Tomorrowland, er um Pixarland

[JWG]

I think the real issue is we're all upset they're not sticking with the characters we knew and love.

To slotofkit's point, if they introduced good attractions featuring Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy, Pluto, Daisy, Huey, Duey and Louie I don't think we'd be as concerned. We're upset because everything is Pixar... but Pixar is what this generation of kids know.

The last animated film I remember is Tarzan, and that's so long ago that Tarzan based shows have come and gone. Pixar is what the current generation relates to and we're not happy to let the old characters go (me included).

[Cheshire Cat]

What makes it even worse is that the characters that they are replacing are original characters created for the parks. Throughout the entire ride there is character develpoment (take the X-S people for example). We really get to know these characters as if they were there all along and are real people. With the new rides like Stitch or Monsters Inc. there is no character introduction or developement because we already know the characters. That's part of the fun of Disney rides is the characters they used to think up specially for the parks. There once was a time when the only movie-based characters could be found in Fantasyland...but alas, it looks like that's all changing quite suddenly.

Also, If they want to add these Pixar charcters so badly, I think they should just build an entire section at MGM dedicated to Pixar, like Pixar Animation Studios. (Maybe somewhere behind the Toy Barn). Looks like Disney Studios Paris caught onto that idea.

[js3901]

What if they made an attraction starring Mickey? Are we going to greatly complain about that? I think we won't if they make a great experience with a great story. The plus is that we get to see characters we like in a new adventure. I've been glad that they have a new group of characters to work with.

you know, they did create an attraction with classic characters like Mickey, Donald, Goofy, as well as newer hand-drawn characters that is modern, popular, yet is timeless in it's themeing. Granted, it's all done on a simple video screen in a theater setting, but Mickey's Philharmagic in Fantasyland is a good example of imagineering an attraction that everyone can enjoy - adults, kids, toddlers, and teens, and that actually fits the theme of the land it was placed in. The problem with some of these newer Pixar-based attractions are that they don;t belong where they are being put. they're also (for the most part) not a new adventure with the characters we love. take the Living Seas with Nemo and Friends. while walking through the queue and riding the clam-mobiles, you basically watch a 5 minute (or less) version of the movie with a new song, which you can also hear in a musical based of the same movie that is located in a park just a few short miles away. no real originality in the attractions being built. I think that's one of the key issues. there's nothing entirely original going into the parks these days.

basically, if they came up with a decent, ORIGINAL attraction starring Pixar characters, I'd be fine with it. no complaints from me. But when they just recycle an idea to the point where you can see the exact same thing in multiple parks... it makes the parks seem a bit more boring to me.

wow.. I went on a little longer than I meant to... oops..

[jcodirewolf]

I don't think the characters have anything to do with the issue. It has to do with the themeing of the attractions. The original attractions in Tomorrowland where visions of the future. Rocket ship rides to the moon, mass transit systems, high performace road vehicles...

I think part of the problem is Epcot/FutureWorld. It ended up with the posible future, so they did the re-themeing to the future that never was. The future that never was drew on visions of Julies Vern and the 1940's serials (like flash gordon.) I was okay with these.

But what makes Monsters Inc and Stitch a vision of the future? I do like the Buzz Lightyear attraction, but does it "belong" to tomorrowland, honestly no. It belongs in Fantayland or even better over at MGM.

Johno

[slotofkit]

I think we're all getting at the real heart of the issue: What is Tomorrowland's theme? Buzz Lightyear and Stitch fit if it's a fantastic vision of the future, and I would argue Magic Kingdom needs to keep that. Disneyland has more of an identity crisis. The new version, and even old version, of the subs gets by with whatever the theme of Tomorrowland is, but it's getting a little sketchy.

But, it sounds like we're all in agreement that Laugh Floor is an odd attraction to place in Tomorrowland. Not a bad attraction. Just not well placed.

What I've been writing before is trying to get at the issue is I think we're expressing distaste for the characters when really we have a distaste for why attractions are going in certain places. To be honest, I have a gripe with Monsters Inc. going in the Hollywood Pictures area of DCA. I like the ride, and always go on it, but it always bugs me that it's presented the way it is in that "land".

Anyway, I want to greatly say that I think the Imagineers are making great attractions, they just don't have much choice of where they go, and that's the problem.

[Captain Schnemo]

How do you remain current when you have to spend huge $ on rides that become outdated within months.

That argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Given the rate at which they are changing things, they could easily keep up with the times. Instead, they are making poor choices and changing things constantly.

Think of the Rods...

Classic example of a bad plan based on a bad theme. A complete waste of money and opportunity.

I think the Pixarization is definitely a problem, but it's much larger than that. It's the loss of any sense of park individuality. Donald Duck and friends in Mexico, Nemo in the Living Seas, Bugs in the Tree of Life, the alleged change to "Disney-Pixar Studios", Monsters in DCA...it's just turning all the parks into a giant unthemed toon slush, all of which would be fine in Fantasyland (which is the place cartoon characters go) but make increasingly little sense in their new homes.

As has been mentioned in this thread, there's very little originality. "Time for a new attraction, how can we cram some cartoon characters into it?" It has been bad for a while (Nemo makes no sense in Epcot or Tomorrowland), but I think Imagineering just gave us the finger with MILF, which just screams, "You dumbasses will accept anything!"

If it went more the route of the original Tomorrowland concept from Disneyland of always looking to the real future we'd have a mini-Epcot when the real Epcot is right around the corner.

The real Epcot isn't Epcot any more either.

