Nemo has arrived at The Living Seas..............

[DisneyKidds]

Perhaps this is the start of something bigger?

I do hate that I have to go to other sites to find the most current news and rumors ...................but at least I still bring it back here .

The Nemo characters have been included in a new rock display area outside of the Living Seas pavillion. In addition, one of the exhibit areas on the first floor has been converted to a Nemo exhibit. Looks like they have info on the characters and possibly tanks with fish from the movie. That would explain what they did with the section (where they used to have the jellyfish, etc) that was closed at the beginning of the month. Rumor has it a meet and greet is also starting?

So, there is now officially a Nemo element to the Living Seas. Rumor has it that this is the first phase of a complete Nemo update for the pavillion. As the rumor goes, the second phase would involve changing the movie, and the third phase would involve a more in depth redo/rehab, which is rumored to begin in March.

I have heard conflicting rumors and don't really know what is true and what is going to happen, but things Nemo have been/are being added. If anyone has the skinny on exactly what the future holds feel free to share.

 

[Cricket2]

Hopefully it's not going to be just $500.00 in cardboard cutouts that you can get at Blockbuster and some guy in a foam fish suit waving.

That place needs some real help to get it back in the pavilion rotation again. The movie should be scrapped altogether and not just fixed ala "tiki-tirds".

Is there a sponsor there?

JC

 

[Bob O]

I look at this as a negative and not a postive!!!!!!!!!!
While i agrfee the pavilion needs a overhaul, is disney so devoid of ideas that they can re-do a pavilion without having another tie-in to a movie???????
Why cant they do a tie-in not based on one of the movies in their stable but do something unqiue/original without a movie tie-in??
It has to be because they lack the creativity to do something like that.
They are already doing a stitch makeover and now this, when is this going to end or mayhbe will they next makeover the Universe of Energy to a Brother Bear theme.
I thought Future World wasnt supposed to be a tie-in to movies like the rest of the parks but was to have a more educational theme rather than another crass way to sell plush movie toys.

 

[Razor Roman]

I don't think the reason is a lack of creativity... I think it has to do with 2 things.

1. When you do a re-do based on a proven commodity, like Finding Nemo, it's almost a surefire "hit" with the public. People like that. Stockholders like that. Eisner likes that.

2. As a former WDW CM, I know this: People like coming to Disney World so they can see/do things based on movies they like. If there were no Nemo attractions, people would constantly ask "Where is the Finding Nemo ride?" For better or worse, people expect that if a movie is a hit it will become a ride. For some, it's a cynical way of looking at things, for others, they actually enjoy it. Heck, Roger Rabbit is my favorite movie, and I'm peeved I can't get a picture with a guy in a rubber rabbit suit, and I'm 25!

Originally posted by Bob O
I look at this as a negative and not a postive!!!!!!!!!!
While i agrfee the pavilion needs a overhaul, is disney so devoid of ideas that they can re-do a pavilion without having another tie-in to a movie???????
Why cant they do a tie-in not based on one of the movies in their stable but do something unqiue/original without a movie tie-in??
It has to be because they lack the creativity to do something like that.
They are already doing a stitch makeover and now this, when is this going to end or mayhbe will they next makeover the Universe of Energy to a Brother Bear theme.
I thought Future World wasnt supposed to be a tie-in to movies like the rest of the parks but was to have a more educational theme rather than another crass way to sell plush movie toys.

 

[Bob O]

Well back in the more creative days of disney, they could actually create new characters for their parks, like Figment for JIYI who became popular not based on a cynical movie tie-in but on a creative idea.
Then when disney stupidly cut back on him they were forced via public outcry to add more of him.
So not every thing new has to be some pursuit of syngergy, more evidence of Ropy being right!!!

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Bob O
Well back in the more creative days of disney, they could actually create new characters for their parks, like Figment for JIYI who became popular not based on a cynical movie tie-in but on a creative idea. Then when disney stupidly cut back on him they were forced via public outcry to add more of him.
So not every thing new has to be some pursuit of syngergy, more evidence of Ropy being right!!!

When Disneyland opened, virtually all the rides had "cynical movie tie-ins," as you call them. Every ride short of Mr. Lincoln and Small World had something to do with an animated film that had already been released in theaters -- Mr. Toad, Snow White and the Dwarfs, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, etc. And as other parks opened, that tradition continued with Buzz Lightyear, Aladdin, Song of the South, Winnie the Pooh ... From the very beginning, the Disney parks have specialized in pavilions, attractions and rides that are tie-ins to movies. Walt himself invented the concept of synergy -- tying the theme park shows and merchandise to other Disney product, specifically the animated stuff, so that people would visit the parks, see their favorite characters, and buy the character merchandise. Utilizing Stitch and Nemo in this way is actually following an example and a model set by Walt.

When you say "back in the more creative days of disney, they could actually create new characters for their parks," which creative days are you referencing? As far as I can see, Figment is about the only new character created specifically for the parks, isn't he? There used to be Skippy merchandise too, I think, from Alien Encounter, but he was hardly a huge draw. I don't remember a big "Save Skippy" outcry when AE closed. What other characters were created by those oh, so creative people of whom you speak?

 

[Cricket2]

I think the Nemo characters and movie are a perfect tie in to "The Just Placed On Life Support Seas" pavilion. I just hope the "fixes" are more than a band-aid.

Unless however Johnson & Johnson is a new sponsor, then all bets are off. Dory could get an "ouchy" and keep forgetting why she has a tan plastic strap on her fin.

Band-Aid's new saltwater proof design to the rescue!

They could even make it educational by explaining why the adhesive is strong enough to hurt when you rip it off after a quick dip near the coral reef.

JC

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
When Disneyland opened, virtually all the rides had "cynical movie tie-ins," as you call them. Every ride short of Mr. Lincoln and Small World had something to do with an animated film that had already been released in theaters -- Mr. Toad, Snow White and the Dwarfs, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, etc. And as other parks opened, that tradition continued with Buzz Lightyear, Aladdin, Song of the South, Winnie the Pooh ... From the very beginning, the Disney parks have specialized in pavilions, attractions and rides that are tie-ins to movies. Walt himself invented the concept of synergy -- tying the theme park shows and merchandise to other Disney product, specifically the animated stuff, so that people would visit the parks, see their favorite characters, and buy the character merchandise. Utilizing Stitch and Nemo in this way is actually following an example and a model set by Walt.

When you say "back in the more creative days of disney, they could actually create new characters for their parks," which creative days are you referencing? As far as I can see, Figment is about the only new character created specifically for the parks, isn't he? There used to be Skippy merchandise too, I think, from Alien Encounter, but he was hardly a huge draw. I don't remember a big "Save Skippy" outcry when AE closed. What other characters were created by those oh, so creative people of whom you speak?

Those that have specific characters:

1.) Every last pirate in Pirates of the Caribbean

2.) The Ghost Host in the Haunted Mansion

Those that don't have a specific character, but are NOT (or were not based on movies when built):

1.) Big Thunder Mountain
2.) Space Mountain
3.) Small World
4.) Tomorrowland Transit Authority
5.) Horizons
6.) World of Motion
7.) Test Track
8.) Maelstrom
9.) Journey Into Imagination
10.) Body Wars
11.) Rio de Tiempo
12.) Spaceship Earth
13.) Countdown to Extinction (was NOT based on a movie when it was created)
14.) Kilimajaro Safaris
15.) Kali River Rapids
16.) Tower of Terror
17.) Rock 'n Roller Coaster

Those are the only ones that I can think of without actually going to a park map that have no movie tie-in and aren't off-the-shelf rides.

Movie tie-ins to previously un tied-in attractions is a cheap, fast way to make a buck as far as I'm concerned. At least the way Disney's been operating lately. Once upon a time, a movie tie-in could be done with panache, as is evidenced by those original rides you mentioned.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Those are the only ones that I can think of without actually going to a park map that have no movie tie-in and aren't off-the-shelf rides.

