-
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
rle4lunch
Well-Known Member
Even things that aren't IP's when the start out eventually turn into IP's at some point. I've said it numerous times. When do we turn ill on an attraction because of its increase in popularity? What's the threshold breach? Is it when there's a second book, a movie sequel, or perhaps a trilogy is made? Or is it when its merchandise is being sold all the way down to the Dollar General level in some fashion? The IP/original idea argument is moot. All original ideas that gain mass popularity will turn into an IP. Matter of fact, even if they don't gain popularity, they are given Trademark rights and other IP protections as soon as they are conceived.
sedati
Well-Known Member
The Matterhorn's origin began with "Third Man on the Mountain" IP!!!
Adventureland was originally "True Life Adventureland" A whole land IP!!!
The Jungle Cruise was inspired by "The African Queen." IP!!! And worse yet, a non-Disney IP.
The Haunted Mansion drew in part from "The Haunting." IP!!! Also a non-Disney IP.
I know these are loose ties, but perhaps they were just kept that way to avoid paying out a royalty had they gone too close.
Adventureland was originally "True Life Adventureland" A whole land IP!!!
The Jungle Cruise was inspired by "The African Queen." IP!!! And worse yet, a non-Disney IP.
The Haunted Mansion drew in part from "The Haunting." IP!!! Also a non-Disney IP.
I know these are loose ties, but perhaps they were just kept that way to avoid paying out a royalty had they gone too close.
An entire IP land doesn't compare to one ride based on an IP.
180º
Well-Known Member
Okay, but a few things. First of all, I do not grant you African Queen or The Haunting as remotely valid examples.
Second, you left out Frontierland, which was built on the success of Davy Crockett, and don't forget about the 20k exhibit and Swiss Family Treehouse. But the 20k exhibit and Swiss Family Treehouse were single attractions, and Frontierland, like Adventureland, was so subtly based on its franchise tie-in that it had its own name and original attractions.
These things don't change that Star Wars Land, like it or hate it, is unprecedented in the history of IP significance in Disneyland.
sedati
Well-Known Member
I was only trying to point out the parts of Disneyland that may not have been thought to have IP connections.
The Frontierland/New Orleans Square train station is from the IP "So Dear to My Heart."
Add to the Haunted Mansion, "La Belle et La Bete."
Isn't Toon Town a whole land devoted to Roger Rabbit? Or at least half a land and the land's name?
Also, Star Wars didn't really take up the last available spot on the property. It just showed that if the company sees a need, it will find space. This can happen again, via moving more backstage, air rights over the roads etc. There are plenty of areas that can be better utilized, and there are still some untapped park areas such the space that was originally for Edison Square, a large plot left of Thunder, and another area between Pirates and Mansion that can be opened up. And to add an idea of my own- move the monorail shop and spur (maybe behind the AMC theater) and you could add a good sized attraction to Fantasyland.
Last edited:
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
Because they're doing this in the perfect original park, not some half-day park from the early 90s that hasn't really been updated since that time.
Thank you.
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
Eh, as unhappy as I am with SWL, it's the fact that they're changing F! that leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth. Not only is Disneyland growing a tumor, but a classic show that represents everything Disney has done right in animation, music, and entertainment is being changed- and whatever new version they put up is gonna have to be better than 25 years of amazing reviews and nostalgia.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
IMO, the problem is that Fantastic shouldn't have gone 25 years with very minimal changes. Now it's 25 years old and no one wants change - much like many with the park itself. I agree it's an amazing classic, but would have been nice to have it either updated or rotated with other nighttime shows on the river throughout the years like they do with fireworks and parades.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Bingo. Once a show hits the 10 year mark, they really need to scrap it and redo it. Ideally, a big show like this would get character changes and story updates every 4 to 7 years.
But after a decade, there's a demographic that becomes emotionally attached to it in its original form and then gets upset when it goes in for updates and changes. Fantasmic! is from 1992, and only has animation that existed from 1927 to 1991. The world kept changing after 1991, and Disney has released some beloved stories and characters after 1991.
You can't just keep showing the same old shows from 1990 over and over as the decades roll along and the world changes around you. If you do, you end up with the unhealthy attachment to Aladdin that some AP's had, and you also end up with a tired, stale old park like the dusty stage shows in Disney's Hollywood Studios.
Disneyland deserves better, and I can't wait to see the updated Fantasmic!. And to bring it back OT, I wouldn't be surprised to see Star Wars characters in the show. Although I think @GiveMeTheMusic has said that won't happen and Fantasmic! will remain "classic Disney animation", just with updated characters from 1992-2016.
I only hope we don't have to wait until 2042 for the next big update to that show.
Last edited:
We haven't officially heard about any updates for Fantastmic! yet, so I will hold off any anger I might have until then. Based on the rumors we've been hearing, I'm pleased, so far.
180º
Well-Known Member
I totally disagree. I'm looking forward to the show returning, changes and all, but I think the reasoning you give is simplistic.
Last edited:
GiveMeTheMusic
Well-Known Member
Agreed on all counts. Steady updating keeps the insane fan attachment at bay and prevents the Change.org meltdowns that make TDA office drones laugh while they come up with new ways to charge guests for dumb things.
Fantasmic will feature Jack Sparrow, but other than that, I've been told it's Lucas/Marvel-free and sticking to Disney animation.
That's fantastic news.
And I agree, a show should be updated at the very least every 10 years. I wish Universal would get the hint and just get rid of Waterworld all together.
brb1006
Well-Known Member
Fantasmic you mean?
brb1006
Well-Known Member
And hopefully with a moving Mickey head.
spacemt354
Chili's
Some negatives to start out:
-- I think the land fits much better in a Studio based theme park, or a DisneySEA type theme park. Disneyland is lower on the list.
-- It does feel like a tumor in the back left portion of the park. While I'm sure the reworked Railway and RoA will be themed nicely, it is an example of Disney literally pushing IPs into the theme parks.
Some positives: (because this isn't all doom and gloom for the park)
-- As mentioned before and still I haven't seen a good answer to this, if the argument extends to how much space its taking up, then where is the outrage for Autopia, or Jungle Cruise, attractions that take up acres of property alone? In the 12 acres there will be several different experiences, so I'd argue it is a more effective use of space than any of those attractions.
-- I'm not sure I 100% buy into the "one IP" ruins Disneyland side of things. I'm mixed, so I put it in the positives. I can see how iconic, story driven lands such as Adventureland, Frontierland, etc do not mesh with one based on a pre-story IP. But this situation feels different. Not only is "Star Wars" an eclectic IP - the environment being built is something that nobody has experienced before. It isn't Naboo, or Endor, or Hoth. It's a new planet, so to me, that drives a new narrative. The IP of Star Wars then, only provides the inspiration and the context for the land's attractions (of which there are several) rather than the pre-established narrative.
The creation of a new narrative I think helps it blend in with the lands surrounding it. If they simply recreated an environment from the films, then that is a different story.
-- Lastly, more of a joke but...they're building E-tickets. Disneyland fans need to count their blessings. You're lucky you don't get Dinorama, or hyped up expansions that lead to a cloned ride and a D-ticket coaster that got reduced from an E.
And if you still don't like it? Heh...shorter lines on everything else -- woop!
*Note -- I'm 50/50 on this. The reasons the positives are more lengthy is because they need more explanation in this thread...not because I am on one side or the other...just making that clear. I see both sides.
-- I think the land fits much better in a Studio based theme park, or a DisneySEA type theme park. Disneyland is lower on the list.
-- It does feel like a tumor in the back left portion of the park. While I'm sure the reworked Railway and RoA will be themed nicely, it is an example of Disney literally pushing IPs into the theme parks.
Some positives: (because this isn't all doom and gloom for the park)
-- As mentioned before and still I haven't seen a good answer to this, if the argument extends to how much space its taking up, then where is the outrage for Autopia, or Jungle Cruise, attractions that take up acres of property alone? In the 12 acres there will be several different experiences, so I'd argue it is a more effective use of space than any of those attractions.
-- I'm not sure I 100% buy into the "one IP" ruins Disneyland side of things. I'm mixed, so I put it in the positives. I can see how iconic, story driven lands such as Adventureland, Frontierland, etc do not mesh with one based on a pre-story IP. But this situation feels different. Not only is "Star Wars" an eclectic IP - the environment being built is something that nobody has experienced before. It isn't Naboo, or Endor, or Hoth. It's a new planet, so to me, that drives a new narrative. The IP of Star Wars then, only provides the inspiration and the context for the land's attractions (of which there are several) rather than the pre-established narrative.
The creation of a new narrative I think helps it blend in with the lands surrounding it. If they simply recreated an environment from the films, then that is a different story.
-- Lastly, more of a joke but...they're building E-tickets. Disneyland fans need to count their blessings. You're lucky you don't get Dinorama, or hyped up expansions that lead to a cloned ride and a D-ticket coaster that got reduced from an E.
And if you still don't like it? Heh...shorter lines on everything else -- woop!
*Note -- I'm 50/50 on this. The reasons the positives are more lengthy is because they need more explanation in this thread...not because I am on one side or the other...just making that clear. I see both sides.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I disagree - your logic would argue that Pirates and HM have created unhealthy attachments as well.
A great show doesn't date itself and appeals to generation after generation. F! was very good at both those things.. on the backs of very solid films (unlike DHS's chose of miserable Pocohontas). Technology updates, improvements like the Dragon, and other tweaks (like to the floats, or segments) can lead to a show remaining fresh without the need to overhaul it or shift it radically.