Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Having read an article by Mr. Al Lutz over at Mice Age, my sisters and I have decided we must be prepared to deal with 3 more witches if the rumor of a new Oz based land comes to Disneyland. ORWEN: This new land would be based on the upcoming movie, Oz the Great & Powerful. I guess if the movie is a big success, the Ranch area behind Big Thunder Mountain would be transformed into some sort of land having to do with Oz. ORDDU: We like the idea, ourselves, although we're a little nervous over the idea of sharing our favorite theme park with 3 more witches. ORWEN: There were actually 5 witches in Oz, including Mombi from Return to Oz, along with the Good Witch of the South, who most people don't know all that well. She wasn't used in the M-G-M Movie but anybody who's read the original Oz stories knows about her, too. ORGOCH: An' if'n it turns out we don't git along with all these new witches from Oz we can always throw a bucket a water on 'em an' wash 'em away!!
Originally Posted By disneylandfan8 I grew up reading the other Oz stories, but sadly, have not had the pleasure of reading them all.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: The Wizard of Oz is still the best of the whole series, in my opinion. L. Frank Baum didn't really intend or even want to write a series of books about Oz. But the public demanded that he do so anyway. They looked forward to a new Oz book every year. ORDDU: And since television hadn't been invented back then, his Oz series was the Harry Potter of its day--with readers clamoring for the next book. But as his books continued to add new characters there were so many of them it was difficult to keep track of them all. And in some cases the characters were a lot alike. There were two other little girls introduced who were very much like Dorothy--Betsy Bobbin and Trot--who often got lost in the plots. ORWEN: Still, there were a lot of interesting adventures they all had. ORDDU: Some of the most outlandish lands existed within the land of Oz--like Bunburry and Bunnyburry. the Kut'nclips, Chinaland--where all the characters were made of porceline and could easily break themselves. It often became rather convoluted and perhaps that's why the original Wizard of Oz remains the best loved and known.
Originally Posted By mawnck Ulcch ... does EVERY stupid movie in the pipeline need a land to go with it? Can Monsters University Land be that far behind? What about Lone Ranger Land? Fits right in with Frontierland. Sort of. This is a DREADFUL idea, unless you're a Disney lawyer. The Oz books themselves will be (are?) public domain, but there are several copyrighted movies (including this one fairly popular one from 1939) that contain Oz elements that the Disney folks will need to steer clear of. For instance, ruby slippers? Not in the books. They're (C) 1939 by MGM. "I'll get you my pretty and your little dog too"? Likewise. It was all just a dream, right? Nope, not in the books it wasn't. Can't wait to see the training guide for the walkarounds. It'll be the size of a phone book, containing the scripts for every non-Disney Oz movie ever made, with instructions to memorize all of them so you never ever say those things to a guest. Come to think of it, some lucky cairn terrier trainer would make a killing too, supplying Totos.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think CarsLand will be all right, as it functions essentially as "Route 66 Land," despite the movie characters being about. But I dislike whole lands based on movies. Lands should be broader than that.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Yes the idea of using Ruby slippers could be an issue, although Disney was able to strike up a deal with Turner back in the 80's when Return to Oz was in production and Disney's version of little Dorothy also wore ruby slippers. (Disney wanted to make sure the audience wasn't confused by having Dorothy wear the silver shoes from the original story.) But perhaps it wouldn't really be so difficult to step around that detail after all. Who knows? ORWEN: But I don't think it's a bad idea to have movie based attractions at all--as long as they're done well. And Oz seems to be as good an idea as any others. Maybe even better than most!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>And Oz seems to be as good an idea as any others.<< Let's see the movie first. Get some box office returns. Then we can decide if we really want to plop the Emerald City into Frontierland.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Let's see the movie first. Get some box office returns. Then we can decide if we really want to plop the Emerald City into Frontierland.>> Take it up with Lasseter. He's the one who's been pushing for 'simultaneous release' of the film with its theme park presence. (And I wholeheartedly agree with waiting to see how popular the film actually is.)
