Disney News, Discussion & an Element of Fun - 2024 Edition

I forgot to mention that an Indiana Jones (or an original) ride involving dinosaurs in South America, for Disney's Animal Kingdom, could work, because there have been discoveries of Ica stones that depict dinosaurs! Perhaps Indy could use an Ica stone as a key to opening the "forgotten valley" of dinosaurs!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

View attachment 851958

Heck, going back to my Countdown to Extinction reboot idea, it could be about the group of researchers/scientists discovering a magical Ica stone that they use to go back in time to the age of the dinosaurs in order to bring back a dinosaur before the meteor strikes.
I appreciate your ideas, you seem to be very imaginative! Just wanted to politely point out that the Inca stones are hoaxes from the 1960s. (I'm a scholar of Latin American history). Not to say there isn't some angle the imagineers could do to keep dinosaurs in the ride somehow, but it likely wouldn't involve inca stones as the company is a lot more respectful of authentic cultural depictions than it was some decades ago.
 
I appreciate your ideas, you seem to be very imaginative! Just wanted to politely point out that the Inca stones are hoaxes from the 1960s. (I'm a scholar of Latin American history). Not to say there isn't some angle the imagineers could do to keep dinosaurs in the ride somehow, but it likely wouldn't involve inca stones as the company is a lot more respectful of authentic cultural depictions than it was some decades ago.

Right, but as I said, Crystal Skulls are also a hoax. And I don't think that the Antikythera mechanism is a time-travel compass either. I mean, as MacGuffin's go, it could work.
 
Given that Iger's second tenure at Disney lasts until 2026, I really think the company should just scrap some of its current (and rumored) park plans (for DAK and MK especially) and go back to the drawing board. They’re Iger's ideas after all, and he’s not gonna be at Disney for much longer.
 


Anaheim gives preliminary approval to DisneylandForward
The Anaheim City Council early Wednesday morning gave preliminary approval to the DisneylandForward proposal. The 7-0 vote brings Disneyland one step closer to being able to expand attractions and hotels on current parking lots at the resort. The council still must give final approval for the proposal, which is expected at its meeting next month.
 
Anaheim gives preliminary approval to DisneylandForward
The Anaheim City Council early Wednesday morning gave preliminary approval to the DisneylandForward proposal. The 7-0 vote brings Disneyland one step closer to being able to expand attractions and hotels on current parking lots at the resort. The council still must give final approval for the proposal, which is expected at its meeting next month.
Why not just give full approval? Lol
 
Why not just give full approval? Lol
Government just doesn't work that way. All of Walt Disney's biographies that I've read tell of his frustrations of dealing with the local government issues. And which led to his insistence of setting up Reedy Creek Improvement District prior moving forward on WDW.

Our local government (which I covered for 14 years as an independent reporter) has a Planning and Zoning board which meets monthly to consider new development. The board is guided by ordinances that restrict what can be built where.

For example, if someone wants to build a night club in a long-established residential area, such a proposal wouldn't meet approval. That board has a public hearing where proponents/opponents are heard.

Once the P&Z approves a project, or not, an ordinance has to introduced for the full city council to consider. At the next meeting, a public hearing must be held where again anyone interested can make their concerns known.

After that, the council approves, or not, what the P&Z board recommends. I've seen the council overrule the P&Z several times. So politics is part of it.

The process, allegedly, is designed to allow input from all concerned prior to construction.

The arguments go something like this: "They can't put a 24 hour convenience store on the corner in our neighborhood!! Too much noise and traffic for our residential area!!"

"Our store will be small and won't sell beer and liquor, and will have only two gas pumps. And there's another store only two streets over from this location."

And finally, you hear this argument: "It's my property, and I ought to be able to build what I see fit on my own property!"
 
Last edited:


Given that Iger's second tenure at Disney lasts until 2026, I really think the company should just scrap some of its current (and rumored) park plans (for DAK and MK especially) and go back to the drawing board. They’re Iger's ideas after all, and he’s not gonna be at Disney for much longer.
Are they Iger's ideas? I would think it's the imagineers' and Iger either approves them or not. I imagine there are also a lot of metrics involved in the decision to greenlight, and those metrics would still be there with a new CEO. So the plans might not look too different, if at all.
 
Last edited:
Are they Iger's ideas? I would think it's the imagineers' and Iger either approves them or not. I imagine there are also a lot of metrics involved in the decision to greenlight, and those metrics would still be there with a new CEO. So the plans might not look too different, of at all.
That and, at least in the case of AK, they’ve already started the behind-the-scenes work, and made some public announcements, and it won’t look great if they suddenly say “psych—just kidding about all that”
 
Given that Iger's second tenure at Disney lasts until 2026, I really think the company should just scrap some of its current (and rumored) park plans (for DAK and MK especially) and go back to the drawing board. They’re Iger's ideas after all, and he’s not gonna be at Disney for much longer.
I'm very sure that Iger is not the one who comes up with the ideas for new attractions. But that really doesn't matter to this discussion. If this became Disney's approach, nothing would happen until the new CEO arrived. That's absolutely the wrong path to be on. The company needs to continue to move their plans forward. Yes, plans should also be subject to revision/cancelation along the way. But it is a basic part of any business to establish a plan and work to achieve the desired results.
 
Are they Iger's ideas? I would think it's the imagineers' and Iger either approves them or not. I imagine there are also a lot of metrics involved in the decision to greenlight, and those metrics would still be there with a new CEO. So the plans might not look too different, if at all.
I'm very sure that Iger is not the one who comes up with the ideas for new attractions. But that really doesn't matter to this discussion. If this became Disney's approach, nothing would happen until the new CEO arrived. That's absolutely the wrong path to be on. The company needs to continue to move their plans forward. Yes, plans should also be subject to revision/cancelation along the way. But it is a basic part of any business to establish a plan and work to achieve the desired results.
Well, Iger has an IP agenda, which prevents Imagineering from making original ideas.
 
Well, Iger has an IP agenda, which prevents Imagineering from making original ideas.
Sorry, but no. We will have to disagree about Iger's "agenda". And you misunderstand that much of what Imagineering percolates up from below. At Imagineering, the boss doesn't say "go out and create this". Imagineers operate by creating and pitching ideas. The toss things around with their colleagues, and then bring more fleshed out (but not complete) ideas to higher levels of scrutiny. Yes, they know what the corporate goals are. But they are not prevented from making original ideas.
 
Sorry, but no. We will have to disagree about Iger's "agenda". And you misunderstand that much of what Imagineering percolates up from below. At Imagineering, the boss doesn't say "go out and create this". Imagineers operate by creating and pitching ideas. The toss things around with their colleagues, and then bring more fleshed out (but not complete) ideas to higher levels of scrutiny. Yes, they know what the corporate goals are. But they are not prevented from making original ideas.
I agree. I would add that there is certainly pressure for injecting IPs--but that's not "Iger's agenda" necessarily, it's the reality of what draws theme park crowds today (to the chagrin of many park fans, I know).
 
I agree. I would add that there is certainly pressure for injecting IPs--but that's not "Iger's agenda" necessarily, it's the reality of what draws theme park crowds today (to the chagrin of many park fans, I know).

Right. People clamour for and line up for the IP based rides. It's the same with people complaining about endless sequels and franchise movies. When Disney makes original stuff, nobody goes to see it. "Toy Story 11-teen, the Toyening" - you bet people go see that. So, what is Disney to do? Make some ride that isn't based on anything and have it sit empty/underutilized. I mean, I want Horizons back, but I'm not fooling myself - the line for it today would be like Living with the Land, maybe a Spaceship Earth on a good day.
 
I mean, Iger has stated mulitple times in interviews that his goal is to add IP based attractions but we can thank the Wizarding World for this obsession with every new land being based off of a pre existing IP. The last attraction based off of an original idea in a Disney park was Mystic Manor in 2013. For WDW it was Everest in 2006.
 
Right. People clamour for and line up for the IP based rides. It's the same with people complaining about endless sequels and franchise movies. When Disney makes original stuff, nobody goes to see it. "Toy Story 11-teen, the Toyening" - you bet people go see that. So, what is Disney to do? Make some ride that isn't based on anything and have it sit empty/underutilized. I mean, I want Horizons back, but I'm not fooling myself - the line for it today would be like Living with the Land, maybe a Spaceship Earth on a good day.
That's a very funny title!
 
Last edited:
I agree. I would add that there is certainly pressure for injecting IPs--but that's not "Iger's agenda" necessarily, it's the reality of what draws theme park crowds today (to the chagrin of many park fans, I know).
We see a good illustration of this right here on the DIS Boards. Every time there is a new major movie release you quickly see posts here asking where people can meet <character name> in the park or ride an attraction based on it.

But further, it just makes sense to capitalize on franchises. Why would you want to have separate franchises between the Parks and the Movie divisions? Would we not have 7-dwarf mine train in the park? Cinderella's Castle? Pandora? Star Wars Land?
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top