the-reason14
Well-Known Member
So basically you were too caught up in the 'lack of details' to enjoy the games, the main point of the 'ride.' Interesting, and cool.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Maus au Chocolat
- Thread starter Spideyfreak110
- Start date
So basically you were too caught up in the 'lack of details' to enjoy the games, the main point of the 'ride.' Interesting, and cool.
Eddie Sotto on Phantasialand
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=440383&highlight=Phantasialand&page=316
Originally Posted by Eddie Sotto View Post
During the construction of DLP, I was invited (to represent WDI) to travel with Eisner,Wells and their families across Europe to visit many competing theme parks. With the core design team we had been to most of them prior to design including Phantasialand, but this time we would see Michael's take on it. He was not pleased. He remarked that they had alot of guts to actually be proud of how well they copied things and wanted to show those works off! They steal your ideas and then ask for an autograph! We were all treated like celebrities by these parks, amazing.
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=440383&highlight=Phantasialand&page=316
Originally Posted by Eddie Sotto View Post
During the construction of DLP, I was invited (to represent WDI) to travel with Eisner,Wells and their families across Europe to visit many competing theme parks. With the core design team we had been to most of them prior to design including Phantasialand, but this time we would see Michael's take on it. He was not pleased. He remarked that they had alot of guts to actually be proud of how well they copied things and wanted to show those works off! They steal your ideas and then ask for an autograph! We were all treated like celebrities by these parks, amazing.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Back off the personal attacks, it's completely uncalled for. I questioned something that you said, I didn't call you an idiot.
As to the actual "content" of your post and what you quoted... You should have left the first paragraph in there, I had some good lines in there.
Nothing in the statement that you quoted, "Pixar movies are the only guaranteed blockbusters at the box office at this point. No actor save maybe Will Smith has the type of pull that the Pixar name has." is incorrect. I defy you to prove me wrong.
Oh... and when you're talking about Pixar movies, can you please keep the discussion to Up and Cars, I'm not smart enough to talk about the titles that aren't monosyllabic.
With the last one being in 1988... I can't find these numbers but I assume they're correct. Admittedly the pinnacle of critical success is the Academy Award, but in recent years the academy hasn't selected a movie with commercial success. The last critical and commercial success that won the best picture was The Departed in 2006. It was the 15th highest grossing movie of the year, but many people believe that the award was more of a lifetime achievement recognition for Scorsese.
But back to Pixar - I don't love every Pixar Movie, but to say that they haven't been both commercially and critically successful is as I said previously... idiotic.
Take a look at the rankings for Domestic Box Office (boxofficemojo.com) and top critic votes (rottentomatoes.com)
- 1995: Toy Story (#1 Movie of the Year, 100% from Top Critics)
- 1998: A Bug's Life (#4 Movie of the Year, 94% from Top Critics)
- 1999: Toy Story 2 (#3 Movie of the Year, 100% from Top Critics)
- 2001: Monsters, Inc. (#4 Movie of the Year, 88% from Top Critics)
- 2003: Finding Nemo (#2 Movie of the Year, 100% from Top Critics)
- 2004: The Incredibles (#5 Movie of the Year, 95% from Top Critics)
- 2006: Cars (#3 Movie of the Year, 73% from Top Critics)
- 2007: Ratatouille (#11 Movie of the Year, 98% from Top Critics)
- 2008: WALL-E (#5 Movie of the Year, 98% from Top Critics)
- 2009: Up (#5 Movie of the Year, 95% from Top Critics)
- 2010: Toy Story 3 (#1 Movie of the Year, 100% from Top Critics)
What I said regarding the commercial and critical success of Pixar was not moronic, nor was it even an opinion. It's a fact. They have not had a failure yet. Their movies are at this point, "Guaranteed Blockbusters".
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
I'm going to attempt to explain where I'm coming from in an effort to offer an alternative viewpoint. This won't mean anything to anyone that doesn't care about the future of Disney or the theme park business in general. If you visit the parks just to have fun and expect nothing more than perhaps I can help open your mind to new possibilities. I don't fault you for your opinion and I do understand if you don't share mine. That being said I'm still hoping after reading this and some of my other posts in the past few years that some will open their minds to what Disney can be. Sorry for the long post but I'm in that kind of mood today.
