Pixar and Disney

[BuzzComplexCM]

I noticed that many people on these boards are not too happy with Pixar showing up where it doesn't really fit. I too am one who feels that way. For some reason, to me, Pixar doesn't seem to fit all that well in Tomorrowland and Epcot.

I was just wondering if everyone, myself included, would be happier if they had decided to place all the Pixar attractions in the Studios park and drop the MGM and and replace it with Pixar?

To be honest I would much rather see Nemo, Buzzlightyear, and Monsters Inc. in the Studios park where they already have a presence. Monsters Inc. has a meet and greet near the ABC Cafeteria. The Studios is also getting the new Toy Story attraction and I'm sure they could try to find a place for Nemo.

I am just really sad to see that Tomorrowland is turning into Pixarland. And even more I hate to sound like a Monday Morning Imagineer, but it would be nice if they had split the Studios into areas like they did for MK.

Your thoughts?

 

[dizneycrazy09]

sooooo many threads on this topic already. but Im with ya.

 

[BuzzComplexCM]

sooooo many threads on this topic already. but Im with ya.

Are there? Sorry about that. I usually just jump on here real quick to comment on whats current. This was on my mind, so I asked.

Not like that ever stopped wand threads! LOL

 

[dizneycrazy09]

Are there? Sorry about that. I usually just jump on here real quick to comment on whats current. This was on my mind, so I asked.

Not like that ever stopped wand threads! LOL

so true.

 

[unkadug]

I noticed that many people on these boards are not too happy with Pixar showing up where it doesn't really fit. I too am one who feels that way. For some reason, to me, Pixar doesn't seem to fit all that well in Tomorrowland and Epcot.

I was just wondering if everyone, myself included, would be happier if they had decided to place all the Pixar attractions in the Studios park and drop the MGM and and replace it with Pixar?

To be honest I would much rather see Nemo, Buzzlightyear, and Monsters Inc. in the Studios park where they already have a presence. Monsters Inc. has a meet and greet near the ABC Cafeteria. The Studios is also getting the new Toy Story attraction and I'm sure they could try to find a place for Nemo.

I am just really sad to see that Tomorrowland is turning into Pixarland. And even more I hate to sound like a Monday Morning Imagineer, but it would be nice if they had split the Studios into areas like they did for MK.

Your thoughts?

Pixar is Disney.

I've resigned myself to this fact. :shrug:

I'm sure that, when Disney first acquired the rights to Winnie the Pooh, many Disney purists were up in arms.

But, there was no internet forums to voice their displeasure.

 

[Hakunamatata]

You might see a transition to that over time, but you would never see that happen in an urgent type atmosphere. It would cost way too much money to not only mover the current attractions, but develop attractions to replace them at their current parks.

Plus, Pixar is part of Disney now, so it makes sense to have the Pixar characters right along with the traditional Disney characters.

 

[Sumshine 904]

I agree. Tomorrowland is about the land of tomorrow, and they're just randomly putting Pixar movies into it. Buzz Lightyear I can understand, but Monster's Inc.? I find it hard to figure out why it belongs in Tomorrowland.

I heard from a CM at the Grand Floridian that there would be an Incredibles ride replacing the Carousel of Progress. I find it /extremely/ hard to believe, but if it is true, which I'm sure it's not, I just wouldn't go to Tomorrowland at all.

 

[jt04]

Pixar Place

They are already committed to a Pixar area and it just seems to make sense to expand that into the HISTK area and utlilize the areas now used by the Backlot Tour (which is really dated and not up to Disney standards) There are already Pixar attractions that could easily be added to this area at Paris Studios. It would be easy to over utilize Pixar in other parks in WDW although there is a good balance right now IMO. So a large Pixar area in the Studios seems like the way to go because the park definitely needs to be expanded to be the draw it can be. Just a thought.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I am very divided on all these issues.

On one hand, I like the use of the Pixar characters simply because they are better than anything "Disney" (I agree that "Disney" and "Pixar" are one) has put out in the last 5 years.

But, the concept of overall theme has really started to slide. I know that people note that AL and FL in the MK are not cohesive, and I think that may have marked the change. Some liberties are ok (I agree, Buzz fits TL).

However, the problem is now that it seems attractions are designed and then fit somewhere on property instead of seeing what an area needs and then designing for that. They are not bad attractions; they are poorly placed. Nemo and Donald's little foires into Epcot exemplify this. While I don't like it, I can respect that a large portion of the audience wants to see characters in all Disney parks. But, how difficult would it have been to have written the Nemo story to basically be that Nemo is lost and, in the finale, he is pointing out all the new "friends" he has found and how much we have to learn about them. Cheesy, yes, but it would merely be some dialogue change that would have brought it more in line with Epcot's message or exploration and understanding. My point being: it seems there isn't any effort any more. If there is a general, causal connection, it's ok. I believe that if Disney had opened WDW with that attitude, the connections many of us feel would not be present. I know mine wouldn't personally.

(Of course, others would have felt even greater a connection because the characters define Disney, but I know many people became enamored with Disney through the parks first.)

 

[jt04]

I am very divided on all these issues.

On one hand, I like the use of the Pixar characters simply because they are better than anything "Disney" (I agree that "Disney" and "Pixar" are one) has put out in the last 5 years.

But, the concept of overall theme has really started to slide. I know that people note that AL and FL in the MK are not cohesive, and I think that may have marked the change. Some liberties are ok (I agree, Buzz fits TL).

However, the problem is now that it seems attractions are designed and then fit somewhere on property instead of seeing what an area needs and then designing for that. They are not bad attractions; they are poorly placed. Nemo and Donald's little foires into Epcot exemplify this. While I don't like it, I can respect that a large portion of the audience wants to see characters in all Disney parks. But, how difficult would it have been to have written the Nemo story to basically be that Nemo is lost and, in the finale, he is pointing out all the new "friends" he has found and how much we have to learn about them. Cheesy, yes, but it would merely be some dialogue change that would have brought it more in line with Epcot's message or exploration and understanding. My point being: it seems there isn't any effort any more. If there is a general, causal connection, it's ok. I believe that if Disney had opened WDW with that attitude, the connections many of us feel would not be present. I know mine wouldn't personally.

(Of course, others would have felt even greater a connection because the characters define Disney, but I know many people became enamored with Disney through the parks first.)

WELL SPOKEN. You make some great points.

 

[cb3k]

I am more upset with the quality of the rides than the placement of them (with the exception of buzz which I think is a great ride)..I feel that monsters inc. And Nemo are far too good of movies for the cookie cutter rides that were produced as a compliment to them.. Yes I understand that classics such as the lion king in particular do not have an attraction at all, but I really feel that these pixar rides were quickly fabricated to feed the buzz and were not given the deserved attention to detail

 

[yeti]

I am just really sad to see that Tomorrowland is turning into Pixarland. And even more I hate to sound like a Monday Morning Imagineer, but it would be nice if they had split the Studios into areas like they did for MK.

Your thoughts?

Indy Speedway- Cars Race
Astro Orbiter- Pizza Planet Rocket Ride. :hurl:
Space Mountain- ....Incredible Mountain:veryconfu :hurl: :hurl:

I weep for the future.

 

[BuzzComplexCM]

I agree. Tomorrowland is about the land of tomorrow, and they're just randomly putting Pixar movies into it. Buzz Lightyear I can understand, but Monster's Inc.? I find it hard to figure out why it belongs in Tomorrowland.

Your guess is as good as mine :shrug:

I heard from a CM at the Grand Floridian that there would be an Incredibles ride replacing the Carousel of Progress. I find it /extremely/ hard to believe, but if it is true, which I'm sure it's not, I just wouldn't go to Tomorrowland at all.

When I worked in Tomorrowland this rumor was alive as well. However, this rumor placed the Incredibles ride in what is now Monsters Inc. As far as COP goes the rumors will always swirl for this. I remember working one afternoon when someone from a digital printing company, probably Kodak, came ro the COP to look at the mural painted on the building. She said to me that they were thinking about putting up a digital print of the mural which would last longer than the painted canvas. Needless to say that was in 2005 and no such change has occured yet.

I am very divided on all these issues.

On one hand, I like the use of the Pixar characters simply because they are better than anything "Disney" (I agree that "Disney" and "Pixar" are one) has put out in the last 5 years.

Agree 100% with that statement. It's good to incorporate the characters so people do know that Pixar is Disney.

But, the concept of overall theme has really started to slide. I know that people note that AL and FL in the MK are not cohesive, and I think that may have marked the change. Some liberties are ok (I agree, Buzz fits TL).

Just wondering if you could elaborate on this more? I see what you mean by Buzz, but what about AL and FL? (FYI: TOTALLY not being a jerk on this. I'm currently studying to be a teacher and this come naturally to me)

However, the problem is now that it seems attractions are designed and then fit somewhere on property instead of seeing what an area needs and then designing for that. They are not bad attractions; they are poorly placed.

Well said!

