Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Rumor: Hollywood Studios gets Green Light for Cars Land

Youngster Joey said:
marc said:
Well good if they get it but bad at the same time.

The parks need to get original rides not copies from other parks.

Agree with Jordan about the Ak plans.
Click to expand...

Which part specifically?
Click to expand...

Avatar land. No Disney fan that I know thinks its a good idea.
 
^Agreed.

Since when was the only other option nothing though? Disney are masters at dusting off old plans and revitalising them etc. They have enough of them. Beastly Kingdom being just one of them!

Granted, they would probably get extra funding if they went for a tie-in with a non Disney company but I still think the idea is terrible. I don't particularly like that Star Wars is included at Disneyland Cali because its just not Disney but at least Star Wars as a franchise has its timeless quality that is maintained across the generations and therefore retains some popularity and relevance. Avatar doesn't seem to tick any of those boxes (at least it doesnt for me). Tie-ins at Disney grate on me because as a company they have enough of their own stories to tell and the capabilities to do it so why go and get them from outside the company.
 
Mark said:
^Agreed.

Since when was the only other option nothing though? Disney are masters at dusting off old plans and revitalising them etc. They have enough of them. Beastly Kingdom being just one of them!

Granted, they would probably get extra funding if they went for a tie-in with a non Disney company but I still think the idea is terrible. I don't particularly like that Star Wars is included at Disneyland Cali because its just not Disney but at least Star Wars as a franchise has its timeless quality that is maintained across the generations and therefore retains some popularity and relevance. Avatar doesn't seem to tick any of those boxes (at least it doesnt for me). Tie-ins at Disney grate on me because as a company they have enough of their own stories to tell and the capabilities to do it so why go and get them from outside the company.
Click to expand...

Beastly Kingdom Already exists...
 
Yes, Avatar has 2 sequels coming out in 2015 and 2016 (both have been delayed) but Cameron himself said the rumored fourth isn't true, as he doesn't "have the idea" or in other words, he doesn't have a film to steal the idea from. The next two movies will be complete rip offs of other movies, but Hollywood will call them revolutionary. He announced this week that he is including Chinese Na'vi. Really? A race of ALIENS are going to be CHINESE because he just got a co-production deal with CHINA! Nothing more than that says this does not belong with Disney.

Now to tie this back in with Cars Land, they are both cop outs and just awful for the parks. I agree with basically everyone else anti both of these lands. If these were both going into say the new Shanghai park, it would be COMPLETELY different since the likelihood of someone going to both California and Shanghai is no where near the likelihood of going to California and Florida. Still, Avatar won't be popular in 20 years, people will see it for what it is, a crap movie that is basically Pocahontas meets Dancing with Wolves meets crap.
 
tomahawKSU said:
Yes, Avatar has 2 sequels coming out in 2015 and 2016 (both have been delayed) but Cameron himself said the rumored fourth isn't true, as he doesn't "have the idea" or in other words, he doesn't have a film to steal the idea from. The next two movies will be complete rip offs of other movies, but Hollywood will call them revolutionary. He announced this week that he is including Chinese Na'vi. Really? A race of ALIENS are going to be CHINESE because he just got a co-production deal with CHINA! Nothing more than that says this does not belong with Disney.

Now to tie this back in with Cars Land, they are both cop outs and just awful for the parks. I agree with basically everyone else anti both of these lands. If these were both going into say the new Shanghai park, it would be COMPLETELY different since the likelihood of someone going to both California and Shanghai is no where near the likelihood of going to California and Florida. Still, Avatar won't be popular in 20 years, people will see it for what it is, a crap movie that is basically Pocahontas meets Dancing with Wolves meets crap.
Click to expand...

I agree on the Cars land.

However I feel I should make my opinion clear on Avatarland. I HATE the movie and I'm sad disney is using it for a new land however I will not judge the land itself until I have way more information on it.

Other wise you're totally right Tom. 110% right
 
I couldn't agree less, to everyone against the Cars Land plans..

Its like putting Big Thunder Mountain in every Disney park. Some people may never be able to afford travelling outside of europe, and by putting another Thunder Mountain locally, its accessible for others to enjoy. Its the same with California and Florida. Two completely different part of America. In fact, its 2000 miles apart from each other, and when comparing London to Paris's mere 280 miles distance, I think it makes perfect sense to build duplicate, successfully branded rides.

I think its totally dumb to be disregarding of this proposal. With its success, and Walt Disney World being a holiday makers main point of call over Disneyland California, it makes 100%, no-brainer sense. Not only for a money aspect, but for a customer expectation aspect. As ride enthusiasts, we become toffee-nosed. Just because we've done the rides, doesn't mean the next person has. Give opportunity to others. Hell, I'd be over-the-moon if this ended up in Disneyland Paris!
 
Keep this in mind though, other than the new Star Tours DHS hasn't had anything new in AGES. WDW has been rather stagnant for the last 5-6 years while other parks in the area are building more and more newer rides (Harry Potter Land steals the cake) and they're starting to lose some luster due to it. They got the message that they needed to start cranking again and they're really stepping up by adding Cars Land, and Naked Blue People, and New Fantasyland.

I also have been hearing murmurs about that Monsters Inc. ride which might be back on the planning board too, and they also apparently have a Monsters Inc Sequel in the works so it could tie in with that movie.
 
This it what irks me the most though. Movie tie ins. Why? What is the point? Movie tie in were not what Walt wanted for his parks, yes he included some smaller rides featuring some characters, but all of his bigger concepts were completely original ideas, hence the wonder and brilliance people felt towards them. Hong Kong is getting Grizzly Gulch and Mystic Point, two new original ideas which to me a scream what Disney is about. They're also getting Toy Story Land, which is absolute kak compared to the aforementioned other two. It just to me highlights the fact that the Disney company and the people involved with which ideas get approved are moong further and further away from Walt's vision and more towards a greedy, profit driven business plan, which is incredibly sad as the more obvious it becomes, the more magic is sucked out of the Disney parks.
 
Next summer is Monsters University, a prequel to Monsters Inc.

You mention Big Thunder, that's not an addition, that is a Disney staple. There is a big difference (to me at least) between the standard Disney park attractions, Splash Mountain, Space Mountain, Big Thunder, Fantasyland, etc. and then something like Cars Land or the Toy Story areas that have shown up (I think) in Paris and Hong Kong(?) Not sure if I got those parks right, but it's not like they are close for common travelers. Most people who go to both the US parks don't live near either, they live somewhere in between, and it is a big deal to go, and if they go say back to back years to alternating parks, and see the "big new thing" of Cars land, only to see it show up at the other one, doesn't it kind of discount the experience?
 
Splash Mountain actually had shows made using the characters that were shown during its ride.

Also they make sure to not fully clone the experience, the only similarities between any of the rides that the parks share are the names. The areas that they're in, the layouts, and some of the themeing elements are different. By not 100% cloning everything like what Six Flags and Cedar Fair are known to do, they keep the new areas rather fresh and still a unique experience for guests who manage to visit both parks.
 
Here's the issue. DCA needs something to draw attention to it. If car's land is cloned Disney is back to square 1 in terms of DCA attendance.

Also Tom is right. There is a HUGE difference to a staple like pirates of the Carribean or splash mountain than something like cars land or even soarin' or Toy Story Midway Mania

Finally, Bmac the Monsters Inc coaster has been on and off the board since the first movie came out.
 
Screaming Coasters said:
I couldn't agree less, to everyone against the Cars Land plans..

Its like putting Big Thunder Mountain in every Disney park. Some people may never be able to afford travelling outside of europe, and by putting another Thunder Mountain locally, its accessible for others to enjoy. Its the same with California and Florida. Two completely different part of America. In fact, its 2000 miles apart from each other, and when comparing London to Paris's mere 280 miles distance, I think it makes perfect sense to build duplicate, successfully branded rides.

I think its totally dumb to be disregarding of this proposal. With its success, and Walt Disney World being a holiday makers main point of call over Disneyland California, it makes 100%, no-brainer sense. Not only for a money aspect, but for a customer expectation aspect. As ride enthusiasts, we become toffee-nosed. Just because we've done the rides, doesn't mean the next person has. Give opportunity to others. Hell, I'd be over-the-moon if this ended up in Disneyland Paris!
Click to expand...

I agree with you in a way but with btm they use different layouts etc, with this it's going to be the same. It's the same with Space Mountains etc. These 2 rides though people expect to be in Disney parks.

Cars Land does look fantastic but I just think they need original rides. Epcot is right next door and that's the same type of ride.
 
I think another thing that annoys me is basing a whole land off of a film. Whereas in the past we've had lands that include attractions themed to certain Disney films, they're now taking over the park which is an incredibly dangerous move on Disney's part.

Take Cars Land for instance. It lives in DCA whose theme is 'California', so why not just make a 'Route 66' themed area and them have a few references to Cars? That way the land isn't overpowering with a 'brand' of sorts and its staying power is so much longer because Route 66 isn't a fad, it's a staple of Americana and incredibly symbolic of the Californian ideology. I just feel that something like Cars, the Pixar movie that a LOT of people call the weakest and that produced a shoddy sequel that everybody hated, just doesn't have the staying power to still be pulling the crowds in 10 years time. It's trendy now, yes, I heard something about Disney choosing a Cars theme because of the amount of Cars merchandise they were shifting, which makes sense in the short term, but long term it's just pointless. In 10 years it'll look tired and people will have shifted their attention to something else.

I'm not saying that what Disney have done with Cars Land isn't fantastic, because it is, I've seen it in person and it is breathtaking, it really is. But the fact remains that it's a money driven project with short term goals in mind as opposed to the staying power of such an attraction.
 
It's a short term, money making grab, yes, but have you seen the way Disney forces their movies that are 40+ years old down the throat with "The Disney Vault" because that is going to be what happens with this. I agree with you, themeing a land to a mediocre movie at best is not good, but kids love it. I never understood the Pixar hype, I think most of the movies are severely overrated, but if any (besides Toy Story) were to be built in an area, I am least surprised that it is Cars. If in say 20 years, or whenever it starts to get bland, it won't take more than a few changes to change it to a Route 66 themed area and keep in touch with the California aspect of it.

Disney will also stop selling this movie in the next 3-5 years, making it "exclusive" again, which will attract families. Then (when the next home video format comes out) they will start "unlocking the vault" and release a movie over a short time frame, and sell the **** out of it, regardless of how bad the movie is. Look at Pocahontas, not a good movie by any stretch, but it still sells great because of that stupid vault thing, it is truly brilliant marketing and they know how to sell a turd.
 
Screaming Coasters said:
Its like putting Big Thunder Mountain in every Disney park. !
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with this train of thought.

I don't hear everyone bitching about how every park has a Fantasyland, a Fronteirland, a Tomorrowland...

But, then Cars was a dreadful, dreadful film.

The only film that is worse, is Avatar. I love how I said it was crap when it came out, and now the World agrees <3

We need a Titanic or Aliens land if Cameron NEEDS to have a land somewhere <3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top