• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway confirmed

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
From what I've seen, estimates are all over the place. Some saying well before SWGE (my hope, since I am going end of July), some saying right before SWGE, some saying well down the road after SWGE has been open awhile. I believe the only word from Disney thus far has been "Fall". I'd love to hear if some insider has anything on it!
Our Insider has said possibly Late Summer and before SWL is the goal.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
There is always these invisible fans that come out of the woodwork when attractions are going away. Evidently Guest surveys were not very high for this ride so Disney got rid of it. Some say it was due to years of neglect but with the direction DHS is going it makes less and less sense to have kept it open just for some nostalgic reasons.
You know, an upgrade or two could have made all the difference ... and there are other politics and decisions at play sometimes that go into an attraction being replaced. The reality is they didn't want to invest in updating the ride. They could have and also put MMRR elsewhere. But that's neither here nor there now. It is what it is at this point. I LOVED the GMR. But despite this going in it's place, I'm not going to hate the ride because of it. It looks like it could be promising, and fun, and I don't hate the cartoon style. So I'm looking forward to it.

Some of us look at things differently. I'm sad the ride is gone and they wouldn't fix it or update it. The other reality is, this park in particular would benefit from more attractions. Replacements shouldn't have been on the table. This should have been a new build and they should have ponied up the money to update the attraction. But again, just my opinion. And I'm sure when you have an attachment to a ride and it goes away in the future you'll know how some of us feel. I know it's annoying to hear people talk about "old rides" but they left an impression on us, and mattered.
 

mandstaft

Well-Known Member
My bet is that the construction time table was also a factor besides cost. Overall, neglecting the parks for so long has now created problems such as high crowds for SWL:GE in a park with few attractions and tired shows. Was no one paying attention all along?
 

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
We could have had both. That’s the rub.
Naw, I don't think so marni, this is one ride that I do think in order to make it anywhere near enjoyable would have been extremely costly and I agree with the poster who said the cast members were corny and literally painful to watch. It was time to put a knife in it and call it done.

Every thing has a "worth" factor, should you keep sinking money into an old car or get new? is it worth the money it would take to update the great movie ride?

I thought the ride was old and lame, lol I only rode it to get out of the hot August sun. I hated the cast members who played the gangsters with a passion, they were ungodly bad, probably would have been more entertaining if they actually got burnt to a crisp. I don't know if M&M could have been placed some where else but TGMR was beyond saving. lol, the best line in our car was at the end when another guest said "Well that's 6 minutes of my life I can't get back" and 50 other people agreed.
 
Last edited:

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
"Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world."
“Disneyland is not a museum.”
Which more closely means "The park isn't set in stone, we can make changes to keep it getting better and better" instead of "Quick, close things people like or they'll think we're boring!"

Walt Disney lamented the way a movie is "done" once the film is in the reel - you don't get to keep playing with it after it's been released, even if you have a new, better idea. Whereas Disneyland was "like a lump of clay" that could be resculpted as many times as was interesting. Then Walt bought massive amounts of land in Florida to offer "the blessing of size" to the projects being built for Walt Disney World that wasn't afforded to Disneyland and limited his ability to grow and improve the park.

The Great Movie Ride could have used an update - which would constitute reworking the lump of clay that is the park. But what's more - The Great Movie Ride could have THRIVED with an update. It's not like the ride was a bad idea that couldn't have its execution improved on, but in its almost 30 years they never gave it that attention. Most major attractions don't go that long without at least some plussing. That's part of how you keep things fresh, or from feeling like a "museum". But even museums know that it's better to keep exhibits people like and make sure to brush the cobwebs off them than it is to replace them simply for the sake of change. Spruce up the things that need it and then outright replace the things that no longer have potential - The Great Movie Ride still had plenty of potential.
 

TJJohn12

Well-Known Member
...The Great Movie Ride still had plenty of potential.
I think you’re right - the idea of a ride through great movies had potential. I think the chief problem was the ride system and the impact it had on the pacing of the storytelling. There was a mismatch between pairing such large ride vehicles that moved at a glacial pace with static scenes depicting minuscule moments from cinema, a highly motile medium.

For an experience like UoE, where the show scenes are novel and ask the audience to deeply investigate details, the pace of the moving auditorium vehicles makes perfect sense. But for consuming a wax figure of Edward G. Robinson knocking on a door? You don’t need the 15-20 seconds that scene took to pass in order to consume and enjoy it. GMR was a glorified wax museum where the audience was given no agency; in a real wax museum you are given the choice to pay deep attention to scenes you want to explore, and walk away from those that don’t catch your fancy.

So GMR likely could have been a great ride for a modern era, but the ride system itself - some of the most expensive infrastructure investment in this case - would have had to been rethought. Faster, smaller ride vehicles would have opened so many more options for a modern audience. It would allow for an increase in pacing and frequency of story beats to hold audience attention. But GMR was also really missing a storyline... much like a tradition wax museum is too.
 

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
Which more closely means "The park isn't set in stone, we can make changes to keep it getting better and better" instead of "Quick, close things people like or they'll think we're boring!"

Walt Disney lamented the way a movie is "done" once the film is in the reel - you don't get to keep playing with it after it's been released, even if you have a new, better idea. Whereas Disneyland was "like a lump of clay" that could be resculpted as many times as was interesting. Then Walt bought massive amounts of land in Florida to offer "the blessing of size" to the projects being built for Walt Disney World that wasn't afforded to Disneyland and limited his ability to grow and improve the park.

The Great Movie Ride could have used an update - which would constitute reworking the lump of clay that is the park. But what's more - The Great Movie Ride could have THRIVED with an update. It's not like the ride was a bad idea that couldn't have its execution improved on, but in its almost 30 years they never gave it that attention. Most major attractions don't go that long without at least some plussing. That's part of how you keep things fresh, or from feeling like a "museum". But even museums know that it's better to keep exhibits people like and make sure to brush the cobwebs off them than it is to replace them simply for the sake of change. Spruce up the things that need it and then outright replace the things that no longer have potential - The Great Movie Ride still had plenty of potential.

lol Every thing has a lot of "potential". Not sure about your museums part, museums close exhibits all the time. all the time. outside of the classics (Mona lisa, Monet etc etc) how would you get return visitors. even at museums people return because there are new exhibits to see.

I 1000% agree with the bolded but unfortunately there is not going back and correcting that. heck, the entire premise of most of the parks downfall is that they were not maintained properly.. So the question comes back around, you have this out of date, boring, stale ride (very subjective I know, but I think pretty accurate for a large portion of guest) that is going to be expensive to update, what do you do.

how could they have updated the ride? from what I heard many of the owners of the scenes where asking huge amounts of money to use their clips (wizard of oz), heck the guy who own "ricks cafe" sued Warner bros for money he feels he was due from Casablanca. So that pretty much leaves Disney with using their own stuff. lol, can you image the heck that would have broken out if the updated the ride with just Disney material??
 

Surferboy567

Well-Known Member
Which more closely means "The park isn't set in stone, we can make changes to keep it getting better and better" instead of "Quick, close things people like or they'll think we're boring!"

Walt Disney lamented the way a movie is "done" once the film is in the reel - you don't get to keep playing with it after it's been released, even if you have a new, better idea. Whereas Disneyland was "like a lump of clay" that could be resculpted as many times as was interesting. Then Walt bought massive amounts of land in Florida to offer "the blessing of size" to the projects being built for Walt Disney World that wasn't afforded to Disneyland and limited his ability to grow and improve the park.

The Great Movie Ride could have used an update - which would constitute reworking the lump of clay that is the park. But what's more - The Great Movie Ride could have THRIVED with an update. It's not like the ride was a bad idea that couldn't have its execution improved on, but in its almost 30 years they never gave it that attention. Most major attractions don't go that long without at least some plussing. That's part of how you keep things fresh, or from feeling like a "museum". But even museums know that it's better to keep exhibits people like and make sure to brush the cobwebs off them than it is to replace them simply for the sake of change. Spruce up the things that need it and then outright replace the things that no longer have potential - The Great Movie Ride still had plenty of potential.
I think you’re right - the idea of a ride through great movies had potential. I think the chief problem was the ride system and the impact it had on the pacing of the storytelling. There was a mismatch between pairing such large ride vehicles that moved at a glacial pace with static scenes depicting minuscule moments from cinema, a highly motile medium.

For an experience like UoE, where the show scenes are novel and ask the audience to deeply investigate details, the pace of the moving auditorium vehicles makes perfect sense. But for consuming a wax figure of Edward G. Robinson knocking on a door? You don’t need the 15-20 seconds that scene took to pass in order to consume and enjoy it. GMR was a glorified wax museum where the audience was given no agency; in a real wax museum you are given the choice to pay deep attention to scenes you want to explore, and walk away from those that don’t catch your fancy.

So GMR likely could have been a great ride for a modern era, but the ride system itself - some of the most expensive infrastructure investment in this case - would have had to been rethought. Faster, smaller ride vehicles would have opened so many more options for a modern audience. It would allow for an increase in pacing and frequency of story beats to hold audience attention. But GMR was also really missing a storyline... much like a tradition wax museum is too.
lol Every thing has a lot of "potential". Not sure about your museums part, museums close exhibits all the time. all the time. outside of the classics (Mona lisa, Monet etc etc) how would you get return visitors. even at museums people return because there are new exhibits to see.

I 1000% agree with the bolded but unfortunately there is not going back and correcting that. heck, the entire premise of most of the parks downfall is that they were not maintained properly.. So the question comes back around, you have this out of date, boring, stale ride (very subjective I know, but I think pretty accurate for a large portion of guest) that is going to be expensive to update, what do you do.

how could they have updated the ride? from what I heard many of the owners of the scenes where asking huge amounts of money to use their clips (wizard of oz), heck the guy who own "ricks cafe" sued Warner bros for money he feels he was due from Casablanca. So that pretty much leaves Disney with using their own stuff. lol, can you image the heck that would have broken out if the updated the ride with just Disney material??
My point being that while yes, the IDEA of GMR had potential and sure it could of been plus'ed no ride is sacred (besides your classics) hence the "Disneyland isn't a museum". So we should all just welcome MMRR with open arms into HWS.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
My point being that while yes, the IDEA of GMR had potential and sure it could of been plus'ed no ride is sacred (besides your classics) hence the "Disneyland isn't a museum". So we should all just welcome MMRR with open arms into HWS.
I do! The purpose of GMR was never understood to begin with and it became nothing but pure nostalgia since the closed up the studio.
 

marni1971

WDW History nut
Premium Member
Naw, I don't think so marni, this is one ride that I do think in order to make it anywhere near enjoyable would have been extremely costly..
Yes, it would have been. Depends on your definition of “extremely” though. We’re not talking about wholesale changes, just restoring it to the equivalent of opening day quality with today’s technology and perhaps the odd IP switch.

Although if you didn’t enjoy it the first place I could talk until the sun didn’t shine and you still probably wouldn’t like it.

from what I heard many of the owners of the scenes where asking huge amounts of money to use their clips (wizard of oz)
But let me just correct that misinformation you were told. Oz was an issue in 1989, not today. Nor were any other scenes jeopardising the attraction. It was a through and through too expensive to fix vs install something marketable as new.
 
Last edited:

Disney Dad 3000

Well-Known Member
I know the opening date of this is still in question, with the intended likelihood they'll try and get it open before if not a few weeks before at least SWGE. Have there been any rumblings behind the scenes about Fastpass for the attraction @marni1971 ? Just curious if they'd considered not opening fastpass for the attraction for a bit like they are doing for SWGE and leaving FP as it is for the rest of the park until they are ready to update the tiers after a small bit of the madness has subsided.
 

marni1971

WDW History nut
Premium Member
I know the opening date of this is still in question, with the intended likelihood they'll try and get it open before if not a few weeks before at least SWGE. Have there been any rumblings behind the scenes about Fastpass for the attraction @marni1971 ? Just curious if they'd considered not opening fastpass for the attraction for a bit like they are doing for SWGE and leaving FP as it is for the rest of the park until they are ready to update the tiers after a small bit of the madness has subsided.
It will be FP enabled, that’s without doubt. Which version of FP depends on when it exactly opens.

It’s down to operations if it opens FP free or not. Common sense and ops experience says it would open without.
 

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
Yes, it would have been. Depends on your definition of “extremely” though. We’re not talking about wholesale changes, just restoring it to the equivalent of opening day quality with today’s technology and perhaps the odd IP switch.

Although if you didn’t enjoy it the first place I could talk until the sun didn’t shine and you still probably wouldn’t like it.


But let me just correct that misinformation you were told. Oz was an issue in 1989, not today. Nor were any other scenes jeopardising the attraction. It was a through and through too expensive to fix vs install something marketable as new.
Thanks, yes I was told that the studios behind Oz and Casablanca want a bunch of dough to use the films.
It's not that i didn't like it, it was very sad to me, most of the films my kids didn't know and I do admit that if they insisted on doing the live action bit they needed to invest in cms that had some semblance of acting skills.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
My bet is that the construction time table was also a factor besides cost. Overall, neglecting the parks for so long has now created problems such as high crowds for SWL:GE in a park with few attractions and tired shows. Was no one paying attention all along?
I'm sure it was too. It does seem like no one was paying attention for about 15 years. It's a shame they got to the place where they have SO much to do, but they only have themselves to blame for spending a decade of little to no investment. Especially at DHS. And I imagine a lot of the spending was "forced" on them, so to speak. They still try and cut corners and still don't quite seem able to not replace something.

I imagine it was "quicker" to gut the GMR and put it there than to build and theme another show building. But they should have. I also "get" wanting Mickey and Minnie's ride to be at the center of the park, but the rumored Disneyland plans have it going into Toontown, replacing a shop. I mean ... come on. That says it all right there. LOL. WDW execs would gasp and pass out if someone dared suggest a shop get replaced by a ride! (or at the very least, a queue).
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Thanks, yes I was told that the studios behind Oz and Casablanca want a bunch of dough to use the films.
It's not that i didn't like it, it was very sad to me, most of the films my kids didn't know and I do admit that if they insisted on doing the live action bit they needed to invest in cms that had some semblance of acting skills.
But as a kid, if I didn't know a movie, I wanted to see it and be educated about it. The ride was never 'dated' to me, but I can understand why some cringed at the state of it. I'm not saying some of those movies are "for kids" lol, but nothing's "really dated" IMO. It's always going to be 'new' to someone. And I loved the Wizard of Oz section. I loved that movie as a kid and it was so cool seeing it come to life.

I wish it had received an overhaul. Maybe if they kept up with it and changed scenes out here and there over the decades it wouldn't have "fallen out of favor". I've never understood dismissing something as "old". History's "old" too but we still learn about it ... maybe a bad example but still ... lol
 

marni1971

WDW History nut
Premium Member
Thanks, yes I was told that the studios behind Oz and Casablanca want a bunch of dough to use the films.
It's not that i didn't like it, it was very sad to me, most of the films my kids didn't know and I do admit that if they insisted on doing the live action bit they needed to invest in cms that had some semblance of acting skills.
Originally, what became Sorcerers Apprentice was meant to be the Oz tornado scene. The projection was mean to be the house spinning in the twister, aided by the wind machines which were designed to blow a lot stronger. This scene would seague into the following, starting with the house that had now landed.

The scene was finished and installed but due to miscommunication Disney found out their license only applied to two scenes. If they wanted a third they’d have to pay extra.

And so Mickey was hastily installed in the same space.
 
Top Bottom