You're Gonna Need a Bigger Park

[Magenta Panther]

A lot of Disney Classic didn't belong to Walt Disney. He went around and bought up all of the IP's he could get his hands on. Most of the authors were dead by then and he didn't have to put up a fight. Different story with Mary Poppins. Iger is just following what Walt did years ago. Most people don't realize Walt didn't create a lot of the characters that we grew up loving. That being said, I wish there were more attractions geared toward the classic characters. Great example, I can't believe their isn't a ride for Bambi. I wish they would rebooted the Great movie Ride toward the Disney Classics.

Oh, THIS again. There's a difference between acquisition and artistry. Walt and his crew took stories and developed them in the Disney style and plussed them to the point where the characters became unforgettable and indelibly linked with Disney. Walt didn't buy already played-out franchises because of their merchandising value, as did Iger. Walt took risks by developing new things and new versions of things. Iger avoids risk by purchasing old stuff that still has some guaranteed audience. There's such a vast difference between what Walt did and what Iger does that it's staggering that the difference has to be explained to people who call themselves Disney fans.

 

[raven]

I've been saying they need more space for a long time now. They are in the habit of replacing or swapping out old for new but actually "expanding the parks" pretty much doesn't exist. Same amount of space doesn't mean expansion. The parks are very overcrowded anymore because of this and it isn't pleasant.

 

[Monorail_Red_77]

Oh, THIS again. There's a difference between acquisition and artistry. Walt and his crew took stories and developed them in the Disney style and plussed them to the point where the characters became unforgettable and indelibly linked with Disney. Walt didn't buy already played-out franchises because of their merchandising value, as did Iger. Walt took risks by developing new things and new versions of things. Iger avoids risk by purchasing old stuff that still has some guaranteed audience. There's such a vast difference between what Walt did and what Iger does that it's staggering that the difference has to be explained to people who call themselves Disney fans.

So true. Have you ever watched one of the non-Disney versions of Peter Pan? I watched a version from Australia. Let me just say this. WEIRD WEIRD WEIRD. It's actually kinda creepy. Maybe that's the Disney fan in me though.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

Why the hue and cry for additional parks instead of efficient use of land within the existing parks ? Disneyland Park is currently only 85 acres (up from its original 60), 57 less than the Magic Kingdom. I could fit the first two in the pasture behind our house and Magic Kingdom in the back pasture.

1. The SMALLEST Disney theme park in the world is currently Walt Disney Studios Paris - 62 acres;
2. Disney California Adventure - 67 acres
   
3. Hong Kong Disneyland - 68 acres
   
4. Disneyland Park (California) - 85 acres;
5. Tokyo DisneySea - 122 acres;
6. Tokyo Disneyland - 126 acres, and Disneyland Paris - 126 acres;
7. Magic Kingdom - 142 acres;
8. Disney’s Hollywood Studios - 154 acres;
9. Epcot - 300 acres;
10. The BIGGEST Disney theme park in the world is Disney’s Animal Kingdom Theme Park- 500 acres.

I read the amount of acres for Disneyland Paris is 140 acres, not 126 acres. I know the sources I link is old since they are from 2010 and 2012.

Sources: http://disneyology.blogspot.com/2010/03/disney-park-and-resort-sizes.html
http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201207/3138/

 

[danlb_2000]

What if Disney decides to turn DHS into what Uni did and be two parks in one? I could see that happening.

What do you mean by two parks in one?

 

[danlb_2000]

I've been saying they need more space for a long time now. They are in the habit of replacing or swapping out old for new but actually "expanding the parks" pretty much doesn't exist. Same amount of space doesn't mean expansion. The parks are very overcrowded anymore because of this and it isn't pleasant.

But if you replace under-utilized attractions with ones that are more popular, then you are increasing capacity without expanding the foot print. I think a good example of this is Uni replacing Jaws with Diagon Alley. It was a shame to loose Jaws, but Diagon soaks up a lot more people then Jaws ever did.

 

[Fox&Hound]

I love the idea of new park dedicated to Star Wars, but one, if would take forever to build, and two, it does nothing to help the struggling parks (DHS, Epcot, and in some ways AK). I agree that if those parks were up to par, then maybe we would be talking about a 5th gate and people would be okay with waiting. But if Disney built a 5th gate around SW and let DHS rot, it would be pretty sad and people may riot. I agree they need more space for the IP though as the crowds will come if you build the land and do it right.

