Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway confirmed

[Brian Swan]

I doubt there will be anywhere near as many, but if there are a handful of AAs and the quality of the AAs is high, I'll be happy. I'm not against screens on principle, but I think they work better (and feel more worthy of Disney) when they're complemented with AAs and other "physical" ride elements. I'm still having trouble figuring out exactly what's going on in the ride preview Chapek showed at D23, but it definitely looks like there'll be a good mix of both. Definitely hope that's the case...

Actually, I'm not expecting ANY AAs. The basic premise of the ride is that you've been "sucked into" a 2D animated short; why would there be 3D figures? When this was first "announced" on the forums, prior to any details, I was hoping for a "Great Mickey Ride" similar in tone and style to the existing GMR, but tracing the "life" of Mickey from "Steamboat Mickey" to the present, using a combination of AAs, sets, and projections. What we're getting is...well...different. I'm disappointed in the direction they've decided to go with this, but I'm hoping for some cool new technology and won't "prejudge" it until I see the finished product.

 

[Timothy_Q]

Actually, I'm not expecting ANY AAs. The basic premise of the ride is that you've been "sucked into" a 2D animated short; why would there be 3D figures? When this was first "announced" on the forums, prior to any details, I was hoping for a "Great Mickey Ride" similar in tone and style to the existing GMR, but tracing the "life" of Mickey from "Steamboat Mickey" to the present, using a combination of AAs, sets, and projections. What we're getting is...well...different. I'm disappointed in the direction they've decided to go with this, but I'm hoping for some cool new technology and won't "prejudge" it until I see the finished product.

Insiders have already stated there will be AAs

 

[Amidala]

Actually, I'm not expecting ANY AAs. The basic premise of the ride is that you've been "sucked into" a 2D animated short; why would there be 3D figures? When this was first "announced" on the forums, prior to any details, I was hoping for a "Great Mickey Ride" similar in tone and style to the existing GMR, but tracing the "life" of Mickey from "Steamboat Mickey" to the present, using a combination of AAs, sets, and projections. What we're getting is...well...different. I'm disappointed in the direction they've decided to go with this, but I'm hoping for some cool new technology and won't "prejudge" it until I see the finished product.

Yeah, the assumption that there will be AAs was based on what insiders have said. And re: being sucked into a 2D animated short, the short may be 2D, but the guests and other elements outside the short are 3D, & I think this is precisely what the imagineers will want to play with. I think the comparisons to Get a Horse are still pretty fitting here, and I'm hoping the final product will look something like that–a fun mix of screens and 3D props and AA that really pushes the boundaries and feels as zany and high-energy as the new Mickey shorts.

Probably in the minority on this, but I still don't think the "Great Mickey Ride" concept would have worked. Whether we like it or not, TDO has a reason for replacing the GMR, and it's not that the ride is "dated" (it's brand new compared to other rides at WDW) or that the AAs and other ride elements need an update (that could have been handled with a lengthy refurb). TDO want a completely new and exciting E-Ticket in the theatre because the theatre is the centerpiece of DHS. Not only would a rehash of the GMR not accomplish this, but it would still replace the GMR, and potentially fail to compete w/ the original in the eyes of GMR fans.

To me, it makes sense when you consider that the new ride will perfectly embody the new theme of DHS–being pulled "inside" a movie and experiencing it for yourself, rather than a "studio" theme based on the moviemaking process. By the time SWL goes up and DHS gets its name change, I think this new ride will feel a lot more thematically appropriate to the park than it seems right now.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

That would be perfect. People actually went to theaters to see Classic Mickey.

But the design of Mickey they are using is very much inspired by "classic" Mickey. It's not like they took his character design in some crazy new direction. It also helps that the new shorts have a very timeless feel to them. For example, instead of using smartphones, they use old-fashioned rotary telephones.

 

[Amidala]

But the design of Mickey they are using is very much inspired by "classic" Mickey. It's not like they took his character design in some crazy new direction. It also helps that the new shorts have a very timeless feel to them. For example, instead of using smartphones, they use old-fashioned rotary telephones.

True. And on top of that...people "actually went to the theaters" to see Classic Mickey because in the late 20s and 30s when these shorts were first airing, people didn't have home televisions. That is just such a strange comparison to make.

 

[BlindChow]

True. And on top of that...people "actually went to the theaters" to see Classic Mickey because in the late 20s and 30s when these shorts were first airing, people didn't have home televisions. That is just such a strange comparison to make.

Ah, that's true. So this new ride must be getting themed to an alternate universe where there are no televisions to watch the Disney Channel.

 

[Amidala]

Ah, that's true. So this new ride must be getting themed to an alternate universe where there are no televisions to watch the Disney Channel.

??? I'm confused. These shorts air on TV because it's 2017. They could just as easily have been shown in theaters (as the old shorts were) if it was still the 20s and 30s. If classic Mickey shorts can be associated with film, these can as well. It's the same principle.

 

[Casper Gutman]

??? I'm confused. These shorts air on TV because it's 2017. They could just as easily have been shown in theaters (as the old shorts were) if it was still the 20s and 30s. If classic Mickey shorts can be associated with film, these can as well. It's the same principle.

For one thing, the style of the new shorts is very contemporary (albeit with classic influences) - it reads as post-2010 animation. If they wanted a mischievous Mickey who makes sense in a classic theatre, they had Get A Horse. But the Disney Channel is more important then Disney World.

 

[Andrew C]

For one thing, the style of the new shorts is very contemporary (albeit with classic influences) - it reads as post-2010 animation. If they wanted a mischievous Mickey who makes sense in a classic theatre, they had Get A Horse. But the Disney Channel is more important then Disney World.

See below....

Honestly, people saying the new shorts are ugly and feel nothing like "the real mickey" need to get a grip.

These shorts have a stunning art direction, that is often inspired by Mary Blair.

They finally gave Mickey back his personality after 60 years of being a neutered, one-note corportare logo.
People are so ingrained with the bland image he is today that they forget he used to have a wide range of emotions and actions.
(Steamboat Willie is about torturing animals for music, something that would fit perfectly in a Ren and Stimpy cartoon, so)

And there's so much heart in these shorts, especially the cultural ones set in different countries.

 

[Casper Gutman]

See below....

Your cited post doesn't relate to anything I said. I don't think they're ugly (except when they want to be) and I specifically acknowledge the desire to return to the mischievous mouse.

But the STYLE itself is contemporary. It is created largely using flash animation. It's style is as much influenced by internet cartoons as by classic Mickey. And none of that is bad. But it does clash dramatically with the "theatrical cartoon" conceit. This Mickey was made for the internet era, and even if people can't articulate it, the contrasting styles is going to register.

 

[po1998]

Umm, there's an AA in the queue of FoP.

I stand corrected. Instead of an underwhelming ONE AA in the entire land, they were overly generous and gave us TWO AA's. Amazing!

 

[becca_]

I stand corrected. Instead of an underwhelming ONE AA in the entire land, they were overly generous and gave us TWO AA's. Amazing!

How many AAs are in AK as an entire park? Like 4-5 not counting Dinosaur?

 

[Casper Gutman]

How many AAs are in AK as an entire park? Like 4-5 not counting Dinosaur?

2 in Pandora (did we ever confirm the thing in a tube was an AA?), 2 in Bugs... the Yeti's a statue and Little Red is history, so is that it?

We need more AAs! I'm not traveling across the ding-dang country to watch a fancy movie!

 

[po1998]

How many AAs are in AK as an entire park? Like 4-5 not counting Dinosaur?

My post was replying to a question of MMRR possibly having as many AA's as GMR. I was stating that there is a definite downturn in attraction heavy AA's in recent years(and I cited Pandora as Exhibit A). Therefore, I wouldn't anticipate anywhere near the number of AA's in MMRR that are in GMR currently.

 

[Andrew C]

Your cited post doesn't relate to anything I said. I don't think they're ugly (except when they want to be) and I specifically acknowledge the desire to return to the mischievous mouse.

