Originally Posted By 999HAUNTS Heck, Iron Man was a Marvel hero well before Paramount made a movie out of him. I really do think it's a cool idea in theory. And if they can make it come to life, even better. It would be something different, something that could be interesting. Wouldn't there possibly be a way to make this "Disneytized" enough for people with both points of view happy?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>My opinion is that we should try letting the kids of today make connections with things scientific, without having to tie it in with some movie schema they already have established in their head.<< I totally agree. Unfortunately for us, that concept started to falter in the early 70s, and now, it's pretty much gone entirely. My new mantra: Try and enjoy movie/toon-based concepts that loosely fit a spacey/Tomorrowlandish theme. Because that is apparently what the majority of modern Disneyland guests enjoy. I don't see it changing in my lifetime, if ever.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Wouldn't there possibly be a way to make this "Disneytized" enough for people with both points of view happy?<< Make it richley detailed, very immersive, and something that doesn't require a deep understanding of the Iron Man backstory. I think some Disney fans underestimate the popularity of the Marvel characters with young boys in particular. I have two nephews, neither of whom know each other, one age 6, the other age 8. And both of them are all about super heroes. Take a walk through the toy aisle at Target, tons of Marvel and DC stuff.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Unfortunately though it seems the poll above would indicate that people still want the movie tie-ins going strong...<< I think this poll shows that people would prefer the Stark Expo in place of Innoventions. That's all.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And remember that this poll, like all self-selecting online polls, has a +/- error of approximately 100%.
Originally Posted By MoondoggieCA Well I am an admitted purist who still sees Disneyland as the living embodiment of what the WALT DISNEY STUDIOS was doing, not Paramount, 20th Century Fox, or anyone else. This is what made Disney unique, and this is how I would have hoped it would stay. But you guys are right, Star Tours and Indy are already there, so why stop now? May as well enter this Paramount property into the game as well. It seems Disney has taken to relying on the input, ideas, properties of other studios now, not just their own. To many of us though this will be questioned, because we saw Disney as unique. They had a product....a MAJOR product. One that stood independently on its own. And it was brought to life in a place called Disneyland. It used to be that Disney did amazing things with no help from the other studios, so now that we see that changing, it's inevitable people will question it. And should be allowed to question it, IMO. I think it's fine if people want to see Disney turn the corner completely and move on, welcoming in the likes of Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warners, Universal, whoever. But it's also fine for those who still see Disney as special and unique, and want it to stay....no, not as a museum... but as a reflection of what Disney is doing, not the entire Hollywood community of studios. Has Disney always done everything on their own? No. Did they reach out to sponsors? Yes. But this is different. The sponsor themselves didn't overshadow Disney. I'm a teacher in OC and when the topic of Disneyland is brought up, many (most?) of my students think Indiana Jones and Star Tours are Disney movies. When another student (in the know) clarifies that they're not, the other students always ask why they're at Disneyland then. I think that's kind of interesting. It is true that when they see books like Pinocchio on the shelf at the library, they think that's Disney too. So this can certainly be argued as well. The difference though is Walt took those stories and made them his own. So what you see at Disneyland is the embodiment of Disney's translation of those stories. Indiana Jones and Star Wars are directly from the minds of their creators (Lucas and Spielberg is it?)....not Walt's or the Disney company's take on those stories. That's where they're different. Not only are they from different studios, but they are stories that were never metamorphosed through the Disney lens. I still think that since Disney had the imagineering where-with-all to create a jeep adventure the caliber of Indy, and a simulator the caliber of Star Tours, I don't know why they just didn't make them generic adventures into the jungle and space, respectively. Without the movie tie-in. Did they really need to tie them in with established, non-Disney movies that were already iconic unto themselves? I dunno. Maybe they did. All I know is Thunder and Space Mountain were new, exciting adventures that brought in the crowds when they opened. And they had no movie tie-in.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan All good points, Moondoggie. I do agree with the sentiment behind them, that's for sure. And as a teacher, I'm sure you appreciate the long term value of edutainment, something that Tomorrowland in particular was once built upon.
Originally Posted By MoondoggieCA <<I think this poll shows that people would prefer the Stark Expo in place of Innoventions. That's all.>> And I don't agree. Because along with this Stark Expo goes another inevitable movie tie-in in Tomorrowland...which many people seem to think is a cool idea based on the vote. We wouldn't even know what a Stark Expo is if there wasn't a movie or story behind it. So the movie tie-in is inevitable, and a vote in the affirmative for this change is a vote for that inevitable movie tie-in. I don't think it just has to do with changing out a tired attraction for something new.
Originally Posted By MoondoggieCA Thank you, Kar2oonMan. And I agree with what you said about polls. Does a simple poll on the laughing place board really impact on much? Naw. I think they definitely generate some interesting discussions. And I love Disney, so I always enjoy hearing the "takes" of others on said topic.
Originally Posted By RockyMtnMinnie I could see huge potential with this. Innovations as it stands now isn't even worth the energy to walk up the ramp to get in. After seeing what has been done recently I think the imagineers could create something really cool, yet it could be changeable to accommodate and highlight new technologies and changing exhibits since that's what Stark is all about. So instead of a generic building with a few exhibits featuring new technology (ok, not so new if you consider what's in there now), there would be a theme and storyline and a focus on this area of the park, instead of a stagnating building which is what it seems to be right now. What's so wrong with that???
Originally Posted By MoondoggieCA And one last thing, and I promise I'll leave...for a while. As to the edutainment aspect...I fully agree. I was teaching molecules, atoms, and chemistry to my 5th graders and I turned out the lights, had my students put their heads down, close their eyes, and listen to the narration from Adventure through Inner Space. I had them imagining themselves entering a microscope and being shrunk to the size of an atom. They were mesmerized by it. You could hear a pin drop. 2011...and kids can still be mesmerized by something done in the late 60s. One of the kids asked why that attraction wasn't still there. He then said it should be. LOL But that's a topic for another thread.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Sounds like a creative way to get kids excited about learning. Have you considered getting one of the DVDs that has a CGI recreation of the whole attraction?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 The Stark Expo had a song written by Robert Sherman, there's your Disney connection(aside from the fact that Disney will be releasing the Avengers and then any future Iron Man movie)
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I don't think anybody here is against Disney coming up with original attractions and themed areas. I would very much like to see something in Innoventions that's original, entertaining and educational. I just don't see that happening. So rather than having the building house something old and boring I embrace the Expo idea, even if the ideas are coming from Marvel and not WDI.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<They'd be synergizing with a Paramount Studios franchise. >> Not anymore as I said before, Disney releases anything Iron Man, Thor, Captain America Avengers related from here on out. The only franchise they don't get yet are Spiderman(released by Columbia) and anything released by Fox(X-Men, Daredevil, Fantastic Four). And I've read that there is some type of clause that those studios will keep the rights to those properties as long as they keep making a movie from one of those franchises. Which is why we got a new X-Men film or a new Spiderman film next year.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Okay then - good to know. I had thought that all current franchises would be retained by their current studio, including all the characters from Uni's IOA, including Hulk.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 ^^^ That actually gets a little tricky. While the movie rights go over to Disney for the Hulk, the theme park rights stay with Universal. Again this is something I heard but it has to do with IOA being east of the Mississippi they get to keep the character.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 This isn't from me but from Yahoo answers: "Well, Disney can't buy Marvel Island at Universal OR use those characters. Universal has a contract that Disney must honor stating that Universal has the rights to those characters as long as they keep up the rides and take care or the Island. Universal can't add anymore Superhero's, but Disney can't use any characters Universal is currently using. So I don't see Disney doing anything with these Marvel characters until Universal gives them up (which probably won't happen for a long time.) Disney doesn't earn any money from Universals usage of the Marvel brand, they don't have to pay for something they have the rights too." The holy grail of those characters would Spiderman.
Originally Posted By tonyanton Disney bought out the distribution rights for "The Avengers" and the next "Iron Man" from Paramount. It is also worth noting that Indy and Star Wars are owned by Lucasfilm...Paramount and Fox are only distributors.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 My son would be over the moon to see any of his beloved super heros represented at Disneyland. Spidey is his favorite (my son's name is Parker and a couple of years ago he went through a phase where he made everyone in the family call him Peter Parker), but he likes Iron Man a lot too. As for me, I could care less about what they replace innovations with, as long as they replace it. My husband and I went through there the last time we were there and it was pretty awful. If they make an interesting, lively attraction I would be very happy-no matter what they base it on.