Movie tie-ins to previously un tied-in attractions is a cheap, fast way to make a buck as far as I'm concerned. At least the way Disney's been operating lately. Once upon a time, a movie tie-in could be done with panache, as is evidenced by those original rides you mentioned.

The initial criticism here was that things like the Stitch ride in MK and the Nemo stuff at Living Seas were part of a group of "cynical movie tie-ins" and that there is no creativity in creating new characters. And my point was that when WALT started the parks -- since everything seems to go back to what Walt would or wouldn't do -- he based nearly everything on a movie tie-in and on existing characters. It's not like he created this park with themed rides and they all had original storylines and original characters. Even Matterhorn was, technically, based on a live-action Disney film called "Third Man on the Mountain." The majority of Disneyland was built to promote existing Disney films or characters. And new rides were built to promote new Disney films and characters.

With the exception of Journey Into Imagination, none of the rides you've listed developed new characters. The development of characters was what I was looking for when I asked my question.

The pirates in POC and the ghost host in HM were just simple animatronics until their movies came out this year, well after they were built in the parks. Prior to those two films being released, the "characters" in those two rides were really no different than the animatronic "characters" at Horizons or Thunder Mountain.

 

[Another Voice]

"Even Matterhorn was, technically, based on a live-action Disney film called "Third Man on the Mountain."

True - that was fifty years ago and the attractions were actually about the movie.

For some reason there's a much stronger feeling of "synergy" (in the worst sense of the word) with some of the new efforts.

You no longer get the feeling someone is in the back saying "Dumbo was a popular movie, maybe the guests would enjoy spending time with the character". Instead you get the feeling someone is saying "have you seen the DVD sales! Cram that stupid fish in anywhere - imagine the revenue from plush!!!!!"

If they wanted to do something with Nemo there's a large lake sitting in the middle of the Magic Kingdom that's been empty for a decade. Don't dumb down Epcot and fix the Magic Kingdom.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Another Voice
You no longer get the feeling someone is in the back saying "Dumbo was a popular movie, maybe the guests would enjoy spending time with the character". Instead you get the feeling someone is saying "have you seen the DVD sales! Cram that stupid fish in anywhere - imagine the revenue from plush!!!!!"

That's exactly what I was trying to say and couldn't find the "voice" to do it. (AHAHAHAHA! I made a joke!!!! Sorry.......) The fact that they're tying it to Nemo isn't what bothers me. It's the fact that the ONLY reason it's being done is because they had a huge money-making hit on their hands.

Not to mention the fact that they will crank it out as FAST as they can to make even more money, instead of at least taking time....cause I gotta say....Living Seas problems run a LOT deeper than slapping a few cartoon characters into it.

 

[crusader]

They really should have all of the sea creatures from Nemo in the aquarium. (if they haven't done so already)

Forget the corporate why. Incorporate it because it makes sense and the movie did well and the children will be looking for it.

It is a great fit.

Advertise it in the park map. The Living Seas would certainly benefit from this.

Nemo toys fall right in line with the merchandising aspect so I don't see any problem with that either.

The 20K lagoon is much better suited for the Little Mermaid in Fantasyland.

 

[JeffH]

Funny, we go to WDW just for the character tie ins.
Now we have another reason to go to the Living Seas.
I really don't understand people who seem to go out of their way to make a negative out of everything and be unhappy over nothing. There's nothing negative about Nemo at the Living Seas. 'He' will not dumb it down, but instead will lighten it up and make it more child friendly (something Disney is famous for). Sure I can (and have) suggest many things to make the Living Seas a better place, but it's a nice pavilion with (to some) a great restaurant and now its a little better.
So enjoy...and be happy.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by JeffH
I really don't understand people who seem to go out of their way to make a negative out of everything and be unhappy over nothing.

So because I have an opinion different than your own, I'm making a negative out of nothing? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Please don't belittle my opinion simply because it's different from your own.

Originally posted by JeffH
There's nothing negative about Nemo at the Living Seas. 'He' will not dumb it down, but instead will lighten it up and make it more child friendly (something Disney is famous for)..