Also, there's nothing futuristic about Pixar movies in general. These characters don't represent "the future of animation", they're the past. Is it just because they're CGI that people associate them with the future? CGI is like, so 1980s, man.

[slotofkit]

The real Epcot isn't Epcot any more either.

Now, I'd still argue with that. Epcot still has a lot of features that represent the future. The "old" Epcot was not all that different than the new. World of Motion only showcased new technology in the post show. Spaceship Earth was always about a story, and now that is being revitalized to showcase the future of technology, even if it's Siemens. The Land still has the gardens that use innovative technology. The Seas still has research areas. Horizons was probably the more visionary future attraction.

The characters that they are placing in Epcot gives a way to explain things scientifically. I think the Energy pavilion needed Ellen, because now people are not falling asleep during the movies...well for the most part. I haven't been on The Seas yet, but I would imagine the Nemo characters help relate to kids more. Future World was a little sterile for a while and the characters help bring life to it.

So, MK's Tomorrowland use characters to show a fantastic future, while Epcot uses characters to explain the real future.

[casrin]

Speaking of EPCOT and the "future that never was," that is what I love about listening to the Horizons soundtrack. Seriously! That was the idea of what the 21st century (NOW) would be? Who else is living on Mars or under the sea here?

[Captain Schnemo]

Now, I'd still argue with that. Epcot still has a lot of features that represent the future.

You really don't want to get me started on that. I'll just point you to this blog and hold my tongue for the sake of everyone who has heard no end of this from me.

[slotofkit]

Now, I'd still argue with that. Epcot still has a lot of features that represent the future.

You really don't want to get me started on that. I'll just point you to this blog and hold my tongue for the sake of everyone who has heard no end of this from me.

I do get your point. There are definite identity problems with Epcot, as I always discuss with friends. but the blog you are referring to is talking about the original vision that Walt had, which was not entirely a theme park. It was to be a real community. After Walt died, the concept became a theme park, and even included a showcase of the world. It's never truly been a community of tomorrow, it's just shown what could happen tomorrow. And I think Disney realized this a bit when they dropped the EPCOT in place of just calling it Epcot.

I'm not trying to justify all the changes to Epcot, but I think it is starting to get back on track with showing innovative ideas of the future. And it does it even more so than Tomorrowland in MK. I've just been trying to note that they are different in visionary direction and need to stay different.

[Captain Schnemo]

but the blog you are referring to is talking about the original vision that Walt had...

Only the first article.

I've just been trying to note that they are different in visionary direction and need to stay different.

Yes, the singing fish in the Living Seas are completely different from the singing fish going into Tomorrowland! I mean come on, am I right??

[slotofkit]

Yes, the singing fish in the Living Seas are completely different from the singing fish going into Tomorrowland! I mean come on, am I right??

Again, I get what you're saying. I did point out that Epcot needs help and there's some things that get away from what it truly is. I don't think Soarin', even without characters, really adds to what Epcot is supposed to be. You've got to admit that Nemo and friends going into the Seas is a little better than Nemo and friends going into an already outdated Subs ride in Tomorrowland (at either DL or MK). And I read a couple other articles from the blog and it keeps insisting on using the all caps, and referencing the park in that way. It's not all caps anymore, as I mentioned before. And I think that's one way I'll point out that.

I think my point with everything is what is going on could be a lot worse, and between the Tomorrowlands and Epcot, they're not very far off their course. There is room to improve, but they're doing okay.

[Croaker]

I think its time Disney opened a new theme park. i've heard rumor they are going to attempt to compete with islands of adventure. Epcot could use a some surgury...not so much a face lift but more of a lipo suction or bypass. one of my biggest complaints about Epcot is that i didn't come all the way to Florida to watch my kids play a video game. if they want to have video games move them to Disney Quest.

[Captain Schnemo]

I did point out that Epcot needs help and there's some things that get away from what it truly is.

Nearly everything that reflects what it is supposed to be is a holdover from the 1980s...something they just haven't gotten around to completely destroying yet. Almost all of the new changes have been bad (or at least worse than the original), thematically speaking. I guess we'll see if they're ever going to to respect our intelligence again when the new Spaceship Earth is unveiled.

You've got to admit that Nemo and friends going into the Seas is a little better than Nemo and friends going into an already outdated Subs ride in Tomorrowland (at either DL or MK).

I don't see how. A Fantasyland dark ride is no better or worse in Future World or Tomorrowland.

And I read a couple other articles from the blog and it keeps insisting on using the all caps, and referencing the park in that way. It's not all caps anymore, as I mentioned before. And I think that's one way I'll point out that.

He's addressed that and stated that he knows it's Epcot, but he's making a stylistic decision to make his point.

I think my point with everything is what is going on could be a lot worse...

When that's the best you can say about Disney park, things are in a massive downward spiral.

There is room to improve, but they're doing okay.

You're a very generous person.

I think its time Disney opened a new theme park.

And stretch themselves out even more thinly? At the very least, they should work on making the Studios a full day park and putting some attractions in the Animal Kingdom (and bulldoze that embarrassing Dinoland Band Aid) first.

Frankly, I'd be happy with some proper maintenance, but as long as everyone just wants to see the next new thing, I guess there's not much hope of that.

[JWG]

And stretch themselves out even more thinly? At the very least, they should work on making the Studios a full day park and putting some attractions in the Animal Kingdom (and bulldoze that embarrassing Dinoland Band Aid) first.

Dinoland... I'd rather see Camp Minne and Mickey or whatever that thing is just go away. That's a space filler hiding the intended land of Beastly Kingdom.