Pixarland

Originally Posted By lasvegasgirl

Welcome Pixar !!! Just means we'll have MORE "magic" when we are at the parks.... and isn't that why we go anyway ?? I guess it's all in what you consider "magic" for yourself when talking about the parks. I like what Disney/Pixar has put out so far. I think they are a wonderful addition ! I look forward to seeing what is next ! LIKE "CARS".... that looks great !!!! Our family is very excited to see it !

 

Originally Posted By markedward

"Here age relives fond memories of the past...and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams and the hard facts which have created America...with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world." - Walt Disney, 1955

"I never understood why you wouldn’t start designing a ride when you’re coming up with an idea for an animated film. So when a film comes out, two months later, a ride can open." - John Lasseter, 2006

 

Originally Posted By DVC_dad

^^^--- that sounds good IF and only IF the movie doesn't bomb. Wait...none of Lasseter's movies have bombed have they?

 

Originally Posted By DVC_dad

^-- uh oh...does this mean he's due?

 

Originally Posted By believe

DL hasn't had a "standalone" (non movie based) attraction in years (DCA doesn't count). What's with that? The last one I recall was Rocket Rods, and look what happened to that. At WDW, they've got Mission Space, Everest, etc. It doesn't hurt to have original attractions - just do it!

 

Originally Posted By ChiMike

>>but "balance" suggests there's too much of one thing. Pixar IS Disney, so are you saying there's too much Disney in Disneyland? These Pixar movies are the new animated classics and they are what most children (and even adults) relate to now. They're as good as any of the original Disney classics so I have no problem with their inclusion in the park.<<

I think Pixar movies certainly have a place in the parks. I do not think saying that there needs to be some "balance" automatically means how much Disney needs to be in Disneyland. It's how many different kinds of experiences can be found in each different distinct area of the parks. This is where, I too, think the balance is starting to deteriorate.

Tony Baxter's quote of where else can you see a President, fly with Peter Pan, rocket to outer space, etc. etc. but at Disneyland?

That's the balance some feel is being removed for a result of animated films everywhere. It's not an issue of not wanting Disney in Disneyland.

 

Originally Posted By oc_dean

Monty ... Lets start from the beginning ...

Pixar
Disney
Warner Bros. .. whatever ...

It's the fact of these 2 Dimensional worlds that are STILL 2 Dimensional worlds - blown-up in their physical size that don't hit us at a more "tangeable" level within our minds like some of the other attractions I mentioned.

How about Pixar get into Live-Action .. or something on the level of the "Jolly Holiday" sequence as a compromise.

A fully realized 2-Dimensional world is too "superficial".

 

Originally Posted By oc_dean

Just to add a bit .. Not to say they are bad - for goodness sake I'm not bad-mouthing what the Fantasyland dark rides. But too many 2 dimensional toon worlds messes up the "balance" I'm trying to explain.

 

Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt

"But I'm witnessing a balance that has somewhat eroded."

I agree. And with that eroding balance of movie based attractions vs original concepts, the storytelling and supporting theme of each land has deteriorated as well. Even though Tomorrowland has never quite lived up to Walt Disney's promise, the designers at least made an attempt to present plausible future ideas to DL audiences. For some reason it seems that every new attraction has be character based, and the results have been mixed.

 

Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt

"Why al the hubub about Pixar. Pixar is now Disney."

This isn't just about Pixar. It's about the whole idea of basing every new attraction on existing characters. There was a time when DL INVENTED characters. When was the last time that happened?

 

Originally Posted By Monty Cristo

"Monty ... Lets start from the beginning ...

Pixar
Disney
Warner Bros. .. whatever ...

It's the fact of these 2 Dimensional worlds that are STILL 2 Dimensional worlds - blown-up in their physical size that don't hit us at a more "tangeable" level within our minds like some of the other attractions I mentioned."

You're projecting how these things make *you* feel onto everyone else. I assure you very many children (and adults) do not get on "Peter Pan" and feel it's too 2 dimensional.

Called "difference of opinion", big guy. Look into it.

 

Originally Posted By Monty Cristo

I don't think bringing back the subs and incorporating a Finding Nemo theme is quite the same as simply making a movie-based ride. My criteria for a successful attraction at DL is how immersive it is in the experience it's trying to create. I'm also not arguing against non film-related rides. However I don't think a ride is any worse or better for having or not having a theme based on a movie.

 

Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt

^^I don't either. For me the theme and story comes first. Thus, Nemo and Pooh feel forced and pigeonholed into the areas they've been place. Why bother calling it "Tomorrowland" if little effort is going to be extended towards meeting the objective of creating a land that evokes the future? Sorry, "atomic powered" submarines circa 1959 retinkered with a Pixar character overlay just doesn't cut it for me. My $0.02.

 

Originally Posted By oc_dean

Monty .. I don't think I'm getting through here. I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining myself. I'm trying to present a practical issue here, that's beyond my own opinion.

I think the simplest way to state this is "Fantasyland" needs to stay in Fantasyland.

Leave the other lands to the more realistic and surrealistic material that is more relatable.

There's "Cute", "Fanciful", "Delightful", and "Giggly" (Fantasyland, Critter Country, Toontown) - Emotions that run closer to the surface....

and then there's
"Awe Inspiring", "Deep", "Spiritually moving" and "Inspirational". (Tomorrowland, Adventureland, Frontierland) - Emotions that are more stirring, that run deeper.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

I hear you, Dean. But I'm not optimistic that Tomorrowland will ever return (or move forward, depending on your point of view) into being a land that wonders much about the future, nor takes a stab at 'realizing' it in the way they did back in 67.

The lone example left there of something attempting to look into a reality-base future is Innoventions, and I'm not sure that's going to make the case that there should be more of it.

But I totally get what you're saying. I guess at this point, Im sort of resigned to the likelihood that if they ever again do try to attempt something that really is futuristic in nature, it's a long, long way off.

 

Originally Posted By mickey42397

Okay, since the original post here complained about Pixar in Tomorrowland, let us examine what Disney does with Tomrrowland when they leave Pixar out of it. Let us turn our attention to Florida....

What did we get there, no Pixar, but Stitch...a DISNEY-unrelated-to-Pixar character. Stitch's Escape is Disney's idea for Tomorrowland. It is futuristic, so does that make it a good choice for an attraction ? If you have been there and experienced it, I would think you would probably say no.

So I am curious, Markedward, you say that you would like them to make attractions for Beauty and the Beast and the Little Mermaid, and Aladdin, and Tarzan, but how would any of those characters fit into an attraction in Tomorrowland ? True, they could have done the subs with Ariel instead of Nemo, but what difference would that really have made when it comes to the attraction itself ? That is pretty much apples to apples.

Tarzan is pretty well represented in the parks. Besides the tree there is the Tarzan Rocks show at Animal Kingdom, and the characters walk around all the time.

Aladdin is well represented too. The show at DL is great and the magic carpet ride at MK is fantastic, one of my favorites.

Same thing with Little Mermaid. The show at MGM studios is absolutely not to be missed, and the fastpasses for it often are gone within the first few hours of park opening. Having your picture taken with Ariel in her grotto is a great thing in California or Florida and everyone seems to appreciate it, based on the long lines.

Beauty and the Beast is a little under-represented, but the show at MGM sudios is still going on after all these years, and still filling up for each performance so they keep it going. I mean, what else are you going to do with that movie, change the teacups to look like Chip and put Mrs. Pott's in the middle ? That would make a lot of people furious, and then should we just forget about Alice in Wonderland ?

The point is, we can't have a new ride for every new movie that is made so we should just appreciate what they give us. We cannot have every movie represented either, especially in California where space is limited. So when they give us a Pixar character attraction we should just be glad that they did something with the dead space and try to enjoy the new attraction. As for the whole thing about 2D cartoony, with children today, that is what gets their imagination going. If Disney/Pixar doesn't keep giving them fuel in the form of living toys, talking sea creatures, and happy monsters then they will just turn their attention to whatever else is out there, like the video game inspired characters that seem to be lurking in every corner.

I, for one, am glad that the kids in my family are excited about going to DL and seeing the Pixar (which is Disney) attractions.

 

Originally Posted By markedward

What is behind my being bugged by the Pixar presence?

1. If it's Pixar, it gets a ride

A good but not great Pixar movie, Monsters Inc., just got a ride in Anaheim, but The Lion King which is one of the best things Disney has ever done is invisible, The Little Mermaid is represented by a "grotto", and Aladdin has a little story teller show and a big broadway show, both of which were closed when we visited - during a holiday week.

When Nemo opens in Anaheim and the Cars ride opens in Paris, every Pixar movie except The Incredibles will have a ride at a Disney park.

2. Shows don't count

Shows can close. Shows can be shut down so as to not compete with Broadway. Shows can go on hiatus.

Here's the core of this particular complaint. I've only been to Disney MGM Studios once. We thought of it as a half day park, so we decided to spend the one and a half days at Epcot and half a day at MGM. So we went over after lunch. Shows are an evening thing, after all. Boy was I wrong. We weren't able to see a single show at MGM. We also missed The American Adventure because it was only showing AFTER lunch. On another visit I remember sprinting from China to Germany because the two pavilions shows were scheduled so close together, only to find there was no seating for Germany and they wouldn't let us in. When we recently went to Disneyland, the big Aladdin show wasn't showing on Monday and Tuesday when we were there. I've just had a bad track record with shows, and it's left a bad taste in my mouth. Attractions not only last decades instead of a few seasons, they also run non-stop, not three times a day.

3. Not everything has to be based on a cartoon

Mission to Space and Expedition Everest have nothing to do with any Disney cartoon. They harken back to a time when experiencing your favorite Disney cartoon was only one of many experiences at Disneyland. I want my kids to leave The Living Seas daydreaming about becoming marine biologists, not daydreaming about renting Finding Nemo.

4. Walt Disney invented the theme park

Disneyland's Tomorrowland was a place to dream optimistic dreams about the future. Now it's a hodgepodge of slightly sci fi movie characters.

5. We lose sight of the big trends

I don't think you can name a Pixar attraction idea I wouldn't think was totally awesome. They're great movies and lend themselves well to Disney attractions. But you've got to look at the long term trend, and the big picture. Too much of one type of experience isn't good for the total experience. And let's be realistic, as awesome as Pixar movies are, they do cover a clearly defined slice of the universe - a buddy movie about the challenges of being a toy, bug, monster, fish, superhero, or car, and a catchy Randy Newman song.

I'll end with a survey question for anyone who wants to share. Does it make the experience better or worse at a Disney park or any other theme park that you're experiencing a re-creation of a well known movie instead of a re-creation of a reality? Is it better to have an Indiana Jones ride or a ride where you are a generic adventurer, exploring? Flying around the Death Star or flying through the canals of Mars or the craters of the moon? Does it add to or limit a child's experience that they're quick to spot clownfish at an aquarium, but they only know them as "Nemo"?

 

Originally Posted By mickey42397

Wow. Okay, here goes...

Let me say first, that I see your point and I am not in total disagreement. Just as you would like everyone to see the long run here, I would like for you to be able to see the bigger picture as well. The fact is, Disney is in the theme park business (as well as a lot of other businesses) and Anaheim's park is just the oldest, not the only, and definitely not the largest. The one that has the most amount of space for expansion and draws the most amount of people and therefore has the biggest budget is WDW. As Walt said, in Florida we enjoy something we have never had before, the blessing of space. They are perfectly able to build brand new attractions like Mission Space and Expedition Everest because there are no limits when it comes to available space. Neither of those two attractions could have fit at DL without taking something huge and tearing it down completely. Everest would have taken a third of the entire park here or more. To build a brand new attraction you need to be able to design the building for it from scratch, so where do you propose they do this at DL ?

The pixar rides were all put into existing buildings. Buzz is in the old circlevision building, Nemo in the old sub lagoon, Monster's Inc is in the Superstar Limo building, and they didn't even change most of what was already in there. True, the bug's life stuff was built from scratch, but I am pretty sure they had that planned from the time they opened the park.

<Shows don't count

Shows can close. Shows can be shut down so as to not compete with Broadway. Shows can go on hiatus.>

<Attractions not only last decades instead of a few seasons, they also run non-stop, not three times a day.>

Not always true. I see that you have had some bad experiences with shows. It sometimes takes some planning to see the ones you want to see. Name a theme park that you can visit anywhere that you can just walk right into and see the shows you want to see without looking at the showtimes and planning your day accordingly. Some attractions don't last very long. (Ahem...Rocket Rods, Superstar Limo, cough, gasp.) Then again, some shows go on for years and years and still run not 3 times a day, but 8, or 10, or more. The Beauty and the Beast show runs from park opening until park closing every day at MGM and has been doing so since I took my 17 year old god-daughter when she was 3, so what is that, 14 years ? That is much more than a decade. How can you say that shows don't count ? What would any park be without shows ? Oh, I know, like a carnival. Kind of takes some of the theme out of theme park, don't you think ? Walt wouldn't have it.


<Does it make the experience better or worse at a Disney park ...that you're experiencing a re-creation of a well known movie instead of a re-creation of a reality? >

How much of Walt's DL was based on a re-creation of reality ? Walt created areas of the park that would take you to a place or time he had an appreciation for. Frontierland still makes kids and adults alike imagine that they were living amongst cowboys in the wild west, Woody and Jesse signing autographs just adds to that, and doesn't take away from it.

The old attractions had a theme and it was fantasy and (basically) fictional characters that helped your imagination take off. POTC had Lafitte and his recollections of his time spent in the Caribbean as a pirate. How is that so different from Indiana Jones recalling his adventures ? What about the Tiki Room, do you mean to say that our imagination is being sparked by something real there ? What about the Haunted Mansion ? These are all fiction and fantasy and all were built to give us the feel of being somewhere else. Fighting Zurg or helping rescue Boo, or talking to a sea turtle are really not that different.


<Is it better to have an Indiana Jones ride or a ride where you are a generic adventurer, exploring? Flying around the Death Star or flying through the canals of Mars or the craters of the moon? >

I think flying around the Death Star would make a child look to the future and think about how far technology needs to go before that is possible. Seeing craters on the moon is old news to these kids.


<Does it add to or limit a child's experience that they're quick to spot clownfish at an aquarium, but they only know them as "Nemo"?>


I REALLY do have to disagree here. Nemo has added tremendously to my daughter's knowledge of sea creatures. She doesn't call clownfish Nemo, she calls them clownfish because I take the time to tell her that they are clownfish just like they explained in the movie. She is fascinated by anenomes and the fact that squid have ink and manta rays and even sharks because she saw them in the movie and that sparked her curiosity. She knows a lot about sea turtles from the movie, but even more from the multitude of educational facts she has learned from talking to Crush at DCA and at Epcot. She even got to ask him her own questions and have them answered by Crush right then and there. Now, I ask all of you...which fact about sea turtles do you think a child is more likely to remember, a question answered by a teacher in a classroom, or one answered by Crush the sea turtle who is interacting with the child live at a Disney park ?


The key to encouraging a child to imagine, explore, and learn is that the child's parent(s) must actively participate. You can take your chid to a disney park and let him ride all the rides and never discuss any of it and not much will come of it. Or, you can take your child and experience all of it with him/her and talk about it and answer questions and even ask questions and the results of that will amaze you.

 

Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt

"I don't think you can name a Pixar attraction idea I wouldn't think was totally awesome. They're great movies and lend themselves well to Disney attractions. But you've got to look at the long term trend, and the big picture. Too much of one type of experience isn't good for the total experience."

*Stands up and applauds*

"They are perfectly able to build brand new attractions like Mission Space and Expedition Everest because there are no limits when it comes to available space. Neither of those two attractions could have fit at DL without taking something huge and tearing it down completely."

I don't believe space is the point. The idea is to make more attractions (like the two mentioned) that are notable because of their unique orginal storylines rather than film based concepts. Both Mission Space and Everest enhance and support the theme of the location they are in, rather than dumb down the experience.

Disney could have put anything in the Sub Lagoon. Rather than be creative and orginal they are relying on existing characters and situations that aren't even romotely related to anything futuristic.

 

Originally Posted By markedward

I knew when I wrote it that "shows don't count" was provocative. I don't mean shows don't count toward the park experience. I love entertainment, and don't feel that way at all. I mean only that shows don't count when I'm counting attractions, because a great show, like Beauty and the Beast, is lucky to last ten or fifteen years, maybe twenty. A mediocre ride, however, can last decades, like Pinocchio. Yes, some shows last, and some rides don't. But it is so easy to scrap a show and so hard to scrap a ride that I don't count on a show still being there if I'm thinking about taking the kids to Disney World in five years.

And, yeah, I guess I do mean that shows don't count if you're not able to see them, which has been my experience a surprising number of times.