"Frozen" coming to Disneyland?

Professortango1

Well-Known Member
Wow, you seem really ready to jump down my throat about a lot of things I didn't say.

Wanna reread my post and try again?

I didn't jump down your throat. I just mentioned how the ride starts off with a deviation which sets the theme of the ride in motion in the very first scene. The name of the attraction itself also supports it as it isn't "Pinocchio- The Ride" or "Pine to Flesh - A Pinocchio Story." Daring Journey implies the ride is about a journey, and traveling.

The rest of my post was about why Disney is dumbing down the rides. Because crowds are dumb and instead of challenging them with good quality rides, they are simply catering to them. Everything needs to be spelled out and simple and have as many references to the movies as possible. We just saw this with the Beauty and the Beast darkride and its incredibly bland storytelling. Same with Little Mermaid. Even new "original takes" on existing IP is suffering. Frozen Ever After lacks any drive or storytelling and both Guardians attractions uses video segments to hang the attraction upon rather than making the ride amazing on its own.

That's not a reflection of you and your post, its a comment about Disney's MO right now.
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
I didn't jump down your throat. I just mentioned how the ride starts off with a deviation which sets the theme of the ride in motion in the very first scene. The name of the attraction itself also supports it as it isn't "Pinocchio- The Ride" or "Pine to Flesh - A Pinocchio Story." Daring Journey implies the ride is about a journey, and traveling.

The rest of my post was about why Disney is dumbing down the rides. Because crowds are dumb and instead of challenging them with good quality rides, they are simply catering to them. Everything needs to be spelled out and simple and have as many references to the movies as possible. We just saw this with the Beauty and the Beast darkride and its incredibly bland storytelling. Same with Little Mermaid. Even new "original takes" on existing IP is suffering. Frozen Ever After lacks any drive or storytelling and both Guardians attractions uses video segments to hang the attraction upon rather than making the ride amazing on its own.

That's not a reflection of you and your post, its a comment about Disney's MO right now.
Then perhaps that was my mistake. It certainly seemed like the bulk of your post was directed at me, and unnecessarily.

My point was basically that Pinocchio not turning into a real boy is really the biggest deviation in the ride - that Pinocchio sings "An Actor's Life For Me" at the beginning just kinda feels like it makes the same point as if he was singing "I've Got No Strings" - that Pinocchio is performing at Stromboli's. It doesn't feel like some overt invitation to join him on a daring journey, it just feels like a slightly remixed beat from the movie. It's not the dramatic left-turn that some of the other dark rides take to get away from their source material - especially because after the 5 second opening scene at Stromboli's we basically don't do much different from the movie for the rest of the ride. Until the very end. If they were trying to do something different, it feels like they forgot somewhere along the way.

I'm more than fine with them taking an approach beyond just a book report of the movie, and actually tend to prefer that. Snow White's Scary Adventures is one of the very best examples of that. But it feels like they barely did that in Pinocchio. If they want to signal to the audience that we're taking a different approach then they could stand to clarify that further. Heck, I even suggested yesterday that they ditch the Monstro scene in favor of something totally different because it feels like an underwhelming beat present mainly for the sake of copy/pasting from the movie (and because it's not even the best Monstro moment in DL's Fantasyland).

I feel really strongly about the Fantasyland dark rides having their great, distinct personalities. Which is why I think it says something that I'm suggesting Pinocchio's approach to that doesn't stick the landing. Mr. Toad's is frenzied, Peter Pan is aspirational, Alice in Wonderland is trippy, Snow White (was) scary, and Pinocchio is . . . Snow White-lite? The balance is changed a little with Snow White now getting her Enchanted Wish, but maybe that's a chance for them to lean into that further in Pinocchio. Not that I really expect them to do that, but I'd like to see them try.

But short of a big rework to address things like that, the ride feels more like a rehash of its movie than most of the other FL dark rides. To a degree where it doesn't feel worth it to me to have Pinocchio not just become a real boy at the end, since he's already sitting there with the Blue Fairy waving her wand to . . . bring him back home, I guess? Not sure why he couldn't find his way home if all of *us* could, but okay.

I don't see why him becoming a real boy couldn't be chalked up to being a plot point about how when you leave home to go on a Daring Journey™️ you return having changed from who you were before you left. It just feels a little pedantic to me to leave out his character-defining transformation for the sake of the ride being "it's own thing" when the ride makes such a flaccid attempt at being that to begin with. Either beef it up and commit to a real, new take on the story, or just give the audience the cookie that's sitting right there.

Also, fun fact, Tokyo's PDJ starts with Pinocchio performing "I've Got No Strings" at Stromboli's, but it's the only version of the ride that does. Sort of strange that they'd differ there, given that Tokyo's opened only a month before Disneyland's version, so the rides surely had to have been developed concurrently. The Tokyo and DL versions are not exact clones to the letter, but are still very largely the same experience.
 
