Originally Posted By mrkthompsn This thread was so long, I skipped to the end. You guys realize you're talking GMR don't you? Snap out of it!
Originally Posted By leobloom >> But as it stands today, it's just a pile of mess thrown at us in no particular order. But here's the biggest flaw of the entire attraction -- A concept that I've always found odd - what's the purpose or point or thrill of stepping into a movie? Especially if inothing is happening? (See John Wayne and Clint Eastwood) << That's a metaphyiscal question, Jim. What's the point of any of these attractions where nothing happens. You board the vehicle, go in a circle, and step out of the vehicle before going to board the next vehicle in another building. I'm being facetious, but I assumed the point of GMR was to allow people to see scenes and actors from the movies they know and love. I'm not denying that there's a weird kind of nostalgia at play there. But the questions you asked could be applied to Spaceship Earth (what's the point of watching an AA Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel?) or Pirates of the Caribbean today (what's the point of watching robotic Johnny Depps spring up all over the place?). Both instances seem to be in line with the wax museum argument. I'm also not sure chronological sequence would've made the ride any better. I think the sequencing was supposed to create some suspense -- hence Alien, Raiders and the skeletons in the mid-section. Ending with Alien and Raiders would've seemed...odd. Ending with Oz and Casablanca (and Fantasia, I guess) seems to be designed to conclude with the "best of the best." So I don't see the sequencing as random. Could it be better? Maybe. But I would take ten GMRs over Toy Story Midway Mania, too.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Most of all, it felt dated -- not because of the classic MGM stuff but more from the 80s references. Wizard of Oz is never going to go out of style, it's an evergreen classic that kids still watch today and parents enjoy experiencing with their kids. In fact, if they were to repurpose the whole ride to just that it would probably be very popular. But Aliens? That feels like a business arrangement. << What other than Raiders is from the 80s? Alien is from the late 70s. But other than those, all the films reference (apart from the montage at the end) are pre-1970s.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA leobloom - sure its metaphysical. Thing is, Disney Imagineers pride themselves on theme, concept and backstory - and this one just misses the mark. I guess for me, there is a difference with re-creating a time in history (Michelangelo in Spaceship Earth or even prehistoric times in 'Universe of Energy" and even a Spanish town in 'Pirates of the Caribbean') via sets and AA characters, and re-creating a movie. Although that is being done with 'The Little Mermaid" and "Alice in Wonderland" and even "Radiator Spring Racers.' It's the 'stepping into the movie' concept that just doesn't work for me. With 'Star Tours' you do step into a Star Wars movie and take a space flight. But it's not such a jump in your suspension of disbelief as with TGMR. And I suppose if the attraction was truly spectacular, I wouldn't notice all the flaws in the concept.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I guess for me, there is a difference with re-creating a time in history (Michelangelo in Spaceship Earth or even prehistoric times in 'Universe of Energy" and even a Spanish town in 'Pirates of the Caribbean') via sets and AA characters, and re-creating a movie. << But what's the difference between creating the Spanish town in Pirates and the Western set in GMR? To a certain extent, the sets in Pirates and Mansion are like movie sets, anyway. The Western set in GMR doesn't reference a specific movie, only a genre. Same way that Mansion and Pirates do. One thing your post did make me think about was whether the scenes in GMR would be more successful if we were allowed to pretend that we're on the set when they're being filmed. I wonder if having a camera crew and director off to the side would make the ride better. So much of MGM was designed with the idea that you're on movie sets anyway, but GMR didn't pick up on that conceit really. I sorta think if GMR had played up the actual filming of the movies (like in the movie Singin' in the Rain), the ride might have been more interesting or at least more clever.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Yep - the 'on the set' concept is confusing too since the narrator (a kiss of death in my opinion), talks of Sigourney Weaver and Harrison Ford in their respective scenes. And if the Western scene is just a Western scene -- what movie are we in at that point? It seems like we agree that the concept is weird and -- out of focus! <-- ha! a movie reference!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I might have been one of the last people in America to see Avatar but I did see it last night. After watching the film my first thought was, how do you turn this into a theme park attraction, or land. I guess it can be done. You can certainly have a "flying" attraction ala Soarin'. There is a lot of fantasy "wildlife" that can be drawn upon. But, my third or fourth thought was...why would you want to do it? It doesn't generate any real excitement for me and I certainly wonder what the staying power is going to be like. I think Disney bought the rights because they are worried about keeping up with Potterland. But, I think this was the wrong franchise. While it wouldn't work for Animal Kingdom I'd much rather see a land dedicated to Pirates than to Avatars.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Maybe guests could 'step into the movie' and experience "Avatar' that way. See how I did that?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, some LSD may be cheaper than a vacation for a family of 4 to WDW and would provide the same "experience".
