Monsters Inc Laugh Floor Concept Art

[Meeko]

Hmm... interesting words for both arguing parties.

you really never know until things are done.

IMO, any addition to an unused (or barely used) building is a good one. Just have to wait and see if I enjoy the attraction.

 

[wannab@dis]

IMO, any addition to an unused (or barely used) building is a good one. Just have to wait and see if I enjoy the attraction.

I think that's all that most people expect. :wave:

 

[Lewis Carroll]

It's called optimism. You should give it a try -- you'll be happier. :wave:

Oh belive me I am very optimistic about Disney after what I heard recently. Lets just say its gonna be a great time to be a "Disney Purist" soon.

Soarin was hated by many of the purists when it was being built. They were very upset that Food Rocks was being replaced and considered it the end of Epcot.

Quite frankly, whoever said that is a moron. food rocks was never a disney quality attraction, much less epcot worthy.

There may have been other ideas, but Ellen was chosen. It made a huge difference in the pavilion and it's still fairly popular. What really bothers me about the purists' outlook is it seems they would rather have failure than a departure from what THEY want. Self-centered, maybe?

I think its absurd to say Ellen made a HUGE difference to the pavillion. It may have prolonged the attractions death by making it a tie-in to a THEN popular celeberty but UOE today isnt any more popular than it was before ellen.

I don't think anyone here wants a failure over a departure from what they want. But under the later Eisner years "failure" and "departure from expectations" could be considered interchangable. I personally consider the ellen overlay of UOE to be a huge failure AND a departure from how I wanted the pavillion upgraded.

 

[PirateJeffWDW]

Possibly, but why would you have par cans in the concept art. Par cans would suggest live or AA performance.

I really don't see where the lighting is the main focus .:veryconfu

I don't think they are trying to focus on the lighting... It's called theming. The reason those lights are in the picture is to show you that they are trying to make it look like a comedy club which would normally have that style of lighting fixture.

 

[wannab@dis]

Oh belive me I am very optimistic about Disney after what I heard recently. Lets just say its gonna be a great time to be a "Disney Purist" soon.

What? That bogus wand story some idiot posted? You actually believed that? :zipit:

Quite frankly, whoever said that is a moron. food rocks was never a disney quality attraction, much less epcot worthy.

Well... I'll let all those "morons" fend for themselves, but it was quite funny to watch them falling all over themselves.

I think its absurd to say Ellen made a HUGE difference to the pavillion. It may have prolonged the attractions death by making it a tie-in to a THEN popular celeberty but UOE today isnt any more popular than it was before ellen.

I don't think anyone here wants a failure over a departure from what they want. But under the later Eisner years "failure" and "departure from expectations" could be considered interchangable. I personally consider the ellen overlay of UOE to be a huge failure AND a departure from how I wanted the pavillion upgraded.

Ellen greatly extended the life of the attraction and made it at least palpable for most.

 

[marni1971]

Ellen greatly extended the life of the attraction and made it at least palpable for most.

Just a reminder that Ellen was the 2nd choice theme for the UoE makeover... the first theme sounded awesome - it could have been much superior to the orignal and the current versions with no Ellen tie-in :wave:

 

[wannab@dis]

Just a reminder that Ellen was the 2nd choice theme for the UoE makeover... the first theme sounded awesome - it could have been much superior to the orignal and the current versions with no Ellen tie-in :wave:

I'm sure Jim Hill has some article on it... but rarely does he have the facts actually used in the decision making process. Nor do we. :wave:

 

[Figments Friend]

UGHHHHHHHHH

My feelings exactly! :lol:


To be fair though...i will wait until i actually experience the attraction before passing judgement. It still seems to give the impression of being "Turtle Talk part 2" however...but that's just my take on it so far based on this recent peek.

 

[Magicot]

Oh belive me I am very optimistic about Disney after what I heard recently. Lets just say its gonna be a great time to be a "Disney Purist" soon.

How soon!????

