More "Evidence:" Timekeeper to Monsters, Inc.

[ballewclan]

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.

Nice comparison Epcotguy! Can't WDI create something origional? It's only up to their mind power and creativity by now, afterall i dont think a movie tie-in ride would cost less than an origional although i may be wrong. Plus why would anyone want to limit themselves to movies already created? This is why I'm so excited about EE, its something that i know nothing about! Well ride wise and story that is.

EDIT: let it be known that i dont oppose movie-tie ins, its just i think origionals are more...origional, and isnt disney all about origionality and theming?

 

[nmj91385]

I love Monsters Inc and would love to see it as a ride

 

[GenerationX]

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.

What exactly represents the right "balance" between original and character-based attractions? Who sets that number? More to the point, who cares?

Attractions are measured on their attendance, which speaks to their entertainment value. I enjoyed Timekeeper. Liked it, didn't love it. If it's going to be replaced, my only concern is that it would be replaced by something more entertaining.

I loved "Monsters, Inc.", and my sons really loved it. If WDI can make an entertaining "Monsters, Inc." attraction (and I'm confident they can), I'm there. Given some of the examples of changes listed above, WDI has done an excellent job. By most objective standards, Pooh is better than Toad, Mickey's Philharmagic is better than its predecessors, and anything is better than Mission to Mars.

 

[wannab@dis]

isnt disney all about origionality and theming?

I'm not busting on you... just answering your question. Ok?

Disney is all about making money. It was learned early that they could use television shows to sell their parks and their parks to sell their movies and so forth. The only reason we had many of the original attractions was because their ties to the television and movies from the Disney studios.

I understand your 'flow' argument, but I just don't get that it's that big of a deal. I would like to see a new original attraction come to tomorrowland, but I don't think it's going to be the horror that so many see if Monsters or Incredibles tie-ins are built.

 

[dxwwf3]

I would like to see a new original attraction come to tomorrowland

I would like to see a new original attraction come ANYWHERE to the MK :lol:

 

[wannab@dis]

I would like to see a new original attraction come ANYWHERE to the MK :lol:

Is that ALL you got out of my post?

:lol:

 

[dxwwf3]

Is that ALL you got out of my post?

:lol:

:lol:

Not at all.

 

[wdwishes2005]

My complaint does not lie within the idea of a monsters inc/ incredibles/ CARS ride, it lies within turning tomarrowland into a faceless cartoon future with no goal or aim. I mean what the heck does monsters inc, incredibles, or cars have to do with the future or space?

 

[basas]

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?

The fact is that attractions and lands have been based on movies and television shows since the very beginning.

As others have said, attractions like Snow White, Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh (the original character associated attractions so to speak) were all in Fantasyland...they all FIT in Fantasyland. And while there may be a select few who don't want any characters outside of Fantasyland, I think most folks are OK with it as long as it fits the area (who has complained about Splash Mountain, and even Buzz hasn't recieved too much criticism...). However, when they're taking movies and really stretching them to make connections (aka: it's obvious they want the movie, then try to find a way for it to fit the land, instead of thinking of an idea for the land and then trying to find a movie to fit it), people are concerned.

And although I'll try to stay out of your personal arguements, some of them were a little weak when you tried to convince us all how popular Stitch's Great Escape is (as well as DCA and WDS (which annual attendance figures speak enough about)). You do make some good points though.

 

[dxwwf3]

As others have said, attractions like Snow White, Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh (the original character associated attractions so to speak) were all in Fantasyland...they all FIT in Fantasyland. And while there may be a select few who don't want any characters outside of Fantasyland, I think most folks are OK with it as long as it fits the area (who has complained about Splash Mountain, and even Buzz hasn't recieved too much criticism...). However, when they're taking movies and really stretching them to make connections (aka: it's obvious they want the movie, then try to find a way for it to fit the land, instead of thinking of an idea for the land and then trying to find a movie to fit it), people are concerned.

:sohappy:

 

[imagineer boy]

As others have said, attractions like Snow White, Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh (the original character associated attractions so to speak) were all in Fantasyland...they all FIT in Fantasyland. And while there may be a select few who don't want any characters outside of Fantasyland, I think most folks are OK with it as long as it fits the area (who has complained about Splash Mountain, and even Buzz hasn't recieved too much criticism...). However, when they're taking movies and really stretching them to make connections (aka: it's obvious they want the movie, then try to find a way for it to fit the land, instead of thinking of an idea for the land and then trying to find a movie to fit it), people are concerned.

And although I'll try to stay out of your personal arguements, some of them were a little weak when you tried to convince us all how popular Stitch's Great Escape is (as well as DCA and WDS (which annual attendance figures speak enough about)). You do make some good points though.

That post deserves an acadamy award.:sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy: :wave:

 

[Epcot82Guy]

As others have said, attractions like Snow White, Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh (the original character associated attractions so to speak) were all in Fantasyland...they all FIT in Fantasyland. And while there may be a select few who don't want any characters outside of Fantasyland, I think most folks are OK with it as long as it fits the area (who has complained about Splash Mountain, and even Buzz hasn't recieved too much criticism...). However, when they're taking movies and really stretching them to make connections (aka: it's obvious they want the movie, then try to find a way for it to fit the land, instead of thinking of an idea for the land and then trying to find a movie to fit it), people are concerned.

And although I'll try to stay out of your personal arguements, some of them were a little weak when you tried to convince us all how popular Stitch's Great Escape is (as well as DCA and WDS (which annual attendance figures speak enough about)). You do make some good points though.

Here Here! That is where the balance is (to answer a prior question). It's not a number; it's an element of fit.

