanda will ever have the staying power of something like Frozen or Beauty and the Beast. It's like adding Jack Sparrow into POTC, which to me was cool at the time but I think his time should be up now. It's sad I will never be able to experience the ride in its original presentation ever again.

I'm all for moving forward, but why does everything have to be an IP nowadays? What happened to the company that made DisneySea just 20 years ago? Are the newer generation of imagineers just not capable of crafting an original area anymore? I just don't get it.

Regardless of the WDI talent at the moment, the use of I.P. is coming from above. At the top level it is I.P. or nothing, and all about Return on Investment.

Wakanda joins Coco, Zootopia, and Encanto on Disney Parks' future blue sky expansion list, reveals Josh D'Amaro

Wakanda joins Coco, Zootopia, and Encanto on Disney Parks' future blue sky expansion list, reveals Josh D'Amaro

www.wdwmagic.com

I don't get some of these decisions, by no means do I think Encanto, Coco, and Wakanda will ever have the staying power of something like Frozen or Beauty and the Beast. It's like adding Jack Sparrow into POTC, which to me was cool at the time but I think his time should be up now. It's sad I will never be able to experience the ride in its original presentation ever again.

I'm all for moving forward, but why does everything have to be an IP nowadays? What happened to the company that made DisneySea just 20 years ago? Are the newer generation of imagineers just not capable of crafting an original area anymore? I just don't get it.

Disney seems to be using newer IP and plunking it anywhere and contriving scenarios to try to make it fit. Why is a 1920 -1930’s attraction in Frontierland? That is where Tiana’s attraction will be. It belongs in Fantasyland where the princesses reside. And what does Encanto and Indiana Jones have in common ? Those IP have nothing in common with each other or AK. All of AK attractions are built around animals . Disney has created a spin on these IPs To make them appear as if the fit into AK AK is now about a “ land“or “country” . So instead on animals as the theme to this park we now have Africa, Asia , Pandora and the new land the “ Tropics” . Disney has lost its imagination and ability to keep a fluent storyline or theme.

 

[MrPromey]

If the demographics of those who built up the US is what you’re going to invoke to justify the current configuration of World Showcase, then you should be all for sub-Saharan African representation.

I believe we got the countries we got because either their tourism boards or private industry were willing to fork over the funds to help get their pavilions built. I don't know if it was when it started but when it ended, Norway, was supported by a private sponsor, for instance.

I'm sure that late 70's to mid 80's international politics had a lot to do with who had their check books out and who's calls Disney was taking on the matter, too.

It was my understanding, for instance, that Israel wanted a spot for years but was turned down for the obvious reasons.

I remember they did manage to get into the World Showplace pavilion during the Millennium Celebration and they were the only country there that had an actual ride. (it was a simulator)

There were plans announced when the park opened for an upcoming Equatorial Africa - none other than Darth Vader himself* announced so on the park opening TV special. Personally, I'd very much welcome that addition if someone somewhere would pay to have it added.

*of course, I mean this guy and if I remember correctly, he was standing next to a Fire Starter-era Drew Barrymore when he said it.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Sounds like a you problem.

Nice attitude.

 

[JD80]

Yes it’s all Disney IP in the end. But why wouldn’t you want WDI to be allowed the same creative freedom offered to the studios?

Then again, the studios are more and more being forced into sequels it seems so maybe Disney as a whole just isn’t allowed as much creativity as they used to be.

I just don't see the difference in what division creates the IP. WDI is already using their creative ability to bring a story to life and immersing me it and figuring out how to tell that story in an attraction.

I don't think anyone is clamoring for WDI to make movies.

 

[JD80]

Sounds like something you could say to anyone who's opinions you don't share.

Next time you invite discussion, I'll be sure to not waste my time.

I'm sorry and I apologize for that. Having a rough morning doesn't excuse that.

Your description of Toy Story Land was pretty reductive and there leaves very little room to discuss any finer points of the overall experience in that area of the park.

I only think

 

[Bocabear]

I think Pixar deserved a land which would have allowed for Toy Story, Monsters Inc. and others. I don't think Hollywood Studio guests deserved two amusement park style rides bolted onto the back side of a decade old attraction so they could call it all a land, though.

There have been more POC films than Toy Story films. I'm glad POC is still a single attraction in Adventurland and not the anchor attraction of Pirate Land.

Then you have not seen what they have built in Shanghai... A Pirates themed land would be beautiful and engaging... Certainly more engaging than a plain Spanish style plaza and a souvenir bazaar. Pirates was built in a different time ... If it were built now I would hope they would have fleshed out the land around it making it more than an attraction hidden in a building.... Not to say it should be a replacement for Adventureland either...but a setting area. Disneyland Paris does this very well...within the boundaries of Adventureland is Adventure Isle...complete with a full sized walk-through Pirate ship, A series of caves and an adventure trail, and the massive fort that contains the show building and restaurant...
That is also the sort of model that created Carsland which is a spectacular E ticket plus a couple extra attractions, a great restaurant plus QS locations and shops. Far superior to anything they have built in WDW as far as a land is concerned.
Toy Story Land to me is a bore...a cute rollercoaster and the predictable, done over and over again, fiberglass toys and giant Christmas lights...

 

[LittleBuford]

There were plans announced when the park opened for an upcoming Equatorial Africa - none other than Darth Vader himself* announced so on the park opening TV special. Personally, I'd very much welcome that addition if someone somewhere would pay to have it added.

I think it needs to be a specific and real African country, and I think Disney should pay for it.

 

[MrPromey]

I think it needs to be a specific and real African country, and I think Disney should pay for it.

Honest question, by which I mean there may be a great answer but I have no idea what it is: Which stable country in this part of the world do you think they should pick?

I absolutely think Disney should foot the bill and we could use some more from parts of Asia and something from South America while they're at it but I'd be happy if they started with something from Africa.

Unless they have a hit animated movie that spawns a hit live action remake that they haven't already decided to do somewhere else (sorry Encanto), I don't see the current thinking in management having room for it, though.

 

[LittleBuford]

Honest question, by which I mean there may be a great answer but I have no idea what it is: Which stable country in this part of the world do you think they should pick?

Why are you framing things in terms of stability? The point of these pavilions is to celebrate the a country’s architecture, traditions, and culture, not to wade into politics. Any number of African countries would lend itself very well to such a mission.

 

[MrPromey]

Why are you framing things in terms of stability? The point of these pavilions is to celebrate the a country’s architecture, traditions, and culture, not to wade into politics. Any number of African countries would lend itself very well to such a mission.

Because the country needs to continue to exist in the next 20-50 years and preferably be one that the US is able to maintain good or at least neutral relations with.

I'm guessing that's why the original approach was to go the Equatorial Africa route, to begin with.

I think that's probably the actual reality of what Disney would need before they'd break ground for something that was tied to a specific country.

They can't just ignore the politics of the country hosting this theme park anymore than they can the country hosting the Shanghai park when thinking about this sort of stuff.

I mean, I'm sure it's no accident that Saint Basil's Cathedral isn't part of that world showcase skyline even though it would look wonderful there.

 

[LittleBuford]

Because the country needs to continue to exist in the next 20-50 years and preferably be one that the US is able to maintain good or at least neutral relations with.

I'm guessing that's why the original approach was to go the Equatorial Africa route, to begin with.

I think that's probably the actual reality of what Disney would need before they'd break ground for something that was tied to a specific country.

They can't just ignore the politics of the country hosting this theme park anymore than they can the country hosting the Shanghai park when thinking about this sort of stuff.

I mean, I'm sure it's no accident that Saint Basil's Cathedral isn't part of that world showcase skyline even though it would look wonderful there.

I would turn your question on its head and ask you to list those African counties that you seriously consider to be at risk of not existing in 20-50 years’ time.

 

[MrPromey]

I'm sorry and I apologize for that. Having a rough morning doesn't excuse that.

No problem - I can appreciate that.

Thanks for explaining.

We all have days like that and I'm sorry today is one for you.

Your description of Toy Story Land was pretty reductive and there leaves very little room to discuss any finer points of the overall experience in that area of the park.

I only think

Personally, I consider Toy Stoy Land to be pretty reductive.

I understand we somehow got the best version of all of them out there but it strikes me as a little wacky that they opened the land and the best attraction from it was the one that existed before they made the land which itself was originally a budget-friendly build meant to fit within the limitations of an existing structure.

I'd gladly have passed on those two rides in place of a Monsters Inc. dark ride - especially the one Tokyo got but even a clone of California Adventure's would, I think, have been better.

An entire land to a single IP gobbles up a lot of space and they can't just keep tossing it around.

I love Coco. I have artwork from Wonderground featuring Miguel and Dante framed on the wall in my son's bedroom but it was not a worldwide phenomena. I think an attraction would be great but a land would be overkill.

A lot of people loved a song from Encanto but I'm not sure that ensures the movie will be a timeless hit relative to Disney's other stuff they've never weighed devoting an entire land to.

I mean, Lion King got a show using recycled Disneyland floats.

If Peter Pan, featuring one of the most prominent and timeless characters in Disney's catalog (not him, her) can slum it with just an attraction that they won't fork out to upgrade the effects on in the MK like they did in DL nearly twenty years ago, I think Encanoto probably could, too.

*this was also their kneejerk reaction when their potter-swatter failed to swat at the time, too, though.