Additional Info on "The Laugh Floor" storyline

[Pongo]

Exactly, but yet people keep complaining about the fact that Disney is basing too many new attractions around Pixar movies.

Well now these ARE Disney movies, so these new attractions are no different than anything you would find in Fantasyland in MK for the most part. And IMO alot of these new attractions are 100 times better than the outdated rides like Peter Pan, but people will continue to argue this fact since they are so partial to dark rides.


Oh and Wannab@Dis, great sig :animwink: :lol: :drevil:

"Man, when is Disney going to stop using Disney movies as the basis of their attractions?!"

 

[Tim G]

"Man, when is Disney going to stop using Disney movies as the basis of their attractions?!"

So you finally are seeing the light???

That's what I've been trying to get into everyone's skull, for about a week or so...

We're getting there... slowly... but we're getting there...

 

[polarboi]

I think beneath all the rhetoric are two main points. It's not so much that people have a problem with Pixar per-say, but rather:

1) Tomorrowland/Discoveryland has lost its identity.[...]

2) I think part of this also boils down to a little animosity that corporate Disney has (temporarily) written off 2D.[...]

See, Steve, I think these are both excellent points, and you've stated them well. I agree that these are causes for potential concern, and I hope that Disney will take these two points into consideration while making future decisions.

I've said before that I don't fully understand how Monsters, Inc., fits into Tomorrowland, but I'm also willing to wait and see how it's integrated before jumping to conclusions. And yes, I hate the way that 2D animation has been handled by Disney over the last few years, but I'm encouraged by things that high-level people in the company are saying about this problem.

What's bugging a bunch of us (well, what bugs me, and what I think others are reacting to) about threads like this one is the constant bashing that goes on every time something new is announced.

I have no problem with:
- "I hope they can find a way to integrate this into Tomorrowland, becuase right now it sounds like it would be out of place."
- "I'd like to have more dark rides."
- "I hope we get more attractions featuring 2D characters as well."
- "I don't enjoy Stitch's Great Escape and would like to see it re-imagineered in the future."

What I have a problem with is:
"AAAAAHH! This is an atrocity!!!!! Disney is making stupid decisions!!!! Nothing is good anymore!!!! This attraction sucks!!!! These ideas suck!!!! WDW used to be good and now it's all going downhill!!!!! AAAAAAAAH!!!!!"

Bottom line: We're all here (supposedly) because we like WDW. We don't all like every attraction, but we all like WDW. And it gets really depressing to listen to people badmouth every decision, every change, and every new idea over and over again.

If you don't like something, try offering constructive criticism. Frame it in a positive light. Tell us what you'd like to see more of rather than ranting about how much you hate what they're doing now. That way, we can all dream together.

As for me, I'm going to sit back, relax, and dream about the possibilities for what this attraction could be. I hope it's really cool. And if I don't like it, I'll start dreaming about the next cool attraction, and spend time thinking about all the stuff I really do like.

-p.b.

 

[dxwwf3]

I've never had a problem with character attractions at the parks and I seem to like just about all of them and I will continue to never have problems with them as long as there is plenty of balance with original attractions (Soarin', Mission: Space, Expedition Everest, etc.). And really the only park that could use a healthy dose of original attractions is the Magic Kingdom.

 

[Tim G]

See, Steve, I think these are both excellent points, and you've stated them well. I agree that these are causes for potential concern, and I hope that Disney will take these two points into consideration while making future decisions.

I've said before that I don't fully understand how Monsters, Inc., fits into Tomorrowland, but I'm also willing to wait and see how it's integrated before jumping to conclusions. And yes, I hate the way that 2D animation has been handled by Disney over the last few years, but I'm encouraged by things that high-level people in the company are saying about this problem.

What's bugging a bunch of us (well, what bugs me, and what I think others are reacting to) about threads like this one is the constant bashing that goes on every time something new is announced.

I have no problem with:
- "I hope they can find a way to integrate this into Tomorrowland, becuase right now it sounds like it would be out of place."
- "I'd like to have more dark rides."
- "I hope we get more attractions featuring 2D characters as well."
- "I don't enjoy Stitch's Great Escape and would like to see it re-imagineered in the future."

What I have a problem with is:
"AAAAAHH! This is an atrocity!!!!! Disney is making stupid decisions!!!! Nothing is good anymore!!!! This attraction sucks!!!! These ideas suck!!!! WDW used to be good and now it's all going downhill!!!!! AAAAAAAAH!!!!!"

