Evolution of Disney Attractions (Rant)

MansionButler · Post by **MansionButler** » Jan Wed 24, 2007 5:57 pm

bbowen13 wrote:Please understand I don't have a problem with Pixar, I love the movies and think they have a place in Disney World. The only thing I don't care for is the placement of some of these attractions. Monsters Inc. does not belong in Tomorrowland, maybe Disney Studios. :mickey3

Then what should be blamed is an insistence on synergy instead of Pixar itself. If Pixar didn't exist and Disny had a successful movie they could shove into Tomorrowland, they'd do that.

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Jan Fri 26, 2007 5:46 pm

I think they should have created PixarLand in MGM. The park could have used that shot in the arm, and it would have saved us the ruination of the park icon at the AK, this nonsense in Tomorrowland and Future World, etc.

But as far as I'm concerned, Pixar is not Disney, any more than ABC is Disney. They're an outside entity purchased by Disney and they could yet again split from them in the future. I'd be interested to know how many people associate Pixar with Disney at all. I would think they might be more closely related to Apple in many people's minds.

Although I do agree that Pixar movies are much better than recent proper Disney movies.

MansionButler · Post by **MansionButler** » Jan Fri 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Captain Schnemo wrote:I think they should have created PixarLand in MGM. The park could have used that shot in the arm, and it would have saved us the ruination of the park icon at the AK, this nonsense in Tomorrowland and Future World, etc.

But as far as I'm concerned, Pixar is not Disney, any more than ABC is Disney. They're an outside entity purchased by Disney and they could yet again split from them in the future. I'd be interested to know how many people associate Pixar with Disney at all. I would think they might be more closely related to Apple in many people's minds.

Although I do agree that Pixar movies are much better than recent proper Disney movies.

Considering how often stuff like Toy Story comes up when people are asked what their favorite feature animation is, I'd say Pixar is incredibly related with Disney. And as far as I'm concerned, it's completely Disney as long as it's a Disney entity. And every Pixar movie made so far has been and always will be Disney since Disney, not Pixar, owns the characters.

Only in my recent understanding of the business can I conciously separate the two. My expereince with guests and friends doesn't separate them at all. And I don't separate the characters or movies at all, either.

jbvenn · Post by **jbvenn** » Jan Sat 27, 2007 3:00 pm

I really have mixed impressions about the Disney/Pixar relationship. I've enjoyed most of the Pixar movies I've seen and consider them better than most of what Disney has been able to come up with the past 10 years or so. Pixar makes the kind of movies I wish Disney had the vision/courage to make, but I don't really think of them as Disney movies.

I also have mixed feelings about the Pixar presence at WDW. I haven't experienced the Nemo attraction, but I like the idea of bringing back the sea cabs, even if they are dressed up as clam shells. But they could have done that without the Finding Nemo tie-in. I have never done the Bug's Life at AK, mainly out of squeamishness. Buzz LY at MK leaves me lukewarm.

That said, I am more tolerant of the Pixar presence at WDW than I am of ABC, and really dislike the ABC presence at MGM. The relationship of Disney and ABC is purely corporate, and has no business being enshrined as a theme park attraction.

Post by **js3901** » Jan Sat 27, 2007 4:25 pm

jbvenn wrote: I haven't experienced the Nemo attraction, but I like the idea of bringing back the sea cabs, even if they are dressed up as clam shells.

just to clarify, the sea cabs themselves were not brought back or dressed up. that track is completely sealed off (most of it). This is a whole new route.

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Jan Sun 28, 2007 2:02 am

MansionButler wrote:Considering how often stuff like Toy Story comes up when people are asked what their favorite feature animation is, I'd say Pixar is incredibly related with Disney.

That just means Pixar makes better movies than Disney. It doesn't tie the two companies together.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's completely Disney as long as it's a Disney entity.

So...Jimmy Kimmel, Dancing with the Stars, and the Bachelor are all Disney to you?

My expereince with guests and friends doesn't separate them at all.

Hmm. That's not been my experience at all. Most of my friends dislike Disney in general (because they only know it from the Eisner era) and do not equate Cars, The Incredibles, etc. to Disney.

