Announcement

Collapse

MiceChat Rules

A list of MiceChat's rules can be found at the top of the Disneyland forum.
See more
See less

What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

Collapse

Header Ad

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Over the Last 7 years Disney Has acquired Pixar , Marvel and Lucas totaling over $15 billion dollars , which of these 3 acquisitions Would you most like to see more of in the Disneyland Resort in the foreseen future? Or if any at all?

    and we already know there's already some attractions of these empires in the DLR , but would you like see more of Pixar or more Lucas or more Marvel please share your thoughts!

  • Tomorrowland_1967
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by brianpinsky View Post
    WDI, stop building attractions based on the latest blockbuster released. We want new and imaginative. No more Jack Sparrows, Nemos, or Monsters but we want stories like Phantom Manor where the story sells its self with out the DVD waiting in the gift shop at the end.
    Oh my god .... That's one of the best One-Two-Punch answers I've ever read! BRILLIANT!

    And of course .. "Gatheringrosebuds" post was something so good ... I'd love to place that on Iger's desk!

    Leave a comment:


  • Disneymike
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by CASurfer65 View Post
    And you could add several others, Mike. Others that Walt oversaw himself, and those he didn't, like Mission to Mars, Inner Space, and others that, sadly, came after his passing. I think he would have loved those because of the edutainment experiences they provided. Something he found important.
    Exactly!

    Leave a comment:


  • CDW
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    I don't think originality is dead. Or at least, not more so than it's ever been. "Originality" is a problematic word, in that everything is influenced by something. Any time you make something, you'll get comparisons with other works. At the same time, though, there is something meaningful to the term. Just to take a recent example, I'd term Expedition Everest an original ride. Is the Yeti something Disney invented? No. Does the ride share various similarities to Matterhorn Bobsleds? Yes. But to my mind, that's not really what I'm looking at when I'm considering whether a ride is original. When I use the word "original", in this context, I'm not making much of a judgment as to the novelty of its elements. The most important aspect, to my mind, is that it's not explicitly tied into any existing franchise, Disney or otherwise. I'll get to why in a second. As to your LEGO land example, I've never been, so I can't say how similar the themes are, but I can say that some of this comes down on how you look at it. If you approach the work just looking at the general feeling, you'll nearly always find something else that it's similar to. If you try to look at the details, though, and understand what the artists were thinking when they made it, there's usually something interesting and new to find. Again, I'm not saying that the LEGO land ride isn't copying of the works you mentioned, since I've never seen it - I'm just saying that part of what you get out of a ride depends on what you bring into it.

    I've seen many here make the objection that franchise rides tell the rider a story, while non-franchise rides include the rider in the story, but I actually don't believe that's the case. There are many franchise rides that explicitly do include the rider in the ride universe: Star Tours, as you noted - its explicit conceit is that you're a tourist traveling in the Star Wars universe. I refuse to believe that there are many kids who never imagined themselves as an active participant in that universe. Conversely, there are various original rides that don't include the rider in the story in any meaningful way: Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't involve the riders in the action - you are a spectator to the pirates' story. Franchise rides can go either way, and I think all four options (franchise/participant, franchise/spectator, original/participant, original/spectator), plus all the other combinations of ways you can classify rides, are valuable. Again, it's about balance.

    To me, the value of original rides is primarily in three things: the freedom provided to the rider to mentally explore the world without the restrictions provided by the franchise; the greater creativity allowed to the Imagineers to conceive and design the idea to fit the ride, rather than vice versa; and the (perhaps more personal to me) benefit of not feeling as though Disney cares more about pushing their brands than exploring ideas. That's why I care more about the ride simply not being literally a franchise ride, rather than being some extraordinary work of creation ex nihilo. Obviously, if they had made RSR just the way it is, but didn't include the name Cars anywhere, that wouldn't be any better, but I don't think anyone outside of certain Chinese entrepreneurs are are talking about doing that. In any case, there's nothing wrong with simply putting your own spin on an old idea, and if you have smart people working on the project, it will always have something new and different to distinguish itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • FigmentJedi
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Replace the Pirates of the Caribbean stuff on Tom Sawyer Island with Monkey Island stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • Meville
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by CDW View Post
    I couldn't really say whether it would be better, but I think it would certainly work. I only saw Cars fairly recently, and I can't say I particularly cared for it - I didn't hate it, but it just didn't really do much for me. A 50's themed California car culture ride could be a lot of fun, and would certainly be perfectly in line with the (nominal) theme of the park. But, like I said, there is a place for franchise rides, and lots of people (particularly small people) seem to love the movie. If you want to build a car-related ride, and you have a popular franchise titled Cars, well...the tie-in is kind of obvious.