Bottom line: We're all here (supposedly) because we like WDW. We don't all like every attraction, but we all like WDW. And it gets really depressing to listen to people badmouth every decision, every change, and every new idea over and over again.

If you don't like something, try offering constructive criticism. Frame it in a positive light. Tell us what you'd like to see more of rather than ranting about how much you hate what they're doing now. That way, we can all dream together.

As for me, I'm going to sit back, relax, and dream about the possibilities for what this attraction could be. I hope it's really cool. And if I don't like it, I'll start dreaming about the next cool attraction, and spend time thinking about all the stuff I really do like.

-p.b.

Please talk for yourself... I only partly agree with our post...

You sound as if building theme parks, is some sort of a game...
If you don''t like it just dream a new one.. Re-imagineer something else...

Alas, the world of business is a bit different, than you even can imagine..

I know you mean well, while I understand your respnse, but Tomorrowland IS being rebuilded...

But they will never live up to your demands or wishes...

More dark rides??? You don't have any idea how many dark rides there are in Tomorrowland...

Ciao!

 

[wannab@dis]

See, Steve, I think these are both excellent points, and you've stated them well. I agree that these are causes for potential concern, and I hope that Disney will take these two points into consideration while making future decisions.

I've said before that I don't fully understand how Monsters, Inc., fits into Tomorrowland, but I'm also willing to wait and see how it's integrated before jumping to conclusions. And yes, I hate the way that 2D animation has been handled by Disney over the last few years, but I'm encouraged by things that high-level people in the company are saying about this problem.

What's bugging a bunch of us (well, what bugs me, and what I think others are reacting to) about threads like this one is the constant bashing that goes on every time something new is announced.

I have no problem with:
- "I hope they can find a way to integrate this into Tomorrowland, becuase right now it sounds like it would be out of place."
- "I'd like to have more dark rides."
- "I hope we get more attractions featuring 2D characters as well."
- "I don't enjoy Stitch's Great Escape and would like to see it re-imagineered in the future."

What I have a problem with is:
"AAAAAHH! This is an atrocity!!!!! Disney is making stupid decisions!!!! Nothing is good anymore!!!! This attraction sucks!!!! These ideas suck!!!! WDW used to be good and now it's all going downhill!!!!! AAAAAAAAH!!!!!"

Bottom line: We're all here (supposedly) because we like WDW. We don't all like every attraction, but we all like WDW. And it gets really depressing to listen to people badmouth every decision, every change, and every new idea over and over again.

If you don't like something, try offering constructive criticism. Frame it in a positive light. Tell us what you'd like to see more of rather than ranting about how much you hate what they're doing now. That way, we can all dream together.

As for me, I'm going to sit back, relax, and dream about the possibilities for what this attraction could be. I hope it's really cool. And if I don't like it, I'll start dreaming about the next cool attraction, and spend time thinking about all the stuff I really do like.

-p.b.

*insert BOW smiley here*

You nailed it! :wave:

Whether or not an attraction fits thematically is an unknown prior to completion. The only way anyone could belittle that point is by belittling themselves in the process... by being closed-minded and pessimistic - 100% against the ideals of Disney.

I don't like SGE... so what? Others do and I'm not one to sit here and whine and wish their enjoyment to end just so I could have something that I like. That's selfish and self-centered. The dreams of Disney magic should be for ALL to enjoy, not just a selfish viewpoint that we don't allow to be influenced in a positive fashion.

 

[nibblesandbits]

Yeah, but I think we're diverging from the real issue of what people are saying here. I think beneath all the rhetoric are two main points. It's not so much that people have a problem with Pixar per-say, but rather:

1) Tomorrowland/Discoveryland has lost its identity. It's the lack of a thematic direction I think that has people concerned. I don't think it matters whether what's there are Pixar or Disney content, but just that the thematic choices are no longer consistent with the original vision of Tommorowland. Paris, of course, had the take of the "tomorrow that never was" from a science-fact point of view. MK had the same take but from a science-fiction point of view. But both were still true to the concept of Tomorrowland. I think most people railing on Pixar-ification of Tomorrowland are more complaining about the fundamental shift in approach and lack of thematic consistency throughout the land. Potentially more troubling to some is that it has the *potential* (although I in no way believe we're at this point) to signal that Disney is just interested in filling the lands with whatever will work and even out crowd flow, theming to be used as a guideline only. Again, I don't think it matters here that it just happens to be Pixar vs Disney content.

