Character Invasion

I know this has been debated again and again on these boards, but there's a new article on Jim Hill Media suggesting that there isn't going to be an end any time soon to the character invasion going on in the parks.

Specifically, John Lasseter and Ed Catmull are still making a big push to get as much Pixar as they can into the parks, and that some in WDI are becoming a little disgruntled by this.

Since there seems to be a shortage of news right now, thought I'd throw this out there.



Source: http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/06/22/why-for.aspx

As long as the attractions are great, I'm on board for Pixar rides! Finding Nemo: The Musical is great, and Toy Story Mania looks like a ton o' fun. And MGM NEEDS an Incredibles E-Ticket. Please! It makes me upset that the ONE Pixar movie that I thought "E-Ticket Thrill Ride" after seeing STILL hasn't gotten a ride, or any Theme Park love at all. More Incredibles, please!

I like the Pixar characters.
Most of Disney's movies are the classic ones.
They put out a few new ones w/ new characters every now & then.
Pixar will help Disney add new characters.
Just my opinion.
:wave:

I think that attractions are better when they're created with their own characters. Think of the Tiki Birds, the Ghost Host, Chairman Clench, Figment and Dreamfinder, TimeKeeper, the Pirate Auctioneer, or the Yeti. All of them are very memorable characters who have their own attractions and their own stories.

The problem with film characters is that the narrative is generally complete at the end of the movie. The villian is vanquished, our hero gets the girl, and all is right with the world. Going back and trying to "recreate" the feel of the film with a "new" story thats just a re-hash of the original movie simply isn't as good an original story. Or, there's simply no way to make the plot of an attraction fit with the established canon of the characters (ie. Stitch's Great Escape, or Enchanted Tiki Room:Under New Management)

A good theme park attraction should be less of a narrative where you passively watch one event to the next, and better as an immersive scenario that you wander into and have the feeling that you're actually there in that environment. Using established film characters is much harder in the latter, because they take focus away from whats around you, and always have to be "doing" something to move the action.

The Pixar characters are great. But the worlds of Pixar are all fantastic takes on our own modern day culture. I think this is why they don't seem to fit into the "lands" as well. Buzz doesn't quite fit into Tommorowland as Woody doesn't quite fit into Frontierland. Despite being a space ranger and cowboy, respectively, the world they inhabit is the one of white picket fences and neatly manicured lawns of suburban America. The Pixar world is just a little too "clean". The environments of Pixar films are secondary to the characters. Even Monsteropolis isn't much different than a "real" city, despite all the fun details and monsterized versions of what we know. Compare this to the shrunken heads and jungles of Adventureland, or the dust and wood and cowboy hats of Frontierland. Those environments are living breathing "characters" in their own right, just as they are in the classic Disney films. Alladin couldn't take place anywhere else but Agrabah, whereas finding Nemo's Australian setting could be swapped for any industrialized nation.

Pixar is exactly where WDW wants to be! You need to provide an experience for children, as well as adults. And you need to work with the characters that "stick". Pixar characters do just that.

CoffeeJedi said:

I think that attractions are better when they're created with their own characters. Think of the Tiki Birds, the Ghost Host, Chairman Clench, Figment and Dreamfinder, TimeKeeper, the Pirate Auctioneer, or the Yeti. All of them are very memorable characters who have their own attractions and their own stories.

The problem with film characters is that the narrative is generally complete at the end of the movie. The villian is vanquished, our hero gets the girl, and all is right with the world. Going back and trying to "recreate" the feel of the film with a "new" story thats just a re-hash of the original movie simply isn't as good an original story. Or, there's simply no way to make the plot of an attraction fit with the established canon of the characters (ie. Stitch's Great Escape, or Enchanted Tiki Room:Under New Management)

A good theme park attraction should be less of a narrative where you passively watch one event to the next, and better as an immersive scenario that you wander into and have the feeling that you're actually there in that environment. Using established film characters is much harder in the latter, because they take focus away from whats around you, and always have to be "doing" something to move the action.

The Pixar characters are great. But the worlds of Pixar are all fantastic takes on our own modern day culture. I think this is why they don't seem to fit into the "lands" as well. Buzz doesn't quite fit into Tommorowland as Woody doesn't quite fit into Frontierland. Despite being a space ranger and cowboy, respectively, the world they inhabit is the one of white picket fences and neatly manicured lawns of suburban America. The Pixar world is just a little too "clean". The environments of Pixar films are secondary to the characters. Even Monsteropolis isn't much different than a "real" city, despite all the fun details and monsterized versions of what we know. Compare this to the shrunken heads and jungles of Adventureland, or the dust and wood and cowboy hats of Frontierland. Those environments are living breathing "characters" in their own right, just as they are in the classic Disney films. Alladin couldn't take place anywhere else but Agrabah, whereas finding Nemo's Australian setting could be swapped for any industrialized nation.

Click to expand...

Some very good points here. I think your line of argument meets well with yesterday's JHM article (and topic on this board) about Disney Toon Stuidos' line of poor quality sequels. Essentially, these rides have been another form of sequel to the classic films that birthed them. If Lassetter opposes the direct-to-dvd movies that are so profitable for the company because they cheapen the original product, how can he view the attractions that do basically the same thing in a positive manner? These attractions are not adding any rich elements to the story, they are additional revenue, just like the Direct-to-dvd movies. How do you explain that contradiction, execs? If you want more originality in one aspect of your company, you should want it in all aspects.

You may see animation as some sacred art form, whereas theme parks are just ways to market that art form, but you have a lot dissension from people who truly value those parks too. Just because you don't doesn't mean you shouldn't hold the parks to the same standards as your (sacred) animation.

Here is the key distinction:

The sequels to Disney classics furthered a story that was already finished. Additionally, the sequels were generally of poor quality which cheapened the existing characters. The poor quality also reflected the Walt Disney company in a negative manner.

The rides featuring Disney classics do not further the story, but instead allow you to view the classic story through a new medium. Additionally, the rides are of terrific quality that elevate the characters. The great quality reflects the Walt Disney company in a postive manner.

And with that, my lunch break is over.

I have a feeling eventually there will be a Nemo attraction in all 4 parks. That seems a little unnecessary to me. Nemo's popularity will fade, at that time there would have been no point in investing so much money into a fish. Disney could invest the money in creating another classic attraction like PotC or Haunted Mansion and then make a movie about it....

I'll agree with the experiencing the characters through a new medium bit, but sorry, I disagree with the rest. An ill-conceived or poorly done attraction is still just that. Look at SGE. There's a reason it's not busy. People are savvy to the fact that it is atrocious. Same with transplanting the Crush coaster from DPS and slapping the Cars label on it. Guests will say 'enough is enough' eventually. Lack of originality is the same all over, no matter what 'face' you put on it.

It really depends on the approach you take to Disney which has been argued ad nauseum here.

The issue I have is with the broad reaching nature of Characters. On one hand, these characters have inherent attraction IF you are familiar with the films. THat means people are familiar with the general story/approach before they come in. For those of us that miss the original, think about excitement about POTC the first film because it involved the attraction OR think about Figment appearing in a display in innoventions. It's fun because it's recognizeable.

However, that comes with a difficulty. If you have things based on films that are viewable, there IS a central story already written. While it may be some minor sequel or prequel, what happens in the attraction takes second fiddle to the film itself OR is just a recreation of the film.

Perhaps an analogy to show where the problems may lie: Modern Advertisements to Modern Artwork. Using characters is a form of advertising. You use a recognizeable image in an easily understood context to draw people in. You offer them something mediocre that is made better because it has something recognizeable and "brandable." It has less to do with the experience and more to do with the celebrity, "being near the star" factor.

Modern Art, on the other hand, is more difficult. It is more coy, not being so blatant. That means that people may not come in, and they may not "get it." However, if they do, they are usually hooked for life. Many of the major original attractions found a way to be the latter but done with such quality and appeal to commanlity of experience that everyone walking in off the street could relate their experience and find something charming in this.