I'd be interested to know what the general public thinks. We kind of live in a bubble around here.

To me, all the Pixar stuff just highlights the dearth of creativity at Disney these days. I wonder if I have a different opinion because I've been a fan of Pixar since Luxor, Jr., Tin Toy, Knick Knack (which I noticed was edited for family viewing at the beginning of Nemo), etc.

Disney and Pixar have always been distinct entities for me, with very different corporate styles.

Sarah Turp · Post by **Sarah Turp** » Jan Sun 28, 2007 9:11 am

Most of my friends dislike Disney in general (because they only know it from the Eisner era) and do not equate Cars, The Incredibles, etc. to Disney.

I find it hard to accept that people do not associate films such as Cars and the Incredibles with Disney. Yes Disney did originally start out doing proper annimation, where as Pixar uses CG animation, but it seems just like a natural progression.
Disney are known for a variety of works, animated, live action and a mixture of the two. To most people CG animation is just the next branch of this. The fact that the films are labled Disney Pixar rather than just Disney is something that most people do not really notice, or if they do they just accept is a meaning that this film is produce by the CG animation section of the Walt Disney company.

I certainly just see Disney Pixar as another branch of the Disney company, just as I the films vs themeparks as two branches of the same company.

Cheshire Cat · Post by **Cheshire Cat** » Jan Sun 28, 2007 11:33 am

To me, Disney and Pixar are seperate entities mostly because Disney has to put Pixar's name everywhere they use characters. (ex. "it's tough to be a bug, based on Disney-Pixar's a bug's life") You don't see Disney putting their own name in things (ex. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, based on Disney's The Adventure's of Ichabod and Mr. Toad").

Furthermore, just the fact that the company WAS seperate and still has it's own name, makes the seperation even more clear. It's not Walt Disney Feature Animation or Walt Disney Television Animation or even DisneyToon Studios. It's Pixar Animation, no Disney required. As far as I'm concerned Disney is at thsame level as ABC, no matter how awesome their movies are.

(*hides from possible oncoming tomatoes*)

Post by **js3901** » Jan Sun 28, 2007 3:16 pm

I agree that Disney and Pixar are 2 separate companies, who are merely owned by the same corporation. Disney may own the rights to all the characters in the Pixar movies, and they may have bought the company, but Pixar came up with the characters and all other parts of the movies they created (script, plot, etc). Disney may have had some creative input into he process, but it's all Pixar who developed the movies.

MansionButler · Post by **MansionButler** » Jan Sun 28, 2007 11:27 pm

Captain Schnemo wrote:That just means Pixar makes better movies than Disney. It doesn't tie the two companies together.

You don't think Sleeping Beauty's castle showing up at the beginning would lead anyone to think "this is Disney?"

So...Jimmy Kimmel, Dancing with the Stars, and the Bachelor are all Disney to you?

No, I don't. I don't let corporate formalities make up my view of things. Does Jimmy Kimmel have Sleeping Beauty's castle at the beginning? Is it displayed as a Disney film?

Hell, if Jimmy Kimmel was on the Disney channel and presented as Disney entertainment, yes, he would be Disney to me. He'd just be bad Disney. Pixar is good Disney.

I can't believe you'd compare The Bachelor to Pixar. Just because you choose to separate them doesn't mean they're of equal degrees.

Hmm. That's not been my experience at all. Most of my friends dislike Disney in general (because they only know it from the Eisner era) and do not equate Cars, The Incredibles, etc. to Disney.

Would it be fair to say I have alot more guest interaction experience than you do? Both in and out of costume.

And if anyone isn't as in the know with Disney as we are, then what do you think someone's going to think when they see the castle showing up at the beginning of a movie? Disney OWNS those characters, they can do whatever they want with them the same as they own Stitch and Cinderella. Had Pixar stayed separated Woody would still be a Disney character.

Pixar is not Disney. The Pixar movies are. They're not feature animation, and they're produced by someone else, but they're Disney entertainment.

To me, all the Pixar stuff just highlights the dearth of creativity at Disney these days. I wonder if I have a different opinion because I've been a fan of Pixar since Luxor, Jr., Tin Toy, Knick Knack (which I noticed was edited for family viewing at the beginning of Nemo), etc.

That actually makes sense. But even though I understand they're different, I know that the characters are Disney. Yeah, Disney hired another company to make those characters, but it's pretty much the same as if they'd hired an animator to create Stitch and he then walked.

And agreed, it highlites the downfall of Disney creativity, but it would be stupid to not use the creative products that are at their disposal.

Disney and Pixar have always been distinct entities for me, with very different corporate styles.

And I'd bet most people didn't even know what Pixar was before Toy Story. And I do know that the vast majority of people I know and guests I've spoken with see Toy Story as a Disney movie and Woody and Buzz as Disney characters.

MansionButler · Post by **MansionButler** » Jan Sun 28, 2007 11:31 pm

js3901 wrote:I agree that Disney and Pixar are 2 separate companies, who are merely owned by the same corporation. Disney may own the rights to all the characters in the Pixar movies, and they may have bought the company, but Pixar came up with the characters and all other parts of the movies they created (script, plot, etc). Disney may have had some creative input into he process, but it's all Pixar who developed the movies.

Why is hiring a league of animators, who are their own company, to create new movies different than hiring a league of animators directly under your own company? Why does coorperate actually have an effect on the characters?

I understand what you all are saying, but the only reason I do understand it is because I'm FAR more into Disney than most people. The same can be said of just about everyone here.

In reality, who produced the characters should have little to do with it. What company owns the characters and stories is all that matters.

Post by **js3901** » Jan Sun 28, 2007 11:59 pm

I note no difference in the hiring practices you mention. As I said, they are owned by the same corporation now. That's all. I still see them as a separate company.

Though, the ownership issue can start a whole new topic. For example, Michael Jackson owns most of the Beatles catalog, yet who do we attribute those songs to? I don;t think that Imagine or A Hard Days Night are Michael Jackson songs, do you? It's the same thing here. Pixar made the characters, they developed the software to create them, and the environment in which they live.

And, I don't think that any one person can say they are far more into Disney than any one person. The only one who could say that is Uncle Walt, or any of his family. Even though you may have worked for the company (or still do work for them), that doesn't mean you're more into Disney than me, or anyone else here.

MansionButler · Post by **MansionButler** » Jan Mon 29, 2007 12:12 am

js3901 wrote:For example, Michael Jackson owns most of the Beatles catalog, yet who do we attribute those songs to?

Wonderful example. The difference is, the Beatles didn't make the songs for Jackson or under his direction. And obviously singers are a different thing because if two different people sing a song they're different. No two movies are the same.

I'd say your example would be more fitting for Disney retroactively taking characters that were previously produced.

And, I don't think that any one person can say they are far more into Disney than any one person. The only one who could say that is Uncle Walt, or any of his family. Even though you may have worked for the company (or still do work for them), that doesn't mean you're more into Disney than me, or anyone else here.

I didn't say I'm more into Disney than you, I said most people. And I also said that can be said of most of the people here. I guarantee you we're both MUCH more into Disney than the general person, or even Disney consumer, viewer or park guest, though.

chief0staph · Post by **chief0staph** » Jan Mon 29, 2007 12:12 am

the other important thing is to remember who generated the characters. Buzz and Woody are thoroughly disney characters. No matter who owns roger rabbit, he's still a disney character. It's got a different, more fleshed out, warmer and fuzzier feel than non-disney characters. There's nothing quite like disney, and PIXARs productions are very thoroughly disney

MansionButler · Post by **MansionButler** » Jan Mon 29, 2007 12:13 am

chief0staph wrote:the other important thing is to remember who generated the characters. Buzz and Woody are thoroughly disney characters. No matter who owns roger rabbit, he's still a disney character. It's got a different, more fleshed out, warmer and fuzzier feel than non-disney characters. There's nothing quite like disney, and PIXARs productions are very thoroughly disney

. . . and Stitch?