Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks

[flavious27]

Seas with Nemo and Friends Omnimover
Turtle Talk
Finding Nemo: The Musical
Toy Story Mania
Monsters inc laugh Floor
Buzz lightyear Space Ranger Spin
Pixar block party bash(and now another Pixar themed parade)

(clones/similar designs at DLR)
Nemo Subs
Buzz Lightyear
Toy Story Mania
Soon to open Radiator Springs


These are all within the last 15 years of movies that have not really proven the test of being at least 20 years old yet.

It is not just the amount of Pixar attractions that have gone in, but how many so soon.

Pixar Place/Studios was a good idea for an area at Disney's Hollywood Studios park but there is no point in my humble opinion for an entire area when there is at least one Pixar movie based attractionne in th in each park and only one ride (another Toy Story themed shooter of all things) in Pixar Place.

R&R clone in WDW? When was that announced?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Some of the points you brought up were interesting. I grew up, of course, watching the Disney classics that made me fall in love with everything Disney. But after Lion King that all stopped. None of the characters after that really stuck with me. One of the things I love about WDW is being able to go there and see what I saw growing up and the characters I loved. All the classics are there. They are something I will always use as an inspiration for my studies in film-making. When I was 5 though, Toy Story came out and I had never seen anything like it. I quickly fell in love with Woody and Buzz. Growing up 6 7 8 9 10 I saw all the characters Pixar put out because all Disney characters were incredibly weak (Stitch, Hunchback, Dinosaur for a few). My love for Pixar has nothing against what Walt did with his original films because I love those films to death and without them Pixar wouldn't exist. What I'm saying is, with the amount of classic Disney there is in the parks for those who grew up on it there should be the same for Pixar and I just don't see it. I want to see Flik in the park. I want to see Carl and Russell and Doug. I want to see Nemo Woody Jessie and all the Pixar characters. I want to see a Soarin' type attraction that uses Up as a back drop. I'd love to see dark rides for Pixar like they have with the original classics.

These are NEW classics and I think that it is really tough for people to believe that. I think it's tough for them because they think what Pixar is doing is going to somehow replace the magic that Walt created but it's not. Pixar is just current. If Pixar didn't have good films I wouldn't want their characters in the park. (You don't see me asking for Brother Bear or Chicken Little characters). As far as a park I want to see a bigger presence in DHS. Pixar place is Pixar ride with a little gift shop that is pretty awful to be honest. Pixar should be right with the classics because they are on the same level. Maybe you and many others didn't grow up with them but there's no reason why they shouldn't be there. Cars shouldn't have it's own land in my mind but that's only because that's my least favorite Pixar film. When I'm 30-40 years old and hopefully taking my kids to the park I hope they still have the classics there but I want to see MY classics there too and I want to see them well represented. Pixar has changed my outlook on a lot of things, like I'm sure original Disney films did for MANY others. I think the reason for the Dwarf Coaster and the Clown Circus (ugh) is because Fantasy Land was something, correct me if I'm wrong, that Walt had blue printed before his untimely death. So I figure that they want his characters that he used in his films to have a big presence there I'm guessing. I'd love to see them expand Pixar Place and have the characters in there. I'd love to see a Toy Story dark ride that took us into their world. I'd love to have an attraction where I'm flying in Carl's house through the clouds. I want these things because for me, these are the films that got me into loving Disney even more than I had. These are the films that got me into loving the art of film-making. The power of the characters and the realness of them are unparalleled in today's art. So for me, maybe me alone, these characters are incredibly important to my life.

Well said and those Pixar films are truly classics in their own right and admittedly were inspired and made by those who grew up on the Disney classics. Pixar characters deserve to come to life in the best possible environment and execution, so it's actually great that Disney embraced them and can make those worlds you love real.

 

[tirian]

From a long-time thread lurker:

The complicated part of integrating Pixar into the parks is that the majority of Disney theme parks—and certainly the Disneyland-style ones—recreate eras that don't exist anymore, or never existed in the first place. Pixar, on the other hand, is very contemporary, very modern, very now. The MK's lands are designed to evoke the wild west, storybook fantasy, or a sci-fi vision of the future. Every Pixar story takes place in the modern world, from Toy Story to Up.

The Monsters, Inc. and Buzz Lightyear attractions in Tomorrowland illustrate this well. Even if we ignore the obvious theming issues of placing Monsters, Inc. Laugh Floor in Tomorrowland, we can't overlook that the Monster's Inc. movie itself is modern, not futuristic. WDI set up the artificial construct of using the doors to pass into an alternate reality, but they would really have to offer time travel, too; technically, Mike would be dead in Tomorrowland. Buzz Lightyear gets a pass because the attraction exists in the imaginary BL universe, not the modern reality of Toy Story.

I'll extend this to the Finding Nemo overlays at Epcot versus Disneyland. The Seas pavilion doesn't pretend to be completely futuristic; and unlike its "Living Seas" predecessor, it doesn't even pretend to be a real seabase anymore. Guests aren't asked to believe they're in a storybook village or Jules Verne's Mysterious Island. Modern Nemo fits inside modern Epcot. At Disneyland, the Nemo Sub Ride is a great attraction in itself, but the theme is obviously shoehorned into Tomorrowland. Judging from online reactions to the ride's opening, most guests simply liked Nemo; DL fanboys foamed over the sub's return and lamented the Pixar inclusion; and many people enjoyed the ride, but felt something "just [wasn't] right." I suspect the last group of people were unconsciously reacting to the odd mix of modern Pixar mixed with futurism. The Nemo attraction simply doesn't belong there, because Nemo's environment is too familiar for us to accept as "Tomorrow."

The other issue is the Pixar aesthetic. I noticed the majority of signage for Toy Story Midway Mania uses hand-drawn, cell-shaded images rather than proper CGI-based ones. The reason is obvious: TSMM was first created for DCA, and the Pixar look doesn't belong on a 1920s boardwalk. To be fair, Pixar always offers some great 1950s-style illustrations to complement their CG designs, and WDI seems to use these properly. Yet the CGI aesthetic certainly wouldn't work in, say, Fantasyland, regardless of whether or not the movie were Pixar. Would WDI use CG images of Rapunzel, or would they ask the animation studio to develop a classic, hand-drawn look to harmonize with Fantasyland's old-world charm?

There's no doubting Pixar is here to stay, even though a few of their movies—*cough* Cars *cough*—are weak links in the Pixar chain. The company's strong storytelling and characters offered blessed relief to the designed-by-committee dross Disney Animation proper churned out from Pocahontas to Bolt. The big question is whether the postmodern Pixar characters and stories can easily blend into the classic Disney park culture. I'd say no, but room can certainly be designed for it—and should be.

 

[Mansion Butler]

Yet the CGI aesthetic certainly wouldn't work in, say, Fantasyland, regardless of whether or not the movie were Pixar.

This was the first (and so far in my reading only) part of your post I disagreed with. It just depends on HOW it's used. I don't think the Incredible, for a random example, inherently do not fit in Fantaslyand because their movie was computer generated. I think they do not fit because they don't fit the fairytale theme. I think Philar is a perfect example that CG can fit just fine in Fantasyland if it's done well.

I don't think I'd be interested in a Tangled show, but if they did, I'd want it to look like the movie, and Fantasyland would be where I'd want it.

There's no doubting Pixar is here to stay, even though a few of their movies—*cough* Cars *cough*—are weak links in the Pixar chain.

Cars is a weak link compared to Pixar's high standard, but it's still a good movie, and a lot stronger than even some films from Disney's classic era.

It is my least favorite Pixar movie, but I also seem to like it less than a lot of people. It's got a pretty rabid fan base, and that's what matters here. Not necessarily how much your or I like it.

The big question is whether the postmodern Pixar characters and stories can easily blend into the classic Disney park culture. I'd say no, but room can certainly be designed for it—and should be.

I think DHS should embrace becoming the place kids can go to see Pixar stuff. I like the Hollywood feel and such, I just don't think there's a whole park to be made from that. Meanwhile, they've got this nice cast of characters who need a home where they fit, and they've got a park that can provide an opportunity for that. It seems they agree with me with Pixar Place.

