Monsters, Inc. - Laugh Floor Previews Has Begun

[Damien666]

^^ I must say Epoct28Guy has been bringing in the great posts, great job!

I also second with dwwf3, to me I find the original attractions stand out above the rest. Even though SM and Philharmagic does use Disney characters for a bit of popularity they are grand attractions that I will say that do have a Timeless factor.

It's the SGE's and other shoehorned attractions that is missing the Timeless factor the other ones have. For me I'd see AE and Crainium Command over and over again. Their unique and great shows that I never get bored of, there's always something new I spot that always puts a smile on my face.

As with EE, I must say people did overhype it. They started thinking on what will happen on the attraction too much and get dissapointed when it didn't happen on the real thing. Heck some people where mad at the brief view of the yeti, yet I thought that was unique like a "What was that?!" moment.

To each his own I guess, though for me I would love to see more original attractions by Disney. If they use their characters in it, then they better make it good since I'm always looking at Tokyo Disneyland and seeing them do MUCH better with the same theme. Pooh, ToT with the theming and special effects, even their Monster's Inc sounds much better.

 

[CaptainMichael]

While Cinderella Castle is tied to a character, I would bet at least 70% of guests would not know that off hand.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out Cinderella Castle is tied to Cinderella. I'd like to think that over 30% of guests have a brain.:hammer:

 

[dxwwf3]

I'd like to think that over 30% of guests have a brain.:hammer:

Have you ever been to a Disney park and just listened to people? :lol:

 

[CaptainMichael]

Have you ever been to a Disney park and just listened to people? :lol:

Yes, but...seriously...Disney makes it NO secret that it's Cinderella Castle.

 

[dxwwf3]

Yes, but...seriously...Disney makes it NO secret that it's Cinderella Castle.

That's true. But I would be willing to bet that most people do not think of the character Cinderella or the film Cinderella when they see the castle. I know I don't .

 

[Skippy]

That's true. But I would be willing to bet that most people do not think of the character Cinderella or the film Cinderella when they see the castle. I know I don't .

A castle isn't unique to the Cinderella story, so I don't see it as an obvious pair.
When I see the castle I think Disney World, not Cinderella.

 

[dxwwf3]

A castle isn't unique to the Cinderella story, so I don't see it as an obvious pair.
When I see the castle I think Disney World, not Cinderella.

Yep and I think that is what 82 was getting at.

 

[New2WDW]

First off, thanks to the OP for the preview!
Second, I agree with the render time comment below

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.

Third, I think IF these kinks get worked out then you have a great platform on which to build.....the comics could be changed out as time goes on thus creating a new show within the show.

Side Note: I know something that will fit into Tomorrowland! I saw the preview for Meet the Robinson's at the theatre and you could see space mountain, etc in the movie and I believe they even called it Todayland! :lol:

Anyway, back to the topic....

 

[LilDucky]

Personally, I do not understand the whole standing up argument AT ALL. I mean I get what you're saying, but people stand in queues without complaints, but I'm more than happy to stand for CircleVision shows. For me, I would rather watch The Timekeeper and O' Canada over Festival of the Lion King and Voyage of the Little Mermaid 10 TO 1! I could watch a CircleVision film 50 times and never get bored because there is so much to see and you will have a different experience every time you see it. For me, The Timekeeper is my 3rd favorite Magic Kingdom attraction ever behind Splash Mountain and the obvious. I loved the characters, music, cinematography, and storyline.

That's great, and I'm glad someone does enjoy them! However, I personally dont understand the "but people stand in queues without complaints" thing. It's kinda like saying Disney shouldnt put AC in their attractions anymore, because after all.... guests have been standing outside the entire time

I'd rather enjoy watching a neat attraction while sitting down for a few minutes. I'll admit it.... I wasnt a big fan of Timekeeper. I just never "got" it's appeal, even after multiple viewings. However, it did sadden me to see that space go wasted, being that it was only open seasonally.

 

[dxwwf3]

I personally dont understand the "but people stand in queues without complaints" thing. It's kinda like saying Disney shouldnt put AC in their attractions anymore, because after all.... guests have been standing outside the entire time.

Well I guess I can see your point, but after watching the way people stand to watch street entertainment, character greetings, or just admire the scenery, I find it odd that CircleVision films ALWAYS are singled out and looked down upon because you have to stand.

 

[mousermerf]

Well I guess I can see your point, but after watching the way people stand to watch street entertainment, character greetings, or just admire the scenery, I find it odd that CircleVision films ALWAYS are singled out and looked down upon because you have to stand.

It's the most identifiable thing people see as an annoyance with the format.

There are many reasons that Circlevision is undesireable. The idea that you cannot watch the entire film is chief amoung them - fascinating to filmmakers, but obnoxious to patrons.

Having to look so far up is another - people try not to sit in the front rows of a theater for a reason.

The format is really not patron-friendly.

 

[dxwwf3]

There are many reasons that Circlevision is undesireable. The idea that you cannot watch the entire film is chief amoung them - fascinating to filmmakers, but obnoxious to patrons.

But doesn't that add to the repeatability that plagues theater driven attractions? You can see something new every time.

I know what you're saying, I'm just thinking out loud as well.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Doesn't take a genius to figure out Cinderella Castle is tied to Cinderella. I'd like to think that over 30% of guests have a brain.:hammer:

As a former CM, I really have to wonder about your second part. Very sad, but true! But, I digress from that cynical soapbox... :lol:

What my point was is that the tie to Cinderella is not necessary nor, really, central to the execution of the icon. Aside from the murals and some quick redecorating, Cinderella Castle could become Castle Madeline, Castle Disney, or anything they want, and the average guest would appreciate it just the same. What my point is is that the backstory of the character is supplemental. If you know it and understand it, the murals and subtleties take on a new meaning. If you don't, it's just the cool castle designed as the Icon of the park.

I know this all seems very semantics-oriented. However, I think there is a huge difference in feeling. I guess it comes down to the "I think I'm missing something" element. These attractions are, for the most part, relying on the popularity of the characters to be popular attractions.

 

[CTXRover]

I'm still hopeful for this show. The initial two reviews I've seen thus far have been lackluster, but the important thing to remember is that these are test audiences being used for guest reaction. The very fact that this show is live and could vary considerably not only from show to show but from week to week and month to month is encouraging that it can quickly evolve to meet the tastes and expectations of the audience if they are willing to do that. I would rather they had started on a high note, but unlike a major ride or any other show that is prerecorded or animated (including animatronic shows), they could theoretically change the content of the show overnight and not lose any major overhead expenses. It sounds like they are still testing the content and it is very encouraging they are asking random guests to try it out and (hopefully) give their honest opinion of it.

 

[wannab@dis]

Doesn't take a genius to figure out Cinderella Castle is tied to Cinderella. I'd like to think that over 30% of guests have a brain.:hammer:

Nah... just look at some of the posts around here! :lol:



While I'm not a fan of him... Jim Hill is 100% correct when it comes to some of the Disney fanboys. They will always find something to complain about.

The Disney parks were originally built using many stories, characters and shows from the Disney movies or television shows. Even the lands were created with a thought of the different shows / entertainment that would be used within them and also a marketing slant to tie the parks and media together. Overall, characters have been a huge part of the Disney park experience.

However, a few of the fans have decided they want Disney without "Disney" and have started the claims of characters being taboo. They should have learned their lesson back in the late 80's when it was realized that Epcot would fail without some life being added to the park. That life was to bring "Disney" back to the park.

Just for kicks... take out all the shows or attractions that are character based at Magic Kingdom. What's left? Um, not a lot. The park would be about as exciting as watching painted lines dry in a parking lot.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new Monster's Inc attraction. Turtle talk is a new favorite and I bet the Laugh Floor will be as good or better. Uh, oh... there I go again... being optimistic around here is also taboo. :lookaroun

 

[wannab@dis]

That's true. But I would be willing to bet that most people do not think of the character Cinderella or the film Cinderella when they see the castle. I know I don't .

My 2yo does...

 

[DDuckFan130]

Nah... just look at some of the posts around here! :lol:



While I'm not a fan of him... Jim Hill is 100% correct when it comes to some of the Disney fanboys. They will always find something to complain about.

The Disney parks were originally built using many stories, characters and shows from the Disney movies or television shows. Even the lands were created with a thought of the different shows / entertainment that would be used within them and also a marketing slant to tie the parks and media together. Overall, characters have been a huge part of the Disney park experience.

However, a few of the fans have decided they want Disney without "Disney" and have started the claims of characters being taboo. They should have learned their lesson back in the late 80's when it was realized that Epcot would fail without some life being added to the park. That life was to bring "Disney" back to the park.

Just for kicks... take out all the shows or attractions that are character based at Magic Kingdom. What's left? Um, not a lot. The park would be about as exciting as watching painted lines dry in a parking lot.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new Monster's Inc attraction. Turtle talk is a new favorite and I bet the Laugh Floor will be as good or better. Uh, oh... there I go again... being optimistic around here is also taboo. :lookaroun

What an awesome article...and oh joy the people that came to mind as I read the article :lookaroun

 

[Epcot82Guy]

My 2yo does...

And Disney has met its goal.

That statement right there defines exactly the change that has happened (and not a "good" or "bad" change. Just a change). Disney is a branded enterprise now. Find out what the 1-14 crowd likes. Then pump it full of that. If they see Nemo and Princesses, they will come (and they do). We don't care what they think when they grow out of it. We need profits now. The approach has always been to cross-market. But, I think everyone has to admit, pro or con, synergy has been taken to an entirely new level. These simply do not come off as attractions designed for the long term at all (although they are admittedly getting much better). MK is being geared toward this sector in 2006 only. The interesting part is that family in 2006 = parents + small children. I still stand by that point not as a statement that Disney is "wrong" for thinking it but that I find there to be a way to at least brand various aspects to various audiences. Let them have MK, just give us Epcot! :lol: I know the complaints come that there is nothing to do when parks don't tailor to all audiences, but one need be careful about removing the appeal to an audience for the appeasement of another. I hear now more than ever, "My God... They won't ever let you forget it's Disney" from adult guests going. Even my parents admit that didn't happen as often in earlier years.

The other point I just would like to highlight is that you (and Jim Hill) use this definition of "Disney" of equating to the films and characters. I can certainly see where Disney being an entertainment stuido at its roots that that is the Company's identity. But, I really think there is a noticeable portion of fans who found Disney Park entertainment to be quite different. As a kid, I liked the films, but I LOVED the parks. It was a new form of immersive, interactive entertainment. It was original; it was unique. They were stories and experiences I could only get at WDW. THAT was "Disney" to me as a child and the hopes of what "Disney" would be as an adult. And, even then, I drew away from the attractions with tie-ins to films an things that existed "out there".

Again, the point of this is not to say one side is right or wrong. Unfortunately, they are two sides of a coin that are incredibly difficult to keep together (if possible at all). All I'm saying is don't discount the other side for a strategy. "Disney" has multiple meanings, and that can be dangerous if your marketing team sits high atop a skyscraper in a land far more beyond reality than Fantasyland could ever ascribe to be. Branding and effective marketing have very little with what you show or say; it has to do with what people take away and what they perceive. You can take the bombardment approach many companies do, but refined, long-lasting advertisement schemes tend to be much more subtle and trustworthy. I would like to see THAT side of Disney return, regardless of their approach to characters, original attractions, etc.

 

[dxwwf3]

My 2yo does...

He/She isn't a typical guest

 

[wannab@dis]

And Disney has met its goal.

You seem to think things have changed recently for the worse (normal thesis lately), but I say they are now getting back to the roots that made the parks wonderful. They tried the Epcot without "Disney" and it didn't work. As they have brought the Disney magic back to the park, it has seen a clear revival of interest and success.

Where were you in the 50's when ALL of Disneyland was about the magic of the Disney experience. It included the characters and to a VERY large degree was all about the movies and television shows. The quintessential Disney included everything that you now lambaste.

Just looking at your signature is proof that you are attempting to wrap *your* ideals around the parks. Not what they are designed to be and not what they are meant to be... but you are more worried about what you think they *should* be.

The parks are NOT more than a theme park.... they are just parks... meant to entertain the guests. I've been many times to WDW... when it was just the MK, when Epcot was added and so on. I've been when there was 1, 2, 3, and now 4 parks. I can honestly say that a trip today is better than any trip in the past. Some of my favorite attractions may be missing or changed, but I still find the overall experience better on every trip and find new favorites to enjoy.