WDW Awakens ...

[lazyboy97o]

But where are all the duds? The biggest sin of the type you're describing is the rumor that maybe Guardians of the Galaxy will find their way into a "cheap overlay" (whatever that means, can't say I've ever seen one) of Tower of Terror. A toxic process would tend to produce toxic product, but all I see are the gems that you dismiss as all too rare. Even New Fantasyland, for all its flaws, looks and feels like it belongs squarely in the Magic Kingdom and squarely in Fantasyland.

Lacking content is a pretty big flaw.

 

[BrianLo]

You're twisting and contorting the notion of branded experiences to get your high count. Disneyland for decades would have been a complete failure if its goal was the same sort of brand marketing that defines Disney's current, contemptuous view of themed entertainment.

I know I was, but I was using your meter stick of Buena Vista street being a branded experience... that was what I took issue with.

I don't disagree with you in broad strokes, I think you just went a little too far to establish your point.

My real question is, why are branded experiences only creatively bankrupt? I understand the motivation is very different. Potter is meant to sell merchandise and food, full-stop. But it is wonderful and fulfills desires of the people who love a property. Why is that so bad to make a branded land compared to a generic land, with generic food and generic merchandise?


To me... execution matters way more and that in no way is dictated by whether or not something is branded.

 

[biggsd]

Oh yeah. It's like a giant tumor growing on the back of DL and has already taken away healthy tissue and muscle.

Iger bought Marvel in 2009 and Lucas in 2012. If he truly had faith that these companies had evergreen IP that should be represented in theme parks, then he should have shown it by greenlighting a third gate in Anaheim centered around the two. I can see why Marvel will be tossed in DCA, because everything is, although I'll continue to express what a horrendous idea adding GotG to ToT is going to be. But DL is ... well, like a sacred shrine of sorts ... certainly a historically significant place and while it shouldn't be left like a museum (love that discussion), desecrating it with wookies and lightsabers and BB-8 is really too much. So, so wrong.

I went to DLR for the first time this January, and seeing Star Wars in Tomorrowland gave me the impression that they don't have any idea what to do with the space. It wasn't just that it was filler: it was that it FELT and LOOKED like filler. Worse than that, the cast members in the area were going through the motions, like THEY knew it was just filler to hopefully sell a plastic light saber.

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

My real question is, why are branded experiences only creatively bankrupt? I understand the motivation is very different. Potter is meant to sell merchandise and food, full-stop. But it is wonderful and fulfills desires of the people who love a property. Why is that so bad to make a branded land compared to a generic land, with generic food and generic merchandise?

To me... execution matters way more and that in no way is dictated by whether or not something is branded.

Jumping into this conversation (if I may?)...

THAT is the crux of this argument. I think we can all agree that theme parks are places where you go to escape reality, to be transported to a different reality. The question is: is it "better" to be transported to the world of a movie or IP (Carsland, Avatar, etc), OR should it be an organic space that mimics and blends elements of reality to create a new or distinct place (Africa at AK, Adventureland, etc.).

It's replicating versus mimicking. Carsland replicates; Adventureland mimics (and at their best, areas like Fantasyland sort of straddle both).

 

[lazyboy97o]

My real question is, why are branded experiences only creatively bankrupt? I understand the motivation is very different. Potter is meant to sell merchandise and food, full-stop. But it is wonderful and fulfills desires of the people who love a property. Why is that so bad to make a branded land compared to a generic land, with generic food and generic merchandise?

I do not use brand experience as synonymous with intellectual property. Disney chooses today's projects on box office and merchandise sales, not story. For all of the sales generated by the Wizarding World of Harry Potter it is all wrapped into the story in a way Disney still does not understand (i.e. Le Fou's Brew). Cars Land was built because of toy sales, not a compelling story. Buena Vista Street shoved nonsense onto what could have been a loving tribute to Los Angeles. Pandora was pushed forward due to box office as it was already being forgotten. Over and over, Disney of late only looks to story first if their Chinese partners so demand.

 

[ford91exploder]

I know I was, but I was using your meter stick of Buena Vista street being a branded experience... that was what I took issue with.

I don't disagree with you in broad strokes, I think you just went a little too far to establish your point.

My real question is, why are branded experiences only creatively bankrupt? I understand the motivation is very different. Potter is meant to sell merchandise and food, full-stop. But it is wonderful and fulfills desires of the people who love a property. Why is that so bad to make a branded land compared to a generic land, with generic food and generic merchandise?


To me... execution matters way more and that in no way is dictated by whether or not something is branded.

Exactly the problem with Disney is that recently all the new stuff is 'mailing it in' The (Failure) to Launch Bay is a glaring example yes it's temporary but its meant to be there for at least 3-5 years. Yet the stuff at the Star Wars Celebration was FAR superior and it was designed to last for 5 DAYS.

HP Land is indeed designed to sell stuff, But when was the last time Disney had thematcally appropriate food such as the food served in the Leaky Cauldron.

It's execution which recently UNI has been knocking out of the park and Disney just mails it in.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Jumping into this conversation (if I may?)...

THAT is the crux of this argument. I think we can all agree that theme parks are places where you go to escape reality, to be transported to a different reality. The question is: is it "better" to be transported to the world of a movie or IP (Carsland, Avatar, etc), OR should it be an organic space that mimics and blends elements of reality to create a new or distinct place (Africa at AK, Adventureland, etc.).

It's replicating versus mimicking. Carsland replicates; Adventureland mimics (and at their best, areas like Fantasyland sort of straddle both).

Call me a corporate shill or whatever but I'd rather take a ride on the Millennium Falcon than the SpaceSpeeder 3000.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But when was the last time Disney had thematcally appropriate food such as the food served in the Leaky Cauldron.

Um. Be Our Guest. Harambe Market. The much-derided Food and Wine and Flower and Garden kiosks. Any restaurant in World Showcase. Yachtsman Steakhouse. The Mara. Boma. Sanaa. California Grill. Tony's. The Garden Grill. Sunshine Seasons. Mama Melrose. 50s Prime Time. Pretty much every restaurant on property?

Sorry, what was your point?

 

[BrianLo]

I do not use brand experience as synonymous with intellectual property. Disney chooses today's projects on box office and merchandise sales, not story. For all of the sales generated by the Wizarding World of Harry Potter it is all wrapped into the story in a way Disney still does not understand (i.e. Le Fou's Brew). Cars Land was built because of toy sales, not a compelling story. Buena Vista Street shoved nonsense onto what could have been a loving tribute to Los Angeles. Pandora was pushed forward due to box office as it was already being forgotten. Over and over, Disney of late only looks to story first if their Chinese partners so demand.

Right. I think we agree. The motivation has been totally off and the execution across some of those (New Fantasyland) was totally lacking. So it really is nothing to do with IP, it's the motivation behind using it.

The Star Wars land-proper thus far seems like the execution is going to be up to standard (even if the motivation is typical Disney as of late).

 

[BubbaQuest]

ROL preview. Looks to have the best water screens I've seen in one of these shows. Maybe it's the projectors?

Am I the only one confused about a live animal safari park having a show about pictures of animals?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Am I the only one confused about a live animal safari park having a show about pictures of animals?

You mean like the live magical park having a show about pictures of magical things? Or the live world culture park having a show about pictures of world cultures?

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

Call me a corporate shill or whatever but I'd rather take a ride on the Millennium Falcon than the SpaceSpeeder 3000.

You're certainly not a corporate shill - I'll be right next to you in line to walk around and ride on the Falcon!

As an aside, Star Wars Land presents a potentially interesting scenario. It's all based on an existing movie universe, but the land itself is being built as an organic entity, a star port that is not seen in any of the previous movies. So in effect we have mimicry of a fictional reality, a situation that should allow for new, creative designs.

But your point about a ride on the Falcon vs. a StarSpeeder 3000 shows that it's important to have BOTH kinds of experiences in a park. Some people get a bigger thrill of going to a specific place they saw in a movie, whereas others love the feeling of being able to walk around a land that is familiar yet unknown at the same time. We all know of the Millennium Falcon and we'd all love to see it first hand, but some also love the concept that a company like Star Tours could exist within the SW universe.