Last edited:

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
I don't know a single person who liked them and they were treated like jokes. They came and went with zero cultural impact.
Yeah, but they made Disney mucho moolah at the box office. I'm pretty sure the Bambi remake's announcement was a response to the success of the Lion King remake. My point was that it wouldn't make sense for Dumbo's flopping to convince Disney to move their other remakes to Disney+ when the other remakes they released that year were super successful. Maybe it just convinced them that remakes of pre-1989 animated movies weren't financially successful enough to release in theaters?

And I did see some people praise the Aladdin remake, for what it's worth.
We just saw this with the Beauty and the Beast darkride and its incredibly bland storytelling.
The Beauty and the Beast dark ride barely has a story. The first two scenes are just spinning around in a gigantic room to a song from the movie. Then we get some brief scenes that hint at a story and then more spinning around in a gigantic room to a song from the movie. You're right, it IS very bland.
 

Too Many Hats

Well-Known Member
For the Latin America room:

Left side is South America:
Argentina (which may or may not be represented by penguins, which is h I l a r I o u s because that country is...not liked by a lot of the rest of Latin Americans), Chile (although there's some arguments if the gauchos are Chilean or Argentine or Uruguayan), Bolivia and Perú (both share Lake Titicaca, along with with other folks on the lower sections of the mountain), Brazil (which has a lot of Afro-Brazilian representation, which makes me 🥺). Thr Andes Mountains also run through
Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, etc (so I don't know if those can say they're "officially" represented or not).

Right side is predominantly Mexico, with Salitto textile patterns, ranchers style costumes. But there are some costumes thay look like El Salvador and Guatemala. I am not confident enough to say there are others, but I definitely recognize that side as being not all Mexico. If I can be honest, they might have even kept that side vague because Central America has so many problems with each other (and I am not even joking, if you had put Hondurin there, IASW would get burned down)

Appreciate the info! Wasn't expecting such a detailed response -- thanks! My apologies for the very delayed reply.

So yeah, many of these nuances have gone way over my (white man) head during previous rides. This scene (the whole ride, really) is super dense; I'm impressed anyone can parse out all the little details. I've definitely wondered about the penguins, haha.
 

Rich T

Well-Known Member
…And I did see some people praise the Aladdin remake, for what it's worth…
The Aladdin remake, despite Will Smith giving it his all and great performances for Jasmine and the Sultan, was done in by terrible, terrible Jafar casting. Weak, unthreatening villain=forgettable movie. And they replaced the Snake fight with a giant parrot. I wouldn’t be surprised if Imagineering hires the director to helm their next wimpy, baby-approved dark ride.

The Bollywood-style end credit party was the best part of the whole movie.
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
The Aladdin remake, despite Will Smith giving it his all and great performances for Jasmine and the Sultan, was done in by terrible, terrible Jafar casting. Weak, unthreatening villain=forgettable movie. And they replaced the Snake fight with a giant parrot. I wouldn’t be surprised if Imagineering hires the director to helm their next wimpy, baby-approved dark ride.

The Bollywood-style end credit party was the best part of the whole movie.
Just think . . . "Guy Ritchie presents Pinocchio's Darling Journey" . . . I can see it now!
 

Consumer

Well-Known Member
But we haven’t seen that version yet. After their barfy B&tB ride at the other park, I’m no longer assuming everything at TDR is going to be amazing… though, yeah, it would be hard to create something worse than FEA.
It's not TDR, it's WDI. Beauty and the Beast is only an example of what Walt Disney Imagineering is capable of when given an unlimited budget. As it turns out, WDI is no longer about storytelling, but about technology. I suppose that's what happens when you replace artists with engineers.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
It's not TDR, it's WDI. Beauty and the Beast is only an example of what Walt Disney Imagineering is capable of when given an unlimited budget. As it turns out, WDI is no longer about storytelling, but about technology. I suppose that's what happens when you replace artists with engineers.

It depends on what you believe the original intent of WDI was...

At its core WDI was original the engineering division tasked with designing and building DL. It just so happens that a lot of the first members of WDI were from the Studios. But at least some of them were engineers at their core, for example Bob Gurr.

Today as technology becomes more ingrained in the theme park industry it takes a literal village to build an attraction. So story starts the project, as they figure out what story they want to tell, but it becomes secondary during the design and building phases.

