Y'all should ...

[El Grupo]

Good point. So I guess my second question, which is, I acknowledge, pretty unanswerable at the present time but I can't resist asking it anyway...how many people besides myself are going to ask themselves: "What's Iron Man doing in Disneyland? That's weird. Why is Disneyland imitating Universal, which has also has a ride based on a Marvel superhero?" See, that kind of thing bugs me. A lot. Granted, your typical 8-year-old boy isn't going to care, but for someone who goes to a Disney park because they love DISNEY, it matters. Marvel and Disney are a very odd, very unpalatable mix in my view. I'm really afraid that just one Marvel attraction in a Disney park is going to cheapen the Disney "magic", the ambience, the legacy, what have you...I myself will never step foot on any Marvel ride at a Disney park, and yeah, I liked some of the Marvel heroes when I was a kid, just like I liked the DC heroes...but when I go to Disneyland and WDW, I don't want to see them there. At all. Period. I'm really worried that Disney parks are going to become a mish-mash of ill-fitting off-studio purchased properties.

And I think that SUCKS.

I can appreciate your opinion. But, should Disney decide to build an Oz land/attraction, would you feel the same about it? Both products are simply acquisitions.

 

[ScoutN]

That's you though. You're the minority, Marvel is huge and seriously popular. I don't think the company would have bought Marvel and created plans on building an attraction and an entire theme park if Marvel wasn't such a huge hit. Look at IOA at Universal.

My ex and her sister were huge Marvel fans. They actually talked me into seeing the Avengers when it came out. I am not going to stereotype the fanbase.

 

[Californian Elitist]

My ex and her sister were huge Marvel fans. They actually talked me into seeing the Avengers when it came out. I am not going to stereotype the fanbase.

See? Girls like Marvel too, it's not just a guy thing.

 

[El Grupo]

I bet none of that will happen while Iger's still in charge. But it sure as hell would be nice if they happened someday.

I'm guessing you are correct. I do have to wonder if Iger will be around Disney beyond next year if the rumors about some pushing for an early departure in light of his announced resignation are true.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I can appreciate your opinion. But, should Disney decide to build an Oz land/attraction, would you feel the same about it? Both products are simply acquisitions.

Since Disney has actually made an Oz film, in which it has interpreted its own version (the Disney version, if you will) of Oz characters, then I consider that as much a part of Disney as its version of Snow White and Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. So a ride based on Oz wouldn't bother me much. (And bear in mind that Walt himself wanted to make an Oz film, and even bought the rights to do so. It just never happened for whatever reason). But Marvel is different. I doubt we will ever see a "Disney version" of those characters, since their personalities and powers and likenesses and so on are already established. THEY are merely an acquisition. And frankly, I wish Disney hadn't acquired them and instead had used the money to build a really killer Incredibles ride.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Since Disney has actually made an Oz film, in which it has interpreted its own version (the Disney version, if you will) of Oz characters, then I consider that as much a part of Disney as its version of Snow White and Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. So a ride based on Oz wouldn't bother me much. (And bear in mind that Walt himself wanted to make an Oz film, and even bought the rights to do so. It just never happened for whatever reason). But Marvel is different. I doubt we will ever see a "Disney version" of those characters, since their personalities and powers and likenesses and so on are already established. THEY are merely an acquisition. And frankly, I wish Disney hadn't acquired them and instead had used the money to build a really killer Incredibles ride.

I'm guessing you don't like Star Tours and Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Forbidden Eye?

 

[Magenta Panther]

That's you though. You're the minority, Marvel is huge and seriously popular. I don't think the company would have bought Marvel and created plans on building an attraction and an entire theme park if Marvel wasn't such a huge hit. Look at IOA at Universal.

Uh, huh. That's just it. Marvel is ALREADY at a theme park. And that's one of the reasons I think the Marvel purchase was so lame. Disney will be competing with Universal by building rides based on the same family of characters that they both own the rights to! That's like if they both built Winnie the Pooh rides. What's the point? I think the Marvel purchase was wrong-headed from the start. In my opinion, Iger buying Marvel was just an uncreative, lazy solution to a problem: he wanted a shortcut to attracting the young male demographic (which is who superheroes primarily appeal to, although, of course, there are female viewers as well, as you pointed out, but not nearly as many). The cable channel Disney XD was created for that purpose, after all: to convince little boys that Disney is not all princesses and pixie dust (apparently the Incredibles and Pirates just weren't enough to convince Iger that Disney already appeals to young males). To me, buying Marvel was yet another demonstration of Iger's apparent lack of faith in Disney, the company he runs. He bought Marvel instead of trusting in-house Disney talent to create original content to lure in young male customers. He bought Avatar instead of using established studio creations like Lion King and the Jungle Book, just to name a couple, to build a great new attraction in AK. He thinks he has to look outside the studio to keep the company fresh and relevant. And I really, really hate that about the guy.

 

[misterID]

It's nice you like them. I see them as adolescent male power fantasies, and I outgrew that some time ago. *shrug*

oooh, you are so wrong. I heard this argument on this very board what a dud The Avengers was going to be, that it wouldn't make the money Iron Man did. Myself and a few others kept trying to tell people how HUGE marvel is and HUGE The Avengers is in the comic book world. I'd say it has much, much, much more adult fans than adolescent fans. Look at Comic Con. And it's only going to get bigger.

 

[misterID]

Uh, huh. That's just it. Marvel is ALREADY at a theme park. And that's one of the reasons I think the Marvel purchase was so lame. Disney will be competing with Universal by building rides based on the same family of characters that they both own the rights to! That's like if they both built Winnie the Pooh rides. What's the point? I think the Marvel purchase was wrong-headed from the start. In my opinion, Iger buying Marvel was just an uncreative, lazy solution to a problem: he wanted a shortcut to attracting the young male demographic (which is who superheroes primarily appeal to, although, of course, there are female viewers as well, as you pointed out, but not nearly as many). The cable channel Disney XD was created for that purpose, after all: to convince little boys that Disney is not all princesses and pixie dust (apparently the Incredibles and Pirates just weren't enough to convince Iger that Disney already appeals to young males). To me, buying Marvel was yet another demonstration of Iger's apparent lack of faith in Disney, the company he runs. He bought Marvel instead of trusting in-house Disney talent to create original content to lure in young male customers. He bought Avatar instead of using established studio creations like Lion King and the Jungle Book, just to name a couple, to build a great new attraction in AK. He thinks he has to look outside the studio to keep the company fresh and relevant. And I really, really hate that about the guy.

They got it so they can build attractions and theme park lands in Cali and around the world. It's pretty smart. Seeing how successful the Transformers ride was in Cali I can't imagine how big an Avengers attraction will be. So they won't be competing with anyone with Marvel. But they REALLY got it for the merch sells and the mega successful studio films.

BTW, Marvel saved Iger's butt.

 

[Tigger1988]

oooh, you are so wrong. I heard this argument on this very board what a dud The Avengers was going to be, that it wouldn't make the money Iron Man would. Myself and a few others kept trying to tell people how HUGE marvel is and HUGE The Avengers is in the comic book world. I'd say it has much, much, much more adult fans than adolescent fans. Look at Comic Con. And it's only going to get bigger.

And it's not just male fans either. Anyone who keeps harping on that is just kidding themselves.

With all the Marvel films coming out in the next 5 years Disney made a VERY good choice. Blockbusters for years.

 

[Taylor]

LOL, I'm sorry, but this is statement is so full of qualifiers that it doesn't mean anything. You say that it is a certainty that the cruise line will expand . . . but that it won't within the next 5 years, though possibly within the next decade *if* bookings stay solid and other factors. That is not a certainty, you are just saying that maybe five years from now Disney will think about building another ship.

Bottom Line: There is no certainty of another Disney cruise ship being built in the next five years, and you've just made an educated guess more than five years in the future because the cruise lines make a lot of cash, (though there are concerns about cannibalization which each new ship made).




We are talking about the same company that would in theory be paying for both projects, and in the end the money comes from the same pot. You're suggesting that WDW will commence construction on both Avatarland and Carsland, which would cost around $1.1 billion. Look, this is about what DCA 2.0 costed, and while they did BVS and Carsland at the same time, they did Mermaid prior to this, and World of Color prior to this other construction. DCA needed saving pronto, as its financials were horrible, not the same reality for WDW as a whole, and the park that is really getting the focus is Animal Kingdom.



We know that Carsland for DHS has not been greenlit. They probably wouldn't green light Carsland until they had a years worth of data from Carsland's first year, unless they for some bizarre reason made a rash decision.

You can say they are "looking" at DHS expansion, but this doesn't really mean anything, they do a lot of blue sky stuff, and much more is suggested than what is done. Even if they do green light Carsland, you first suggested that construction could begin within months, now it is within the next 12 months.

Bottom Line: You heard that expansion of DHS was being discussed. You are guessing that if they decide to expand DHS with Carsland then construction will happen in 12 months. Of course, such a course of action would necessarily take attention and perhaps some resources away from Avatarland, can't see Burbank doing this until they refined plans for Avatarland.

DCA 2.0 construction was spread out over many years, if Burbank decides to do Avatarland, Shanghai, *and* Carsland at the same time, this would be more construction going on than they have ever done.



Cameron and Disney are aiming to have Avatarland open around the time Avatar 2 comes out. It would be a great way to get synergistic publicity for both endeavors. You can bet that Cameron is watching the timeline and development of Avatarland pretty closely, and having Avatarland open as Avatar 2 comes out would be the icing on the cake.

You really don't believe that DHS needs DCA money? it does, it is a mess it has no identity they don't even know what to put as the freakin icon of the park right now. DHS only has TWO rides infants can ride. Oh and a Pixar Land with only ONE ride

 

[Magenta Panther]

I'm guessing you don't like Star Tours and Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Forbidden Eye?

I like the rides. But I don't think the parks need them. The tech and effects for Star Tours could have been built around The Black Hole, for instance. The Indiana Jones ride could have dispensed with Indy altogether and simply been called "The Temple of the Forbidden Eye" and it would still be a good ride. Same thing with the Tower of Terror; the Twilight Zone connection is neat, but Rod Serling, much as I love the guy, could have been left out and ToT would still be amazing. I don't think Disney parks need Star Wars or Indy and certainly not Marvel to be awesome, and that's because they're DISNEY. I think that when the Imagineers are allowed to do their innovative best and craft attractions that are original or based on DISNEY-created properties...that that's good enough. In fact, for the most part, that's as good as it can possibly get.

 

[El Grupo]

Since Disney has actually made an Oz film, in which it has interpreted its own version (the Disney version, if you will) of Oz characters, then I consider that as much a part of Disney as its version of Snow White and Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. So a ride based on Oz wouldn't bother me much. (And bear in mind that Walt himself wanted to make an Oz film, and even bought the rights to do so. It just never happened for whatever reason). But Marvel is different. I doubt we will ever see a "Disney version" of those characters, since their personalities and powers and likenesses and so on are already established. THEY are merely an acquisition. And frankly, I wish Disney hadn't acquired them and instead had used the money to build a really killer Incredibles ride.

Wasn't Return to Oz film just an interpretation of the original work by a writer/director hired by management at that time (I believe this was his only work with Disney)? Trying to understand how this would be a "Disney" version.

With this in mind, when Disney simply makes a Marvel film, then will it be a Disney version?

I appreciate that Walt wanted to do an Oz film. But, as you said, he didn't, though he owned the rights to the books and probably had a few opportunities. My understanding is that he also wanted to do Lord of the Rings. Would it be reasonable for Disney to go after this franchise in the parks knowing that Walt was interested? (As a LOTR fan, I do wish they would).

As for the Incredibles ride, I wholeheartedly agree!

 

[Californian Elitist]

Uh, huh. That's just it. Marvel is ALREADY at a theme park. And that's one of the reasons I think the Marvel purchase was so lame. Disney will be competing with Universal by building rides based on the same family of characters that they both own the rights to! That's like if they both built Winnie the Pooh rides. What's the point? I think the Marvel purchase was wrong-headed from the start. In my opinion, Iger buying Marvel was just an uncreative, lazy solution to a problem: he wanted a shortcut to attracting the young male demographic (which is who superheroes primarily appeal to, although, of course, there are female viewers as well, as you pointed out, but not nearly as many). The cable channel Disney XD was created for that purpose, after all: to convince little boys that Disney is not all princesses and pixie dust (apparently the Incredibles and Pirates just weren't enough to convince Iger that Disney already appeals to young males). To me, buying Marvel was yet another demonstration of Iger's apparent lack of faith in Disney, the company he runs. He bought Marvel instead of trusting in-house Disney talent to create original content to lure in young male customers. He bought Avatar instead of using established studio creations like Lion King and the Jungle Book, just to name a couple, to build a great new attraction in AK. He thinks he has to look outside the studio to keep the company fresh and relevant. And I really, really hate that about the guy.

If you think Iger buying Marvel was a bad idea, then I don't think there's a point in continuing this conversation.

 

[Tigger1988]

Wasn't Return to Oz film just an interpretation of the original work by a writer/director hired by management at that time (I believe this was his only work with Disney)? Trying to understand how this would be a "Disney" version.

Yes and Disney only made the film because their ownership of the Oz rights was going to run out. An acquired property is an acquired property and Disney is full of them.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I like the rides. But I don't think the parks need them. The tech and effects for Star Tours could have been built around The Black Hole, for instance. The Indiana Jones ride could have dispensed with Indy altogether and simply been called "The Temple of the Forbidden Eye" and it would still be a good ride. Same thing with the Tower of Terror; the Twilight Zone connection is neat, but Rod Serling, much as I love the guy, could have been left out and ToT would still be amazing. I don't think Disney parks need Star Wars or Indy and certainly not Marvel to be awesome, and that's because they're DISNEY. I think that when the Imagineers are allowed to do their innovative best and craft attractions that are original or based on DISNEY-created properties...that that's good enough. In fact, for the most part, that's as good as it can possibly get.

What's the point of creating a ride based on different material if the name is going to be left out?

To get technical, Disney isn't the original creator of the majority of their works, so...

 

[Cosmic Commando]

The E in DL within the next few months?!? We're about to enter the holiday period in Disneyland, they're not going to start shutting down major areas of Tomorrowland for some sort of Stark attraction, like you have said. Haven't heard anything about a Stark ride in Tomorrowland, would think they would save that idea for the Marvel Park if they do that.

It's not losing capacity if no one goes there. Closing Innoventions wouldn't hurt much.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Frankly, I wonder how successful that would be. Superheroes appeal primarily to a very narrow demographic, mostly young males and little boys. Potter appeals to all ages (its book sales alone have proven that), so it has a much better chance at luring more visitors. Comparing Iron Man to Potter is like comparing apples to oranges IMO.

Just look at the numbers for Avengers... it's clear it wasn't just a narrow demographic of young males and little boys. You're not going to find something for everyone. There's a crowd of people in this country that literally think Harry Potter is the work of the Devil-- hasn't hurt WWoHP much, has it?

 

[Californian Elitist]

It's not losing capacity if no one goes there. Closing Innoventions wouldn't hurt much.

Exactly.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Wasn't Return to Oz film just an interpretation of the original work by a writer/director hired by management at that time (I believe this was his only work with Disney)? Trying to understand how this would be a "Disney" version.

With this in mind, when Disney simply makes a Marvel film, then will it be a Disney version?

I appreciate that Walt wanted to do an Oz film. But, as you said, he didn't, though he owned the rights to the books and probably had a few opportunities. My understanding is that he also wanted to do Lord of the Rings. Would it be reasonable for Disney to go after this franchise in the parks knowing that Walt was interested? (As a LOTR fan, I do wish they would).

As for the Incredibles ride, I wholeheartedly agree!

I get into this discussion here every now and then, and it just stumps me why it's so hard for some to understand the difference between acquisition and artistry. Disney's version of Pinocchio is very very different from its source material. Would Disney go that far with a movie about Marvel characters? Doubtful. Those characters are already fully developed and established; that's why Iger bought them. It was less risky to buy superheroes than try to create new ones. Which is hardly in the spirit of Walt Disney, who once said, "We don't follow trends; we create them." That's what I'm getting at. I'm really afraid that the Disney company is losing the essence of what made it so special. Roy Disney was afraid of that too, which is why he rebelled and created SaveDisney.com during the Eisner years. But he's gone now too, and now the company is losing its soul. Some might say it was inevitable, given that the company has been run by CEOs and not creative visionaries since Walt's death. I really hoped that John Lasseter would step up and try to lead, but that hasn't happened. Instead, we have Eisner and then Iger buying non-Disney-adapted or created properties and they think that's a creative solution to some lack in the company that only THEY perceive. It's very sad. For my part, I would rather have a land in AK based on the Pride Lands than Avatarland any day. And I bet most of the Disney-loving public would too.