Originally Posted By FerretAfros Yah, that's what I was expecting. The building would be open for the exhibit, but it wouldn't be "Innoventions". After the exhibit's run is over, they can return it to its previous use or (hopefully) something new and worthwhile
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I read that Disney said they are working on a more permanent location for the Marvel hunks. Wasn't there some talk about a Marvel miniland behind TOT in DCA?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip No. Informed sources say that Marvel is going into Simba along with Star Wars. LOL
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Maybe they'll recreate that rainbow bridge that takes you to Asgard in the Thor movies as a way to get to the parking lot from DCA.
Originally Posted By Moon Waffle >>It doesn't take a great IP to create great attractions. It is possible without them.<< 100% agree, but this is never going to happen in today's Disney. Iger's approach is pure IP synergy - bounce the merchandise off of the movies off of the theme parks, and generate more revenue for each line in the process. And it works. The soaring, all-time high prices of Disney's stock show that the shareholders agree. And guess who Iger ultimately reports to?........
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't know where the idea comes from that IP drives everything at Disney Parks. Minor attractions use IP because frankly most of them are not entertaining/engrossing enough to stand on their own without being tied to a Disney product people are familiar with (much like the original Fantasyland rides). The MAJOR additions to the parks over the past 20 years have typically NOT been based on IP. Disneyland Indiana Jones - based on a film, but not a Disney film. DCA About the only attractions in DCA 1.0 based on IP were the Bug's Land attractions. WDW Mine Train Coaster was based on IP, but as a Fantasyland attraction you would expect that. Epcot Mission Space - no Disney IP Soarin' - no Disney IP Disney Studios Tower of Terror - no Disney IP Rock & Roller Coaster - no Disney IP Midway Mania was based on Disney IP, but other than its popularity I don't know that you could consider it a major attraction. Animal Kingdom Nothing in the park is based on Disney IP except for Tough to be a Bug and the shows. So I don't get it. What do you feel has changed so much? Minor attractions thoughout Disney parks history have been based on Disney IP. The 'E' tickets generally were not. I don't see how that has changed.
Originally Posted By monorailblue Actually, RT, you prove half the point here: <<DCA About the only attractions in DCA 1.0 based on IP were the Bug's Land attractions.>> First, A Bug's Land (and its Attractions) were not part of DCA 1.0, but were added after opening in a futile attempt to stave off complaints and negative feedback. Second, DCA 1.0 proved to be an overall disaster, requiring an infusion of quite a bit of Disney property, including good ol' Walt himself. I don't think citing to non-Disney existing franchises cuts the argument at all, as the point is that Disney primarily develops existing properties into theme park experiences. That was as true for Indy as it is for Toy Story (Midway) Mania! To relegate Toy Story to minor Attraction status is arguably unfair, since an expansion was just announced for WDW's version due to its relentless popularity. It will be the only Disney Attraction (besides Autopias and, if you want to count it, WDW's version of Soarin') with 3 tracks (although we don't yet know perfectly how it will work--it looks like the current load area feeding two operating tracks will remain as is [that is how they do it there, right?], and the third will be separate and self-contained but adjacent [else how could there be only "little" operational disruption?]) to choose from. How's that for a sentence?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It doesn't take a great IP to create great attractions. It is possible without them.<< This is true and there have been lots of examples of this through the years. However, imagine that today you are going to pitch spending multi-millions of the company's money on a new attraction. You could make the case for a stand-alone attraction themed to whatever land in which it will be placed. Or you can adapt the concept and tie it in with a beloved group of characters, or a hit movie franchise, which pretty much guarantees a built-in audience for this new attraction before the first shovel hits the round. And it also guarantees a certain amount of instant ROI in the form of merchandise linked with the film/characters/attraction. I can certainly see why the latter scenario would be a much more attractive option for all concerned. Less risk in this case means more likely reward. In the end, a great attraction is a great attraction. I think Cars Land proves that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Second, DCA 1.0 proved to be an overall disaster, requiring an infusion of quite a bit of Disney property, including good ol' Walt himself.<< This is true. I liked a lot of DCA 1.0, in part because it wasn't so character based. But clearly, I was in the minority, and there's just no way to argue that the new DCA doesn't look 1000% better, characters and all. Look at something as off-the-shelf as the former Orange Stinger vs. Silly Symphony Swings. Same ride system, with different dressing, and yet version 2.0 is so much better.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Second, DCA 1.0 proved to be an overall disaster, requiring an infusion of quite a bit of Disney property, including good ol' Walt himself.<< Was that because the stuff they built didn't have Disney connections, or because it just wasn't very good? I'd think that the Golden Zephyr would be just as lackluster if it were themed to Up, and Midway Mania would be just as popular without the Toy Story connection (as it was originally designed) >>...with 3 tracks (although we don't yet know perfectly how it will work--it looks like the current load area feeding two operating tracks will remain as is [that is how they do it there, right?], and the third will be separate and self-contained but adjacent...<< From my understanding, the new construction will be completely separate form the existing attraction, only connected in the queue. The "third" track will use the southern soundstage building (which has been used for Darth's Maul and the Frozen Summer promotion in recent years), so it can feed through the same entrance but the queue will actually be between the two rides (like Primeval Whirl). Given that they appear to have plenty of space and demand, and the operations of one dual-track ride is about the same as a single-track one, I wouldn't be surprised if this "third" track was actually #3 and #4, similar to the existing setup. It would represent a large increase in capacity for a minimal additional investment; additionally, it would let them refurbish one whole side at a time while keeping the other one open with a reasonable capacity As for the placement in the existing soundstage structure, I think it's kind of frustrating. Pixar Place already feels like a narrow corridor/dead end, and having the entire western side of it dedicated to TSMM with a single entrance and nothing worthwhile on the eastern side will be a bit of a waste. Too bad they couldn't have put the TSMM expansion behind the existing one and add something new in the south soundstage, which would have given the area a lot more purpose
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Look at something as off-the-shelf as the former Orange Stinger vs. Silly Symphony Swings. Same ride system, with different dressing, and yet version 2.0 is so much better.<< But is the new version better because of the character infusion, or because it was simply better designed? Enclosing the ride in an industrial dome didn't add any charm and blocked all of the scenic views; opening it up and adding details made it a lot more pleasant. But do people like it more because there's a Mickey statue on top (that you can't even see while riding)?
Originally Posted By monorailblue Speaking of Orange Stinger, as a Monorail pilot in 1999, I had to shill for DCA 1.0 (which they expected would "frequently" reach capacity and have to close its doors), and spiel about the fantastic homage to "seaside resorts of the 1920s and 30s." I didn't realize then how problematic it would be, and I cringe when I think about it now.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I haven't seen the new incarnation, but I really liked the Orange Stinger. To me what really made it different and fun was being semi-enclosed. Since your field of vision was largely limited to a fairly close point, the ride seemed much faster than if you had a more distant point of reference. Kind of like I think Space Mountain would seem a lot slower if you rode it with the lights on.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I haven't seen the new incarnation, but I really liked the Orange Stinger." It's much better now. In practically every way.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance What's the point of posting on a message board when you're the only one who knows what you're talking about?
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>If it was only closed for the 60th exhibit, why kick out the Marvel men on the top floor?<< I may not care for Marvel in Tomorrowland ... but I couldn't think of this "60th Exhibit" being any bigger than taking up the entire bottom floor ... and just leave the Marvel stuff (along with Asimo) alone. They are all fairly new features, and does attract some people. In the past ... any exhibit done on DL during any major anniversary ... was never any bigger than ... Lets take the Gallery that use to be above PotC. A few rooms. Even the new location inside the Opera House space in Main Street ... No previous exhibit required a lot of space. So .. I can't imagine an exhibit so big .. that it would require kicking out the Marvel guys upstairs. It also dawned on me ... I don't believe there's been any confirmation from the company on this. Have they said something on their blog, or elsewhere? Or is the 60th Exhibit purely rumor between the various Disney fan sites?
Originally Posted By doombuggy "is the 60th Exhibit purely rumor between the various Disney fan sites?" Yes Taken from the LA times Disneyland officials declined to discuss Monday what they have planned for the exhibit space, saying only that "we regularly make modifications and enhancements throughout the resort."
