Evolution of Disney Attractions (Rant)

[MansionButler]

Let me add to all this.

I do understand that Pixar and Disney are separate. However, I only see the Pixar movies as separate from feature animation, and the characters and their stories are as Disney, if not more so, than Winnie the Pooh. I would prefer Disney created memorable characters out of the feature animation department as well, but there is plenty of room for Disney/Pixar characters.

ALL THAT SAID

I think there is a major intrusion of synergy. Too much movie invasion in general. The movies and shows obviously have a place in the parks, even the Matterhorn and (in some degree) Thunder Mountain. However, there's too much synergy now, and anything successful is shoved into the parks in poor ways. Mostly it's currently Pixar because that's all that's successful, but Stitch is along for the ride, as well.

The Parks should stand alone on their own imagination. Not everything has to be tied in to a memorable character from a movie.

The exception I think is Disney Studios. I wouldn't mind if MGM was completely retooled to be like walking into the Disney movies, and that would include Disney properties. They're kind've going that way, but right now it's an ugly transition between the behind the scenes of movies and being in the worlds of the movies. It's not working too well.

[Captain Schnemo]

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

Speaking from the experience of talking with my friends, that never came up. Maybe some of them understood that Disney has some kind of deal with Pixar, but when I mentioned the Buzz Lightyear thing in Tomorrowland, the response was "Why would they put that there?". (And they weren't just talking about how a character from a movie set in the present is not actually futuristic.)

I don't see Pixar as being any more "Disney" than Indiana Jones, Star Wars or Aerosmith. They're all basically outsourced creativity.

Does the castle appear in front of the Disney releases of the Miyazaki movies? Because I don't think anyone equates those with Disney. They certainly have something about Disney in the opening credits...

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.

I don't really see a difference in terms of whether they are "proper Disney" or not. The Bachelor was created "for Disney" in the same way that the Pixar films were.

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

If your experience is coming from being in a theme park where there are Pixar attractions, it's easy to see how the line can be blurred.

Disney OWNS those characters, they can do whatever they want with them the same as they own Stitch and Cinderella.

I'm not denying that the corporation owns the content, but...

Pixar is not Disney. The Pixar movies are.

...that's a pretty trivial distinction in the eyes of most people who don't really spend much time thinking about Disney corporate structure.

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.

Or make a crappy reality TV show?

Also, I agree with you that MGM has been thematically screwed from the onset. Universal Studios Orlando has had to move away from the "behind-the-scenes" concept as well, for a few reasons...

One is that seeing how movies are made is really boring. Another is that it's even more boring if it's only a simulation of a simulation, in that nothing interesting is filmed in Orlando. It is slightly more interesting to see the actual fake stuff in Hollywood, but not a lot.

[kronk's angel]

Excellent rants from Disney and Pixar staff on these same subjects at http://imagineerebirth.blogspot.com/

Re-Imagineering is a blog "for Pixar and Disney professionals passionate about the Disney Theme Parks to catalog past Imagineering missteps and offer up tenable practical solutions in hopes that a new wave of creative management at Imagineering can once again bring back the wonder and magic that's been missing from the parks for decades. The opinions expressed at Re-Imagineering are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of The Walt Disney Company."

[MansionButler]

I read re-imagineering, but I HATE it. They're critical to an insane fault, and I actually think they miss the important stuff too often.

[subsonic]

I have been reading this site for a while now I agree with 90% of their articles. Also Kevin Yee's Declining by Degrees articles.

[Dr. Ravenscroft]

I read re-imagineering, but I HATE it. They're critical to an insane fault, and I actually think they miss the important stuff too often.

Like what? What are the big issues? Walt was critical of all of the stuff his imagineers did. So they always did their very best to do right. WDW has gone more commercial and less maintanence oriented in the past 10-15 years. I agree with many points they bring up and I am just as critical when it comes to the mantinence. I think that if you are going to tout the park as a place where dreams come true it should look and sound like it.


A perfect example of a decline in mantinence is The Country Bear Jamboree (CBJ). When I was there in December with JS3901 we noticed that the speakers for several of the characters were blown out, and others were cranked all the way up, to the vurge of blowing out. The speakers are all underneath the five different stages and over at the two moose heads there are two more. This means there are 7 speaker's. 1 of the speakers over by the moose heads was out and the other was working, so you could only hear one side of the joke. On the main stage area 2 of the speakers were out so you couldn't hear some of the characters during the main show. It was erie hear the theature so dead when those blown out speakers were on. No one said a word in the place but you still had to strain to hear the show.

So I say I like the articles because they are just as critical of the parks as I am. And just think if people weren't critical of parks how would they look , I think they would be in more disrepair then they already are.

[MansionButler]

I read re-imagineering, but I HATE it. They're critical to an insane fault, and I actually think they miss the important stuff too often.

Like what? What are the big issues? Walt was critical of all of the stuff his imagineers did. So they always did their very best to do right. WDW has gone more commercial and less maintanence oriented in the past 10-15 years. I agree with many points they bring up and I am just as critical when it comes to the mantinence. I think that if you are going to tout the park as a place where dreams come true it should look and sound like it.


A perfect example of a decline in mantinence is The Country Bear Jamboree (CBJ). When I was there in December with JS3901 we noticed that the speakers for several of the characters were blown out, and others were cranked all the way up, to the vurge of blowing out. The speakers are all underneath the five different stages and over at the two moose heads there are two more. This means there are 7 speaker's. 1 of the speakers over by the moose heads was out and the other was working, so you could only hear one side of the joke. On the main stage area 2 of the speakers were out so you couldn't hear some of the characters during the main show. It was erie hear the theature so dead when those blown out speakers were on. No one said a word in the place but you still had to strain to hear the show.

So I say I like the articles because they are just as critical of the parks as I am. And just think if people weren't critical of parks how would they look , I think they would be in more disrepair then they already are.

There's an article complaining about the loss of the parking lot at Disneyland. The rapeage of Test Track isn't even correct part of the time.

I've actually posted responses a few times on there when they've been wrong about something. Your Country Bear example is just fine, I'd agree with that. Half the stuff re-imagineering posts on doesn't fit that same example.

I actually really liked them early on, it's like they've gotten curmudgeony and stuck in the past as time's gone on and like to pick on what they personally dislike in their purist minds rather than the real problems (like the declining show quality in the HM, which they don't seem to want fixed).

[Captain Schnemo]

I find the articles generally fair, but I think the authors have some personal issues to work out. They seem far more interested in trying to impress with their blog than to effect actual change.

They also don't have much tolerance for constructive criticism or anyone who diverges at all from the party line. Also, they seem to think that simply complaining on the Internet is some great act of heroism worthy of extreme praise and are under the delusion that Disney is anxiously awaiting each new blog entry of theirs.

That said, they do have some valid points.

There were some pretty thoughtless statements in the parking lot rant, but they did offer some simple solutions to the simpler problems.

One thing I've noticed for years is that DL-based Disney fans often have no clue when it comes to WDW, but also often feel perfectly justified in pretending they are experts on the matter. That also seems to be in play on that site.

[MansionButler]

I find the articles generally fair, but I think the authors have some personal issues to work out. They seem far more interested in trying to impress with their blog than to effect actual change.

They also don't have much tolerance for constructive criticism or anyone who diverges at all from the party line. Also, they seem to think that simply complaining on the Internet is some great act of heroism worthy of extreme praise and are under the delusion that Disney is anxiously awaiting each new blog entry of theirs.

That said, they do have some valid points.

There were some pretty thoughtless statements in the parking lot rant, but they did offer some simple solutions to the simpler problems.

One thing I've noticed for years is that DL-based Disney fans often have no clue when it comes to WDW, but also often feel perfectly justified in pretending they are experts on the matter. That also seems to be in play on that site.

I agree with absolutely everything you just said. I didn't think it was possible.

I will also add that they're total purists. Something I used to be and fight hard to resist. Your pleasent memories are not necessarily the best thing for the park.

Case in point, if I were running things based on my own nostalgia and personal interests, there would still be a Delta Dreamflight (favorite ride when I was a kid). However, I acknowledge that Buzz is a better ride. Maybe too much synergy, but it's still a better ride.

I read them because I'm interested in all-things Disney, and early on they actually did a good job. Now they've gott Bob Ryan syndrome and it's getting a little annoying. But, they do still often have good points in the bouts of insanity.

[Captain Schnemo]

In fairness (I hadn't actually read the site in a while), the recent article about Disney's attempts to create "hip and edgy" attractions looked about right to me. It was a thoughtful analysis of why some updates work and others don't, and didn't seem as shrill as some of the other articles.

The author's responses to the posts seemed more rational than usual as well.

I don't think he said anything that hasn't been said many times by many people in many different forums, but they were good observations nonetheless.

One thing I don't care for is the obsession with the wand at Epcot and the hat at MGM. I completely agree that they really, really suck, but when they get themselves all whipped up into a frenzy about how wonderful it will be if/when they are removed, I don't think they're doing anyone a great service.

Both are awful, but they are examples of "plussing" without subtracting. OK, so they ruin photos and and reveal that Imagineering has completely lost its way, but they didn't come at the expense of existing attractions. And I don't think sending the message that "the people want you to destroy things" is particularly productive.

Yes, they suck, and, yes, they should be removed, but it shouldn't be seen as something fantastic if/when they are taken down. Limited energy should be spent elsewhere.

To me it seems like complaining that the guy who just mugged you was wearing an ugly hat. Well, yeah, maybe, but...

[MansionButler]

In fairness (I hadn't actually read the site in a while), the recent article about Disney's attempts to create "hip and edgy" attractions looked about right to me. It was a thoughtful analysis of why some updates work and others don't, and didn't seem as shrill as some of the other articles.

Haven't read the most recent article, but I do know they wrote something similar pertaining to Under New Management that was spot on.

The author's responses to the posts seemed more rational than usual as well.

That's good. Usually it's a "how dare you question my opinion?!"

The analysis of the wand and the hat I agree with, too.

[Captain Schnemo]

Haven't read the most recent article, but I do know they wrote something similar pertaining to Under New Management that was spot on.

Yeah, that's the one I was talking about. Some more responses were posted and now I've detected the pattern. "Tongaroa" seems to be a reasonable person, but "Mr. Banks" and "Merlin Jones" are irrational wingnuts that drag down any potential reputability by childishly lashing out at anyone who doesn't agree with them (and even those that do, but take issue with certain details).

They seem to love sabotaging any attempts to take them seriously almost as much as they like attention for attention's sake.

It's a real shame, but when you're dealing with people who are fanatically devoted to a completely misunderstood dead guy (like us), I guess these problems are going to be common.

[stinoi]

Excellent rants from Disney and Pixar staff on these same subjects at http://imagineerebirth.blogspot.com/

Re-Imagineering is a blog "for Pixar and Disney professionals passionate about the Disney Theme Parks to catalog past Imagineering missteps and offer up tenable practical solutions in hopes that a new wave of creative management at Imagineering can once again bring back the wonder and magic that's been missing from the parks for decades. The opinions expressed at Re-Imagineering are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of The Walt Disney Company."

Thanks for the heads up about this blog. I hadn't heard of it before. Interesting article posts there and certainly thought provoking if nothing else.

[FlatlandMounty]

I understand where everyone is coming from. Everything has to be a freaking thrill ride now adays. The classics are going away. The idea of a ride being completely original and not ripped off from a movie is never coming back--unless you count Test Track and Mission Space. But anyway, I understand. But as for the stuff being geared for kids and not families anymore--Pixar is one of those great production companies that makes kids movies that parents don't hate to watch too. Adults line up to go see Cars, and Nemo. They make good movies that also appeal to kids. So I think its great that a lot of things are getting a Pixar theme. Finally Disney is getting away from the 40" height requirement and the extremely retarded kiddy ride (Winnie the Pooh--sorry if you like it, but there is almost no story line, and its just a bunch of flashy lights and recognizable characters) The separation between kids and adults that Walt never wanted is being bridged again.

[MansionButler]

Haven't read the most recent article, but I do know they wrote something similar pertaining to Under New Management that was spot on.

Yeah, that's the one I was talking about. Some more responses were posted and now I've detected the pattern. "Tongaroa" seems to be a reasonable person, but "Mr. Banks" and "Merlin Jones" are irrational wingnuts that drag down any potential reputability by childishly lashing out at anyone who doesn't agree with them (and even those that do, but take issue with certain details).

They seem to love sabotaging any attempts to take them seriously almost as much as they like attention for attention's sake.

It's a real shame, but when you're dealing with people who are fanatically devoted to a completely misunderstood dead guy (like us), I guess these problems are going to be common.

Yes, I have had my run ins with Mr. Banks. What are your thoughts on the Swan infringing upon the World Showcase skyline?