Jump to content

Disney Kingdom Resort for Australia (brainstorming)

omega237

By omega237,
in Theme Park Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

westical
westical

AC/DC surely.

DaptoFunlandGuy
DaptoFunlandGuy

...but as a gold coast lover, wouldn't you prefer it be built there?

Posted Images

Gazza Veteran

Gazza

Posted
Posted

...but as a gold coast lover, wouldn't you prefer it be built there?

Or Sydney, given you'd capture all the incoming tourists, and have more of a local population to support it. (Not that either of these are high enough to support Disney, so it's a moot point.

Can they build it in Adelaide please, and make the place more interesting!

Couldn't you get a transfer with your job to Qld or something, and forget about Adelaide?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
zacsta_1997 Explorer

zacsta_1997

Posted
Posted

The Haunted Mansion unlike the others in the park will have a ghost hostess instead of a ghost host. Any suggestions of who would provide the voice of the ghost hostess?

Nicole Kidman she could play the part well. If the decided to put a disney park in the Gold Coast. Wouldn't disney buy out all the Gold Coast parks?? If so they can do stuff like Epcot and animal kingdom. But if they do something like that they should make a child's park. All about princesses and Mickey Mouse clubhouse. Like a disney jr park and another park for the thrill seekers :). Just my idea :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaptoFunlandGuy Veteran

DaptoFunlandGuy

Posted
Posted

I can't see Disney buying out the other parks. At best they'd compete with them and potentially drive them out of business - or at the very least just make them work for their money.

On the other hand, Disney has shown that they can easily co-exist with other theme parks - Ocean Park in Hong Kong recently went through massive growth not long after HKDL opened.

In California (albeit with a much larger population), Knott's continues to survive, even after Disney opened a second gate and numerous hotels. They're all complimentary with each other, and working together to bring visitors to the one spot lets them leverage off each other...

this is demonstrated by Disney, Universal and Sea World teaming up with the SoCal CityPass - they all recognise that working together is better than the alternative.

As Gazza said though - it's a moot point in Australia. We don't have the population base here to bring Disney out here... at least not in the traditional sense. We could potentially see a 'DisneyLite' park in the next decade - but I don't know if I'd want to settle for that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gazza Veteran

Gazza

Posted
Posted

For Halloween overlay involving Space Mountain should it be a new Halloween theme based off Extraterrorsial or to continue the Hong Kong Disneyland, and Disneyland halloween tradition Space Mountain: Ghost Galaxy?

Does it really matter? Why should anyone else care what decsion is made? This stuff is pure foaming and appears to not be going anywhere beyond the inside of your own head and has no bearing on anything. (Nothing that even remotely brings it to life in a more tangible way like an RCT version of this park or a set of concept art) LOL I mean if this is just purely a thought experiment why not just say the ride has several overlays that rotate every hour? Hai guyz wat colour should the trash cans in the theme park be, yellow or blue?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gazza Veteran

Gazza

Posted
Posted (edited)

...or a Marvel Themepark.

RWC I'm curious to know what the attraction of a dedicated Marvel theme park would be?

I'll put it like this. Quite a few people have commented that they'd like Movie Worlds next attraction to be something other than a superhero theme. What does that tell you? Bascially, I think superhero related stuff can make for a good theme, but there is such thing as overkill.

After all, it's not like Islands of Adventure devotes the whole theme park to Marvel Super heroes...It's just one island along with areas devoted to cartoon characters, Dr Seuss, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter and ancient mythology. Something for everyone.

There's also the challenge of marketing a Marvel only park to people who aren't really interested in superheros. How would you go about attracting "The mum and dad with daughters aged 7 and 9" for instance?

If we use Movie World as an example, they'd still attract that group because of the stuff related to the Looney Tunes, Scooby Doo and so on.

I'm firmly of the opinion that a theme park with a single theme is far too limiting, because you are locked into one narrow set of ideas and can't easily branch out, or adapt to changing tastes and new hits.

Edited by Gazza
Link to comment
Share on other sites
colliric_855 Explorer

colliric_855

Posted
Posted (edited)

RWC I'm curious to know what the attraction of a dedicated Marvel theme park would be?

