News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier

[Rich T]

Very weak excuse to insert yet another IP-based attraction.

Should San Francisco be an option, why not simply reference it WITHOUT a movie tie-in?

I have been waiting for a Runaway Cable Car coaster ride through Old San Francisco all my life.

(EDIT) Did anyone else here ride the long-gone Enchanted World of Old San Francisco dark ride at Fisherman's Wharf? It was created by Sid and Marty Krofft (H.R. Puffnstuf)! It was wonderfully cheesy, and the vehicles were super charming-- and got me dreaming about a Cable Car coaster.

 

[TROR]

DCA 1.0 = Home on the Range
DCA 2.0 = Tangled
DCA 3.0 = Wreck It Ralph 2 (it's going to bad, I already know)

 

[PB Watermelon]

I've often said that HOTR has amazingly good songs for such a terrible movie; I'd honestly probably rank the soundtrack in my top 10-15 Disney movies. Even the annoying yodel song isn't half bad. The visual style is also well done, and in the right circumstances I think the characters could have made for an entertaining afternoon TV series. But as a feature film, it's just obnoxious, trite, and generally awful. It's a shame that the film is so bad (and it really, truly is awful), since it has a lot of genuinely great elements.

Menken showed up -- the title track and "Little Patch of Heaven" and "Will the Sun Ever Shine Again?" -- all terrific. To make matters worse, the Blu-Ray is sourced from a film print, not the actual data files, so it's grainy and a tad desaturized AND a bad movie, with outstanding music.

 

[Rich T]

Menken showed up -- the title track and "Little Patch of Heaven" and "Will the Sun Ever Shine Again?" -- all terrific. To make matters worse, the Blu-Ray is sourced from a film print, not the actual data files, so it's grainy and a tad desaturized AND a bad movie, with outstanding music.

Home on the Range really does have great elements: The songs, the sharp style and character designs, Buck the Horse, most of the human characters. Even the premise is kinda cute. But the three leads...

 

[Phroobar]

The ghost story in Sweating Bullets was better.

 

[peterpanic74]

I have been waiting for a Runaway Cable Car coaster ride through Old San Francisco all my life.

(EDIT) Did anyone else here ride the long-gone Enchanted World of Old San Francisco dark ride at Fisherman's Wharf? It was created by Sid and Marty Krofft (H.R. Puffnstuf)! It was wonderfully cheesy, and the vehicles were super charming-- and got me dreaming about a Cable Car coaster.View attachment 262575

Definitely went on this rides eons ago, very hard to find any record of its former existance now!

 

[Californian Elitist]

Exactly what do you want to accomplish with a California theme park? You say it’s an excuse. Does this even matter? Customers want to see Disney IP in Disney theme parks. That’s the minimum requirement. The Mermaid ride has the San Francisco Palace of Fine Arts entrance and there absolutely no excuse exists for using it.

Another thing is San Francisco is featured in Inside Out and Big Hero 6 so why not use the California locations that’s inherent in the movies? This is completely natural as opposed to shoehorning unrelated IP like The Little Mermaid.

I said what was an excuse, exactly? Does what matter? What is this “it” you speak of?

Customers want to see new things. Disneyland fans tend to eat up anything given to them. An IP tie-in isn’t a “minimum requirement.” I don’t know where you got that idea from. If it were a requirement, lines for those without tie-ins such as Thunder Mountain, Pirates, Mansion, Matterhorn, Autopia, and even the Golden Zephyr and Jumping Jellyfish would be non-existent.

IP’s are absolutely NOT a necessity. Frankly, I’m sick of everything new being tied to a movie. It just reflects the company’s lack of trust in originality.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I said what was an excuse, exactly? Does what matter? What is this “it” you speak of?

Customers want to see new things. Disneyland fans tend to eat up anything given to them. An IP tie-in isn’t a “minimum requirement.” I don’t know where you got that idea from. If it were a requirement, lines for those without tie-ins such as Thunder Mountain, Pirates, Mansion, Matterhorn, Autopia, and even the Golden Zephyr and Jumping Jellyfish would be non-existent.

IP’s are absolutely NOT a necessity. Frankly, I’m sick of everything new being tied to a movie. It just reflects the company’s lack of trust in originality.

 

[JD2000]

I miss the look of the Sun Wheel, Mickey Silhouette, and somewhat the Orange Stinger, but definitely nothing else.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Why thank you.

 

[DanielBB8]

I said what was an excuse, exactly? Does what matter? What is this “it” you speak of?

Customers want to see new things. Disneyland fans tend to eat up anything given to them. An IP tie-in isn’t a “minimum requirement.” I don’t know where you got that idea from. If it were a requirement, lines for those without tie-ins such as Thunder Mountain, Pirates, Mansion, Matterhorn, Autopia, and even the Golden Zephyr and Jumping Jellyfish would be non-existent.

IP’s are absolutely NOT a necessity. Frankly, I’m sick of everything new being tied to a movie. It just reflects the company’s lack of trust in originality.

You said “Very weak excuse to insert yet another IP-based attraction.” as in referencing the California locations in Pixar animated movies. This discussion was about the California theme in DCA that you conveniently forgot.

DCA 1.0 was about having no Disney IP. This failed in any Disney park that attempted it like Epcot.

DCA 2.0 put Disney IP right back in with Carsland as the big success that it deserves with all the references to Route 66 that adults love.

DCA 3.0 continues to add more Disney IP with no attempt to insert the California theme even if they could. They won’t and I don’t think it matters.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

You said “Very weak excuse to insert yet another IP-based attraction.” as in referencing the California locations in Pixar animated movies. This discussion was about the California theme in DCA that you conveniently forgot.

DCA 1.0 was about having no Disney IP. This failed in any Disney park that attempted it like Epcot.

DCA 2.0 put Disney IP right back in with Carsland as the big success that it deserves with all the references to Route 66 that adults love.

DCA 3.0 continues to add more Disney IP with no attempt to insert the California theme even if they could. They won’t and I don’t think it matters.

Epcot's "failure" was not the fact that it had no Disney IP. It was from lack of appropriate refurbishment and upkeep.
Even current Epcot with its added Disney IP is still in pretty shoddy shape.

 

[DanielBB8]

Epcot's "failure" was not the fact that it had no Disney IP. It was from lack of appropriate refurbishment and upkeep.
Even current Epcot with its added Disney IP is still in pretty shoddy shape.

In part caused by having attractions that cannot be relevant without a complete overhaul in storytelling. Epcot ran them until they can figure out a replacement. Epcot’s environmental show with the Lion King had sparse attendance. It just closed. The Nemo replacement for the Living Seas is quite popular. It’s so popular that will will get a rumored facade overlay based on the last sequel (Finding Dory at Marine Life Institute). We have the same Nemo ride at the submarine.

DCA’s attractions failed upon opening. Nobody wanted them.

 

[DanielBB8]

It’s funny that none of you mentioned Soarin’ as a DCA 1.0 attraction. It’s so popular that it moved to Epcot. This is an exception to the rule. They can make it work. It has no characters either except for the preshow. GRR is also very good but everyone asks for characters or stuffed ones. I agree. It needs something extra.

 

[mickEblu]

I said what was an excuse, exactly? Does what matter? What is this “it” you speak of?

Customers want to see new things. Disneyland fans tend to eat up anything given to them. An IP tie-in isn’t a “minimum requirement.” I don’t know where you got that idea from. If it were a requirement, lines for those without tie-ins such as Thunder Mountain, Pirates, Mansion, Matterhorn, Autopia, and even the Golden Zephyr and Jumping Jellyfish would be non-existent.

IP’s are absolutely NOT a necessity. Frankly, I’m sick of everything new being tied to a movie. It just reflects the company’s lack of trust in originality.

Whoa. Where have you been?

 

[nevol]

It’s funny that none of you mentioned Soarin’ as a DCA 1.0 attraction. It’s so popular that it moved to Epcot. This is an exception to the rule. They can make it work. It has no characters either except for the preshow. GRR is also very good but everyone asks for characters or stuffed ones. I agree. It needs something extra.

DisneySea wasnt entirely IP but it is a masterpiece of a park that can host IP wthout commiting suicide. DCA 1.0 failed but it wasnt because of a lack of IP. It also lacked soul, depth, beauty, everything under the sun. I think about that really cool parade they opened with, and Im fairly confident it would have worked had its surroundings not been so awkward, from a playground about tractors to a city of beige stucco warehouses.

 

[mickEblu]

DisneySea wasnt entirely IP but it is a masterpiece of a park that can host IP wthout commiting suicide. DCA 1.0 failed but it wasnt because of a lack of IP. It also lacked soul, depth, beauty, everything under the sun. I think about that really cool parade they opened with, and Im fairly confident it would have worked had its surroundings not been so awkward, from a playground about tractors to a city of beige stucco warehouses.

TBH I feel bad for anyone who never got to experience Superstar Limo.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

In part caused by having attractions that cannot be relevant without a complete overhaul in storytelling. Epcot ran them until they can figure out a replacement. Epcot’s environmental show with the Lion King had sparse attendance. It just closed. The Nemo replacement for the Living Seas is quite popular. It’s so popular that will will get a rumored facade overlay based on the last sequel (Finding Dory at Marine Life Institute). We have the same Nemo ride at the submarine.

DCA’s attractions failed upon opening. Nobody wanted them.

If you're saying that attractions need Disney IP to stay relevant, then how do you explain the on-going success of attractions like Pirates, HM, BTMRR, SSE, etc, etc?

I do plan to revisit the Nemo pavilion when I get back to Epcot, but I can already tell you it will not hold a candle to what The Living Seas gave us.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

TBH I feel bad for anyone who never got to experience Superstar Limo.

It's one of my few regrets.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

If you're saying that attractions need Disney IP to stay relevant, then how do you explain the on-going success of attractions like Pirates, HM, BTMRR, SSE, etc, etc?

Those iconic attractions are so well-known that they have become marketable IP themselves. The PoTC film series is an obvious example, along with the various versions of Pirates, HM (which also had a film), and BTMRR attractions at Disney resorts around the world. Some of these attractions even have branded merchandise and collectables.