Disney's Pirates Ride: Just Like in the Movies

[DancingBear]

The article indicates that the Sleeping Beauty walkthrough was specifically designed to promote the movie. We don't know that now do we?

Huh? You think it was just coincidence? As I said, there was a Disney graphic with the original WSJ print article showing all of the intended synergies.

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.

The article is not wrong. It says this attraction opened prior to movie opening. What's the difference that attractions were priced separately at the time? And it doesn't say the walk-through was a "preview of the movie"--it says it had animated dioramas and trick photography.

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.

First, I'm not sure what the "if he actually did" comment is about--are you seriously doubting the veracity of the quote (after saying it's completely understandable)? Second, what's your point? That the synergies came from the business side (Roy) and not the creative side (Walt)? Even if that were true, so what?

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.

This makes no sense to me at all. The movie grew out of the ride. It's not realistic to think that there would be a separate attraction. They are intertwined. I understand that some folks might not like the changes, I just don't understand how this particular argument proves your point.

And whether or not you like the changes, thank goodness the movie's success helped spur a much-needed renovation of the ride.

 

[MJMcBride]

It seems to me that most of the so-called "purists", whatever that is, believe that Walt was against cross promotion and are angered by the updates to the POTC. And further seems to me that DancingBear has shown rather nicely that the "purists", whatever that is, are wrong.

 

[dbm20th]

It seems to me that most of the so-called "purists", whatever that is, believe that Walt was against cross promotion and are angered by the updates to the POTC. And further seems to me that DancingBear has shown rather nicely that the "purists", whatever that is, are wrong.

You want to see Walt do some serious shilling? Get the Carousel of Progress documentary the Extinct Attraction Club offers and watch the promo films Walt did for that attraction. I really like when he shows the viewer the giant GE sticker he has on his back. I know I have mentioned that in another post, but I seriously don't understand where this myth of Walt not caring about money came from. Or why "purists" get upset about selling TestTrack souveniers, but didn't mind the Sleeping Beuty Castle being on a t-shirt.

 

[ihavefaith2]

I thought I would just put my two cents in. I absolutely love what Disney is doing. I can't wait to see the "new" POTC attraction. I LOVED the movie and can't wait to see the new one. I think it's great that they are adding elements of the movie to the ride. I think it's a natural thing to do. I think it's a great move on Disney's part. I think everyone will benefit. I for one am glad that they came out with the pirates movie and that they are doing a second and third one. If they had not, a lot of peope would have missed out on something great. If you don't like sequels, nothing says you have to go see them. Also, I think that Walt had an open and creative mind. I also think he liked progress and changes. He was very involved with innoventions and his vision. I think he would have wanted the change. I think as the "times" change, so should the attractions and parks to keep everything up to date as possible. I think that Walt would have been proud. I think the people protesting have forgotten that. I also think they should wait and see the "new" attaction before they judge it. I don't think that Walt would have like the closed minds that all these people have. Just imagine what would have happened if Walt decided that Disneyland was good enough and didn't decide to buy property in Florida for Disney World. Remember the reason why he bought the property? Wasn' it because his visions and ideas wouldn't be limited by space? That way, he could add on and on to them. That right there tells you that he didn't belive in limiting himself or his ideas. I think if someone has a vision than do it, then they should. The worse thing that could happen is that is doesn't work out and they could always change it back. What would have happened if Walt stopped dreaming and doing? Think about it. By the way, I also like all the sequels to the "classic" Disney movies. I hope that Disney keeps them coming!

 

[YoHo]

I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about honestly thinks that Disney didn't do cross promotion.

And for the record, Sleeping Beauty was in production for something like 10 years and yes, the Walk through and even the castle itself were specifically named to promote the movie. This is fact.


The issue is not synergy, the issue is synergy gone mad. Synergy subverting theme and story. Which is what Disney does now.

Walt would never have approved of the Nemo sub ride as it's been explained. He may or may not have approved of the pirates changes. I'm not sure.

 

[Ariel Mae]

I don't know. I'm not too excited about the change. I don't see the point in changing a classic ride, built upon Walt Disney's imagination, for a movie that wasn't really all that popular. (Yes, yes, 300 million in dollars, but it's not the top of the list, really.) Why go about altering something good for a movie that will only last three showings? A ride lasts forever, a movie is oft' forgotten. If it were really Johnny Depp in the ride, and not an animatronic, I'd be a bit more pleasured. I don't think adding in Barbosa or altering the boat scnes, or even affecting the waterfall is a good idea, but I'm only one of few. I don't even think I'll put forth the effort to ride the changed ride. I was upset with Figment to tears, I am afraid of how I'll react to POTC.

 

[yensiD naF]

I thought I would just put my two cents in. I think it's great... I think it's a natural thing to do... I think it's a great move ... I think everyone will benefit... I think that Walt had... I also think he liked... I think he would have ... I think as the "times" change...I think that Walt... I think the people protesting... I don't think that... I think if someone has a vision...
...Think about it.
By the way, I also like all the sequels to the "classic" Disney movies. I hope that Disney keeps them coming!

Believe me, I tried to follow along, I think. But if you really liked all of those stupid sequels, then I THINK you are crazy.

 

[yensiD naF]

Huh? You think it was just coincidence? As I said, there was a Disney graphic with the original WSJ print article showing all of the intended synergies.

The article is not wrong. It says this attraction opened prior to movie opening. What's the difference that attractions were priced separately at the time? And it doesn't say the walk-through was a "preview of the movie"--it says it had animated dioramas and trick photography.

First, I'm not sure what the "if he actually did" comment is about--are you seriously doubting the veracity of the quote (after saying it's completely understandable)? Second, what's your point? That the synergies came from the business side (Roy) and not the creative side (Walt)? Even if that were true, so what?

This makes no sense to me at all. The movie grew out of the ride. It's not realistic to think that there would be a separate attraction. They are intertwined. I understand that some folks might not like the changes, I just don't understand how this particular argument proves your point.

And whether or not you like the changes, thank goodness the movie's success helped spur a much-needed renovation of the ride.

Um, the article does leave the impression that the Sleeping Beauty attraction opened in 1958, in anticipation of the movie. According to Dave Smith's book, the attraction was created to fill "wasted space" inside the castle. And without mentioning that all attractions had an admission price, it sort of does lead you to believe that guests paid to see a sort of "preview" of a movie.

BTW, the initial release of Sleeping Beauty was not a success. It wasn't until re-releases that the film becam popular.

How do you know that Roy's comments weren't taken out of context? Did you write the article? You seem to be very defensive over someone elses comments. We all read whatever we want to in most reports. But the media does have an agenda and wants us to believe their view as well.

Depending on which park you are referring to, I tend to disagree with your "much needed renovation" comment. For Disneyland's part, the POTC ride gets a long rehab every year. There was nothing wrong with the ride and it did not need any improvements.

For all of the things that Michael Eisner did wrong at Disney. One thing he was actualy right about was his opinion that the Pirates movie should have never been named "Pirates of the Caribbean." Had he actually said no to the title, we wouldn't be having any of this conversation. Your movies would have still been released, but the integrity of the rides would remain the same. In the end, I guess Eisner gets the credit for cheapening the ride after all.

 

[DancingBear]

Review all of the posts by Westsider in the below link, particularly regarding the vastly improved audio and effects, the now-working AA figures, etc. Clearly the major annual rehab didn't touch a lot of these items.

http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-76790-P-1&Refresh=0622073027

You're just in denial about the connection between the walk-through and the movie. Why do you think it's Sleeping Beauty Castle? Why did Walt once refer to it as Snow White's castle, as production of Sleeping Beauty dragged out. How come the art and figures in the walk-through match the movie?

 

[MJMcBride]

Believe me, I tried to follow along, I think. But if you really liked all of those stupid sequels, then I THINK you are crazy.

Man you are bitter.......oh never mind

But seriously though, have you ever seen any of the sequels?

 

[dbm20th]

Walt would never have approved of the Nemo sub ride as it's been explained.

Really? Why? I don't keep up as much with DL, but just glossing over the rumors makes it seem that bad?

 

[dbm20th]

I don't see the point in changing a classic ride, built upon Walt Disney's imagination, for a movie that wasn't really all that popular.