    Originally posted by CDW View Post
    You didn't really answer my question, though - do you disagree that there is a relevant difference between a franchise ride and a ride that draws on the themes and images of earlier works, but doesn't explicitly reference an existing title? And assuming that there is something we can reasonably call an "original" work, distinguishable from a franchise ride, do you think it has value in existing separately from franchise rides?
    And that is really the big problem isn’t it. Name a theme, any theme or genre that exists in our realm of popular culture that is NOT tied to a popular franchise. For example, LEGO land has a adventure ride that is kind of like Buzz lightyear Astro blasters that is set to a general Egyptian theme. And even though there was no mention about it, it felt like it was just direct copies of Indian Jones, The Mummy or Prince of Persia. How can we expect Disney to make original rides, based on original ideas in a world where originality is dead?

    And I do get your point. An original ride includes you in the story, where-as a franchised ride shows you it. However, I’m not sure that is fair, especially when talking about RSR. As a rider, you are put in the world of cars. You are literally being talked to and are the center of that attraction as you pass through. Same with Indy, Same with Star Tours.

    Leave a comment:


  • CDW
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by Meville View Post
    So that brings me back to my last question:
    Would CARSland or RSR be better if it was simply an area themed with the american car culture of the 50's?
    I couldn't really say whether it would be better, but I think it would certainly work. I only saw Cars fairly recently, and I can't say I particularly cared for it - I didn't hate it, but it just didn't really do much for me. A 50's themed California car culture ride could be a lot of fun, and would certainly be perfectly in line with the (nominal) theme of the park. But, like I said, there is a place for franchise rides, and lots of people (particularly small people) seem to love the movie. If you want to build a car-related ride, and you have a popular franchise titled Cars, well...the tie-in is kind of obvious.

    You didn't really answer my question, though - do you disagree that there is a relevant difference between a franchise ride and a ride that draws on the themes and images of earlier works, but doesn't explicitly reference an existing title? And assuming that there is something we can reasonably call an "original" work, distinguishable from a franchise ride, do you think it has value in existing separately from franchise rides?

    Leave a comment:


  • Meville
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by CDW View Post
    No. I'm sorry, but you have to admit that there's a real difference between a ride that draws on the themes and imagery of previous stories, which is almost impossible not to do, and a ride that's explicitly part of a franchise. Yes, there were haunted house stories before the Haunted Mansion, and pirate stories before POTC, but neither of those rides used explicit characters or storylines to hem in the world they were creating. The Haunted Mansion wasn't the first to have faces in the wallpaper and bulging doors, but does that mean that they should have called it The Haunting: The Ride? Archetypes and imagery are important for storytelling - they allow viewers to rapidly orient themselves to what's being communicated, which is all the more important when a scene is going past you at two feet per second. A franchise ride, even if it's trying to tell a semi-original story set in that universe, inevitably uses the same characters, the same settings, and the same rules, which means that you're framing the experience within that world, rather than mentally exploring a new one. Franchise rides can be fun, and I think they have a strong role to play. The issue is that, as many on here have said, the balance has been tipped far beyond anything like parity.
    So that brings me back to my last question:
    Would CARSland or RSR be better if it was simply an area themed with the american car culture of the 50's?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr Wiggins
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by Sambo View Post
    The originality being discussed is taking a theme, creating a scenario and leaving the participant to discover and imagine. The new spoon-fed attractions take a product, duplicate it in a medium for a viewer (no longer a participant) that leaves no room to imagine, discover, or even wonder. It has become a canon so confining that the imagination is being lacerated by the concertina wire of exact certitude.
    Quote of the year!

    Leave a comment:


  • CDW
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by Meville View Post
    I'm pretty sure that Walt did not invent Pirates, haunted houses, jungle safaris, president speeches or mountains. He got the idea from pop-culture and lore.
    Originally posted by Meville View Post

    Maybe not a direct representation, but these released movies are certainly of the same theme:

    No. I'm sorry, but you have to admit that there's a real difference between a ride that draws on the themes and imagery of previous stories, which is almost impossible not to do, and a ride that's explicitly part of a franchise. Yes, there were haunted house stories before the Haunted Mansion, and pirate stories before POTC, but neither of those rides used explicit characters or storylines to hem in the world they were creating. The Haunted Mansion wasn't the first to have faces in the wallpaper and bulging doors, but does that mean that they should have called it The Haunting: The Ride? Archetypes and imagery are important for storytelling - they allow viewers to rapidly orient themselves to what's being communicated, which is all the more important when a scene is going past you at two feet per second. A franchise ride, even if it's trying to tell a semi-original story set in that universe, inevitably uses the same characters, the same settings, and the same rules, which means that you're framing the experience within that world, rather than mentally exploring a new one. Franchise rides can be fun, and I think they have a strong role to play. The issue is that, as many on here have said, the balance has been tipped far beyond anything like parity.

    Oh, and as to the OP question - I'd like to see a third gate Star Wars attraction. I think it would be a good direction if they're trying to compete with Harry Potter, and a natural choice if they really are committed to making the new sequels be an equal part of the franchise. I'd also be fine with (slightly) expanding Star Tours's role in Tomorrowland. Marvel still doesn't feel right, but I don't know how much of that is just lack of familiarity, since they were never strongly connected before now. I think that doing the Iron Man thing in Innoventions is a good idea, or at least a better one than a lot of the alternatives that Disney actually would have the slightest interest in implementing, since Iron Man does at least pretend to be about future technologies in our own world, even if it's not exactly a physics textbook.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianpinsky
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    WDI, stop building attractions based on the latest blockbuster released. We want new and imaginative. No more Jack Sparrows, Nemos, or Monsters but we want stories like Phantom Manor where the story sells its self with out the DVD waiting in the gift shop at the end.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sambo
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by fifthrider View Post
    ... it's based on Test Track at EPCOT. Also, it's based on a Pixar franchise ...
    ...or the nature of what an attraction is based on.
    The problem is not so much "based on", which however far you want to parse it all the attractions are "based on" something, somewhere. The problem is re-creating the movie narrative so much that it's practically a duplicate version of the story just in a different medium, with zero room for the imagination to deviate from that narrative.

    The originality being discussed is taking a theme, creating a scenario and leaving the participant to discover and imagine. The new spoon-fed attractions take a product, duplicate it in a medium for a viewer (no longer a participant) that leaves no room to imagine, discover, or even wonder. It has become a canon so confining that the imagination is being lacerated by the concertina wire of exact certitude.

    Leave a comment:


  • CASurfer65
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by Disneymike View Post
    What about the following isn't original?
    And you could add several others, Mike. Others that Walt oversaw himself, and those he didn't, like Mission to Mars, Inner Space, and others that, sadly, came after his passing. I think he would have loved those because of the edutainment experiences they provided. Something he found important.

    Leave a comment:


  • Meville
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by Disneymike View Post
    Yes, but for those attractions he did not give his Imagineers a copy of a recently released movie and said "Follow this and make it come under budget".
    Maybe not a direct representation, but these released movies are certainly of the same theme:

    1950 Treasure Island (1950 movie)
    1954 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954 movie)
    1955 Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier
    1956 The Great Locomotive Chase (movie)



    Would Cars land be better if it was themed as a Small town that loved American racing culture???

    Leave a comment:


  • Disneymike
    replied
    Re: What Disney Acquisition would you like to see more on the DLR in the future?

    Originally posted by Meville View Post
    I'm pretty sure that Walt did not invent Pirates, haunted houses, jungle safaris, president speeches or mountains. He got the idea from pop-culture and lore.
    Yes, but for those attractions he did not give his Imagineers a copy of a recently released movie and said "Follow this and make it come under budget".

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X