Additional Info on "The Laugh Floor" storyline

[polarboi]

SGE was primarily built as an answer to a re-focused looked at who MK's target audience. [...] 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.

Yeah, WDI has a very tough job. On the one hand, they want to bulid attractions that will please the die-hard Disney fanatics with APs who obsess over every detail; on the other hand, they need to find ways to attract families who don't research their vacations, don't notice the subtle details, and often don't even know which parks are owned by Disney. (Why do you think we have the giant wand and sorcerer hat?) They have all the great ideas they can dream up, but they also have budget restraints. There are just so many factors to consider.

I'll confess, when I heard about the initial plans for SGE, I thought it was a great idea. I adored AE (it was one of my favorite attractions), but the idea of changing the theme to be more kid-friendly with one of Disney's most fun recent 2D creations sounded like a great idea. And I'm sure it looked great on paper.

IMHO, the big problem with SGE is that certain elements just don't translate well. The effects rely on darkness to be convincing, but many kids are scared by darkness. Lessening the darkness hurts the effectiveness of the attraction for the adults, regardless of the theme. Similarly, the look and feel of the restraining harnesses works great for a scary attraction where you're supposed to feel "trapped," but they seem out of place in a fun, family-friendly attraction that doesn't go anywhere. And it's really a shame, because it's bred a lot of Stitch-hating among the fans, and I really enjoy Stitch as a character.

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. [...] 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.

Agreed. It certainly does seem that way. I'm still holding out hope that there will be some kind of explanation/theming to help integrate the Monsters into Tomorrowland, though I've so far seen no evidence of it. If it doesn't happen, I'll be disappointed.

But I still say (and I think you'd agree, Steve) that it's very possible to express concerns and disappointments without dwelling on the negative and being critical all the time. Frankly, whether or not this attraction fits into Tomorrowland, I'm going to be eager to try it out and see what it's like. And if I don't like it, well, I won't visit it again. :wave:

-p.b.

 

[dxwwf3]

But I still say (and I think you'd agree, Steve) that it's very possible to express concerns and disappointments without dwelling on the negative and being critical all the time. Frankly, whether or not this attraction fits into Tomorrowland, I'm going to be eager to try it out and see what it's like. And if I don't like it, well, I won't visit it again. :wave:

Agreed on all accounts

 

[CSUFSteve]

On the one hand, they want to bulid attractions that will please the die-hard Disney fanatics[...]on the other hand, they need to find ways to attract families who don't research their vacations[...]

Wow! I wonder if you realize all the dead-on implications of that statement?! The marketing environment for Disney parks has changed tremendously in the past 10 years, but especially in the past 5. Just look at what the Internet has done and I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Disney's just recently begun to learn how to fully utilize this.

But I still say (and I think you'd agree, Steve) that it's very possible to express concerns and disappointments without dwelling on the negative and being critical all the time. Frankly, whether or not this attraction fits into Tomorrowland, I'm going to be eager to try it out and see what it's like. And if I don't like it, well, I won't visit it again.

ABSOLUTELY! As someone said, if it weren't for change, we'd have nothing to talk about here. We may not always agree with changes Disney makes, but overall the public speaks with their wallets. My family are the more normal Disney fans; it's refreshing to have them around sometimes b/c things I sometimes go off on while wandering around Disneyland they just stare at me blankly. We sometimes, especially as a former CM, lose focus and objectivity on what the average guest wants and/or cares about while sometimes underestimating the things they do notice. Ultimately, it does Disney good to have this balance.

 

[JRawkSteady]

Just because of the Pixar deal, does not mean everything now has to be Pixar-related. Those films are a small and recent fraction on what Disney is... Shame on you Imagineers, what have you been smoking?

 

[CaptainMichael]

Just because of the Pixar deal, does not mean everything now has to be Pixar-related. Those films are a small and recent fraction on what Disney is... Shame on you Imagineers, what have you been smoking?

:brick:

Supply and Demand...

 

[wannab@dis]

Just because of the Pixar deal, does not mean everything now has to be Pixar-related. Those films are a small and recent fraction on what Disney is... Shame on you Imagineers, what have you been smoking?

