Casper Gutman
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.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disney Not Renewing Great Movie Ride Sponsorship Deal with TCM ; Attraction to Close
- Thread starter The Visionary Soul
- Start date
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
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.
PrincessJulia1207
Well-Known Member
unless they're gonna rework the DHS geography and say that MMRR is part of the animation courtyard now?
po1998
Well-Known Member
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
Decisions are not made based on story but box office and merchandise. Story is then convoluted to fit these decisions made by non-creatives.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
It would have. The park needs additions not replacements but unfortunately it's where it's going.
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
Once of the best posts I've read in a while! Everything you said is so true.
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
Epcot is good to go as there are many outdated attractions needing replacements, but they are also expanding with Ratatouille which has a huge capacity.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?
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]
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]
brb1006
Well-Known Member
Spaceship Earth might end up as the last of it's kind that is over 5 minutes once GMR is closed.thats's actually the saddest thing i ever heard lol
plus idk about everyone else but if im gonna spend a considerable amount of time waiting on a line, id definitely want the ride to last longer than 5 minutes...
SorcererMC
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?"
Last edited:
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
What's wrong with Mermaid's animatronics? That's on par with saying that Stitch stinks because of that AA.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
Kman101
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.
And they aren't going to ruin Mickey Mouse
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
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
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
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
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
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.