Stevek
Well-Known Member
Use your imagination. After all, it is the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. It can take anything I throw at her.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Wookies, & Rebels, & Droids... OH WHY?! The Anti-SWL in Disneyland Thread
- Thread starter Californian Elitist
- Start date
I bet I can speak for @Donaldfan1934 and say they didn't mean SWL would fail and the company would lose money when they described this catastrophe as a "death spiral." That OBVIOUSLY won't happen, come on now.
@Donaldfan1934 Did you mean basically what I said, that SWL will open a door for more bad choices? That's how I took it, and I would agree.
@Donaldfan1934 Did you mean basically what I said, that SWL will open a door for more bad choices? That's how I took it, and I would agree.
SSG
Well-Known Member
It'll be just like shooting whomp rats in Beggar's Canyon.
Donaldfan1934
Well-Known Member
Oh you know I did! The bad choices that SWL will most likely ring in only spell destruction for virtually all we know and love about the parks. If Iger's replacement brings no real change to the company, then I can assure you that anything that made Disneyland, Disneyland will be all but wiped off the face of the earth in the next 20-25 years.
Last edited:
Donaldfan1934
Well-Known Member
Thank you. I didn't think I needed to explain myself, but apparently some here thought I was speaking financially. Then again, if you erase everything that defines a product, then I see no reason why people won't collectively end up taking their wallets elsewhere and bite Disney in the @$$.I don't think you're exaggerating, by the way.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Rich T
Well-Known Member
The number of fans who would take their wallets elsewhere (to the product-hawking Six Flags, the ruined Knott's or the IP paradise of Universal) for their fantasy fix is so teensy that it means near-zero in the long run.
A true death-spiral would have been DL not adapting to changing times and slowly losing it's appeal to younger families. In its current trajectory, the only thing that could keep DL from a bright future (barring disaster) would be them pricing themselves out of the average park-goer's budget--and that's something they'll be watching closely.
Donaldfan1934, I totally empathize with your view. I'm just watching how the very intelligent and imaginative younger generation parents of my family are looking forward to taking their kids to Star Wars Land--already planning for it--and I know DL's going to thrive and be magical in a new way. If the product is effective and the audience wants it, that audience will embrace the "new" direction of the park and will love it just as much as we all love what DL has meant to us over the decades. There are worse things that can happen to a park than changing its atmosphere by becoming more popular.
Donaldfan1934
Well-Known Member
I understand your point, but if one of the key reasons people love a place is because of its atmoshpere, then why make changes that can alter it dramatically? While people nay love the destruction initially, it'll probably catch up. To them the longer it goes on. As a culture, we need to control our zest for instant gratification because it can often damage the world around us if you don't. I'll leave you with this.
Donaldfan1934
Well-Known Member
Lol, I wasn't initially, but since people thought I was, I felt I should elaborate on it.So, you are speaking financially?
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
My lingering concern with this is still the precedent it sets for the other franchises in the future. Do they all get their own lands? I know SW has a much longer legacy than say, Frozen, but they're already talking about creating a Frozen land in Toon Town. It started with Cars Land, then SWL and eventually we'll get Marvel Land and Arendelle(sp?)...what's next? Zootopia land? I'd really hate for Disney to think that the best thing to do is give every high-grossing movie or franchise its own "world". But I guess that's the problem you create for yourself when you base every attraction on a movie.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
Agreed, but all you see is "destruction" while not acknowledging the rather amazing "construction." The atmosphere is changing. It always has. The park's atmosphere in 2015 (pre SWL) was nothing like it was in 1955 or even 1990. The atmosphere in 2018 will be different-- but that doesn't mean worse. Except for the Main St. horses' situation-- I still feel sorry for them.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Just poking fun!
Pricing, stagnation and poor execution will be the death spiral of Disneyland, not thematic purity.
As long as they make new *good* offerings the masses will show up, pricing them out is a whole different unrelated beast.
Even the biggest insider detractors like Spirit admit the land and attractions will be stellar. Depending on your viewpoint that's a sad reality that it will bring nothing but $$$ and encourage other similar wide sweeping change, as you guys allude to.
The changes may very well be bad for the fans, but they won't be bad for the health of the resort or the profit margin. They also won't be bad in the eyes of the GP (and not the lowest common denominator either).