Honestly, I see Disney building in DHS and redoing Tomorrowland with SW. Honestly, Space Mountain is a classic but there is no reason why Stich, MILF, Autotopia, and dare I say, Carousel of Progress can't be replaced in favor of a new Tomorrowland themed around Star Wars. Yes, MK does not need the attendance bump but it makes sense do have a Tomorrowland that fits the theme (yes, I know it took place a long, long, time ago). That would spread out some of the love. I don't see Ewoks coming to AK, I think Avatar is enough of an alien presence in the park. Too much would change the vision.

Maybe the rumored phase III at DHS will be SW too. But at that rate, even though I love the idea of Toy Story land, I'd say bulldoze studios and start again. You could retheme RnRC without too much trouble, the loss of Great Movie ride would not be too terrible (just my opinion), and even Fantasmic could get a Star Wars redo. Move Toy Story Mania to Frontierland and change the ride to more of a western style shooting game with Woody. No clear what you would do with ToT. But, that will never happen....

I don't know. SW is loved by many out there but there are also those that don't care for it. Do you build one massive park for it or just give up a lot of land at DHS for it and hope to keep fans wanting more???

 

[wdwfan4ver]

And as of today, The Force awakens is still number two, behind Jurassic World. Golly, maybe Universal better have a plan, huh?
.

You have to change your tune since Star Wars is now number 1 worldwide. It was found out that the estimations of the box office Star Wars: The force Awakens was off by a lot. Bob Iger said this morning on Bloomberg T that the ticket sales for the weekend are now estimated to hit 528 million, not 517 million. From a Domestic standpoint, Star Wars: The Force Awakens made 247 million dollars during the weekend, not 238 million. The catch Iger's numbers aren't official either and is very possible that Iger's numbers might be too low also.

Proof: http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/...akens-global-box-office-record-jurassic-world
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/star-wars-box-office-star-850414

 

[brb1006]

Why the hue and cry for additional parks instead of efficient use of land within the existing parks ? Disneyland Park is currently only 85 acres (up from its original 60), 57 less than the Magic Kingdom. I could fit the first two in the pasture behind our house and Magic Kingdom in the back pasture.

1. The SMALLEST Disney theme park in the world is currently Walt Disney Studios Paris - 62 acres;
2. Disney California Adventure - 67 acres
   
3. Hong Kong Disneyland - 68 acres
   
4. Disneyland Park (California) - 85 acres;
5. Tokyo DisneySea - 122 acres;
6. Tokyo Disneyland - 126 acres, and Disneyland Paris - 126 acres;
7. Magic Kingdom - 142 acres;
8. Disney’s Hollywood Studios - 154 acres;
9. Epcot - 300 acres;
10. The BIGGEST Disney theme park in the world is Disney’s Animal Kingdom Theme Park- 500 acres.

How big is Shanghai Disney going to be? Also how many attractions does Walt Disney Studios Paris have?

 

[brb1006]

Oh, THIS again. There's a difference between acquisition and artistry. Walt and his crew took stories and developed them in the Disney style and plussed them to the point where the characters became unforgettable and indelibly linked with Disney. Walt didn't buy already played-out franchises because of their merchandising value, as did Iger. Walt took risks by developing new things and new versions of things. Iger avoids risk by purchasing old stuff that still has some guaranteed audience. There's such a vast difference between what Walt did and what Iger does that it's staggering that the difference has to be explained to people who call themselves Disney fans.

Is The Aristocats the only Disney film that isn't based on any source material?

 

[WDWVolFan]

What do you mean by two parks in one?

Two parks in the same area, inter-connected where you can choose to go to one or the other or just have a ticket that lets you into both of them.
Make the DHS side of Star Wars turn into Tattoine and board a ship to go from one to the other just to kick Universal on the cojones. LOL

 

[raven]

But if you replace under-utilized attractions with ones that are more popular, then you are increasing capacity without expanding the foot print. I think a good example of this is Uni replacing Jaws with Diagon Alley. It was a shame to loose Jaws, but Diagon soaks up a lot more people then Jaws ever did.

