Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway confirmed

[Skibum1970]

That sound you here is all the museums and art galleries of the world breaking into tears.

Agreed but those are very different situations. I love museums but I'm not expecting to get on a roller coaster while I tour the Air Force Museum or board a dark ride while walking through the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. Not that that would not be an awesome experience but not one I expect, either.

I remember a show in the early 90's that talked about the future of amusement parks. Several industry leaders, including Disney, stated that simulators were the future and that rides that travel a ride path would be phased out. I was bummed because no simulator can fully make you feel that you are riding a coaster or traveling a flume. In a similar fashion, I don't want the rides to be shortchanged in order to make the queue awesome. That is really my only concern with blending queues and rides together. A good queue should set the stage for ride.

 

[wdwgreek]

Can we move the conversation about what style of mickey we subjectively think is the best to the chit chat pages, so that when I get a notification from this threat it is about, I don't know, the attraction they are building. For better or worse this is the animation design they chose.

 

[BEARSHOUSE4]

Shorter than the GMR was. I can’t go into specifics at the mo.

I'm guessing somewhere around 5 minutes. This is about the attention span of the average guest, I would surmise. WDW knows this. Those time eating high capacity rises are "extinct".

 

[marni1971]

I'm guessing somewhere around 5 minutes. This is about the attention span of the average guest, I would surmise. WDW knows this. Those time eating high capacity rises are "extinct".

Surely they’ll build twice as many attractions to compensate right?

Right?

 

[drod1985]

So in summary, yes I love the new shorts and am very happy with they way they look!

I really dig the general animation style and like that its a retro-yet-modern refresh. I'm not adverse to change. That said, I'm not on board with the Ren and Stimpy-ish story elements and design choices - those changes seem out of character and spirit to me.

Can we move the conversation about what style of mickey we subjectively think is the best to the chit chat pages, so that when I get a notification from this threat it is about, I don't know, the attraction they are building. For better or worse this is the animation design they chose.

While I agree that "which Mickey style is best" isn't a relevant conversation for this thread the fact remains that the ride is based on these new shorts. That means that these shorts will inform the story and style of the ride, so constructive criticism or discussion on the new shorts seems plenty relevant for this thread, IMO.

 

[Missing20K]

Surely they’ll build twice as many attractions to compensate right?

Right?

Woo Hoo!!! Twice as many rides!!!

Right?

 

[ZodIsGr8]

Honestly, I love the new Mickey style because of how much it reminds me of the classic style, ironically. Hopefully people will give this ride a shot when it opens because I know I can't wait for it to open!

It is not a matter of giving a ride a shot or not as I think everyone is excited for the ride. The fact is, this ride is in the wrong spot and there was not any reason for closing GMR other than money. This new Mickey ride should be where the Star Wars meet and greets are located in the old animation courtyard. We lost a phenomenal ride in the GMR and it is just a shame.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

Most people probably don't care at all.
I can't speak for anyone but myself but I enjoy the shorts for their interpretation and rejuvenation of Mickey and all the other character's personalities. I feel that the characters have a lot more energy and animation (no pun intended). They feel more "alive" then they have in forever. Each short is then set in a different time and location not only providing a rotating glimpse at different cultures thus reaching a much larger audience but also insuring that the shorts do not become stale by using the same location.

The animation style brings a more classic 2d look than modern 3d CGI does, plus when you add on the fact that these shorts contain some of the most intensive easter eggs and Disney "inside" jokes gives credit that the production team really has an invested interest in the legacy of Disney animation.

So in summary, yes I love the new shorts and am very happy with they way they look!

Weirdly, people are just as entitled to their opinion of the art direction of the shorts as you are.

I agree that new shorts are wonderfully done and the energy and life that it has brought to the characters is certainly welcome. I also think that this art style will lend itself better to the nature and story of the attraction, which is likely why it was chosen. However, that isn't to say that I don't understand the argument on the other side. I also feel that using the more "classic" brand Mickey seen elsewhere in meet and greets and merchandise may have been better for the longetivity of the attraction, as this art style will likely be replaced by another soon enough.

Yes, Mickey has changed throughout the years. However, the basic design in use has been pretty consistent for several decades, regardless of slight tweaks made to improve upon the design. That's my only concern with going this direction, it may not age well.

