What Other Dismissed Rumors Are Floating Out There?

[talonstruck]

The love that EPCOT will get... Brother bear log flume. Soarin to replaced with UP.
Hollywood studios will get the star wars/indy stunt show on a permanent basis and tower of terrror will have a DVC resort wing added to it.
Just my thoughts ):ROFLOL::goodnevil:sohappy:

 

[Tim Lohr]

I'm sorry, this deserves singling out. You think "Avatar" is "one of the worst movies in years?" My goodness, you must not watch too many movies.

Actually they are very correct in that assessment, AVATAR was terrible!

I though Avatar looked like a really amazing video game, but the story and the dialogue were so clunky and boneheaded like... most video games

 

[Lee]

FWIW, I have audio of Jim Hill telling us about Seven Dwarf's Mine Train several months prior to Lee breaking the story on here. Also, if you knew who Al Lutz was connected to you'd be shocked.

Yep. Jim was in the loop, but waited and let me take the heat for posting it.:lol:
(I actually sat on it for quite a while before posting it, waiting on enough confirmation.)

Lutz...yes. Wired deep into TDA.

 

[Guppy_121]

Having just read through the entire thread, I have learned … nothing.

Not that I am by any means an insider, but I was hoping this thread would lead to some new rumors, but it lead down the, is avatar a good movie or not debate.

So this is my attempt at staying on ( or returning to ) the main topic.
Please allow me to add that this is all, IMHO, mixed with some food for thought. It is very hard to convey tone in text so I’ll add that while serious, it is also tongue-in-cheek.

I know that this has been mentioned and dismissed often before, but I am fairly certain that the Marvel Universe is headed to the Disney Parks as MnGs, and as attractions / rides. When? Unknown… but will it happen? Yes. ( I’ll add that this is not, oh I hope this happens, since I am unsure how they could add this to the parks, but now with the avatar announcement I am more convinced. )

Some logic to follow;
Back before the acquisition of Marvel by Disney… Disney had stated that it wished to expand it’s repertoire of characters, either through creation or purchases. With the express purpose of adding characters or properties geared towards young males ( it said young males no age was ever defined ).
I think Disney realised that a lot of their properties where geared towards very young children, and then, even more so towards young women.

Some Marvel history: Marvel had been having it's own financial turmoils, and unlike it's counterpart, DC, it had never been able to successfully transition it's characters to movies ( see: original Captain America movie or Punisher with Dolph Lundgren ) So in an attempt to get into movies, Marvel "GIVES" Sony the rights to Spider-man, by far their biggest property. Spider-Man is a Hit, makes lots of money, and MARVEL Studios is born. Marvel's plan ( i think ) is to now start to make movies under their own banner which they control. Along comes Iron-Man... ect...

At some point between the Spider-Man / Iron Man movie making Disney purchases Marvel. Now just because they made the purchase, this does not mean that all previous commitments made by Marvel are void. They still have to respect them. But I can not believe that the end game intent here was not to add some or all aspects of Marvel into the Disney parks, again geared towards "young males".
So you have to look long term as Disney would. Example; Right now Spider-Man for movies belongs to Sony ( Hence the quick reboot, my guess while they still own the rights ) Universal Studios has the rights to some of the Marvel characters as well.. permanent? time based? Eventually these will fall back to Disney. In the mean time Disney/Marvel has a whole host of characters - all of the Avengers, The X-Men, and who knows how many other characters ( 100s ) that belong to Marvel.

Basically, Marvel characters are coming to Disney Parks, it is only a matter of when. My guess would be that they would be added to Disney Studios, or their own NEW park. Yes, there is that much content there.

I asked once how much Disney owned land is left out there in Florida, shocked to here that if you take everything that is there ( parks, resorts ect.. ), they have used up about 1/3 of all the land available, even if that is off, there is still more than enough room out there.

BTW#1, I like the Hat. Not that it fits in there, but that whole place it mismatched.

BTW#2: Studios needs not only an expansion or upgrade, but a redesign. which they will never do, to expensive. So I think the mismatch loosely threaded togetherness will continue.


OKay let me have it. :wave:

 

[ScorpionX]

I asked once how much Disney owned land is left out there in Florida, shocked to here that if you take everything that is there ( parks, resorts ect.. ), they have used up about 1/3 of all the land available, even if that is off, there is still more than enough room out there.

There's one major problem with that: a vast majority of the property is dedicated to conservation efforts.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

FWIW, I have audio of Jim Hill telling us about Seven Dwarf's Mine Train several months prior to Lee breaking the story on here. Also, if you knew who Al Lutz was connected to you'd be shocked.