 

[tirian]

This was the first (and so far in my reading only) part of your post I disagreed with. It just depends on HOW it's used. I don't think the Incredible, for a random example, inherently do not fit in Fantaslyand because their movie was computer generated. I think they do not fit because they don't fit the fairytale theme. I think Philar is a perfect example that CG can fit just fine in Fantasyland if it's done well.

You know, I actually did think about Philharmagic as I wrote that, and I said it anyway, because the PM characters are still designed to approximate the hand-drawn originals. The show still feels like it fits the fairytale theme, meaning that...

I don't think I'd be interested in a Tangled show, but if they did, I'd want it to look like the movie, and Fantasyland would be where I'd want it.

...You're right about this. I personally found Tangled to be a weak movie, and I agree with the Academy's decision not to nominate it for Best Animated Feature; but if it were to go into a park, it would belong in Fantasyland at the Magic Kingdom. Still, I think any external signage should reflect the land's theme, and not break the old-world charm.



In either case, I was thinking of the land's overall external theme, not the contents of the attractions. We could get really technical and say it's all three-dimensional, because the dark rides use AAs or figures. :lol:

Cars is a weak link compared to Pixar's high standard, but it's still a good movie, and a lot stronger than even some films from Disney's classic era.

It is my least favorite Pixar movie, but I also seem to like it less than a lot of people. It's got a pretty rabid fan base, and that's what matters here. Not necessarily how much your or I like it.

Yep, which is why I'm saying that even with its weak links, Pixar is still a fantastic company. I personally enjoy all their movies except A Bug's Life.

I think DHS should embrace becoming the place kids can go to see Pixar stuff. I like the Hollywood feel and such, I just don't think there's a whole park to be made from that. Meanwhile, they've got this nice cast of characters who need a home where they fit, and they've got a park that can provide an opportunity for that. It seems they agree with me with Pixar Place.

Even the DHS park culture fits Pixar; it's a little edgier, a little more postmodern, a little more contemporary than the MK. (Case in point: we all know Alien Encounter would still be around had it been built in the Studios and not the MK.)

 

[Mansion Butler]

...You're right about this. I personally found Tangled to be a weak movie, and I agree with the Academy's decision not to nominate it for Best Animated Feature; but if it were to go into a park, it would belong in Fantasyland at the Magic Kingdom. Still, I think any external signage should reflect the land's theme, and not break the old-world charm.

I agree, and let me give you a great example of how external vs. internal can work: Splash Mountain. The cartoon universe created in the show building doesn't work outside in Frontierland, but the exterior of Chick-a-pin hill they created sure does.

I think this also goes with your "Buzz Lightyear gets a pass" thing. Though I think they should have really immersed you in the fictional world of Buzz Lightyear and skipped having all the toys around.

Yep, which is why I'm saying that even with its weak links, Pixar is still a fantastic company. I personally enjoy all their movies except A Bug's Life.

I love ABL. I love it far more than Nemo or Cars or Monster's Inc. And I have trouble understanding why I do and others don't.

 

[will341]

I don't want people to get me wrong here. I'm not wishing away the current attractions that belong to the classic films. I'd never do that seeing as Mr. Toad was one of my favorite attractions ever. I think it's important to remember what Walt said. Disney World isn't a museum. If Pixar is current. It's current. If these are the films that kids are growing up loving then I think that it is important. I agree with the comment about CG in Philhar. It is gorgeous and I think if they did something with Tangled or even a Pixar film that way it would be incredible(hint hint) but I agree fantasyland is no place for The Incredibles. They fit in well at DHS imo. I can see Toy Story in Fantasyland though but maybe that's just me.

 

[tirian]

I think this also goes with your "Buzz Lightyear gets a pass" thing. Though I think they should have really immersed you in the fictional world of Buzz Lightyear and skipped having all the toys around.

Are you suggesting kids in the future aren't allowed to play with toys?

They fit in well at DHS imo. I can see Toy Story in Fantasyland though but maybe that's just me.

It's just you. :lol: :wave:

 

[will341]

It's just you. :lol: :wave:

Thought so haha, just my opinion anyway.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I agree, and let me give you a great example of how external vs. internal can work: Splash Mountain. The cartoon universe created in the show building doesn't work outside in Frontierland, but the exterior of Chick-a-pin hill they created sure does.(

Along that line, Couldn't the red rocks of Radiator Springs be a transition between Frontierland and Fantasyland, no?

 

[Mansion Butler]

Disney World isn't a museum.

Re-imagineering is a very negative blog, but I think this post is a pretty good response to the standard "not a museum" statement.

Not a museum means you keep tinkering for improvement. It doesn't mean you ruin established themes, or downgrade to lesser attractions.

I can see Toy Story in Fantasyland though but maybe that's just me.

No way.

 

[Mansion Butler]

Along that line, Couldn't the red rocks of Radiator Springs be a transition between Frontierland and Fantasyland, no?

I don't think that would be an entirely awful fit. If I operated a property that only had a Magic Kingdom, I think getting Radiator Springs in to it by creating that transition and making the setting Fantasyland would work.

 

[Duke of Disney]

Im ready to see the Universe of Energy updated. And is it me or is it just a wee bit loud?

 

[flavious27]

...You're right about this. I personally found Tangled to be a weak movie, and I agree with the Academy's decision not to nominate it for Best Animated Feature; but if it were to go into a park, it would belong in Fantasyland at the Magic Kingdom. Still, I think any external signage should reflect the land's theme, and not break the old-world charm.

With only three spots, I doubt that tangled would have gotten the nod. Though I do disagree with the way that indie/foreign movies with no release are able to be released at the end of the year and then use the oscars nom to slightly increase their screen count.

 

[AEfx]

I don't have a problem with Pixar in the parks at all.

What I have an issue with is that it feels like 90% of the additions are now Pixar related.

The Fantasyland expansion, thankfully, seems to buck this trend a bit, though.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I don't have a problem with Pixar in the parks at all.

What I have an issue with is that it feels like 90% of the additions are now Pixar related.

The Fantasyland expansion, thankfully, seems to buck this trend a bit, though.

You're not aware of the Nemo scene being added to Mermaid? ;-)

 

[T-1MILLION]

You're not aware of the Nemo scene being added to Mermaid? ;-)

Hahahahaha. OH no. I already found the fact that we just get another seashell themed omnimover(when we already have Nemo with one at EPCOT) to be bad enough as it is...but that is another topic.

I just want to make it clear that I don't hate pixar, but I really dislike how much of it has come in so quickly. The Disney studios has a history of going close to 90 years now. So many stories, concepts and characters to choose from compared to what has come out of only the last 20 years or less. I don't like the fact that with that sort of synergy, other classic stories that have great enviorments get pushed back and ORIGINAL(like many of the things we love still today) concepts get shoved to the wayside in favor for what movie made a lot of money two years ago.

And woody and friends inside the Diamond Horsshoe? That kind of thing just hurts.

 

[tirian]

You're not aware of the Nemo scene being added to Mermaid? ;-)

Great, now you gave away the big surprise.

 

[HMF]

You're not aware of the Nemo scene being added to Mermaid? ;-)

The sad part is I can actually picture a Nemo cameo in the new Mermaid ride. They already "fixed" It's a Small World.

 

[imagineer boy]

Hahahahaha. OH no. I already found the fact that we just get another seashell themed omnimover(when we already have Nemo with one at EPCOT) to be bad enough as it is...but that is another topic.

I just want to make it clear that I don't hate pixar, but I really dislike how much of it has come in so quickly. The Disney studios has a history of going close to 90 years now. So many stories, concepts and characters to choose from compared to what has come out of only the last 20 years or less. I don't like the fact that with that sort of synergy, other classic stories that have great enviorments get pushed back and ORIGINAL(like many of the things we love still today) concepts get shoved to the wayside in favor for what movie made a lot of money two years ago.

And woody and friends inside the Diamond Horsshoe? That kind of thing just hurts.

Well said!

And its simply sad that TDO's logic is that everything built must be tied in to a popular franchise.

Like you said, I wanna see more original concepts with original characters. It really makes disney feel more advanced and mature rather than just a big commercial for the movies.