Everything new is Pixar, huh?

PhilHarmagic? Nope
Cinderrelabration? Nope
Soarin: Nope
EE: Nope
Pirates updates: Nope
LMAX: Nope

I believe there's an inherent problem with you logic. :wave:

 

[RSoxNo1]

Pixar is hot right now, CGI is the new animation technology and one of the fundamental rules of business is to ride the proverbial wave. If CGI is nothing more than a fad, (which seems unlikely) then I'm sure Disney (and others) will ride a new wave.

A few miles away from WDW is Universal Studios - They have a couple of new CGI based attractions (I think Jimmy Neutron is a CGI character) as well as Shrek 4d. Of course, Universal also made a mediocre movie into one of their biggest thrills (The Mummy).

You need a healthy balance. The Magic Kingdom is the home to the animated fairy tales. That's why the animated movies have found their way into these parks. Based on the success of the Pirates movie (And soon to be movies) prompted another movie based on a ride with Haunted Mansion. I know there were plans in the works for a Jungle Cruise movie as well, but I believe those have been put to rest after the failure of Haunted Mansion. Disney is a large company, they're not just theme parks - and any integration amongst their different brands is beneficial to them as a company.

 

[PlaneJane]

Disney is a large company, they're not just theme parks - and any integration amongst their different brands is beneficial to them as a company.

synergy perhaps?

 

[wannab@dis]

synergy perhaps?

Exactly.

Interesting how some "SCREAM" for synergy when it applies to their argument against change, but pooh pooh on the idea when it's not supportive of their stance. :lol:

 

[JRawkSteady]

Everything new is Pixar, huh?

PhilHarmagic? Nope
Cinderrelabration? Nope
Soarin: Nope
EE: Nope
Pirates updates: Nope
LMAX: Nope

I believe there's an inherent problem with you logic. :wave:

Those aren't new... PhilHarmagic has been here since 2003...and teh other were all part of the Happiest Celebration.. Expedition Everest opened this year. And Pirates is not a new attraction...
I'm talking about the new things for 2007/2008 are ALL Pixar. The two new Finding Nemo attractions, the new Toy Story ride in 2007 at MGM, the Monsters Inc. attraction in Fantasyland. Nothing else is in the works at the moment that the public knows about... There's another attraction opening in 2008 at MGM, but they haven't released any info to CMs yet.

 

[CaptainMichael]

Could we please refer to Pixar as Disney now? It may help some of ya'll out. Remember, acceptance is the first step.

 

[wannab@dis]

Those aren't new... PhilHarmagic has been here since 2003...and teh other were all part of the Happiest Celebration.. Expedition Everest opened this year. And Pirates is not a new attraction...
I'm talking about the new things for 2007/2008 are ALL Pixar. The two new Finding Nemo attractions, the new Toy Story ride in 2007 at MGM, the Monsters Inc. attraction in Fantasyland. Nothing else is in the works at the moment that the public knows about... There's another attraction opening in 2008 at MGM, but they haven't released any info to CMs yet.

But you're neglecting the simple fact that the recent attractions were NOT Pixar. Two years ago, you could have complained that there were NO Pixar related attractions being added. I think if you expand your timeline away from a single snapshot of today, you would see that there's a balance of attractions.

The apparent follow-up question is simple: Why is this even considered problematic? The Pixar movies are extremely popular (and they ARE Disney now) and it only makes sense to capitalize from their success. *shrug*

 

[Timmay]

How many people that visit the parks will actually stop and wonder why a Monster's Inc. attraction is in Tomorrowland and think "Boy, that sure doesn't fit here"! Only the die hards, that's who. Just like the diehards are the only ones to feel that SGE doesn't fit the theme either. How many ten year olds see and ride SGE and then spend a day pondering that age old complaint, "This sure doesn't live up to the original dream or intention of Tomorrowland". How many adults, for that matter?

