News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier

[FigmentForver96]

And the point is that good attractions based on film franchises seem to have longer legs than good attractions that don't. UoE was incredible, at least when it opened, but it's been proven that very few go to a theme park to learn about the creation of fossil fuels from an energy company.

They can be good attractions because they're safe. There is no risk. Their biggest issue is picking a good ride system. It's not what Disney was always known for.

The idea that EPCOT Center was not popular based on the education and entertainment piece is just not factual. It was different, it was bold and it could have stayed relavent but Eisner took it in the wrong direction.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Ah, 1987...

 

[DanielBB8]

No one is remembering the movie when film franchises are made into theme park rides. Using this argument ignores the counter argument that for every franchise that you approve of, it is also true of the franchise you don’t approve of. Attractions are just 5 minutes importation of ideas and characters. It sends people on a new journey in a mini adventure. They hardly transfer the exact film that you might see in Fantasyland. Once the attraction is made, it stays. They are still keeping Stitch in MK’s Tomorrowland despite rumors it will go. They don’t go away easily.

So for Epcot’s science attractions to go away tells you there is fundamentally something wrong with how they are made. I recall Horizons was a terrific attraction, but they don’t click as time goes by. Predicting the future is creepy when faced with outdated technology and designs that harkens to a past era. So they couldn’t fix it since fixing it will not eliminate how it will look dated in a few short years.

 

[Curious Constance]

He wasn't even alive in 1987, so he won't know what its about....

Pet rocks, Poprocks, Rubik's cube, Tetris, MC Hammer and his pants, etc.

How many of those things would have been a good idea to base an attraction on?
Maybe it would have seemed like a good idea at the time because of it's immense popularity, but in hind sight it would be extremely dating and embarrassing at this point.

For me there are three things that are truly objectionable about IP.

1. Instantly date the attraction to the point in time the movie(s) were popular.

2. Instantly polarizing to people who have no interest in the IPs themselves. No matter how popular a movie is, the majority of people will have not seen the movie therefore won't have much desire to ever travel to see an attraction based off of it. In my opinion, you shouldn't really need to see a movie before you'll completely appreciate or care about an attraction.

3. Finally, the fact that they are a cheap, marketable replacement for anything unique, creative, or park specific. Think of how many park specific characters/stories they could create and hype. I'm talking things like Harold from the Matterhorn, Hatbox Ghost etc. They could create characters and stories you can only get at the parks and market the hell out of them. Create merchandise you can only buy at the parks. Disneyland would be it's own unique, creative experience full of things to discover instead of just reliving a movie you saw 15 years ago and sort of remember liking at the time.

 

[Californian Elitist]

How many of those things would have been a good idea to base an attraction on?
Maybe it would have seemed like a good idea at the time because of it's immense popularity, but in hind sight it would be extremely dating and embarrassing at this point.

For me there are three things that are truly objectionable about IP.

1. Instantly date the attraction to the point in time the movie(s) were popular.

2. Instantly polarizing to people who have no interest in the IPs themselves. No matter how popular a movie is, the majority of people will have not seen the movie therefore won't have much desire to ever travel to see an attraction based off of it. In my opinion, you shouldn't really need to see a movie before you'll completely appreciate or care about an attraction.

3. Finally, the fact that they are a cheap, marketable replacement for anything unique, creative, or park specific. Think of how many park specific characters/stories they could create and hype. I'm talking things like Harold from the Matterhorn, Hatbox Ghost etc. They could create characters and stories you can only get at the parks and market the hell out of them. Create merchandise you can only buy at the parks. Disneyland would be it's own unique, creative experience full of things to discover instead of just reliving a movie you saw 15 years ago and sort of remember liking at the time.

EXACTLY.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

So someone was arguing that Indiana Jones is a forgettable franchise? Or something? Not true. I'm hardly the biggest fan of the Indy ride, which seems to have little to do with the Indy series of films and doesn't even feature Harrison Ford, but the character is iconic and known to virtually everyone even if they haven't seen all the movies.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

The idea that EPCOT Center was not popular based on the education and entertainment piece is just not factual.

Oh? Then kindly show us the facts.