But the STYLE itself is contemporary. It is created largely using flash animation. It's style is as much influenced by internet cartoons as by classic Mickey. And none of that is bad. But it does clash dramatically with the "theatrical cartoon" conceit. This Mickey was made for the internet era, and even if people can't articulate it, the contrasting styles is going to register.

It does relate. You're essentially saying they because it airs on Disney channel, they cannot match the original shorts that were in theaters. That's just not the case. The quality is high. Mickey has a personality. This matches any theatrical quality of the originals. Plus the detail is more than the original, simplistic Mickey. You're just stuck on the idea that because they air on tv, it's just not good enough. You fail realize this style of Mickey may really lend itself well to this type of attraction. Modern with a touch of classic.

 

[BlindChow]

For one thing, the style of the new shorts is very contemporary (albeit with classic influences) - it reads as post-2010 animation. If they wanted a mischievous Mickey who makes sense in a classic theatre, they had Get A Horse. But the Disney Channel is more important then Disney World.

And significantly, Get A Horse literally premiered in a movie theater. In the age of home televisions...

Honestly, everyone, it was just an off-hand comment about how, between Classic and Disney Channel Mickeys, I thought Classic fit better in a movie theater setting, because he had literally been there before, while the latter has strictly been a television affair. It wasn't an attack on the series itself, just an observation.

I agree it's a minor nitpick and won't make a difference to anyone once the ride finally opens.

 

[becca_]

2 in Pandora (did we ever confirm the thing in a tube was an AA?), 2 in Bugs... the Yeti's a statue and Little Red is history, so is that it?

We need more AAs! I'm not traveling across the ding-dang country to watch a fancy movie!

Yeah the Navi in the tube is an AA. Are there any on Kali River? I haven't been on in a long time so not sure.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It does relate. You're essentially saying they because it airs on Disney channel, they cannot match the original shorts that were in theaters. That's just not the case. The quality is high. Mickey has a personality. This matches any theatrical quality of the originals. Plus the detail is more than the original, simplistic Mickey. You're just stuck on the idea that because they air on tv, it's just not good enough. You fail realize this style of Mickey may really lend itself well to this type of attraction. Modern with a touch of classic.

You persist in not replying to what I am saying. This seems to be a pattern.

The quality of the art design, particularly of the backgrounds, in these shorts is high. The quality of the animation is not, and it's not supposed to be. To say it has the "theatrical quality of the originals" is simply wrong. It's flash animation. It does have a touch of classic mickey - and a touch of Powerpuff Girls, Ren & Stimpy, and Homestarrunner. It is decidedly modern and catered to television. There is a reason Disney does not put these shorts in front of theatrical release films, as they did Get a Horse.

By the way, lots of classic Mickey shorts, from an age when they were a regular feature in theatres, air on television. Being "on television" has nothing to do with this.

Also, in addition to failing to address my arguments you also make up arguments you like better and attribute them to me. That's not intellectually honest.

 

[Andrew C]

You persist in not replying to what I am saying. This seems to be a pattern.

The quality of the art design, particularly of the backgrounds, in these shorts is high. The quality of the animation is not, and it's not supposed to be. To say it has the "theatrical quality of the originals" is simply wrong. It's flash animation. It does have a touch of classic mickey - and a touch of Powerpuff Girls, Ren & Stimpy, and Homestarrunner. It is decidedly modern and catered to television. There is a reason Disney does not put these shorts in front of theatrical release films, as they did Get a Horse.

By the way, lots of classic Mickey shorts, from an age when they were a regular feature in theatres, air on television. Being "on television" has nothing to do with this.

Also, in addition to failing to address my arguments you also make up arguments you like better and attribute them to me. That's not intellectually honest.

Ok. Let them use the animation from get a horse. That basic and simple animation really suits this type of attraction. So exciting

And I am replying to what you're saying. You just choose to ignore my points.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Ok. Let them use the animation from get a horse. That basic and simple animation really suits this type of attraction. So exciting

And I am replying to what you're saying. You just choose to ignore my points.

So you are claiming... to be absolutely clear... that the animation in Get a Horse is more simplistic then in the Disney Channel shorts?

And as to replying to your points, I did, fairly specifically. Point out the issue you feel I did not address.