Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Mystic Point one seems a little strange to me, I can't figure out what its suppose to be. What it says on the press release is very vague, just a rain forest with supernatural powers. Uh, okay. And yeah, it does seem pretty disconnected for an MK park, but they are being creative at least! And the HM sounds really cool! >>> Mystic Point is the part of the project that holds my interest the best. Actually, it's one of the best concepts for a land I've seen in any park as far as my personal interests go. To start with, I have to say that the Haunted Mansion has always been my favorite attraction. Mystic Point makes it look like the Haunted Mansion is not just an attraction but has an entire land dedicated to that theme. Looking closely at the concept drawings, observe the gates at either entrance to the land. It looks very much like they'll be setting the overall tone of the Mansion in the entire land. I'm interested to see what they'll do with background music/sound in the land, both day and night. And the concept of Mystic Manor sounds very intriguing. As I read it, it will be kind of like the Harrison Hightower storyline crossed with the Hunny Hunt ride system. That has a lot of potential to turn out very, very well. <<< They are very kewl unique attractions that aren't connected to toons. >>> Good point. But I think the real point is much broader in scope: not only are they "not toons," they're totally original IP developed just for this park. It's not stuff taken from a blockbuster movie, The Disney Channel, or anything else. Hopefully, they'll turn out to be totally immersive lands that create a sense of place when you're there, and are unique (especially Mystic Point!). That's what always made Disneyland so special to me when I was a kid: there was lots of Disney stuff in the world in general (much more so today), but there was only one place you could experience POTC and HM: Disneyland. If they're able to create immersive environments and experiences in the park that resonate with people, this will help draw repeat visitors. I'm really glad to see Disney and WDI going back to their roots in land and attraction design. This expansion plan shows that there's room for both Pixar/toon/movie-based lands/attractions, and totally new ones. Hopefully this mentality will continue on to Shanghai and into the other parks as they expand.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I'm really glad to see Disney and WDI going back to their roots in land and attraction design. >> I don't see this as really going back to any roots at all. Narrowly focused lands that are anchored by a single attraction aren't how Disney parks have historically developed themed areas. The roots of Disney theme parks are broad-based lands that encompass a variety of different, but connected themes, and a variety of attractions therein. Grizzly Trail is essentially Expedition: Everest expanded to be a "land," the Haunted Mansion grounds as a "land," and a hodge podge of flat kiddie rides as a "land." You wouldn't find anything like this on the drawing boards of Imagineering 20 or 30 years ago. This is far from the "roots."
Originally Posted By Hista98 I am excited that HK Disneyland will be getting it''s oown uniique attractions but I am not thrilled at all for Toy Story Land. it's not the type of land that disneyland should have. They shouldn''t do lands based on a movie, the land are supposed to be based on parts of the world or times in certain cultures, plus the fact that they are just flat rides seems cheap and uncreative. but HKDL does need some new things fast so this should help but I would expect this type of land to go into a studios based park not disneyland. Walt would not approve
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ Unique until Shanghai Disneyland gets built. Expect the two major e-tickets of this expansion to end up in Shanghai as well... which means I am betting that Shanghai also gets a version of the trackless haunted house. - Anatole
Originally Posted By HongKongDisneyLand according to HK Newspapers, HK Gov Official explained why the "Glacier Bay" initially proposed by Disney was rejected. This is because a similarly themed new attraction would be built by HK Ocean Park, and they would like to see different new attractions offered by HKDL and HKOP.
