Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ...about his beloved CoP being replaced by yet another Pixar cartoon property? Of course, it doesn't really matter does it? T-Land should just be renamed 'Pixar Plaza' and be done with. Oh, and for those who are a little slow, I'd get your visits into the CoP in the near future.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I love CoP. It is my daughter's favorite attraction not just in the MK, but at WDW. But what would Walt say? He might just say "about time... the damned thing was almost 50 years old".
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 COP is terribly outdated, if the attraction is high quality and fits in the theme of Pixar Tomorrow Land, I don't see why not.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << ...about his beloved CoP >> Was it really beloved? Is Walt Disney's affection for CoP documented anywhere? I'm sure he was proud of the accomplishment when he produced it for the World's Fair, but compared to all the other achievements I can't imagine that this one is at the top of the list. CoP is an infomercial for GE appliances and light bulbs.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^Yeah Goof. It has been documented. And the attraction could be quite relevant if it were updated on a more than once every 10-15 year basis. But Disney has decided that AA's are out and the Living Character Program is in. After all, that's why we all go to WDW ... not for immersive environments that take us into a story, but instead to interact with a character (CM) on a screen in front of us. Do these people have a clue? I'd just love to be a gadfly on the wall when these attractions come up ... I mean, wouldn't you like to know how MILF and GGE came to be? How anyone seriously thought they were quality atractions that fit their place?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 OK, if they are replacing COP for another Character interaction show, I'll be peeved. Don't they already have one in Tomorrowland at WDW? Why do they need 2?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << And the attraction could be quite relevant if it were updated on a more than once every 10-15 year basis. >> I suppose if they found a suitable new sponsor. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of updating you could do to make selling washing machines and light bulbs all that interesting today. << But Disney has decided that AA's are out and the Living Character Program is in. >> And conversely, some Disney fan reactionaries think that AA's should fill every Disney attraction from start to finish. << I mean, wouldn't you like to know how MILF and GGE came to be? >> Probably the same way The Enchanted Tiki Room came to be -- they had a new technology they wanted to introduce and brainstormed ideas to figure out a relevant venue to use it in. Personally, I think it might have been fun to update the Tiki Room with some of the new living character stuff. It's really the same concept when you boil it all down to a really basic level.
Originally Posted By DAR Oh yeah that. That abbreviation just has a little different meaning these days.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> But Disney has decided that AA's are out and the Living Character Program is in. After all, that's why we all go to WDW ... not for immersive environments that take us into a story, but instead to interact with a character (CM) on a screen in front of us. << Do you think it might be cutting into the bottom line. I was really surprised that they added the new Johnny Depp AA's. I remeber the first time I saw POTC at DL back in 1967. I was blown away. I had never seen anything like it in my life. The lines were right at an hour long, and I would get off it, then get in line again. The first time we went down the water drop, and burst out into the open where the town is under siege it was like being in a harbor at night time. The AA's looked so life like I thought it almost look like real people with make-up on to give them that different look. That was entertainment at it's best. That's what I think of when I think of Disney. >> Do these people have a clue? << You know, I think they do. The problem seems to be is, they don't think we have a clue into what you should expect from Disney. >> I'm not sure there's a whole lot of updating you could do to make selling washing machines and light bulbs all that interesting today. << That's what should set an Imagineer apart from a Engineer. He's paid to make it interesting. I bet Joe Rhode could make anything interesting given the proper budget. >> I suppose if they found a suitable new sponsor. << That always seems to be the case doesn't it. All corporations need sponsors for everything they do now. That's the only thing holding me back from seeing TDR right now. I just can't seem to find a suitable sponsor.
Originally Posted By mousermerf GOLL*E - forgive me if i'm wrong - is a reference to WALL-E. That movie looks to be very futuristic and to have a strong moral stance, which in my opinion would fit in Tomorrowland or Future World. I would be annoyed if they put in a Ratatouille attraction there, but Wall-E is the best possible fit of the current selection of Disney movies.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << That always seems to be the case doesn't it. All corporations need sponsors for everything they do now. >> Walt Disney employed far more blatant corporate sponsorships back in his day than the parks have in place now. The corporate shilling in 2007 is a lot less than is was in, say, 1967.
Originally Posted By MPierce Yes I know that, I was refering to other corporations in America. Like every sports stadium with the excepton of a few. Every Colege bowl game has to have a sponsor. Commercials are teaming up selling more than one Corp. product. I've been following Disney since they opened up Disneyland, so believe me I know how it was long ago. That doesn't make it right "to me" back then or now.
Originally Posted By jonvn It wouldn't be so bad a thing if they were not replacing something that was optimistic about progress and our future with yet one more insipid cartoon.
Originally Posted By Skellington88 why replace COP when there is so much empty land to take advantage of? Also, there is that dumb indy speedway that could be bulldozed to make way for something new.
Originally Posted By CMDad <<Monster's Inc. Laugh Floor.>> For damage control (?) Disney has decreed that the attraction will be simply abbreviated with my initials ... MLF <G>
Originally Posted By brotherdave I really hope this is just another 'bad rumor' about the Wall*E interctive screen attracion replacing Carousel of Progress. But, unfortunately, a certain 'spirit' seems more accurate than not. Is there any time frame as to when COP might close?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<And conversely, some Disney fan reactionaries think that AA's should fill every Disney attraction from start to finish.>> I don't know of anyone personally who feels this way. It would be a bit ridiculous. I also don't believe that 'purists' like myself are all that concerned about having AAs in attractions as much as we are concerned with having longer, immersive, theatrical Disney attractions that transport us to other places and times via great storytelling replaced by shorter, cheaper, film-based attractions and attractions based upon animated films. I have heard some great buzz on WALL*E, although it will be different than any other Pixar film yet ... although one would be quite right if they said that all Pixar films (Toy Story 2 excepted) have all gone in different directions instead of being formulamatic like the trap Disney's FA fell into. Anyway, that was bit off the subject at hand, so to bring it back I'll just say yet again why is it that attractions like Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Peter Pan, Small World, Indy, ToT, Everest, American Adventure, Splash Mountain etc ... are as popular today (or more so) than when they opened yet so many recent attractions like the two versions of Imagination, Stitch's Great Belch-Off, MILF, and the like are walk-ins from the start? Film attractions have a short shelf life, even if Disney is still forcing audiences to sit through things like HISTA and MuppetVision over a decade after they had any relevance to much of the audience. I can only think of three film-based attractions with major popularity and, likely, shelf life. Those would be: Soarin -- which also features a 'small' thrill component; PhilharMagic -- which features the most beloved Disney characters and songs, basically timeless stuff; and Turtle Talk -- which is relatively small scale and hasn't been around really long enough to make any proclamations.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >> Do these people have a clue? << <<You know, I think they do. The problem seems to be is, they don't think we have a clue into what you should expect from Disney.>> Oh, they do. At least folks like us. Believe me, we're derided and dissed by all the people who look at people who expect the best from Disney as living in Fantasyland. They want us to expect far less than we have come to ... they want us to lower our expectations because they're either creatively bereft, let personal agendas rule when making choices for the parks, or truly think they know better. But for those still in Glendale who also 'get it' and even those in the parks, well, they feel we've got it right. And we do. >> I'm not sure there's a whole lot of updating you could do to make selling washing machines and light bulbs all that interesting today. << <<That's what should set an Imagineer apart from a Engineer. He's paid to make it interesting. I bet Joe Rhode could make anything interesting given the proper budget.>> I dunno about him, but Joe Rohde sure could. >> I suppose if they found a suitable new sponsor. << <<That always seems to be the case doesn't it. All corporations need sponsors for everything they do now. That's the only thing holding me back from seeing TDR right now. I just can't seem to find a suitable sponsor.>> One thing you'll notice is that TDL and even DLP have far more sponsors for attractions than WDW and DL do. This has been a steady trend over the past 15 years. I don't know if it's American companies tightening their collective belts or just realizing that associating with Disney has lost a lot of its cache ... but either way, sponsorship funds aren't what they once were.
