Originally Posted By Anatole69 Many of the AA based attractions and many of the well themed rides have been in the parks from 30-50 years. Anyone care to name a single fim based attraction that has lasted more than 25? Even Star Tours is barely past 20, and that is a flight simulator which gives it more legs than your normal film. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I haven't been to Epcot so someone correct me if there is a film in there that has been there since the parks opening. - Anatole
Originally Posted By The Goddess Mara Films in Epcot since the park opening: Reflections of China, Impressions du France, and Oh Canada. The first and last have recently been redone. None of the film-based attractions that have been in the parks have ever had the gold-standard base of characters that Philharmagic has. That, and wonderful execution, is its appeal. Unless you think no one will give a crap about any of those Disney movies or characters in the decades to come. I'm betting you're wrong. Star Tours has no Disney characters and no Disney music in it, and so its appeal is limited entirely to its ride system, which is dated. The appeal of the Disney characters and music in Philharmagic will never be dated.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make in post #44 in the D section--that this film has the potential of longer lasting appeal BECAUSE of the characters and songs in it. That cant be dismissed out of hand and why the film was probably made in the first place. They knew LM, Lion King and etc are timeless classics at this point. Nothing in that film showed a movie post 1995, that should tell you something. I mean all these characters are constantly represented all over the theme parks today. Most of them have their own floats in Disney parades and TLM is getting a huge attraction for her built in DCA. These characters arent going anywhere. I dont see any of the characters from HISTA on any floats lately . Look I dont know if Philharmagic will last 30 years lol and I dont think anyone is thinking that faaar down the road with this film. They probably see its popularity in the other parks and see it as a great fit for that area and something the entire family will enjoy and get into. People let's NOT lose site of what we are talking about here. It's a great family attraction in every sense of the word and will appeal to anyone who like anyone of those films or songs. Not sure what else could be said at this point. But yes, a film with very popular timeless characters will probably go further than a film exploring the history of California or a film about a family inventing a device to change mass in objects---those films are great, but their songs arent as catchy ;D. Or they can be sick of it in 5 years lol. Who knows? It just makes perfect sense to have it there IMO. Monsters Inc SHOULDNT be in TL, but this is perfect theme for the area.
Originally Posted By The Goddess Mara Has Oriental Land made any effort to justify putting the Monster's Inc attraction in its Tomorrowland (as opposed to Walt Disney World, which seemingly has not made any effort to define why Monster's Inc. Unfunny Floor is in its Tomorrowland).
Originally Posted By Anatole69 The biggest argument against film based attractions that I can think of hasn't even been mentioned yet, and it's the same problem that is facing feature films and music: when people can get them for free online, they have little incentive to pay for them. If someone wants to watch Philharmagic, they can see it on youtube for free and lose very little except for the 3-d and 4-d. Those things might bring someone into the park to see it once or twice, but after that they can get it for free online. A ride or attraction doesn't lose its appeal even after being filmed and put online because the immersiveness can't be completely captured by film. A video on youtube is still just a small box of visual information, and in an immersive ride the experience is 360. - Anatole
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^Now that's a good point! Again though, i seen this stuff on the web and I manage to still go anyway when I'm in the parks. There are a lot of people who only wants to see this stuff once and never bothers again and then there are people who watches it over and over again. And remember, Philharmagic is simply not JUST a flim. It's a film that is in '4D' style Disney likes to call them with theater interaction and plays on all your senses. That's what brings people back. The fact its in 3D alone on a huge screen loses something when you are watching it in 2D mode on a 15 inch screen as well . But if you are talking about a flat, 2D, straight forward film like California Dreams was, then yes, its harder to get people interested since the experience there is not much different then watching it on your computer.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Has Oriental Land made any effort to justify putting the Monster's Inc attraction in its Tomorrowland (as opposed to Walt Disney World, which seemingly has not made any effort to define why Monster's Inc. Unfunny Floor is in its Tomorrowland).>> I dont think so, but I dont get Disney info like I use to. It really is one of the most random things to put in that area, but hell I'm still trying to figure out how Finding Nemo belongs in TL at DL or how TLM fits in PP in DCA. Sadly I think these parks have let Pixar run wild so much because of the films popularity, they dont even bother trying to justify any of it anymore. Dont be surprised when you see WALL E in American Waterfront in TDS a few years time .
Originally Posted By Bob Paris I think it's adorable how WD has conversations with himself. He will post a massive post and then come back a few minutes later and back himself up with yet another post. Oh and I love your lols scattered throughout your post. It makes you seem really human and I can hear you laughing as you are saying those comments.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Star Tours has no Disney characters and no Disney music in it, and so its appeal is limited entirely to its ride system, which is dated. The appeal of the Disney characters and music in Philharmagic will never be dated.<<< I am defintely in the minority. I consider Star Tours as much of a must do as PotC, HM, IASW and Splash, but care not if I ever see Phil again. I prefer the immersion of a Disney park into theme and frankly am fed up of toons. That said, at least Phil is going to the right park and area of the park, and is bound to be hugely popular. whereas I love Cinemagic, Soarin', and the 3 Epcot films. I actually like film based attractions. But Phil annoys me on almost every level and stands for virtually everything that annoys me - gratuitous characters - check, CGI - check, drawing just on legacy rather that creating something new that is exciting - check. I don't really have a problem with cloning. And indeed I am a fan of it in some instances (would love Splash, Soarin' and maybe Indy to come to DLP). But I just simply dislike Phil.
Originally Posted By barboy //The appeal of the Disney characters and music in Philharmagic will never be dated// I'd say that you're right about that point but what about the 3-d and film quality in 30 years. Right now the attraction is fairly state of the art with crisp visuals; but so was Star Tours back in '87. ST's film was the bomb back then but come mid to late 90's that film started looking out of date. And now 21 years later the ST film is just awful due to modern comparisons like Simpson's The Ride. Example of techno visuals: we are now used to high def. televisions and broadcasts...... can you imagine going back to '95? Philharm is a high quality attraction.... but we will not say that in 25 years.
Originally Posted By barboy /// in post #44 in the D section--that this film has the potential of longer lasting appeal BECAUSE of the characters and songs in it./// And how do you reconcile the techno obsolescence aspect to Phil? Japanese go nuts for Disney characters and they go nuts for the 'latest and greatest' innovations as well.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Example of techno visuals: we are now used to high def. televisions and broadcasts...... can you imagine going back to '95? >>> I know what you mean. To me, Soarin' seems very dated, not because of the content, but the quality of the print. I don't see why something like Soarin' shouldn't be as good as what I can see at the local theater when seeing the latest Hollywood release in IMAX format.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney << think it's adorable how WD has conversations with himself. He will post a massive post and then come back a few minutes later and back himself up with yet another post. Oh and I love your lols scattered throughout your post. It makes you seem really human and I can hear you laughing as you are saying those comments.>> LOL, thanks dude . Yeah, the lols get a bit much I admit, but yeah when I laugh while I'm writing I just put them there. And yeah, I end up making other posts because in my ridiculously long rants, I still manage to leave something out .
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<And how do you reconcile the techno obsolescence aspect to Phil? Japanese go nuts for Disney characters and they go nuts for the 'latest and greatest' innovations as well.>> I guess the simple truth is I dont lol. I'm not even sure how much of that is an issue to be honest with you since we are talking about replacing it with an waaaay outdated attraction from the 70's lol. I mean, MMR been there forever, OLC found it acceptable to let it run as long as it did, crowds finally fell flat enough where it wasnt worth keeping anymore and they got rid of it, simple. Hell, look at Epcot, it's 26 years old and about 2/3rds of the attractions have been replaced that was built at opening since. This stuff gets old, especially when talking about technology and the 'lastest and greatest' places like Epcot and TL suppose to represent. They replace it, that's all. Its not ALL suppose to last until Disney turns to mothballs. And I dont know where all of a sudden where Philharmagic is something that is suppose to be around for the next 20-30 year anyway lol. Somewhere along the thread, it was decided for an attraction to be worth adding, it has to be able to stand the test of time for some reason. I understand the argument, films just doesnt last as long as attractions, okay fine. I GET that and I'm sure OLC does as well and HENCE, there is usually only one or two films playing at the resort at one time (unlike the FIVE that was trouted for DCA on opening day *sigh*). So yeah, I think the film will play for a long time because of the subject matter and the songs. Will it play until I retire, uh, I dont know lol, I really dont. It will last as long as it does and when it's time is done, it will be replaced, probably by another film which has happened with Captain EO, Timekeeper and HISTA in TL. Hopefully something even BETTER and more fun comes along anyway that is worth replacing it with. And I find it funny now that technology is now a new reason not to have this attraction when the thread originnally started out with dissappointment of not keeping MMR around, an attraction as outdated as Buck Rogers lol. The glass is half full on my side of the computer kids .
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Personally I am using Tony Baxter's rule of thumb, when you replace an attraction with another one, the newer one has to be better than the first one. Philharmagic just doesn't seem to fit that bill to me, though it is good on its own.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^That's cool, but I disagree. I like MMR, but its had its time. I honestly feel Philharmagic is the better attraction and it will certainly quadruple the crowds the first year or two in operation. MMR wouldnt be going ANYWHERE if it was getting the numbers. Its not. I been going to that attraction for 8 years now and its never been 'busy' all the times I gone there even when the park was slammed, and thats a lot. If it stayed, I would be fine with it, but now that they are replacing it with something different and new, it only benefits the guest IMO.
Originally Posted By barboy ///I honestly feel Philharmagic is the better attraction and it will certainly quadruple the crowds the first year or two in operation./// If OLC elected to instal something else, anything else as an attraction, the crowds would hit it very hard early just on curiosity alone. But I foresee Phil. doing very well for around a decade---after that I'd bet a slow death. A slow death would be where guests still show up in strong numbers but only to fill in time because the likes of Pooh and Splash have 'sold out' their FP's. And considering the costs to open it coupled with the presumed popularity if OLC does get 10 strong years out of Philharm then they chose wisely.
