Originally Posted By RoadTrip Wow. I never even realized that the full name was something other than Expedition Everest. It makes sense because the mountain the train travels on/in is not supposed to be Everest, but the Forbidden Mountain (at least that is what I've read about the backstory). Kind of makes you wonder why they even used Everest in the name... I suppose because it is well known. In a way, it maybe should have been Expedition to Forbidden Mountain.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "That said, given that the full name is Expedition Everest: Legend of the Forbidden Mountain (the Disney website text uses a dash, but the logo uses a colon), I think they could have edited that somewhat." I never knew the name was that long. I kind of like it. We're really geeking out here, aren't we?
Originally Posted By monorailblue LaughingPlace.com: Voyage of the Geeking Out of the Disney Names, Not Presented by Defunct Tales From the LaughingPlace Magazine
Originally Posted By magic0214 Now the Magic Kingdom has Tomorrowland Transit Authority Peoplemover Presented by Alamo...
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "We're really geeking out here, aren't we?" At least we're of sound enough mind to realize it.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Kind of makes you wonder why they even used Everest in the name... I suppose because it is well known. In a way, it maybe should have been Expedition to Forbidden Mountain.<< Or why they didn't just put their made-up backstory of the yeti on Everest? They don't seem to have any problem putting a fictional backstory on the very real Matterhorn, so why not put a backstory based in actual regional lore on the 'real' Everest? It just seems like they're doing logic gymnastics to try to explain something relatively simple
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Or why they didn't just put their made-up backstory of the yeti on Everest? They don't seem to have any problem putting a fictional backstory on the very real Matterhorn, so why not put a backstory based in actual regional lore on the 'real' Everest? It just seems like they're doing logic gymnastics to try to explain something relatively simple>> I'm guessing that they felt running a mine train to the top of Mt. Everest would be totally unbelievable. If you look at a photo of EE, the gray peak to the right of the main peak is supposed to represent Mt Everest in the distance.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Now the Magic Kingdom has Tomorrowland Transit Authority Peoplemover Presented by Alamo..." What the...?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros ^^DCA has Luigi's construction walls presented by Alamo. They sponsored the Flying Tires (sponsorship moved over from Mulholland Madness when Carsland opened) and will presumably sponsor whatever the replacement attraction is, so in the interim they just get to sponsor the plywood walls : /
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt But what does a rental car company have to do with automated public transit? Usually they make an attempt to align the sponsors more strategically.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>But what does a rental car company have to do with automated public transit? Usually they make an attempt to align the sponsors more strategically.<< Idono. The logical choice probably would have been the Tomorrowland Speedway, but given how utilitarian and outdated it looks (not to mention the noise and fumes), I can see why they wouldn't especially want to be associated with it. If they want to be associated with forward-thinking transportation, TTA makes some sense But there have always been sponsorships that didn't quite make sense. At DL, Gadget's Go-Coaster was recently sponsored by Sparkle paper towels (I believe that sponsorship has since ended), the fireworks shows are presented by Honda, Space Mountain was famously sponsored by FedEx, and Indiana Jones opened with a sponsorship from AT&T. Sometimes a company just picks something that they want to be associated with With Alamo picking C and D ticket attractions, I also imagine that their sponsorship fees are less than what it would cost for them to sponsor a headliner. Given the questionable value of a ride sponsorship, this seems like a wise move on their part
Originally Posted By trekkeruss "Indiana Jones opened with a sponsorship from AT&T" The temple writing decoder cards were a clever way to use communication to tie in AT&T.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Usually they make an attempt to align the sponsors more strategically>> Corporate sponsorship is a twitching corpse in the theme park space. The days of deals so rich (GM and Compaq for two) that they paid for the entire development budget for attractions are long gone (Disney was on the hook for overruns on both Test Track and Mission:SPACE - but the sponsorship deals yielded more than $100m over their life). The new economy powerhouses just don't want physical representation in theme parks or even to be basking in the glow of Disney's brand. None of the major online or social media players are there. It is still the old guard of consumer goods companies. Disney's corporate alliances group just haven't evolved for the new world. They still want to cut the same type of deals that we had in the '90s and pre-bubble. It is crazy that they haven't found a new model. It would have paid for additional capex into the parks.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>...or even to be basking in the glow of Disney's brand.<< I can't help but think that this is partially related to the current state of the Disney brand. Disney these days isn't really thought of as being head and shoulders above the rest of the industry, with the friendliest employees who are always smiling, the cleanest parks where they sweep up your mess before it ever hits the pavement, and the best attractions on a scale that nobody else could ever attempt. It seems like the general consensus at the moment is that Disney's parks are where you go for Disney character tie-ins; it's fun, but not a whole lot better than the competition, and the pricing has gotten crazy. In that light, I'm not sure I'd want my company associated with it either >>Disney's corporate alliances group just haven't evolved for the new world.<< I couldn't help but notice the number of sponsored attractions and shows at TDR last summer. It seemed very reminiscent of the 'old days' at the US Disney parks. Obviously they're operating in an entirely different way, but it was interesting to see that tradition continuing so strongly over there
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Disney these days isn't really thought of as being head and shoulders above the rest of the industry, with the friendliest employees who are always smiling, the cleanest parks where they sweep up your mess before it ever hits the pavement, and the best attractions on a scale that nobody else could ever attempt. It seems like the general consensus at the moment is that Disney's parks are where you go for Disney character tie-ins; it's fun, but not a whole lot better than the competition, and the pricing has gotten crazy." I don't buy this. Pricing has gotten crazy, but people keep paying. I have a hard time believing that there's that much demand just because of character tie-ins. Despite being pushed a bit by Universal, I have to think that public perception of Disney hasn't changed a whole lot.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I don't buy this. Pricing has gotten crazy, but people keep paying. I have a hard time believing that there's that much demand just because of character tie-ins. Despite being pushed a bit by Universal, I have to think that public perception of Disney hasn't changed a whole lot.>> I agree. I think the decline in sponsorship comes from increased pressure from shareholders to keep short-term returns as high as possible. They don't have much use for public image type investments whose return is impossible to quantify. Of course the companies are also responsible for paying increased attention to those demands instead of going ahead and doing what they feel is best in the long run. But Disney is doing that also, so what can you say about potential sponsors doing it?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I have a hard time believing that there's that much demand just because of character tie-ins.<< I don't think it's strictly because of character tie-ins, but more just the way they've marketed themselves. There are some many people who do it because they want to go to "Disney" and it's practically become a rite of passage. It seems to me that people aren't going because of an intrinsic interest in going, but rather out of some sort of obligation Obviously nobody is forced take a Disney vacation, but people just don't seem to have the same excitement as they did a decade or two ago. Maybe I just have a warped perspective (I certainly have an odd viewpoint of DLR, having been a local for several years but currently living on the other side of the country), but the excitement of Disney seems to have been replaced by overwhelmingness
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yet most U.S. Disney Parks (I believe all except DHS) have attendance at all time highs. The excitement of old-timers like us (me much more old-timer than you) may have decreased, but we are no longer the prime demographic anyway. Look at the excitement and product sales generated by Frozen. What company wouldn't want to be associated with a success like that? Hate to say it, but as happened to our parents, we are losing our relevance.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I don't think it's strictly because of character tie-ins, but more just the way they've marketed themselves. There are some many people who do it because they want to go to 'Disney' and it's practically become a rite of passage. It seems to me that people aren't going because of an intrinsic interest in going, but rather out of some sort of obligation" Now this is starting to sound ridiculous. People are paying crazy high prices out of a sense of obligation? For their vacation? Do you have any evidence that public perception has changed? Shoot, despite being pushed a bit by Universal, I don't see that Disney isn't still head and shoulders above the competition.
Originally Posted By dagobert Update on Kock Lindsey's Hangar Bar. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/laughing_place/status/626889444109516802">http://twitter.com/laughing_pl...09516802</a> Town Centre update. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://savepleasureisland.blogspot.com/2015/07/dtd-update-town-center-goes-huge.html">http://savepleasureisland.blog...uge.html</a>
