A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

asianway

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
I'm seriously starting to wonder if Disney pays people off, or at least gives them incentives to give positive reviews. Sites like Micechat which used to be a lot more critical toward the parks can't stop gushing about Pixar Pier.
Wonder? micechat seems to be credentialed now, something they didnt have in the Lutz era, they even got on the Paris list I think
 

Donaldfan1934

Well-Known Member
I don't even understand why they spent money on this, it feels random and meaningless. DCA must really have poor F&B and merchandise sales to warrant such a pointless change.
From what I can gather, it seems as if certain Pixar attractions were given the green light to please John Lasseter and nowhere is that more evident with Pixar Pier. If you want proof, just look at how overexcited he was for it at D23 last year.

But now that Lasseter left the company, Disney ended up building a land that never fulfilled its intended purpose of pleasing him and only him. If only they pulled the plug on it before it was too late.
 
Last edited:

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I don't follow the DL site anymore, so I don't know the attitude towards it, but it baffles me. DCA 2.0 left some holes to be filled in later, but the PP rework made the pier a lot more polished than what it was before, even if not the end-game. But instead of filling out the gaps left behind from 2.0... they instead spend all their time and money on a simple overlay? And a headscratcher at that... Seems so misguided. Save those brownie points for hollywood BL... for the wharf... etc. I can only speculate someone really had a hard-on for changing california screamin and the land got sucked into it.
Well, Chapek was the first P&R head to give Iger an attraction opening alongside a film with M:B. PP and the coaster reskin come from the same place.
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
A mysterious Three Caballeros show has appeared on the DisneyLife app “The Legend of the Three Caballeros”
holisticvolunteer.tumblr.com/post/175135580640

Screenshots

Well that caught my interest. If nothing else, the designs for the characters and the even the overall art style itself are attractive. Much closer to the older established design used from the late 1930s onward, FAR better than the modern Mickey shorts or the new Ducktales series. I hope it looks good in motion, and doesn't have that weird "flash animation" quality of many of their other newer cartoons.
 

Viget

Active Member
I have seen that...and I think its a mistake, following the prior error of slapping Solo's release in the middle of a whole bunch of other much-anticipated films. With the overlap fandom between SW and Marvel, they were foolish to think Solo would do well released so closely to Infinity Wars. Disney needs to think about its film fans way more - we had Infinity Wars, Deadpool 2, Solo, and Incredibles 2 all released in a clump. I personally don't know anyone who wants to go to the movies that often, and of the 4 films, Solo would fall to the bottom of my list simply because of the anticipation of Infinity and Deadpool and that my kids want to see Incredibles. As a stand-alone, it was too easy to back-burner Solo due to its timing.

Now, had Solo been released at the end of August (when there isn't SW/Marvel/Disney flick saturation), I think they would have seen much better returns. They need to learn how not to compete against themselves when timing releases.
THIS x1000.

I saw Solo with my 9 year old son on Father's Day. I would add that there were quite a few people in the theater too. I thought it was great, better than Rogue One (which may be a minority view, I know), way better than TFA. It really stirred the nostalgia I felt for Han as a kid, and I thought the performances were well done. I am also intrigued by the ending and want to know more about the Red Dawn. Personally, it was $10 (or whatever it is a movie costs these days) well spent.

Had it just been released in August, it would have made bank. Disney should not base its ability to churn out quality SW flicks just on the success or "failure" of one movie.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
It's simple really. They are converting theme parks into brand parks.
Which conceptually I’m not as against as others. But they also hate spending money, especially on an area that didn’t need it. DCA attendance is still growing, so it isn’t that. I really think they saw an opportunity to improve guest spending at DCA.

I wonder if that Inside Out attraction announced today, will get cloned as our Mary Poppins attraction at Epcot. Umbrellas instead of balloons?
 

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
THIS x1000.

I saw Solo with my 9 year old son on Father's Day. I would add that there were quite a few people in the theater too. I thought it was great, better than Rogue One (which may be a minority view, I know), way better than TFA. It really stirred the nostalgia I felt for Han as a kid, and I thought the performances were well done. I am also intrigued by the ending and want to know more about the Red Dawn. Personally, it was $10 (or whatever it is a movie costs these days) well spent.

Had it just been released in August, it would have made bank. Disney should not base its ability to churn out quality SW flicks just on the success or "failure" of one movie.
AMEN. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction that they'll come to regret.

And think about this...it can cost upwards of $50 just for two people to go see a movie once you figure in concessions (I always eat before we go, but I CANNOT for the life of me not eat during a movie). Now figure a family of 4 at a conservative $75. If a family of 4 wanted to see all 5 films (I forgot Ant-Man & the Wasp in the 1st week of July), that's $375 JUST on going to the movies during a 10-week period...that's A LOT of money for one family.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
What do you find conceptually appealing about Six Flags’ design philosophy?
That is a leap. When did I say that? I don’t have concerns about Disney Movie and TV IP in the Disney Theme Parks. I like original attractions as well.

If you read my overall posts on the subject today, you will see I think this Pixar Pier update is a pointless waste of money.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
That is a leap. When did I say that? I don’t have concerns about Disney Movie and TV IP in the Disney Theme Parks. I like original attractions as well.

If you read my overall posts on the subject today, you will see I think this Pixar Pier update is a pointless waste of money.
Because that is what Pixar Pier and a brand park represent, the distinguishing featuring being the branding.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Funny thing about that: They made the Incredicoaster "Under New Management" levels of self aware. Like Violet is very unenthused about how they just put their family name on an old rollercoaster that's been around for years and Edna comments that it's just corporate synergy.

I like to imagine that it's an Imagineer who has a bit more power sneaking these things in below the corporate radar as a big middle finger to the head honchos making them create this crap.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
Because that is what Pixar Pier and a brand park represent, the distinguishing featuring being the branding.
Sorry. A half *** overlay of existing attractions vs Galaxy’s Edge, or Pandora or Splash Mountain? You just lumped them all together as Six Flags? I’m so confused.

We both seem to agree that Pixar Pier is pointless, and I think we agree on more here than you are implying.

Disney has always had branded content in their theme parks, there is a valid debate about the % of original vs TV/Movie. But to say that Disney has ever been anything but a Brand Theme Park is disingenuous. And Six flags really doesn’t play in This discussion at all.
 
Top Bottom