Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway SPOILER Thread

[Animaniac93-98]

Again, here's the thing: the ride banked that you bring in your own memories to give the ride some meaning, instead of creating a new experience BASED on those films, that enhances those films. If you haven't seen those films, or you're only mildly familiar, you don't even have that as an anchor.

This is an argument for why Disney should build rides NOT based on movies.

And they're building a ride based on TRON: Legacy right now. That's more obscure than most of the movies featured in GMR.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I think it held up well for Disney fans with nostalgia for the ride, but I can’t imagine new guests were that enthused.

Id assume they had enough feedback and survey results from casual guests/to first timers to feel justified in axeing it for that reason.

You can make a survey give any answer you want.

The ride closed when it had a corporate sponsor. It could have had it's FX and AAs upgraded like Spaceship Earth or Hall or Presidents.

 

[Disney Analyst]

You can make a survey give any answer you want.

The ride closed when it had a corporate sponsor. It could have had it's FX and AAs upgraded like Spaceship Earth or Hall or Presidents.

But that’s kind of my point. I think it’s the Tomorrowland problem, but likely harder.

Disney doesn’t want to utilize non owned IP anymore, fair enough. But to update something, that will likely become outdated relatively quickly and need to be updated constantly just isn’t good business. And the ride needed an update desperately.

I loved the ride. But I can see why there would be incentive to remove it. And I don’t fault them for it.

 

[Ponderer]

Everyone has their own favourite movies, but highlighting them was not the main point of the GMR.

It was a showcase for a variety of genres and decades to illustrate the breadth of American movie history. CineMagique in Paris took the concept further by including French cinema too.

Most 5 year olds even in 1989 would not have been familiar with the movies featured in the ride, but like parents watching their favourites with their children, the Great Movie ride gave them an education on Hollywood's past.

Building rides based on the latest blockbusters is what Universal did, and we know how dated those became in some cases. The actual list of titles Disney chose for the ride held up very well for the most part.

Yeah, but that's the thing - it didn't leave them with any appreciation of those films. It didn't distill what was special. Very few people came out of that ride saying, "Wow! I wanna see a James Cagney movie now! I see why those were awesome!"

I'll give a comparison: Flight of Passage in Animal Kingdom. Avatar has not proven to be an especially enduring property (in the US, anyway - it had a major cultural impact in Asia and South America). But the ride captured something that was distinctive and special about the film and turned it into a visceral and even emotional experience.

GMR should have created an emotional experience *regardless of whether or not you had seen those films.* Movies are fun, emotional things that you lose yourself in! It's like they didn't ask themselves, how can we make you actually *feel* like you're going to Oz, how can we translate that feeling into a ride? You look at Peter Pan's Flight, by every measure a more technologically primitive experience that also more or less recaps a film. But they figured out a way to make it feel *participatory,* sailing above the clouds, building an experience that's more than just remembering a film.

THAT is good ride storytelling.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I think you're confusing the space with the purpose. What we're talking about is execution and what they're trying to achieve. MMRR is trying to make you feel like a participant in a cartoon.

While the comparison to the original EPCOT attractions is valid, I'd argue the biggest difference is the EPCOT shows had more of a focused theme, and I just feel like GMR was more of a gussied-up diorama that didn't bring you into the subject emotionally. (Except for the Alien/Nostromo part, which kind of shows to me the immersive experience the ride could've been. That part is so good that I completely understand why they wanted to basically carve it out and put it in Tomorrowland as the original idea for Alien Encounters.)

The biggest general flaw with GMR is that if you had no relationship with the films originally, it's not going to move you - thus the frequent calls before it closed to update the ride. And that's a problem - if they had designed the ride to really bring you *into* scenes, the movie selection really wouldn't have mattered. Incidentally, these are the some of the same problems I have with the Na'vi River Journey too. A lot of the other dark rides work great because of sheer force of narrative and/or original execution and vision.

And no, it's not at all about narrow range of IPs - it's about finally having a deep, fun celebration of THE centerpiece of Disney history - and in a way that uses tech to simulate being INSIDE the animation as part of Mickey's world. I wouldn't have wanted a Mickey ride that just had Mickey for the sake of his presence. The lack of a Mickey-themed attraction didn't HURT the parks. But this, to me, feels like the right execution at the right time and it's a giant plus that it could happen.