I'll put it like this. Quite a few people have commented that they'd like Movie Worlds next attraction to be something other than a superhero theme. What does that tell you? Bascially, I think superhero related stuff can make for a good theme, but there is such thing as overkill.

After all, it's not like Islands of Adventure devotes the whole theme park to Marvel Super heroes...It's just one island along with areas devoted to cartoon characters, Dr Seuss, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter and ancient mythology. Something for everyone.

There's also the challenge of marketing a Marvel only park to people who aren't really interested in superheros. How would you go about attracting "The mum and dad with daughters aged 7 and 9" for instance?

If we use Movie World as an example, they'd still attract that group because of the stuff related to the Looney Tunes, Scooby Doo and so on.

I'm firmly of the opinion that a theme park with a single theme is far too limiting, because you are locked into one narrow set of ideas and can't easily branch out, or adapt to changing tastes and new hits.

I'd propose it as a Comicbook specific themed park(including some technical attractions related to the creation of Comics), rather than a specific "Superhero rides-only" themed park.... After all Marvel is a dynamic graphic art company and isn't just limited to "the superhero stuff". And "technical attractions" would also include a Marvel Studios Special Effects show, A Stunt Arena, Various shows as well as an attraction based around educating kids on how Comics are made.

In a dream world Marvel would get access to the film franchises of X-Men, Spiderman and all their other licenced out works(like Daredevil, etc). But of cause that would require the involvement of the studios that own the film rights to those respective franchises. The characters would still obviously have presence at the park anyway, given Marvel owns them, so you'd hope Fox and Columbia would get involved somehow.

Basically a "Marvel Studios" Comic/Movie Park.

Movie World was never started with the intention of it being a Superhero/comicbook themed park, and that makes a big diffrence. I think alot of people are dissapointed in some respects that a MOVIE themed park, themed to Warner Brothers, has shifted away from that singular theme. Yes I said Singular.... Warner Brothers is SINGULAR(They happened to CREATE Looney Tunes! as well as a whole swag of classic films)! Infact the strong branching out to the DC theme under Roadshow's management is what is causing them some issues(even though DC is WB owned, and WB have produced many DC based films). The Marvel Park would obviously be a Movie studio park in relation to the fact that Marvel now makes some pretty big blockbusters(so an effects show and a Stunt show are easily adaptable to the theme), but the park's "Singular" main theme would be a "Comicbook" themepark based around Marvel's properties, including one or two attractions related to the technical process of how they are made.

And Marvel has plenty of kid-friendly propular franchises under their ownership.

Ive always wondered in relation to Movie World, weather or not the DC licence is actually sold by WB to Village for a seperate lower price? Or if Village is, in relation to the DC properties, dealing with the sibling(DC) directly and not the parent(WB)? or weather or not it's all done through a general licencing of Warner Brothers Properties. Because the shift to a bigger DC section seems to me as if they're driving a bit of a wedge between the usage of known DC properties and the usage of Warner Brothers specific properties like Looney Tunes, Casablanca, Dirty Harry, etc. Not saying that they are, but it seems they could be to me. In way it makes sense, after all the film franchises age.... imagine if Ryan Reynolds was plastered on the GL ride! Even now that would already be years outdated!

Edited by colliric_855
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaptoFunlandGuy Veteran

DaptoFunlandGuy

Posted
Posted

I don't think you can use the term Singular when it comes to Movie World. Let's take a look at the fact that we have a DC area, a generic car-stunt show, a 4d animation based on Ice Age, WB Kids themed to WB cartoonery, Scooby and Wild West.

It's hardly justifiable as a 'single' theme. They're all related to 'movies' in some way (hence why it is called Movie World) but that hardly is a single theme any more than all of the recent additions at dreamworld can be considered of a singular theme simply because they're all crap.

Side note - it's 'of course' not 'of cause', and in the context used, the word is 'Whether' or not, not 'Weather' or not.

Now - you start your proposal by saying it would be a Marvel comic park... then suggest involvement of the studios that own the film rights to some of the bigger franchises... then amend your proposal from 'comicbook park' to 'comicmovie park' before finally resigning yourself to the fact that it would be a movie park - as quoted below.

I'd propose it as a Comicbook specific themed park(including some technical attractions related to the creation of Comics),

...

that would require the involvement of the studios that own the film rights to those respective franchises.

...

Basically a "Marvel Studios" Comic/Movie Park.

...

The Marvel Park would obviously be a Movie studio park in relation to the fact that Marvel now makes some pretty big blockbusters

So in elaborating on your 'really awesome idea' you have in fact just proven Gazza's point - that a movie park with several different areas is being criticised for focussing too much onto one single idea (DC Comics at Movie World) and you want to go ahead and build an ENTIRE PARK based on the same restrictive theme.

This problem is further compounded by the fact that you see it as a good idea that Marvel build a park because they make some 'pretty big blockbusters'... but you've already acknowledged that THEY DON'T MAKE THEM - they are in fact made by other studios, so you are making your CORE THEME reliant on other parties who may withdraw their support, or refuse renewal of the license at any time - eg: Hanna Barbera at Wonderland Sydney and Nickelodeon at Dreamworld. You are then faced with a costly exercise to retheme the ride.

It may be easy to retheme rides in more generic type parks (Wonderland, Dreamworld, SIx Flags) but when you're going to build to such a specific theme, you limit your options on what the replacement theme will be - which is why if you're going with such a specific theme, you need to own most (if not all) of the themes in your park - A la Universal Disney.

FAIL.

Also, if DC is the sibling (brother or sister) and WB is the parent... what is the price of fish in purple monkey dishwasher? Pretty sure you meant DC is the 'Child'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
colliric_855 Explorer

colliric_855

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't think you can use the term Singular when it comes to Movie World. Let's take a look at the fact that we have a DC area, a generic car-stunt show, a 4d animation based on Ice Age, WB Kids themed to WB cartoonery, Scooby and Wild West. It's hardly justifiable as a 'single' theme. They're all related to 'movies' in some way (hence why it is called Movie World) but that hardly is a single theme any more than all of the recent additions at dreamworld can be considered of a singular theme simply because they're all crap. Side note - it's 'of course' not 'of cause', and in the context used, the word is 'Whether' or not, not 'Weather' or not. Now - you start your proposal by saying it would be a Marvel comic park... then suggest involvement of the studios that own the film rights to some of the bigger franchises... then amend your proposal from 'comicbook park' to 'comicmovie park' before finally resigning yourself to the fact that it would be a movie park - as quoted below. So in elaborating on your 'really awesome idea' you have in fact just proven Gazza's point - that a movie park with several different areas is being criticised for focussing too much onto one single idea (DC Comics at Movie World) and you want to go ahead and build an ENTIRE PARK based on the same restrictive theme. This problem is further compounded by the fact that you see it as a good idea that Marvel build a park because they make some 'pretty big blockbusters'... but you've already acknowledged that THEY DON'T MAKE THEM - they are in fact made by other studios, so you are making your CORE THEME reliant on other parties who may withdraw their support, or refuse renewal of the license at any time - eg: Hanna Barbera at Wonderland Sydney and Nickelodeon at Dreamworld. You are then faced with a costly exercise to retheme the ride.

Firstly Movie World was founded on a single theme, being the studio that lends it the name. Secondly Marvel Studios is a Film Studio.... Idiot. They made Iron Man 1 to 3, The Avengers, The Hulk, Thor 1 and 2 and Captain America(sequel on it's way soon). And they hold the film rights to all the other Marvel properties not sold off to other studios. My suggestion was for the "full Marvel catalogue", including rides based on the Marvel film properties they sold before creating their own studio. Besides they still own the rights to the characters(so they wouldn't have to base rides on the films, they can just base them off the original comics). But everyone knows Spiderman and X-Men are Marvel, so you'd hope they could make use of the films to give the park an even more film based push.. Even though they WOULDN'T NEED TO BECAUSE THEY ALREADY OWN THE CHARACTERS(could just do what Movie World did and disconnect them from the film franchises). Besides Iron Man is arguably their more popular hero now thanks to Downey's acting chops. Edited by colliric_855
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept