Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Sure there are lots of little kids that are fans of Cars movies, products, etc, and that might be a big pull for people to come so their kid can experience that, but that thing about Carsland, is the whole family will enjoy it. Even the out of it dad who has never seen the movie, or the mom who has seen it so many times she could puke, or the teenage sister who pretends she hates everything, or the little boy who just can't get enough of it. They will all most likely have a good time in Carsland. Sure it's based on a popular franchise, but can be enjoyed by anyone.
Originally Posted By believe >>>>>To me, there was no sense of discovery or excitement in Carsland, since I knew the city from the film"<<<< Could the same be said for Wizarding World of Harry Potter? HP movies were much more popular than Cars, therefore, more people have seen HP - so as far as discovery goes, it should be less discovery for HP. Since Cars movie is less popular, it would be a new experience for more people since less people have seen Cars. And, HP has 1 major new ride, 1 major repurposed ride, and a small roller coaster.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>As cynical as this may sound, most visitors don't really care either way as long as it's done well and fun to experience. It's also less risky for management to drop millions of dollars on a huge expansion like the one DCA had when it's based on lucrative properties like Toy Story, TLM, and Cars.<< If we're assuming that the majority of guests have no real emotional tie to the branding, then why is it any less risky? It's still a huge investment on a theme park experience either way. If guests want a high quality experience regardless of any sort of tie-in, why do they percieve the tie-in to make it less risky >>Because it's a win-win for them either way, it'll appeal to kids and adults who like the movie, and it's also going to appeal all on it's own to those who may not be as familiar with the movie.<< Even as a kid, I found the 'generic' themes of the lands at DL quite interesting. Even though there were no character tie ins, I really liked Adventureland and New Orleans Square since I could pretend I was in some far off location. While Toontown was fun as a kid (and I was a kid at just the right time, before the lawyers neutered the place), it never gave me the same sense of excitement. I think this is partially due to the fact that everything was a reference to something specific and the guests were supposed to 'get it' rather than use their own imagination to fill in the blanks. It's not that it's a bad experience, but it's just not as good as I know WDI is capable of
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I found Luigi's to be remarkably easy to get the hang of, and could develop quite a bit of momentum<< Me too. I'd heard all that stuff about needing to ride it several times before you got the things to move, but I had that sucker flying across the rink (and into other people's tires) within a minute or so. (/humblebrag)
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Sure it's based on a popular franchise, but can be enjoyed by anyone.<< Again, it sounds like Carsland can be enjoyed despite the fact that it's based on a franchise, rather than because of it. While it may work occasionally, it hardly supports the current corporate mandate that everything must be tied into a franchise. I agree that there's a lot there for everybody, but I just don't see the need to throw characters everywhere >>Could the same be said for Wizarding World of Harry Potter?<< Absolutely. However, for me personally, I haven't read the books and have only seen one of the films (yes, I'm a bad person; I know), so I really don't have much of a drive to go see it. I've heard good things about it, and will likely see it eventually, but I've taken a couple trips to Orlando since it opened and didn't even consider going to see it. Because I'm not familiar with the franchise, I feel like I wouldn't really understand what was going on. I might still have enjoy it, like listening to a song in a foreign language, but I know that I would be missing something. With a theme/backstory that's entirely self-contained, everybody in the park gets the same experience, regardless of their prior knowledge of any particular brand. While the franchise tie-in does some good to build buzz about it early on, it also turns some people off and has the risk of not being 'relevant' 5-10 years down the road. I just don't understand the need for it in every new addition
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Me too. I wish they'd done a more realistic Route 66 desert town from its 50's heyday. They could have had the same attractions (themed to Cars if necessary, and thus kind of the best of both worlds, or NOT themed to Cars) and have the town be a stylized evocation of something real (like the best of DL and most Disney parks). It would have been richer. But they didn't. It's thus not to my mind as good as it could have been, but still very good.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "If we're assuming that the majority of guests have no real emotional tie to the branding, then why is it any less risky? It's still a huge investment on a theme park experience either way. If guests want a high quality experience regardless of any sort of tie-in, why do they percieve the tie-in to make it less risky" Probably because if you go to Carsland, based on the franchise, then there will be a good chance next time there is a movie, or a toy, you'll remember being in Carsland and see the movie, or buy the toy for your kid, or grandkid, or something. And even if the average person isn't a Cars franchise fan, they might know someone who is or could be and there is the pull for business to see Carsland because they are or know someone who is a fan. Sure you don't have to be to enjoy it, and the majority of people aren't Cars fanatics, but there are plenty of kids and some adults who are, so you have an automatic audience for your new product. It's like a big criss cross, working both ways, synergistic explotion of money to be made.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Even as a kid, I found the 'generic' themes of the lands at DL quite interesting. " Are you trying to say, you were an average kid!?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "If we're assuming that the majority of guests have no real emotional tie to the branding, then why is it any less risky?" In addition to what others have said in response to this I'll add that there are two mindsets happening simultaneously: guests who want amazing and exciting experiences and corporate executives who see value in brand building. As CC said, projects like Cars Land are a win win because they fulfill the need for exciting additions while reinforcing corporate identity.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Even as a kid, I found the 'generic' themes of the lands at DL quite interesting. Even though there were no character tie ins> Totally get this. And feel the same way. My Disneyland that I started going to in 1970 went way beyond Disney cartoon characters. 'Disney' meant more than just the animated fare.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Are you trying to say, you were an average kid!? << Of course not! I was always quite precocious! : ) >>My Disneyland that I started going to in 1970 went way beyond Disney cartoon characters.<< I guess in my mind, this is what I'm still hoping the place can be. In fact, I was embarrassingly old before I figured out that "Disneyland" wasn't just some unique yet meaningless word to describe the place (like 'Epcot' or 'Hawaii'), but rather was the land devoted to Disney. By keeping the themes broad and 'generic', it left a lot of room for exploration and discovery, rather than copying something that's very familiar. At best, it looks like it will be a long time before it starts heading back in that direction.
