lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
“(3) Indentify Theme
Core value around which all subsequent values, actions, objects are aligned”
Core value around which all subsequent values, actions, objects are aligned”
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier
- Thread starter iHeartDisneylandCats
- Start date
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
OK I'll bite...
For me, non IP attractions allow me to impart my own sensibilities/storytelling/creative thinking into an attraction without relying on pre-existing characters/songs/settings to tell me how I should be enjoying the attraction.
Jungle Cruise: I get to imagine myself in my own jungle excursion.
Big Thunder: My brain always goes into overdrive imagining an old west town with dinosaurs.
Space Mountain: The music alone transports me into another world free from familiarity.
These, along with the three classics you mentioned, allow me as the guest to make my own adventure. Rather than just plop me in a seat and say, "Here is X character and they're going on X adventure from X feature film/short film. Sit and watch", they speak different things to everyone. That's what makes them classic and timeless. You can ride them a hundred times and depending on what you're bringing to it that day, have a different experience. UNLIKE IP attractions that are static and give you the same story...every time...right on cue.
For me, it's all about active vs. passive enjoyment. If I'm going to spend a day at a theme park, I want to get the most out of it. Not just go through a "Disney's Greatest Hits" collection that I could have easily just listened to on CD. This is why my affinity for early 90's Epcot is so strong. It was an entire park dedicated to active participation and enjoyment. There is nothing like it anymore, and all Disney seems keen on now is continuing the passivity parade. Small wonder that most people who are at the parks now would rather be on their phones instead of actively engaging in the world around them. Disney is making it too easy.
Lastly, an IP attraction will largely, and perhaps even unfairly, carry the burden of its property's likability and recognition. Someone who may have loved a tower drop ride, but can't stand the Guardians property, probably isn't going to wait in the long line for MB. Similarly, someone who hasn't seen a film or isn't very familiar with an established character could feel a certain separation from the attraction given their unfamiliarity. While others are laughing at inside jokes or easter eggs from the movie, someone could get off the same ride feeling like they didn't fully "get it". Granted, this is probably a smaller percentage of people, but you don't get those problems with non-IP attractions.
Last edited:
bluerhythym
Well-Known Member
When has any land in any Disney park been a realistic depiction of its real life counterpart? It's an idealized version of a seaside pier, not meant to recreate a specific boardwalk but to invoke the feeling of one. By your argument, New Orleans Square has no integrity because not every building in the French Quarter is an intricate French style townhouse. The Frontierland concept isn't valid because not every single settlement in the old west was a mining town.
I won't argue that it isn't really a uniquely Californian concept, but at least Paradise Pier 2.0 (1.5?) made a start at some time of seaside ambiance. Being specific and making deliberate design choices makes a land feel full and lived in, trying to be a catch all for every idea gives you a soulless land (ie Tomorrowland).
Ismael Flores
Well-Known Member
wouldn't that be subjective of the person experiencing it first hand? A person that is a Pixar movie fan can possibly see it as an experience especially if WDI is creating "neighborhoods" within the Pier.
couldn't it be seen as a Fantasyland of DCA? a collection of fantasy characters unified by one theme?
The fantasyland rides consist of a collection of fables, fairytales, a mountain peek and a wherehouse of singing dolls.
I wonder if they had gone ahead with these changes and kept the name to Paradise Pier, would that make a difference? creating a collection of fantasy based characters within a land.
I actually think they should just have continued to with the classic characters and changed the whole thing to Pleasure Island but I have a feeling that they want to try and eventually keep Walt Disney animation brands in Disneyland and use DCA for its other animation department
bluerhythym
Well-Known Member
Except Fantasyland is united under a singular medieval village concept. Sure there are outliers but I don't think anyone is asking for a perfectly immersive land in Pixar Pier. Its not about semantics, its about feeling. A storybook / rustic village concept works a lot better than a midcentury modern / giant toys / inside a brain one. I would have been perfectly okay with the change if they made it happen underneath a singular concept (ie a Victorian pier). But instead they just have different people doing their own thing in different neighborhoods, and are hoping no one pays attention to the sum of all its parts.
Ismael Flores
Well-Known Member
I never said that any Disney park land has been depicted realistically or that it should and therefore that is my point. People argue that elements added do not fit a "Victorian Pier" or a "California" setting. If anyone is going to use that as an argument as a reason for the changes to be wrong then they must then analyze what they are asking for and realize that if WDI did supposedly follow guidelines and did an idealized setting for what a Seaside Pier in the California coast looked like then it would be basically DCA 1.0 with even more crappy off the shelve rides and unthemed kiosks.
You can't argue that someone vision is wrong when in actually the idea of Pier filled with wood clad buildings on a seaside Pier in California never existed. would lit look great, yes it would but it theory it would still clash with the overall theme of the park.
so you are correct, New Orleans Square doesn't represent a real life depiction of New Orleans and Frontierland also didn't just consist of old west mining towns so why should a Seaside Pier consist of Wood clad Victorian architecture only?
Aren't we talking about someone idealized vision of what could be a seaside amusement park, in this case a Disney vision of that?
If New Orleans square has drunken pirates and wine drinking skeletons and frontierland have whimsical animal creatures while riding a wild ride in the wilderness then why can't a seaside Pier, or which really never had a specific theme architecture style, not have a few animated characters?
Last edited:
Rich T
Well-Known Member
I like this collection of examples a lot. Add to that the magic of experiencing all these with your family over many years so that it becomes a very personal, unique shared experience.
IP rides and lands have their place, but they'll never be as transporting as a really great story/experience created from scratch as a unique park environment. DL's Fantasyland is a rare, unique example of a land that connects to family's shared emotional feelings toward childhood classics while also finding a place in guest's hearts as a whole, wonderful location that also includes a Swiss mountain and a wonderful clock that leads to a musical cruise, with a monorail honking hello.
bluerhythym
Well-Known Member
I'm actually not really sure how to respond to this - I think you're actually just re-iterating my point, although it seems like you're trying to argue against it. I'm not sure anyone's idea of an idealized pier includes un-themed kiosks?
I think we can agree that Paradise Pier 1.0 was terrible, but Paradise Pier 1.5 made a good start at something interesting. I'd rather them continue what they started rather than pivot towards Pixar (although I'd really like them to just tear it down and start over).
I never said it couldn't have any animated characters, I said I'd be fine with it if they were integrated into the overall concept. Just because its themed to a seaside pier doesn't mean it has to be restricted to carousels and funhouses. They can stretch a theme pretty far without breaking it, like how a Caribbean boat ride works within the New Orleans theme. Ariel's and Midway Mania were integrated quite nicely under the boardwalk theme, and neither of those are off the shelf rides.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
I think anything non IP is a plus for Disneyland and DCA. This allows the parks to be their own entity, rather than a marketing tool.
That said, I don't think well-placed IP in a Disney theme park is automatically bad. There are plenty of examples of the opposite being true.
What I can't stand is changing existing, popular attractions into IP, for no other purpose but to promote merchandise/movies.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
Especially when the demolished attraction (Country Bears) is replaced by something really cheap and uninspired (Pooh).
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I get that Pixar isn’t a theme. But can’t It be said that theme of the land is still that its a seaside pier but just decorated with Pixar stuff now? More of a fantasy take on a seaside pier. The inclusion of Pixar IP doesn’t suddenly mean that the land is not themed to be a pier anymore. I see it kind of like the original Fantasyland which was themed to be a Sort of Renaissance Fair that included different Disney IP, yet you have a people riding in giant tea cups and flying elephants. Of course the fact that it is “Fantasy” land makes it easier to justify but I don’t think Walt and the imagineers were really worried about flat rides taking away from the Renaissance fair theme. I think they wanted a way for guests to experience some of the magic of their favorite films and a renaissance fair and now European village made the most sense and cents at the time.
DCA is still suffering from its horrible 1.0 execution with different patch jobs along the way with no real vision or long term planning. Not to mention the company keeps acquiring more content than what they know to do with and just have to leverage it at the parks somehow. DCA 2.0 was a step in the right direction and now they seem to be going backwards again. However, I will say as great as Cars Land is I don’t think it really makes any more sense in the park then Pixar Pier does. Sure, it’s themed wonderfully but what does it have to do with the rest of the park? Anyway they need to come up with a new mission statement for what DCA is.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Thank God this didn’t happen.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
I kinda feel like it is happening, just not exclusively Toy Story.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I think Toy Story Land would be much worse. Giant Woody’s and Toy story characters EVERYWHERE. Yuck. I’ll always prefer multiple IPs to one. Especially in this case.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
Yuck is right. I still don't understand why Disney thinks WDW's Toy Story Land is something to crow about. "You've been shrunk to the size of a toy and now you're in... (drum roll)... ANDY'S BACK YARD!" In what universe is this idea appealing in any way? One could say it's aimed at tots who'll enjoy it, but both new rides there have height restrictions... and if they'd chosen a less barfy theme, the land could be much *more* fun and inspiring for *everyone*. And, believe me, I love the Toy Story films. But Andy's back yard is NOT a fictional locale I've ever wanted to visit.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
...And speaking of Toy Story Land... There's always the possibility that the whole Toy Story franchise could suddenly be Yesterday's News with the public with no one wanting to spend $40 on a plush Buzz Lightyear. What happens to this entire land at that point? Cars Land, I think has a nice buffer against this scenario because it's so beautiful to look at and its headliner ride is stellar. Toy Story Land cannot claim the same.
Little Green Men
Well-Known Member
No different than A Bugs Land really
Rich T
Well-Known Member
And the fact that no one's going to shed a tear to see Bug's Land demolished says a lot. To be fair, Bug's Land was strictly a kiddie zone, but it's time for Disney to retire the "You've been shrunk" theme for a long while. Oh... Hello, Ratatouille ride...
Considering yet again that I agreed with you that branding is Not theming, you keep going back to the argument that I said something that I didn’t.
I said Pixar by definition didn’t add anything to add or subtract to the Paradise Pier theming, when it was already weak. I know that isn’t your perspective, but it is my opinion. Pixar is a plus (not theming). It adds character and characters. Is this very hard to interpret? PIXAR ADDS CHARACTER.
The anti-Pixar people made their opinions well known that they hate the addition. You said it too. Funny how you do not describe yourself as anti-Pixar when you don’t like it precisely because you think it’s branding. It is irrelevant as you said as well since it’s a movie or more accurately series of movies. Pixar can’t literally screw up Paradise Pier. It is already a sorry land with minimal theming by definition as Ismael already pointed out.
Last edited:
Would it help it I agree with you?
So what is the problem? There isn’t any. Pixar Pier is it’s new name.