"Thats not a parade! There's no candy!"

[Meeko5]

Just imagine the madhouse if WDW threw candy. O M G

LOL! definitely not something I want them to start! The kids on the other hand...

 

[JimmyV]

Your still missing quite a bit on this list. The Lion King, Toy Story, and 101 Dalmatians all have hotel section themed around them while The Princess and the Frog and Pirates have specially decorated hotel rooms. The Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom game includes Lion King, Pocahontas, 101 Dalmatians, Emperors New Groove and Princess and the Frog and Hercules. Brave and Tangled are part of the FoF parade. The Incredibles have a dance party in Tomorrowland. The Wilderness Explorers activity in Animal Kingdom is from Up and there's a M&G. Pocahontas has a M&G in AK too. Lilo and Stitch have a character breakfast at Ohana's. While it isn't at WDW, Tarzan does have a tree house in Disneyland and Cars and Bugs Life have their own lands in California Adventure. Hunchback of Notre Dame used to have a show but it was replaced several years ago.

You are relying on card games? And hotel room decor? And attractions at Disneyland and California Adventure? You're sort of making my point. Disney has relegated two decades of work to collateral treatment while things like Peter Pan and Dumbo get major treatment and as the OP noted, these aren't movies or characters that are on the radar screen of kids today. Not saying that they should get rid of the nostalgic stuff. But relegating major characters from the last 20 years to a picture on a playing card and calling that good?

 

[BrianL]

A lot of those movies released between 1995 and 2005 don't really warrant big treatments at the parks. I mean, I was a big fan of Atlantis, but I don't think anyone's really clamoring for a ride based on it. I'm fine with it not being highlighted. A lot of those movies didn't do that well, which is why they focus on the "Disney Renaissance" titles in addition to the classics. They also focus on Pixar pretty well, but not everything they've ever done. I don't think there is an expectation that all of those films have major representation in the parks.

 

[MataHari22]

You are relying on card games? And hotel room decor? And attractions at Disneyland and California Adventure? You're sort of making my point. Disney has relegated two decades of work to collateral treatment while things like Peter Pan and Dumbo get major treatment and as the OP noted, these aren't movies or characters that are on the radar screen of kids today. Not saying that they should get rid of the nostalgic stuff. But relegating major characters from the last 20 years to a picture on a playing card and calling that good?

Not sure I would use Peter Pan as a good example. Every few years something based on Peter Pan comes out on TV or in the theatre. Hook, Neverland, Finding Neverland, Jake & the Neverland Pirates, Neverland (the one that was on Syfy channel) and soon, the one with Hugh Jackman, Pan, will be released. So the story of Peter Pan, endures.

I do understand the point you're making and agree that there are a few that may be under represented.

 

[Random Ninja]

You are relying on card games? And hotel room decor? And attractions at Disneyland and California Adventure? You're sort of making my point. Disney has relegated two decades of work to collateral treatment while things like Peter Pan and Dumbo get major treatment and as the OP noted, these aren't movies or characters that are on the radar screen of kids today. Not saying that they should get rid of the nostalgic stuff. But relegating major characters from the last 20 years to a picture on a playing card and calling that good?

What's wrong with new attractions only going in at Disneyland parks? If everything was the same, there'd be no reason to visit both and I'm not one of those people who think that WDW should have copies of every ride or show from every other Disney theme park. A lot of these underrepresented movies in wdw have their own rides, attractions, and even whole lands in other parks. Ratatouille has a land in DLP while Stitch presents the Tiki Birds show in Japan.

Kids and kids at heart, nowadays like interactive activities. That's why the pirates game, Wilderness Explorers, and SotMK do so well (only 1 is a card game btw). That Disney put some newer characters into these interactive games shows that they aren't just ignoring them. To a little kid, it's an amazing experience to be able to sleep in a pirate ship bed or have fireworks going off in your room. Not every movie needs it's own attraction, the little stuff can be just as magical.

Peter Pan is on the radar of kids today. He's a fairly important character on Jake and the Neverland Pirates show on Disney Jr along with Captain Hook and Mister Smee. Dumbo has a new live action movie coming out, plus most kids understand circus even if they don't associate it Dumbo.

 

[JimmyV]

Peter Pan is on the radar of kids today. He's a fairly important character on Jake and the Neverland Pirates show on Disney Jr along with Captain Hook and Mister Smee. Dumbo has a new live action movie coming out, plus most kids understand circus even if they don't associate it Dumbo.

You must have missed the part of my earlier post where I said that I was not suggesting getting rid of the old rides based on nostalgia. So no, I am not advocating that Peter Pan or Dumbo go away. But putting newer characters into card games is not the same thing as building actual attractions for the parks. You cannot tell me that The Incredibles and/or Emperor's New Groove wouldn't for the basis for awesome "E Ticket" attractions.

 

[Moonwolf]

Food for thought. In the 20 year period between 1994 and 2014, Disney produced the following*, (including theatrical and direct-to-video sequels):

• Lion King-Major Show and Minor Show (in The Land)
• Pocahontas-Appears in Fantasmic
• The entire Toy Story franchise-Two Major Attractions
• Hunchback of Notre Dame-Nothing
• 101 Dalmatians (live action)-Nothing
• Hercules-Nothing
• Mulan- M&G
• Bug's Life-Major Attraction
• Tarzan-Tree House in DL
• Atlantis-Nothing
• Monsters Inc.-Major Attraction
• Treasure Planet-Nothing
• Brother Bear-Nothing (Maybe a call-out in Canada?)
• Finding Nemo-Major Show, Minor Show (Turtle Talk) and Minor Attraction
• The Incredibles-Nothing (Maybe a character meet and greet?)
• Emperor's New Groove-Nothing
• Lilo and Stitch-Major Attraction (that nobody likes)
• The entire Pirates of the Caribbean franchise-Major Attraction
• The National Treasure franchise-Nothing
• Ratatouille-Nothing
• Meet the Robinson's-Nothing
• Bolt-Nothing
• Wall-E-Nothing
• The entire Chronicles of Narnia franchise-Nothing
• The Princess and the Frog-M&G
• Up- M&G, Play area in DL
• Tangled-A Bathroom (and apparently the return of a meet and greet)
• The entire Cars franchise-Character Icons at AoA Resort
• Wreck-It-Ralph-Nothing (Maybe a character meet and greet?)
• Brave-M&G
• Frozen-Sing-A-Long and Soon to be a Major Attraction & M&G
• Big Hero 6-Nothing now that the meet and greet is gone

So if you have a child between the ages of 0-21, most of their childhood memories are unrepresented or under-represented in the parks. This really needs to change.

*This is just the list that I compiled based on my subjective view on quality and potential longevity. There are many, many other things produced during that time that others think deserve to be mentioned, such as High School Musical, or The Cheetah Girls, or Hannah Montana, or Phineas and Furb, among others.

Thought this was an interesting list. I added what I can remember. And for comparison here's the early part on Disney Animated Cannon spanning from 1937-1991

• Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Ride & M&G
• Pinocchio: Restaurant, Night time shows, Ride in DL
• Fantasia: Sorcerer Mickey M&G
• Dumbo: Ride
• Bambi: Nothing
• Saludos Amigos: Nothing
• The Three Caballeros: Ride
• Make Mine Music: Nothing
• Fun and Fancy Free: Nothing
• Melody Time: Nothing
• The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad: Ride in DL
• Cinderella: Castle & M&G
• Alice in Wonderland: M&G, Ride in DL
• Peter Pan: Ride & M&G
• Lady and the Tramp: Restaurant
• Sleeping Beauty: M&G, Parade Float, Castle in DL
• 101 Dalmatians: Nothing
• The Sword in the Stone: Sword Statue
• The Jungle Book: M&G
• The Aristocats : M&G
• Robin Hood: Nothing
• The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh: Ride & M&G
• The Rescuers: Nothing
• The Fox and the Hound: Nothing
• The Black Cauldron: Nothing
• The Great Mouse Detective: Nothing
• Oliver & Company: Nothing
• The Little Mermaid: Ride & M&G
• The Rescuers Down Under: Nothing
• Beauty and the Beast: Attraction, Restaurant & M&G
• Aladdin: Ride & M&G

18 out of 31 movies in 54 years have a presence in the US parks/resorts (I left out Live action movies but out of the dozens released I can only think of three: Song of the South, Mary Poppins & Swiss Family Robinson that are in the parks) In comparison 15 out of the 32 movies listed in past 20 years have a presence.

