• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

News Disney Not Renewing Great Movie Ride Sponsorship Deal with TCM ; Attraction to Close

phillip9698

Well-Known Member
I keep seeing this argument - equating Bob Iger's IP purchases to what Walt Disney did. It's not true, even if it is what TWDC would have you believe. It's sad that people (in general) don't understand the creative process behind classic Disney - ie they don't recognize how Walt Disney changed and adapted the fairytales and made them his own, as an original work and not derivative.
Mary Poppins is a different case since that was negotiated with Travers; she hated the changes.
However, that is not what Disney is doing with Marvel, they have to keep it close to the source material or it won't be a blockbuster.
Iger is using a cookie-cutter; Walt Disney, and the leadership who followed him, did not.

Marvel Studios is deviating from the source material to fit new movies just as much as Walt Disney changed the source material of the fairy tales he borrowed from. Don't believe me, head to some comic forums and read all the angst those fans have about some of the changes. The latest Spiderman for example takes bits and pieces from at least 3 different Spiderman universes (aka separate instances of the same base character) and mashes them together to create the character and universe we have on the big screen now. Another example, The Black Order (Thanos henchmen in the new upcoming Avengers flick) are a recent comic creation and therefore did not exist during the original Infinity Gauntlet saga from 25 years ago. The Iron Patriot armor that War Machine wears in Iron Man 3, yeah in the comics that is worn by Norman Osborne, better known as the villian from Spider Man 1, the Green Goblin. Marvel clearly didn't have access to use the Green Goblin in that role so they just gave it to War Machine.
 
Last edited:

NearTheEars

Well-Known Member
Is there any indication it will be more than that or even that fancy? Im getting the impression it's Na'vi River without the water and animatronics. Probably maintain the same track path and just go spot to spot watching mediocre animation.

I believe this is the attraction they are debuting their "2.5-D" effects with these elaborate set pieces and screens that move around creating a nearly 3-D experience without glasses. I also believe it will be a completely different ride system and will take up much less space in the show building.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Yes, devastated. Not so much over the loss of The Great Movie Ride, however. Instead, devastated over what its loss represents. I understand the need for an update to the attraction, in fact I would encourage the ride be updated. I have no problem gutting entire scenes and completely revamping the ride system. Use the tech Uni created for Spider-man and combine it with the new Mickey Mouse tech and create a modern version of The Great Movie Ride, complete with interchangeable scenes and 2 1/2 D effects, Animatronic set pieces and homages to iconic films from the Disney library. Re-imagine what is one of the greatest concepts in dark ride history; turn it into the crown jewel of the park once again. Take a risk. Don't play it safe and cater to the lowest common denominator with Ren and Stimpy animation.

Agreed with you. But on one hand they don't seem to be playing it safe with the tech in the ride (though I agree Mickey is a "safe" choice, although he's LONG overdue for an actual ride featuring him). We'll see what they do. By all accounts from our insiders the ride should be very well done. I hate it's placement but what's done is done. I've long, sadly, come to grips with losing GMR. I love that ride. I loved the Wizard of Oz section. But I've accepted it's going :(
 

The_Jobu

Well-Known Member
Marvel Studios is deviating from the source material to fit new movies just as much as Walt Disney changed the source material of the fairy tales he borrowed from. Don't believe me, head to some comic forums and read all the angst those fans have about some of the changes. The latest Spiderman for example takes bits and pieces from at least 3 different Spiderman universes (aka separate instances of the same base character) and mashes them together to create the character and universe we have on the big screen now. Another example, The Black Order (Thanos henchmen in the new upcoming Avengers flick) are a recent comic creation and therefore did not exist during the original Infinity Gauntlet saga from 25 years ago.

Marvel's been a bit of a mess lately, comics-wise. They're finally starting to back pedal on all their character gender/race swaps after tanking sales, then they've been trying to match movie continuity.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
That's the problem. A theme park without theme is superficial eye candy. That's not what I want in a Disney park.



Give me a break. To suggest that these changes are guest demand-driven because of their phones is borderline absurd....


