Disney's Pirates Ride: Just Like in the Movies

crazy4wdw

Moderator - Restaurant Board
Moderator
Joined
Jan 3, 2001
Messages
9,291
Disney's Pirates Ride: Just Like in the Movies

The renovated Pirates of the Caribbean attraction will look more like the films it inspired. But some fans feel it's taking marketing too far.

By Kimi Yoshino, LA Times Staff Writer
June 19, 2006

Purist fans of Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean ride are wishing they could force company officials to walk the plank for doing the unthinkable.

The classic attraction, which turns 40 next year, is getting an overhaul timed to coincide with the movie premiere of "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," the second in a trilogy of films starring Johnny Depp. When the popular ride reopens June 26, it will look a lot more like the movie series that it inspired, complete with swashbuckler Jack Sparrow and his nemesis Capt. Barbossa.

Internet message boards have been in mutiny for months, with fans debating whether Disney is taking corporate synergy and marketing too far — and that's saying a lot for a company that capitalizes on just about every character tie-in imaginable.

"If it ain't broke, why fix it?" grumbled fan Candy Richter, 39, who grew up riding Pirates of the Caribbean. "I think it's really lamentable when society feels that they need to go back and adjust their pop culture icons to fit whatever new spawns out…. I don't think people are going in Haunted Mansion and wondering where the Eddie Murphy character is."

In a break from its ride-opening tradition, Disney is not giving any sneak peeks, not even to park employees, until after the movie's celebrity-studded premiere at the Anaheim theme park Saturday. The movie is set for wide release July 7.

Disney is banking that fans, even the die-hards, will not be disappointed.

"I cannot imagine how anybody can see this attraction and walk off and say, 'Boy, they did something they shouldn't have,' " said Disney Imagineer Kathy Rogers, who is overseeing the ride's creative changes at Disneyland and Walt Disney World in Florida. "It really has strengthened the classic."

Rogers said ride designers had tried to seamlessly add characters into the attraction in the same way that movie scriptwriters adopted elements of the ride. (Remember the dog holding the keys to the jail cells in the 2003 movie "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl"?)

The ride's story line has been tweaked. Instead of pirates ransacking a Spanish seaport town in search of gold, they're now trying to capture Jack Sparrow and beat him to the treasure. The booty, incidentally, has a lot more bling, Disney said.

Fans of the movie will see familiar elements, including animatronic characters depicting Jack Sparrow and Capt. Barbossa. In the ride's cannon scene, in which a pirate ship appears to shoot cannonballs over the riders' heads, music from the movie will be playing. Special effects also have been upgraded to make the cannon blasts more realistic.

A waterfall scene has been added with the ghostly image of Davy Jones, the evil spirit of the seas and a character in the second movie, Rogers said. In the ride's town and treasure scenes, Jack Sparrow has been dropped into the mix.

"They look like they've always been there," Rogers said. "You're not saying, 'Oh, they put that movie thing there.' "

In fact, Disney tried not to tinker too much with the classic sets. Old characters are still up to their marauding ways, including the auctioneer, the pooped pirate and the wenches for sale. The burning town was tweaked to make the fire more realistic. The ride remains 14 1/2 minutes long.

"There's nothing changing about the fundamental character of the attraction," said Jay Rasulo, chairman of Disney's theme park division.

The makeover is in the spirit of what Walt Disney would have wanted, Rasulo said. According to one of Disney's most famous quotes, Disneyland will never be complete "as long as there is imagination left in the world."

"I think true purists will know that Walt was a man of innovation," Rasulo said. "Walt was a futurist. He thought nothing of embracing new technology and making new magic."

Jeff Baham, founder of the website tellnotales.com, said fans seemed split about the changes, though many were reserving judgment until after they experienced the renovated ride.

In the most extreme cases, some fans contend that the ride should remain untouched because it is the last attraction Disney worked on before his death, Baham said.

Given the park's track record, some aren't sure what to expect.

The last time Disney made changes to the ride in 1997, it became the butt of jokes after its drunken, looting buccaneers were made a bit more politically correct. The company "rehabilitated" the ride to make the pirates in the chase scene pursue food rather than scared maidens. It became a sin of gluttony rather than lust, officials said at the time.

Perhaps in a nod to the purists, that theme is being ditched to "make the story consistent," Rogers said, which means that the pirates will go back to their pillaging, misbehaving ways.

Jamie O'Boyle, a Philadelphia-based cultural analyst who has studied Disneyland and theme parks, said he was not surprised that fans were leery.

"Suspicion of Disney's motives is legitimate," O'Boyle said. "The company earned that suspicion over the past couple of decades with a series of bad decisions."

He cited such actions as Disney's replacement of the Swiss Family Robinson treetop abode with Tarzan's Treehouse and yanking guns from the Jungle Cruise skippers. The cruise captains recently got their faux firepower back but the Robinsons are still homeless.

Disney leadership, O'Boyle said, is still on probation.

Despite those concerns, he said the additions to the ride made sense. "This is one of those changes that Walt would have done in a heartbeat. If they put Mickey Mouse or Winnie the Pooh in the attraction, it would be a destructive element."

Adding Jack Sparrow is a natural story evolution and doesn't contradict the original show, O'Boyle said.

Jennifer Figler, 29, a Southern California native who lives in Orlando, Fla., said she was not surprised by the overhaul.

"You hate to see a classic get changed, but they really struck it rich this time around so it's only obvious that they were going to give this a try," Figler said. "I am a little bit of a purist, but I'm also an optimist. I'm maintaining some positive hope."

Pirate points

• Ride opened at Disneyland on March 18, 1967

• Cost of original construction: $8 million

• Audio-animatronics cast: 68 people, 54 animals

• Length of canal: 1,838 feet

• The three-level ride is housed in two buildings totaling 112,826 square feet.

• More than 400 Disney Imagineers have worked in California and Florida over the last three years to update the ride.

• More than 270 speakers have been replaced throughout the attraction.

• It took three days to empty and refill the "bayou's" 750,000 gallons of water.

• The enhanced "Treasure Cache" scene includes more than 400,000 new gold coins and set pieces.

Source: Disneyland
 
OK. Here we go again. I for one cannot wait to go in the Fall and check out what they did to this ride. I hope it works and I think potentially it might.
 
I like how so many people think they know what Walt Disney would have or would not have done. I have been outspoken about this Pirates rehab since day one. And while I can't and won't speak to what nobody knows, I can share an actual quote from Mr. Disney which speaks volumes:
I never believed in doing sequels. I didn't want to waste the time I have doing a sequel. I'd rather be using that time doing something new and different. It goes back to when they wanted me to do more pigs.
Now since it's a common practice for the people at Disney to quote Walt. Then why don't they consider things like this.

If one likes to speculate as to Walt's intentions, the it could be said that he would never have approved a movie version of the POTC, nor would he have added anything from a movie to the ride. But I'm pretty sure that he would have been happy with one successful film and then moved on without repeating it. The company has found a hit with this movie series, but that in no way represents what Walt Disney would have done or wanted to do.

It's funny how someone like Jay Rasulo could be so wrong, but then again, look at Disney's track record from the past decade and everything starts to make a little bit of sense.
 
yensiD naF said:
I like how so many people think they know what Walt Disney would have or would not have done.

It seems to me that you think you know what Walt would have done. Tell me, did he make more than 1 cartoon with Mickey Mouse in it? And by the way, if Walt would not have approved of the Pirates movie then he would have been WRONG. Pirates was a good, fun movie.
 

MJMcBride said:
It seems to me that you think you know what Walt would have done. Tell me, did he make more than 1 cartoon with Mickey Mouse in it? And by the way, if Walt would not have approved of the Pirates movie then he would have been WRONG. Pirates was a good, fun movie.

I sense a little bit of hostility here. I agree that the POTC update is nothing more than bad synergy. Why mess with a good thing? If the Pirates movie is such a landmark thing for Disney, then it should be able to warrant it's own attraction. My only question is why did they have to title these movies "Pirates of the Caribbean?" They could have just gone with "Black Pearl" or "Dead Man's Chest". Maybe creating a different main title. It makes me sick to see all of the marketing tie-ins on television that promote the movie and other products with the "Yo Ho, Yo Ho" song in the background.

Back to the attraction thing. I also wouldn't have a problem with them gutting the POTC at WDW and replacing the whole thing with an attraction based on the movie. My big problem is with the changes on the Disneyland original. We all know that the WDW version is lame compared to DL's.

As for the sequels. We also know (don't you?) that there is a difference between a series of cartoon shorts and motion pictures with sequels. Mickey Mouse cartoons were shorts. They were quite popular in Walt's time. He never fooled around with Bambi, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, or any of his full-length animated features. It was the corporate, money-hungry, people of the Eisner age that had to compromise the integrity of those and other Disney masterpieces by doing cheap sequels.
 
MJMcBride said:
It seems to me that you think you know what Walt would have done. Tell me, did he make more than 1 cartoon with Mickey Mouse in it? And by the way, if Walt would not have approved of the Pirates movie then he would have been WRONG. Pirates was a good, fun movie.

Also, I think people could use to take a look at Walt's original promotional film for the Carousel of Progress. Especially the part when he turns to walk away and he has a giant GE sticker on the back of his suit. Of course the difference here is that Disney is shamelessly plugging their own products, rather than shamelessly plugging a sponsor.
 
exDS vet said:
I sense a little bit of hostility here. I agree that the POTC update is nothing more than bad synergy. Why mess with a good thing? If the Pirates movie is such a landmark thing for Disney, then it should be able to warrant it's own attraction. My only question is why did they have to title these movies "Pirates of the Caribbean?" They could have just gone with "Black Pearl" or "Dead Man's Chest". Maybe creating a different main title. It makes me sick to see all of the marketing tie-ins on television that promote the movie and other products with the "Yo Ho, Yo Ho" song in the background.

Back to the attraction thing. I also wouldn't have a problem with them gutting the POTC at WDW and replacing the whole thing with an attraction based on the movie. My big problem is with the changes on the Disneyland original. We all know that the WDW version is lame compared to DL's.

As for the sequels. We also know (don't you?) that there is a difference between a series of cartoon shorts and motion pictures with sequels. Mickey Mouse cartoons were shorts. They were quite popular in Walt's time. He never fooled around with Bambi, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, or any of his full-length animated features. It was the corporate, money-hungry, people of the Eisner age that had to compromise the integrity of those and other Disney masterpieces by doing cheap sequels.

Why would you call it the Black Pearl when you have an instantly recognizable name with Pirates of the Caribbean. That would be bad business. Why would this make you sick? I really don't understand why people get upset by this movie. I understand you're a fan of the attraction and don't want change. I get that, I don't agree necessarily, I'm willing to see what they do. But I get it. But being ticked off by the concept of this movie just doesn't make sense to me.

How does doing sequels effect the "intregity" of these movies. I don't get that either. Don't watch them. But you might be missing a good movie.
 
exDS vet said:
It was the corporate, money-hungry, people of the Eisner age that had to compromise the integrity of those and other Disney masterpieces by doing cheap sequels.

I think calling this a "cheap" sequel is very innacurate. You may not like it, which isn't possible since you have not seen it, but it certainly has not been an example of cutting corners in the budget. In fact, the original film was so good, and so popular, that many fans are thrilled that they did make a sequel and went all out on it.

My only question is why did they have to title these movies "Pirates of the Caribbean?" They could have just gone with "Black Pearl" or "Dead Man's Chest". Maybe creating a different main title. It makes me sick to see all of the marketing tie-ins on television that promote the movie and other products with the "Yo Ho, Yo Ho" song in the background.

This point is completely lost on me. If you are a fan, why would you no want to see more and hear more? The ride is a great ride and the movie a great movie. How stupid would Disney be to make a big-budget pirates film and NOT call it Pirates of the Carribean? The ride is the whole inspiration. The film would not exist if not for the ride. What is wrong with that? It makes you sick to see a marketing tie-in? Does it make you sick when you go on Dumbo too? Perhaps I'm missing the point here...
 
Since none of us knows what the actual changes are to the rides (yet), I will wait to comment, except to say I loved the original...but adding a sprinkling of movie character animatrons and perhaps repainting the ship to look more like the Black Pearl would not, IMHO take away from the ride, but may be an enhancement.

Can they go too far? Certainly. But some tweaking could definately be in imorovement. I'll just wait and see what I think when the attractions re-open.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by exDS vet
It was the corporate, money-hungry, people of the Eisner age that had to compromise the integrity of those and other Disney masterpieces by doing cheap sequels.


I think calling this a "cheap" sequel is very innacurate. You may not like it, which isn't possible since you have not seen it, but it certainly has not been an example of cutting corners in the budget. In fact, the original film was so good, and so popular, that many fans are thrilled that they did make a sequel and went all out on it.
I think you may have mis-understood this original post. The sentance prior to this one was:
He never fooled around with Bambi, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, or any of his full-length animated features.
All of which were knocked off (badly) by the Eisner Regime in DTV sequels. It didn't seem to me that the OP was talking (necessarily) about the Pirates Movie or sequels.
 
Sarangel is correct. When I spoke of cheap sequels, I was referring to the direct to video sequels of Walt Disney's Classics. This day in age, it is completely expected that a successful movie like Pirates will yield a couple of sequels. I have no problem with that. It's the tampering with the classics that bothers me as well as many others.

That being said, adding characters from the Pirates movie to the POTC attraction is the same thing. Tampering with one of Walt's classics. I know that I am complaining about something that is going to happen anyway and I have no control over it. But it looks like people are starting to pay attention to what us "purists" are saying. One or two mega flops are all we need to get the pendulum turning in the other direction.

But there's no hope for ending the sequels to the classics. They are cheap to produce and the American public is trained to rush out and purchase anything that Disney produces regardless of quality, integrity or respect to history.
 
exDS vet said:
But there's no hope for ending the sequels to the classics. They are cheap to produce and the American public is trained to rush out and purchase anything that Disney produces regardless of quality, integrity or respect to history.

I have to disagree here. There have been an awful lot of Disney flops recently and deservedly so (although I did like Chicken Little). So I'm not sure if everyone will rush out to bad Disney movies. I agree that the Disney name at least gets a lot of people to notice but it still doesn't guarantee it won't flop.
 
exDS vet said:
I sense a little bit of hostility here.

Its certainly not intended if it came across that way. Just using sarcasm to state a point.
 
Sequels are great......if you intended to make them from the beginning. Dumb sequels where there's no story to tell.

Also, ChuckS, we have a pretty darn good idea about what the changes are. Luckily, from what I hear, the only blatant one is Barbossa in the Wicked Wench and they aren't even changing the name of the ship.


I'm really excited about the updated FX, we'll see about the other changes. And of course, WDW already inferior ride is getting even fewer changes and additions, so.... I agree with exDS Vet that I would have rather they made the changes only at WDW. In the style of the Tiki room. Even so, I wouldn't complain about the changes unless they significantly change the attraction.

After All, I love the New Haunted Mansion Attic scene.
 
I'm excited about the change also. I think everyone should just "wait and see" before going off the deep end. I love WDW for the most part, just the way it is, but some changes would be good. I think if the imagineers could turn back time, they would not have replaced the Alien Encounter with Stitch. I don't think POTC will be any less the great ride it already is, even with the spruce-up. I am so ready to see it! :Pinkbounc :banana: :woohoo:
 
exDS vet said:
It makes me sick to see all of the marketing tie-ins on television that promote the movie and other products with the "Yo Ho, Yo Ho" song in the background.

By Bruce Orwall and Emily Nelson
2,111 words
13 February 2004
The Wall Street Journal
A1
English
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

ORLANDO, Fla. -- It was a textbook example of the "Disney way" of doing business: a new movie that set off a fountain of spinoffs. There was a theme-park attraction, a series of Simon & Schuster books, a soundtrack album and a line of toys and childrens' clothing featuring the beloved heroine. To make sure kids knew about the movie, Disney script writers planted repeated references to it in the company's television shows.

No, this isn't the marketing plan for "Home on the Range," the new Walt Disney Co. animated movie that opens later this year. It's the strategy that the old Walt Disney Productions executed back in 1958 to launch its classic "Sleeping Beauty" the following year.

Before the film even opened, kids and adults paid 35 cents each to walk through a Sleeping Beauty attraction at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., where they were wowed by animated dioramas and trick photography. In those days, President Roy O. Disney bragged that "our diversified activities are related and tend to complement each other." He added: "Integration is the key word around here. We don't do anything in one line without giving a thought to its likely profitability in our other lines."
_________________________
 
DancingBear. Please, Please, Please provide a link for that story. I can think of about 20 current threads on boards all over the internet that could use to read this
 
DancingBear said:
_________________________
OK so the point is that Disney uses it's marketing, consumer products, et.all to expand the reach of it's movies and create tie-ins. DUH! Sure it's been going on for decades and we all have been the benefactors of it. The article indicates that the Sleeping Beauty walkthrough was specifically designed to promote the movie. We don't know that now do we?

One fact that is incorrect is the opening of the walkthrough. While the movie opened in January, 1959, the attraction opened in April, 1957, nearly two years before the film. Sure kids paid .35 cents to walk through, but at that time, each attraction was individually priced. All I'm saying is that the article is somewhat misleading because it gives the impression that you had to pay to see the preview of a movie. Wrong.

Also, while Walt's brother Roy was a great man. He was not Walt. Walt was the creative genius and Roy handled the financial aspect of the business. It's completely understandable that he would have such a quote, if he actually did.

I still stand by my original points, including that if the Pirates movies are such a huge success, with merchandise, soundtracks, etc. Then they should have their own attraction and not have to be infused into the Disneyland ride.
 


Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE








DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom