More discussion than rumor or news...

[Cobra B.]

Why is it that as soon as an attraction closes or is slated to be closed that we immediately try to replace it with a new movie themed ride or attraction? American Idol is closing, let's make something Star Wars. Let's make a new land based on Avatar. We have to have a Cars Land.

Disney World's classic attractions for the most part had nothing to do with movies. Horizons, Spaceship Earth (original), Soarin, Pirates (yes, it was a ride first), Space Mountain. You get the idea. Most modern movies don't have the staying power of the original classics like Snow White (even though they closed this icon), Peter Pan and new classics Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid and Lion King.

Don't rush out to build new lands on not so classic movies. Nobody will care about Cars in 2 years. I don't care now.

 

[Cappscom8]

Why is it that as soon as an attraction closes or is slated to be closed that we immediately try to replace it with a new movie themed ride or attraction? American Idol is closing, let's make something Star Wars. Let's make a new land based on Avatar. We have to have a Cars Land.

Disney World's classic attractions for the most part had nothing to do with movies. Horizons, Spaceship Earth (original), Soarin, Pirates (yes, it was a ride first), Space Mountain. You get the idea. Most modern movies don't have the staying power of the original classics like Snow White (even though they closed this icon), Peter Pan and new classics Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid and Lion King.

Don't rush out to build new lands on not so classic movies. Nobody will care about Cars in 2 years. I don't care now.

I'm not sure your criticism makes sense. Many Disney attractions are based on movies as you point out. Some are based on movies that are now considered classics, but other attractions are based on films no one cares about anymore such as the Jungle Cruise ( Disney Adventure Series), Tom Sawyer Island, and the Swiss Family Tree house. Others are based on films that your "not supposed to consider a classic" such as Splash Mountain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Disney's idea to build a park where his movies came to life? Wasn't the entire concept born out of his desire to make a train ride that would pass thorough scenes from his movies? I'm thinking the movies have consistently been the inspiration for many of the most popular and timeless attractions. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted your comments.

 

[skier_pete]

Why is it that as soon as an attraction closes or is slated to be closed that we immediately try to replace it with a new movie themed ride or attraction? American Idol is closing, let's make something Star Wars. Let's make a new land based on Avatar. We have to have a Cars Land.

Disney World's classic attractions for the most part had nothing to do with movies. Horizons, Spaceship Earth (original), Soarin, Pirates (yes, it was a ride first), Space Mountain. You get the idea. Most modern movies don't have the staying power of the original classics like Snow White (even though they closed this icon), Peter Pan and new classics Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid and Lion King.

Don't rush out to build new lands on not so classic movies. Nobody will care about Cars in 2 years. I don't care now.

Your arguments aren't very solid. (Please don't take this personally, I am only commenting on an argument that I see over and over again here.)

It seems that most people that make this argument aren't very familiar with Disney history beyond the feature length cartoons. While some original Disneyland attractions were based on either movies (Snow White, Peter Pan) many werre based on concepts behind Disney's live action material.

Some examples:
20,000 leagues Under the Sea after the movie
Frontierland based on the smash TV hit of Davy Crockett
Pirates of the Carribean was based off of the hit film Treasure Island
Adventureland was originally going to be called True Life Adventureland after Walt's series of True Life Adventures
Swiss Family Treehouse was a movie

There are a few things that aren't (It's a Small World really sprang out of the World's Fair, as did Carousel of Progress. Haunted Mansion and Space Mountain were very original concepts.) but Disney has ALWAYS based their theme park stuff on existing properties, just not ALL of it. The reason they are more likely to now is the expense. Attractions cost $200-$500 million, and they are very risk averse to put out something that is not immediately popular. (The flop of Mission:Space may well be the last time you see them take that chance - and that wasn't even really a wholly original property either.)

In addition you are complaining about replacing old things with new things - yet you don't like the idea of them closing American Idol (which is 11 years old) and replacing it with Star Wars (which is 35 years old), which is in fact the exact opposite of what you are arguing against. Avatar is the closest thing to "too new a product", but they are not even closing anything to put it in. (They moved Festival of the Lion King, and Pocahantas and her forest friends closed long before Avatar was in the wind.)

Finally you claim "no-one will care about Cars in 2 years". You do realize that Cars has been around 7 years and it continues to sell a billion dollars in merchandise every year, and almost every boy between 2 and 8 is in love with it. It's Disney's second biggest merchandise seller (after the Princess line) and Cars hasn't even reached the 2nd generation point yet. (The point where the parents grew up with it, and now are passing it onto their kids.) This is where Little Mermaid and Toy Story are at now. You are rights, Cars is not a great movie, but it is hugely popular. The fact that they are producing spin-off product (Planes, rumored Trains) means it's unlikely to go anywhere soon.

In the end, regardless what you are trying to point out, I'll also argue that what the ride is based on doesn't matter as long as the quality of the ride is there. Have you been to DCA and ridden RSR? I am not a huge Cars fan (who over 8 is?) but that is the best ride that Disney has produced in 25 years. It is amazing and wonderful and clever and fun. Carsland itself is very impressive as well. I for one am a little sad to hear they are now thinking of NOT bringing it to Florida, though if they don't I would applaud the choice to leave DLR and WDW more unique from eachother. I could care less what Disney does next, Star Wars, Marvel, Lord of The Rings, Avatar....if they put that much care and quality into the product as they did with the recent DCA re-do, I'll gladly enjoy it.

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

Your arguments aren't very solid. (Please don't take this personally, I am only commenting on an argument that I see over and over again here.)

It seems that most people that make this argument aren't very familiar with Disney history beyond the feature length cartoons. While some original Disneyland attractions were based on either movies (Snow White, Peter Pan) many werre based on concepts behind Disney's live action material.

Some examples:
20,000 leagues Under the Sea after the movie
Frontierland based on the smash TV hit of Davy Crockett
Pirates of the Carribean was based off of the hit film Treasure Island
Adventureland was originally going to be called True Life Adventureland after Walt's series of True Life Adventures
Swiss Family Treehouse was a movie

There are a few things that aren't (It's a Small World really sprang out of the World's Fair, as did Carousel of Progress. Haunted Mansion and Space Mountain were very original concepts.) but Disney has ALWAYS based their theme park stuff on existing properties, just not ALL of it. The reason they are more likely to now is the expense. Attractions cost $200-$500 million, and they are very risk averse to put out something that is not immediately popular. (The flop of Mission:Space may well be the last time you see them take that chance - and that wasn't even really a wholly original property either.)

In addition you are complaining about replacing old things with new things - yet you don't like the idea of them closing American Idol (which is 11 years old) and replacing it with Star Wars (which is 35 years old), which is in fact the exact opposite of what you are arguing against. Avatar is the closest thing to "too new a product", but they are not even closing anything to put it in. (They moved Festival of the Lion King, and Pocahantas and her forest friends closed long before Avatar was in the wind.)

Finally you claim "no-one will care about Cars in 2 years". You do realize that Cars has been around 7 years and it continues to sell a billion dollars in merchandise every year, and almost every boy between 2 and 8 is in love with it. It's Disney's second biggest merchandise seller (after the Princess line) and Cars hasn't even reached the 2nd generation point yet. (The point where the parents grew up with it, and now are passing it onto their kids.) This is where Little Mermaid and Toy Story are at now. You are rights, Cars is not a great movie, but it is hugely popular. The fact that they are producing spin-off product (Planes, rumored Trains) means it's unlikely to go anywhere soon.

In the end, regardless what you are trying to point out, I'll also argue that what the ride is based on doesn't matter as long as the quality of the ride is there. Have you been to DCA and ridden RSR? I am not a huge Cars fan (who over 8 is?) but that is the best ride that Disney has produced in 25 years. It is amazing and wonderful and clever and fun. Carsland itself is very impressive as well. I for one am a little sad to hear they are now thinking of NOT bringing it to Florida, though if they don't I would applaud the choice to leave DLR and WDW more unique from eachother. I could care less what Disney does next, Star Wars, Marvel, Lord of The Rings, Avatar....if they put that much care and quality into the product as they did with the recent DCA re-do, I'll gladly enjoy it.

~Again, just fabulous -- all of the above.

~ETA: Wow, I did not know that Frontierland was inspired by Davy Crockett. This is the first I've heard of the Davy Crockett TV show! Just another example how well made theme park attractions can continue to thrive and entertain for generations well beyond the initial "life" of the IP.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

~Again, just fabulous -- all of the above.

~ETA: Wow, I did not know that Frontierland was inspired by Davy Crockett. This is the first I've heard of the Davy Crockett TV show! Just another example how well made theme park attractions can continue to thrive and entertain for generations well beyond the initial "life" of the IP.

Yes, this makes the point well. When I was a child in the60's Davy Crockett was a big deal. Coon skin hats and toy rifles where everywhere and every child could sing the theme song. I still can now. Fess Parker was hero to many a little boy.

Movies do help, and movies do give Disney an idea of what may attract people, but bottom line is, once they get to Disney, if the ride is good, everyone's happy.

But this is the attraction of doing something besides old Disney movies. Disney fans already come to the parks. Harry Potter, Avatar, Star Wars, and other properties will produce rides pleasing to everyone, but will also attract non-Disney people out of either curiosity or fandom.

There could be an increase in Disney attendance by Disney fans if they built a Jungle Book land, but there is no new fan base or curiosity.

Another aspect is global. The entertainment industry has changed drastically just in the last decade or two. Movies now make more overseas than domestically. Things like Avatar attract a global audience. And regardless of how good the movie is, (It was good by the only important measure - millions went to see it.) People from AROUND THE WORLD will be interested in seeing that fantasctic planet come to life. Same with Star Wars. It will probably attract tens if not hundreds of thousands or millions of non-Disney fans to Disney.

In retrospect everybody thinks Disney was a saint who didn't think about money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Making people handy and wanting lots of money in return can go hand in hand. Walt proved this with all the ways he came up with to get money from people. I don't mind. He also gave me lots of fun.

 

[Rumors Rocks]

Your arguments aren't very solid. (Please don't take this personally, I am only commenting on an argument that I see over and over again here.)

It seems that most people that make this argument aren't very familiar with Disney history beyond the feature length cartoons. While some original Disneyland attractions were based on either movies (Snow White, Peter Pan) many werre based on concepts behind Disney's live action material.

Some examples:
20,000 leagues Under the Sea after the movie
Frontierland based on the smash TV hit of Davy Crockett
Pirates of the Carribean was based off of the hit film Treasure Island
Adventureland was originally going to be called True Life Adventureland after Walt's series of True Life Adventures
Swiss Family Treehouse was a movie

There are a few things that aren't (It's a Small World really sprang out of the World's Fair, as did Carousel of Progress. Haunted Mansion and Space Mountain were very original concepts.) but Disney has ALWAYS based their theme park stuff on existing properties, just not ALL of it. The reason they are more likely to now is the expense. Attractions cost $200-$500 million, and they are very risk averse to put out something that is not immediately popular. (The flop of Mission:Space may well be the last time you see them take that chance - and that wasn't even really a wholly original property either.)

In addition you are complaining about replacing old things with new things - yet you don't like the idea of them closing American Idol (which is 11 years old) and replacing it with Star Wars (which is 35 years old), which is in fact the exact opposite of what you are arguing against. Avatar is the closest thing to "too new a product", but they are not even closing anything to put it in. (They moved Festival of the Lion King, and Pocahantas and her forest friends closed long before Avatar was in the wind.)

Finally you claim "no-one will care about Cars in 2 years". You do realize that Cars has been around 7 years and it continues to sell a billion dollars in merchandise every year, and almost every boy between 2 and 8 is in love with it. It's Disney's second biggest merchandise seller (after the Princess line) and Cars hasn't even reached the 2nd generation point yet. (The point where the parents grew up with it, and now are passing it onto their kids.) This is where Little Mermaid and Toy Story are at now. You are rights, Cars is not a great movie, but it is hugely popular. The fact that they are producing spin-off product (Planes, rumored Trains) means it's unlikely to go anywhere soon.

In the end, regardless what you are trying to point out, I'll also argue that what the ride is based on doesn't matter as long as the quality of the ride is there. Have you been to DCA and ridden RSR? I am not a huge Cars fan (who over 8 is?) but that is the best ride that Disney has produced in 25 years. It is amazing and wonderful and clever and fun. Carsland itself is very impressive as well. I for one am a little sad to hear they are now thinking of NOT bringing it to Florida, though if they don't I would applaud the choice to leave DLR and WDW more unique from eachother. I could care less what Disney does next, Star Wars, Marvel, Lord of The Rings, Avatar....if they put that much care and quality into the product as they did with the recent DCA re-do, I'll gladly enjoy it.

 

[DPCummerbund]

I think the previous posters hit the nail on the head with the older attractions. They were frequently based on Disney's movies or TV shows.

The only thing I would add is that many of the rides that didn't have a direct tie-in were often sponsored by companies that had a tie-in. For example, RCA was the original sponsor for Space Mountain at MK - after doing much of the wiring at WDW, RCA had promised $10 million to Disney if they made a ride that tied into RCA. For the first few years at WDW, RCA had one of its satellites on display in Space Mountain. As one article pointed out, when Future World opened, every attraction had a sponsor.

 

[rmsept81]

Last year I received a marketing survey from WDW specifically about Star Wars- would I visit a land, how much did I like the characters, what characters would I want to see, if they build a land what would I want it to look like? How about Angry birds Star Wars or Lego Star Wars. And then trivia to see how much i actually knew about the franchise. Seems to me that Disney doesn't do much without the market research behind it to take and that takes time. Adding a Star Wars or Avatar land is not going to ruin Walt Disney World. If anything it will open it up to those who may not think of themselves as "Disney people" and expose them to the magic.

 

[Fantaluminishes]

In the end, regardless what you are trying to point out, I'll also argue that what the ride is based on doesn't matter as long as the quality of the ride is there. Have you been to DCA and ridden RSR? I am not a huge Cars fan (who over 8 is?) but that is the best ride that Disney has produced in 25 years. It is amazing and wonderful and clever and fun. Carsland itself is very impressive as well.

I'm assuming you are stating an opinion, as opposed to a fact. Disney has created several rides in the past 25 years. RSR is fun. Even great. But I'm not sure it's the "best" thing Disney has done in two-and-a-half decades. Nor is it the most original. Soarin', Indiana Jones Adventure, Expedition Everest. Test Track and Tower of Terror have all opened during that time.

My point here is that there are plenty of people who might argue about what is the "best" ride Disney has created in 25 years. If we were talking about ten years, I'd be willing to compromise on the RSR thing.