PlaneJane
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
They didn't like the villain angle and supposedly gave him a sidekick.. maybe mr. dinosaur
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Meet the Robinsons Characters (Picture!)
- Thread starter XSTech
- Start date
They didn't like the villain angle and supposedly gave him a sidekick.. maybe mr. dinosaur
sillykid
Member
These are our (my childrens) future favorites. I think it's great to see new, original characters in the park. My only complaint is, there are not enough run into characters. Every character greeting, for the most part, is staged, aranged, or at a character connection. What I hope happens is we get enough characters, new or old, that you may just walk up and see one. The only time I see this is late January at the AK.
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
Yes and no....Lassiter had it overhauled from the original script.
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
The movie is based on a popular childrens book "A Day with Wilbur Robinson" by William Joyce. Not familiar with the book as mine are a bit past that reading age group.
JimboJones123
Well-Known Member
Bowler Hat guy hate already? Is this any different than HRG from Heros?
This is a genius character. It looks to be very based on Ray Bolger's Barnaby from Babes in Toyland. It has an Awesome design that sets him apart from the rest of the cast. What's not to like?
This is a genius character. It looks to be very based on Ray Bolger's Barnaby from Babes in Toyland. It has an Awesome design that sets him apart from the rest of the cast. What's not to like?
fizzle75
New Member
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the theme song "Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow" form Carrousel Of Progress is going to be integrated into the film and maybe even the attraction itself, has anyone else heard or read about this? It seems possible since in the trailer you catch a brief glimpse of what seems to be a theme park, it says TODAYLAND(instead of tomorrowland,yeah...I know...I didn't have to explain that one)and it shows space mountain too. :shrug: 
drew81
Well-Known Member
that's what I was wondering
wbt06
Member
it is fun that they seem to show the park but i just hope it is not the majority of the movie. i personaly have no idea what the movie is exactly about which is why i am so excited to see it but if it is just them in the park most of the time i think it would ruin the movie becouse it would seem like they are takeing the easy way out.
Piebald
Well-Known Member
You probably should have cropped out the phone number at least.
EpcotServo
Well-Known Member
I can't wait to not see it!
I was quite offended by the preview they did of it in the Animation building, and got quite mad at the posters/ and concept art work from the film, because it clearly rips off the classic style of the Incredibles. The 50's angled look. And the thing I hate the most is...
"Prepare for the Time Travel of your life!"
That makes no sense! Time Travel isn't really a verb! You can travel through time, but you can't have a good Time Travel!
I was quite offended by the preview they did of it in the Animation building, and got quite mad at the posters/ and concept art work from the film, because it clearly rips off the classic style of the Incredibles. The 50's angled look. And the thing I hate the most is...
"Prepare for the Time Travel of your life!"
That makes no sense! Time Travel isn't really a verb! You can travel through time, but you can't have a good Time Travel!
DisneyRox2007
New Member
No, Ricky/XSTech does NOT have the right to post that flyer.
Piebald is correct. It is an internal document. It is not "the official release from Disney" -- Disney does not release these to the public.
Just because someone stole it and scanned it and "emailed it to you anonymously," you truly think that gives you any right to post it on the Internet? Much less on Flickr???
Piebald seems to be the only one who understands things.
You have posted an internal company document, along with a phone number, despite an obvious copyright notice.
I'm sure as a fansite, it's a coup to be "anonymously emailed" a document. And the enthusiasm about the film is great. But you have posted an internal document which was illegitimately acquired. "Coup" or not, I don't think that's anything to be proud of.
Piebald is correct. It is an internal document. It is not "the official release from Disney" -- Disney does not release these to the public.
Just because someone stole it and scanned it and "emailed it to you anonymously," you truly think that gives you any right to post it on the Internet? Much less on Flickr???
Piebald seems to be the only one who understands things.
You have posted an internal company document, along with a phone number, despite an obvious copyright notice.
I'm sure as a fansite, it's a coup to be "anonymously emailed" a document. And the enthusiasm about the film is great. But you have posted an internal document which was illegitimately acquired. "Coup" or not, I don't think that's anything to be proud of.
Xadllas
New Member
Well I'm sorry if people don't like my opinion. I just don't think someone who uses the Disney Theme Parks to market his own movies and have every new attraction be based off of his stuff and neglect the things that really need help and only pay attention to his movie attraction projects should be praised. I'm not sorry for hating on Disney cgi movies because I'm not into them. They lack Disney Magic.. and are not really that special to me. Nor are they that memorable, almost everyone is making cgi movies right now and families are only gonna remember a few of them. So I don't see anything special about Disney's cgi nor Pixar's movies anymore because its all over kill to me. It'll be nice when/if they release the Frog princess so we can see something more like the days of Alan Menken, then I'll actually go see Disney Movies again. By the way that was an opinion.
drew81
Well-Known Member
I didn't send the picture to XS Tech and I hadn't even seen it before it was posted.
Connor002
Active Member
Opinion seems to be the fall-back excuse around these parts. While I can easily respect a difference of opinion, that's assuming the oposing viewpoint holds merit, meaning, has a logical explanation behind it.
True, so far as we know, Lasseter has worked mainly on projects which include PIXAR characters. However, rather than assuming a string of egoism, I would offer a different perspective: perhaps there is correlation, not causation. The fact the John Lasseter has worked mainly on projects with ties to PIXAR characters is not caused by egotism, however, there is a correlation between the PIXAR characters and the use of them in attractions. Over the last two decades, every PIXAR animated feature has been a success, for both PIXAR and Disney (as distributer). Therefore, it would seem most logical to use proven characters in development of attractions, thereby giving the attraction an advantage of advanced synergy.Xadllas said:
I disagree completly with your first point; in fact, I would suggest that PIXAR movies have exhibited more of the "Disney Magic" than any other feature in the last few years.Xadlas said:
As for the CGI movie argument, I personally don't see any effect whatsoever. CGI is no different from Hand-drawn, simply two different mediums for the same result.
Xadllas
New Member
Um no there is a difference. For example which of these movies are more important: The little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King or Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Monsters inc.? Or name more than one pixar or Disney cgi movie that has a more mature storyline that also has memorable characters and scenes that will be remembered 10 years from now. Disney was not supposed to be about atractions only based off their movies like Universal, Disney should be making original stories for their attractions, they should be taking risks as Walt did. Not taking an easy way out by basing them on theirs or Pixar's hit movies. I'm not appologizing for my opinion, its here to stay, and its not changing.
Connor002
Active Member
Um, no, I disagree.
And the question above is inane. "More important?" By logic, all of these are for entertainment purposes, not necessarily important.
Even so, the only diferential you've offered is the use of CGI, which hardly seems apt basis for excluding movies made just as well as any "Disney" movie of the Late-80's and Early-90's.
Did you know something?Zadlas said:
Toy Story is more than ten years old now, yet it's still remembered, still cherished, and still applauded for it's characters (so much so that the characters we're able to support another story which many consider to be better than the original).
Walt based many of his attractions on the motion pictures he had created. Using pre-created characters for an attraction is nothing new, nor privy only to Universal.Xadlas said:
Xadllas
New Member
Hmm.. Pirates of the Caribbean, The Enchanted Tiki Room, The Carousel of Progress, Flight to the Moon, The Matterhorn are based on movies? No, maybe certain aspects yes, but no. The Jungle Cruise, Swiss Family Robinson, and most of the Fantasyland Attractions are/were but thats not most. And they have been very sucessful without popular characters thank you very much. I know that its nothing new but not every new attraction needs to be half baked, or based off a movie. I'm sorry but CGI to me is nothing special, its being done all the time now and has been old to me for awhile now, I also don't feel like restating my opinion except if a animated movie was released today in the style of the Alan Menken movies I would see that over all of the CGI movies ever released. Thank you for reading the opinion of a 15 year old and taking it so seriously. Have a magical day!:wave: