Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34
  1. #16

    • Blew By You
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Santa Clarita, California, United States
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by DobbysCloset View Post
    Yet in 1955 when the original DL was built, audiences were quite happy with ride-through synopses of films because films weren't available to them except in the theater. The ride was a chance to re-live a film you'd enjoyed but not seen for years.

    Now, when the kid has seen "Cars" 1,500 times before visiting the park, something more is needed -- a blend of the familiar and the unforgettable!

    And I think it's best that the ride be unforgettable -- Tower of Terror works great even without anyone knowing or caring about its media origin.
    In 1955, guest were given the opportunity to fly into outer space, taken on a riverboat cruise, fly over London and Neverland, cruise down jungle rivers, walk across a drawbridge over a moat and through a castle, get a chance to experience hell. All in a day's outing. So I think there's plenty of room for original idea attractions and franchise attractions as long as they are of quality creativity and great construction.

  2. #17

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,454

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    To be honest if Disney ever builds another original attraction in the US I'll be amazed. The ones left are representations of a bygone era.
    The Mickey audience is not made up of people; it has no racial, national, political, religious or social differences or affiliations; the Mickey audience is made up of parts of people, of that deathless, precious, ageless, absolutely primitive remnant of something in every world-wracked human being which makes us play with children’s toys and laugh without self-consciousness at silly things, and sing in bathtubs, and dream and believe that our babies are uniquely beautiful. You know…the Mickey in us.
    -Walt Disney

  3. #18

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Morva in the Land of Prydain
    Posts
    4,376

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    ORDDU: My sisters and I will never understand why anyone would complain about attractions at Disneyland being based on Disney movies. (It is Disneyland, after all.) We actually welcome attractions at Disney theme parks that have movie tie-ins. Our only complaint would be about proper placement. We do not think Tom Sawyer Island should have been re-themed to a pirate movie--regardless of how popular the franchise was.

    ORWEN: We also think Winnie the Pooh fits better in Fantasyland than Critter Country.

    ORDDU: As long as there is a good quality attraction for us to enjoy, let it be based on Disney movies.

    ORWEN: And when we say Disney movies we don't mean Avatar--which is NOT a Disney movie. Non Disney movies in a Disney theme park is a big 'no-no' for us.

  4. #19

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    588

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Soarin' over California, California Screamin' and Grizzly River Run in DCA are all non-franchised and they do very very well. With DCA 2.0, the entire Buena Vista Street area and the Red Car are based on Disney's life, not any sort of film or television show, so they count, too.

    I think there's always going to be room for a balance. There have been franchised rides since the park opened - we always perhaps forget that even Frontierland had its roots in Disney's westerns from the 50s, the Swiss Family Tree House was based on the film, et al. I'd rather have a franchised ride done well than a poorly executed original attraction. The best thing, IMHO, would be to continue to have a mix of both originals and franchises.
    The DCA 1.0 attractions are 12 years old and the Red Car is an A or B ticket. New attractions in the last 7 years: Cars Land, Little Mermaid, Sky School, Midway Mania,Fun Wheel SSS, Nemo Subs, Pixie Hollow, Princesses Fantasy Fair, movie addition to POTC, and the update Star Tour have all been existing Disney characters or movie franchises. I think there won't be a balance between Original and Franchise and Disneyland fans need to realize it.
    Murphy,with that neck, is like E.T. in dragon form

  5. #20

    • Ducksketeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bonafide SoCal original
    Posts
    141

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by G24T View Post
    Mullholland Madness, Superstar Limo, Orange Stinger, and Golden Dreams. Coincidentally all were replaced by franchised attractions (Goofy's Sky School, Monsters Inc., Silly Symphony Swings, and The Little Mermaid).
    Those rides were only renamed and dressed to have Disney connections. But fully re themed attractions are the finding Nemo submarines and the Tarzan treehouse. Although I do agree on the Little Mermaid attraction as it was an actual replacement with a franchise theme.

  6. #21

    • Element of Laughter
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sugarcube Corner, Ponyville, Equestria
    Posts
    208

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    My 5 all-time favorite Disneyland rides are all original(Jungle Cruise, it's a small world, Pirates of the Caribbean, Haunted Mansion, and Space Mountain), plus my favorite ride at Disney's California Adventure(Soaring Over California). . . Not that I have anything against franchised attractions, as some franchised attractions are definitely E-tickets. . . To me, I don't really care if an attraction or ride is based on a movie or a completely original story, it's, as Darrell from Storage Wars would say, the "Wow Factor."
    ​Pinkamena Diane Pie, is that you?

  7. #22

    • "What is thy bidding?"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Death Star
    Posts
    158

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by bayouguy View Post
    In 1955, guest were given the opportunity to fly into outer space, taken on a riverboat cruise, fly over London and Neverland, cruise down jungle rivers, walk across a drawbridge over a moat and through a castle, get a chance to experience hell. All in a day's outing. So I think there's plenty of room for original idea attractions and franchise attractions as long as they are of quality creativity and great construction.

    If you look at this video within this news link you will see a 1955 Disney where guests did get to experience Walt's vision from the beginning. Walt was the franchise at that time and he wanted every guest to experience his stories within his park. Disneyland footage from 1955 shows brand-new park in vintage state

  8. #23

    • Artistic integrity
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    3,503

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by G24T View Post
    There will always be room for original ideas to flourish in the parks but the funding & approval for those attractions will be based on the success of the franchise rides. No recent E-Ticket themed attraction has built without it being attached to a box office hit (transformers, Cars Land, Kong 3-D) because of the gobs of money they bring in daily. Franchise attractions will be a prominent part of both parks in the DLR but that doesn't mean that original attractions won't pop up either from time to time.

    As for the highlighted sections in red - That's wishful thinking. The co. is showing no signs of building any large scale ORIGINAL attractions, for the foreseeable future.

    And as for the blue highlighted - Original rides don't?

    DLRR, Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, PotC, HM, Mark Twain, Columbia, Big Thunder, it's a small world, Matterhorn, Space Mountain - Surely .. none of those attractions bring in "gobs of money".

    If you all haven't noticed - Seems Disney is very fickle about their push for Franchise Attractions if the movie doesn't bring "Death Star" loads of cash!

    Hey, lets create a TRON attraction for Tomorrowland - Oh, forget it! The movie wasn't the hit we expected.
    Hey, lets create a OZ themed land in DL - Oh, forget it! The movie wasn't the hit we expected.
    Hey, lets create a Frontierland attraction based on Lone Ranger - Oh, forget it! The movie is not the big hit we expected.

    For every next film in the pipeline comes the rumors of an attraction based on it. Followed by the smell of a dusty shelf, with dust being kicked up, with more abandoned ideas being added.

    In my opinion, basing attractions on a franchise is risky.

    Original attractions are the risk-adverse ideas! For they (Matterhorn, Space Mountain, Big Thunder, HM, PotC) won't be dated, and stand the greater chance of being liked by every new generation!
    MY SIGNATURE:
    Dear Peoplemover Fans, If you want to see a new attraction that at least mimics the 1967 Peoplemover in a future Tomorrowland remodel, you need to write to the powers-that-be, and let them know. If you don't - Then the next time Tomorrowland is remodeled, you will see a land barren of any "Peoplemover" type attraction.

  9. #24

    • Artistic integrity
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    3,503

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Additionally ....

    One could break this discussion down even further to Franchise/IP ideas that:

    1. Are a "retelling" of the same story, as from the film (Little Mermaid is one example)
    2. Same characters, same situations, but a new story of their own (RSR is an example)
    3. The rider placed as the primary character (The original dark rides in Fantasyland followed this design)

    I like scenarios #2 and #3. Scenario #1 .. is the most boring format of them all. Just "passively" put in the position of just watching the same movie (AGAIN) unfold in front of me. Those particular kinds of attractions should, in my opinion, NEVER get off a drawing board! Absolute kill-joy!
    MY SIGNATURE:
    Dear Peoplemover Fans, If you want to see a new attraction that at least mimics the 1967 Peoplemover in a future Tomorrowland remodel, you need to write to the powers-that-be, and let them know. If you don't - Then the next time Tomorrowland is remodeled, you will see a land barren of any "Peoplemover" type attraction.

  10. #25

    • Ducksketeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bonafide SoCal original
    Posts
    141

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomorrowland_1967 View Post
    As for the highlighted sections in red - That's wishful thinking. The co. is showing no signs of building any large scale ORIGINAL attractions, for the foreseeable future.

    And as for the blue highlighted - Original rides don't?

    DLRR, Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, PotC, HM, Mark Twain, Columbia, Big Thunder, it's a small world, Matterhorn, Space Mountain - Surely .. none of those attractions bring in "gobs of money".

    If you all haven't noticed - Seems Disney is very fickle about their push for Franchise Attractions if the movie doesn't bring "Death Star" loads of cash!

