-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Inside Out meet and greet
- Thread starter drew81
- Start date
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Well, I won't be seeing the film for completely different reasons (mostly to do with the underlying concept) - but I'm kind of shocked I don't see more talked about the fact that this is Cranium Command - just on steroids and with multiple personality disorder, LOL. I'm sure it's an enjoyable film, but it's not especially a unique or original idea.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I'm one. I went to the Star Tours 2.0 midnight party and it was a blast. All I did was pay attention to the Twitter feed (temporarily had it sent to my phone while waiting, disabled it after), sent an email, and voila. It was a great experience and I didn't have to sell my soul for it, either, LOL.
WDF
Well-Known Member
Okay, hope this works.
Part of it is what the previous poster said in that it doesn't strike me as a particularly unique idea, but that is not my main issue with it. It just seemed hollow to me. There was not enough development of Riley as a character to make me care about those emotions running around. It felt like the filmmakers focused so much energy on their "creative idea" about the inner workings of a child's mind that they forgot about the actual child. It also never seemed to convey that she herself had any realization about her emotions. And obviously, as they were supposed to be single emotions, those characters seemed one dimensional. It just didn't tie things together and resonate with me. I agree that it touched on interesting ideas and concepts, but in reality it is intended as entertainment, not an educational film. It just seemed like it was trying too hard. What happened with a particular character fading out was not as emotionally impactful to me as when something similar happened in Big Hero 6 with Baymax. The emotions (Joy and Sadness) had no true tie to that character and we never saw any impact from that on Riley...so why is everyone crying? As a concept I get it, but I didn't think the movie worked for me. It is definitely not Pixar's best film, IMO.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
No one would complain about characters from the latest movie, The simple fact is the gnomes in Burbank are too cheap to authorize them, It's the do as little as we can while charging as much as we can mentality.
WDF
Well-Known Member
One more thought...
And I realize part of the point is that children don't know that all that emotional turmoil is taking place, but it just didn't seem like it worked. As an entertaining educational film about this is what's inside your brain? Maybe. As a feature film? Meh.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
AEfx
Well-Known Member
D'oh! Awesome, LOL. I had just hovered over all of them and never saw that. Plus...STRIKETHROUGH!
I've had a couple of occasions I've really wanted to use that haha.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
You've just hit on my conceptual issue with the movie - which I fully admit, is really just a personal feeling and not something I'd make a big deal about or say is bad for people to watch. It's like how some people have a conceptual problem with young girls watching Pretty Woman ("Cinderella" story that reenforces "you need a man to rescue you" and with the prostitute angle...you don't want that to become some fantasy for them LOL). Yet, there is nothing wrong with Pretty Woman and most people don't even think about it - it's just a movie.
While I totally get it's just supposed to be an entertaining story, on a conceptual level I have an issue with the direct compartmentalization of emotions/memories (I mean, they literally are in "containers" in the film, labeled by emotion - the only way it would have been more blatant is if they were box shaped, LOL). It also just has what I feel is a bad concept to reenforce to kids - that your emotions are individual personalities battling around inside of you, completely out of your control. As a children's fantasy, that's entertaining - but it's the kind of thing that leads to a way over-medicated population and unrealistic expectations of what life is supposed to be like.
Rant over. LOL. Hey, at least I spoiler'd it!
Rant over. LOL. Hey, at least I spoiler'd it!
Last edited:
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Oh, I beg to differ...you definitely see "short term capitalizing on promoting newest film product" complaints around these parts when Disney does do that.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Mostly when they dont do it right.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Ah, but there is the rub: what's "right"?
A temporary experience that appears low cost - then they are not "believing in their product enough".
Have a ride ready for the film - then it's "with all the existing movies that need attractions, how corporate to go with the newest one".
Wait until a movie proves itself and when the love for the film goes over several years already, showing no signs of slowing, so you then add an attraction - "they should have known it was a hit, this is too late".
Honestly, I do think this is one area where it's "danged if you do, danged if you don't" - at least when it comes to Disney-fandom.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Using the parks to promote other media properties and vice versa is part of Disney's DNA it goes back to Walt himself, It's awful when it's done badly though and people SHOULD complain then.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
MDE did it best, Plan for a big splach ie parade characters etc, even a ride and ramp up or down as required.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
I think that there does need to be some promotion for Inside Out and other new Films but I dont feel it needs to be huge..... unless theyve caught lightning in a bottle. And thats probably some spot where upper management and I have common ground.
Its when we go from short term capitalization to long term capitalization where I have a problem. You dont do it on the cheap. You dont take the most popular film Disney has out there and put it in the smallest ride, just to try and give that park an attendance boost.
The only real problem lies when you have something Critical Acclaimed and loved (Up, Wall-E) and it doesnt hit that lightning in a bottle level (Lion King, Frozen) and then upper management just lets it fade away because they dont know how to deal with it.
BrerJon
Well-Known Member
Building entire rides based around unproven movies is crazy, but there's no reason they can't, where appropriate, do what they did in the 90s which is commission parades and stage shows to coincide with the openings. It wasn't known movies like Aladdin and The Lion King would be hits when their parades were built, but if they hadn't been they could have been quietly forgotten at the end of that year - after all, next year's parade would be along soon enough.
The trouble is the Disney of today doesn't refresh shows and parades every year, or even every decade, so they have to be sure something is a hit before it goes anywhere. That leads to them missing the boat, or jumping the gun, whereas if they had a continually fresh product nobody would notice a misstep here and there.
The trouble is the Disney of today doesn't refresh shows and parades every year, or even every decade, so they have to be sure something is a hit before it goes anywhere. That leads to them missing the boat, or jumping the gun, whereas if they had a continually fresh product nobody would notice a misstep here and there.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
To be fair, though - I wasn't talking about Frozen above - those are things you hear every time an attraction is based upon a new/the newest film. Every single one I've seen over the past dozen years.
If Frozen wasn't going in to Maelstrom, a good half the people complaining wouldn't be complaining - but the remaining half would be arguing against it totally in favor of something more "classic".
Let's be honest - if they really were going to put a 200-300M attraction in Fantasyland for Frozen...people still would not be happy. In fact, while I'd like the ride conceptually, I'd be unhappy as well - that's 300M that is not going in to Star Wars, Avatar, or any other park that more desperately needs it. If they really built a massive ride, say a real E-ticket, we'd be complaining that they haven't built an E-ticket in 25 years in MK, so they pick the new kid on the block Frozen?
People complained about the thrown together stuff at DHS - but people would complain just as much if they really did throw all kinds of money at it. In Disney's mind, this was a happy medium I think - they aren't making a huge capital investment, but they are also doing something better than throwing together a stage show (which is what Saint Eisner did for Lion King at MK). And while I know the hate will never be quelled from long-term Epcot fans, the truth is - Maelstrom was supposedly among the very lowest rated rides by guests in the entire resort.
The only real minus I see (besides my personal feelings about Maelstrom - I will definitely miss that creepy little dark ride) is the capacity issue - but other than that...they went middle of the road, when they went up the slim side, we complained, and no matter what folks protest, if we had gone on the heavy spending side, people would have had a whole new thing to complain about. And if they did nothing at all? "Bad leadership."
They don't really make the parks for critics, though - I think we can all agree on that LOL.
I think things like that are the easiest to promote - should have had a giant Up house floating around the property, etc. If something doesn't really catch on, though, I don't expect them to bring it that deeply into the parks.