Originally Posted By Hista98 another big problem with the additonal lands is there location, they are building them right behind jungle crusie, this I think wil lreally kill the sightlines of the park as you supposed to be in the jungle but look through it and can see a frointer and toy themed area, I don't see mystic point having the same problem as it's jungle looking already but i think the other two could be a problem, I'm amazed they didn't build them behind fantasyland instead. I would rather they don't build toy story land and use the money from it elsewhere
Originally Posted By Hista98 and maybe they could use it on mystic point and make it an extension of adventureland and include, raging spirits and Indy. the park needs e tickets
Originally Posted By Hista98 I think the lands they have planed needs mor rides cause so far it sounds like each one will only have one per land which seems like a bad idea
Originally Posted By Hista98 sorry to keep coming back to this but, i just read an article that talked about how unsure they were about how smoth the transitions would be between each land. they are very disticnt and to have them be next to each other i think would be a huge site mistake. what they should do is not build toy story land and spend that money on adding more rides to both of the new lands. and put mystic point behind jungle cruise so it looks good, and put grizzley trails behind fantasyland theres room for both. I would also say abandond the pirate themed land too. It's a mistake to do a land based on a movie as it limits the expansion and future ideas for the land as they all have to be based on the film. thats why i think cars land is going to be a mistake, they should change the name to high dessert or route 66 that way they can add other rides as well not just based on cars that way they can add new rides without ruining the sights and theme
Originally Posted By barboy ///Wouldn't it have been fun if they could make a Grizzly Peak that incorporated both the mine train and a whitewater ride all in one integrated mountain footprint?/// No, that would be extremely ugly, distracting and cluttered. Two higher attractions should never, yes NEVER be fused(taking the gondola out of matterhorn was a sound move). And ideally while on one Disney D or E ride you should never be able to see another ride be it of any caliber even if it's in the same land.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Mystic Point is the part of the project that holds my interest the best. Actually, it's one of the best concepts for a land I've seen in any park as far as my personal interests go./// same here And if there will be an Adventurers Club type restaurant to accompany the house tour then Mystic Point has the potential to be mind-bogglingly awesome--- what a one two punch combo!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Two higher attractions should never, yes NEVER be fused >>> Why not?
Originally Posted By Bob Paris Why not? Don't you remember all those ugly scenarios in Tomorrowland where the monorail glided around the People Mover track while Autopia cars whizzed underneath, the subs sailed below and the Skyway flew past? Ugly, cluttered and disgusting, if you ask me!!! ; ) Yeah, I agree with you Superdry. I have NO idea what Barboy is talking about. The abovementioned example of vehicular movement created a sense of kinetic energy and truly showed a world "on the move". Personally, I am sorry we never got Tony Baxter's vision of the train going through the Indy show room while the jungle cruise boats sailed through dark caverns below while our jeeps raced above. I think that merging attractions in this fashion just makes for a much more kinetic and a "greater than the sums of their parts" experience. This of course has to all tie in and the various vehicles must be thematically consistent. Only a moron wants to see Roger Rabbit cars spinning past a BTMRR train while HM doom buggies meander past.
Originally Posted By barboy Because I view higher attractions as 3-D movies/tangible stories. Just as I don't want to watch 3 of my favorite sci-fi movies like Blade Runner, Star Wars and Matrix simultaneously on 3 giant screens I don't want to see HM's doombuggies while I'm riding Pirates even if they both thematically fit in New Orleans Square. Quality rides tell stories and those stories should be delivered without distractions. And notice I'm saying that about upper attractions. Clearly cool stuff like Dumbo, teacups, canoes or horse trollies wouldn't apply as those do just fine with "distractions" everywhere....hordes of guests walking around, the smells of popcorn and vendors. Now those mixed kinetics work great.
Originally Posted By barboy ///we never got Tony Baxter's vision of the train going through the Indy show room while the jungle cruise boats sailed through dark caverns below while our jeeps raced above./// Thank God!
Originally Posted By barboy ///scenarios in Tomorrowland where the monorail glided around the People Mover track while Autopia cars whizzed underneath, the subs sailed below and the Skyway flew past/// Lets talk about why in **that** context fusing attractions works. Those rides do not tell much of a story(like the canoes, riverboats, Dumbo ect.) but notice that the one attraction that does give us a story in the open Tomorrowland, Nemo Subs, while on the ride one is completely insulated from outside distractions or other rides--- the way it should be.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris You must cry and rock back and forward in Splash when the train comes through the show building! ; )
Originally Posted By barboy LOL!!! Excellent Bob close, just a little shaking of the head in slight disapproval-- that's all.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Is it my imagination .. or does the theme for Mystic Point's Haunted Mansion a bit of old Russia?