Thw whole franchise is built on WED's collective imagination and always will be. According to imdb, PoTC was the #3 highest grossing film in 2003, bested by only Nemo and Return of the King, so saying it "wasn't really all that popular" is not accurate.

 

[ihavefaith2]

Believe me, I tried to follow along, I think. But if you really liked all of those stupid sequels, then I THINK you are crazy.

I guess we are all entitled to our own opinion. I can tell you that I like them and my kids LOVE them. They watch them over and over. It's great family time together. It's fun to dream together. Isn't that what Walt dreamed of? Happy magical moments shared by families? Just a thought!

 

[yensiD naF]

But seriously though, have you ever seen any of the sequels?

If I must admit it, I have seen Lion King 2:Simba's Pride and Lady and The Tramp 2:Skamps Adventure. Both were total crap. I wanted to see Hunchback 2, but couldn't bear it after the others. Oh and I also saw the Beauty and The Beast Christmas one. I think it's "Belle's Magical Christmas". Decent music, but still crap.

I just hope this thing sticks to the tape!

That's what David Letterman used to say when he thought he was doing a bad show. I often think of that funny line when I see previews for these sequels.

 

[MJMcBride]

If I must admit it, I have seen Lion King 2:Simba's Pride and Lady and The Tramp 2:Skamps Adventure. Both were total crap. I wanted to see Hunchback 2, but couldn't bear it after the others. Oh and I also saw the Beauty and The Beast Christmas one. I think it's "Belle's Magical Christmas". Decent music, but still crap.

I actually kind of liked Lion King 2. Wasn't great, but it was OK. Kids seemed to like these things. They are also always direct to DVD deals anyway, so I really don't have a problem with them.

 

[YoHo]

Thank the good lord that Walt didn't use children as his judge of quality.


Anyway, Walt would not have approved of Nemo, because he would have never allowed such a ride in tomorrowland. He was hardcore about sticking to theme. Nemo is not. He would have hated Buzz lightyear too, not because the ride was bad, but because he would have never let it be built in tomorrowland.

Look people, it's a fact that DL's castle was named for the movie production, the walk through was done in association with the movie. This is commented in books all over the place.

I'm all for questioning the synergy run amok, but please get your facts straight.

 

[raidermatt]

Two companies.

One creates a product they believe meets their goals and vision, and then looks to take advantage of synergistic opportunities.

The other bases the creation of its products in fair measure on the synergistic opportunities they believe it will create.

Its funny, on the surface, there might not appear to be much of a difference. You could even pull out examples of synergy utilization by the first company and use it as evidence that the second company was no different.

 

[MJMcBride]

Thank the good lord that Walt didn't use children as his judge of quality.

I'm not sure if I agree totally with that. The Dumbo ride is specifically for children. Regardless, there is certainly a need for things that are for children that might be boring or even mind numbingly lame. Take the Wiggles or Dora for example, I have two small ones who love these shows. They are really boring for adults, but appeal to kids and (particularly in Dora's case) actually teach them things. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that what adults might hate may appeal to kids. And I think there's a place for those things.

 

[DancingBear]

Two companies.

One creates a product they believe meets their goals and vision, and then looks to take advantage of synergistic opportunities.

The other bases the creation of its products in fair measure on the synergistic opportunities they believe it will create.

Its funny, on the surface, there might not appear to be much of a difference. You could even pull out examples of synergy utilization by the first company and use it as evidence that the second company was no different.

Which is sort of why I posted the article about Sleeping Beauty. It's not about the synergy being a problem in itself--it's about the quality of the product. The POTC movie was a good product. And it appears that there's a least a decent chance that the POTC attraction changes are good as well.

 

[YoHo]

I'm not sure if I agree totally with that. The Dumbo ride is specifically for children. Regardless, there is certainly a need for things that are for children that might be boring or even mind numbingly lame. Take the Wiggles or Dora for example, I have two small ones who love these shows. They are really boring for adults, but appeal to kids and (particularly in Dora's case) actually teach them things. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that what adults might hate may appeal to kids. And I think there's a place for those things.

Well then, Walt should have just ate his peanuts in silence. Clearly he got it all wrong.