I also think there is an element of "childishness" to many of the character tie-ins. While the family aspect works as a marketing tool, creating attractions that appeal to EVERYONE instead of appealing to kids and being tolerable for older crowds is the key to that Classic Disney magic.

 

[crlachepinochet]

Someone came up with an idea not too long ago that, IMO, would actually enhance the theming of Tomorrowland with Monsters, Inc. Start with the Tomorrowland Convention Ctr. idea, and sell the Monsters (probably) film as a presentation from another dimension. Some might argue that alternate dimensions are more fantasy than sci-fi, but I thought that was a perfect solution. Not only does it work with the Monsters universe, but it adds to the story of Tomorrowland! Has anyone seen the Mans and Mons extra feature on the DVD? That might be an interesting angle to work in somehow.

 

[nibblesandbits]

As others have said, attractions like Snow White, Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh (the original character associated attractions so to speak) were all in Fantasyland...they all FIT in Fantasyland. And while there may be a select few who don't want any characters outside of Fantasyland, I think most folks are OK with it as long as it fits the area (who has complained about Splash Mountain, and even Buzz hasn't recieved too much criticism...). However, when they're taking movies and really stretching them to make connections (aka: it's obvious they want the movie, then try to find a way for it to fit the land, instead of thinking of an idea for the land and then trying to find a movie to fit it), people are concerned.

And although I'll try to stay out of your personal arguements, some of them were a little weak when you tried to convince us all how popular Stitch's Great Escape is (as well as DCA and WDS (which annual attendance figures speak enough about)). You do make some good points though.

That was exactly what I was trying to say a few posts earlier...but this was stated WAY better!

 

[bigang]

so monsters inc does not fit into tommorland, but the speedway does?

 

[ballewclan]

I'm not busting on you... just answering your question. Ok?

Disney is all about making money. It was learned early that they could use television shows to sell their parks and their parks to sell their movies and so forth. The only reason we had many of the original attractions was because their ties to the television and movies from the Disney studios.

I understand your 'flow' argument, but I just don't get that it's that big of a deal. I would like to see a new original attraction come to tomorrowland, but I don't think it's going to be the horror that so many see if Monsters or Incredibles tie-ins are built.

ARGGG your so right. Money...but shouldnt it be balanced out with creativity and theming? If all they do is make rides that attract people to the parks then theres no lasting effect. Disney has to be motivated to provide a wonderful vacation from reality with rides like splash mountain, space mountain, ToT, and EE.

So back when Splash Mountain was built were they more focused on quality or income? And i guess even now, they're focused on quality for EE although it may provide a substantial income.

So why can't they merge the 2 in alot of the rides they build? For instance SGE, for some reason i feel like they probobly did more advertising for it then they spent on the entire attraction (I'm wrong i know). Gosh...i know its reality that disney is motivated by money but it would be nice to know that what they do with their money is focused on quality attractions for the people that will earn MORE money for MORE quality attractions...isnt that how it works?

 

[imagineer boy]

so monsters inc does not fit into tommorland, but the speedway does?

It doesn't fit very well, true, but at least it isn't outragously out of place like Monsters Inc. would be. I'm still waiting for the day where they retheme it to an Autopia, similar to DL's with electric cars and futuristic scenery.

 

[wannab@dis]

ARGGG your so right. Money...but shouldnt it be balanced out with creativity and theming? If all they do is make rides that attract people to the parks then theres no lasting effect. Disney has to be motivated to provide a wonderful vacation from reality with rides like splash mountain, space mountain, ToT, and EE.

So back when Splash Mountain was built were they more focused on quality or income? And i guess even now, they're focused on quality for EE although it may provide a substantial income.

So why can't they merge the 2 in alot of the rides they build? For instance SGE, for some reason i feel like they probobly did more advertising for it then they spent on the entire attraction (I'm wrong i know). Gosh...i know its reality that disney is motivated by money but it would be nice to know that what they do with their money is focused on quality attractions for the people that will earn MORE money for MORE quality attractions...isnt that how it works?

Good points, but your post makes the assumption that IF a Monsters, Inc attraction is built, that it won't be creative or have quality.

I know everyone likes to use SGE as their basis for "lack of quality" but there's a lot of people that like it. CMs from MK that see the guest surveys have said it ranks pretty good. I think there's a tendency for people here to jump on the "knock SGE bandwagon" and that's fine. But it's good to point out that we don't KNOW that a majority of guests feel the same way. I can say that I didn't find SGE to be a great attraction, but I did hear some people at the exit that really liked it. (I also heard a parent upset because their child was scared. :lookaroun)

 

[Ghostbuster626]

Good points, but your post makes the assumption that IF a Monsters, Inc attraction is built, that it won't be creative or have quality.

I know everyone likes to use SGE as their basis for "lack of quality" but there's a lot of people that like it. CMs from MK that see the guest surveys have said it ranks pretty good. I think there's a tendency for people here to jump on the "knock SGE bandwagon" and that's fine. But it's good to point out that we don't KNOW that a majority of guests feel the same way. I can say that I didn't find SGE to be a great attraction, but I did hear some people at the exit that really liked it. (I also heard a parent upset because their child was scared. :lookaroun)

I dont about surveys, but there is no way someone can say its superior to Alien Encounter and Mission To Mars and thats probably one of the biggest problems. If your going to replace an attraction it should be SUPERIOR . Chili dog fart and an incomprehensible plot and terrible jokes ("hurrr I think I OILED myself!! wakka wakka!") are a downgrade from AE.

 

[dxwwf3]

I also heard a parent upset because their child was scared. :lookaroun

And I'm sure they probably complained about it too. If they didn't, they should have. After all it WAS Disney's fault :brick: