• 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

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
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.

Again, clarifying: no, they didn't choose this version because it makes AAs impossible.

It is very odd that they choose this version of the characters, though, because they won't age well.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Again, clarifying: no, they didn't choose this version because it makes AAs impossible.

It is very odd that they choose this version of the characters, though, because they won't age well.

I do agree the choice was odd. I don't hate the choice but I don't really get it either. I think the tone they're going for in the ride fits the style they chose. Going "into a short" means they have to use to Mickey shorts. Like you're in a movie theater and literally get pulled into, say, "Get a Horse". I get the idea, it 'fits' being placed in the Chinese Theater but I also agree with those who'd rather have a timeless ride that features Mickey through the ages.
 

po1998

Well-Known Member
And all of this would have made so much sense as a new build in the Animation Courtyard....Instead of the centerpiece of the entire park being based on the TV toon...
All because Launch Bay is needed to promote SWL???...or a more plausible explanation...Option # 1 Two attractions(MMRR & GMR) = greater operational costs vs. Option # 2 MMRR(newer attraction, less CM's needed) replacing GMR(high maintenance costs due to neglect & many CM's needed for in ride operation)...operational costs go down. Net attraction count stays the same.

They don't even care that for the next year prior to TSL opening, DHS as of 8/13 will become even more laughable as a park.


So sad this is what WDW has come to. I'm wondering if it wasn't for WDW's 50th coming up, and the 40th for Epcot, how much longer would the neglect have continued?
 

lazyboy97o

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.
Decisions are not made based on story but box office and merchandise. Story is then convoluted to fit these decisions made by non-creatives.
 

Daveeeeed

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. (And I know you weren't complaining about the Space restaurant or Rat ...)
Once of the best posts I've read in a while! Everything you said is so true.
 

Daveeeeed

Well-Known Member
It would have. The park needs additions not replacements but unfortunately it's where it's going.
Epcot is good to go as there are many outdated attractions needing replacements, but they are also expanding with Ratatouille which has a huge capacity.

It would be very rare for Magic Kingdom to ever justify a closer. The park needs so much more capacity. And to boot TRON is a proven concept and is a wonderful IP. Not to mention we are getting a new fancy theater.

HWS is the park that needs capacity by far the most yet they are replacing a people eater? Put $50 million in GMR, and put a new build in Animation Courtyard. It isn't really that crazy of an ask. They could and should have compromised. The crazier thing is that they had a willing sponsor, and it sums up the park by showing classic movies, something that the lands now lack.

Mind boggling how DL still runs the subs yet we lose a headliner for the sake of cash. And GMR is not boring or overly long like Ellen was. It is actually a very fresh and entertaining ride albeit in need of an update.
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
For those that think all the new Mickey shorts are grossout well it's not. Not all the new shorts are grossout focus nor is it anything Ren and Stimpyish. And if you really want to see what Disney does when it desperately and tried to be like Ren and Stimpy. Ever heard of Shoonkums and Meat?
latest

327193.jpg

No? That's because the series was very short lived and aired as part of the newer shows for the Disney Afternoon block during its final few years. This was Disney's attempt at mimicking John K's humor and animation style following the success of Nickelodeon's Ren and Stimpy show at the time. Needless to say the series thankfully ended up in obscurity. The show itself doesn't even feel anything Disney would do.

The episodes can currently be found on Youtube if you guys are curious. I would take the new Mickey shorts over that show anyday!
[/QUOTE]
 

SorcererMC

Well-Known Member
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.

Disney is the market leader of a luxury brand - this means that they do not simply 'give the general public what they want to see'. They drive consumer tastes and preferences. What I object to is the strategy of how they are doing this...if they are using the current animated Mickey shorts as the basis for this ride, then they are already behind. They should be forward-facing for what their consumers want next. The issue is brand continuity - they carry forward the legacy of the past whether they like it or not. This means they have to look beyond the current concept of Mickey and consider what their brand has been in the past, present, and into the future.

nd 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.

Still no. It is a question of 'orders of magnitude' of how the source material is adapted, such that it becomes an original work in its own right. With both Star Wars and Marvel, they have some flexibility, but if they push those boundaries too far, they will alienate their fan base. @phillip9698 kind of proved my point - that the creation of a composite character (which is normal for a film adaptation) is deemed outside the bounds of authenticity for what is or is not 'Spider-Man'.

Transferring that into the theme parks requires a different approach than with film because it's a different platform.

Re: MMRR, I am counting on the imagineers to create a great ride that is still 'Mickey', presented in a way that is fresh.
When kid (13) and I watched the D23 clip of this announcement, he narrated after the imagineer said, 'who doesn't love Mickey Mouse?' -- "<cautious applause>. Are you going to ruin Mickey Mouse?" :cool:
 
Last edited:

RSoxNo1

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
What's wrong with Mermaid's animatronics? That's on par with saying that Stitch stinks because of that AA.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Disney is the market leader of a luxury brand - this means that they do not simply 'give the general public what they want to see'. They drive consumer tastes and preferences. What I object to is the strategy of how they are doing this...if they are using the current animated Mickey shorts as the basis for this ride, then they are already behind. They should be forward-facing for what their consumers want next. The issue is brand continuity - they carry forward the legacy of the past whether they like it or not. This means they have to look beyond the current concept of Mickey and consider what their brand has been in the past, present, and into the future.



Still no. It is a question of 'orders of magnitude' of how the source material is adapted, such that it becomes an original work in its own right. With both Star Wars and Marvel, they have some flexibility, but if they push those boundaries too far, they will alienate their fan base. @phillip9698 kind of proved my point - that the creation of a composite character (which is normal for a film adaptation) is deemed outside the bounds of authenticity for what is or is not 'Spider-Man'.

Transferring that into the theme parks requires a different approach than with film because it's a different platform.

Re: MMRR, I am counting on the imagineers to create a great ride that is still 'Mickey', presented in a way that is fresh.
When kid (13) and I watched the D23 clip of this announcement, he narrated after the imagineer said, 'who doesn't love Mickey Mouse?' -- "<cautious applause>. Are you going to ruin Mickey Mouse?"

Ok. You're certainly entitled to feel how you feel. No where did I say I liked what they're doing. They used to give us what we didn't know we wanted. I'm not saying I agree with their strategy but it IS what their doing (giving into the general public). Not sure why people want to argue this. It just feels useless to me to complain about it. We can't change their strategy. If we could I'd say keep ranting up a storm on all they're doing wrong. But until people start truly punishing them by not opening their wallets and pocket books, they're going to keep doing what they're doing.

And it's not a "no" because Marvel, Pixar and Star Wars/Lucas ARE Disney now. Sorry if some don't want to accept that. Not liking them is fine but they're as much Disney as Peter Pan, Mary Poppins and resorts like Animal Kingdom Lodge are Disney to me. But to each their own. I know it's the cool thing to rail against IPs being inserted into the parks and I'll complain when they shoehorn something in where it doesn't belong, I have and will continue to do so but it's tiresome hearing how awful IPs are.

And they aren't going to ruin Mickey Mouse :rolleyes: Unfortunately they picked a design that clearly many here dislike because it didn't fit their mold of what we personally wanted the attraction to be. Maybe give it a chance and some of you may actually enjoy it, even the design of Mickey. In this case they COULD be giving us something we didn't know we wanted. And I feel like they could easily switch the graphics of how Mickey, etc. look. I know we all had it in our heads that we'd get a through the years "classic" Mickey, but Mickey in the shorts is more in line with original drawings and his behavior actually gives him a personality. I guess everyone wants bland boring park Mickey to wave at you and say have a magical day and do his little giggle laugh and call it a day? Maybe the 7-8 minute ride will actually be, I don't know, fun?
 
Last edited:

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Ok. You're certainly entitled to feel how you feel. No where did I say I liked what they're doing. They used to give us what we didn't know we wanted. I'm not saying I agree with their strategy but it IS what their doing (giving into the general public). Not sure why people want to argue this. It just feels useless to me to complain about it. We can't change their strategy. If we could I'd say keep ranting up a storm on all they're doing wrong. But until people start truly punishing them by not opening their wallets and pocket books, they're going to keep doing what they're doing.

And it's not a "no" because Marvel, Pixar and Star Wars/Lucas ARE Disney now. Sorry if some don't want to accept that. Not liking them is fine but they're as much Disney as Peter Pan, Mary Poppins and resorts like Animal Kingdom Lodge are Disney to me. But to each their own. I know it's the cool thing to rail against IPs being inserted into the parks and I'll complain when they shoehorn something in where it doesn't belong, I have and will continue to do so but it's tiresome hearing how awful IPs are.

We CAN change the strategy. You say it yourself - stop going. Stop buying merchandise. For goodness sake, STOP joining the blasted DVC.

It will take a while, but a tipping point will come if enough people simply refuse to give WDW money.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
We CAN change the strategy. You say it yourself - stop going. Stop buying merchandise. For goodness sake, STOP joining the blasted DVC.

It will take a while, but a tipping point will come if enough people simply refuse to give WDW money.

But us on here are a very small sample of who goes to the parks. We're a blip on their radar. I'd love a concerted effort to change their behavior, where we all gather together and try to make a difference, but folks pearl-clutching over certain things and lecturing others on how Disney should be and was isn't going to do it. Sorry that's just how I see it. Not really saying we can't have an affect but they don't listen to us. They listen to the millions of other guests who swarm their property and shell out thousands of dollars a week or night to experience the parks. They're going to give in to ridiculous guest feedback. It's just reality.
 

Mike S

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
Kong actually has 11. An old lady, a worm, 5 drivers (one in each truck), 3 bats, and Kong himself (still the best AA I've ever seen, imo). If you're only counting what you see during one ride and not counting the queue that would bring it down to 5. Don't give out misinformation ;)
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 ...)
The funniest part about the "screenz" debate is that Disney is very obviously going in the same direction with most of their new builds. Will the fanboys complain about them too or excuse it because it's Disney? Let's find out :hilarious:
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Kong actually has 11. An old lady, a worm, 5 drivers (one in each truck), 3 bats, and Kong himself (still the best AA I've ever seen, imo). If you're only counting what you see during one ride and not counting the queue that would bring it down to 5. Don't give out misinformation ;)

The funniest part about the "screenz" debate is that Disney is very obviously going in the same direction with most of their new builds. Will the fanboys complain about them too or excuse it because it's Disney? Let's find out :hilarious:

LOL. Each side is definitely a bit hypocritical at times. Man there are some who think one or the other can truly do no wrong.

I think the screens are OK on Kong. I still feel immersed enough. It's not as if I'm stationary and sitting in front of one big screen. I actually think the screen rides are well done in Universal but it's a tad on the overkill side. They really didn't need Fallon. I give them a slight pass on Kong because of the Kong animatronic and the vehicle and overall enjoyment of the ride. I think it's been a bit too heavily criticized. And every time I ride guests seem really into it and have a good time on it. I think they did a good job with it.
 

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

Top Bottom