Originally posted by BradleyJ
So according to you all new attractions have to based on the standard array of Disney Characters. Somehow and new areas or attractions not based on them are not either equal are deserving of recognition.
I would like to know what Disney film any of the original, Non-Fantasyland, attractions were based on.
You can't, they are all completely original, none of them were based on an existing work.
The first, Film based attraction added outside of Fantasyland, was Star Tours, next after the was Splash Mountain.
It is only a recent development, and then only used at sparingly, that attractions have some sort of pre-existing tie in. [/QUOTE
Actually that's not true there is quite a few example, Swiss Family Treehouse (that's obvious), Matterhorn Mountain is based from a Disney film, The Submarine was based on a Disney film. Mark Twain Riverboat, Tom Sawer Island. But some are not based on classic films, you are absolutly right. But the difference is they tell stories, so they don't need to base it on actual fimls. Haunter Mansion, Pirates, Tower of Terror all have a story to them, so they didn't have to add charecters. Even Matterhorn Mountain over at Disneyland didn't tell much of a story, so it was rehabbed in 1978 to add the Adbonable (sp?) Snowman. No the charecters don't have to come from classic films and movies, but it would be nice if the attraction told their story. That's the difference of Disney parks and others, Disney has attractions, that tell stories. Other parks have typical rides found at any local carnival. But every non Disney park has spinners or coasters that shape the cars into some sort of shape they hope will appeal to the audience. This is exactly why I'm just as critical of Disney's California Adventure adding Flick's Fun Faire, which also will just be three additional carnival rides, but that's another resort so I'll save that discussion for the Disneyland thread.
The Tiki room would be a great example of attractions where the charecters are not based on a film, but watching the attraction you understand who they are, what they are doing, and why they are there. The Country Bears would be another.
I'm not suggesting Chester and Hester need a film, what they need is a story, if the story is out there somewhere they need to promote it. The whole argument totaly explains why I don't think much of Primevil Whirl. Why not have them do a charecter greet in the area? They could have easily added a "Chester, and Hestor" dark ride that would have been enjoyed by kids, as well as explain their story They didn't want to spend that kind of money though because it would have involved Imaganeers much more extinsively then adding Dinorama, which basically just took a few to design the cars on Triceratops Spin and Primevil Whirl.