Originally Posted By Dabob2 <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. > Though I'm arguing for broad-based lands, I think both of those will age fairly well, because both have a look that corresponds to something other than their movie properties per se. The attractions might not, but the overall vibe when you're just walking around the land does. In Carsland's case, it's mid-century Route 66. Though obviously I haven't set foot in the land yet, that seems to be what the vibe will be, and seemingly pretty convincingly done. Now if they had all the cm's dressed up in Cars costumes or something, you wouldn't get that; but when you eat at Flo's, say, you're going to be surrounded by neon and mid-century paraphernalia, and cm's dressed like mid-century carhops... that works quite outside the Cars movies. Likewise the overall look of the land, from the "main drag" to the desert/mountain landscape of the main attraction. Similarly, HP at IOA has a look that works outside the HP references. Hogsmeade is made to look like the town of Oxford or another quaint English town, and even if you don't know HP at all, you can appreciate that vibe. Then the main attraction looks like an English castle - again, it's nice if you know HP and get the specifics, but it's not ruined if you don't. Oz wouldn't work as well, IMO, because unlike the overall look of CarsLand or WWOHP, it's not based on anything from the real world. It's its own world, so it would be subject to aging badly if the movie does.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Actually fairytales tend to be timeless and age much better than anything else. The M-G-M Wizard of Oz movie remains timeless, as an example.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I'm a fan of the Oz stories, but I'd prefer a Fantasyland expasion ala WDW's that included an Oz segment.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>The M-G-M Wizard of Oz movie remains timeless, as an example.<< It may be considered timeless by the general public, but if you actually watch it, the film is definitely a product of its time. While there aren't any pop culture references (at least that a modern audience can pick up on), the whole style of the film, from the script, to editing, to the general look, is very out of date. It's considered timeless because it's so familiar to everybody; the approach that they took is actually quite dated. Just look at the buildings of Munchkinland and the Emerald City. They are fantastic Art Deco/Streamline buildings, and they take you to another world, but they also feel like they're straight out of Edward Hopper's Nighthawks painting. I'm afraid that whatever look they take in the new version (in my mind, it looks awfully similar to the generic Tim Burton aesthetic he uses in every film), it will manage to feel dated, simply because of contemporary art and architecture influences. It might also be good to note that DL would not be the first major theme park with an area dedicated to Oz. About 5-8 years ago, Universal Studios Japan (in Osaka) opened a small-ish area that had been rethemed to Oz, featuring a restaurant, shop, carousel (and possibly another spinner?) and a 45 minute condensed version of Wicked. Of course, they made it with the copyrighted stuff in mind, so a lot of the visuals don't seem quite right, like Nara Dreamland. I wonder if DL could make something that managed to feel familiar, while not making it look like the 1939 version <a href="http://www.wiosgp.com/mypha2-lb/1fm-usj1c.html" target="_blank">http://www.wiosgp.com/mypha2-l...j1c.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <ORDDU: Actually fairytales tend to be timeless and age much better than anything else.> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But for me, it's like the difference between a Snow White attraction and a Snow White Land. Timeless story. Great movie. Best use of a large amount of (very limited, in DL) real estate to devote to one property? Not IMO.
Originally Posted By DBitz2 >>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.<< Actually, that Return to Oz MSEP unit was only around for a few short weeks before it caught fire backstage and burned. That's why photos and video of it are extremely rare. From what I've read, an attraction based around the Oz, the Great and Powerful movie is rumored to be under consideration and possible development for the area behind Big Thunder. (As reported in MiceAge's 3.23.12 "In the Parks" column. I don't know that Al Lutz has said anything about it yet.) But, nothing will be decided until they see how the movie does. And, even if it was greenlighted, fixing Tomorrowland is still the priority, so it probably wouldn't happen until after that. They probably look at every upcoming movie release to see if there is any attraction potential. As we know, only a very few of those concepts ever go anywhere.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Back in the early 90s I remember seeing renderings for a stage show that was slated ro go in the Big Thunder Ranch area based on Young Indiana Jones. Obviously, It didn't happen
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Well, let's be clear on the point I was making. When I said fairytales tend to be more timeless than anything else, I wasn't referring to a particular motion picture that's based on a fairy tale. I meant fairytales, themselves, are timeless regardless of whether they've been made into a movie or not. Therefore just the idea of doing something with the stories from Oz is a very good idea, regardless, just because it's an American fairytale that has timeless qualities. Also, whatever sets or buildings they might use wouldn't have to look dated just because they might have looked that way in the original Wizard of Oz by M-G-M. But, actually, I'm not so sure the sets for the M-G-M looked dated, anyway. It's all a matter of opinion.
Originally Posted By berol I took The Wizard of Oz movie out to dinner once, so it's definitely dated.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I would guess that a few "John Carter' attraction ideas were floating around WDI. They were probably cheaper than $200 million too!
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But for me, it's like the difference between a Snow White attraction and a Snow White Land. Timeless story. Great movie. Best use of a large amount of (very limited, in DL) real estate to devote to one property? Not IMO." I don't necessarily disagree with you about basing a whole land on e one property, but an Oz land vs. a Snow White land is almost apples & oranges. With Oz you have lots of books to draw from with a large variety of characters and a wide variety of settings. The potential is much greater with Oz than with Snow White. Now a lot would depend on the execution. The movie has to be good and so would its sequels. But there are possibilities there for something terrific. But we're a long way from knowing haw reachable the potential is.
Originally Posted By DBitz2 >>Back in the early 90s I remember seeing renderings for a stage show that was slated ro go in the Big Thunder Ranch area based on Young Indiana Jones. Obviously, It didn't happen.<< Several years ago some Imagineer speakers at NFFC (now Disneyana Fan Club) presentations told us about that proposal. One thing we did get out of it was the hearse in front of the Haunted Mansion. It was purchased as a potential prop for the show, then, later installed at the Mansion.
Originally Posted By EmmaJayne To me, this just seems like a horrible idea and I very much hope nothings comes of it. As a kid, I watched both The Wizard of Oz and Return to Oz over and over, as an adult, I cannot stand Return to Oz.. It was never quite as magical as it should have been, was way to dark, featured bizarre characters and just feels cheap. It would have been a disaster if Disney had installed an attraction based on it- I know the film allegedly had a cult following but I don't know anyone who's really a fan.. I know the MGM movie looks dated when you really stop to analyze it, but generations of us have grown up loving it and it looses little appeal as you age and realize how old it really is. I just can't see this new Oz film being a huge hit. Building a whole land on an Oz that resbles the books but not the 1939 film just seems like a bad idea.. Few people have read the books and I believe they'd be disappointed.. Unless Disney funneled a huge amount of money into the project, which I just can't see happening.. The whole idea of them building another land while Tomorrowland sits there wasting away just baffles me.. Honestly when I read the first post in this thread, I assume it was a joke. I really hope this is just an idea that fades away, It just seems like an awful idea to me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "I don't necessarily disagree with you about basing a whole land on e one property, but an Oz land vs. a Snow White land is almost apples & oranges. With Oz you have lots of books to draw from with a large variety of characters and a wide variety of settings. The potential is much greater with Oz than with Snow White." There are other Snow White stories too, but few people know them. (And there are TWO snow white-related movies coming out this spring). Few people know the secondary Oz stories either. For most people, the 1939 movie IS Oz. And if there are elements Disney can't copy, the place would seem "off." Oz is indeed larger than one movie (as is snow white) but in the popular imagination, not so much.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "I took The Wizard of Oz movie out to dinner once, so it's definitely dated." Wow, I did too, so it's more than dated, it's been around!
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Return to Oz has been a personal favorite of mine since I was a kid. I've always been a fan of the Oz movies, but somehow a land centered around it, doesn't strike me as very appealing. I guess I can't picture it very well though. But I'm not very imaginative or creative either, so what do I know?
Originally Posted By tashajilek Im not for Land of OZ either, but is it really any worse than Avatarland? To me a Oz themed land seems more Disneyish than Avatar at least. It would be nice to see something creative or at least themed towards Disney.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Yeah, I'm not very gungho on the whole Avatar thing either. Movie was alright, I GUESS. I'm glad it's not coming to the DLR. I'm not a big fan of Disney doing non Disney things either. Except Star Wars. I'd be psyched about a Star Wars themed land. Probably not much else though. I also feel that whole LANDS based on a movie or series of movies is a bit much. Although, again, I'd say Star Wars in an exception to that rule. I'd much rather see something based on Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, or Nightmare Before Christmas.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I'm not a big fan of Disney doing non Disney things either." Disney has actually owned the rights to all the Oz books except The Wizard of Oz for decades. In fact, I seem to recall reading something once about Walt Disney announcing a Disney produced Wizard of Oz film back in the 60s. Disney did eventually produce Return to Oz, which was something of a flop.
Originally Posted By Manfried There was a guy in the theme park business, not at Disney, who was trying to build an Oz land theme park in Kansas once upon a time. I wonder how many of those ideas were plagiarized (stolen) to fit into this idiotic Disneyland scheme? WDI, please fix the following: Tomorrowland (at least Innoventions, the Rockets and do something better with Autopia) Replace Pinocchio with something people want to go on. Maybe a flying carpet ride? Come up with something better than the 5th, 6th or however many iterations of Lincoln. Or at the very least come up with something not based on a movie or a book.