 

[marni1971]

I'm sure Jim Hill has some article on it... but rarely does he have the facts actually used in the decision making process. Nor do we. :wave:

I wish he did... sometimes his `looks back` are quite on the ball. I don`t recall seeing this one on his site.

 

[imagineer boy]

Just a reminder that Ellen was the 2nd choice theme for the UoE makeover... the first theme sounded awesome - it could have been much superior to the orignal and the current versions with no Ellen tie-in :wave:

Could you elaborate? I'm iinterested to see what was going in there.

 

[socalkdg]

To be fair though...i will wait until i actually experience the attraction before passing judgement. It still seems to give the impression of being "Turtle Talk part 2" however...but that's just my take on it so far based on this recent peek.

And whats wrong with that? To me taking the Turtle Talk idea and expanding on it is a great idea. I know its something that my whole family can see.

 

[GenerationX]

It still seems to give the impression of being "Turtle Talk part 2" however...but that's just my take on it so far based on this recent peek.

Yeah, Turtle Talk Part 2. And Horizons was World of Motion Part 2. And Mickey's Philharmagic was It's Tough to be a Bug Part 2. And Maharajah was Pangani Part 2. And ...

 

[marni1971]

Could you elaborate? I'm iinterested to see what was going in there.

Think an overall theme like the T2:3D interoir at USF. Very futuristic, cold, clinical, metallic. A huge ball of energy on/in the apex screen in theatre one. An energy battle. A redone diorama to show what earth also looked like after the dinosarus were wiped out.

 

[imagineer boy]

Think an overall theme like the T2:3D interoir at USF. Very futuristic, cold, clinical, metallic. A huge ball of energy on/in the apex screen in theatre one. An energy battle. A redone diorama to show what earth also looked like after the dinosarus were wiped out.

Do you have a link to a story on it or concept art? Its sounds awesome!

 

[wannab@dis]

I never understood the preoccupation with "what might have been" ideas or attractions at Disney.

1. most never went beyond the 'blue-sky' phase
2. we are not privy to the full details of why the project didn't move forward
3. more than likely, the few details that make it out for public consumption are not complete or are embellished.

Finally, it always makes me think of some kids on Christmas day. Instead of being happy with all the new presents they received, they are upset over the one thing they didn't get. *shrug*

 

[wdwishes2005]

Because we find it interesting. Does that offend you?

 

[wannab@dis]

Because we find it interesting. Does that offend you?

Nope... never said it did. I just simply stated my view. :wave:

Another interesting observation is this... it appears that some (not all mind you) who find those "what might have been" items so interesting are the same ones that seem to complain about anything new that's announced or rumored. One has to wonder if they read it as a "what might have been" story instead of a rumor that "may soon happen," would their opinion be the same? :veryconfu

 

[S.E.A.]

Nope... never said it did. I just simply stated my view. :wave:

Another interesting observation is this... it appears that some (not all mind you) who find those "what might have been" items so interesting are the same ones that seem to complain about anything new that's announced or rumored. One has to wonder if they read it as a "what might have been" story instead of a rumor that "may soon happen," would their opinion be the same? :veryconfu

well i'm pretty interested in the "what might have beens" but at the same time i'm fairly open to anything new that pops up. I think it's just the embelishments and grandeur of a good ot of the "could have beens" that make them so interesting in the first place. plus, it's a normal human instinct to want what can't be had. not only that, "the what might have been" attractions spark a lot of imagination and creativity in people. I'm sorry you're not one of them.

 

[wannab@dis]

well i'm pretty interested in the "what might have beens" but at the same time i'm fairly open to anything new that pops up. I think it's just the embelishments and grandeur of a good ot of the "could have beens" that make them so interesting in the first place. plus, it's a normal human instinct to want what can't be had. not only that, "the what might have been" attractions spark a lot of imagination and creativity in people. I'm sorry you're not one of them.

:lol:

Ok... you took a jab, but didn't really provide an answer to the question posed. If instead of reading rumors here, someone sees it written as a "what might have been" would they be more apt to find the idea appealing? Same exact idea... just delivered as a past idea instead of a future rumor.