When I visit a Six Flags amusement park I go in with certain expectations. I'm not expecting highly themed attractions with theatrical elements designed to excite emotional triggers and immerse me in nonreality environments. The only trigger I'm expecting is adrenalone inducing excitement. If there is some theming it's an unexpected surprise but I'm not expecting much and therefore will not be disappointed. When I visit a Disney park I'm expecting much more, or at least I used to expect much more.
Throughout Disney's history there have always been attractions that didn't live up to the standard in my opinion. Back in 1989 Body Wars opened for example. The thing is that even though every once in a while these lower quality venues made it through QA there were still plenty of other attractions opening that made up for it.
When Countdown to Extinction opened with the rest of Animal Kingdom in 1998 I thought it was just another undesirable mishap. This was the first Disney attraction that had let me down, especially after being involved in the development of Temple of the Forbidden Eye and knowing what Countdown was supposed to be. Countdown was going to put us face to face with a realistic brush fire racing toward our vehicle, an exciting asteroid impact, dinosaurs set in realistic and highly detailed enviornments, and a finale that would have everyone laughing and clapping. Alas what we got was a true "dark" ride with very to see and not much to offer in terms of story content. Most of the dialog is laughable - "we're not going to make it...we're not going to make it...we made it". They tried to compensate for the lack of scenic and story by making it loud and even tried to spruce up the finale. All in all this is a ride that is not worthy of the Disney name.
"Well," I thought to myself, "no matter. That obviously was just another accident and many people from that development team will never work for WDI again. Besides in a few years they will go back and retool it" Boy was I wrong. The slippery slope of "just being good enough" had begun. This was about the time that Eisner's new management team had started to flex their muscle. A few years later when referring to the California Adventure plans Paul Pressler stated, "if it's good enough for Six Flags...".
CTE was just the start of a litany of miserable failures such as JII versions 2 and 3, Stich, DCA park, Nemo, MILF, Tiki UNM, Sounds Dangerous, Rafiki's Planet Watch, Dino-Rama, the new Mexico ride, etc., or "just good enough" efforts like Test Track, Mission Space, Soarin', Everest, R&RC, TSM, Philarmagic and so on. I have written about some of these in previous posts and why they don't make the grade in my opinion and how they could be improved significantly so I'm not going to go into that here. The point is that from 1998 till today I have only seen a few attractions open stateside that are worthy of the Disney name, or what the name used to represent. I think Tough to Be A Bug and Turtle Talk are two examples. I'm not saying that those are everyone's cup of tea but I'm saying that they at least meet most of the quality standards and include a few surprises; something we should expect from Disney.
Another of the few examples to point out is the wonderful series of updates the Haunted Mansion has received. While I don't agree with everything they have done, all in all this is what we should expect for all the Disney attractions. The updates have begun to turn a timeless classic into a modern classic. Why is it that most of the recent new attractions do not even come close to an attraction that opened at Disneyland in the 60's? You can't say because they are each meant to acheive different results because I'm talking about quality, i.e., attention to detail, story, workmanship etc. Regardless of whether or not TSM is meant to just be a fun game or not it is still a Disney ride and therefore could and should have the qualities of past Disney rides. Aside from the attractions we also see merchandise and food quality lowered.
Disney does monitor these boards and they partially use feedback they read to gauge their success. If peole continue to give them a pass with each new downgrade in quality the slippery slope will continue until there is nothing left of the former Disney standards.
Prices continue to rise while quality continues to fall. A recent exception to this is Star Tours where if it were not for Lucas and pressure from Corporate we wouldn't have even gotten this at WDW. On top of that it is basically an update that we should, once again, expect.
I'm rambling so I'll stop now. I do wish that more consumers would expect more for the hundreds of dollars they are spending. Every time I see an excuse for the lazy design and execution of a new attraction in a post I get a bit frustrated. I'd like to request that people stop excusing mediocrity. We all deserve more for our money.
This paints a scary picture.
It is a shame, that Disney is looking to do "Just good enough", and it is a shame that more and more people seem to be willing to accept this level.
The attitude that many people have, that if they had a good time, then the attraction did it's job, is the reason we do not get mind blowing anymore. ToT was a stunning achievement. Coming off that ride there was and is a palpable feeling of wow, that was awesome, unique, stunning. That feeling is missing from everything Disney has done since. Animal Kingdom had, and has, a chance to be that wow park. But with EE in a ridiculous state of disrepair, and Dinosaur the same way. It is just limping by. I've no doubt that Imagineering still has supremely talented people working within it's walls. Wow us.
whylightbulb
Well-Known Member
Playing video games at home is fun. I certainly don't need to wait in an hour long line to do that.
I don't believe just introducing new technology into a project makes it a "Disney experience." They thought Test Track and Mission Space were going to be amazing because they both show off high-tech ride systems. Test Track was another epic failure in my book because of what it could have been and because of the fact that of all the recent "warehouse" rides Test Track is the worst when it comes to giving the impression I'm just riding through one. What makes an attraction "Disney" is the full experience and the emotions it elicits. Showcasing complex ride systems is interesting to some of us but for the majority of consumers they couldn't care less how much computing power is required to run the attraction. They only care about how the ride makes them feel and if they can get that same experience someplace else. Also the TSM technology is basically the same as DisneyQuest’s Pirates game except that it had to be modified to be played from a moving vehicle.
If a regional park overseas can come closer to what I’m suggesting than why can’t Disney? Why is that expecting too much?
Show buildings aren’t supposed to contain AAs, scenic elements and effects just to be neat and impress audiences with how great they look. They are a means to an end. They combine, in the proper mix and balance, to create an experience that will transport audiences to another time and/or place. They are tools to be used to tell a story and incite emotion. Why do you think Pirates, Indy and HM are so popular and timeless? It’s not the individual show elements it’s the symphony of sight and sound that trigger the right emotions. When you say there is no point to littering the space with more show elements it gives me insight into your thinking and the point you are making. I get that TSM is fun and that most will ride it and not think twice about the number of show elements or what might be missing. What I'm saying is that TSM could be so much more than just fun.
You can have fun at the movies for example. Some movies are fun and once you leave the theater you probably will never think about that movie again. you had your fun for the ninety minutes and then it was off to the next adventure. There are other movies that leave an impression on you. When someone brings it up you want to talk about it. As time passes it becomes a classic. It connects with you on an emotional level. I'm talking about the kind of movie that makes you laugh at times and other times it makes you sit on the edge of your seat. That's the difference between a "fun" movie and a classic.
Disney has some classic rides. Unfortunately none of them have been built at Disney World since 1998. I'm not saying that every ride has to be a classic but I'm saying that every ride/attraction should strive to be by including the elements that make them that way. I'm talking about real, quantifiable elements that can be compared.
whylightbulb
Well-Known Member
Thank you. There are other attractions in the works right now that are of the same quality as FJ. Unfortunately they aren't being developed by Disney for stateside installation. Radiator Springs Racers may be the exception but I have my issues with that one as well. Much of the money for RSR is going toward the massive rockwork structure. The show scenes will be nice but too short in my opinion. All in all it will probably the best ride Disney has built stateside since IJA sixteen years ago.Really great post, whylightbulb! It perfectly summarizes why I am increasingly dissatisfied with WDW. (Haven't visited any of the others yet, so that's the only one I feel safe judging.) It's not about being picky, or having impossibly high standards, or having rosy-hued memories of past attractions. I still feel that Disney quality in POTC, HM, Splash, and so on. The newer attractions are simply lacking for all the reasons you stated. It seems like the only way to experience new attractions of that caliber is to visit foreign parks. It simply isn't right that American parks get lower quality attractions because the visitors don't expect or demand more. I often see complaints along these lines answered with, "Well, if you don't like it, don't go! More for me!" Well, as you said, it's a slippery slope. I love Disney, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize it. Disney needs to always, always work to stay ahead of the competition, to make their parks better and more special. When the competitors step it up, Disney needs to work that much harder to stay the best. They can't just rest on their laurels with rides that, while they may be great, are decades old.
I had some hope that Disney had made steps to regain quality when they fired Paul Pressler and gang, but the ensuing mad rush to cram moneymaking schemes into every inch of the parks and cut corners on new attractions/entertainment made me lose any hope of that.
One last thing, a little off-topic: I absolutely love Forbidden Journey, and it is easily the best ride I've experienced in a very, very long time. Thank you for whatever hand you had in creating it.We need more attractions of that stature in the world.
ryanduggers
Member
It seems to me that a certain monk needs a nap.......:ROFLOL:
SleepingMonk
Well-Known Member
Sorry, fanboys make me drowsy.
SleepingMonk
Well-Known Member
First give your definition of "blockbuster" then I'll post at least three movie franchises that will prove you wrong.
We can work on the actor vs. studio bit later.
SleepingMonk
Well-Known Member
My dislike of pixar has no impact on me being able to pick apart people passing opinion as fact.
Pixar films aren't the highest grossing franchise, Pixar isn't the most critically acclaimed studio, etc...
All easy to refute with readily available facts.
It wasn't said they were the highest grossing or most acclaimed. It was said Pixar films are now at the blockbuster level in terms of revenues, and their films are critically and commercially well-received.
Set aside the admitted personal bias (and personal insults) and both of those statements become more than reasonable.
Set aside the admitted personal bias (and personal insults) and both of those statements become more than reasonable.
SleepingMonk
Well-Known Member
SleepingMonk
Well-Known Member
Actually what was said was that pixar is "THE ONLY GUARANTEED BLOCKBUSTER".
You mentioned revenue, which I also assume the poster was referencing by the term blockbuster.
Again, easy to refute as pixar films don't even make the top five.
1.Star Wars (6 Films, $5.49 Billion)
2.Harry Potter (6 Films, $5.42 Billion)
3.James Bond (23 Films, $3.55 Billion)
4.Shrek (4 Films, $2.94 Billion)
5.The Lord of the Rings (3 Films, $2.91 Billion)
Down around number 11 you'll find Toy Story, three films bringing in $1.91 billion. If you want to compare that to animation you'll find the three Ice Age films beat them with $1.93 billion.
Facts.
Right, high-budget action, fantasy and sci-fi series as compared to animated films. No one was comparing Pixar's works to them, only that Pixar's films are blockbusters in their own right.
But if someone irrationally dislikes something, any reason to throw bile will suffice....
But if someone irrationally dislikes something, any reason to throw bile will suffice....
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
I have that effect on people.
Your right in that blockbuster is a subjective word, but it seems that most movies are considered blockbusters at the $100 million mark. I'd say that's too low and that $200 million domestic is probably more accurate.
I'm not sure which part of the actor issue you're objecting to, but Will Smith has been a consistent box office success.
I should have included Harry Potter in my declaration, but again, it's a franchise that when initially created there was a degree of uncertainty. Once the first movie was established I would classify that as a guaranteed blockbuster as well. It's safe to say that Deathly Hallow Part 2 will make $200 million without issue. It's also safe to say that if George Lucas cranks out the final 3 Star Wars movies that they'll be huge successes as well. I would be willing to concede the following points:
Movies released by LucasFilm are guaranteed Blockbusters
Movies released by James Cameron are guaranteed Blockbusters
CGI Movies released by Dreamworks are guaranteed Blockbusters
However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that movies that fall into those categories will be met with the overwhelming critical success of the Pixar Movies as well.
The last thing I'll mention is the Shrek franchise, I'd be really interested to see if Puss in Boots cracks $200 million when it comes out later this year.
SleepingMonk
Well-Known Member
You missed the numbers for the Ice Age films?
And Shrek?
And actually the quote was "pixar are the ONLY guaranteed blockbusters". No one said anything about animation only, in their own right, etc...
SleepingMonk
Well-Known Member
No, but then I don't really care either. And as for the hyperbolic load of b#ll#cks you keep throwing about, I'll just toss it out with the other internet-driven prattle around here.
You dislike Pixar, admittedly in an irrational vein. But like it or not, they are successful, both commercially and critically. Leave the personal insults aside and accept it.