 

[Movielover]

Weirdly, people are just as entitled to their opinion of the art direction of the shorts as you are.

I know they are, doesn't mean I have to respect those opinions or frankly care about them.

Yes, Mickey has changed throughout the years. However, the basic design in use has been pretty consistent for several decades, regardless of slight tweaks made to improve upon the design.

Yes, and the new shorts brings the design closer to the original Walt version than has ever been done since his passing. Not only does this honnor his legacy but creates a fresh look to something that many could view as mundane.

it may not age well.

Then when it age's out they can change it, it's really not that hard of a concept to grasp...

 

[smile]

I also think that this art style will lend itself better to the nature and story of the attraction, which is likely why it was chosen.

wouldn't that have been nice? for some creative reason...
but naw, that was directly from the desk of robert allen iger.

when it's from the brass, that's when you know it's a good idea

 

[Goofyernmost]

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that this is 2018... It isn't Walt's, Disney anymore. However, if you look at the early Mickey Cartoons that Walt was involved with, that style of Mickey was much more like the rides version than the corporate Mickey Mouse. All they did for corporate was take the rough edges off the original Mickey and realized that what you can get away with, image wise, in a cartoon does not translate well into a 5 foot rodent wondering around the park scaring small children. It's OK to like or not like a certain image and that mostly has to do with our initial introduction to the character, but, we can and should also try and enjoy the art of the times and see it for what it is... entertainment and humor. The iconic image of the "new" Mickey will be the one that your children will see as the one and only Mickey Mouse.

 

[DinoInstitute]

Most people probably don't care at all.

This. Thank you. Honestly if I wasn't on the forums there's a solid chance I never would have even noticed the specific art style at all.

It's Mickey. It looks like Mickey.

There's really not a lot to it.

 

[smile]

The iconic image of the "new" Mickey will be the one that your children will see as the one and only Mickey Mouse.

either that or it'll be viewed as hideously dated, pointing to a specific era.

in that case, do we revert once again to 'classic' style?
... or does someone come up with something that looks vaguely reminiscent of spongebob squarepants?

who cares, really tho... long as whatever generation around at the time thinks they own it, it'll be whatever they want it to be... or whatever twdc thinks they want it to be

do love the irony, however, of tossing aside the icon whose likeness rights twdc has so vigorously defended throughout the years for something so close to fan art... bravo, bobby!

Honestly if I wasn't on the forums there's a solid chance I never would have even noticed the specific art style at all.

you're right...
i tend to forget how oblivious the general populace is.

thank goodness the old masters forged ahead anyway.

 

[Rich Brownn]

While I understand that argument, I don't consider the queue the attraction. It's what I go through to get to the attraction. I appreciate the details but the ride is where it's at. This kind of discussion leads to walk-thru attractions being thought of as good replacements.

A really good question (Potter's for example) are not only semi-attractions in themselves, they help set up the storyline of the ride

 

[Goofyernmost]

do love the irony, however, of tossing aside the icon whose likeness rights twdc has so vigorously defended throughout the years for something so close to fan art... bravo, bobby!

You can bet that they will defend the new Mickey as strongly as the old. Why because it is the same character. I used to look a lot different then I do now. Things change, art changes, looks change and demand changes. If all Disney was doing was staying perfectly stagnant, there probably wouldn't be a Disney anymore. We can't have everything.

 

[smile]

You can bet that they will defend the new Mickey as strongly as the old. Why because it is the same character. I used to look a lot different then I do now. Things change, art changes, looks change and demand changes. If all Disney was doing was staying perfectly stagnant, there probably wouldn't be a Disney anymore. We can't have everything.

i'll reiterate it's an attraction i'm very much looking to see completed...
i'll also clarify that, when it comes down to it, i actually have little objection to this 'new' mickey and his friends or their cartoon, in it's own right.

however, this attraction, in this location, with this character, should have had a much grander scope than simply a contemporary short made real...
much like swge finally getting built after all these years and yet choosing to showcase contemporary star wars... it'll be an eventual shock to some fans, assuredly.

why?

for me, it's far less about a fear of change and more about sidelining what got you there/the arrogance of assuming that what you're creating now is all that matters
...and it's happening all over the company - with interesting results. time will tell if 'killing the past' is the best move for the future.

regardless, while the strength of the attractions alone will silence many doubters, i'll be left wondering about the could/should have been... that's on me, tho

 

[phillip9698]

Personal preferences aside, WDWs very pronounced push for shorter ride times is quite odd when viewed in a broader cultural context.