Please, the silly part is not the changes or the departure from what you think it should be...the silly part is simply an attitude that Disney has no clue or idea of what they are doing. Holes in murals, balloons, SGE, Monster's Inc, Pixar attrations, etc, etc are being made equal to the end of the worls as we know it. Disney for sure must have a giant lawn dart they use to make such major decisions. "Okay, there...just pick that thing up. Now, give it a good toss onto that target over there. All righty then, looks like we will be be putting some holes in some murals and slapping together a really out of place Pixar attraction these next few months".

Updating is the story of the game...it has to be. I said in a post a few weeks ago that Disney sure hits a lot more than they miss. I wasn't so sure about the M:S change, but I figured those Disney folks knew what they were doing and could probably pull the job off. I am willing to give them the oppurtunity (yeah, right...like I actually have a say ) to do what they do best. I may not like it in the end, but chances are there are plenty that will.

My own opinion is that of all the people that walk into the parks each day, very few...and I mean VERY few, notice or even care if a certain attraction may not fit into the current theme, or if the "identity" of something is being lost. They tend to be more attentive to the good time they are having.

BTW, I am still not convinced anything is out of place or anything is being lost.

 

[Tim G]

Could we please refer to Pixar as Disney now? It may help some of ya'll out. Remember, acceptance is the first step.

Why...
As long as management is still talking about Pixar and the Pixar guys...

When Robert Iger is still talking about "Our guys at Pixar"....

Why should I... :lookaroun

I konw Pixar has become just another department of Disney... but it will always be Pixar...

It's a bit tha same as Walt Disney Imagineering...

A Company within a Company...

 

[Yen_Sid1]

Actually, I think it will be good for show quality wise. I already heard when they were designing Midway Mania. WDI came with their mock up of the project and the Pixar execs made them redo it to get get better resolution. Of course, that would cost more money, but Pixar people said they didn't care about the money that they wanted a quality product. So having a lot of Pixar people ( a lot that were ex-Disney Animators anyway) involved in the creative process and say quality is more important than cost can only be a good thing for Disney.

 

[CaptainMichael]

Why...
As long as management is still talking about Pixar and the Pixar guys...

When Robert Iger is still talking about "Our guys at Pixar"....

Why should I... :lookaroun

I konw Pixar has become just another department of Disney... but it will always be Pixar...

It's a bit tha same as Walt Disney Imagineering...

A Company within a Company...

Fair enough...I originally posted Disney/Pixar, but I edited Pixar out...I'm just tired of people using Pixar like a bad word. It's not like it's Universal or anything...

 

[CaptainMichael]

Actually, I think it will be good for show quality wise. I already heard when they were designing Midway Mania. WDI came with their mock up of the project and the Pixar execs made them redo it to get get better resolution. Of course, that would cost more money, but Pixar people said they didn't care about the money that they wanted a quality product. So having a lot of Pixar people ( a lot that were ex-Disney Animators anyway) involved in the creative process and say quality is more important than cost can only be a good thing for Disney.

I completely agree. Thanks for the info!

 

[wannab@dis]

Fair enough...I originally posted Disney/Pixar, but I edited Pixar out...I'm just tired of people using Pixar like a bad word. It's not like it's Universal or anything...

uh oh... you've dont it now.


:lol:

 

[JRawkSteady]

Just because we're one in the same doesn't mean we should forget the classics.

Pixar is great, but Disney has more to offer, don't they?

And yes, a Monsters Inc. attraction in Tomorrowland makes no sense... unless we're all going to be seeing Monsters do stand up in the future.... ...

 

[CaptainMichael]

Just because we're one in the same doesn't mean we should forget the classics.

Is Toy Story not a classic? To me it is. Name a classic Disney film that would better fit these attractions.

Pixar is great, but Disney has more to offer, don't they?

Example please? Really, what has Disney made in the past 10 years that is attraction worthy besides Pixar??? PotC is the only one I can think of, and they are already doing it.

And yes, a Monsters Inc. attraction in Tomorrowland makes no sense... unless we're all going to be seeing Monsters do stand up in the future.... ...

Are we going to be driving small, gas-powered go-carts in the future?...I surely hope not, I would definitely miss my tall 4x4 truck.