Uni doesn't have the crowd problem, Disney does.

There needs to be more walking spaces and wide open areas. What's there now is crammed full or people and strollers.

 

[Incomudro]

I love the idea of new park dedicated to Star Wars, but one, if would take forever to build, and two, it does nothing to help the struggling parks (DHS, Epcot, and in some ways AK). I agree that if those parks were up to par, then maybe we would be talking about a 5th gate and people would be okay with waiting. But if Disney built a 5th gate around SW and let DHS rot, it would be pretty sad and people may riot. I agree they need more space for the IP though as the crowds will come if you build the land and do it right.

Honestly, I see Disney building in DHS and redoing Tomorrowland with SW. Honestly, Space Mountain is a classic but there is no reason why Stich, MILF, Autotopia, and dare I say, Carousel of Progress can't be replaced in favor of a new Tomorrowland themed around Star Wars. Yes, MK does not need the attendance bump but it makes sense do have a Tomorrowland that fits the theme (yes, I know it took place a long, long, time ago). That would spread out some of the love. I don't see Ewoks coming to AK, I think Avatar is enough of an alien presence in the park. Too much would change the vision.

Maybe the rumored phase III at DHS will be SW too. But at that rate, even though I love the idea of Toy Story land, I'd say bulldoze studios and start again. You could retheme RnRC without too much trouble, the loss of Great Movie ride would not be too terrible (just my opinion), and even Fantasmic could get a Star Wars redo. Move Toy Story Mania to Frontierland and change the ride to more of a western style shooting game with Woody. No clear what you would do with ToT. But, that will never happen....

I don't know. SW is loved by many out there but there are also those that don't care for it. Do you build one massive park for it or just give up a lot of land at DHS for it and hope to keep fans wanting more???

You lost me at re-theme RnRC.

 

[Magenta Panther]

The same people who go "DISNEY NEEDS TO BUILD EVERYTHING IN THE PARKS CAUSE MOVIES MADE BANK" are the same people that'll complain that they miss whatever rides the SW ones replaced. The Marvel movies make a lot of money but the west coast hardly sees a presence. Stop trying to get new rides built every time something is a box office success. Just STOP.

Like this a million times. The SW fanboi hysteria has gotten pretty tiresome. SW is getting an area in DHS and that should frickin be enough already.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I love the idea of new park dedicated to Star Wars, but one, if would take forever to build, and two, it does nothing to help the struggling parks (DHS, Epcot, and in some ways AK). I agree that if those parks were up to par, then maybe we would be talking about a 5th gate and people would be okay with waiting. But if Disney built a 5th gate around SW and let DHS rot, it would be pretty sad and people may riot. I agree they need more space for the IP though as the crowds will come if you build the land and do it right.

Honestly, I see Disney building in DHS and redoing Tomorrowland with SW. Honestly, Space Mountain is a classic but there is no reason why Stich, MILF, Autotopia, and dare I say, Carousel of Progress can't be replaced in favor of a new Tomorrowland themed around Star Wars. Yes, MK does not need the attendance bump but it makes sense do have a Tomorrowland that fits the theme (yes, I know it took place a long, long, time ago). That would spread out some of the love. I don't see Ewoks coming to AK, I think Avatar is enough of an alien presence in the park. Too much would change the vision.

Maybe the rumored phase III at DHS will be SW too. But at that rate, even though I love the idea of Toy Story land, I'd say bulldoze studios and start again. You could retheme RnRC without too much trouble, the loss of Great Movie ride would not be too terrible (just my opinion), and even Fantasmic could get a Star Wars redo. Move Toy Story Mania to Frontierland and change the ride to more of a western style shooting game with Woody. No clear what you would do with ToT. But, that will never happen....

I don't know. SW is loved by many out there but there are also those that don't care for it. Do you build one massive park for it or just give up a lot of land at DHS for it and hope to keep fans wanting more???

And how, exactly, does Star Wars fit into Tomorrowland? It's fiction. It has nothing to do with technical innovation and a brighter future. THAT is what Tomorrowland is supposed to be about. Let Star Wars get shoehorned into DHS, which is a mish-mash of non-Disney IPs anyway. Space Mountain needs a refurb badly (especially a smoother track), but it doesn't need to be infested with Stormtroopers and Ewoks. Feh.

 

[Fox&Hound]

And how, exactly, does Star Wars fit into Tomorrowland? It's fiction. It has nothing to do with technical innovation and a brighter future. THAT is what Tomorrowland is supposed to be about. Let Star Wars get shoehorned into DHS, which is a mish-mash of non-Disney IPs anyway. Space Mountain needs a refurb badly (especially a smoother track), but it doesn't need to be infested with Stormtroopers and Ewoks. Feh.

Yeah and nothing says "technical innovation and brighter future" than Stitch, Monster's Inc Laugh Floor, and the classic but outdated Carousel of Progress. Maybe that's what Tomorrowland is supposed to be but right now it represents innovation by diesel cars circling a track and spewing fumes. I'm not saying Disney could not branch out and do something original, that would be great, I'm just saying that I could see Disney, in their desire to capitalize on this franchise, looking for places it could fit. And as it stands, Tomorrowland has become sci-fi real estate and has very much moved away from its original vision. I think there is a better chance of "brighter future and innovation" coming to Epcot's future world than Tomorrowland.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

And how, exactly, does Star Wars fit into Tomorrowland? It's fiction. It has nothing to do with technical innovation and a brighter future. THAT is what Tomorrowland is supposed to be about. Let Star Wars get shoehorned into DHS, which is a mish-mash of non-Disney IPs anyway. Space Mountain needs a refurb badly (especially a smoother track), but it doesn't need to be infested with Stormtroopers and Ewoks. Feh.

It probably fits in as well as the other "non-fiction" attractions like Stitch and Monster's. Or their predecessors, you know like the futuristic "If You Had Wings" or "Terminator" because that was based on true events.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Oh, THIS again. There's a difference between acquisition and artistry. Walt and his crew took stories and developed them in the Disney style and plussed them to the point where the characters became unforgettable and indelibly linked with Disney. Walt didn't buy already played-out franchises because of their merchandising value, as did Iger. Walt took risks by developing new things and new versions of things. Iger avoids risk by purchasing old stuff that still has some guaranteed audience. There's such a vast difference between what Walt did and what Iger does that it's staggering that the difference has to be explained to people who call themselves Disney fans.

Dude. Where do you get your "facts" from. Snow White was Brothers Grimm...not Walt Disney. Winnie the Pooh was AA Milne...not Walt Disney. 20,000 Leagues was Jules Verne...not Walt Disney. Mr Toad was Kenneth Graham...not Walt Disney. Should I stop now?

It can be argued that the "spin" Walt Disney put on all of these characters degraded the original version. Just because Walt made them popular, doesn't mean he made them better.

So now Iger goes out and buys Marvel. Guess what?..more popular now than ever. Then he goes out and buys Star Wars..guess what?.. breaks every box office record.

And you want to criticize Iger for doing exactly what Walt did. Buying something and increasing its popularity? Pot meet Kettle.

 

[dizda]

It probably fits in as well as the other "non-fiction" attractions like Stitch and Monster's. Or their predecessors, you know like the futuristic "If You Had Wings" or "Terminator" because that was based on true events.

I was surprised that for Disneyland, TWDC did not just redevelop Tomorrowland to a Star Wars theme. With WDW, I can see the need to put Star Wars Land in a different park than MK to help spread out the crowds more, and DHS is most in need of new attractions and lands. Still, I am not sure that it is the best fit, at least at the scale that is being built. I think that SWL will have a negative impact on the rest of DHS because of capacity issues.

 

[flynnibus]

Star Wars, while massively popular and no doubt a cash cow for TWDC, is a love it or hate it franchise. I, and most everyone I know, has about as much care for SW as we do the bug that splatters on your windshield. Its a money making IP no doubt, but if they start shoving SW down my throat at each park at WDW they're going to anger me and a lot of other Disney fans.

This isn't an original Disney IP, and given the recent expansion at DaK, the future expansion at HS, and the complete neglect to add any real Disney IPs to the parks outside merchandising, I'm worried about the direction Disney is heading with its properties.

Given the amount of Star Wars clothing I saw in the parks last week... And most significantly the diversity of age, gender, and demo... I don't subscribe to your polarizing theory