I think that's fairly even spread especially given the time span. Though if we are just talking about M&Gs then those definitely skew toward older movies & princess movies.

Also if anyone can add anything please do.

Edit: remembered a few more things

 

[MainMom]

You must have missed the part of my earlier post where I said that I was not suggesting getting rid of the old rides based on nostalgia. So no, I am not advocating that Peter Pan or Dumbo go away. But putting newer characters into card games is not the same thing as building actual attractions for the parks. You cannot tell me that The Incredibles and/or Emperor's New Groove wouldn't for the basis for awesome "E Ticket" attractions.

My kids wouldn't care about either of those movies being attractions.

 

[JimmyV]

My kids wouldn't care about either of those movies being attractions.

They would be in the minority. When some of the most popular attractions at WDW are based on Aerosmith, Twilight Zone and Song of the South, it befuddles me to think that kids between the ages of 6-20 would not line up for an Incredibles ride or an Emperor's New Groove ride, if done well. Or Cars. Or Wall-E. Or Tangled. Look at the "bookends" of Toy Story and Frozen. Buzz is popular. TSMM is off-the-charts popular. And whatever Frozen touches is/will be popular. So to think that the works that fall in between Toy Story and Frozen would not be popular, is, well, somewhere between "unsupported" and "irrational".

 

[chelseabun76]

I have a feeling you might find he gets caught up in the music and energy around parade time and want to watch the whole thing. The music does it to me every time. lol

 

[Robo]

You mean to say that kids growing up in the last 20 years only got their "Disney Memories" sitting in a movie theater watching new releases?

I dare say all of the kids in our extended family have seen most of the Disney library (over, and over, and over) sitting in front of a video screen watching VHS or DVD's.

 

[JimmyV]

You mean to say that kids growing up in the last 20 years only got their "Disney Memories" sitting in a movie theater watching new releases?

Ahhh! Don't fall into the "only" trap. No. I mean to say that kids in the last 20 years got their Disney Memories BOTH from new releases and from DVD's. (It is getting harder and harder to find working VHS players these days.) So if they get their memories from both, then both should be represented in the parks in ways that transcend trading cards and bathrooms. For example, Davy Crockett came out in 1955 and was represented in DL in 1956. And Frozen came out in 2014 and was represented in the park within the year. So "new" stuff can and should be added. Disney just hasn't done a very good job of it, IMO. I demand an Emperor's New Groove water ride!!

 

[bumbershoot]

DH will probably be thrilled to not have to sit thru parades too. Fun suckers!

You *could* let them do what they want to do while you watch the parade. I know, crazy talk, but it is allowed.

My 10 yo nephew had a straight up melt down when we took him to the Frozen sing-a-long. He covered his ears the entire time. I don't like to make the boy and girl distinction either but my niece and nephew certainly do.

That's too bad. What a bummer. My son loves Frozen. If anyone in the family would balk at the singalong it would be ME. (though Let It Go gets me through the end of long runs)

I thought I saw someone who posted a "M&G" of sorts with Lightning and Mater from Cars inside one of the parks, but I could be wrong.

DCA.

I dare say all of the kids in our extended family have seen most of the Disney library (over, and over, and over) sitting in front of a video screen watching VHS or DVD's.

True.

And over.

And again.

I demand an Emperor's New Groove water ride!!

Nice idea!

 

[nat8199]

You mean to say that kids growing up in the last 20 years only got their "Disney Memories" sitting in a movie theater watching new releases?

I dare say all of the kids in our extended family have seen most of the Disney library (over, and over, and over) sitting in front of a video screen watching VHS or DVD's.

I completely agree!! Only one of my three kids has even been to a single movie theater (though that was for Frozen because a friend invited her). They are much more likely to be familiar with the movies available on netflix (Robin Hood!!! With the Foxes!!!) than anything in the theaters. Watching movies at home is so much more cost effective and better than seeing in the theaters.

 

[Sargeant Tibbs]

Not every movie truly deserves an attraction though, as not every movie has characters with staying power. Splash Mountain is an anomaly, and if anyone cares to do the research, the reason it's there is a very long and interesting story.

While we all have personal favorites, not every Disney animated feature is a hit. Heck, Walt's favorite animated feature has nothing in the parks(Bambi), and his Magnum Opus (Mary Poppins) is barely there except for a few characters and a scene in the Great Movie Ride.

After Walt's death the quality of the animated features really began to go downhill until the Little Mermaid (which honest to God saved Disney animation), then we have a brief blip with Rescuers 2 (because it was already in production) until we get that amazing run of BATB, Aladdin and The Lion King. After that there is nothing all that memorable (unless one counts the uproar over Pocahontas) until Lilo and Stitch. So really, what is in the parks is exactly what needs to be in the parks.

And I think everyone has forgotten about Dinosaur, which is loosely represented with... Dinosaur.

 

[JimmyV]

I completely agree!! Only one of my three kids has even been to a single movie theater (though that was for Frozen because a friend invited her). They are much more likely to be familiar with the movies available on netflix (Robin Hood!!! With the Foxes!!!) than anything in the theaters. Watching movies at home is so much more cost effective and better than seeing in the theaters.

I completely agree! Your kids are far more likely to be familiar with movies that were released on DVDs over the past 25 years moreso than movies that were in the theaters in the past 5 years. Now...take a look at the movies that were released in the past 25 years. Not trying to make anyone feel old. But Hercules was released almost 20 years ago! To put that into perspective, Hercules is as far removed from the birth of your children as Mary Poppins was to yours. In other words, if you view Mary Poppins and Sword In The Stone as "old classics", then your children should view Hercules, Pocahontas and Hunchback in the same light.

 

[BugsDaddy]

Not every movie truly deserves an attraction though, as not every movie has characters with staying power. Splash Mountain is an anomaly, and if anyone cares to do the research, the reason it's there is a very long and interesting story.

While we all have personal favorites, not every Disney animated feature is a hit. Heck, Walt's favorite animated feature has nothing in the parks(Bambi), and his Magnum Opus (Mary Poppins) is barely there except for a few characters and a scene in the Great Movie Ride.

After Walt's death the quality of the animated features really began to go downhill until the Little Mermaid (which honest to God saved Disney animation), then we have a brief blip with Rescuers 2 (because it was already in production) until we get that amazing run of BATB, Aladdin and The Lion King. After that there is nothing all that memorable (unless one counts the uproar over Pocahontas) until Lilo and Stitch. So really, what is in the parks is exactly what needs to be in the parks.

And I think everyone has forgotten about Dinosaur, which is loosely represented with... Dinosaur.

I agree with you. I think the movies that should be represented are. An Emperors New Groove ride? I am not sure that would appeal to a large audience. A lot of their newer and more popular movies are being well represented along with the classics, in my opinion. I would call it balanced.

 

[Bigwands]

The under-representation of Princess and the Frog and Mulan in both attractions and merchandise really bothers me because those are two really good role models for girls (I don't think the princesses are a bad thing to look up to as a little girl, but those two had really obvious "girl power" messages) and, for a lot of little princesses, those are the two that might look like them. There are multiple studies proving that representation is important to kids and I'm really disappointed there isn't more of it for those two. And that Mulan is more often than not in her "matchmaker" clothes because that's the only dress she wears in the movie and apparently that's a requirement for Princess membership.

 

[Bigwands]

Just imagine the madhouse if WDW threw candy. O M G

I imagine this is why they don't. Not just the liability of children running in front of floats after it, but people getting squashed, kids with allergies getting sick, the added mess of it later melting in the Orlando heat if it's not all collected, and the idea of kids eating candy off the ground - even wrapped candy - doesn't seem like something Disney'd be into.

 

[Moonwolf]

And that Mulan is more often than not in her "matchmaker" clothes because that's the only dress she wears in the movie and apparently that's a requirement for Princess membership.

No, she wears one more dress and I think it would be the best outfit for Mulan. I'm talking about her battle in the palace outfit. Neither the matchmaker outfit nor her soldier uniform were really her because she was trying to hide a part of her with both. The matchmaker dress she was trying to be passive like everyone expected of her while the soldier outfit has her hiding that she was female. The last battle outfit has her both acting tough but also showing that yes she was a girl and that she could be both. But unfortunately I don't think that outfit is showy enough for princesses.