2) I think part of this also boils down to a little animosity that corporate Disney has (temporarily) written off 2D. That we all know that 2D is still a perfectly viable medium but Disney has just suffocated WDFA's ability to tell a compelling story. Does anyone really believe that if Lion King were released in theatres today that it would flop b/c it's not 3D? I hardly think so. We can say 2D is dead all we want, but we killed 2D ourselves, we have no one else to blame. So I think some of the Pixar backlash is stemming from this rather emotional and subjective frame of reference.

I think this will subside as the integration becomes cleaner. We should all be happy that Lassiter has publicly stated his excitement about reinvigorating traditional hand-drawn animation. And I'm also excited that he's interested in producing more shorts. Like Walt Disney, he understands that shorts are excellent proving ground to develop talent. It doesn't have to be profitable in and of itself, but what it does for the art form is immeasureable.

I agree with everything you just said except the part about us killing 2D. I think the problem with 2D isn't us...but the fact that there hasn't been a good 2D story that's been told. We can see that with the moderate success that Lilo and Stitch had. But as of recent...Disney (or any other company, for that matter) hasn't really relased a decent 2D story and that is what is wrong.

 

[nibblesandbits]

What's bugging a bunch of us (well, what bugs me, and what I think others are reacting to) about threads like this one is the constant bashing that goes on every time something new is announced.

I have no problem with:
- "I hope they can find a way to integrate this into Tomorrowland, becuase right now it sounds like it would be out of place."
- "I'd like to have more dark rides."
- "I hope we get more attractions featuring 2D characters as well."
- "I don't enjoy Stitch's Great Escape and would like to see it re-imagineered in the future."

What I have a problem with is:
"AAAAAHH! This is an atrocity!!!!! Disney is making stupid decisions!!!! Nothing is good anymore!!!! This attraction sucks!!!! These ideas suck!!!! WDW used to be good and now it's all going downhill!!!!! AAAAAAAAH!!!!!"

I pretty much agree with your post...but I agree with this part especially.

 

[dxwwf3]

I don't like SGE... so what? Others do and I'm not one to sit here and whine and wish their enjoyment to end just so I could have something that I like. That's selfish and self-centered. The dreams of Disney magic should be for ALL to enjoy, not just a selfish viewpoint that we don't allow to be influenced in a positive fashion.

But shouldn't this idea work both ways? What about fans of older attractions that YOU wish would be replaced? God knows you aren't a fan of many older attractions and that's cool.

I agree that the parks are for everyone to enjoy, but somebody shouldn't feel like they shouldn't share their opinion just because it doesn't follow "the masses". If someone doesn't like Soarin' and they wish the film would be replaced, they should feel like they can come on a discussion board and share their feelings. Not everyone likes the same thing and that shouldn't be looked at negatively.

I know there is no need to be negative about EVERY new attraction because there's just no fun in that and often times Disney knows what they are doing. But there is definite need for personal opinions, especially those that do not follow the general public.

 

[wannab@dis]

But shouldn't this idea work both ways? What about fans of older attractions that YOU wish would be replaced? God knows you aren't a fan of many older attractions and that's cool.

I agree that the parks are for everyone to enjoy, but somebody shouldn't feel like they shouldn't share their opinion just because it doesn't follow "the masses". If someone doesn't like Soarin' and they wish the film would be replaced, they should feel like they can come on a discussion board and share their feelings. Not everyone likes the same thing and that shouldn't be looked at negatively.

I know there is no need to be negative about EVERY new attraction because there's just no fun in that and often times Disney knows what they are doing. But there is definite need for personal opinions, especially those that do not follow the general public.

I'm not going to say that following the masses is the only way. However, we have to conclude one basic point and agree on that. Disney is there to make money. The more money they make, the more likelihood they are to continue investing in and growing the parks. That in turn will benefit all of us.... first timers, fans, and fanatics.

If an attraction (whether we personally like it or not) is popular, then their (Disney) goals have been met. The different aspects of the attraction... method, technology, theme, etc... will have an affect on the popularity and ultimately on its existence. Just because someone likes an attraction that is dead on its feet is not a reason to rant and rave about keeping it around. It's not realizing the potential or the reason for its existence. The same is true for new attractions.

There's going to be exceptions to the rule, of course, but that's only in rare instances. I actually think SGE is one of those exceptions. It may not garner massive amounts of people (even though it was crowded on my visit and wasn't on yours) and it may not be popular for the fanatics... but, I bet that it's performing decent and definately better for merchandise sales than AE ever did. I'm not sure of the lifetime, but it may surprise us.

It's all about simple equations... Popularity + Growth/Marketing Potential + Revenue (Merch) - Investment = +/-Success. We don't see all the numbers that would get plugged into the equations, but the decision makers do. When the (Success) factor hits zero or lower, it's time for a change whether we like it or not. The overall picture has to be taken into consideration.

Unfortunately, some of the fanatics fail to realize the overall picture and look only at the smaller factors and then selfishly over-react. Whether prior to completion, during changes, or even after a long run, we still don't know the full impact on the bottom line.

Some are still complaining about The Land changes and how the theme has been lost or how a walkway here doesn't match a walkway there or that Soarin is just hype or whatever... however, they can complain all they want... the simple fact is that the pavilion has seen more success in the last month than it did during the years prior to the change combined. That's a simplistic and extremely apparent example, but it goes to the main point. For the parks to succeed and grow, they must perform. That performance must be on a massive scale and not a few Disney Dweebs.

 

[DisneySaint]

Goodbye Tomorrowland, Hello Fantasyland Expansion.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. What's happening to the worlds of exploration that were Tomorrowland and Epcot Center? This is really starting to get silly.

 

[Tim G]

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. What's happening to the worlds of exploration that were Tomorrowland and Epcot Center? This is really starting to get silly.

I fully agree... (about the sillyness of course)

 

[dxwwf3]

I'm not going to say that following the masses is the only way. However, we have to conclude one basic point and agree on that. Disney is there to make money. The more money they make, the more likelihood they are to continue investing in and growing the parks. That in turn will benefit all of us.... first timers, fans, and fanatics.

No disagreement here. I think you know me well enough to know that I am usually in favor of changes that come along and I'm always quick to say I was wrong when that happens as well.

There's going to be exceptions to the rule, of course, but that's only in rare instances. I actually think SGE is one of those exceptions. It may not garner massive amounts of people (even though it was crowded on my visit and wasn't on yours) and it may not be popular for the fanatics... but, I bet that it's performing decent and definately better for merchandise sales than AE ever did. I'm not sure of the lifetime, but it may surprise us.

Yeah but my trip was last week :lol:. If this last trip was any indication, "performing decent" may have went bye-bye months ago. And I'm sure that the Green Thumb at the Land made more merchandising money than Soarin' has, but that isn't what an attraction should be looked at as: one big commercial for the gift shop. See what I'm saying? Yeah I know Soarin' made money by bringing people into the parks, much more money than the Green Thumb made, but that's a whole other story .

 

[CSUFSteve]

I've said before that I don't fully understand how Monsters, Inc., fits into Tomorrowland, but I'm also willing to wait and see how it's integrated before jumping to conclusions. And yes, I hate the way that 2D animation has been handled by Disney over the last few years, but I'm encouraged by things that high-level people in the company are saying about this problem.

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying about seeing how it's integrated. It's just that, to my mind, this attraction came out of the blue. I KNOW what ideas have been tossed about for that space, as I'm sure others here do, and it's just hard for me to believe this is anything other than a "temporary" (i.e. 1-2 years, max) attraction. It's certainly low-budget and based on the scant description available, sounds like it doesn't involve much in the way of infrastructure. Timekeeper (the figure) can easily be tucked away in storage and the remaining infrastructure left intact.

Of course, as you said, we won't know until it opens, but at least it does not have any appearance of relating to any Tomorrowish-theme at all. At least Buzz and Stitch very loosely cling to the Tomorrowland-theme, but this attraction would not seem to at all - rather it seems to be simply a convenient space to stick the attraction.

Then again, we can't very well say Tomorrowland should be void of Disney films since, I mean come on now, every land in MK/DL can trace its roots to some Disney tie-in or another. Frontierland came into existence to promote Disney's TV versions of Zorro and Davy Crockett. Adventureland touted Disney's "True-to-Life Adventures". Fantasyland is obvious. And even though Tomorrowland followed an opposite pattern, it still promoted ideas Walt wanted to communicate via TV in the 1st place. Granted, none but Fantasyland were animated, but so what?

So I personally don't have a problem with films (Pixar or Disney) being in Tomorrowland, just remember that we're storytellers. At its heart, Magic Kingdom (and Disneyland) tells a story that begins the moment you walk through that tunnel. What "story" are we now telling in Tomorrowland?

Now, I *know* there are probably lots of folks on here that also KNOW WDI has some great ideas for Tomorrowland. We're not the only ones sitting here thinking all of these thoughts. In fact, it was recently said of WDI that, "We have the best ideas here that we've had in 20 years." So I certainly don't fault creative at all. But WDI can only do so much and business realities often dictate a cautious approach. As you say, we'll just have to wait and see.