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Actually, even if a Disney movie is a total flop, that doesn't mean an attraction based on it can't be a success. Just look at the animated version of Disney's Alice in Wonderland. It draws in plenty of guests even though the film didn't do all that well. So it is possible to have a successful attraction without the need of a movie to prop it up.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But I don't think it's a bad idea to have movie based attractions at all> Me either. Movie-based lands, however, is a whole other thing. FaL has attractions from a bunch of different movies, for instance. A good land, IMO, will be broad-based and able to pull from many sources.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA That pathway that connects Frontierland to Fantasyland -- I love that section of Disneyland. Even though it's been there for years, it still seems like a new part to me. If the movie is good, it could be a neat temporary thing over there -- like that "Festival of Fools" show.
Originally Posted By mawnck Temporary I can deal with. I just hate the idea that they're out pricing carnival spinner rides for a "Professor Marvel's Hot Air Balloon Twister." (PS - Disney, before you get any ideas, Professor Marvel is (C) 1939 by MGM.)
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: I was under the impression that the Oz Land attraction might be more permanent instead of temporary. ORWEN: And even though it might be called Oz Land, there isn't enough room back there for more than one or two attractions so it's not like it's taking up all that much space. Even if it did it wouldn't bother me if they did have a land based on one movie. But we'll have to wait and see if anything even happens with this idea, first.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "This is a DREADFUL idea...." It is dreadful ides, but so was Cars Land.
Originally Posted By Manfried Another idea based on a movie. Meanwhile, Tomorrowland still sits there...
Originally Posted By 9oldmen As for the classic 1939 version, remember that it's already represented in that final scene in "The Great Movie Ride". But I agree, that they should wait and see how the movie does. For instance, how many people actually remember "Return To Oz"? How about the "SciFy"(SciFi Channell) series "Tin Man" from a few years ago? Also, say they build the land to coincide with the movie's release, and the movie doesn't do so well. What happens in a few years when Universal then finally releases a movie based on the "Wicked" musical? How will the land be percieved then? For most people, the MGM musical is the definitive adaptation, with "Wicked" being the definitive 21st century version, if that makes sense.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think that lands based on a single intellectual property are a very bad investment. While they have the potential to be very popular when they open, they will lack a certain timelessness that you can get with a more broad theme. Even with the overwhelming popularity of Harry Potter and the area at IOA, I wonder what it will be like in a couple decades; I shudder to think about how Carsland will feel by then. If they feel like they have to do this, I do think that the ranch area could make for an interesting location, since it would be able to tie into Kansas/Frontierland and Oz/Fantasyland. It is a limited footprint, but it's also directly in front of the backstage ranch area, which is quite large for their actual needs; if they get rid of the petting zoo, they can really downsize that area a lot, since it will only be needed for the horses on Main Street and Rivers of America. I read a couple of the books when I was younger, but I don't really remember most of the differences from the film (though watching the film, there are always things that just don't feel right to me). I probably have a better overall feel for the books than the 'average' guest, but I don't even know if I would recognize many of the details. They might be able to work something out to use other interpretations of the book (like what was done for The Great Movie Ride), but I'm not sure if it would be worth it. Return to Oz had a unit in the Electrical Parade for a year or two around the time of the film's release, and both have been quietely fogotten from the general populus. That's probably what will happen to this film, so a similar treatment should probably be taken for its presence in the parks. They'd feel pretty silly right now if they had decided to build a billion-plus-dollar land based on John Carter. Why take that chance on a different film that could have the same results?
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: I guess it all depends on whether or not you're a fan of the Oz movies and books. If you ARE a fan of Oz movies and books, you'll most likely be in favor of this whole idea. If not, then, you're going to most likely hate the idea. But I hope they go through with it.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>For instance, ruby slippers? Not in the books. They're (C) 1939 by MGM.<< For real? Next you'll be telling us that they were originally SILVER slippers, and that they BECAME ruby slippers beacaus Louis B. Mayer felt that "everything over the rainbow should be in Technicolor". (I couldn't find the exact quote from a certain extinct DCA attraction, but you get the humor hopefully).
Originally Posted By TheParsec Before they add another land to Disneyland, they need to fix up Tomorrow Land and maybe add another ride or show to Critter Country...
