Tomorrowland, er um Pixarland

[yodiwan1]

i see your point, and i do feel that monster's inc is out fo place, but everything else in TL makes sense...well not the raceway, but thats always been there..thhere has never bene anything futuristic about that one....still confuses me...

[Captain Schnemo]

Name 3 disney cartoon hits in the past 5 years that was not associated with pixar?

Another backwards argument...one conclusion you should draw from this is that Disney should stop making crappy movies (and should not have shut down the classic animation division). It looks like Lasseter is actually addressing these problems, so we'll see where things go from there.

Another point is that it's not necessary for every new attraction to be linked to a movie. It used to be that movie link-ups were mostly confined to Fantasyland. Eisner's obsession with "synergy" was responsible for some of the worst decisions in the last dozen years or so.

Anyway, you're starting these arguments with the assumption that simply because these attractions exist, we must bend logic and tradition to justify their placement.

...everything else in TL makes sense...

What does Stitch have to do with the future?

...well not the raceway, but thats always been there..thhere has never bene anything futuristic about that one....

When the original opened (in 1955, in Disneyland), the Interstate Highway System was just becoming a reality in America. This was a newfound freedom for Americans and had all sorts of interesting side effects, such as tourist traps, the explosion of suburbia, etc.

Point is, it was cutting edge in 1955, and fit in well with attractions such as Rocket to the Moon and Space Station X-1. I agree that it didn't make much sense in WDW in 1971, and always found it interesting that it sort of bridged the gap between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland.

It would be a nice place to show off some of that tech I saw at the MIT museum...zero emission cars with a cool control system, and a power system that turns the city's grid into a giant capacitor. Also they are fun to drive.

[yodiwan1]

Name 3 disney cartoon hits in the past 5 years that was not associated with pixar?

Another backwards argument...one conclusion you should draw from this is that Disney should stop making crappy movies (and should not have shut down the classic animation division). It looks like Lasseter is actually addressing these problems, so we'll see where things go from there.

are you serious?? Disney has been putting out great movies!!! The Incredibles won a freaking Oscar!!!

Another point is that it's not necessary for every new attraction to be linked to a movie. It used to be that movie link-ups were mostly confined to Fantasyland. Eisner's obsession with "synergy" was responsible for some of the worst decisions in the last dozen years or so.

Anyway, you're starting these arguments with the assumption that simply because these attractions exist, we must bend logic and tradition to justify their placement.

...everything else in TL makes sense...

What does Stitch have to do with the future?

Stitch has everything to do with the future!!! When was the last time you flew in a rocket ship, and were transportred somewhere?? And how many aliens do you hang with?

...well not the raceway, but thats always been there..thhere has never bene anything futuristic about that one....

When the original opened (in 1955, in Disneyland), the Interstate Highway System was just becoming a reality in America. This was a newfound freedom for Americans and had all sorts of interesting side effects, such as tourist traps, the explosion of suburbia, etc.


this is a huge waste of space!!! kids can ride go-karts all over orlando, and there is a lot of room here for an attraction. Even if this was amazing back in 1955, last I checked we were now in 2007. Turn the cars into hover vehicles and maybe i will change my mind.

[Cheshire Cat]

are you serious?? Disney has been putting out great movies!!! The Incredibles won a freaking Oscar!!!

Incredibles = Pixar (Not really Disney. Disney just gets publicity rights.)

Pixar movies are similar to movies like The Brave Little Toaster or Spirited Away. I think the contract between Disney and Pixar is a little different than these, but to put it simply: Disney just distributes the movies and thus, gets their name on it. It's like Disney buying out Dreamworks.

Basically there's 5 different categories that animated "Disney" movies fall into (I've combined a few for simplicity's sake). Only the first two categories being owned entirely by Disney:

1) Canon (Currently 46 animated movies)
2) Other Disney-made movies (Dinosaur, Mary Poppins, the lousy sequels, etc...)

3)Pixar
4)"Misfits" (Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach)
5)Released under the Disney name (Brave Little Toaster, Spirited Away, etc...)

(Because Pixar movies are of "Disney quality", most people assume that they are Disney )


As for Stitch in Tomorrowland...
It only works because the New Tomorrowland was supposed to be an "intergalactic space port". This theme has been slowly faded out. Alien Encounter was turned into Stitch, and thematically, I don't see the difference with replacing one alien for another. It's just that one really, really stinks and is based on a movie... the synergy problem again.

[Esmeralda]

Now that Disney owns Pixar completely, is it safe to say that Pixar movies (especially starting with Cars) are officially Disney? Not saying that all the new rides should have a movie theme (I hope imagineers have more imagination than that), but that if rides have a Pixar movie theme that it's the same as any other Disney film.

As for Tomorrowland/Pixarland...outside of the fact that I truly despise the new Monsters Laugh Floor (I miss Timekeeper!!!) I'm not even going to join the arguement.

[yodiwan1]

if you want to get all technical about what disney owns...aren't most of the fairytales they use not originaly theres? winnie the pooh. snow white...they all started off with different owners...

[Captain Schnemo]

The Incredibles won a freaking Oscar!!!

Not that The Incredibles wasn't a decent movie, but the Oscar was a joke. There were only 3 movies in the entire category (when they can't even find 5 movies of a particular type, they should really eliminate the award), one of which was Shark Tale, which got almost universally bad reviews (34% on the Tomatometer).

So, basically, just because they came out the same year, either the Pixar movie or the other Dreamworks movie (Shrek 2) was going to win. They could have flipped a coin and given out the Oscar a year before the ceremony.

Stitch has everything to do with the future!!! When was the last time you flew in a rocket ship, and were transportred somewhere?? And how many aliens do you hang with?

The movie is not set in the future, only one fantastic element has been added to a story set in the present. If a movie has ghosts or an invisible man or an underground city of trogolodytes or an island full of dinosaurs and takes places in the present, it's not "futuristic".

Turn the cars into hover vehicles and maybe i will change my mind.

I agree that the attraction needs to be updated, but you asked a question and I gave you the answer.

Now that Disney owns Pixar completely, is it safe to say that Pixar movies (especially starting with Cars) are officially Disney?

I suppose technically, but not really. Are the Muppets now "Disney" simply because of a financial transaction? Pixar was created outside of Disney and I don't think that it really matters who signs the paychecks. Pixar movies have their own style and the people who make them are not trained in Disney-style animation or storytelling.

I don't think the films will be any different under the new financial arrangement, and if Disney decides to spin the company off years from now, I don't think that would directly influence their content either.

if you want to get all technical about what disney owns...aren't most of the fairytales they use not originaly theres?

It's not about the source material, it's about who produces the product. If anything, Pixar movies are even more different from Disney's because the plots are all original. Reinventing material is a time-honored tradition in art. Even Star Wars is a rehash of old samurai movies (which in turn are a rehash of classic Westerns), but there's no denying that the Lucas-created universe is very much unlike a Kurosawa film.

Anyway, I agree that what's truly "Disney" has less meaning as time goes on as Walt's influence fades, but I don't think that buying a product makes it your own work.

[js3901]

if you want to get all technical about what disney owns...aren't most of the fairytales they use not originally theres? winnie the pooh. snow white...they all started off with different owners...

folk tales or "fairytales" aren't really owned by anyone. they are stories passed down through generations as "morality stories", or teaching kids to "be good or this can happen to you", and they evolved and changed with each telling to suit the situation/people telling the story at that time. Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella... all the same story, no one truly owned exclusive rights to any one of them.

Winnie the Pooh is not one of these stories, as someone came up with the characters/original story. But, Disney got the rights to the characters and made it their own.

Previous to Cars and Ratatouille, the movies that came from Pixar were not owned by Disney. Disney only had the rights to release the movies in theaters/on dvd. it's not the same as flat-out owning them.

in any case, I can foresee this debate going on endlessly. I'll end my piece with the above comments.

[yodiwan1]

im ending my part as well, some people take this way to seriously....its a park to hae fun and forget about the screwed up world around us! who cares about what goes where and who makes what??? animation has evolved. I dont remember the last 80s style cartoon that i ahve seen on any level, not just disney. Don't forget this is a new generation. While the children of today may still watch the disney classics, they will always be introduced to the newer form of animated movies. Those are my last 2 cents in this thread...well i think at least....i hope people didnt take this too seriously and are bent out of shape because of it...last i checked I thought we were all friends here

[Captain Schnemo]

who cares about what goes where and who makes what???

