Y'all should ...

[Cosmic Commando]

Good point. So I guess my second question is this: If a Marvel attraction is build at DLR, 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.

Tomorrowland isn't Tomorrowland... it's Sci-Fi Fantasyland. And Iron Man fits much more in the Sci-Fi aspect than the Fantasy aspect than other Marvel characters... in the movie universe... for now. It's really no different than Indy or Star Wars to me. What's Disney doing opening an Indy ride when Steven Spielberg is a consultant at Universal and they have rides based on his movies?

 

[Lee]

Lee, please allow me to take this thread a bit off course by asking you to venture a guess on future additions to the MK.

What are the chances for a major refurb of TL with new rides and/or the addition of an E-ticket to Adventureland (Fire Mountain, Lost Expedition, other attraction) by the 50th anniversary?

Chances? I'd say one more addition at MK by the 50th, but probably not any of the ones you listed.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Marvel appeals to everyone. I'm a twenty-year old female and for my birthday this year, I bought myself a huge Marvel cake. I bought Marvel decorations and decked out my living room. I had Iron Man cups, Spider-Man everywhere, Hulk napkins, etc. I even had a Marvel outfit on. Myself, my fifty-year old mother and my nineteen-year old sister all went to see The Avengers as soon as it came out, and we were all screaming and cheering at the end. There were all sorts of different demographics in that theater; men, women, little boys, little girls, elderly men and elderly women. Marvel appeals to everyone, even more so than Harry Potter, IMO.

Here's what my birthday cake looked like this year:

That's awesome and I would show it to my son, but then I'd be stuck getting one for his birthday!

 

[misterID]

That cake is pimp.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Ummm, didn't Disney build EPCOT and Tokyo Disneyland at the same time?
Wasn't California Adventure and Tokyo DisneySea built simultaneously?

Disney Seas was in development for a long time before they entered the construction phase. As I remember, DCA's development happened faster than Disney Seas, and the result (DCA 1.0) wasn't so good, neither was the lackluster Studios in Paris. Also, Disney Seas is not owned by the company . . .

Yes, Tokyo Disneyland opened April 15, 1983, Epcot opened October 1, 1982, but a couple years later the company was almost picked apart by corporate raiders. Epcot lead to hemorrhaging of money, and Disney didn't want to do Tokyo Disneyland, but they got a sweet deal and didn't have to pay a dime. Unlike Tokyo Disneyland, Disney does have to pay for a good chunk of Shanghai Disneyland, and it is very different from Tokyo Disneyland.

Should Disney do Avatarland, Carsland, and Shanghai Disneyland all at the same time, it will be a big deal financially and creatively to pull it all off, IMHO. Because Shanghai is a go, don't see Avatarland and Carsland DHS being built simultaneously at all.

 

[Californian Elitist]

That's awesome and I would show it to my son, but then I'd be stuck getting one for his birthday!

LOL, that cake cost me $145! Show it to him. I'm sure your son wouldn't care if the cake looked like this or not. Kids are happy with pretty much anything.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

LOL, that cake cost me $145! Show it to him. I'm sure your son wouldn't care if the cake looked like this or not. Kids are happy with pretty much anything.

Hot diggity dog! Everything really is bigger in California... or is that Texas?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Hot diggity dog! Everything really is bigger in California... or is that Texas?

I believe it's Texas Yeah, it was the most expensive cake I've ever had for my birthday but I wanted it so badly. Well worth it, it was delicious. I was afraid to cut it.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I apologize...by "few months" I didn't mean that you could expect to see major construction in TL.
Fact is, WDI has already taken up residence in TL, and early work is already underway. Much more work will be apparent after New Years.
Seems Bob doesn't want to wait on the Marvel park, and is looking to counter the west coast Potter with Iron Man.

Well, I guess it will all be obvious after New Year's if any of this materializes . . .

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Well, I guess it will all be obvious after New Year's if any of this materializes . . .

I think Anaheim local management, as well as corporate Disney don't want Disney to get punched in the face by Harry Potter for a second time.

 

[cheezbat]

You know what's sad about this? I like the Marvel movies and Iron Man, but I'm in no way at all excited about this supposed Tomorrowland attraction. I was way more interested in the Tron lightcycle attraction or the new Tony Baxter Frontierland addition.

So DL will have Space Mountain, A ride based on Star Wars, one on Buzz Lightyear, Iron Man, and Finding Nemo all in Tomorrowland? This has got to be the most messed up land thematically in a Disney park.

 

[El Grupo]

Disney Seas was in development for a long time before they entered the construction phase. As I remember, DCA's development happened faster than Disney Seas, and the result (DCA 1.0) wasn't so good, neither was the lackluster Studios in Paris. Also, Disney Seas is not owned by the company . . .

Yes, Tokyo Disneyland opened April 15, 1983, Epcot opened October 1, 1982, but a couple years later the company was almost picked apart by corporate raiders. Epcot lead to hemorrhaging of money, and Disney didn't want to do Tokyo Disneyland, but they got a sweet deal and didn't have to pay a dime. Unlike Tokyo Disneyland, Disney does have to pay for a good chunk of Shanghai Disneyland, and it is very different from Tokyo Disneyland.

Should Disney do Avatarland, Carsland, and Shanghai Disneyland all at the same time, it will be a big deal financially and creatively to pull it all off, IMHO. Because Shanghai is a go, don't see Avatarland and Carsland DHS being built simultaneously at all.

My reply was simply a response to your comment: 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. Again, they have built more simultaneously. And, creatively, they have pulled off more.

However, the reason DCA or the Studios in Paris "wasn't so good" was simply because Burbank limited/cut budgets, not because the amount of work required.

Also, Disney was almost acquired by corp. raiders because of the weak management and condition of the company at that time. The studios were not doing well overall, and Epcot was a much larger investment (over $3 billion in today's dollars) for a much smaller Disney company. Fortunately, Disney brought in Eisner and Wells, who engineered a renaissance for the company. The conditions are very different now.

Disney can handle an investment of less than a billion for WDW in addition to the costs associated with hai spread out over three or four years. And, they have proven they can handle multiple large-scale projects. The question is will they? If they choose not to, it won't be because they don't have the creative or financial capacity.

 

[Californian Elitist]

You know what's sad about this? I like the Marvel movies and Iron Man, but I'm in no way at all excited about this supposed Tomorrowland attraction. I was way more interested in the Tron lightcycle attraction or the new Tony Baxter Frontierland addition.

So DL will have Space Mountain, A ride based on Star Wars, one on Buzz Lightyear, Iron Man, and Finding Nemo all in Tomorrowland? This has got to be the most messed up land thematically in a Disney park.

We haven't even seen concepts for this apparent attraction.

Space Mountain, Star Tours and Buzz all have one thing in common. They take place in space, or have something to do with it. At least they have something in common. I don't have an excuse for Nemo. It just doesn't fit at all. Tomorrowland at DL isn't the only land of the Disney parks that has an attraction that doesn't fit its theme. Splash Mountain has absolutely nothing to do with the American Old West, yet it's in Frontierland at MK. I'd say the worst themed land in Disney parks, or one of them, because there are a few, is Fantasyland in TDL. The fact that Mansion is in that land trumps anything in Tomorrowland at DL, but that's just me.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I'd say the worst themed land in Disney parks, or one of them, because there are a few, is Fantasyland in TDL. The fact that Mansion is in that land trumps anything in Tomorrowland at DL, but that's just me.

But in a larger context, I think the understanding was that the Japanese lump ghost stories and fairy tales in the same literary sense. So, if it makes perfect sense to a Japanese person that a Haunted House ride is in with the Fairy Tale rides, then personally I give it a pass.

What I have trouble with is Iron Man in Disneyland's Tomorrowland. When rumors started that a huge E-Ticket was on the way I was thrilled. I've been dying for weeks to know what it was. Now that we're hearing it's Iron Man . . . I'm a little disappointed. I don't know. It's not even that I don't like the idea of an Iron Man attraction, because if it's an amazing ride I will line up no matter what the theme. But DL's Tomorrowland needs to start making itself more cohesive, not less. Some people have suggested that the rumors of Autopia and Finding Nemo Subs biting the dust for this ride are false, which I suppose is fine. That plus Innoventions is a WHOLE lot of space for one attraction to take up. But if they're sticking around, then bringing in Iron Man only adds to the thematic confusion for the land, and I don't love that idea.

I was hoping this new E-Ticket would shape the direction for the land in time to come . . . I guess I still wish for that, but on the surface it doesn't seem to be making any moves to do that on a conceptual level. Especially if the plan really is to add a Marvel Third Gate to DLR. Rushing Iron Man into Tomorrowland even though the new park is in the works seems short-sighted and weird.

Like I said, if it's a great E-Ticket and worth my time in line, I'll gladly take it. I just wonder what the thought process is here.

 

[TP2000]

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.

Losing Innoventions in Disneyland's Tomorrowland will impact the overall capacity of the park very minutely. Closing Innoventions would throw perhaps a dozen people out onto the Tomorrowland walkways, maybe three dozen if its raining.

They gave up on Disneyland's Innoventions about the time the 50th celebration ended in '06. Only because of their sponsorship of the Disneyland fireworks and Grad Nite did Honda play along and continue to update their exhibit and robot show in Innoventions, but everyone else abandoned the idea years ago. Innoventions won't be missed by anyone, and its perhaps the only attraction with that status at Disneyland USA, where rabid locals can (and do) rally to protest the refurbishment of an abandoned dining patio.

The original home to the Carousel of Progress (1967-73) after the World's Fair and a fabulously kitschy replacement with America Sings (1974-87) deserved a better end than it got with Innoventions 2012, but the thing should just be put out of its misery at this point.

What I'm curious about is if the new E Ticket to take its place will demolish the building, or take advantage of the original structure and rotating floor? And if it does still use the rotating theater floor, then I think there's a really good chance for a clone of this new Disneyland E Ticket to make its way to Magic Kingdom's Tomorrowland as well, if you know what I mean.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Innoventions won't be missed by anyone, and its perhaps the only attraction with that status at Disneyland USA, where rabid locals can (and do) rally to protest the refurbishment of an abandoned dining patio.

So true, so true.

Local:"You can't take the dance floor away! My grandparents have been dancing there every weekend for 50 years!!!"
Disney:"No, no. We're not taking it away. We're just making it look nicer and turning it into something that guests will actually use during the day, too. In the meantime, we'll still have dancing in Downtown Disney."
Local:"Not good enough! If we can't dance inside Disneyland for nine months, we'll find a new place to go and then we'll never be back!"

 

[alphac2005]

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.

Thanks for the very good post. I think that we see The Walt Disney Company in the classic Microsoft conundrum today and much of this was put into motion after the acquisition of Capital Cities/ABC with the long-term valuable asset of the ESPN portfolio.

Disney no longer needs to innovate, they no longer need to lead the pack, they are interested in preserving the status quo allowing them to protect their existing businesses, and keeping their profit chain rolling. When they have hordes of cash on the sidelines, they then go and make these acquisitions that work well with their machinery and integrate quickly to begin a fast ROI. I think it's not so much that they don't have the people or talent to create and be the best, but why go that route, when they are keyed in on finding what makes the fastest and most long-term profitability.

The Microsoft analogy is that although they have all sorts of businesses from the cloud to XBOX to Bing, their main mission has become to protect their long-term gravy train, which is Windows and their suite of Office products.

So, for Disney, if they need to protect let's say the film division and need to add to their consumer product lines and have new parts for the theme parks, Marvel is brilliant as far as they're concerned. Why build up a business for years, which could possibly fail, when you can buy something that is proven and just plug it into the machine.

Disney isn't the innovative leader any longer. As a fan of the company since I was child and my fascination with Walt Disney, it's a total bummer. It's just more corporatization and it's not slowing down. I think that what you're pointing out is really, really important to many old school, hardcore Disney fans, there is just something not "Disney" about just acquiring something that was built from the ground up by Disney.

 

[Beholder]

I think Harry Potter changed the way Disney see's it's future now. Before, sticking to an overall thematic element was key, even though things like Nemo in EPCOT and Buzz in TL had popped up. Now, it appears that only globally recognized properties are considered and especially those with obvious merchandising opportunities. I'm not arguing the merits or negatives of this shift, just making an observation. On the whole Iron Man, Marvel being in a Disney park, that's a little tricky for me. I love comics. I love Disney. But together? I guess it depends on the attraction and how it fits in the overall theme. But the idea of Tony Stark having an attraction in Innoventions bothers me far less than Nemo at the Seas.

 

[flynnibus]

. Now, it appears that only globally recognized properties are considered and especially those with obvious merchandising opportunities.

Nah, Eisner and iger were all over that we'll before potter. I think the impact of potter is the emphasis on integrated merch and food/bev in the actual park design. I think it moved those concepts up further in the thinking process. The success of potter by far is the revenue impact of it - much more than the attendance boost.

But that also leads the question of... Is that type of revenue sustainable? Or was it pent up demand due to the lack of equivalent merch previously? Without new movies, there are fewer opportunities to feed new merch concepts and demand. It's an interesting area to study..

 

[cookiee_munster]

totally off topic, but regarding merchandising, i saw a huge range of lord of the rings LEGO in my local tesco store about a week ago. they really are missing an opportunity not be acquiring the movie rights for this franchise...