Its been said that Marty Skylar created the Mickey's Ten Commandments for Imagineering when he took over WDI:
  1. Know your audience
  2. Wear your guest's shoes (don't forget the human factors; try to experience the parks from the guests' point of view)
  3. Organize the flow of people and ideas (ensure experiences tell a story that is organized and logically laid out)
  4. Create a "Wienie" (Walt Disney's term for a "visual magnet")
  5. Communicate with visual literacy (use a dominant color or shape or building to reinforce a theme)
  6. Avoid overload—create turn-ons (do not offer too much detailed information)
  7. Tell one story at a time (put one 'big idea' in each show so guests leave with a clear understanding of the theme)
  8. Avoid contradictions—maintain identity (avoid irrelevant or contradicting elements; make sure the audience has a clear idea of what is being said)
  9. For every ounce of treatment, provide a ton of treat (take advantage of the distinction of the theme park, which is that it encourages active participation, compared to passive entertainment)
  10. Keep it up (do not become complacent or allow things to run down)
Notice that story isn't at the top of the list, its in there but its not their top priority.
 

Consumer

Well-Known Member
It depends on what you believe the original intent of WDI was...

At its core WDI was original the engineering division tasked with designing and building DL. It just so happens that a lot of the first members of WDI were from the Studios. But at least some of them were engineers at their core, for example Bob Gurr.

Today as technology becomes more ingrained in the theme park industry it takes a literal village to build an attraction. So story starts the project, as they figure out what story they want to tell, but it becomes secondary during the design and building phases.

Its been said that Marty Skylar created the Mickey's Ten Commandments for Imagineering when he took over WDI:
  1. Know your audience
  2. Wear your guest's shoes (don't forget the human factors; try to experience the parks from the guests' point of view)
  3. Organize the flow of people and ideas (ensure experiences tell a story that is organized and logically laid out)
  4. Create a "Wienie" (Walt Disney's term for a "visual magnet")
  5. Communicate with visual literacy (use a dominant color or shape or building to reinforce a theme)
  6. Avoid overload—create turn-ons (do not offer too much detailed information)
  7. Tell one story at a time (put one 'big idea' in each show so guests leave with a clear understanding of the theme)
  8. Avoid contradictions—maintain identity (avoid irrelevant or contradicting elements; make sure the audience has a clear idea of what is being said)
  9. For every ounce of treatment, provide a ton of treat (take advantage of the distinction of the theme park, which is that it encourages active participation, compared to passive entertainment)
  10. Keep it up (do not become complacent or allow things to run down)
Notice that story isn't at the top of the list, its in there but its not their top priority.
Half of them are about storytelling. Ultimately, that's what Disneyland is about. Whether it's Pirates of the Caribbean, Space Mountain, or Main Street USA, Disneyland tells stories. Current Imagineers with projects such as Mickey Avenue or the Beauty and the Beast ride have forgotten how to do that.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Half of them are about storytelling. Ultimately, that's what Disneyland is about. Whether it's Pirates of the Caribbean, Space Mountain, or Main Street USA, Disneyland tells stories. Current Imagineers with projects such as Mickey Avenue or the Beauty and the Beast ride have forgotten how to do that.
Just to point out the two projects you mentioned are for Parks in APAC, which goes to the first principal in Mickey's Ten Commandments, know your audience. Those projects are built for the primary audience of those Parks, which is not primarily an American audience.

Now one can debate whether the audience say in Shanghai needs the same level of story as the audience in America. But I would say that story is secondary for a lot of the experiences needed for that audience.
 

Consumer

Well-Known Member
Just to point out the two projects you mentioned are for Parks in APAC, which goes to the first principal in Mickey's Ten Commandments, know your audience. Those projects are built for the primary audience of those Parks, which is not primarily an American audience.

Now one can debate whether the audience say in Shanghai needs the same level of story as the audience in America. But I would say that story is secondary for a lot of the experiences needed for that audience.
I am aware that the Japanese are even more egregious than Americans when it comes to sucking the tit that produces Disney characters. Their infatuation with anything "kawaii," I believe, stems from the importation of Disney movies into Japan after the War. Naturally they will accept whatever low hanging garbage is fed to them as long as promotes Disney characters. Just look at the change to Jungle Cruise over there and the ham fisted inclusion of The Lion King for no real reason.

Tokyo Disney is known for its theming, immersion, and storytelling, evident in Pooh's Hunny Hunt, their superior version of Splash Mountain, and obviously the entirety of DisneySea. Is it a simple change in standards by the Japanese audience that has led to lower quality products, such as Seafinder and Beauty and the Beast, take over the park? Possibly, I don't know enough about cultural shifts in Japan to comment on that, but I do know enough about Imagineering to say they have been putting out weaker projects stateside as of the last half-decade and it is reasonable to think they are putting out weaker projects abroad in that time period, as well.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
I am aware that the Japanese are even more egregious than Americans when it comes to sucking the tit that produces Disney characters. Their infatuation with anything "kawaii," I believe, stems from the importation of Disney movies into Japan after the War. Naturally they will accept whatever low hanging garbage is fed to them as long as promotes Disney characters. Just look at the change to Jungle Cruise over there and the ham fisted inclusion of The Lion King for no real reason.

Tokyo Disney is known for its theming, immersion, and storytelling, evident in Pooh's Hunny Hunt, their superior version of Splash Mountain, and obviously the entirety of DisneySea. Is it a simple change in standards by the Japanese audience that has led to lower quality products, such as Seafinder and Beauty and the Beast, take over the park? Possibly, I don't know enough about cultural shifts in Japan to comment on that, but I do know enough about Imagineering to say they have been putting out weaker projects stateside as of the last half-decade and it is reasonable to think they are putting out weaker projects abroad in that time period, as well.
Well regarding the domestic parks, is it perhaps again they know their audience? We're in a different stage of society than when Disneyland was first built. The internet age and commercialism of everything has changed the audience and their expectations.

You can't build the same as you did in the 1950s due to changes in building codes. And you can't design theme park experiences for the 1950s-1960s audience either due to the change in audience tastes and expectations.

So while I can agree that compared to what WDI put out in the 1950s and 1960s might be considered weaker by fans, but its also built for 2000s-2020s modern audiences.

So maybe it says a lot more about the American audience rather than WDI quality.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
At its core WDI was original the engineering division tasked with designing and building DL. It just so happens that a lot of the first members of WDI were from the Studios. But at least some of them were engineers at their core, for example Bob Gurr.
No, it was not an engineering division. People were brought from the Studio because it was always a creative design studio. They developed engineering capabilities in house but it was always to serve the creative desires.
 

Consumer

Well-Known Member
Well regarding the domestic parks, is it perhaps again they know their audience? We're in a different stage of society than when Disneyland was first built. The internet age and commercialism of everything has changed the audience and their expectations.

You can't build the same as you did in the 1950s due to changes in building codes. And you can't design theme park experiences for the 1950s-1960s audience either due to the change in audience tastes and expectations.

So while I can agree that compared to what WDI put out in the 1950s and 1960s might be considered weaker by fans, but its also built for 2000s-2020s modern audiences.

So maybe it says a lot more about the American audience rather than WDI quality.
To an extent, absolutely. Streaming, Amazon, iPods, and all other wonders of the 21st century have delivered a culture of instant gratification to the United States, more so than ever in its history. This translates to demanding familiar, comfortable content that can be easily accessed, rather than something new and more complicated. Pixar Pier is probably the greatest example of this within the parks. Static figures of The Incredibles on a fairly barebones coaster excited the most smooth brained, mouth drooling, window licking Disney fan because they recognize The Incredibles and that's sufficient for their happiness.

Despite the cultural changes over the past 15 years in the United States, I don't believe that's the sole reason for Disney's failures in delivering quality content. Smuggler's Run, I believe, is a good example of this. Despite being a ride centered on the most iconic spaceship in pop culture history, the ride generates half an hour waits at best and has had almost no real impact on Disneyland fans. If it were removed tomorrow, would anybody miss it? Likely not, unless the photo op out front left with it. Could it be that it's not simple enough for American audiences? Is the presence of an obscure cartoon character, rather than Han Solo or Chewbacca, what does it in? Maybe so, but ultimately I think it's just a bad attractions and the wait times and guest response reflect that.

Of course, I am criticizing modern Imagineering, however Rise of the Resistance is the greatest rides of the past 20 years in any Disney theme park. Yet, still, it is generally lauded for its technological impressiveness and immersion, rather than its writing, which further speaks to my original point: storytelling has taken a backseat to technology. Modern Disney thinks the animatronic of Navi River Journey, the flight system of Flight of Passage, the trackless features of Rise of the Resistance, the gameplay of Smuggler's Run, or the never-will-happen ride system of the Avengers E-Ticket are what will wow audiences and keep them coming back, but ultimately Space Mountain is still iconic than all of them and that's just a roller coaster in the dark.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
No, it was not an engineering division. People were brought from the Studio because it was always a creative design studio. They developed engineering capabilities in house but it was always to serve the creative desires.
Not going to argue with you but WED in everything I've read from various sources include WED people themselves was always described first and foremost as the design and engineering division. The creative aspects came from the Studio people that it was stocked with, but at its core was the design and engineering of the Parks.

Anyways its not something I'm doing to die on a hill over....
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Not going to argue with you but WED in everything I've read from various sources include WED people themselves was always described first and foremost as the design and engineering division. The creative aspects came from the Studio people that it was stocked with, but at its core was the design and engineering of the Parks.

Anyways its not something I'm doing to die on a hill over....
WED didn’t work for the studio, the studio people were made WED employees. The art directors have always been the leaders of projects.
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Not going to argue with you but WED in everything I've read from various sources include WED people themselves was always described first and foremost as the design and engineering division. The creative aspects came from the Studio people that it was stocked with, but at its core was the design and engineering of the Parks.

Anyways its not something I'm doing to die on a hill over....

There’s something about your posts that never really feel like you believe you what you re saying but more like playing devils advocate for fun.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom