View Full Version : Monsters, Inc. to replace Imagination?
05-16-2001, 10:35 AM
Jim Hill strikes again (don't ya just love this guy?). Here's the story (http://orlandoweekly.com/news/eyedrive/).
What do you think?
HEY!! I just used the rumor board correctly again!! If I don't watch it, it may become a habit!!! ;)
05-16-2001, 11:00 AM
Well I like the idea of bringing Figment back in a big way. However, how can you shorten the ride anymore?
I'm not sure How they could shorten it Either, although it could just mean 5 bigger scenes instead of seven smaller ones.
This is the best Idea I've seen yet. Even though it smacks of too much synergy, it also fits right in to Imagination's theme. It looks like those Imagineers have come up with something good that will make Mikey happy too.
05-16-2001, 11:34 AM
ANYTHING would be better than the present ride. But I don't seriously think this makeover, should it ever happen, would be anything to write home about. The budgets will likely even tinyer than they were for JIYI, which means minimatronics and 2-D cutouts at best.
Not that that is the ride I would want, but As I recall, 2-D cutouts works rather well in Buzzlightyear's ride.
05-16-2001, 12:20 PM
I will start of by saying that this is a very interesting article with some good ideas and very little negativity about the new project (a HUGE surprise considering the source)
Now with regards to Journey Into YOUR Imagination, I must admit that the attraction in comparision to the orginal is weak, but it does have some enjoyable moments. The upside down room, the butterfly, and the star room at the exit are three great parts. Overall I think that with some changes to a few of the other scenes such as the wall of sound and the constellation scenes the attraction would be much better.
Potential of Monsters, Inc is indeed great. Even a tie in with imagination so that it will fit in that pavillion is possible. However I thing it unlikely that a total convesrion to a Monsters, Inc attraction will be possible in 6 months as the article suggests. I also fail to see why the attraction would need to be shortened. Is it because the vaunted imagineers can not think of enough story to fill an already small space?
Jim Hill's articles always amaze me with their lack of sources and baseless suppositions. This article seems to have taken root with the nearly year old rumor that a Monsters Inc attraction would be coming to DCA. Now it seems as if Jim has taken that rumor to the next level.
I would prefer that they not clone attractions from one park to the next, so therefore my vote for Monsters, Inc goes to DCA. They sorely need a quality darkride experience. If it were to be cloned in WDW I would most like to see it at the Disney/MGM Studios, another park itching to sprout into its own. A high quality dark ride (something they lack) would serve to boost the park even higher and with the recent additions of Millionaire, Rock n Roller Coaster and Fantasmic it would serve to make it a would class park.
05-16-2001, 12:34 PM
Sounds like a good idea for a ride and a reasonable tie-in with imagination theme.
I started thinking about the synergy yo-yo. Movie coming out, attraction in the works. Movie isnít a mega-hit, attraction gets cancelled. Attraction on the drawing board, waiting for a movie tie-in and waiting and waiting. Seems like we hear this happening over and over. Is the sysnergy concept getting in the way of launching the best attractions?
It struck me when he mentioned Bugs Life and the 3D attraction. Does it really matter that much if you have seen the movie or not? Is Dinosaur any better or worse that the movie wasnít a hit. How much synergy was there in ToT, Splash Mountain, RnR. They donít seem to suffer from lack of it.
Is there any danger that we get cheated out of some good attractions because they had no or the wrong synergy play. The theory sounds great, but I wonder how well it is being practiced?
05-16-2001, 12:44 PM
Even though it smacks of too much synergy, it also fits right in to Imagination's theme.
I'm having trouble seeing how a Monsters Inc. ride fits the theme of FutureWorld. The only way I see it fitting even the Imagination pavilion's theme is that the creatures are imaginary, which means almost all of the Magic Kingdom would suddenly fit the "theme."
By the way, I don't completely subscribe to LandBaron's "too much synergy" complaint. It's more subtle than that. For example, I don't mind WWTBAM-PI! at Disney Studios because of "too much" synergy, I don't like it because it's yet another example of Imagineering via Zerox machine; of doing the cheapest thing they can get away with to fill the space. People seem to like WWTBAM-PI!, which means that sometimes an attraction can work without mechanical or thematic innovation. I just don't feel this argument is valid to justify _all_ new attractions being "the cheapest thing they can get away with to fill the space."
I actually doubt this rumor. It my shock some of you to hear this, but my gut feeling is that not even Eisner would do something like this.
That said, I must acknowledge that this attempt to kill two birds with one (likely refurbished) stone, theming be damned, is, in fact, right up Eisner's alley.
PS - OnWithTheShow mentions that Disney Studios is ripe for such an attraction, but did not point out that the ride fits the movie studios theme far better than it does the FutureWorld theme. Unfortunately, from the information I have, Disney Studios, of all the WDW parks, has the least amount of available space for expansion. Were Monsters, Inc. to come to DS, I'd bet it would be as the replacement to The Great Movie Ride rather than being a new attraction.
05-16-2001, 02:23 PM
The only way I see it fitting even the Imagination pavilion's theme is that the creatures are imaginary, which means almost all of the Magic Kingdom would suddenly fit the "theme."
Thank you. It was what I needed to get my thoughts in order.
Most of the time, when first encountering a bit of new Disney news, I have an immediate reaction. A gut feeling that I can't explain very clearly right away. Sometimes I can't quite put my finger on the particular WHY I feel it is either 'right' or 'wrong'. Same thing happened this time. When I first read the Hill article my very reaction was, "Well, it's about time!!" I then reread it looking for overt negativity (I sometimes miss this from Hill because my head is often nodding too fast in agreement). I found little negativity!! So, I quickly click to the DIS and started to write. As I was writing the little hairs on the back of my neck started to stand up. Something didn't 'feel' quite right. So I stopped, highlighted my opinion and hit delete. Instead, I merely posted the link. I needed time to think about it.
So, off to the 'thoughtful place' for some thinking. And I soon discovered what was bothering me about the story. It was going into EPCOT (MY BELOVED EPCOT). And it didn't fit! OK, I know it didn't fit, but why? Certainly YoHo, DisDuck and our favorite tag team of Captain Peter would be all over me without some sort of cogent argument (that they would likely lampoon anyway!).
Why didn't it fit? Cause I said so, that's why!!! - No. That wouldn't work.
Why didn't it fit? Because it doesn't hold with the over all theme of EPCOT.
Well, maybe. But is there really a theme left to EPCOT or has it merely become a hodge-podge of rides loosely based on some forgettable movies? And besides I could already hear YoHo, "Its monsters. Imagination - Get it?" - No. That wouldn't work. I still needed more.
Why didn't it fit? Because it doesn't hold with the over all theme of EPCOT. The only way I see it fitting even the Imagination pavilion's theme is that the creatures are imaginary, which means almost all of the Magic Kingdom would suddenly fit the "theme." Ah! Thank you!! That'll do.
I am very disappointed, if not downright mad, that once again they are more concerned with creating advertising for their movies than they are with creating a unique, quality and magical experience for their guests. I for one would LOVE to see NO movie tie-ins for EPCOT!! Some in MK, even a couple in AK and the rest in MGM. LEAVE EPCOT ALONE!!!! It also seems that a Dinosaur ride and a Space type ride doesn't really NEED a movie tie in. If the movies tank (WHICH THEY DID) the ride could stand alone. This one seems a little movie specific. I mean is there anyone else out there that is thrilled that Ei$ner wasn't around for The Rescuer Down Under? If he were in charge I'm quite sure we'd have Rescuer - The Ride or Journey Down Under!!
My other serious objection is one of length. IMO EPCOT should have experiences. PAVILLIONS or at least ATTRACTIONS!! Not just merely rides. How ordinary. And this ride is already one third shorter than the original. What are they thinking!! And they better be careful about how they portray Figment!! That's all I gotta say!!
Unless they do it right, it will come off as a desperate attempt to fix a problem they caused in the first place. A tiny band-aid that will not come close to repairing the bleeding artery. They've already disappointed everyone with their first "fix". It is time to make things right. And those little hairs on the back of my neck say, at least as Hill described it, "This ain't it!!"
Were Monsters, Inc. to come to DS, I'd bet it would be as the replacement to The Great Movie Ride rather than being a new attraction.
You got that one right!!!
05-16-2001, 02:58 PM
And they better be careful about how they portray Figment!! That's all I gotta say!!
...should this ever actually come to pass, Figment will be well represented in the store that will open in place of the cut sixth scene.
Is it because the vaunted imagineers can not think of enough story to fill an already small space?
Judging from Animal Kingdom, what Imagineers are left at Disney do a great job with the bleeding remains of the budgets that survive long enough to be spent. A bunch of Imagineers did a great job on IOA's Dueling Dragons after Eisner rewarded them with pink slips for their AK work.
The Walt Disney Imagineering department is a faded reflection of what it once was, a muscle atrophied because Eisner would rather buy pre-fab than invest in the very creativity and innovation that built the company and its once-envied reputation.
Darnit, LAndbaron, you stole my answer!!! :jester:
First off, I would like to point out, that in fact Micheal Eisner was CEO when the Rescuers down under was made. In fact it came out after Little Mermaid (Nov 18th 1990). It was one of Jeff Katzenbergs few Failures and the first Disney Sequel.
