Monsters, Inc. - Laugh Floor Previews Has Begun

[SeanC]

These aren't so much previews as test audiences/focus groups. Computer animation (CGI) requires a complex and time consuming rendering process. If they are still deciding on characters and actions, they would not be animated to their eventual quality, as it would be a huge waste of time and money. And I doubt, in my opinion, that there will be a "this attraction is in Tomorrowland because..." explanation. That would just call attention to the fact that it's a stretch. I think they'll leave it be, let the overall design say "futuristic-ish" and let it go at that. I mean they don't explain the Speedway or High School Musical either.

 

[Austin1]

I hate to say this but...

It's gonna suck I don't know why tomorrowland has to become future toonland. I wish we could go back the original ideas that were actually creative and not just a chep piece of crap that they think works just becuase it's a movie.:hurl: :fork: :hurl: :hammer: :lookaroun :animwink: :xmas:

 

[Swamp Fox]

As many posters already said they need time to work out the bugs and tweak certain elements of the show. I do hope this show works out. Unfortunatly this show along with High School Pep rally is a much better fit in the Studios (Lord knows they need something over there). Tomorrowland to me is the home to futuristic (of a cutesy type) and faux sci-fi stuff. Unfortunately I can't controll these things.

Swamp Fox

 

[Figments Friend]

My concern about this since day one is how it is basically just a copy of Turtle Talk. Now i will be honest and admit that yes, a LOT of "clone attracions' sprout up here and there ( 3D movies, coasters, etc.) but it seems a bit weak to me.

Turtle Talk was hyped to the max ( and still is in a way) and when i finally saw it, it was not as great as everyone had been saying. When i look at a show like this, i see it as "the cheap way" out of creating a "new" attraction. Instead of some real creativity or experimentation, we get to watch what is basically a fancy video monitor. I know that Disney is trying to incorporate "interactive expereinces" into the newer attracions as that is what today's Guests want. I understand this totally...however i find it depressing in a way that such bland mediocredy is replacing the once great thing that was once referred to as a "Disney Attracion".

Now this Monsters Inc show could turn out to be a cool thing. I am not bashing it...that would not be fair considering it is only in it's early stages. I would rather have some cool new ride through or some other type of attraction instead of yet another show that is basically watching tv in a dark room. I can do that at home, ok? LOL!

I hope this turns out to be a laugh riot...i really do. But i will have a hard time excepting it i think.

 

[lentesta]

I think that this attraction has a long way to go judging by the decription given, but again not everyone should be quick to judge this as another Stitch's Great Escape.

You know an attraction's bad when it's the yardstick by which other bad things are judged.

As for LFCC, isn't it supposed to open in January? So they've got 60 days to nail down the animation and routine. Cutting it a little close with the holidays and all, but I'm assuming they can use their best complete show for launch and then refine individual skits in a subsequent phase. The nice thing about this kind of attraction is that new skits can be replaced on a regular basis, so the attraction can remain fresh for while. And the storyline in the queue can be finished independent of whatever acts the end up putting in the show.

If anyone else gets a chance to see the show, I'm sure we'd all love the hear the reviews.

Thanks for posting!

Len

 

[kcnole]

Bad animation is difficult to ignore. A show that is supposed to make us believe that real monsters are trying to make us laugh will fail if the animation is bad.

Yes it will be difficult to ignore once we see the final show, but my guess is that these are currently just place holder monsters and the final designs for them haven't been ironed out yet, so since it takes a long time to fully detail a cgi monster they're just using less detailed place holders for the time being. That's not unusual at all in video game design or early animation design. This compares very closely to those things.

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

It's gonna suck I don't know why tomorrowland has to become future toonland. I wish we could go back the original ideas that were actually creative and not just a chep piece of crap that they think works just becuase it's a movie.:hurl: :fork: :hurl: :hammer: :lookaroun :animwink: :xmas:

Well put.

 

[LilDucky]

If there had been some sort of pre-show that sets up a back story, I'm sure the imagineers in the preview would've given the test audience a heads-up about it and he would've written it in his review. But you never know.



Or atleast seen a video of it since some of us don't have to privilige to go to WDW all the time.:wave:

I know we never know, which was my point We dont know if there is a backstory or not.

and as someone that doesnt have the privilege to go to WDW all the time, videos only hold me over for a while. I think we can all agree that it isnt the same as actually experiencing the attraction itself

 

[dxwwf3]

The show sounds sort of like what I was expecting. Hopefully the kinks will be worked out, but personally it doesn't really matter to me. This isn't an attraction I'm looking forward to and I don't expect it to be something that I will see more than once or twice. But I still hope things improve as they should and the majority of people that see it enjoy the show.

 

[maxime29]

Yes it will be difficult to ignore once we see the final show, but my guess is that these are currently just place holder monsters and the final designs for them haven't been ironed out yet, so since it takes a long time to fully detail a cgi monster they're just using less detailed place holders for the time being. That's not unusual at all in video game design or early animation design. This compares very closely to those things.

Exactly my opinion.

 

[disneykw]

For those of you who were asking the preview was at around 3:45 or 4:00 on Dec. 1 but they had one around 3:00 as well. And also Roz did a very brief backstory of the ride on the intro video but I'm thinking most of it is saved for the preshow. I don't know how many people know about the backstory but it's not that complicated in the first place. If anyone wants to read about an alternate review that happened on a different day with a somewhat different show, I found one at The Disney Blog at http://www.thedisneyblog.com/tdb/2006/11/a_very_special_.html.

 

[Connor002]

It's gonna suck I don't know why tomorrowland has to become future toonland. I wish we could go back the original ideas that were actually creative and not just a chep piece of crap that they think works just becuase it's a movie.:hurl: :fork: :hurl: :hammer: :lookaroun :animwink: :xmas:

Oh, how optimistic we've become!
Internet Disney Fan-dom at its best...

 

[CaptainMichael]

It's gonna suck I don't know why tomorrowland has to become future toonland. I wish we could go back the original ideas that were actually creative and not just a chep piece of crap that they think works just becuase it's a movie.:hurl: :fork: :hurl: :hammer: :lookaroun :animwink: :xmas:

I think it's a very original idea...how many comedy clubs have you been to where monsters do stand up? None? I thought so. In a land of tomorrow, I'd surely hope that there are beings besides humans around.



Imagineer Boy, your reaction was pretty much expected....

I'm reserving judgement till the final product is displayed in person to me, but I remain optimistic...they obviously care enough about the show that they're working on the kinks as we speak. It's like judging a rough draft of an essay, a sketch of a building, or a movie before it's finished....what the original poster saw is an attraction in very early stages of testing....

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Wow, that doesn't sound very good at all... And it looks like they didn't even try to come up with some sort of back story to why the attraction is in Tomorrowland in the first place.

I don't get this expectation that every new attraction have a story to fit its location. Is there any backstory as to why a modern-day haunted mansion is in Colonial America? Is there any backstory explaining how a noisy speedway fits into a utopian vision of the future? What's the backstory explaining how a mountain illustrating scenes from the antebellum South is plopped down in a vision of America's expansion westward? It hasn't been a big deal before, so why is it now? Sometimes stuff just is where it is.

 

[Damien666]

Many thanks for the review, I kinda expected things would turn out like that for a focus group/test run.

Hopefully WDI will use this time to quickly work out the kinks and touch up everthing for it's opening. If they can get the animation and jokes up to quality then it should be ok, if not then they better work fast or they will have another SGE on their hands. (A few tries to fix it before giving up)

Wilt, I think why everyone is talking about MI not fitting into Tomorrowland is because it's theme sticks out like a sore thumb more then the other attractions you mentioned except for Speedway.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Wilt, I think why everyone is talking about MI not fitting into Tomorrowland is because it's theme sticks out like a sore thumb more then the other attractions you mentioned except for Speedway.

Maybe. I don't see why it sticks out so much. Tomorrowland has basically become the wacky alien/wacky robot corner of the park. Wacky monsters (aliens, in their own right) don't seem that far off the mark.

 

[tirian]

Yes it will be difficult to ignore once we see the final show, but my guess is that these are currently just place holder monsters and the final designs for them haven't been ironed out yet, so since it takes a long time to fully detail a cgi monster they're just using less detailed place holders for the time being. That's not unusual at all in video game design or early animation design. This compares very closely to those things.

I completely understand what you're talking about. I was thinking about the animation in SGE as I typed that comment.

 

[Victor]

I won't pass judgement till I see it. However...I have the sinking feeling I won't find any of this funny at all, it seems like one big groaner. I dunno, maybe it's just not my type of humor. Maybe they should have a two drink minimum, like most comedy clubs.

I just think this attraction is a big risk. Humor is extremely subjective, and being funny (especially on the spot) isn't easy. I guess I'm looking at it all from an older point of view...it doesn't take much to make a little kid laugh.

 

[JLW11Hi]

I think the hardest part in forming an opinion on the attraction at this point is the fact that, being an audience interaction type show with actual comedians behind the scenes, you are going to get a different show every time. Its the same as stand up, and any theatrical show. You have your good nights and your bad nights. When I went to Turtle Talk, most of the humor came from the actual audience interaction and Crush playing with the kids in the audience. That was a great show because of that. But I am sure that there are groups that come in who just aren't into it, and that probably ruins any chance of having some good interaciton and getting any laughs. The same can be said with the Jungle Cruise, you get your good ones, and your not-so-good ones. It all depends on both the actors and the audience.

 

[JLW11Hi]

Turtle Talk was hyped to the max ( and still is in a way) and when i finally saw it, it was not as great as everyone had been saying. When i look at a show like this, i see it as "the cheap way" out of creating a "new" attraction. Instead of some real creativity or experimentation, we get to watch what is basically a fancy video monitor. I know that Disney is trying to incorporate "interactive expereinces" into the newer attracions as that is what today's Guests want. I understand this totally...however i find it depressing in a way that such bland mediocredy is replacing the once great thing that was once referred to as a "Disney Attracion".

I didn't think Turtle Talk was hyped at all. I thought it was sort of a pleasant surprise. There wasn't much money spent on it because not much money needed to be spent on it. It didn't really replace anything either, it just added to the Living Seas. The Laugh Floor has a lot more riding on it, though, I would say, as its in a pretty prime location in Tomorrowland that has been awaiting a new attraction for a while.