Of course Disney shorts weren't as meta or completely nuts as what WB did. But the early ones of the late 20s and early 30s? Those are *absolutely* more wild than what came later when you got Mickey-as-hero with the cuddly, redesigned face, the Mickey and the Beanstalk era. Early Mickey was a somewhat mischievous rapscallion who got into crazy, illogical hijinx. The situation is where the anarchy lay, not the characters, generally, and that's the spirit of the new shorts and this ride. I mean, when I hear about this ride, I totally think of shorts like Plane Crazy and such. It's a very specific kind of energy and I *love* that.

(We could have a whole discussion about how early Mickey was someone who jumped into adventures and was jumped right in when reality broke, how 40s-50s-era Mickey seemed kind of terrified when situations spiraled out of control, and how Sorcerer's Apprentice is where those two concepts fused, but I think that's a discussion for a different time. )

Actually... when folks try to justify “mischievous Mickey” they always point to the same two toons - Plane Crazy and Steamboat Willy, the first two Mickey ever made. How many more appearances did that version of Mickey actually make? I haven’t seen every Mouse toon, but it seems that by 1930s Moose Hunt he was well on his way to being the more familiar character. Was mischievous Mickey actually a historic phase beyond the instant of his creation, or is it spin that has gained traction because the historical significance of the first two shorts has made them so familiar to fans?

PS: Moose Hunt was 31

 

[WhatJaneSays]

I've gotten invited to media previews next week but ... I may be able to ride it tomorrow even though its technically in CM only previews. *crosses fingers*

 

[Ponderer]

Actually... when folks try to justify “mischievous Mickey” they always point to the same two toons - Plane Crazy and Steamboat Willy, the first two Mickey ever made. How many more appearances did that version of Mickey actually make? I haven’t seen every Mouse toon, but it seems that by 1930s Moose Hunt he was well on his way to being the more familiar character. Was mischievous Mickey actually a historic phase beyond the instant of his creation, or is it spin that has gained traction because the historical significance of the first two shorts has made them so familiar to fans?

PS: Moose Hunt was 31

It's an interesting question. There were 29 Mickey cartoons in between Steamboat Willie and Moose Hunt, so there's an awful lot of that original Mickey concept out there. (Plane Crazy was the 4th released, though the first completed. I'm also very interested in how much Runaway Railroad was influenced by 1929's Mickey's Choo-Choo, as well as the Oswald cartoon Trolley Trouble from 1927.)

Anyway, those shorts were certainly historically significant. But there was just an enormous amount of output during that time that made the early version of Mickey absolutely definitional with audiences - especially if you regard Mickey as essentially the evolution of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit.

 

[britain]

Looney Toons > Classic Disney Shorts

There, I’ve said it.

And therefore, Disney was right to shift to zany and genuine Hi-larity with the new Mickey shorts.

 

[Ponderer]

Looney Toons > Classic Disney Shorts

There, I’ve said it.

And therefore, Disney was right to shift to zany and genuine Hi-larity with the new Mickey shorts.

I'll follow up and say that The Emperor's New Groove may be my personal favorite Disney animated film BC it's literally a Looney Tunes movie.

(Not necessarily the *best* Disney film, but the one that makes me ridiculously happy the most.)

And I loooooove the current shorts so frickin' much.

 

[SoCalMort]

...Of course Disney shorts weren't as meta or completely nuts as what WB did. But the early ones of the late 20s and early 30s? Those are *absolutely* more wild than what came later when you got Mickey-as-hero with the cuddly, redesigned face, the Mickey and the Beanstalk era. Early Mickey was a somewhat mischievous rapscallion who got into crazy, illogical hijinx...

Several lifetimes ago, when I was a ride op at D'land, I had a chance to hear Ward Kimball speak at a cast member gathering. He specifically mentioned this shift in Mickey's personality as one of the main reasons why they eventually stop making the shorts. I nearly fell out of my seat in he described that Mickey as boring.

 

[Rich Brownn]

Yeah, but that's the thing - it didn't leave them with any appreciation of those films. It didn't distill what was special. Very few people came out of that ride saying, "Wow! I wanna see a James Cagney movie now! I see why those were awesome!"

I'll give a comparison: Flight of Passage in Animal Kingdom. Avatar has not proven to be an especially enduring property (in the US, anyway - it had a major cultural impact in Asia and South America). But the ride captured something that was distinctive and special about the film and turned it into a visceral and even emotional experience.

GMR should have created an emotional experience *regardless of whether or not you had seen those films.* Movies are fun, emotional things that you lose yourself in! It's like they didn't ask themselves, how can we make you actually *feel* like you're going to Oz, how can we translate that feeling into a ride? You look at Peter Pan's Flight, by every measure a more technologically primitive experience that also more or less recaps a film. But they figured out a way to make it feel *participatory,* sailing above the clouds, building an experience that's more than just remembering a film.

THAT is good ride storytelling.

Remember that TGMR was originally designed as a pavilion for EPCOT for which the ride would have been the finale. It was supposed to be a celebration of entertainment (not specifically just movies). When Disney-MGM became a rushed thing in the hopes of discoursing Universal, they moved it to make it a centerpiece by itself.

 

[Rich Brownn]

Several lifetimes ago, when I was a ride op at D'land, I had a chance to hear Ward Kimball speak at a cast member gathering. He specifically mentioned this shift in Mickey's personality as one of the main reasons why they eventually stop making the shorts. I nearly fell out of my seat in he described that Mickey as boring.

As Mickey shifted more into a corporate icon and Donald got more of the good stuff, even Walt was frustrated at how toned down Mickey had become. But as a corporate icon now, it was felt he had be more or less "respectful" .

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

But that’s kind of my point. I think it’s the Tomorrowland problem, but likely harder.

Disney doesn’t want to utilize non owned IP anymore, fair enough. But to update something, that will likely become outdated relatively quickly and need to be updated constantly just isn’t good business. And the ride needed an update desperately.

I loved the ride. But I can see why there would be incentive to remove it. And I don’t fault them for it.

The Great Movie Ride didn't close because Disney didn't own all of the IP (which, by the way, it now owns even more of the IP featured in the attraction than it did through its life).

The Great Movie Ride closed because it was expensive to run and they thought they could build a replacement that was less costly to operate.

Guest Satisfaction had gone down in its last few years, but the ride had not seen an update (outside of the clip reel at the end and the tragic automated narration) in 28 years. Show me any attraction left untouched for that long who hasn't seen guest satisfaction decline. 3 different versions of Spaceship Earth existed in that same window of time, and the last update had already grown tired by the time GMR was closing. It was long overdue for an update and it would have been reasonable to offer it one. I would have lamented them, say, cutting the fire effects to save money, but if it saved the ride I would have gotten over it.

The point of The Great Movie Ride is that it was . . . wait for it . . . a Ride through acclaimed, Great Movies. There have been Great Movies made in the last 30 years that could have stood to be added, but it's not like the list of "the classics" changes much from year to year. The ride was built on the backs of classic movies and genres old and new. If you want to update the show scenes to create a more exciting presentation there's room for that, but you didn't have to love or even know all the movies to understand that it was a ride-through Highlight Reel of Hollywood classics.

The mix was healthy enough that there was something for everybody even if everything wasn't for everybody. As a child it was one of my favorites despite being terrified of The Public Enemy, Alien, and the Mummy Chamber because Mary Poppins, Fantasia, and The Wizard of Oz were featured. Growing up and seeing more of those movies only increased my appreciation for the ride. It was as much about exposing guests to the classics as it was about bringing them into their favorites.

All this is to say - if they'd updated the ride for the first time in nearly 3 decades in a way that featured a few new classic films, added some new, exciting effects, and streamlined the operational costs (within reason), there's no reason to believe they couldn't have been set for the next 15 to 20+ years. If the premise of the ride was that you were traveling through Hollywood's Flavor-of-the-Week films then the ride would need to be updated constantly, but it didn't.

If the ride's content had been updated several times to no avail then I could see the argument that it had a "Tomorrowland" problem. But they never did. Instead they decided to cut their losses and run rather than EVER offer it an update. So I do fault them for removing it.

 

[No Name]

Here's my controversial perspective: when I was a youngster, I grew up loving wax museums. I remember dreaming about the Hollywood Wax Museum and especially their Star Trek display. For some reason, there was nothing cooler to 5 year old me than looking at these themed statues.

And the first time I rode it in the 90s, I realized: GMR was a slightly enhanced Hollywood Wax Museum. And I was left cold.

The ride was sort of cool, but I never felt it was that special. I didn't get feel particularly dazzled by it and I should have been Ground Zero in terms of being fascinated by what it offered. I never felt like I was transported to "the world of the movies." Frankly, the best part of the ride - by far - was seeing the props and memorabilia at the end of it. I certainly never felt like I needed to ride it again and again.

Now, you tell me you're gonna have an attraction that finally celebrates Mickey - Mickey and his cartoons? That's going to finally try to tie into the anarchic spirit of that creation? SIGN ME UP. It's all about execution, of course, but in my opinion, this is a giant upgrade. You can celebrate the Generic Spirit of Movies in any number of places. There's a magnificent, massive Academy of Motion Pictures Museum opening this very year, a stone's throw from Anaheim. You can even see the ruby slippers.

This ride, OTOH, celebrates a crucial part of what makes Disney...Disney. It's not lugubrious, it's not inert, it tries to bring freaking Disney cartoons to life! That, to me, is a massive upgrade, a concept completely worthy of being the centerpiece of a Disney park, and it was easily worth losing GMR.

I’m confused. You grew up loving wax museums yet you were disappointed by the wax museum nature of the GMR? How did your opinion of wax museums change so drastically? The world needs answers.

 

[Ponderer]

I’m confused. You grew up loving wax museums yet you were disappointed by the wax museum nature of the GMR? How did your opinion of wax museums change so drastically? The world needs answers.

Because I grew up and was expecting a lot more from Disney than what I got from a LA warehouse. A LOT more.

 

[Surferboy567]

I want to move this conversation away from GMR...this is a Runaway Railway thread. Maybe someone can make a thread where people can go and talk about GMR.

 

[Jabbas]

The waterfall scene sounds neat, can’t wait to see the video of this.

 

[Surferboy567]

We really need POV of the entire attraction to fully understand it. I’m talking full experience from start to finish with queue. Hopefully we get that at the media event, or we wait till opening day.

Honestly surprised we haven’t heard anything about:
1.) The Theme Song and other “Musical” aspects of the ride
2.) The “B” Story
3.) The bird Chuuby that apparently is an important character and appears on most merch
4.) The actual short in the preshow outside of the explosion

EDIT: The actual visuals that cannot be explained, (applies to the AA’s and Goofy train effect)

 

[mm52200]

Yeah, but that's the thing - it didn't leave them with any appreciation of those films. It didn't distill what was special. Very few people came out of that ride saying, "Wow! I wanna see a James Cagney movie now! I see why those were awesome!"

I'll give a comparison: Flight of Passage in Animal Kingdom. Avatar has not proven to be an especially enduring property (in the US, anyway - it had a major cultural impact in Asia and South America). But the ride captured something that was distinctive and special about the film and turned it into a visceral and even emotional experience.

GMR should have created an emotional experience *regardless of whether or not you had seen those films.* Movies are fun, emotional things that you lose yourself in! It's like they didn't ask themselves, how can we make you actually *feel* like you're going to Oz, how can we translate that feeling into a ride? You look at Peter Pan's Flight, by every measure a more technologically primitive experience that also more or less recaps a film. But they figured out a way to make it feel *participatory,* sailing above the clouds, building an experience that's more than just remembering a film.

THAT is good ride storytelling.

I haven’t seen most of those films, still haven’t, but I left the ride with an extreme emotional experience every time and I’m sure many others did too.
I’m sorry that you didn’t.

 

[marni1971]

Let's not forget Mickey Mouse was in The Great Movie Ride too. As a projection on a screen.

Look how far we've come in 30 years!

And that was a last minute panic addition.