I can't speak for anyone else, but I couldn't care less that they're tying Nemo into the Living Seas. I REALLY don't. What bothers me is the motivation behind it, and the method with which it's going to be implemented.

As far as I can see, the motivation has NOTHING to do with the fact that the Living Seas is on death's door. The motivation is for EXACTLY what you're talking about. MERCHANDISING! Everyone will leave the gift shop with a plush toy, but the problem of the Living Seas won't have been fixed.

In order to make it what it once was (and I agree it WAS a great pavilion), they'd need to close it down, and do a major overhaul. That's not what's going to happen. They really will just slap a few characters around, and dump some new fish into the aquarium. That won't, as far as I'm concerned, do ANY justice to the film, and won't do anything to help the pavilion.

If that's not what happens, I'll eat my words, but the precedent of the current regime speaks for itself.

 

[DisneyKidds]

As far as I can see, the motivation has NOTHING to do with the fact that the Living Seas is on death's door. The motivation is for EXACTLY what you're talking about. MERCHANDISING! Everyone will leave the gift shop with a plush toy, but the problem of the Living Seas won't have been fixed.

I don't see that you have any basis to make such an unequivocal statement such as this. Furthermore, thay already had Nemo plush at The Living Seas and I doubt that more Nemo decoration is going to skyrocket sales.

In order to make it what it once was (and I agree it WAS a great pavilion), they'd need to close it down, and do a major overhaul. That's not what's going to happen. They really will just slap a few characters around, and dump some new fish into the aquarium.

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Frankly, I don't know what is going to happen. From your statement it appears you do? They have already slapped the characters up and dumped the fish in the aquarium. Beyond that there is widespread rumor that the pavillion will go down for several months in March. Do you know what they will be duoing during this rehab? I guess I'm willing to wait and see before I approve or condemn the changes that do occur.

 

[KNWVIKING]

**"I guess I'm willing to wait and see before I approve or condemn the changes that do occur."**

.... you know that's not how it works around here. Ever see vultures circling over a recent road kill ? Just consider an optimistic rumor as new roadkill at R&N.

 

[Cricket2]

One persons road kill is another's gumbo secret ingredient

JC

 

[SnackyStacky]

I don't see that you have any basis to make such an unequivocal statement such as this.

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Frankly, I don't know what is going to happen.

Hey Kidds!!!! Did you read my last sentence?

If that's not what happens, I'll eat my words, but the precedent of the current regime speaks for itself.

 

[mitros]

I know how you feel about having to go to other sites for news and rumors. I think that a lot of people are afraid to post any new or rumored information on this site because they are afraid of getting lambasted by the few know-it-alls around these boards that knock every rumor that is posted here. and say things like." Oh, how could that possibly be true" or, "Jim hill doesn't know what he's talking about" and things like that. It's a shame, really.

 

[Another Voice]

It will depend on the execution of course. I don't have any insight as to what's going to happen at 'The Living Seas' - but I do know what's Epcot's purpose and theme is supposed to be.

If the new exhibit is along the lines of "you've seen the movie, now come learn about the real life animals!" then it will be a perfect addition to the park. Epcot from the outset was meant to educate while it entertained. It was to show that real life can be just as exciting and interesting as the fantasy worlds in the Magic Kingdom. Having groups of excited kids learn about real clown fish and the real reefs is exactly in line with the idea.

But if the exhibit is merely tanks surrounding mounds of plush and "real life" is a meet-and-greet with costumed characters than that's something entirely different. It's the ugly side of synergy - exploitation, a carnival sideshow where the characters are used only to draw in wallets but to do nothing with a child's imagination.

After the last ten years it's hard to have a lot of faith that Disney is going to do the right thing. Go back to the time when they cancelled the show at the Diamond Horseshoe. How "magical" was that replacement show for the average guest? How long has the company promised a replacement for 'Hunchback'? And don't forgot the empty buildings.

Unfortuently, everyone now adopts a "wait and see" attitude. It's just fewer and fewer do it with optimism.