Originally Posted By tashajilek Even as someone who has seen the original Cars movie a few times Cars Land still felt new and exciting. There were a characters I forgot existed, so I didn't feel like I knew the land inside and out. I also refuse to watch videos or look at pictures of any new Disney attractions, so it won't be ruined for my first time. Honestly I dont care if Disney decides to build everything new franchise related as long as the quality is top notch. The main reason I go to Disneyland is to have fun and spend quality time with my family.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip And that is what it is all about. Disney Parks are not (or at least shouldn't be) some quasi-religion involving "The Force" or "Midi-chlorians". If people ENJOY them, what difference does the source material really make? You don't think Uncle Walt relied on existing "franchises" when originally developing Disneyland? Check out the most complete land at opening... Fantasyland.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt No one has said that Walt Disney didn't build up franchises at DL. What is being pointed out is that in recent years movie related tie-ins have moved beyond Fantasyland and Toontown and into areas where these types of characters were traditionally off limits. I'm no purist, but I can't say that it doesn't bother me every time I see how much they've dumbed down the experience with Nemo Subs, Tarzan Treehouse, Winnie the Pooh in the American wilderness and a toy astronaut in Tomorrowland.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "You don't think Uncle Walt relied on existing 'franchises' when originally developing Disneyland? Check out the most complete land at opening... Fantasyland." Davy Crockett was all over Frontierland. The Swiss Family Robinson was a presence in Adventureland. If Walt had the library of characters available to him that the company has available now, he might've stuffed the park just as full of characters that the company's doing now.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I think Cars Land bugs people because it turned out so darn good.>> Really? You think the fanbase wanted it to fail? I've no problem admitting that I don't particularly like it at all but can appreciate how well it turned out. I'd counter that you throw north of $600m on any single land it would probably turn out well. Cars Land's budget ended up being nearly 75% of the whole of DAK.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But they didn't. It's thus not to my mind as good as it could have been, but still very good.>> +1 The problem is that my simply lifting the movie setting like a three-dimensional set you are effectively opting for the lowest common denominator. Kevin Rafferty's original pitch for the quasi-factual Route 66 proposal was the best I've ever seen for a US park. It would have been perfect for DCA but ultimately WDP&R is a conservative business unit and gambling on original IPR to that coin just won't fly any more.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I'd counter that you throw north of $600m on any single land it would probably turn out well. Cars Land's budget ended up being nearly 75% of the whole of DAK.<< What was DCA's original budget? I think the whole DLR expansion was around $1.2B, with a good chunk of that going to DTD and the GCH. I've heard that DCA originally cost around $600M (before inflation to 2013, obviously), which seems pretty impressive in comparison
Originally Posted By leemac <<I'm no purist, but I can't say that it doesn't bother me every time I see how much they've dumbed down the experience with Nemo Subs, Tarzan Treehouse, Winnie the Pooh in the American wilderness and a toy astronaut in Tomorrowland.>> I have less of an issue with characters being behind the land architecture (like FL dark rides) than where they have visible facades or affect the overall look of the land. I'm a little too close to Nemo to be objective but I always hated the seagulls on the buoy as I felt it was too cartoony for the land. I can accept Pooh in Critter Country as the attraction isn't particularly showy from the exterior. I have more of an issue with the WTP Meet n Greets and those fiberglass props directly outside Splash's entrance. Davy Crockett in FrL is the perfect example where it actually works. He fits perfectly into that environment from both a time and place perspective. Swiss Family Robinson to a lesser extent but the tree itself fits the environment.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I've heard that DCA originally cost around $600M (before inflation to 2013, obviously), which seems pretty impressive in comparison>> Some money was diverted to DCA in the end as Timur Galen had forgot to budget for an entrance sequence. I think the entire park was $720m in the end. Considering the cost of construction in the late nineties in SoCal it was a feat to get it built for that amount.
