New attractions = PIXAR - anyone else notice???

[BeckWhy]

Pixar is Disney Animation, now. And that's a great thing. The best animation in recent years has come from that direction, and it's good for Disney and for Disney fans that Pixar and Disney are now one. As someone pointed out earlier, some of Pixar's films are now "classic" Disney, and rightfully so, since they capture the essence of what it takes to be "classic" Disney: Capturing the hearts of children and Disney fans.

I'm seconding whatever Bicker has said....

 

[DisneyHoneyMoon]

... why not use some of the ones we haven't used yet. Whether you go back to Cinderella, Aristocats, Lady and the Tramp...or move to the 90s, where a lot of the movies got cheated out of rides, it would be nice to see something else for once! ... Snow White, Cinderella, Fantasia, Dumbo, Pinocchio, and even Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Lion King.. these are all very magical films....

I understand what you're saying but Disney World is as much for the actual child aged children as it is for those of us that are adult-aged children. I come from a Disney loving background, my Father loves the Dumbo ride as well as the Song of the South themed Splash Mountain. I love Splash Mountain but I've honestly never seen Song of the South and I may never be able to see it. My father relates to the original Disney films and I relate better to the 90's hits of Alladin, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, and Lion King. I love the songs, I grew up on them, I'd prefer rides in that era with all their music. Now I'm starting a family of my own. Children nowadays recognize Buzz, Nemo and the more recent Pixar/Disney hits. I think regardless of what we relate best to, Disney World is still fulfilling the goal of allowing parents and children to have fun together. Even though the World may not be as magical to me now as an adult as it was when I was a child, I choose to continue to spend my money there because of the innocence of it all. I just hope the future of Disney sticks to the wholesome values of Walt, even if my 90's blockbusters get left behind.

DisneyHoneyMoon

 

[Mom2Casey]

I hope you all don't mind me putting in my opinion and I hope I do a good job at it. Well here is my outlook on it... Disney has and always will be for the kids (big and small)... some of us will always be a kid at heart. Their biggest audience is kids. I myself grew up with Disney animation such as snow white and dumbo but my Disney movies were The Cat from Outer Space and Escape from Witch Mountain. Personally being a mom of a DD6 I don't think any of those would keep her attentiion up against Pixter animation. Although classics like Cinderella and Snow White have been around forever and my daughter is definitely a Princess Fan, she truly loves the Pixter Films. She will watch Chicken Little, Toy Story, Bugs Life and Monsters Inc over and over... I do find her not as enthused to be sitting through Dumbo. The movie Cars was #1 in the box office for 2 weeks in a row.. Pixter. Chicken Little was #1 there too... Pixter again. I think I can say the same for the Incredibles and Monsters Inc. Now Disney itself has moved on to movies more so such as Glory Road, The Princess Diaries. Miracle and The Rookie. If Pixter is so successful with the kids and gotta admit some adults like myself do enjoy the Pixter animation then why wouldn't they create new rides based on what has been so successful??? I don't think Disney will lose it's true meaning and I do think you will see the "oldtime" rides like Dumbo, Its a small World and Peter Pan will be around forever. I have alot of faith in what Disney chooses and I think they know what they are doing.... after all, it's still and always will be the Happiest Place on Earth!!

 

[Mom2Casey]

Oops, I wasn't done yet.... in the blog above me, she writes what she grew up on and she hit it right on the nail. We all grew up in different eras, to different animation, to different theme songs and I think Disney is trying to accomodate everyone. Even the families of children who are now growing up with Pixtar animation. Who was Ariel back in the 70's?? She was nothing but now she is one of the biggest princesses along with Belle. They became so popular that Disney created shows around them, character dining including them and even pictures with them. Now look at Buzz... he has been around for some time now with Toy Story but he still seems to be a popular toy at the store, a popular Halloween costume and the line to that ride is always a long one. So YES it all comes down to Disney growing up with our kids and what they love. I know my daughter is growing up with Pixtar and I am happy we can go to rides to movies she knows. Just my opinion, thanks for listening..

 

[BlindTyldak]

The biggest problem I have with it has nothing do do really with "is it Disney" or "Is it Pixar", it has to do with "Is it timeless". So many rides coming out these days are of the flavor-of-the-month variety that its no wonder that they are rotating so quickly. Wouldn't it pretty much make more sense for Disney to focus on creating more rides that will stand the test of time rather than constantly gutting old rides for whatever is popular now? I'm not saying NEVER replace a ride, yes, they can and do get old and tired. Nor am I ever saying never use new characters. Adding Finding Nemo to the Living Seas and using that theme to upgrade the ride there was a perfect match, IMHO.