This whole discussion wouldn't be so passionate if Disney would still build unique lands and attractions every so often. Basically that for every Carsland and Avatarland, we would also get a Beastly Kingdom. For every Voyage of the Little Mermaid and Toy Story Mania, they'd also build a Haunted Mansion. That for every castle-centered park that can be found around the world (5, going on 6) they would let ONE park stay truly unique and tie-in free (Epcot).

Disney knows how to create amazing attractions that don't need an existing movie tie-in. It'd be nice to know that they haven't forgotten that.

 

[Sped2424]

But where are all the duds? The biggest sin of the type you're describing is the rumor that maybe Guardians of the Galaxy will find their way into a "cheap overlay" (whatever that means, can't say I've ever seen one) of Tower of Terror. A toxic process would tend to produce toxic product, but all I see are the gems that you dismiss as all too rare. Even New Fantasyland, for all its flaws, looks and feels like it belongs squarely in the Magic Kingdom and squarely in Fantasyland.

Lackluster dark ride with a cut d coaster and a restaurant that's not the easiest to see. New fantasayland was indeed a missed opportunity.

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

Call me a corporate shill or whatever but I'd rather take a ride on the Millennium Falcon than the SpaceSpeeder 3000.

But how do you know that? Maybe the SpaceSpeeder3000 would be an awesome experience.

Ok, maybe that's not the best example, BUT I do think it is indicative of a similar problem, where the audience is telling Disney what they want to see instead of Disney creating original experiences that the audience didn't know they wanted in the first place.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Ok, maybe that's not the best example, BUT I do think it is indicative of a similar problem, where the audience is telling Disney what they want to see instead of Disney creating original experiences that the audience didn't know they wanted in the first place.

I agree that this is part of what happens, but I don't view it as a problem. As @BrianLo pointed out, execution is much more important to me. Consider an amazing, awesome, ground-breaking ride based on Star Wars. Then consider the exact same awesome, ground-breaking ride set in a new space world. I really don't see why one is better than the other, just on the basis that Disney had a pretty good idea ahead of time that Star Wars was beloved by the public.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Um. Be Our Guest. Harambe Market. The much-derided Food and Wine and Flower and Garden kiosks. Any restaurant in World Showcase. Yachtsman Steakhouse. The Mara. Boma. Sanaa. California Grill. Tony's. The Garden Grill. Sunshine Seasons. Mama Melrose. 50s Prime Time. Pretty much every restaurant on property?

Sorry, what was your point?

I love the scene in The Yatchman where they went to a steakhouse.....

A steakhouse that serves steak isn't necessarily a spectacularly themed entertainment experience.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I love the scene in The Yatchman where they went to a steakhouse.....

A steakhouse that serves steak isn't necessarily a spectacularly themed entertainment experience.

1. I'm not talking about a steakhouse serving steak. I'm talking about a steakhouse fitting at an upscale New England Yacht Club.

2. I never made any claims about "spectacular themed experience" at the steakhouse. The point to which I was responding only mentioned thematic appropriateness.

 

[flynnibus]

I think the notion of the "charity race" is the biggest scam of all. If I write a check to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society for $100, they get $100. If I pay a $100 entrance fee for a race, there are expenses associated with hosting the race so less than $100 actually ends up with the charity. You're better off to just donate money and then go run the course on your own or in a group that doesn't make you pay.

Because you are clueless... ever heard of pledges?

 

[Disneyhead'71]

1. I'm not talking about a steakhouse serving steak. I'm talking about a steakhouse fitting at an upscale New England Yacht Club.

2. I never made any claims about "spectacular themed experience" at the steakhouse. The point to which I was responding only mentioned thematic appropriateness.

Oh, like Long John Silvers!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Because you are clueless... ever heard of pledges?

Pledges are also stupid. Again, when I make a charitable contribution, I just write a check. I don't write a check conditional on someone running 26 miles. It doesn't make any sense.