ANyway, I can see your thinking that Epcot should be bereft of overt synergy, but should they follow that course, then Imagination should be bulldozed entirely. (I myself felt Capt. EO a much better film, but can understand why they would want to distance themselves from Jackson)
You also know that I agree with you, nay I've had it planned out in my head exactly what futureworld SHOULD be like, but having said that, I have no problems with a little good synergy. And let me explain why. Good synergy can draw people in with the familiar. Think of its tough to be a bug. Aside from the fact that the Grasshoppers are evil, what else links this to the film in terms of plot? What about the tree of life?
Camp Minnie Mickey not withstanding, AK shouldn't really be a synergy intensive park, and these two aspects are great synergy. SImilarly, I think Monsters Inc. could be great synergy. To expand upon your correct assesment of my thoughts, Its not simply that they are imaginary creatures, but that they are one of those things that starts our imaginations as children.
Having said that, looking back at what Jim Describes, I wonder if that proposal is subtle enough. But then, his timeline is at best difficult, which means he may not have the whole story. We shall see.
In short, The synergy could be the best thing to happen since Dreamfinder squeeked and groaned for the last time. It could also suck.
05-16-2001, 05:29 PM
I'm with you on this one Lanbaron, it doesn't fit!
I'm all for a Monsters Inc. replacement of the GMR. How about "It's a Small Underworld, After All"?
05-17-2001, 08:45 AM
I have seen It's Tough to Be a Bug about 20 times over the last 3 years, but only saw A Bug's Life 3 months ago. I dont think a movie tie in weakens an attraction if the attraction and story are already top quality. (ie Bugs, Monsters)
05-17-2001, 12:43 PM
I don't understand the problem with the theme. To logically question an "Imagination" theme using Monsters Inc., one must logically question "Imagaination" the pavilian.
No offense to those that are doing so, but Hello? Can we really afford more attrition? Let's not quibble over whether or not Imagination belongs in FW.
If we dismiss this argument, just for the sake of keeping FW intact, then it is easy to see that Monsters, Inc. would make an excellent basis for an Imagination attraction. Lassiter and co., if they have the input with the WDI'ers, can boost this pitiful excuse for a replacement for JII.
05-17-2001, 08:24 PM
Im more concerned that they fix a ride that isnt that good then if it doesnt exacltly fit the theme of the area. I wouldnt want the ride shorter at all byt almost anything would be bettere there than what they have now. They ruined a ecellant attraction and need to do something to it to make it better.
A formerly great attraction, my last trip into imagination with Dreamfinder and Figment was actually worse then my only trip on JIYI, BECAUSE, at least on the new ride I could hear the soundtrack and the cars turned on que.no, 1996 was a bad bad bad Imagination expireance.
05-17-2001, 09:57 PM
Guys, I wouldn't exactly rush to get in line for this one yet. How many times did you hear that 'I saw the construction cranes for Fire Mountain behind Jungle Crusie yesterday' rumor? Kodak's not really in the mood to pour more money into the pavilion (especially after what they bought the last time around) and 'Monsters, Inc.' is still an unknown quanity (is a Disney-cute story going to work in the post-'Shrek' world?).
Besides, if Burbank's going to release any of its $5 billion hope chest money, where do you think it's going to go: a park that is already doing well in a resort with a big 18-month marketing celebration planned, or a recently opened PR nightmare that's losing more money than they can count?
Just some thoughts.
05-17-2001, 10:09 PM
Image works may get a rehab soon because Kodak wants it improved and is willing to foot the bill. That's all that is going to happen any time soon.
05-18-2001, 08:36 AM
Imagination was one of my favorite rides, but like YoHo right before they closed it, there were issues with the soundtrack, mechanics, etc.
However, there is a big difference from having a bad ride experience due to mechanics, and having a bad ride experience due to content. The few times I have ridden JIYI have all been bad experiences due to the fact there is a lack of content.
05-18-2001, 09:00 AM
No Monsters at Epcot! I'm in full agreement with DVC, I'd hate to see movie tie-ins at Epcot. The Lion King references in the Land are so minor, they don't bother me.
The Studios needs a dark ride, if Monsters is a big hit, maybe it should go there. But, I don't like the idea of it going in Mann's. That's a movie history showcase, GMR fits it. If WDW wanted to do a new attraction, it should follow that theme. Perhaps one that traces Disney movie history taking us through memorable scenes from the best classics to some of the neo-classics. An attraction based on a single film just doesn't seem to fit there. Anyway, I think GMR still has some life in it.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.