But taking a very well-conceived attraction that was in no danger of losing its appeal and turning it into a big movie ad that will probably be replaced yet again in less than ten years to me doesn't say they're trying to keep it fresh, it says Disney is losing its touch. Replacing Timekeeper with Monsters Inc. to me is a HORRIBLE move. Timekeeper was current, modern, and one of the park's best attractions; honestly all it really needed was a more obvious entrance, which I'm SURE they'll do for Monsters. Replacing Tarzan Rocks (which yes by all that is holy needed to go, in large part because of the whole "replacable" theory that I'm against) with a Finding Nemo show - a movie tie-in that has no presence at all in the park because there's really no conceivable reason FOR it to, considering there's no real aquariums - is a bad move as well. Why not a blackscreen puppet show of the presence of animals in Disney movies . . . it could have a Nemo segment, but why not Bambi, the Fox and the Hound, the Lion King (they already have the puppets from Legend!), Brother Bear, heck, they could do Lambert if they wanted to, and even Bouncin'. Something that was more fitting with the park, and also would respark interest in Disney films from every generation.

They just need to put more thought into the attractions, and cut the replacement down to maybe one out of three attractions, or at the very least, half. Expand the parks with more REAL Magical Memories, not "well, this looks good for now".

 

[msgrimm23]

if you look back at disney cartoon films they made the rides. now with new techkownlegie (sorry for miss spelling i can't even spell beans ) the cartoon movies are computer generated hence pixar themed rides

 

[ChrisFL]

I forgot another NEW attraction full of Disney and non-Pixar animation....Philharmagic

 

[Laurajean1014]

I love all Disney characters including the Pixar ones. I say, "let it roll."

 

[jiminyfan]

I think you're kind of missing the boat here.

Pixar has been the one producing the big-ticket movies for Disney for quite awhile. Disney animation has had little new by way of story line, characters, or plot for quite awhile. I can't tell you how disappointed I am every time I flip a Disney movie on to se all the "New Feature-Length" animated movie previews. They're all sequelsa or prequels to the major hitters. I think the last big thing Disney animation had was Lilo and Stitch. That wasn't that recent.

The Pixar characters ARE Disney characters. I think they are just as lovable and lasting as the Disney animated classics are. It's a new generation of technology and innovation. I think Disney has something special with Pixar (right now, it seems like they're the ones paying the bills). They've developed lovable, timeless characters, plots, and have returned the the traditional movie "value" (ie, you take some little bit of wisdom away from them).

What did Disney pay for Pixar? $7 billion of thereabouts? Obviously, it's an incredibly important business and entertainment partnership.

No, I am not missing the boat. I think your boat and mine are just different. Yes, Pixar characters are now Disney characters (not always the case) as they were Pixar films distributed and PR'd by Disney. The fact that Disney has now aquired Pixar changes this situation. I have no problem with adding a few new Pixar attractions. But, I do not need every movie themed attraction being Pixar related, why do we need two Nemo attractions? Do we really need a Monster ride at MK and then a Monsters related show/parade at Studios? This is my point, why not be creative and come up with originals ideas like EE, Mission Space and Soarin'?

If you read my original post, I actually would love to see Speedway at Mk modified to use the Cars characters. This would be a major improvement over what they currently have in my opinion. I just feel that each movie should have no more than one attrraction for it.

I also feel that Pixar has done a lot to save Disney in the financial category, but we all have to remember that it was all started with a mouse. How would we all feel if Buzz, Woody, Mike, Sully, Lightning and other Pixar characters would become the official new Fab 5 or whatever and they would move Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Daisy, Pluto and Goffy to the shadows and take minor roles. Yea, the young kids really do not know these characters and they haven't had a major money making popular film in years.

I guess I am wrong and that it is all about popularity of today and not the history and past.

I want my son to appreciate the old and the new, why can't we have a blend of each? One of my favorite films from my childhood was Song of the South and I love Splash Mt as does my 6 year old son. He is fortunate to be able to watch this filnm whenever he wants as I purchased a PAL copy of the film so we can watch it.

I love Pixar films and hope they continue with the class and highlevel of animation and story telling they have until now. But, I to feel that we cannot judge the lovability of characters on box office reciepts alone.

Let's just say we agree to disagree. I can live with Pixar being Disney, in fact John L is one of the best minds in the family business. Let's just hope that he can undo a lot of the harm that Eisner did when he removed the old animation departments for the CGI only mentality.

No matter what, I'll be going back ina f ew days and enjoying ymself. I cannot wait to do EE and now with the calmer Mission Space my son will be able to enjoy that attraction with us as well.

Have A GREAT DAY!

 

[bicker]

So many rides coming out these days are of the flavor-of-the-month variety that its no wonder that they are rotating so quickly.

However, that's been the case for as long as I've been visiting WDW. Most attractions introduced are transitory. It is only very occasionally that an attraction is introduced that is truly timeless (though I've noticed that a lot of attractions suddenly become "timeless" as soon as there are indications that they're going to remove or replace it! )

I believe Mickey's Philharmagic is the most recent "timeless" attraction to be added. I'm sure there will be more in the years to come.

Wouldn't it pretty much make more sense for Disney to focus on creating more rides that will stand the test of time rather than constantly gutting old rides for whatever is popular now?

No. What's really interesting is that the most cutting-edge attractions are the ones that really pack in the guests. It may not get people to come back over-and-over, for a lifetime, but it gets them in the door the first time. So what makes more sense is to have a good mix of the big draws, and the attractions that will get under people's skins.

Replacing Timekeeper with Monsters Inc. to me is a HORRIBLE move. Timekeeper was current, modern, and one of the park's best attractions

And here's a really important point clearly demonstrated. I disagree completely. I think Timekeeper was a pretty crappy attraction. I had no desire to ever see it a second time. The point is that what we each see as "good" and "bad", "timeless" and "transitory", needs to be viewed from the context that they're our own perspectives, and that what's important isn't our own perspective but that of the general public.

 

[NotUrsula]

The problem with theming kid-oriented rides on the "Classic" characters is that most children have not seen those cartoons. By today's standards, most of the original Fab 5 films are shockingly violent, and many, many parents today have decided that they are not appropriate viewing for their young children.

In practical terms, Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck can no longer fill a commercial theatre. Pluto toys are not big sellers. The tie-in sales and the box office are a huge part of what makes characters useful as park draws; so if the characters are not popular enough to carry an attraction and keep it filled, AND keep sales at the attraction's gift shop at an acceptable level, they will not be used.

Remember that Iger said he was motivated to pursue the purchase of Pixar after watching a parade at HKD and noticing that every character he saw was from a film that was over 10 yrs. old. He wisely realized that the only way to get recognizable newer characters into the parks was to get control of Pixar.

As to newer Disney characters, how many of you own Valiant? (The movie itself that is, we won't even talk about toys and t-shirts.)

 

[JRawkSteady]

I think one of the biggest points to cover is "What the heck does Monsters Inc. have to do with Tomorrowland?!" Even Stitch doesn't make sense since that's supposed to take place in the here and now. BNut why are they expanding Fantasyland and getting rid of Tomorrowland?

Same thing with Epcot. No more education or future-related activities in what we call FUTURE WORLD!!! What is going on with WDI? Honestly.

 

[QueenGoblin]

My DD(3) is a Pixar fan. Of all the movies we've let her watch (including the classic Disnay animated films) Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc. and especially the Toy Story films are the ones she knows by heart. We are taking our second trip with her to Disney this September and she is very excited. Whenever she talks about going to see Buzz and Woody etc. it is always prefaced by her exclamation of "We are going to Mickey Mouse's House!"
I think there is room for Mickey and Buzz and everyone in between. I agree with some of the other posters about the fact that EPCOT could use a little more educational stuff these days, and tomorrowland is starting to lose its identity. I do think, however, that the reason we are seeing a bunch of new Pixar attractions is because, 1. the movies are wonderful and popular and show every indication of being "classics" and 2. I think the imagineers might have had to hold off developing these projects until the relationship between Pixar and Disney was cemented.
There are always ups and downs in any creative business. Disney made some excellent movies in the 90's (and we have attractions based around Alladin, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, etc.) but not much of note lately. Pixar has had a string of excellent and popular movies and it only makes sense to make more attractions about them. As far as not being magical, perhaps not in the fairy-tale sense, but Disney magic is not limited to fairy-tales. Talking cars, fish, bugs and toys are certainly not something I see everyday!

 

[bicker]

BNut why are they expanding Fantasyland and getting rid of Tomorrowland?

This is a very clear reflection of us, the general public. We've become utterly cynical about the future, as compared to twenty and thirty years ago, so Tomorrowland has no place in our leisure. It wouldn't make sense to blow away the land (because there are some great attractions there, and because the sentiment of the general public is prone to change over time -- swing in the breeze, really), so the best they can do is to tone down that aspect of the land that grates against the sensibilities of the general public, until feelings change again.

 

[ChrisFL]

This is a very clear reflection of us, the general public. We've become utterly cynical about the future, as compared to twenty and thirty years ago, so Tomorrowland has no place in our leisure. It wouldn't make sense to blow away the land (because there are some great attractions there, and because the sentiment of the general public is prone to change over time -- swing in the breeze, really), so the best they can do is to tone down that aspect of the land that grates against the sensibilities of the general public, until feelings change again.

Thats definitely part of it, another part is that there isn't much we can look for in the future the same way it was a few decades ago. We're achieving much of what used to be science fiction, plus its becoming more difficult to see what lies ahead of us 20-30 years down the road.

 

[bicker]

Hmmm.... really? I'm not sure I agree. I think a lot of what we saw when we looked into the future, say, 50 years ago, ended up being wrong. I think we can see as well into the future now as ever (but, again, we generally don't like what we see ).

 

[oxfordcircus]

We've become utterly cynical about the future, as compared to twenty and thirty years ago, so Tomorrowland has no place in our leisure.

This statement makes me sad and I hope it's not true. It's not true for me, at least.

To stay on topic: When I think about what rides were originally in Tomorrowland (Space Mountain - space travel; the airplane ride; Carousel of Progress, the Speedway, WEDway Peoplemover) I don't see that big of a shift in outlook from today. When I look at the current attractions in Tomorrowland, it just seems like more of the same "sci-fi" theme: Stitch, Buzzlightyear and Monsters, Inc. (converting laughter into electricity? come on!).

To get off topic: Certainly in the 50's, 60's and 70's, folks had plenty to fear and be cynical about (Stalinism, Civil Rights struggles, nuclear extinction). And don't even get me started on the 80's: Michael Jackson, Farm Aid, Max Headroom. At this point, I think folks are fairly optimistic (or at least confident) about the future of medicine, technology, communications and science.

 

[bicker]

We also trusted our leaders back in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

 

[amy4bruce]

Ten years ago, a popular button was "It's the 90's. Where are my robot and flying car?"

To me, Tomorrowland, when it was created, was science fiction's idea of what the future would bring. It didn't happen. Nobody in the 1950's could have predicted that we'd be communicating by computers in our bedrooms or kitchens (or other places). Isaac Asimov used to say that many stories were written about landing on the moon, but not one of them said that, on Earth, we'd watch the whole thing on television. (He was wrong, by the way. There was a comic book story published in either Strange Adventures or Mystery in Space that got that right, but everything else it predicted about the history of television was wrong.)

At any rate, Tomorrowland can be view as Science Fiction Land, because anything in science fiction (including something like Lilo and Stitch, which is probably closer to fantasy, can be said to take place tomorrow.

 

[pafer]

PIXAR is going to be taking over this park...and I for one do not like it. These movies are great. The stories are amazing...however, it's not very "magical." Snow White, Cinderella, Fantasia, Dumbo, Pinocchio, and even Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Lion King.. these are all very magical films. It's just a matter of time til we have no "magic" left in the Magic Kingdom... ... EPCOT has already ditched most of the educational aspect of it..... Bye bye Magic Kingdom, Hello Six Flags...

I totally disagree with the notion above that the Pixar films are not magical. Toy story was so well thought out and brilliantly animated that I really felt for the characters and clearly remember crying and cheering at various times during the movie. It touched a place in my heart and had every bit as much of a magical effect on me as Cinderella and Snow white. Nemo as well pulled my heartstrings and still makes my eyes tear up. When our children are older and nostalgic it is the magic of these films they will wish to share with their children. This is what keeps Disney alive in everyone's heart....the desire to share those feelings which we all experience when watching the movies we were touched by. This is why I just purchased Dumbo for my dd's and why I will continue to buy the older films as they release them on DVD. I know that they are not as interested in those movies as they are in Nemo and Cars and The Incredibles but in sharing them the magic lives for me as it will for them in the future when they share the Pixar movies with their children who inevitably will be more interested in something else.