Walt did, and that's the only reason any of us care about Disney. We wouldn't be having this conversation if no one ever took this stuff seriously. None of us would chat on a forum dedicated to the traditions and music of Six Flags.

Great entertainment doesn't just grow from the earth like a weed. Every great work of art or piece of fabricated entertainment is based on lots of thought and preparation.

In the past, Disney made this kind of thing look effortless because they were so good at it. It's easy to make something that will entertain kids, much harder to make something that will entertain adults, and extremely difficult to make something that will keep both entertained at the same time. The same is true for entertaining both casual observers and rabid fans simultaneously. That requires a lot of thought and intelligence, and doesn't happen accidentally.

I dont remember the last 80s style cartoon that i ahve seen on any level, not just disney.

Not sure what you mean by "80s style". If you just mean conventional, non-CGI animation, you can look to Miyakzaki's work (which Disney also distributes, so by your logic is just as "Disney" as Toy Story) and see fantastic films that are far superior to anything Disney has done in ages, and (in my opinion) surpass the best of Pixar's films.

Not really a fair comparison, since the recent Disney and Pixar films are operating on a different level and trying to accomplish different things, but in terms of beauty, high quality animation, and emotional impact, Miyazaki's movies blow stuff like Chicken Little and The Incredibles out of the water (IMO, of course).

And it's not like classic-style 2D animators aren't taking advantage of technology (and doing a much better job of it these days than early attempts, such as the clumsy computer integration in Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin). Miyazaki and many others are using computers to seamlessly improve the quality of their work, while at the same time sticking to the best the medium has to offer, in terms of tone, story, and style.

While the children of today may still watch the disney classics, they will always be introduced to the newer form of animated movies.

Old or new has nothing to do with it. The Pixar films are, for the most part, great, but they aren't Disney. The recent Disney films have been crappy, but not because they are new.

i hope people didnt take this too seriously...

Frankly, I'm happy that many people do take this stuff seriously. For a long time, many people adopted your attitude and the Disney parks and animated films went into a serious decline. Only when people like Roy Disney and John Lasseter accepted these problems did the potential for a turnaround begin. I'm still not optimistic about the future, but for the first time in ages, there is hope, and that would have never happened if no one bothered to take a serious look about why things were starting to suck.

...bent out of shape because of it...

I don't think anyone here is upset. I'm certainly not. We're just having a conversation where ideas are discussed, not simple cheerleading. I find it refreshing. If more people took the time to think about the things they say they believe, the planet would be a much nicer place to live.

[yodiwan1]

For a long time, many people adopted your attitude

please explain....because i dont see things as sucking in the parks...everyone has their favorites and dislikes, thats what makes people different. A the school I work at last year every kid loved Stitch, but when you ask Disney enthusiasts, many will dislike it. It is all a matter of opinion...and mine is not changing....

[js3901]

For a long time, many people adopted your attitude

please explain....because i dont see things as sucking in the parks...everyone has their favorites and dislikes, thats what makes people different. A the school I work at last year every kid loved Stitch, but when you ask Disney enthusiasts, many will dislike it. It is all a matter of opinion...and mine is not changing....

the point of Walt Disney's parks (starting with Disneyland, and by design extending to WDW) was to build a place where both children AND their parents could enjoy the parks TOGETHER. an attraction like Stitch is geared for the kids. as you said, at the school where you worked, the KIDS love Stitch, but what about their parents?

A Disney Enthusiast is simply a person who loves the parks, and love what Walt Disney has done. But, when Walt's ideals are skewed to gain quicker short-term profits and appeal only to the younger generation, the Enthusiasts get vocal.

But, like you said, it's all opinion. To each, his (or her) own.

[DisBeamer]

For a long time, many people adopted your attitude

please explain....because i dont see things as sucking in the parks...everyone has their favorites and dislikes, thats what makes people different. A the school I work at last year every kid loved Stitch, but when you ask Disney enthusiasts, many will dislike it. It is all a matter of opinion...and mine is not changing....

I can't tell what you're referring to - Stitch the character, Lilo and Stitch the movie (let's pretend the sequels don't exist..), or the attraction?

I'd consider myself an 'enthusiast' as the term has been delineated in this thread, and I'd say Lilo and Stitch is one of my favorite Disney movies. It was beautifully done, gives a good example of the way computers and newer techniques can be worked into 'traditional' animation without having to make everything look like Toy Story and, while predictable, the story was well-executed and the script well-written. I also love Stitch as a character, principally because well ... he's cute. And fluffy. That's more a matter of personal opinion, of course.

That said, I -don't- like the attraction they cobbled together to base on him, and while I don't specifically share the concerns that it doesn't 'fit' in Tomorrowland (since I concur with the 'spaceport' thing that came up earlier), I wish the attraction had been better thought out or just not done at all. It is aimed children (the corn dog burping thing, for example ... well children and maybe frat kids?). It goes against the original idea Walt had in creating his lands, that you shouldn't 'play down' to kids, but rather give them something to reach for. Likewise, it flies in the face of the original vision to make an 'amusement enterprise where children and parents can have fun together' (paraphrasing there because I don't remember the exact quote off the top of my head). That is, there's nothing wrong with making things accessible to children, but they should still be accessible to adults at the same time. Aiming specifically at one group will alienate (haha pun) a large portion of the other, which is what the Disney parks, in Walt's vision, were supposed to be -avoiding-.

I don't have an opposition to having an attraction themed off Stitch, or having it in Tomorrowland, particularly (not in the way I'm against MILF), but this attraction, in story-design, is nothing WDI has to be proud of, I'm afraid.

[js3901]

For a long time, many people adopted your attitude

please explain....because i dont see things as sucking in the parks...everyone has their favorites and dislikes, thats what makes people different. A the school I work at last year every kid loved Stitch, but when you ask Disney enthusiasts, many will dislike it. It is all a matter of opinion...and mine is not changing....

I can't tell what you're referring to - Stitch the character, Lilo and Stitch the movie (let's pretend the sequels don't exist..), or the attraction?

I'd consider myself an 'enthusiast' as the term has been delineated in this thread, and I'd say Lilo and Stitch is one of my favorite Disney movies. It was beautifully done, gives a good example of the way computers and newer techniques can be worked into 'traditional' animation without having to make everything look like Toy Story and, while predictable, the story was well-executed and the script well-written. I also love Stitch as a character, principally because well ... he's cute. And fluffy. That's more a matter of personal opinion, of course.

That said, I -don't- like the attraction they cobbled together to base on him, and while I don't specifically share the concerns that it doesn't 'fit' in Tomorrowland (since I concur with the 'spaceport' thing that came up earlier), I wish the attraction had been better thought out or just not done at all. It is aimed children (the corn dog burping thing, for example ... well children and maybe frat kids?). It goes against the original idea Walt had in creating his lands, that you shouldn't 'play down' to kids, but rather give them something to reach for. Likewise, it flies in the face of the original vision to make an 'amusement enterprise where children and parents can have fun together' (paraphrasing there because I don't remember the exact quote off the top of my head). That is, there's nothing wrong with making things accessible to children, but they should still be accessible to adults at the same time. Aiming specifically at one group will alienate (haha pun) a large portion of the other, which is what the Disney parks, in Walt's vision, were supposed to be -avoiding-.

I don't have an opposition to having an attraction themed off Stitch, or having it in Tomorrowland, particularly (not in the way I'm against MILF), but this attraction, in story-design, is nothing WDI has to be proud of, I'm afraid.

very well put. that's more-or-less what I was trying to say with my previous post. just couldn't put it into words that made much sense (LONG day at the office today)

[yodiwan1]

i actually like stitsches great escape, and so do a bunch of people i ahve been on it with. The technology is great with the smells and everything!!! I am sorry that more people don't like it. i even think its better than alien encounter because to me that one made no sense at all. It wasn't scarey, the little fuzzy alien was annoying, and watching the pre-show just hurt. So, to sum it up, I DO feel that Stitches great Escape does cater to both adults and children.