At Disneyland, the initial strategy was to just bring people back into Tomorrowland, period. Get the crowd flowing again. Get Buzz open to bring people back there again. Get Space Mountain open to draw them further back again. Get Nemo open. Disneyland will have achieved in its Phase I goal and WDI is "Imagineering" the future of our Tomorrowland. We just have to be patient.

But no one should assume WDI has lost creative direction. The front-line WDI'ers are very passionate about their product. Someone told me very recently, "We have the best ideas we've had in 20 years!" Let's hope internal/structural changes will again allow us all to see what they've been dreaming up.

Hopefully this doesn't sound negative - that certainly isn't my intent - I'm actually pretty optimistic these days - especially with what's been happening at Disneyland!

 

[wannab@dis]

No disagreement here. I think you know me well enough to know that I am usually in favor of changes that come along and I'm always quick to say I was wrong when that happens as well.



Yeah but my trip was last week :lol:. If this last trip was any indication, "performing decent" may have went bye-bye months ago. And I'm sure that the Green Thumb at the Land made more merchandising money than Soarin' has, but that isn't what an attraction should be looked at as: one big commercial for the gift shop. See what I'm saying? Yeah I know Soarin' made money by bringing people into the parks, much more money than the Green Thumb made, but that's a whole other story .

(My trip was in Dec during the first two weeks - slow period - go figure. Maybe the lifetime was an ultimate short one. :lol: )

Of course I see what you're saying, but do we really know what shops are performing well or not? The merchandise sales are probably seen as a bonus.

No attraction can be seen as making or breaking a park as a single entitiy. It can have a major impact either positive (EE) or negative (likely only true as a group). However, the main gist of my novel was a simple point. Status Quo will only work for a short time. It could be seen as a limping along time during a dip in numbers, but change is necessary to keep things fresh and inviting.

 

[CSUFSteve]

*insert BOW smiley here*
Whether or not an attraction fits thematically is an unknown prior to completion.

I assume you mean WE don't know how it fits until we see it? If that's what you meant, yeah, of course. If you meant, no one knows, well, I would hope WDI knows

I don't like SGE... so what? Others do and I'm not one to sit here and whine and wish their enjoyment to end just so I could have something that I like. That's selfish and self-centered. The dreams of Disney magic should be for ALL to enjoy, not just a selfish viewpoint that we don't allow to be influenced in a positive fashion.

Well, it's interesting because SGE is not considered a successful attraction (for that matter, neither is Indy at DL). But SGE was primarily built as an answer to a re-focused looked at who MK's target audience. More than either Resort, WDW theme parks have distinct audiences. Disneyland has to be everything to everyone. DLR is not yet mature enough to have the luxure of crafting an audience. MK does not. MK appeals squarely to the family demographic. Thus, in analyzing AE's audience to MK's intended audience, it wasn't a match. With Stich being a success, with families complaing about AE's "scariness", it was a convenient (and better yet, could be justified from a business standpoint - always good) excuse to replace AE. I think that's kinda of what's going with all of Tomorrowland. Sort of an opposite-swining pendulum.

But SGE, overall, does not sustain queue lengths comparable to AE in the same phase of its lifetime.

I do think the pendulum will come to pause again and we'll see an emergent theme take shape down the road. It'll be interesting to see how long SGE sticks around. I don't think it's going anywhere soon, but it isn't considered successful.

 

[dxwwf3]

change is necessary to keep things fresh and inviting.

And honest to goodness, I agree with that. And after seeing how some recent changes have went over, I'm now more positive than ever. I'm ready for the POTC changes and I hope there are more in the future. I just get frustrated at the state of the MK sometimes and it might make me look like "anti-change" in certain threads. But you know that isn't true :wave:

 

[dxwwf3]

But SGE, overall, does not sustain queue lengths comparable to AE in the same phase of its lifetime.

Could be the understatement of the year. In its 2nd year AE was still pulling in 30-45 minute waits. A better statement would be that SGE isn't pulling in the same queue lenghts that AE was having during the very end of its run.

 

[Pongo]

but change is necessary to keep things fresh and inviting.

Well, of course.

Besides, if WDW never changed, this website wouldn't even be in existence.

Deep down, what everyone really wants is change, or else they would have never joined a forum about WDW news and rumors related to changed in the parks.

 

[CSUFSteve]

Could be the understatement of the year. In its 2nd year AE was still pulling in 30-45 minute waits. A better statement would be that SGE isn't pulling in the same queue lenghts that AE was having during the very end of its run.

Haha, I was gonna say that but was trying to objective and fair to SGE