Pixar "Invasion"

[jakeman]

For those of you claiming you prefered Dreamflight to Buzz or Timekeeper to Laughfloor, do you think you're honestly saying that based on attraction quality or based on nostalgia and what you grew up with?

I'm going to jump in here, hopefully before we get a wall of text about inspiration or the good ol' days, or something babbletastic like that.

I sincerely believe in both cases of Dreamflight to Buzz and Timekeeper to Laugh Floor that the quality is the same but they cater to a different crowd completely, primarily Dreamflight and Buzz.

I enjoy Buzz and I enjoyed Dreamflight but the experiences are so different I really can't say that I would prefer one over the other. They are both adequate for their niche.

The same is true for Timekeeper. The passive humor of being told a funny story (simplistic description, I know) is completely different humor than the interactive kind of Laugh Floor. I enjoyed both of them, and I beleive that the quality is the same for both.

On the other end of the spectrum is Stitch to AE. It is basically the same ride, but even though I don't enjoy either of them I can say that AE was superior in quality. The attraction now looks like AE with a Stitch overlay.

Sorry for the thread drift at the end, as I was providing more examples to hopefully prove my point.

But, you're right, there's a lot of programming and such to get characters to appear on the screen to look like they're talking to you in real time. That's impressive, but it's been done already in Turtle Talk and Stitch's Picture Phone (RIP), so it doesn't come across as something unique to me. Call me old school, but Audio-Animatronics will always impress me more than a character on video screen...interactive or not.

To me, your arguement seems to be a contradiction. There are far more AAs than interactive characters.

 

[jt04]

I'm going to jump in here, hopefully before we get a wall of text about inspiration or the good ol' days, or something babbletastic like that.

I sincerely believe in both cases of Dreamflight to Buzz and Timekeeper to Laugh Floor that the quality is the same but they cater to a different crowd completely, primarily Dreamflight and Buzz.

I enjoy Buzz and I enjoyed Dreamflight but the experiences are so different I really can't say that I would prefer one over the other. They are both adequate for their niche.

The same is true for Timekeeper. The passive humor of being told a funny story (simplistic description, I know) is completely different humor than the interactive kind of Laugh Floor. I enjoyed both of them, and I beleive that the quality is the same for both.

On the other end of the spectrum is Stitch to AE. It is basically the same ride, but even though I don't enjoy either of them I can say that AE was superior in quality. The attraction now looks like AE with a Stitch overlay.

Sorry for the thread drift at the end, as I was providing more examples to hopefully prove my point.

To me, your arguement seems to be a contradiction. There are far more AAs than interactive characters.

I think that they were refering to the possibility of interactive AA's to make the attraction more cutting edge. It does seem that the trend may be towards interactive AA's in the future.

 

[fyn]

Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that they enjoyed the Living Seas more without the Nemo theming?

I say it everyday. The tone that the pre-show movie set for The Living Seas was tremendously epic. The idea of undersea exploration is classic science fiction, and fits Epcot much better than Nemo ever could.

I'm not bashing how they executed on the Nemo idea. They set a low bar for themselves, moving you through themed sets while watching video screens that lead up to an underwhelming finale (the depth projection). Aside from the flat panel monitors and the mirror-project trick (are we really impressed by that?), this ride would have fit right in Fantasyland 20 years ago. Its not an accomplishment that WDI pulled off this idea as well as they did, because the idea is lame and unfitting. Its a shame it took the place of something that could have been much grander, and cooler.

 

[kcw]

The sooner that people can accept the fact that Pixar IS Disney, the better. In fact, I guarantee that most kids couldn't tell you the difference. To them, Nemo, Remy, The Incredibles, Woody, and Mater are all Disney characters, just like Minnie, Mickey, and Pluto. 30 years down the road, I don't think there'll be a distinction left at all. While I know that many people don't like rides being themed after movies, that's the point we're at right now, because it sells. And honestly, how many fantastic movies has straight Disney been popping out that could have GOOD rides themed after them? Compare that to how many hits Pixar has produced.

 

[KaliSplash]

Ok, I'm completely fine with the equation Disney=Pixar. Doesn't bother me in the least. I also fully understand that WDW must change to remain relevant for its audience.

That said, I actually prefer "If You Had Wings" to either Dreamflight or Buzz Lightyear. And I thoroughly enjoy Buzz Lightyear and ride it every time we go. But "If You Had Wings" was a favorite of mine. Did it fall on hard times? Absolutely. But it is my preference, again, even though I like Buzz.

As to MILF, I enjoyed "Monsanto's Magic Carpet Around the World". I especially liked TimeKeeper simply because of Robin Williams. I haven't seen MILF yet but it's probably ok. Again, I recognize the reality of are people going to the attraction or aren't they. But my personal preference here is Timekeeper.

Across the way, I Liked Mission to Mars. A lot. Better than AE or godforsaken Stitch. Does Misson:Space do Mission to Mars much better, yes, by orders of magnitude. AE scared children. (which is why many of you liked it). Therefore, I suppose Stitch is an improvement to the extent that is scares fewer children.

Same pattern in Epcot. My oldest son loved The Living Seas particularly for the opening film on the Seas in the preshow area. I think it's better to have a story for the "Seacabs," even though I miss the Hydrolators. So that's an improvement.

Ellen's Energy Adventure is an improvement over the original Universe of Energy. I greatly miss Horizons and absolutely love Mission:Space. I greatly miss the World of Motion and enjoy Test Track. OK, can't say Journey has improved, although the films have gotten progressively better since 1982. Soarin is a fantastic attraction. But I wish Kitchen Kaberet or Food Rocks was a preshow for it.

My point is, I truly like many of the old attractions even as I enjoy the new ones. So I don't agree with the powers-that-be all the time, but it does seem they do a pretty good job of trying to keep things current.

Bodies through the turnstiles for each attraction still rules.

 

[wedenterprises]

I think that they were refering to the possibility of interactive AA's to make the attraction more cutting edge. It does seem that the trend may be towards interactive AA's in the future.

You have no idea....some of the stuff that WDI is working on will blow your mind, trust me. And we're not just talking AA or video screens.

 

[WDWTrojan]

The issue so much isn't that the new attractions aren't better than the old ones, its more that WDI is consistently relying on establish brands of cartoons to appeal to young kids, rather than trying hard to create something new/different. Rock 'n' Roller Coster, Tower of Terror, Space Mountain, Haunted Mansion, etc.

Not everything needs to have a character -- Pixar or otherwise.

 

[progroupie]

I say it everyday. The tone that the pre-show movie set for The Living Seas was tremendously epic. The idea of undersea exploration is classic science fiction, and fits Epcot much better than Nemo ever could.

I'm not bashing how they executed on the Nemo idea. They set a low bar for themselves, moving you through themed sets while watching video screens that lead up to an underwhelming finale (the depth projection). Aside from the flat panel monitors and the mirror-project trick (are we really impressed by that?), this ride would have fit right in Fantasyland 20 years ago. Its not an accomplishment that WDI pulled off this idea as well as they did, because the idea is lame and unfitting. Its a shame it took the place of something that could have been much grander, and cooler.

Oh yes, the very idea of putting an ocean themed movie overlay into an ocean themed attraction is completly lame and unfitting.

 

[Lee]

I agree with SGE being inferior than AE, but was Stitch Pixar?

Dang...brain fart. My bad.
Carry on...

 

[fyn]

Oh yes, the very idea of putting an ocean themed movie overlay into an ocean themed attraction is completly lame and unfitting.

You sir, win the "Missing the Point" award for the day. Replacing a sci-fi theme with cartoon characters is lame and unfitting for Future World. Its scary that I need to spell that out.

 

[progroupie]

The ocean is not futuristic by any means. The pre-show at the Living Seas was not futuristic it was about the forming of the oceans in prehistoric times, that's pretty far from futuristic. If you're going to use that argument than the Living Seas existence in Future World was pretty lame and unfitting to begin with. A few 20,000 Leagues props in the queue doesn't equal a sci-fi theme, there was very little about the Living Seas that could ever have been deemed sci-fi.

 

[Chape19714]

Pixar movies are every bit as top-notch and high caliber as Disney Films. I have no problem, they are now Disney anyway.

And I really enjoy all the New Pixar Attractions espically FNtM, ittbab, blsrs, and TSM!

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

Oh yes, the very idea of putting an ocean themed movie overlay into an ocean themed attraction is completly lame and unfitting.

No, the idea itself was a slam dunk. It was the execution that was "lame and unfitting."

The problem with The Seas is that it really is a rehased version of the movie; Nemo gets lost and we go off to find him. Sounds a lot like the movie doesn't it? Why couldn't the storyline revolve around discovering more about the ocean? The idea was perfect, and there for the taking! Perhaps something where we meet Nemo and Co. at the coral reef. However, Nemo is bored and wants to learn more about the ocean. Then, maybe Mr. Ray takes us on a journey through the seas? Sound appealing to anyone? Kids would have been interested because of the addition of Nemo and Friends as our "guides" through the oceans. On the other hand, "purists" would have been pleased with the educational content of the ride.

Then there is the issue of the former Sea Base Alpha area. This area was, except for a toning down of the paint scheme, left basically untouched. May I ask, how is it possible to enter a sea base when we are supposed to be underwater with Nemo? At least the hydrolators provided the somewhat feasible storyline for entering the sea base. Now, we move from being underwater to being in a sea base with no transition. Does that make any sense to you? Also, if we're underwater in a seabase, why is it that we can see outside the pavilion? The second half, and main area, of the pavilion has been left untouched, and is completely disjointed from the Nemo theming.

What could have been better? First, change the sea base decor to match the look of a coral reef. Then, when you exit the sea cabs, you're at Nemo's home underwater. Perfect transition after the ride. Then, when leaving, the hydrolators would still be your means of an exit. However, re-theme them to be a whale. Remember when Marlin and Dory were blown through the blow hole of the whale? The theming is in line with the rest of the pavilion, and it provides a little bit of excitement as you leave the pavilion and are "blasted" back to shore. Most importantly, it prevents you from being able to see outside the pavilion.

Again, adding Nemo to the former Living Seas and re-themeing the pavilion to reflect Nemo was a potentially good idea. Is the final result we have now decent? I suppose. Could it have been much better? Most definitely, and it should be much more than it is now.

 

[fyn]

The ocean is not futuristic by any means. The pre-show at the Living Seas was not futuristic it was about the forming of the oceans in prehistoric times, that's pretty far from futuristic. If you're going to use that argument than the Living Seas existence in Future World was pretty lame and unfitting to begin with. A few 20,000 Leagues props in the queue doesn't equal a sci-fi theme, there was very little about the Living Seas that could ever have been deemed sci-fi.

Now I'm convinced you never went on The Living Seas. Its a shame, you might have liked Seabase Alpha.

 

[Legacy]

You have no idea....some of the stuff that WDI is working on will blow your mind, trust me. And we're not just talking AA or video screens.

AA with video-screen faces?

 

[progroupie]

Now I'm convinced you never went on The Living Seas. Its a shame, you might have liked Seabase Alpha.

I think it depends on what you personally take from the attraction. To me there was never anything sci-fi about Living Seas, it was about the ocean and ocean life, you learned about the forming of the ocean you looked at and learned about ocean animals and you learned about preserving the ocean. A couple of fake elevators never really made me think it was supposed to insanely futuristic, even as a child.

 

[fyn]

I think it depends on what you personally take from the attraction. To me there was never anything sci-fi about Living Seas, it was about the ocean and ocean life, you learned about the forming of the ocean you looked at and learned about ocean animals and you learned about preserving the ocean. A couple of fake elevators never really made me think it was supposed to insanely futuristic, even as a child.

The idea of a permanent underwater marine research station was absolutely science fiction in 1986, and sadly still is 22 years later. Even with the cynical perspective you put on The Living Seas, it still sounds more interesting than a boring, stale, thematically unfit storyline.

The queue rocks though. I'll give them that.

 

[hack2112]

AA with video-screen faces?

Well, technically Mr. Potato Head's eyes are video screens.

 

[progroupie]

The idea of a permanent underwater marine research station was absolutely science fiction in 1986, and sadly still is 22 years later. Even with the cynical perspective you put on The Living Seas, it still sounds more interesting than a boring, stale, thematically unfit storyline.

The queue rocks though. I'll give them that.

I'm not cynical about the living seas, I loved the living seas then and I love it now, I just don't see how people can say the Nemo overlay doesn't fit into the living seas well. You may not be a fan of it but that doesn't mean the theming is bad for it's location. Future World at Epcot has the same problem Tommorow Land does, it's pretty hard to but futuristic anymore, there's nothing futuristic about Mickey Mouse shaped pumpkins at the Land, there's no futuristic about hangliding over California. That doesn't mean these are all bad attractions.

 

[gusgoose]

1. Stitch is not Pixar

2. Ok, I was being a little facetious when I claimed no one could prefer The Living Seas, Timekeeper and Dreamflight to Nemo, Monster's Inc Laugh Floor and Buzz Ranger Spin respectively. Obviously some people can, and I'd assume the majority of those people who prefer the previous rides are the Disney "die-hards" who visit the park at least once a year and love Disney enough to spend their time discussing the parks on a website forum.

But, there's no denying the newer rides are more popular and more well-received among the general public, die-hards included. You could maybe make an argument that it's due to these rides being spoon-fed to us in some kind of lowest common denominator fashion and that might be somewhat of a fair argument. But I also fail to see any argument for the superiority of the previous incarnations of these attractions beyond:

a) nostalgia

and/or

b) they were more aesthetically pleasing within the "theme" of their surrounding areas

3. Maybe I'm too young to have truly appreciated The Living Seas, but to me, it was never anything more than a glorified aquarium. Again, maybe I was too young to really "get it" though. I'm not a huge fan of the Nemo ride and Turtle Talk, I think they're good but not great. But I definitely can't fault Disney with implementing them. There's a reason Disney calls itself a "theme park" and not a "museum"