It's a very small group of specific fans who will be left behind though, I feel for you if you identify with that group. My only advice would be to try to keep an open mind, if you've already decided you will never step in the land you've guaranteed your disappointment.
Wish we could get some similar type of material like this for the parks again.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
It depends on the IP. There will most likely never be another IP quite as suited to its own land as Star Wars. Arendelle's going to look awesome and fit right in with FL, so I have no problem with that. And Cars Land is one of my favorite areas in the entire resort.
Personally, I'd love to see Zootopia, but that would be *very* difficult to pull off without a bunch of expensive AAs hanging around to make the place look populated by anthing besides humans.
What non-IP land would click with the public today *and* fit well into DL? Today's world is flooded with theme parks of all shapes and sizes; a land based on the Wild West or Science Fiction is no longer unique to Disney. We have themed restaurants coming out of our ears in major cities. What makes Disney so powerful an entertainment force? Its huge library of well-loved IPs. If you were CEO and had to predict which would bring more people to the resort: Arendelle or a new land based on oh, I dunno...Bluegrass music... which would you go with? (Yeah, I'd go with Bluegrass music, but that's just me...)
Rich T
Well-Known Member
What was amazing in 1955 and 1966 wouldn't have the same "Wow" factor today. Disneyland has been copied and borrowed from worldwide in the last several decades, and themed environments without a compelling story to pull folks in are no longer unique. Disney has the world's largest vault of compelling stories to draw from. Why not take advantage of it if the end result is wonderful?
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
Its hard, because if I was truly CEO, I would stop the franchise/sequel/reboot madness and get the company back to the roots of creativity that made it so beloved in the first place...but that's for another thread.
I know that everything happening now is the result of current worldwide trends and that in 10 years time it could all look vastly different. I just don't know that things like Frozen will be as appealing 50 years from now as things like Haunted Mansion, Pirates, and Matterhorn are today. I want to get Disney back to a place where guests are imparting their own imagination and creativity into an attraction rather than having to have a familiar character tell them how to feel on a particular ride. I'm not a child anymore (and that is probably a big part of why), but I don't ride rides anymore to "see" my favorite characters. Instead I ride HM and make up my own stories. I think Disney currently has forgotten that it can let its guests do that, rather than just rushing out the most familiar characters in people's faces. But, I recognize I'm not a "typical" Disneyland-going family and am in a relative minority in that mindset.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
Also, I wouldn't just ask myself what is going to bring in more guests in the immediate future, but over time. Will people still give a rip about Olaf and Sven in 30 years? Maybe if the studio is still putting out Frozen & Furious 8, but honestly, I think people will tire of it. Another "princess" will come along and oust Anna and Elsa as supreme...then what? I'd much rather build around a more timeless entity (maybe not bluegrass in this example, but Adventure, Frontier, etc) and be able to add IP into it over time.
OT I know, but if I was CEO, I'd give DL what it really needs and that's an Aladdin's Escape from the Cave of Wonders E-Ticket.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
I'm going to get beaten for this, but when has the film slate ever been more creative?
Ignorning Marvel and Lucasfilm, they are kind of their own thing and didn't exist for comparison sake.
Pixar and WDAS while on a spat of sequels are creating more new content than the history of the company. Most Walt era through renaissance films were adaptations, not new ideas. The live action slate has honestly never been that stellar. I got a kick out of this Rotten Tomatoes article, critically there are very few well reviewed live action films. The only exception seems to be the early 60's with a small run and these past two years with three that qualify, albeit adaptations:
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/best-reviewed-live-action-disney-movies/
So I guess to answer my question, for a brief stint in the 60s they were more creative. Animation wise I'd have a hard time finding a stronger run that weren't adaptations.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
Probably when most of the current reboots came out in the first place.
I'll concede the fact that most Disney movies are based on either old fairy tales or books, but with Disney's current live-action slate, its like someone sat in a development meeting and said, "You know, we can't come up with anything new on our own, so lets plumb the depths of our own film library and just make everything again." To which the boss said, "OK, sounds good!" Yes, the films coming out now are critically successful, but eventually they're going to run out of movies to remake.