People came to Disney World not sure what to find, and found a gem that kept them returning. Now they come, knowing exactly what they want to find. And, they find it, but usually nothing more. ANd, if you don't happen to be "in the know" about what to find, those gems are likely gone.

Overall, I wish each park would get some individual rebranding in this mechanism. That doesn't make sense to corporate culture because 4 of the same parks with different packaging makes more profit now than working to create difference. But, the attractions that have gotten the most longevity and bang have ignored that model and gone for broadbased appeal.

**Speech over.**

EpcotServo said:

As long as the attractions are great, I'm on board for Pixar rides! Finding Nemo: The Musical is great, and Toy Story Mania looks like a ton o' fun. And MGM NEEDS an Incredibles E-Ticket. Please! It makes me upset that the ONE Pixar movie that I thought "E-Ticket Thrill Ride" after seeing STILL hasn't gotten a ride, or any Theme Park love at all. More Incredibles, please!

Click to expand...

I hear ya on that.

Sure, there's tons of Nemo now, but there are also brand spanking new e-tickets that have gobbled up tremendous parks dollars like Everest and Mission Space. Throw in Soarin, and I don't think the imbalance is as great as Hill argues.

And really, Disney's target audience (today's kids, not old park radicals like us) wants to see Pixar characters in there.

The way I see it, enough is enough. Too much of a good thing can be bad, and there is waaaaaay too much PIXAR being used at the parks. Yes I know the debate that if it's successful use it, but they've had some awesome Disney movies that I believe could make some great attractions. Meet the Robinsons could be awesome in Tommorowland, Tarzan could be awesome in Africa in DAK, same with Lion King, and what about a Native American pavillion in Epcot using a river ride for Pochohontas. The Studios you could really put whatever you want, like a Little Mermaid ride or for a more recent picture, why not use Chicken Little. It was a modest success. So even though PIXAR is great and has had some awesome movies in the last 10 years, Disney has as well, and I would LOVE to see The Hunchback of Notre Dame stage show come back to the Studios. Oh well.

no way pixar is the one keeping up disney. disney was doing fine unto 2000 but now that they have encanted and the frog and repunzel if the didn't have pixar they may as well call it the new girl remade disney parks i mean think about it pixar and good rides are whats keeping the disney channel from be coming womens channel.

gman2 said:

no way pixar is the one keeping up disney. disney was doing fine unto 2000 but now that they have encanted and the frog and repunzel if the didn't have pixar they may as well call it the new girl remade disney parks i mean think about it pixar and good rides are whats keeping the disney channel from be coming womens channel.

Click to expand...

First, If you can't use periods because the button's broken, at least press enter after each sentence. Second, what does PIXAR have to do with the Disney Channel? I don't think there's one new show that has to do with anything PIXAR. Third the movies you mentioned are Disney, not PIXAR, and aren't even out yet, so how are we supposed to know they're going to be good? We don't. For you to say Disney hasn't had a good movie since 2000 is funny to me, because they have had great movies, just not huge hits, and that's not Disney's fault completly. Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Chicken Little, and Meet the Robinsons are all at least decent pictures.

Although the source in question is, well, questionable at best, I have no problem with characters and their presence in all the parks. It's really fine and dandy to me, and what the majority of people really want. The majority of people who actually go to the parks, that is, if not the majority of people who sit and discuss such things on a message board.

AEfx

AEfx said:

Although the source in question is, well, questionable at best, I have no problem with characters and their presence in all the parks. It's really fine and dandy to me, and what the majority of people really want. The majority of people who actually go to the parks, that is, if not the majority of people who sit and discuss such things on a message board.

AEfx

Click to expand...

It's not that I have a problem with characters in the parks, it's the fact that almost every attraction made now is PIXAR, speciffically Finding Nemo. I feel that so far, buying PIXAR hasn't made Disney more creative, but less creative because of the fact everything they do seems to revolve around the same set of characters. How do you know something's not popular if you don't try it. EE is one of the most popular attractions ever built, and it doesn't use Finding Nemo. I think Disney needs to learn that PIXAR isn't everything and they can easily make a new characterized attraction using a different set of characters.