 

[Monty]

I am more upset with the quality of the rides than the placement of them (with the exception of buzz which I think is a great ride)..I feel that monsters inc. And Nemo are far too good of movies for the cookie cutter rides that were produced as a compliment to them.. Yes I understand that classics such as the lion king in particular do not have an attraction at all, but I really feel that these pixar rides were quickly fabricated to feed the buzz and were not given the deserved attention to detail

Um... FOTLK? Circle of Life? Rafiki's Planet Watch?

All attractions based on Lion King... Now if you mean there are no rides based on Lion King, then I agree.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Be glad to. One criticism "purists" (for lack of a better term) receive is that they defend AL, Frontier, etc. But, when it comes down to it, the Caribbean has nothing to do with the Jungles of Africa. Even the JC itself goes through three continents. That one, however, you can get out of because they do all sit under the umbrella of adventure. Frontierland, however, has a southern mountain directly next to the old west. While they are both frontiers of sorts, it doesn't work thematically. But, for some reason, that doesn't offend as much as MI in TL.

There are perhaps many reasons. First, for some of us, these changes came when we were kids, so they are part of the childhood Disney. Second, they were the first "offenders," and, as everyone knows, you become more sensitive to change when you are aware change is happening. Third, these attractions were not developed at the expense of existing attractions. So, while they may mar the themeing, they do not blatantly "destroy" it by removing something that fit better.

I think much of this involves the simultaneous importing of characters with the destruction of the old. In recent history, updates did not come without adding that oh-so-marketable doe-eyed character. To some, it felt cheap and unimaginative. It said, we had something cool that got old. But, we're jsut too busy to give something fresh and new. Just add Mickey onto a ho-hum attraction, and people will love it. It's a cheap way out IMHO.

Unfortuantely, that works in the short term. Now, luckily in some ways, some newer attractions are creative and well done. However, they do feel poorly placed. So, they do not get the forgiving look Splash got. THey get the criticism of SGE and others. And, all of this harkens back, IMHO, to a lack of attention to the overall story. If emphasis were made on fit so that an attraction enhanced and furthered the story around it, I honestly believe the criticisms would be less vocal. These are not majorly expensive ventures. Often it comes down to the story itself and some creative plays. Afterall, if they can make land overlays fit multiple attractions as they did with the transition to TL, surely they can make one attraction fit an overarching story.

It's a constant balance, but one that has been upset. SO, it takes some creative moves to steady the scales and bring everyone in line instead of just try to appease one side at a time, creating constant flux.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Um... FOTLK? Circle of Life? Rafiki's Planet Watch?

All attractions based on Lion King... Now if you mean there are no rides based on Lion King, then I agree.

Dont forget Zazu over at the Tiki Room....

 

[BuzzComplexCM]

Um... FOTLK? Circle of Life? Rafiki's Planet Watch?

All attractions based on Lion King... Now if you mean there are no rides based on Lion King, then I agree.

That may be what they were trying to get at. However you never know. When I worked at Disney guests had a hard time understanding that attractions meant rides AND shows! LOL

 

[tirian]

Pixar properties belong wherever they fit comfortably. Buzz Lightyear fits into Tomorrowland; Monsters do not. Ignoring the fact that Woody is a modern character, he almost smoothly fits into Frontierland. Nemo fits Epcot well, but why is the stage show in Dinoland at AK? (For that matter, why was the Tarzan show there?)

Everything fits into the Studios because the park has no meaning beyond its front two streets. :lol:

 

[bryPOD]

I'm just going to throw my two cents in, see if anything sticks. When the Little Mermaid came out I was about 5 years old and after that movie there was Beauty and The Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King which were immediatly dubbed classics. I remember going to WDW and wanting nothing more than to see shows and attractions based on these properties, because to me this meant Disney.

I'm 23 now and I went to WDW with my cousins whose ages were 5, 8, and 10. And to them, Disney is Toy Story, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars. So I see this pattern being something that will never change. Eighteen years from now the parks will be filled with attractions based on the top films of that time and I'm sure to my kids ( wow that sounds weird) that will be Disney to them.

The things that will never change: that park belongs to Mickey Mouse, boys will always like pirates and girls will always love princesses. So, in all honesty, I feel that any change is a good change as long as its done well and makes kids happy.

One last thing: I think Monster's Inc. is placed just fine because we as an audience never really know when the film takes place, and at its core the film is science fiction ( last I checked a movie with monsters in it was either found in a horror section or a sci fi section in a video store). And Tomorrowland is the SciFi section of MK.

 

[cb3k]

Sorry I didn't clarify...I meant rides...not "attractions"..giving lion king no ride is better than giving aladdin such a garbage ride