wdwishes2005
New Member
like?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
More "Evidence:" Timekeeper to Monsters, Inc.
- Thread starter Empress Room
- Start date
matthope03
New Member
I have a feeling the speedway themeing is going to be taken care of after CARS comes out this summer. I thought that a Monsters Inc ride at MGM would have been awesome for the park, but maybe they have decided to bring it to tomorrowland and instead bring a Narnia attration to the studios based on the success of the movie and the fact that there will be sequels.
wdwishes2005
New Member
What does CARS have to do with the future?
ballewclan
New Member
okay i know pixar characters are a cash crop for the kids, but why cant movie characters go into the park based on a movie studio? I know there are some exceptions (ex: all of fantasyland and buzz) but wouldnt it be nice to have some ingenuity in tomorrowland? And some new thrills in the back side of the Studios?
Imagine Magic Kingdom without the lands. There would be no tomorrowland or adventureland. It would just be a jumble of rides. A space coaster next to a monsters ride next to a driving ride next to a alien attacks you ride next to a character shooting ride next to a spinning rocket ride next to a transportation ride. Does that scream tomorrowland? Oh and throw in alot of pixar characters. Does that flow? I dont think so.
I'd just like to get back to what one would think is logical, if a land is named tomorrowland, think towards tomorrow, not today.
Imagine Magic Kingdom without the lands. There would be no tomorrowland or adventureland. It would just be a jumble of rides. A space coaster next to a monsters ride next to a driving ride next to a alien attacks you ride next to a character shooting ride next to a spinning rocket ride next to a transportation ride. Does that scream tomorrowland? Oh and throw in alot of pixar characters. Does that flow? I dont think so.
I'd just like to get back to what one would think is logical, if a land is named tomorrowland, think towards tomorrow, not today.
ballewclan
New Member
ImagineerMMC said:
Thats a really good idea! That would also lower the cost for WDW right? Because of gas prices I can't imagine all the gas they go through each year. It would be nice to see the imagineers think about this sort of thing. Who knows in a few years maybe hybrids will be possible?
ballewclan
New Member
Thats great. Lets just hope the new electric cars dont come with CARS if you know what i mean.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
Seconding the great post, Ballewclan.
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
I guess we shouldn't have had Snow White, Peter Pan, Pooh, Splash Mtn, TS Island, Cinderella's castle, and many more attractions based off movies. Just because they were built years ago shouldn't change your view, right?ballewclan said:okay i know pixar characters are a cash crop for the kids, but why cant movie characters go into the park based on a movie studio? I know there are some exceptions (ex: all of fantasyland and buzz) but wouldnt it be nice to have some ingenuity in tomorrowland? And some new thrills in the back side of the Studios?
Imagine Magic Kingdom without the lands. There would be no tomorrowland or adventureland. It would just be a jumble of rides. A space coaster next to a monsters ride next to a driving ride next to a alien attacks you ride next to a character shooting ride next to a spinning rocket ride next to a transportation ride. Does that scream tomorrowland? Oh and throw in alot of pixar characters. Does that flow? I dont think so.
I'd just like to get back to what one would think is logical, if a land is named tomorrowland, think towards tomorrow, not today.
The fact is that attractions and lands have been based on movies and television shows since the very beginning.
Computer Magic
Well-Known Member
good point.wannab@dis said:
Although I hate the fact Pirates is being changed to include the Pirates movie. The next thing you know HM will include a Eddie Murphy AA ghost :lol: :lookaroun http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/liveaction/hauntedmansion/main.html
stingrock23
Active Member
I think a Monsters ride belongs at the Studios. Do we really need another dark ride at MK? The studios could use it alot more than MK.
dxwwf3
Well-Known Member
wannab@dis said:
I think he's talking about overdoing it and forcing attractions into lands where they don't really fit. I agree with both of you though. I feel that if a movie or character attraction fits well in the MK, then bring it there! But if they force something in the MK where it doesn't really fit, then maybe another park is a better place.
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
A few have made statements and said "no movie tie-ins" or "I hate character tie-ins". They make these statements as if nobody likes the tie-ins and everyone is against them. Then 2 posts later will use the "walt would never yada yada".dxwwf3 said:
Walt fully utilized tie-ins to build the parks and his movie/television shows! There seems to be selective history/facts going on. :lol:
Ghostbuster626
Member
wannab@dis said:
There is only so much pixar tie-in I can take! Disney's killing me here!
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
I don't really remember seeing much "no tie-in" chatter. That is too far. Instead, I agree with dxwwf3. The first attractions at WDW, with the exception of fantasyland and the treehouse, drew from the concepts and themes of the movies, but they were entirely original attractions as far as stories. But, that is a moot point. It is an act of balance. The problem is that there hasn't been a non-movie-tie-in/characters attraction added to the MK since AE (which has now left for a character film). Looking at the history, the current additions have been.
Toad to Pooh (Charcter to Character)
M2M to AE to Stitch (Movie-ish to Original to Character)
IYHW/Dreamflight to Buzz (Original to character)
Circlevision (always Original but may be going character now)
Tiki Room (Original to character)
Splash (character)
Magic Journeys to Lion King to Mickey (Original to Character to Character)
Things have gotten WAY out of balance. I personally don't like tie ins that much because the attractions usually rely on the fact they have characters instead of the ride itself (major exception being Splash). I like the original attractions that used to populate that park, and I would like to see at least SOME of that return.
Toad to Pooh (Charcter to Character)
M2M to AE to Stitch (Movie-ish to Original to Character)
IYHW/Dreamflight to Buzz (Original to character)
Circlevision (always Original but may be going character now)
Tiki Room (Original to character)
Splash (character)
Magic Journeys to Lion King to Mickey (Original to Character to Character)
Things have gotten WAY out of balance. I personally don't like tie ins that much because the attractions usually rely on the fact they have characters instead of the ride itself (major exception being Splash). I like the original attractions that used to populate that park, and I would like to see at least SOME of that return.
ballewclan
New Member
wannab@dis said:
No im not trying to say that we shouldnt have any attractions based on movies. Im just saying that if a land exists, i think the attractions in that land should revolve around a center theme in the land. Im not being biased towards new and old movies and i advocate a ride based on a movie. Its just there are places that rides belong, such as Monsters Inc. Its a ride based off a movie that wouldnt fit in a land in Magic Kingdom under normal circumstances, so why not put it in the park made for movies?
Im not sure though, i'd be willing to bet that WDI can make something involving Monsters Inc to deal with the aspect of tomorrow, and im not saying that would be such a bad thing. I'm just saying that if it is going in tomorrowland then it should be focusing somewhat on the future or the possibilities of the future.
Put it this way, imagine Space Mountain and Splash Mountain switching places, imagine the sense of flow, or lack there of. :lol: