Guardians of the Galaxy Land is possibly coming to Hollywood Studios

[Roxyfire]

So, you are not saying that it is widely watched but you want me to prove that it isn't? If you are not disagreeing that it is not popular why exactly do I need to prove it? If you were taking an opposing stance then I could somewhat understand but since you keep saying "I never stated the show was watched by a ton of people." it does not sound like you disagree with me.




For a show to be popular, yes, it has to have an audience. Just because a few pop culture references survive does not mean the show is still popular.

I do agree with you that if someone wanted to they could reboot it, it would take the right person to make it work but that is almost always the case.

I said nothing about it being popular, I said it was culturally relevant. Those are two entirely different things. I think you're trying to create a false equivalency where only popular things are relevant. The main thing holding back the series is that it is old and cheesy. But some of the episodes are pretty good. It's one of those things people stumble upon while browsing Netflix late at night after a few too many, especially if they've watched stuff like Black Mirror. The way I found out it was there was after watching the new season of that series. I wonder how many others who hadn't seen any before did the same.

 

[jsrowdon]

I said nothing about it being popular, I said it was culturally relevant. Those are two entirely different things. I think you're trying to create a false equivalency where only popular things are relevant. The main thing holding back the series is that it is old and cheesy. But some of the episodes are pretty good. It's one of those things people stumble upon while browsing Netflix late at night after a few too many, especially if they've watched stuff like Black Mirror. The way I found out it was there was after watching the new season of that series. I wonder how many others who hadn't seen any before did the same.

Actually, you did. You quoted my post in which I stated that I had always been talking about the popularity of the show and then the second line of your response to my post on popularity was to say that it did not need an audience. Sorry, if a show has no audience it is not a popular show, just how it works.

I also do not think it is only the popular things that are relevant, I think its the relevant things that are relevant and Twilight Zone is currently not one of those things. Sure, there are some things that some people remember about it and the ride helps that to an extent, especially in the Disney community, but having a few memories or knowing a few facts about a show does not equate to cultural relevancy. I could still name you a few characters from M.A.S.H. but I would not consider it culturally relevant. Could it return to its former glory if rebooted by the right filmmaker? Sure it could but at least right now I don't see people lining up to do it.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So, you are not saying that it is widely watched but you want me to prove that it isn't? If you are not disagreeing that it is not popular why exactly do I need to prove it? If you were taking an opposing stance then I could somewhat understand but since you keep saying "I never stated the show was watched by a ton of people." it does not sound like you disagree with me.

1) The thing with proving was brought up by you. You told me "If you can show me some ratings that prove me wrong then great but I seriously doubt you are going to find anything that shows any significant amount of people watching it these days." Sooo prove to me it isn't watched by people. I'm not saying tons and tons of people watch it but that they have the opportunity to. If you know where you can find the ratings Neilson and others have collected regarding Streaming shows. You're telling me to prove something that at least to my knowledge cannot be proven either way side of the stance because as far as I know (and I could be wrong) those numbers aren't released to the public but were instead released to the Studios so in this case CBS.

2) WAS as in past tense. The fact that it is available on streaming opens up the ability to watch is outside of syndication.

It's interesting that you want to phrase things like "just a few" as if to just shrug it all off.

I think you think I was stating the show was currently hugely popular and just a bunch and bunch of people are watching it. That was never my point nor what I meant at all. It is however a known shown with known references and on very well known platforms to watch (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu). As Roxyfire mentioned they found out the show was on Netflix after watching another show that was similar. Can't speak for others but I do that often for Amazon Video where I add a movie or TV show and it shows me other movies or TV shows I may be interested in. The whole argument of "it's not a popular show, nobody knows the show nowadays and thus isn't relevant nowadays just get rid of the theming" is why I even commented to begin with.

I feel like we're going in circles here..let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[jsrowdon]

I have no idea if they release the streaming ratings or not but for TV just the time slot they choose to air it speaks to its popularity there.

I am not really even sure what "WAS" you are referring to.

Just a few is about as accurate as I can get. I am not counting the number of times I hear TZ references but "a few" seems to fall in between "all the time" and almost never" so that is what I am going with.

The funny thing is we don't even seem to disagree about this. You don't seem to think it is a hugely popular show and I do agree it is available on multiple platforms.

I could actually go either way with the ride theming. I think it is well done now but I am not sure that keeping the Twilight Zone license really adds that much to it. As I said before, I think they could pull off creepy hotel without the Twilight Zone brand, if they executed it correctly of course. I would prefer to keep the creepy hotel theme as opposed to a GoTG theme though.

 

[wonderstruck88]

Personally, I was born in the late 80s and would be very disappointed to see ToT change. No, I don't watch reruns of the show or anything like that. But I know what it is, and the ride itself is classic, unique, and I really love the backstory. All of my friends and family who are in my age bracket and Disney fans feel the same way. What happened to GotG going into where Universe of Energy is located? That seems like a much more logical location.

 

[Roxyfire]

Actually, you did. You quoted my post in which I stated that I had always been talking about the popularity of the show and then the second line of your response to my post on popularity was to say that it did not need an audience. Sorry, if a show has no audience it is not a popular show, just how it works.

I am not the other poster talking about whether it's popular or not. I never said it was popular. I'm talking about relevance only. Lots of things in pop culture have fallen by the wayside popularity-wise but they're still referenced in movies or tv shows or act as a launching point for other pop culture. Sometimes they see a resurgence, like Doctor Who. I do think WDW does play a big role in keeping the name alive.

 

[Dfan79]

I never said it was popular. I'm talking about relevance only. Lots of things in pop culture have fallen by the wayside popularity-wise but they're still referenced in movies or tv shows or act as a launching point for other pop culture. Sometimes they see a resurgence, like Doctor Who. I do think WDW does play a big role in keeping the name alive.

"Doctor Who" has been on Television since the 1963, so it is still relevant. It is still discussed and currently way more marketable than Twilight Zone. People dress up as the new Doctor Who's at conventions. I can't think of any character from TZ that is still that known.

Also just because something is referenced in a movie or television show doesn't make it worthy of being in a big time attraction. Just because someone mentioned Nicky Minaj's big butt doesn't mean it should be a rollercoaster ride.

 

[WDWFantasmicFan]

I think we do need to think about the difference between Guardians at DCA and potentially at DHS...

Mission:Breakout was put into DCA as a first step towards a Marvel themed land on that side of the park. IMO Guardians alone isn't a strong enough IP alone, but mixed with other Marvel IP's it is a great fit. Now, DHS are extremely limited to which Marvel properties they can use due to the Universal contract, so it'd have to be a land dedicated to Guardians which I personally can't see happening.

* On a side note: Anyone know what will happen when Guardians join the Avengers as they will be soon? Does that then make them Avengers, so won't be able to be used in the WDW parks?

 

[Dfan79]

I think we do need to think about the difference between Guardians at DCA and potentially at DHS...

Mission:Breakout was put into DCA as a first step towards a Marvel themed land on that side of the park. IMO Guardians alone isn't a strong enough IP alone, but mixed with other Marvel IP's it is a great fit. Now, DHS are extremely limited to which Marvel properties they can use due to the Universal contract, so it'd have to be a land dedicated to Guardians which I personally can't see happening.

* On a side note: Anyone know what will happen when Guardians join the Avengers as they will be soon? Does that then make them Avengers, so won't be able to be used in the WDW parks?

I think Guardians fits better in DHS. I don't get why anytime something space is done it automatically is thought of as Futuristic. Peter Quill was abducted in the 80's and lives currently in space. Movies like Wall-E make sense because it is in the future.

I see your point about the land being based on just solely Guardians, but it has had 2 successful movies. Roger Rabbit almost got a whole section in Hollywood Studios and it had only 1.

It hasn't been clearly said whether Guardians is allowed, but by the way Disney is floating rumors it must be. At least one big wig at Disney would have come out and said "It's not happening guys", if it wasn't possible. Perhaps they are still talking with Universal about it and promising to scratch each others backs.

 

[Roxyfire]

"Doctor Who" has been on Television since the 1963, so it is still relevant. It is still discussed and currently way more marketable than Twilight Zone. People dress up as the new Doctor Who's at conventions. I can't think of any character from TZ that is still that known.

It was off the air for quite a few years if you recall. I get it, you think Twilight Zone doesn't matter. I think it's still well known enough. Guess we just disagree on that point. Ultimately as long as the attraction stays close to its current form I think most people will be happy. Changing too much will cause a big stink at the very least.

 

[WDWFantasmicFan]

I think Guardians fits better in DHS. I don't get why anytime something space is done it automatically is thought of as Futuristic. Peter Quill was abducted in the 80's and lives currently in space. Movies like Wall-E makes sense because it is in the future.

I see your point about the land being based on just solely Guardians, but it has had 2 successful movies. Roger Rabbit almost got a whole section in Hollywood and it had only 1.

It hasn't been clearly said whether Guardians is allowed, but by the way Disney is floating rumors it must be. At least one big wig at Disney would have come out and said it's not happening, if it wasn't possible. Perhaps they are still talking with Universal about it.

At the present time, yes, I agree. Guardians does fit better in DHS. But when DCA build Marvel land, it'll fit better there.

True, but not sure it has the wide appeal like the Marvel franchise as a whole.

From what I gather, Guardians is allowed currently (as it was an IP created under the Disney Marvel and not the Universal Marvel). The lines blur when Guardians become Avengers as the Avengers were created under Universal leadership of Marvel. I hope Disney is still discussing with Universal - i'd love to see Disney just buy out the theme park rights to Marvel ($$$) and build a Marvel 5th gate. Wishful thinking, hey!

 

[Dfan79]

It was off the air for quite a few years if you recall. I get it, you think Twilight Zone doesn't matter. I think it's still well known enough. Guess we just disagree on that point. Ultimately as long as the attraction stays close to its current form I think most people will be happy. Changing too much will cause a big stink at the very least.

Yeah, I can see that. I think it is very possible to keep the same look and feel even without the Twilight Zone theme. I think the main reason Disney would get rid of it is because of money. They could probably make more of a profit with their own theme or IP.

 

[mikepizzo]

"Doctor Who" has been on Television since the 1963, so it is still relevant. It is still discussed and currently way more marketable than Twilight Zone. People dress up as the new Doctor Who's at conventions. I can't think of any character from TZ that is still that known.

Also just because something is referenced in a movie or television show doesn't make it worthy of being in a big time attraction. Just because someone mentioned Nicky Minaj's big butt doesn't mean it should be a rollercoaster ride.

To be fair though, my understanding of Doctor Who is that it's an ongoing story with continuity. The Twilight Zone is an anthology series where each episode is it's own contained story with it's own characters.

With Doctor Who, it's more about what the characters are going through because the audience follows the characters. With anthology series like Twilight Zone (or the more modern Black Mirror), it's more about the story itself where the characters are (somewhat), for lack of a better word, irrelevant. Their characteristics are important but their names aren't.

I may not remember the characters name in the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive" but that doesn't take away from Bryce Dallas Howard's portrayal of such a character, nor does it mean it was a bad episode.

And I'm not trying to infer that you are saying Twilight Zone is a bad show.

I, personally, don't care if they get rid of the Twilight Zone brand. Because the brand stands for spooky and weird. And as long as they keep Tower of Terror spooky and weird, it's all gravy baby.

 

[Dfan79]

I'd love to see Disney just buy out the theme park rights to Marvel ($$$) and build a Marvel 5th gate. Wishful thinking, hey!

Oh my God, you gave me goosebumps. That would be awesome. I doubt Uni wants to give up Marvel though. They've got a whole land based upon it, with arguably their best rides. Plus they'd have to spend a lot of money to retheme it to something else.

 

[WDWFantasmicFan]

Oh my God, you gave me goosebumps. That would be awesome. I doubt Uni wants to give up Marvel though. They've got a whole land based upon it, with arguably their best rides. They'd have to spend a lot of money to retheme it to something else.

Uni would give it up if Disney offered them enough cash i'm sure! Universal could quite easily re-theme most the attractions in their Marvel land tbh, but yes it is all about the money. I'd love to see Disney buy the Marvel rights. One day hopefully!

 

[DanBoris]

Uni would give it up if Disney offered them enough cash i'm sure! Universal could quite easily re-theme most the attractions in their Marvel land tbh, but yes it is all about the money. I'd love to see Disney buy the Marvel rights. One day hopefully!

Personally, I would not like to see Disney buy the rights. If they did, they would have to shell out A LOT of money and then they would have to shell out even more money to build the attractions. I would rather see them save the money they would spend buying out the contract and use it to build attractions for something they are allowed to use.

 

[Dfan79]

To be fair though, my understanding of Doctor Who is that it's an ongoing story with continuity. The Twilight Zone is an anthology series where each episode is it's own contained story with it's own characters.

With Doctor Who, it's more about what the characters are going through because the audience follows the characters. With anthology series like Twilight Zone (or the more modern Black Mirror), it's more about the story itself where the characters are (somewhat), for lack of a better word, irrelevant. Their characteristics are important but their names aren't.

I may not remember the characters name in the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive" but that doesn't take away from Bryce Dallas Howard's portrayal of such a character, nor does it mean it was a bad episode.

And I'm not trying to infer that you are saying Twilight Zone is a bad show.

I, personally, don't care if they get rid of the Twilight Zone brand. Because the brand stands for spooky and weird. And as long as they keep Tower of Terror spooky and weird, it's all gravy baby.

I definitely don't think Twilight Zone is awful. I just don't think it is a necessary IP for a theme park ride. Something could still be a good show nowadays (Survivor and NCIS) and not be suitable or needed for a theme park ride.

The look and theming are awesome for Tower, but I think it can remain that way with or without TZ. Disney could even make a new movie called Tower of Terror with ghosts.

 

[wonderstruck88]

I think Guardians fits better in DHS. I don't get why anytime something space is done it automatically is thought of as Futuristic. Peter Quill was abducted in the 80's and lives currently in space. Movies like Wall-E make sense because it is in the future.

I see your point about the land being based on just solely Guardians, but it has had 2 successful movies. Roger Rabbit almost got a whole section in Hollywood Studios and it had only 1.

It hasn't been clearly said whether Guardians is allowed, but by the way Disney is floating rumors it must be. At least one big wig at Disney would have come out and said "It's not happening guys", if it wasn't possible. Perhaps they are still talking with Universal about it and promising to scratch each others backs.

I know you weren't quoting my post here, but the outer space not meaning futuristic part seemed like it was in reference to what I said about Epcot. Honestly, I wasn't even meaning theming when I said that. Disney seems to care less and less about cohesiveness in themed areas these days. I just don't think it would be logical to change ToT, a very pppular attraction, when the other option being discussed is put GotG where Ellen currently is. And I actually like Ellen's Energu Adventure, but it's clearly not a popular attraction and is the one that it would make more sense to change.

 

[Moliphino]

I definitely don't think Twilight Zone is awful. I just don't think it is a necessary IP for a theme park ride. Something could still be a good show nowadays (Survivor and NCIS) and not be suitable or needed for a theme park ride.

The look and theming are awesome for Tower, but I think it can remain that way with or without TZ. Disney could even make a new movie called Tower of Terror with ghosts.

They already have... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Terror_(film)
A remake was rumored a few years ago, too.

 

[jknezek]

I know you weren't quoting my post here, but the outer space not meaning futuristic part seemed like it was in reference to what I said about Epcot. Honestly, I wasn't even meaning theming when I said that. Disney seems to care less and less about cohesiveness in themed areas these days. I just don't think it would be logical to change ToT, a very pppular attraction, when the other option being discussed is put GotG where Ellen currently is. And I actually like Ellen's Energu Adventure, but it's clearly not a popular attraction and is the one that it would make more sense to change.

Kind of an interesting statement. I get Frozen. That's just an abomination as far as cohesive theming. The rest of EPCOT the rumors show a lack of theming, but what is actually there isn't so much out of the theme as bad (Imagination), tired (Ellen), or closed down (Life Pavilion). DHS is a bit of a mess, but I'm chalking that up to construction, not a long term abandonment of themed areas. Once Launchbay is removed from where it doesn't belong, and probably Making of a Jedi, and the two new lands open, I don't see that much out of place at DHS. AK I think is cohesive as far as theme. I get where Pandora is a stretch, being an extraterrestrial imaginary environment in what is otherwise a terrestrial zoo and cultural park, but the theme of environment is carried all around. And MK has stuck mostly with the themed lands. I could see complaints about Monsters Inc and Speedway, and certainly CoP is an odd duck, but other than Tomorrowland MK works by theme.

The rumors we often share on here seems to stretch themes, but the reality is usually kept in the proper vein. Again, Frozen being the horrible, money grabbing, cringe inducing, exception. And DHS just being a mess right now.