    Hey, lets create a TRON attraction for Tomorrowland - Oh, forget it! The movie wasn't the hit we expected.
    Hey, lets create a OZ themed land in DL - Oh, forget it! The movie wasn't the hit we expected.
    Hey, lets create a Frontierland attraction based on Lone Ranger - Oh, forget it! The movie is not the big hit we expected.

    For every next film in the pipeline comes the rumors of an attraction based on it. Followed by the smell of a dusty shelf, with dust being kicked up, with more abandoned ideas being added.

    In my opinion, basing attractions on a franchise is risky.

    Original attractions are the risk-adverse ideas! For they (Matterhorn, Space Mountain, Big Thunder, HM, PotC) won't be dated, and stand the greater chance of being liked by every new generation!
    Excellent points! And of course there is a merchandising factor to be considered as well. PotC has always been a great ride for retail merchandising, as well as most of the dark rides in Fantasyland. But there may be other rides/attractions that generate merchandising profits that may not seem as readily apparent. The Tiki-Room may be one example. I have noticed over the last decade a large increase in the "tiki subculture" in the Los Angeles area. Interest in Tiki/Polynesian bars, decor and other art might be a consideration taken to keep an attraction going. Some of the Tiki stuff in the shops on Main Street is pretty nice, and expensive too. I wonder how much of the local "tiki culture" spends on that? Just curious?

    I have always figured that changing the Swiss Family Tree-house was more about merchandising plush toys than a decision based on any success from that film. Swiss Tree-house was not likely to generate any additional retail sales, but it was a quick fit for the Tarzan theme, so why not? Not much risk, or cost in that change. Same with the re-theme on Tom Sawyers Island to include the pirate motifs post PotC films.

    But I am in full agreement that a Tron ride would be risk without much reward. I'd look for an expanded Star Wars theme in tomorrowland just based on Disney's investment into that franchise. That one would make more sense.
    Last edited by USS Seawolf; 07-07-2013 at 07:09 PM.

  11. #26

    • No Disassemble!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    791

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomorrowland_1967 View Post
    And as for the blue highlighted - Original rides don't?

    DLRR, Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, PotC, HM, Mark Twain, Columbia, Big Thunder, it's a small world, Matterhorn, Space Mountain - Surely .. none of those attractions bring in "gobs of money".
    Not gobs. Gobs to me is when people make a conscious choice to pay Disney Parks an amount beyond the price of admission in support of their affinity towards a particular attraction or experience they had in the parks.

    From a merchandise perspective let's keep in mind that by more than a coincidence the POTC merchandise does sell well however most merchandise has been packaged to closely resemble themes & fonts used in the POTC films and has little to no connection to the actual attraction. Now a completely non-franchised attraction (Small World for example) has maybe a few handful of books out that are for sale (at "Off the Page") but the attraction itself is used as a draw for guests to purchase various character franchised toys. Meanwhile Cars Land suffered an unexpected mass-shortage of merchandise on opening week and to this day continues to stock Cars merchandise all over the parks let alone the three storefronts in Cars Land itself.

    If you all haven't noticed - Seems Disney is very fickle about their push for Franchise Attractions if the movie doesn't bring "Death Star" loads of cash!
    Anyone who spends at least half an hour a week looking at the boards understands Disney's peculiar attitude towards the franchise rides. But with that same logic how would you explain the Princess Fantasy Faire project? Not only did we all but got blindsided by this project as it was green-lit even before Al broke the news about it but these aren't major moneymaking films here. In fact you could say that PFF itself is an original idea designed to house various princess franchises but is not dedicated to an individual brand.

    When I hear "rumors" on MiceChat I take them as "what-if?" ideas and just wait for some approved attraction to come out of left field. But since those announcements come few and far between I always love posting my ideas in the rumors threads, guilty pleasure I guess.

    In my opinion, basing attractions on a franchise is risky.
    Not anymore. Disney's in it for the quick bucks at the moment because consumers are all about "the moment" now. They want their Cars Land on Saturday and their Transformers on Sunday and the company that comes out with the next big "ooh ahh" attraction will make twice as much money until the thrill wears off or until the next park outdoes the other. Which is why I expect something to be green-lit by Disney before the opening day ceremony for Harry Hollywood Potter land.
    Many Bothans died to bring you these fastpasses.

  12. #27

    • Artistic integrity
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    3,503

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by G24T View Post

    Not anymore. Disney's in it for the quick bucks at the moment because consumers are all about "the moment" now. They want their Cars Land on Saturday and their Transformers on Sunday and the company that comes out with the next big "ooh ahh" attraction will make twice as much money until the thrill wears off or until the next park outdoes the other. Which is why I expect something to be green-lit by Disney before the opening day ceremony for Harry Hollywood Potter land.
    When it takes 5 years to develop, construct, and open a major attraction - It cannot be about "the moment". These are longterm decisions. Surely they are considering franchises with endurance. And it seems Little Mermaid and Cars are doing that for them. But who's to say newer franchises - "Oz", "Lone Ranger", "Tron" have the ability to hold on, by the time their attraction opens?

    See, it's reasons like that, that make me think - They are boxing and cornering themselves into a place, that either their franchise idea is gangbusters, if they're lucky. Or goes out as fast as a firecracker!

    Original attractions not tied to any film don't carry this kind of baggage.

    I'm willing to take a guess, they have more franchise ride ideas sitting on dusty shelves, than original ideas that have zilch to do with any film.

    I've heard more ride idea rumors out of WDI, that get turned down left and right, because their respective film didn't do the kind of business they expected.
    MY SIGNATURE:
    Dear Peoplemover Fans, If you want to see a new attraction that at least mimics the 1967 Peoplemover in a future Tomorrowland remodel, you need to write to the powers-that-be, and let them know. If you don't - Then the next time Tomorrowland is remodeled, you will see a land barren of any "Peoplemover" type attraction.

  13. #28

    • I'm from Canada eh!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,068

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    With the huge success of the Wizarding world of Harry potter and Carsland It will be a long time before we see a non-franchised attraction at the North American theme parks.

  14. #29

    •   
    • Lurking in the corners
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Nothern Ohio
    Posts
    678
    Blog Entries
    22

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by G24T View Post
    ...Gobs to me is when people make a conscious choice to pay Disney Parks an amount beyond the price of admission in support of their affinity towards a particular attraction or experience they had in the parks.

    From a merchandise perspective let's keep in mind that by more than a coincidence the POTC merchandise does sell well however most merchandise has been packaged to closely resemble themes & fonts used in the POTC films and has little to no connection to the actual attraction. Now a completely non-franchised attraction (Small World for example) has maybe a few handful of books out that are for sale...
    By this logic, the Haunted Mansion must be a "gobs of money" attraction. When they release new HM merchandise it is impossible to keep it on the shelves. Witness the fact that all of the new HM merch items were extremely difficult to purchase for the first several months after their release. Granted, this may be the exception to the rule because Mansionistas tend to be fanatical about their collecting. It does go to show that, given a good attraction, merchandising for a non-franchised attraction can (and does) create a cash flow for the parks.

    “That's the way a lot of things happen... You think one person did something
    but he was just the one to put the color on it." – Ken Anderson
    ​I'm blogging here again!

  15. #30

    • No Disassemble!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    791

    Re: Disneyland Debat Thread: The Fate of the Future- Original Rides vs Franchise Ride

    Quote Originally Posted by Attic Haunt View Post
    By this logic, the Haunted Mansion must be a "gobs of money" attraction. When they release new HM merchandise it is impossible to keep it on the shelves. Witness the fact that all of the new HM merch items were extremely difficult to purchase for the first several months after their release. Granted, this may be the exception to the rule because Mansionistas tend to be fanatical about their collecting. It does go to show that, given a good attraction, merchandising for a non-franchised attraction can (and does) create a cash flow for the parks.
    Comparing limited edition merchandise vs. Cars & Star Wars merchandise is like comparing ipods vs. the limited re-release of the zune player. Over time one brand will make millions while the other would bring in tens of thousands. Now 10-50,000 a year is certainly a lot of money, just not the gobs that flying tire hats & light sabers bring in.

    Disney won't expand the limited edition merchandise because they a) don't trust the hardcore fan-base to rave about every limited item they produce and b) they don't have a predictive formula yet that they can pin on AP spending.
    Many Bothans died to bring you these fastpasses.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 167
    Last Post: 07-04-2012, 02:05 PM
  2. The Future of Disneyland
    By Sallah in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-18-2005, 07:13 PM
  3. The Disneyland Information Thread
    By Barbaraann in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-15-2005, 06:00 PM
  4. The 2000th Disneyland Forum Thread
    By Club 33 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-19-2005, 09:57 PM
  5. The Disneyland Trivia Thread
    By Club 33 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 04-20-2005, 07:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •