-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Would You Like To See The Cars Land Sci-fi Drive-In Be Resurrected?
- Thread starter Sharon&Susan
- Start date
shortstop
Well-Known Member
I find it difficult to properly evaluate any decisions made regarding DCA in the decade or so after its opening. On one hand, Carland would’ve been cooler, more interesting, and more timeless, but on the other hand, DCA was in such horrible shape that they needed this expansion to be a big hit. Cars was incredibly popular at the time so I see why they went the safe route. Maybe if DCA1.0 hadn’t been a hot pile of garbage, we would’ve gotten Carland instead.
I wish they’d gone a different route but I see why the didn’t, in contrast to many of the decisions made about DCA in the last 4ish years.
I wish they’d gone a different route but I see why the didn’t, in contrast to many of the decisions made about DCA in the last 4ish years.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Cars Land became the direction because the parks were given an edict that only franchises were worth the investment. It wasn’t about ensuring the rebuild had a big hit. It was about Disney’s view that theme parks are nothing more than a marketing vehicle, and one they were trying to offload.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
We got Cars Land because Disney no longer has faith in anything that isn’t directly linked to movies.
Lasseter complained Car Land lacked Disney characters...yet a majority of Disneyland went years and years with really just one land that was dedicated to characters, and the park still succeeded.
History has shown Disney doesn’t need to include IPs in their parks to reach success.
Lasseter complained Car Land lacked Disney characters...yet a majority of Disneyland went years and years with really just one land that was dedicated to characters, and the park still succeeded.
History has shown Disney doesn’t need to include IPs in their parks to reach success.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Clearly Disney parks need to be more timeless like Disney’s Hollywood Studios, a park that just turned 30 and has no opening day attractions open.
shortstop
Well-Known Member
I think the two aren’t unrelated. The IP-mandate is partially about the short-sighted need to make Park additions easier to market and tie into corporate synergy. It’s about playing it safe and not taking “risks”.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
If the concern was just risks it seems there should be room for people with experience in leadership. Iger’s most experienced head of the parks was Jay “I really hate theme parks” Rasulo.
Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular is an opening year attraction and the oldest in the park. Universal Studios Florida is in a similar situation with only the E.T. Adventure being there from the beginning. Islands of Adventure has fared better, but people fantasize about ripping out huge chunks of the park. The shift towards the Islands of Adventure model also means greater costs because to add a new property means to add a new land (and also likely demolishing one) or just shoving in an orphan attraction like Skull Island.
The Dine-In Theater was the last remnant of Car Land and it received a lot of attention when announced, despite people supposedly only wanting “Disney” attractions.
TROR
Well-Known Member
In all fairness didn’t DHS only have like 2 opening day rides?
socalifornian
Well-Known Member
Epcot keeps adding IPs too. RIP Ellen and Maelstrom..as if there wasn’t room in a park that could fit Disneyland and DCA inside its borders
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
Even Superstar Limo was ruined by an IP, sadly. Is nothing sacred?
Kram Sacul
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
To be fair though some of celebs in SSL were owned by Disney at the time.
QuasiNoFroyo
Well-Known Member
Ruined? I think you mean salvaged! Though I would strongly prefer the Tokyo version of the Monsters, Inc. ride to what we've got.
QuasiNoFroyo
Well-Known Member
TBF, that Ellen show was getting severely outdated to a point of not really belonging in Epcot anymore. Granted, GOTG doesn't entirely fit Epcot either but I am super-excited for it and hopefully there will be some educational value to it.
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
He always says the opposite of what he means. That is what he does.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
No, he meant ruined.
SuperStar Limo was an enjoyable disaster. So they ruined it marvelously.
Why are we still debating that theme parks should have no IPs? Disney is way beyond this point. IPs don’t ruin a theme park. They improve them really, but some are not convinced so this means they have different tastes. There’s a certain level of expectation that Disney theme parks should have Disney IP. Obviously. The past was the past.
Why are we still debating that theme parks should have no IPs? Disney is way beyond this point. IPs don’t ruin a theme park. They improve them really, but some are not convinced so this means they have different tastes. There’s a certain level of expectation that Disney theme parks should have Disney IP. Obviously. The past was the past.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
We’re debating about the inclusion of IPs in the parks because this is a discussion board and because we want to. Thank you for contributing to the debate you seem to be complaining about, by the way. No one said there should be no IPs anywhere.
As you said, people have different tastes, so there will be a difference of opinion. If “the past was the past,” the attractions that are IP-free and still standing would be no longer.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
And some people repeatedly show they don’t really understand the conversation.
You mean why I don’t understand you. This is a debate so many don’t understand you.