Originally Posted By tashajilek Hans people will always complain about anything Disney does. The biggest complaint is why can't they do something original? Some of Disneys best attractions Indy, Star tours, RSR, Tot are all based on a franchise. Fantasyland even on opening day had Snow White and Peter Pan, so how is it any different than Carsland?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think the difference Tasha is that originally most of the film franchises were isolated to Fantasyland. Disneyland had a more serious tone then, with humor thrown in here and there of course. In an effort to make the place more in sync with Disney's expansion beyond animated fairy tales the parks began to evolve a few decades ago beyond the original concept and here we are. You know that I was one of those people who was very vocal about all the franchises filling every corner of the park, but that dead horse has been beaten to death and I see no point in continually complaining about it now. As long as whatever they do is high quality (ie: Carsland and Fantasy Faire) and at least has some thematic story context I'm happy.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I don't know where the "look" of Oz comes from (i.e. book illustrations, movie etc.)<< The original "look" of Oz comes from the illustrations in the books - by W. W. Denslow (the first book) and John R. Nell (the rest of 'em). It's glorious artwork, but dated as hell, and primarily focused on the characters rather than the settings. The MGM and earlier Disney movie managed to stay more or less in the ballpark of the aesthetic. Great and Powerful, notsomuch. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://verdoux.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/ww-denslow-illustration-4.jpg">http://verdoux.files.wordpress...on-4.jpg</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120503211537/oz/images/0/0f/Dainty_china_country.jpg">http://images2.wikia.nocookie....ntry.jpg</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110114021511/oz/images/f/f8/The-emerald-city-of-oz.jpg">http://images4.wikia.nocookie....f-oz.jpg</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8bys16KQ784/Tot3maFzJPI/AAAAAAAANRY/R-K93oakHjs/s1600/Frank+Baum+Ozma+of+Oz.jpg">http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8bys...f+Oz.jpg</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://amazingstoriesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MDJackson_Oz_EmCityOzCOVERfeb16.jpg">http://amazingstoriesmag.com/w...eb16.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By tashajilek I dont get how some people praise Universal for being so great with all their franchise related attractions, but Disney gets flack for Cars land, Star Wars or Oz land. When a average person visits a Disney theme park I think they would expect to see Disney attractions.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I really think the added toon based franchises has to do with public wanting them, and I think the public wants them because kids rule the house nowadays. Parents want to plan extravagant, expensive vacations around what will make their children the happiest. I don't think it was like that back when DL opened to the same extreme it is today.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance And I'm not complaining either, I almost always plan things with the main goal of making my kids the happiest.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Disney gets flack for Cars land, Star Wars or Oz land<< Star Wars and Oz aren't Disney!
Originally Posted By crazycroc Atlantis submarines Tron Light Cycles on the people mover track Lone Ranger Oz What is things that didn't get built at Disneyland because the movies sucked. Welcome to the 25,000 dollar pyramid!
Originally Posted By crazycroc Atlantis submarines Tron Light Cycles on the people mover track Lone Ranger Oz What is things that didn't get built at Disneyland because the movies sucked. Welcome to the 25,000 dollar pyramid!
Originally Posted By tashajilek Who cares if SW isn't Disney? It's a great franchise and could be a great land if done right.
Originally Posted By crazycroc I'm sure I forgot plenty of other sucky stuff that were sure fire things and were absolutely going to happen. However, the suckiest thing of all was Captain Eo reopening, to celebrate the life, dreams, and achievements of a drug addicted pedophile. So, I concur, if the promise of the world of tomorrow is getting as high as you can off of surgical medicines, drinking Jesus Juice, and running away from a bad touch Uncle who gyrates his crotch and yells, "Hooter!", anything may be possible. I'm looking forward to this Oz land featuring all the wonderful worlds of Oz that no one was clamoring to see on film, and eagerly anticipate the CarsLand like bump it will give Disneyland. Do you think we'll need a FastPass to see the ride based on the little person from Me, Myself, and Irene or the Hot Air Ballon Circlevision Tornado Simulator 4d, featuring the triumphant return of Waldo the Spirit of 3d?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Who cares if SW isn't Disney?<< Me. >>Star Wars is too Disney!<< NO! Neither is Michael Jackson.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I dont get how some people praise Universal for being so great with all their franchise related attractions, but Disney gets flack for Cars land, Star Wars or Oz land." Maybe it's because one is supposed to be a Hollywood inspired movie studio/theme park and the other was originally supposed to be based on Walt Disney's ideas about the past, tomorrow, and fantasy. Not griping about the recent additions of movie franchises to DLR/WDW over the past few decades, but I think it's important to understand that Uni and Disney originally had little in common with each other. As both theme park chains evolved people began to make legitimate comparisons, and that wasn't always the case. "I don't think it was like that back when DL opened to the same extreme it is today." Nope, yet in a way Walt Disney was a bit of a trail blazer with cross-promotion when he opened Disneyland. The cynical side of me still thinks that today's Disney parks in California and Florida are more like big commercials for Disney brands rather than a reflection of Walt's personal vision for what his theme parks were meant to be.
Originally Posted By tashajilek All I can say that I'm glad Disney went through with Cars land and didn't take a gamble to make original crappy attractions like Superstar Limo. Hopefully with the addition of Cars land the DLR will bring in enough $ to add new attractions. If Disney decided on SW, Oz or Monstropolis at least it will be something new and hopefully fantastic.
