Wookies, & Rebels, & Droids... OH WHY?! The Anti-SWL in Disneyland Thread

[spacemt354]

But Epcot shouldn't become Magic Kingdom 2.0. That's not its intent. Frozen was added because they needed a quick way to up park attendance (people can only handle so much food and wine...I think...)

I'm one of those rare people that think FW could easily have lived on with some updates periodically, but I think they were ultimately let down because of their sponsorships pulling out and thus, Disney decided it didn't want to foot the whole bill to maintain and update what was originally created. And as I've said on other threads on here, Horizons is still not outdated thematically. We're a FAR way from colonies in space, undersea cities, etc. The ride technology on the other hand, yes, it dated itself quickly, BUT could have been updated rather than scrapped altogether.

But Iger and co just seem to think a hot ticket IP-bandaid can fix everything. It actually is a little insulting to the imagineers. "Surely you couldn't conceive of a better original idea for this, so here's a movie franchise you're going to make work for this area."

It absolutely shouldn't become Magic Kingdom 2.0 -- however all implications point in that direction. The original identity of the park has been lost forever.

Poor maintenance and loss of sponsors led to the decline of Future World. Horizons is my favorite attraction of all time. However, by the late 90s, its wait-time was 5 mins, and while the concept wasn't outdated, its inclusion in the park sadly was.

I wish routine updates to Horizons, World of Motion - similar to the Spaceship Earth refurb of 2007, lasted.

If we are talking jewels of WDW - Epcot Center was the greatest jewel of all, in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

To me though, it sounds like trying to financially piggyback off the highest grossing movie of all time and well, it has animals in it, so let's put it in Animal Kingdom cause that park needs some love.

That's exactly what they're doing. If the experience turns out great, and it's something people enjoy, what's wrong with it?

 

[spacemt354]

But that's just it. I don't know that you can detach it from the movie/IP. If Disney imagineers created a world of "Pandora" with mystical creatures, a bioluminescent environment, and a conservational message all on their own, then sure, it could fit.

You just proved my point. It's people's unwillingness to detach from the film and realize the bigger picture.

Splash Mountain is based on Song of the South. Yet is one of the greatest attractions Disney has ever created.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

I think you're grossly underestimating Disney's long-term business strategy with this statement. I used to bemoan the shoehorning of brands into every conceivable nook and corner of Disney parks until it became too obvious to ignore that it is driving attendance and revenue. Guests love it....

Maybe a hot ticket IP can't fix everything, but from all indications it can fix the bottom line.
Disney just broke box office records becoming the first film studio to hit $7 billion in global sales in a single year. The Studio is on a roll, so expect this to translate into even more IP based experiences at the parks well into the future.

I was hoping you'd bring that up because it perfectly proves the point. Disney, on its own, couldn't have touched that $7 billion mark UNLESS it went out and gobbled up other IP. Since Iger has been at the helm, "Disney" has become the proud parent to Pixar, Star Wars, and Marvel. Without them, Disney would be floundering. And before you say "what about Frozen?", Frozen was made under the direction of Pixar's John Lasseter (a perk of the acquisition). In fact, I believe its only because of the Pixar acquisition that Disney animation is even still a viable entity.

Overall point being, Disney (namely Iger) knew that it couldn't compete in the market anymore with what they currently had, and what better way to rise to the top than the go out and buy yourself success from the outside?

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

You just proved my point. It's people's unwillingness to detach from the film and realize the bigger picture.

Splash Mountain is based on Song of the South. Yet is one of the greatest attractions Disney has ever created.

SOTS is so obscure though that I bet the casual fan wouldn't even know there was a connection.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

You just proved my point. It's people's unwillingness to detach from the film and realize the bigger picture.

Splash Mountain is based on Song of the South. Yet is one of the greatest attractions Disney has ever created.

If the land is immersive and awesome, you might be able to make people forget about the lousy movie that inspired it and have a good time. But it still doesn't mean it "fits" in the park.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

That's exactly what they're doing. If the experience turns out great, and it's something people enjoy, what's wrong with it?

Truthfully, nothing. But let's call it out for what it is.

 

[flynnibus]

Nearly all good Disney movies take place on Earth (I can think of two exceptions) and connect to one or more of Earth's human cultural interpretations of animal life, be it fanciful or realistic. Pandora is not Earth. It's creatures are not of Earth. AK has plenty of conservation messages. It doesn't need an entire alien environment to repeat the same message yet again.

Of course, I probably wouldn't be pressing that point if I actually liked Avatar. I don't. I could go on & on about why, but it doesn't matter--it's my personal opinion, others like the film and Pandora in AK is a real thing. Now, if this land was based on Treasure Planet--a flawed film I personally love--I'd be happy as could be and I'd completely ignore all logical arguments against a sci-fi world in AK. Because when it comes to theme parks, that's the kind of hypocrite I am. And I agree Pandora will probably be fun.

So you've basically just admitted your whole argument is because you don't like Avatar... and not actually based on an objective argument with consistent, defendable points.

I don't know about your Earth.. but on my earth, Ducks don't talk or wear clothes. And talking Mice don't climb beanstalks.. but the films can still be used as parables to promote a message... and most don't mind those characters appearing in DAK advocating things about 'our' Earth.

You are taking things literally when they suit your purpose, and close your eyes to it when it goes against your predisposition.

 

[spacemt354]

SOTS is so obscure though that I bet the casual fan wouldn't even know there was a connection.

That's a strawman's argument.

You just said...

I don't know that you can detach it from the movie/IP.

Splash Mountain is entirely based on Song of the South, down from the characters, scenery, and plot points. There is a distinct connect to Song of the South, yet the attraction works fine. The popularity of the IP is immaterial to the argument.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I was hoping you'd bring that up because it perfectly proves the point. Disney, on its own, couldn't have touched that $7 billion mark UNLESS it went out and gobbled up other IP. Since Iger has been at the helm, "Disney" has become the proud parent to Pixar, Star Wars, and Marvel. Without them, Disney would be floundering. And before you say "what about Frozen?", Frozen was made under the direction of Pixar's John Lasseter (a perk of the acquisition). In fact, I believe its only because of the Pixar acquisition that Disney animation is even still a viable entity.

Overall point being, Disney (namely Iger) knew that it couldn't compete in the market anymore with what they currently had, and what better way to rise to the top than the go out and buy yourself success from the outside?

But you just proved my point, that is content is king in the entertainment business. Iger knows this and wisely made acquisitions to shore up the company's IP stockpile. The parks are now leveraging these properties with great success.

As for Avatar, a film not owned by Disney, there's precedent: Star Tours and the Indiana Jones attractions. Ironically both of those franchises are now owned by Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

Earth-based sums it all up for me. No one was thinking "alien worlds" when this park was designed. It's a Wild Animal Park.

Let me know when you find those trees like the Tree of Life.. or those warring talking insects that live under it.

 

[flynnibus]

That's exactly what they're doing. If the experience turns out great, and it's something people enjoy, what's wrong with it?

Because a customer isn't responsible for the future of the park and only has to worry about the 'now'. So they are pretty much miserable measuring sticks to decide how a park should be ran and designed as a whole. I mean, if you made admission free, they'd love that too right?

 

[spacemt354]

If the land is immersive and awesome, you might be able to make people forget about the lousy movie that inspired it and have a good time. But it still doesn't mean it "fits" in the park.

How so?

I don't know that you can detach it from the movie/IP. If Disney imagineers created a world of "Pandora" with mystical creatures, a bioluminescent environment, and a conservational message all on their own, then sure, it could fit.

Disney imagineers didn't invent the Lion King, so does that not fit in Animal Kingdom? Nor Finding Nemo, Up, Jungle Book, etc. So Avatar has everything going for it, as you said, to fit into Animal Kingdom, except Disney Imagineers didn't create the IP. Seems reasonable.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

But you just proved my point, and that is that in the entertainment business content is king. Iger knows this and wisely made acquisitions to shore up the company's IP stockpile. The parks are now leveraging these properties with great success.

As for Avatar, a film not owned by Disney, there's precedent: Star Tours and the Indiana Jones attractions. Ironically both of those franchises are now owned by Disney.

I know, and some label Iger a genius for doing so...but to me, it just spells distrust within his own organization to actually be as strong as it's name is synonymous with. And for me personally, that kind of sucks. Its like a parent being so proud of you for so long, and then one day you wake up and realize your dad just inherited three new siblings to carry on your family name.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

How so?

Disney imagineers didn't invent the Lion King, so does that not fit in Animal Kingdom? Nor Finding Nemo, Up, Jungle Book, etc. So Avatar has everything going for it, as you said, to fit into Animal Kingdom, except Disney Imagineers didn't create the IP. Seems reasonable.

No no no...I think it still boils down to the "alien" angle. All those Disney movies fit because their characters are real and authentic (minus the speech ability). Not a race of alien creature from a distant world.

 

[spacemt354]

No no no...I think it still boils down to the "alien" angle. All those Disney movies fit because their characters are real and authentic (minus the speech ability). Not a race of alien creature from a distant world.

Nothing about talking bugs, lions, or fish is real and authentic.

Imaginative creatures from a different world is no different than a fantasy world of dragons that doesn't exist on earth, which is what Beastly Kingdomme was, or a colony of talking ants going up against talking grasshoppers

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

OK....OK...I'll admit it. I'm an idiot. Excuse me while I take my foot out of my mouth.

Here's the DAK dedication plaque. (bolded for emphasis)
DISNEY'S ANIMAL KINGDOM

Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined: a kingdom ruled by lions, dinosaurs and dragons; a kingdom of balance, harmony and survival; a kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn.

Dedicated this 22nd day of April, 1998
Michael D. Eisner

Avatar was still a cr*p movie...but I guess it's at home in DAK.

anyways...back to hating SWL...

 

[Rich T]

So you've basically just admitted your whole argument is because you don't like Avatar... and not actually based on an objective argument with consistent, defendable points.

I don't know about your Earth.. but on my earth, Ducks don't talk or wear clothes. And talking Mice don't climb beanstalks.. but the films can still be used as parables to promote a message... and most don't mind those characters appearing in DAK advocating things about 'our' Earth.

You are taking things literally when they suit your purpose, and close your eyes to it when it goes against your predisposition.

Shame on me. Nutshell: Aliens in AK stretches the park's theme into territory better suited to MK or DHS. My opinion. I also think Pandora's going to be fun.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

OK....OK...I'll admit it. I'm an idiot. Excuse me while I take my foot out of my mouth.

Here's the DAK dedication plaque. (bolded for emphasis)
DISNEY'S ANIMAL KINGDOM

Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined: a kingdom ruled by lions, dinosaurs and dragons; a kingdom of balance, harmony and survival; a kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn.

Dedicated this 22nd day of April, 1998
Michael D. Eisner

Avatar was still a cr*p movie...but I guess it's at home in DAK.

anyways...back to hating SWL...

And just for fun here's the text of Disneyland's Tomorrowland dedication plaque:

A vista into a world of wondrous ideas, signifying man's achievements...a step into the future, with predictions of constructive things to come.

Tomorrow offers new frontiers in science, adventure and ideals: the Atomic Age...the challenges of outer space...and the hope for a peaceful and unified world.

Sounds pretty accurate, right?

 

[spacemt354]

anyways...back to hating SWL...

To be honest after the Avatar debate, I realized how much worse the Star Wars Land decision is than Avatar

I'm still willing to see it through, but the points for SWL I can't argue as objectively as I could Avatar