Originally Posted By leemac <<Apples and Oranges there leemac. Those attractions stand on their own as rides. Six Flags versions of flumes and drop rides attract people with minimal themeing just because the ride itself is fun. TGMR is a relatively static attraction with little "ride value"... it all depends on the presentation of the show. And in an attraction like TGMR the show has to be something people are interested in or you end up with 'Knott's Bear-y Tales'.>> Don't agree. Conceit and execution are far more important than established characters. Comparison to off-the-shelf attractions is entirely moot - Splash Mountain is a phenomenal attraction because of its conceit and execution - and the thrill experience itself is entirely secondary. Bear-y Tales are a product of its time - it wouldn't have stood the test of time whether it had featured established characters or not.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But Aliens? That feels like a business arrangement.>> The point of TGMR was to hit every genre - so Aliens fulfilled the sci-fi and horror genres in one scene. Granted it wasn't particularly well executed - you can't be reproducing a R-rated movie for a family attraction. I'd have dropped the genres entirely.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Yep - the 'on the set' concept is confusing too since the narrator (a kiss of death in my opinion), talks of Sigourney Weaver and Harrison Ford in their respective scenes.>> Totally agree - the show script is muddled badly. It isn't clear the purpose of TGMR - it professes to be a celebration of the magic of the movies but also tries to be behind-the-scenes and also to put the guest into the narrative. Mentioning the actors by name was always a strange story choice for me.
Originally Posted By leemac <<What other than Raiders is from the 80s? Alien is from the late 70s. But other than those, all the films reference (apart from the montage at the end) are pre-1970s.>> TGMR was written and designed to be entirely modular - it was meant to be continuously updated. Naturally the show script is now 25 years old and hasn't seen any significant change. It was hard enough to get management to pay for updated montages. I still love the idea - even if it does feel a little Epcot in its execution (the D-MGM version is very similar to the attraction that was written for the Epcot pavilion) - the notion that your tour guide has an active role to play in the show works for me. The problem is repeatability and the staleness of the show scenes. Count your blessings that the ride operators are still even involved. Management were desperate to automate the ride vehicles and eliminate the operators (and their supporting roles) entirely.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> And if the Western scene is just a Western scene -- what movie are we in at that point? << It's just a representation of the genre of the Western, just like the earlier scene is a representation of the genre of the gangster film and a later scene is paying homage to horror films.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> It isn't clear the purpose of TGMR - it professes to be a celebration of the magic of the movies but also tries to be behind-the-scenes and also to put the guest into the narrative. Mentioning the actors by name was always a strange story choice for me. << The script is indeed strange. I never got a sense of behind the scenes in the ride. Pushing that point might have made some of the tableaus work better, but it would've ruined the atmosphere in the gangster scene, the Western scene, the Nostromo. But while we're at it, why the hell is the Wicked Witch in Oz talking to our tram captain? Are we re-writing the movie of the Wizard of Oz at that moment? I'm more inclined to think the ride is muddled, but not convinced that the chronological sequence would've necessarily been the solution.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> TGMR was written and designed to be entirely modular - it was meant to be continuously updated. Naturally the show script is now 25 years old and hasn't seen any significant change. It was hard enough to get management to pay for updated montages. << So many attractions designed to be updated... Star Tours, Midway Mania, Soarin', GMR, perhaps the Circlevision movies as well. ...and the updates are once in a blue moon.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But while we're at it, why the hell is the Wicked Witch in Oz talking to our tram captain?>> Yup - the ride operator becomes an extra that diverts the attention of the witch - effectively rewriting history. The attraction attempts to insert the guest into each scene as an extra - or in the case of the operator - a supporting role. The results are mixed but I think the overall conceit was probably too grand for the execution. Better writing might have made the execution more coherent. Worth adding that over 25% of the entire park's attraction budget was sunk into TGMR. It was supposed to be the must-see attraction. Ultimately the Indy Jones Stunt Spectacular was the highest rated attraction by a mile in those early years.
Originally Posted By leobloom Wasn't GMR the only ride on opening day other than the Backstage Tour? That was an odd decision.
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ I think officially the park had 5 attractions on opening day: 1) TGMR 2) Backstage Tour 3) Animation Tour 4) Monster Sound Show 5) Superstar Television Both Indy and Star Tours came along later that year. Both 4) and 5) were only executed in their opening day form due to Sony being a deep-pocketed sponsor. I still miss the filmed attractions in the park - the quality of the acting talent and direction was at its peak during this period. Garry Marshall's The Lottery was a real gem of physical comedy, both of Jerry Rees' skits Michael & Mickey and Return to Neverland and Monster Sound Show (for the life of me I can't remember who worked behind the camera on that one). Granted a lot of the talent was effectively tied to Disney during that period but they weren't forced into working on theme park fare. It is incredible to me that you had the likes of Bette Midler, Marty Short, Robin Williams and Chevy Chase at (or near) the pinnacle of their careers and even heavyweights like David Letterman and Walter Cronkite in with the act. Even the behind the camera talent was exceptional - like Garry Marshall, composer David Newman and cinematography legend Dean Cundey. Was Michael & Mickey a later addition? I can't for the life of me remember if it was there on opening day.