It’s a commonplace that society’s attention span is getting shorter and shorter and, thus, ride lengths must be dramatically curtailed. In fact, broader cultural trends show exactly the opposite. The average length of successful films is increasing. TV shows, once distributed in weekly chunks of an hour or half-an-hour, are now released as complete seasons to facilitate binging, the consumption of multiple hours of programming at a single sitting. Video games, often cited as the prime culprits in lowering attention spans, increasingly offer complex stories and open worlds that encourage lengthy engagement. In short, much of pop culture is now based around the idea that consumers attention spans are longer than ever before.

At the same time, of course, WDW remains focused on removing longer rides and replacing them with experiences that may be as short as one minute. It’s a sad and possibly self-destructive development that seems likely to discourage serious fan engagement in the long run. Disney’s masterpieces - Pirates, HM, Jungle Cruise, SSE, the original Imagination, Kilimanjaro - tend to be longer rides, allowing time for the development of story and/or mood. Even ToT, a shorter ride but undeniably one of the greats, is markedly better when given time to develop and breathe, as it is in Orlando, in a version that is more then twice as long as its DCA counterpart.

Ride type plays a HUGE role in ride length. You excluded all the roller coasters from your masterpiece list as they contradict your entire premise even though the coasters are some of the most popular rides at the parks.

Binge watching of shows works for Netflix because of short attention spans. They want you to watch their mediocre shows all at once so nothing else has a chance to grab your attention between weekly airings. Good shows worth watching don't have this problem.

Also your video game example fails once you look at the stats for percentage of players that actually finish a long game. The ploy is to offer a ton of content because people feel as though they are getting their monies worth with a massive game but those same people don't actually play the game to its conclusion. Take Skyrim for example, one of the most popular large open world games out there, only 30% of purchasers actually completed the story.

 

[mikejs78]

time will tell if 'killing the past' is the best move for the future.

Or, one could say they are building on the past to create something new rather than getting stuck in the past (which, ironically, is exactly how Walt approached things).

From a certain point of view.

 

[Goofyernmost]

i'll reiterate it's an attraction i'm very much looking to see completed...
i'll also clarify that, when it comes down to it, i actually have little objection to this 'new' mickey and his friends or their cartoon, in it's own right.

however, this attraction, in this location, with this character, should have had a much grander scope than simply a contemporary short made real...
much like swge finally getting built after all these years and yet choosing to showcase contemporary star wars... it'll be an eventual shock to some fans, assuredly.

why?

for me, it's far less about a fear of change and more about sidelining what got you there/the arrogance of assuming that what you're creating now is all that matters
...and it's happening all over the company - with interesting results. time will tell if 'killing the past' is the best move for the future.

regardless, while the strength of the attractions alone will silence many doubters, i'll be left wondering about the could/should have been... that's on me, tho

I agree and if GMR had been drawing in throngs of people it still would be there. It did age quite a bit and almost no one understood the mission of the attraction and it's introduction to movies that were the early backbone of Hollywood. Hence the constant mention of "Why don't they have movies that I have seen and grown up with included." Missed the point of the show completely. However, it was entertaining otherwise it could be compared to the quickly destroyed and unappreciated, "Sounds Dangerous". I cannot remember the last time that I rode TGMR that they were using both trains. I hadn't seen the western scene for years. It no longer was a draw and what they need when SWL opens is another really strong attraction that will be fun and different.

An argument can be made that it really shouldn't be shut down right now when DHS has so few things to do, but, after SWL opens it would have been irrelevant once again so having a new, different show in there is, to me, a good idea and then might take at least a little pressure off SWL crowds. TGMR wouldn't have done that on it's own.

 

[GlacierGlacier]

I just can't wait to pick between lines of 300 minutes, 310 minutes, and 270 minutes. Give or take a few hours.