Originally Posted By leemac <<I wouldn't say that, but I do think that Disney could produce an appealing Oz expansion at DL that today's audiences would enjoy without worrying too much about the MGM film adaptation.>. I've always been against any one franchise taking over the architecture in any way in Disneyland parks. I don't have an issue with an Oz attraction existing in Fantasyland but I'd be rather disappointed if it popped up as even a mini-land. The Disneyland conceit is a series of loosely themed lands on broad concepts with area-specific architecture. I'd like DL to stay that way. That isn't nostalgia for me - it is just good planning.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I've always been against any one franchise taking over the architecture in any way in Disneyland parks.<< Interesting that they've never done this with any single Disney movie. Pixar movies, on the other hand ....
Originally Posted By Captain Neo >> I've always been against any one franchise taking over the architecture in any way in Disneyland parks. I don't have an issue with an Oz attraction existing in Fantasyland but I'd be rather disappointed if it popped up as even a mini-land. The Disneyland conceit is a series of loosely themed lands on broad concepts with area-specific architecture. I'd like DL to stay that way. That isn't nostalgia for me - it is just good planning.<< How do you feel about Cars Land, Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and Avatar land? Also you must not be a big fan of Disney's plans for Star Wars in the parks then
Originally Posted By kennect >> I've always been against any one franchise taking over the architecture in any way in Disneyland parks. I don't have an issue with an Oz attraction existing in Fantasyland but I'd be rather disappointed if it popped up as even a mini-land. The Disneyland conceit is a series of loosely themed lands on broad concepts with area-specific architecture. I'd like DL to stay that way. That isn't nostalgia for me - it is just good planning.<< agreed.
Originally Posted By leemac <<How do you feel about Cars Land, Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and Avatar land?>> I can appreciate the love for Cars Land but it leaves me cold. I don't have any desire to walk through lifted movie environments or ride Cliffs Notes attractions. I prefer immersive environments that are original or take me to a time or place that can no longer be experienced. Cars Land is lazy imagineering - anyone can replicate a movie set - even an animated one - when cash is thrown at it. I dislike the Potter franchise as much as I dislike Cars but at least WWoHP is a lot more inventive as an environment. Again it is too literal for my liking but I can appreciate the effort. The attraction is far more original than RSR and cost nearly half as much. I'm glad of places like Mystic Point and Grizzly Gulch in HKDL - original ideas of original places. I'd have prefer something like that for DCA.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I can appreciate the love for Cars Land but it leaves me cold." Just goes to show how varied different people's opinions can be. I'm not a fan of this kind of direct lift from a movie for non-movie themed Disney park, but most people seem to respond positively to it and aren't geeks about this stuff like we are. "Cars Land is lazy imagineering - anyone can replicate a movie set - even an animated one - when cash is thrown at it." Here's where we agree. I've been saying this since the DCA expansion was announced. The original DCA concept was at least ambitious in what it tried to achieve. In my opinion Cars Land is a fantastic addition to DCA, but like you said it's not exactly pushing the boundaries of creativity.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I'm not a fan of this kind of direct lift from a movie for non-movie themed Disney park, but most people seem to respond positively to it and aren't geeks about this stuff like we are.>> I'm a strong believer in the mantra "quality will out" so I think the vast majority of guests would have been as content with the quasi-Route 66 concept that I preferred. The fact that it is a direct lift from the movie counts for little I think - especially as I doubt there are many adults that loved Cars as a movie. I think WWoHP is different as the books and movies have such a gigantic fanbase - Uni Creative had to stay loyal to the look and feel of the brand. Cars Land isn't the worst abomination in the park's makeover IMHO - I'll reserve that for the hideous Mermaid attraction - $125m badly spent.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Also you must not be a big fan of Disney's plans for Star Wars in the parks then>> I don't like the movies at all but I'm not much of a sci-fi fan at all. I can appreciate the general fondness for the brand - even if most of it is from nostalgic baby boomers. I do have the same problem though - I'm not inclined to see a movie set appear at a Disney theme park. However I would say that it is my recollection of the movies that the individual locations used in the movies are less defined than Radiator Springs (which I guess is obvious considering that the entire movie happens there).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder This is wandering off topic, but we finally saw Carsland for the first time today. It's nice and all, but it doesn't seem to have any sustainability. The first movie is already seven years old, the sequel is two, and while the movies were ok, who's going to care in 5-10 years?
Originally Posted By Captain Neo If we go by that then Splash Mountain shouldn't even be around because song of the south wasn't a box office success and I bet less than 1% of the visitors to the Disney parks have even heard of the film much less the book/tales it's based on. Same thing with Mr.Toad. Box Office revenue, franchise potential, and longevity shouldn't be part of the equation of what makes a good theme park attraction.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, not the same thing, not even close. Splash is one attraction, a log ride with a little song of the South thrown in. Toad is one small dark ride. Carsland is an entirely land within DCA, replete with multiple attractions and shops, all themed to a movie that quite possibly fades away in the memory. Hence, the sustainability problem.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>song of the south wasn't a box office success<< >>Same thing with Mr.Toad.<< 63% of the facts on internet discussion boards are made up on the spot.
Originally Posted By Captain Neo ok Song of the South made a "slim profit" which is like Tron and Oz. It was no Snow White or Cinderella or 20,000 Leagues under the Sea if that's what your trying to say.
Originally Posted By Captain Neo >>Well, not the same thing, not even close. Splash is one attraction, a log ride with a little song of the South thrown in. Toad is one small dark ride. Carsland is an entirely land within DCA, replete with multiple attractions and shops, all themed to a movie that quite possibly fades away in the memory. Hence, the sustainability problem.<< Alice in Wonderland was a critical and commercial failure and received TWO attractions at the park plus other Alice stuff in the parks.
Originally Posted By Captain Neo For the record, I agree with leemac that making an entire land just for Cars is absurd and I don't like rides that are like cliff notes versions of the movie (which is why I can't stand the Nemo Subs). I disagree with him about Oz and Star Wars though I think both have enough otherworldyness and imaginative locations that would give you the sense of being transported to another time and place and there is enough content between the movies/books/ancillary materials that they can branch away from just rehashing a particular film.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "I'm a strong believer in the mantra "quality will out" so I think the vast majority of guests would have been as content with the quasi-Route 66 concept that I preferred." I'd have preferred that too. They could've had an RSR style ride that wasn't specifically tied to Cars. The indoor portion could have been a cavern or a mine or something like that. They could have created their own original story/mythology; a haunted mine or something like that. who knows? Alternately, they could have created a more realistic non-Tooney version of a route 66 desert town and still had RSR themed to Cars.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I've never seen one minute of either Cars film, and never plan to. But I think visually Carsland looks GREAT and I am eager to see it. Who knows... maybe I like it so much BECAUSE I never saw Cars. If so, "sustainability" may not be the big deal you think it will be.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance ">>song of the south wasn't a box office success<< >>Same thing with Mr.Toad.<< 63% of the facts on internet discussion boards are made up on the spot." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLgz3wH2n8