What makes you think it's what 'most of us' want? I happen to like Marvel, but that doesn't mean I want to see original rides sacrificed to have it in the parks. Same goes for TGMR.


I keep seeing this argument - equating Bob Iger's IP purchases to what Walt Disney did. It's not true, even if it is what TWDC would have you believe. It's sad that people (in general) don't understand the creative process behind classic Disney - ie they don't recognize how Walt Disney changed and adapted the fairytales and made them his own, as an original work and not derivative.
Mary Poppins is a different case since that was negotiated with Travers; she hated the changes.
However, that is not what Disney is doing with Marvel, they have to keep it close to the source material or it won't be a blockbuster.
Iger is using a cookie-cutter; Walt Disney, and the leadership who followed him, did not.


'Synergy' is a corporate buzzword for brand marketing to increase sales. If you want to make the argument that 'Disney is and always has been a business'...and marketed its product, that's fine, it's true. And Iger has been doing a great job making $$$ for Disney with this studios strategy, there's no denying that.

Once upon a time, TWDC was a creative juggernaut, too.
Make no mistake - Iger is trading on existing brand capital, built over decades, to make investments in the parks (aka "leveraging purchased IP") with zero creative risk...which ultimately erodes the brand.

It's fine if you are on board with the current changes, but that's no reason to be rude to others who see the erosion and aren't pleased with it.
It's a difference of opinion and perspective - it doesn't mean someone doesn't understand 'reality'.

I don't think MansionButler is arguing with anyone or even stating they like what's going on, but it's fine if they do. Nothing wrong with appreciating new things coming to the parks. I personally think some placements of them suck but I'm still looking forward to everything we're getting. He's talking to you about the reality of how the parks are run now. That IS how it is whether we like it or not. They do a lot of guest surveying and I have no doubts some of it is skewed to give them the results they want but it's a reality of the current theme park guest, right or wrong Disney is going to give the general public what they want to see. Do I agree? No, but it doesn't matter what we want, unfortunately.

And yes they were a creative juggernaut who came up with fantastic ideas for rides. I'm sure that's still possible but I also don't fault them for wanting to put popular new IPs in their parks. I just don't agree with their placements. And yes, Marvel and Star Wars are like any property that Disney bought and turned into a film. It's no different but some want to argue it is and rail against IPs. I want original homegrown IPs and rides but that isn't where we are at right now.
 

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
I don't see how Disney isn't a "creative juggernaut" anymore. Pandora is awesome. SWL looks awesome. Etc. just because you incorporate characters into a ride doesn't mean it's unimaginative. Look at Shanghai Pirates. Best theme park attraction in a park right now IMO. The people who complain are stuck in the days when Disney didn't have the IP rich pool they have now, looking at the past in rose colored glasses. If anything, I think WDI is better than ever and the level of theme and story and immersion is the best it's ever been and only increasing.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Exactly. How is being happy the parks are getting things an overreaction? LOL

The problem, of course, is the cost of what they're getting, and the larger context in which we're getting them.

We are getting a newly built theatre, space restaurant, and Ratoutouie ride. That's all great.

We're getting a sci-fi themed roller coaster in the dark directly next to a very similar sci-fi themed roller coaster in the dark. Then, at EPCOT, they're removing one of the last vestiges of the original park for... a sci-fi themed roller coaster in the dark. This smacks a great deal of "we don't care if it fits thematically, if it harmonizes with other rides, if it fits the logistical demands of the park, or anything else. Just jam the IP in there, and if we can save money by cloning a ride, great."

Other then that, EPCOT still lingers in its sad state, with only vague indications of coming plans - which promise to further confuse the parks identity and stuff it with IPs.

They are replacing GMR with a screen-only ride that will age horribly. I'd rather keep GMR.

What's more, the totality of the MGM makeover is now revealed as far more disappointing then even most of the pessimists around here would have predicted a few years ago.

They are building a bland hotel that indicates the turn towards unthemed resorts is a conscious management strategy and will continue for the foreseeable future.

They are building an incredibly expensive Star Wars hotel that looks amazing, but will continue the stratification between classes of guests that WDW has been emphasizing with the host of up-charges.

Overall, this D23 proved that WDW is pretty much who we thought they were, SWL and Pandora notwithstanding.

As a side note, its amazing the different approaches Uni and WDW are taking - its like they're trying to switch places. WDW is removing AA rides left and right, replacing them with screens and coasters. Uni is getting rid of coasters and trying to move away from screens while adding more AA intensive rides. I know the approach I prefer.

Why yes, I am feeling a bit grumpy.
 

Ag11gani

Well-Known Member
The problem, of course, is the cost of what they're getting, and the larger context in which we're getting them.

We are getting a newly built theatre, space restaurant, and Ratoutouie ride. That's all great.

We're getting a sci-fi themed roller coaster in the dark directly next to a very similar sci-fi themed roller coaster in the dark. Then, at EPCOT, they're removing one of the last vestiges of the original park for... a sci-fi themed roller coaster in the dark. This smacks a great deal of "we don't care if it fits thematically, if it harmonizes with other rides, if it fits the logistical demands of the park, or anything else. Just jam the IP in there, and if we can save money by cloning a ride, great."

Other then that, EPCOT still lingers in its sad state, with only vague indications of coming plans - which promise to further confuse the parks identity and stuff it with IPs.

They are replacing GMR with a screen-only ride that will age horribly. I'd rather keep GMR.

What's more, the totality of the MGM makeover is now revealed as far more disappointing then even most of the pessimists around here would have predicted a few years ago.

They are building a bland hotel that indicates the turn towards unthemed resorts is a conscious management strategy and will continue for the foreseeable future.

They are building an incredibly expensive Star Wars hotel that looks amazing, but will continue the stratification between classes of guests that WDW has been emphasizing with the host of up-charges.

Overall, this D23 proved that WDW is pretty much who we thought they were, SWL and Pandora notwithstanding.

As a side note, its amazing the different approaches Uni and WDW are taking - its like they're trying to switch places. WDW is removing AA rides left and right, replacing them with screens and coasters. Uni is getting rid of coasters and trying to move away from screens while adding more AA intensive rides. I know the approach I prefer.

Why yes, I am feeling a bit grumpy.

From the looks of the ride videos, Tron isn't in the dark, it even has an outside portion.

Also who said that the Mickey ride would have only screens. It has been said that it would be projection heavy, projecting on to practical sets with PRACTICAL effects.

Please tell me how Uni is moving from screens to AAs.
Kong- Screens with 1 AA
Jimmy Fallon- Screens
Fast and Furious- Screens (I believe)

NFl- AAs in Little Mermaid ride( not really good AAs but still present) and in 7DMT
FEA- I'm counting 7, with screens for accent
Pandora- 1 incredibly impressive AA, with screens
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
The problem, of course, is the cost of what they're getting, and the larger context in which we're getting them.

We are getting a newly built theatre, space restaurant, and Ratoutouie ride. That's all great.

We're getting a sci-fi themed roller coaster in the dark directly next to a very similar sci-fi themed roller coaster in the dark. Then, at EPCOT, they're removing one of the last vestiges of the original park for... a sci-fi themed roller coaster in the dark. This smacks a great deal of "we don't care if it fits thematically, if it harmonizes with other rides, if it fits the logistical demands of the park, or anything else. Just jam the IP in there, and if we can save money by cloning a ride, great."

Other then that, EPCOT still lingers in its sad state, with only vague indications of coming plans - which promise to further confuse the parks identity and stuff it with IPs.

They are replacing GMR with a screen-only ride that will age horribly. I'd rather keep GMR.

What's more, the totality of the MGM makeover is now revealed as far more disappointing then even most of the pessimists around here would have predicted a few years ago.

They are building a bland hotel that indicates the turn towards unthemed resorts is a conscious management strategy and will continue for the foreseeable future.

They are building an incredibly expensive Star Wars hotel that looks amazing, but will continue the stratification between classes of guests that WDW has been emphasizing with the host of up-charges.

Overall, this D23 proved that WDW is pretty much who we thought they were, SWL and Pandora notwithstanding.

As a side note, its amazing the different approaches Uni and WDW are taking - its like they're trying to switch places. WDW is removing AA rides left and right, replacing them with screens and coasters. Uni is getting rid of coasters and trying to move away from screens while adding more AA intensive rides. I know the approach I prefer.

Why yes, I am feeling a bit grumpy.

Nintendo World ... years from now ... is a nice start with AA (but let's wait and see what we actually get, shall we?) intensive rides. Cutting Dragon Challenge or whatever it is called is a good move. But let's not pretend they're really getting away from SCREENZ. I'm OK with SCREENZ if they transport me well enough. Not *everything* needs AAs or sets to wow me, I know I'm in the minority. That being said I don't need a park that's almost entirely full of rides that require 3D glasses and that's what Universal has become. Not saying their rides aren't fantastic but it's overkill and guests seem to be speaking out on it. Yet we got Fallon and now Fast and Furious. Let's not pretend Universal is leagues above Disney. I don't think they are. But fans give them a pass on a lot of things they wouldn't give Disney a pass on.

The fact is, they're investing in the WDW parks. You can pick apart everything they're doing, so could I, but we can't change what they've done or what they're doing.

I hate the loss of GMR but they're closing it. Many guests would argue it's a dated concept and you're already doing yourself a disservice by dismissing the Mickey ride, which our insiders have said will be well done, if I'm transported into the short, who cares if there are no AAs? I imagine we get sets, just with projections on them. I'm not happy we're losing GMR. Not at all but I'm not going to apologize for giving Mickey a chance. Many don't even want to give new things a chance. Do I like they're replacing and not adding? I've said ad nauseum that I don't.

People are acting like Epcot has been ruined by Guardians but it was ruined a LONG time ago. For many though this was just the ripping off of the bandaid and the reality that the great Epcot Center concept is more or less dead. Do I like it? NO. Do I want Guardians in Epcot? NO. But what's done is done and complaining about it does nothing. THEY DON'T CARE WHAT US FOLKS WANT. They are appealing to the mass public. That's just a reality. They likely think we're all nuts on here for what we complain about. We're not taken seriously.

The theater for MK is much needed.

And TRON is an actual addition and you STILL find something to complain about with it. Would I have preferred something in Frontierland or Adventureland? Yes I would have, but I see why they're making over Tomorrowland first.

The Space restaurant in Epcot is going to be a new build and looks to be in line with what Epcot should offer.

Ratatouille, while *gasp* (the HORROR) is an IP from a movie, it fits France. If it wasn't a movie and they came up with a zany trackless ride featuring a mouse that's all about food, everyone here would be eating it up. (And I know you weren't complaining about the Space restaurant or Rat ...)
 
Last edited:

Kman101

Well-Known Member
From the looks of the ride videos, Tron isn't in the dark, it even has an outside portion.

Also who said that the Mickey ride would have only screens. It has been said that it would be projection heavy, projecting on to practical sets with PRACTICAL effects.

Please tell me how Uni is moving from screens to AAs.
Kong- Screens with 1 AA
Jimmy Fallon- Screens
Fast and Furious- Screens (I believe)

NFl- AAs in Little Mermaid ride( not really good AAs but still present) and in 7DMT
FEA- I'm counting 7, with screens for accent
Pandora- 1 incredibly impressive AA, with screens

Apparently if it's not AA heavy the ride will suck no matter what. I love AA's but I also don't think if used right screens can't enhance the experience. River Journey makes GREAT use of projections and screens and still gives us a forest environment in terms of sets. Look at AA heavy Mermaid. It's totally lackluster.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Nintendo World ... years from now ... is a nice start with AA (but let's wait and see what we actually get, shall we?) intensive rides. Cutting Dragon Challenge or whatever it is called is a good move. But let's not pretend they're really getting away from SCREENZ. I'm OK with SCREENZ if they transport me well enough. Not *everything* needs AAs or sets to wow me, I know I'm in the minority. That being said I don't need a park that's almost entirely full of rides that require 3D glasses and that's what Universal has become. Not saying their rides aren't fantastic but it's overkill and guests seem to be speaking out on it. Yet we got Fallon and now Fast and Furious. Let's not pretend Universal is leagues above Disney. I don't think they are. But fans give them a pass on a lot of things they wouldn't give Disney a pass on.

The fact is, they're investing in the WDW parks. You can pick apart everything they're doing, so could I, but we can't change what they've done or what they're doing.

I hate the loss of GMR but they're closing it. Many guests would argue it's a dated concept and you're already doing yourself a disservice by dismissing the Mickey ride, which our insiders have said will be well done, if I'm transported into the short, who cares if there are no AAs? I imagine we get sets, just with projections on them. I'm not happy we're losing GMR. Not at all but I'm not going to apologize for giving Mickey a chance. Many don't even want to give new things a chance. Do I like they're replacing and not adding? I've said ad nauseum that I don't.

People are acting like Epcot has been ruined by Guardians but it was ruined a LONG time ago. For many though this was just the ripping off of the bandaid and the reality that the great Epcot Center concept is more or less dead. Do I like it? NO. Do I want Guardians in Epcot? NO. But what's done is done and complaining about it does nothing. THEY DON'T CARE WHAT US FOLKS WANT. They are appealing to the mass public. That's just a reality. They likely think we're all nuts on here for what we complain about. We're not taken seriously.

The theater for MK is much needed.

And TRON is an actual addition and you STILL find something to complain about with it. Would I have preferred something in Frontierland or Adventureland? Yes I would have, but I see why they're making over Tomorrowland first.

The Space restaurant in Epcot is going to be a new build and looks to be in line with what Epcot should offer.

Ratatouille, while *gasp* (the HORROR) is an IP from a movie, it fits France. If it wasn't a movie and they came up with a zany trackless ride featuring a mouse that's all about food, everyone here would be eating it up.

To clarify a couple points, I'm not one of the folks that has a problem with IPs, not even Guardians. IPs drive the logic of the entertainment industry - I'd argue that Disney is actually UNDERexploiting its stable of properties, the finest owned by any media company, in the parks.

I also wouldn't argue Uni has surpassed WDW, even though I prefer it now for a number of reasons (AK is still the best park in Orlando, though). I would say that, over the last decade, I think Uni has been moving in the right direction and WDW in the wrong one, and I think this D23 demonstrates that's likely to continue.

The ONE area that WDW was always clearly superior to Uni is AAs. On a personal level, AA-heavy rides are far and away my favorites. So I'm not incredibly impressed by WDW closing two of the last few AA heavy attractions and continuing a horrible trend that has been ongoing since the mid-90s.

As I said, new theatre, Rat, Space Restaurant, all great.

One point I didn't make: Tron is basically an extension of the TSMM/ Soarin' "slap another theatre on rather then develop a new ride to handle capacity" trend.

Disney is investing in WDW, but in a way that continues many of the worst trends of the last decades.

And MGM and EPCOT are still in horrible straits and in desperate need of full rethinks - and that's AFTER they've supposedly made over MGM. They are solving one major issue - adding capacity to MK - but not other, equally pressing ones.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Apparently if it's not AA heavy the ride will suck no matter what. I love AA's but I also don't think if used right screens can't enhance the experience. River Journey makes GREAT use of projections and screens and still gives us a forest environment in terms of sets. Look at AA heavy Mermaid. It's totally lackluster.

Runaway has to be viewed in the context of what it is replacing. It is replacing a unique, AA heavy dark ride.

I fully agree that screens can be invaluable tools if deployed in conjunction with other effects. But Runaway seems like to be very, very screen reliant. They've also chosen versions of the characters that make character-based AAs physically impossible.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Runaway has to be viewed in the context of what it is replacing. It is replacing a unique, AA heavy dark ride.

I fully agree that screens can be invaluable tools if deployed in conjunction with other effects. But Runaway seems like to be very, very screen reliant. They've also chosen versions of the characters that make character-based AAs physically impossible.

I'm aware of what it's replacing. It's wrong. I think it's a total shame to lose all of those AA's for a screen heavy ride. But I'm not going to dislike the ride because of that though. I don't think they chose this version JUST because they wouldn't translate well into AA's. They chose this version because the suits wanted this version. I'll dislike the ride if it's poorly done.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom