Monsters Inc. Coaster

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Jul Wed 30, 2008 10:18 pm

yodiwan1 wrote:Why can't peop accept change?

There's reasonable change and then there's inappropriate change.

If Coca Cola introduced "New Diet Coke, now with loads and loads of sugar!", it'd probably taste better, but it would then fundamentally fail to accomplish the goal which is the entire reason for its existence.

Let's face it animation is just done differently now.

I'm not a huge fan of most of the Disney animated films (particularly ever since "musical" morphed into "Broadway-style musical"), but the reason Disney's conventionally animated films began to fail was because they were lousy. It had nothing to do with the medium.

It's not CGI that makes Pixar films special, it's superior writing and direction. There are a lot of crappy CGI films out there (Disney has made some of them). Again, the issue is far more complex than simply "change".

Cinderella would make no more sense in Tomorrowland than the Monsters. The Pixar connection is not what makes that a bad decision (although it certainly heightens the frustration with Lasseter).

MintJulepRoo · Post by **MintJulepRoo** » Jul Thu 31, 2008 1:08 am

This attraction could be interesting and it sounds challenging at least.

I just want to mention with all the debate of attractions lately that I think with modern technology, we could all benefit from going back to the idea of gaining knowledge from attractions. (I think this was Walt Disney's Original secret) Almost all of the classic attractions have this quality. I still wish I could have experienced Inner Space. After all, they did say "Although your body will shrink, your mind will expand."

Epcot is a modern example of this. Mission Space enhances the simulator experience to an impressive degree. I think the strongest attractions edify our experience with life events both historical and futuristic, that we may not be able to experience due to geographical hindrances and time period issues. Kilimanjaro Safari is another great example. It is an enhanced version of the Jungle Cruise, (which is NOT at all a waste of space), because they now have the capability to maintain real live animals. The Jungle Cruise should not be replaced! I love, love Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, but it replaced Nature's Wonderland and Rainbow Caverns in DL in 1979. I would of loved to experience this also. It sounds, dare I say, educational.

Perhaps it is a mistake to cloud the real message of an attraction with an obvious movie theme. This is what happened with the Submarine Voyage replacement in DL. We know longer care about the submarine and the sea scape. Instead we are wondering, where's Nemo? Entertainment value will always be number one on the list but if they keep adding the concept of knowledge to the recipe, they could keeping coming out with more delicious attractions.

DisBeamer · Post by **DisBeamer** » Jul Thu 31, 2008 3:27 am

yodiwan1 wrote:When was the last Disney chartoon movie not to come out straight to DVD?

Meet the Robinsons. That was last year, and in my opinion, was one of the best Disney movies they've put out in the 10 years. Not a great crop to pick from there, mind you.

What was the last "old-school" cartoon movie, Atlantis?? Look how that turned out.

Actually it was Home on the Range, in 2004. Which sucked like a black hole (not to be confused with The Black Hole), and very much speaks to Schnemo's point that Disney's 'traditionally animated' movies didn't fail because they weren't cgi, but because they were terrible. Interesting note (to me, anyway), Chicken Little (2005) was supposed to be the turning point of all new, all 3-D frame animation all the time and it was terrible too. I don't think blaming the medium in this case is at all fair, as Disney's shown they have the ability to make lousy films in a variety of styles.

All that said, I'm not sure how we get from 'animation's changed' (which, surely it has) to 'things in the parks must change'. Most of the beloved old-school attractions aren't based on films, and they seem to get by. Do I want the parks to stagnate? Heck no. I want to keep going back, and I'd like to see new things when I do. The whole point of the way they built in Florida was, and I quote, the blessing of size. There was supposed to be enough room to do all of this stuff. And really, I think there is enough room so need to shoe-horn 'new' characters into existing rides - or even areas in the parks - for some reason other than easier marketing tie-ins is dubious at best.

Specifically speaking to the Monsters, Inc. coaster idea (which I'll believe when I see); it sounds interesting. If they put it in a part of the park where the theming makes sense, I imagine it'll be an excellent addition.

Post by **js3901** » Jul Thu 31, 2008 6:09 am

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Why can't peop accept change? I love classic Disney and New Disney. I don't look at Pixar projects as non-Disney. It's just an evolution.
It's not about whether it's Disney or not... it's about whether it matches the theming. Cartoons don't match the theming of Tomorrowland, Adventureland or Future World whether they be CGI or 2-D.

I have no problem with a Monsters Inc. attraction if it matches the theming of the area it's placed in. Pixar Studios is the perfect place for this attraction

It's not even that Cartoons are in Tomorrowland. when it comes down to it, what does a Monsters,Inc "Comedy Club" have to do with Tomorrowland? Buzz Lightyear I can see in TL, because it deals with robots and space. I can even (kinda) see Stitch, dealing with aliens and teleporting (which is something out of a sci-fi movie, like TL was modeled after). but a Comedy Club featuring Monsters? what does that have to do with Tomorrowland? Something like this belongs in Fantasyland, or as you suggested, over in that new Pixar area at MGM.

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Jul Thu 31, 2008 9:49 am

DisBeamer wrote:...I'm not sure how we get from 'animation's changed' (which, surely it has) to 'things in the parks must change'.

Or why we should blindly support things that are new, because, just get over it, man.

See, you should really love Home on the Range and Chicken Little and pay money to see them again and again, because Disney made them and if you question what Disney does, then you are living in the past. Why can't you accept that Disney is simply "evolving" into making more sucky movies than good ones?

Now, go see Beverly Hills Chihuahua and like it, young lady!

Cheshire Cat · Post by **Cheshire Cat** » Jul Thu 31, 2008 10:13 am

Disney's shown they have the ability to make lousy films in a variety of styles.

Buzz Lightyear I can see in TL, because it deals with robots and space.

I understand what you mean. I used to have the same mindset, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized cartoons are basically make believe and should belong in Fantasyland, the land of make believe. The other lands should be reserved for attractions that try to capture the spirit of the real world.

However, as far as Buzz is concerned, I realize it wouldn't really fit in Fantasyland. I'm upset that they created the ride in the first place because it doesn't really belong where it is, yet it wouldn't fit any better somewhere else. At least we have Pixar Studios now.

I also keep seeing rumors that Tomorrowland will become a future like the one depicted in WALL-E with "Buy-N-Large" taking over the land. Granted, I haven't seen this movie yet, but that future looks very bleak. Disney had a very optimistic view of the future in Meet the Robinsons*, yet they may decide to go with the "trashed planet" future. Why? Is it because it's Pixar??

It almost seems as if Disney is just making movies to make movies and then they get left by the wayside, while the Pixar movies are the ones that get further attention. Even if Disney did have a successful movie, I don't think they'd bother doing anything with it (in the parks or otherwise). We're only just getting a Little Mermaid attraction (whose placement is questionable, but not absurd).

*I wouldn't want them to feature the movie in the land at all, but rather the good feeling which that vision future left you with as opposed to the "we're doomed" vision of WALL-E.

WVParkfan · Post by **WVParkfan** » Jul Thu 31, 2008 11:35 am

Captain Schnemo wrote: Maybe you actually meant only the Studios. But "so many" implies "more than one".

You are correct.

Although admittedly, if you base their influence based only on the quality of recent films, it does make sense. Why everything has to be tied to a movie is another issue entirely.

You are correct about both of these things, as well.

skull · Post by **skull** » Aug Sun 03, 2008 10:33 am

I hope that this is true, because that just sounds so awesome!

agingerbugg · Post by **agingerbugg** » Aug Sun 03, 2008 11:07 am

It's kind of funny that an article posted by someone who is known to be msotly incorrect (Jim Hill), has started such a long debate.

annag · Post by **annag** » Aug Sat 09, 2008 11:27 pm

Looks like Pete Docter, director of Monster's Inc., says there is going to be a coaster. Making Jim Hill right about this coaster news.

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/07/30/pi ... -director/

Cheshire Cat · Post by **Cheshire Cat** » Aug Sun 10, 2008 11:03 am

Ugh... didn't they learn from Disney about the sequels? I mean Pixar has proven they make decnt sequels with Toy Story, but you could make the best sequel ever... it will still be a sequel. All sequels loose a bit of the magic that the initial movie had. There's no avoiding it.

Part of the wonder of Monsters Inc. was "Wow, the Monsters are in a city on the other side of the closet scaring us as their jobs". We were already "wow"ed even before the story started.

hunter88 · Post by **hunter88** » Oct Fri 31, 2008 2:23 pm

have you people forgot that the two companies Disney and Pixar have become so called corporated cousins "merged'" so that they could bring all these rides like bugs life, monsters laugh floor, toy story mania, and the finding nemo's the musical and the ride in epcot.