Do you know? I'm dying to find out; all I know is that he knows whenever someone so much as sneezes inside the TDA building.

 

[Guppy_121]

There's one major problem with that: a vast majority of the property is dedicated to conservation efforts.

Yup I know that.. about another 1/3 is for conservation. still leaves 1/3.. thus the equivalent of being able to double what is already there. Though I doubt that they would, but still the main idea is there is still alot of room left to grow, and one has to imagine that they will.

...and now for some happy faces, cause my daughter is here watching me and insisting that i add some...

:sohappy::hammer:

 

[RSoxNo1]

Do you know? I'm dying to find out; all I know is that he knows whenever someone so much as sneezes inside the TDA building.

Some people have correctly guessed some of his sources on here. I'm aware of two impressive sources, and that TDA hasn't been thrilled with the leaks he gets.

 

[JustInTime]

Yep. Jim was in the loop, but waited and let me take the heat for posting it.:lol:
(I actually sat on it for quite a while before posting it, waiting on enough confirmation.)

Lutz...yes. Wired deep into TDA.

Heck yeah you did. I tried to get you to tell me for months.

 

[JimboJones123]

I've heard Discovery Island turned into Pirates Island a few times in the past few weeks and some River Country buzz as well.

 

[Uncle Lupe]

If they wanted to capture the male demographic they could have put a Baywatch land in Animal Kingdom, C.J. Parker always promoted conservation.

 

[menamechris]

I've heard Discovery Island turned into Pirates Island a few times in the past few weeks and some River Country buzz as well.

Really? Again?

I haven't heard these for years, it seems. And the last I heard about River Country was that pesky FW DVC rumor. I do wish they could find something to do with Discovery Island though. It is such a neat spot...

 

[Thrill]

I think it can be safely said that Disney knows that "lose lips sink ships" so they leak what they want to leak. The AK announcement caught everyone off guard, proving that not many are in the circle of trust.

From what I understand, at least Lee had heard about Avatar. He dismissed it as unrealistic, which is natural. When one hears "WDW", "Avatar", and "half a billion dollars" in the same sentence, that tends to happen. Unless that sentence is, "Universal delivered a crushing blow to Walt Disney World by landing a contract with Fox to develop a half a billion dollar Pandora for their parks."

They probably didn't want Fantasyland to get leaked, but it did. Because it made sense with what Disney wanted to do, which was to expand their largest park's capacity by adding more of their franchises like Princesses and Pixie Hollow, the insiders revealed that information instead of throwing it to the side as an unlikely rumor.

Yup I know that.. about another 1/3 is for conservation. still leaves 1/3.. thus the equivalent of being able to double what is already there. Though I doubt that they would, but still the main idea is there is still alot of room left to grow, and one has to imagine that they will.

And a lot of that 1/3 is not suitable for construction, or would be incredibly expensive to reclaim. Plus that 1/3 figure has been around for a few years, at least before 1,000 acres went to the Golden Oaks/Four Seasons project. And what's good for building is broken into fragments.

I don't think there's room for a park bigger than Epcot, honestly.

According to this Reedy Creek report, there are 1,321 undeveloped acres suitable for development. Skipping through some maps, I saw that there is no single span of suitable land large enough to support a park about Magic Kingdom's size and a parking lot (MK's lot is about the size of the park).

A comparison of Table 2-4 and Table 2-6 (Existing and Future Land Use, respectively) shows that RCID predicts no increase in Entertainment (denotes parks, water parks, Wide World of Sports) and an increase of a whopping 5 acres in Hotel/Resort. Also, take note of Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Table 2-1 predicts 2 minor parks and 1 major park, in addition to a massive hotel expansion. According to the same table, 1,321 acres are undeveloped. Table 2-2 shows that all of the projected development will take up 2,688 acres: Twice the available land.

It's unfortunate that the nearly 30,000 acres purchased in the 1960's are running out, largely due to sales of land (Celebration, Flamingo Crossings, Four Seasons, Golden Oaks, etc.). But according to RCID's research, a new park is unlikely. An average park takes up over 300 acres. Keep in mind, adding a park would mean that new resorts, roads, parking lots, etc. would need to be added to meet demand, so one park could very well take up all of the remaining acreage.


Then there's the margin. Adding one park is probably not likely to boost resort-wide attendance in the long run by a big enough number to make it worth the investment. In all likelihood, a new park could cannibalize attendance from the other four. If I remember correctly, though Animal Kingdom may have boosted resort-wide attendance, all three other parks had a decrease in attendance in the same year. This is why I can't see Disney building anything more other than a hotel or golf course. Maybe a water park. I can't see a small theme park panning out too well. A "boutique park" would probably end up flopping. The average guest would be too overwhelmed with the four big parks to make a trip to a tiny park with little to do.

 

[Guppy_121]

And a lot of that 1/3 is not suitable for construction, or would be incredibly expensive to reclaim. Plus that 1/3 figure has been around for a few years, at least before 1,000 acres went to the Golden Oaks/Four Seasons project. And what's good for building is broken into fragments.

I don't think there's room for a park bigger than Epcot, honestly.

According to this Reedy Creek report, there are 1,321 undeveloped acres suitable for development. Skipping through some maps, I saw that there is no single span of suitable land large enough to support a park about Magic Kingdom's size and a parking lot (MK's lot is about the size of the park).

A comparison of Table 2-4 and Table 2-6 (Existing and Future Land Use, respectively) shows that RCID predicts no increase in Entertainment (denotes parks, water parks, Wide World of Sports) and an increase of a whopping 5 acres in Hotel/Resort. Also, take note of Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Table 2-1 predicts 2 minor parks and 1 major park, in addition to a massive hotel expansion. According to the same table, 1,321 acres are undeveloped. Table 2-2 shows that all of the projected development will take up 2,688 acres: Twice the available land.

It's unfortunate that the nearly 30,000 acres purchased in the 1960's are running out, largely due to sales of land (Celebration, Flamingo Crossings, Four Seasons, Golden Oaks, etc.). But according to RCID's research, a new park is unlikely. An average park takes up over 300 acres. Keep in mind, adding a park would mean that new resorts, roads, parking lots, etc. would need to be added to meet demand, so one park could very well take up all of the remaining acreage.


Then there's the margin. Adding one park is probably not likely to boost resort-wide attendance in the long run by a big enough number to make it worth the investment. In all likelihood, a new park could cannibalize attendance from the other four. If I remember correctly, though Animal Kingdom may have boosted resort-wide attendance, all three other parks had a decrease in attendance in the same year. This is why I can't see Disney building anything more other than a hotel or golf course. Maybe a water park. I can't see a small theme park panning out too well. A "boutique park" would probably end up flopping. The average guest would be too overwhelmed with the four big parks to make a trip to a tiny park with little to do.

I agree, I do not think that they will build another park, land permitting or not. I was just trying to point out that there is enough content within the marvel universe to possibly fill another park. There is more to it than just spider-man, & the hulk ( for which universal has the rights, for theme park rides, for now ) Thus leading to my comment that there is enough land to build more... if they thought it would be viable. I see it more happening in an expansion of an existing park, if or when it happens.
Marvel was a 4 billion dollar acquisition ( if memory serves ), i do not think that Disney spent that much money just to be able to say , yup it's ours.:animwink:
Nor do i think that they did it as a move against Universal, as far as the marvel based rides that they have, as a way to get universal to remove those rides.
They did it, to eventually add, or have the option to add more attractions, MnGs ect.. that skew towards "young males". IMHO, from what I read at the time of the acquisition. I would add that the Avatar addition is in that same line of thinking.

 

[invader]

From what I understand, at least Lee had heard about Avatar. He dismissed it as unrealistic, which is natural. When one hears "WDW", "Avatar", and "half a billion dollars" in the same sentence, that tends to happen. Unless that sentence is, "Universal delivered a crushing blow to Walt Disney World by landing a contract with Fox to develop a half a billion dollar Pandora for their parks."

They probably didn't want Fantasyland to get leaked, but it did. Because it made sense with what Disney wanted to do, which was to expand their largest park's capacity by adding more of their franchises like Princesses and Pixie Hollow, the insiders revealed that information instead of throwing it to the side as an unlikely rumor.



And a lot of that 1/3 is not suitable for construction, or would be incredibly expensive to reclaim. Plus that 1/3 figure has been around for a few years, at least before 1,000 acres went to the Golden Oaks/Four Seasons project. And what's good for building is broken into fragments.

I don't think there's room for a park bigger than Epcot, honestly.

According to this Reedy Creek report, there are 1,321 undeveloped acres suitable for development. Skipping through some maps, I saw that there is no single span of suitable land large enough to support a park about Magic Kingdom's size and a parking lot (MK's lot is about the size of the park).

A comparison of Table 2-4 and Table 2-6 (Existing and Future Land Use, respectively) shows that RCID predicts no increase in Entertainment (denotes parks, water parks, Wide World of Sports) and an increase of a whopping 5 acres in Hotel/Resort. Also, take note of Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Table 2-1 predicts 2 minor parks and 1 major park, in addition to a massive hotel expansion. According to the same table, 1,321 acres are undeveloped. Table 2-2 shows that all of the projected development will take up 2,688 acres: Twice the available land.

It's unfortunate that the nearly 30,000 acres purchased in the 1960's are running out, largely due to sales of land (Celebration, Flamingo Crossings, Four Seasons, Golden Oaks, etc.). But according to RCID's research, a new park is unlikely. An average park takes up over 300 acres. Keep in mind, adding a park would mean that new resorts, roads, parking lots, etc. would need to be added to meet demand, so one park could very well take up all of the remaining acreage.


Then there's the margin. Adding one park is probably not likely to boost resort-wide attendance in the long run by a big enough number to make it worth the investment. In all likelihood, a new park could cannibalize attendance from the other four. If I remember correctly, though Animal Kingdom may have boosted resort-wide attendance, all three other parks had a decrease in attendance in the same year. This is why I can't see Disney building anything more other than a hotel or golf course. Maybe a water park. I can't see a small theme park panning out too well. A "boutique park" would probably end up flopping. The average guest would be too overwhelmed with the four big parks to make a trip to a tiny park with little to do.

So then we burn the plans for Four Seasons and get rid of Golden Oak? :ROFLOL:

 

[Thrill]

I agree, I do not think that they will build another park, land permitting or not. I was just trying to point out that there is enough content within the marvel universe to possibly fill another park. There is more to it than just spider-man, & the hulk ( for which universal has the rights, for theme park rides, for now ) Thus leading to my comment that there is enough land to build more... if they thought it would be viable. I see it more happening in an expansion of an existing park, if or when it happens.
Marvel was a 4 billion dollar acquisition ( if memory serves ), i do not think that Disney spent that much money just to be able to say , yup it's ours.:animwink:
Nor do i think that they did it as a move against Universal, as far as the marvel based rides that they have, as a way to get universal to remove those rides.
They did it, to eventually add, or have the option to add more attractions, MnGs ect.. that skew towards "young males". IMHO, from what I read at the time of the acquisition. I would add that the Avatar addition is in that same line of thinking.

Well. The contract is only east of the Mississippi. Unless some lawyer looks at a globe and says, "Technically, California is east of the Mississippi, if you go far enough," they are free to give Marvel a park presence in California. Florida is going to be a bit of a problem in the foreseeable future, with a pretty nice refurbishment coming to Spider Man at Universal.

But yeah, Marvel could make a theme park. X-Men, Fantastic Four, Captain America, Hulk, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Thor, the other assorted Avengers. I'd say there's enough there. Even cooler (and this will never happen, thank you Time Warner) would be if DC and Marvel said, "Hey, let's be pals and make a theme park together." Gotham would be an epic theme park world. Especially if it's the Christopher Nolan Gotham. It would put smiles on the faces of everyone who walked into it.

As for Disney trying to meet the young male audience, I'm pretty sure they're trying to do that across the board. Movies, TV shows (that's the reason why Disney XD was spun off from Disney Channel), parks. I'm still holding out for a Star Wars expansion in the parks to reflect that. Or a Tron expansion, given their new Tron cartoon that is coming out. I would love to see The Grid brought to life.

Wow I pulled this off topic. XD Long term, I think Disney wants Marvel characters in Walt Disney World. Not as a full park, but a substantial presence in the existing ones, once Universal gives them up.

So then we burn the plans for Four Seasons and get rid of Golden Oak? :ROFLOL:

I wish. XD From a business standpoint, Four Seasons might be smart (bring in a big name for a luxury resort to draw in people with big wallets), but Golden Oak is a move that might pay off in the short term, but long term, that's a nice piece of land that they could have used for a resort or maybe a park.

 

[RSoxNo1]

The Marvel Contract may read "in a 200 mile radius". I think I've heard that information out there as well.

 

[Scuttle]

Really? Again?

I haven't heard these for years, it seems. And the last I heard about River Country was that pesky FW DVC rumor. I do wish they could find something to do with Discovery Island though. It is such a neat spot...

I once again saw two boats docked at the river country dock 2 weeks ago. Not sure what's going on, but something is for sure. That was probably the 4th or 5th time I have seen boats docked there.

 

[Fable McCloud]

Dumb Question, but what exactly is River Country??

 

[NiarrNDisney]

Dumb Question, but what exactly is River Country??

River Country was WDW first water park which was located near Fort Wilderness on Bay Lake. It looked like a local lake side swimming hole with simple rides, wild terrain, lake water, and a more relaxed feel than the other Disney themed water parks.