 

[DanielBB8]

So someone was arguing that Indiana Jones is a forgettable franchise? Or something? Not true. I'm hardly the biggest fan of the Indy ride, which seems to have little to do with the Indy series of films and doesn't even feature Harrison Ford, but the character is iconic and known to virtually everyone even if they haven't seen all the movies.

No, someone like me is arguing beyond the first film, the movie franchise is quite forgettable. And another error, the ride does feature Harrison Ford. Characters and themes are the main reason for making an attraction out of a movie franchise, which actually means synergy.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

You're not making any sense at all.

 

[TROR]

No, someone like me is arguing beyond the first film, the movie franchise is quite forgettable. And another error, the ride does feature Harrison Ford. Characters and themes are the main reason for making an attraction out of a movie franchise, which actually means synergy.

What a ridiculous argument. You think people don't remember Short Round? Or the part of Temple of Doom where the dude's heart gets ripped out? Or Sean Connery as Henry Jones Sr.? Ridiculous.

Yes, the first is the most iconic but the other two have contributed a lot as well.

Of the MCU films alone, how much have they actually created that's iconic on their own? I don't mean Cap's shield or Nick Fury. Those existed before the movies. I mean things the movies made that have been parodied or referenced a lot?

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

You...don't believe me? You will, DanielBB8. You will become a true believer! Hahahaha...

 

[DanielBB8]

What a ridiculous argument. You think people don't remember Short Round? Or the part of Temple of Doom where the dude's heart gets ripped out? Or Sean Connery as Henry Jones Sr.? Ridiculous.

Yes, the first is the most iconic but the other two have contributed a lot as well.

Of the MCU films alone, how much have they actually created that's iconic on their own? I don't mean Cap's shield or Nick Fury. Those existed before the movies. I mean things the movies made that have been parodied or referenced a lot?

You’re the one arguing no one remembers Guardians 2 and can’t wait to forget Indy 4. Ridiculous.

So this whole theory of yours have nothing to do with the Marvel movies and everything to do with the comics, which is a narrow audience.

 

[smile]

You...don't believe me? You will, DanielBB8. You will become a true believer! Hahahaha...

om namah shivaya om namah shivaya om namah shivaya

 

[FigmentForver96]

Oh? Then kindly show us the facts.

I don't have the numbers but plenty of the people on these boards do. Like how attendance peaked in '87 and has never reached that point again. Nemo didn't do it, Frozen didn't do it and I doubt Guardians will do it. @marni1971 could maybe do better then me.

 

[marni1971]

Oh? Then kindly show us the facts.

EPCOT Center attendance peaked in 1987. It hasn’t matched that figure since. Guest satisfaction has dropped year on year this decade until we got to the point when they admitted something had to be done. With the current reallocation of funds what exactly will be done outside of what’s been announced remains to be revealed.

 

[FigmentForver96]

EPCOT Center attendance peaked in 1987. It hasn’t matched that figure since. Guest satisfaction has dropped year on year this decade until we got to the point when they admitted something had to be done. With the current reallocation of funds what exactly will be done outside of what’s been announced remains to be revealed.

Such a gentlemen, always count on you.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

EPCOT Center attendance peaked in 1987. It hasn’t matched that figure since. Guest satisfaction has dropped year on year this decade until we got to the point when they admitted something had to be done. With the current reallocation of funds what exactly will be done outside of what’s been announced remains to be revealed.

Thanks, but that doesn't disprove the assertion that the focus on edutainment themes have played a role in EPCOT's flat attendance. Most likely it's a combination of many problems, boring subject matter being one of them.

 

[mickEblu]

How many of those things would have been a good idea to base an attraction on?
Maybe it would have seemed like a good idea at the time because of it's immense popularity, but in hind sight it would be extremely dating and embarrassing at this point.

For me there are three things that are truly objectionable about IP.

1. Instantly date the attraction to the point in time the movie(s) were popular.

2. Instantly polarizing to people who have no interest in the IPs themselves. No matter how popular a movie is, the majority of people will have not seen the movie therefore won't have much desire to ever travel to see an attraction based off of it. In my opinion, you shouldn't really need to see a movie before you'll completely appreciate or care about an attraction.

3. Finally, the fact that they are a cheap, marketable replacement for anything unique, creative, or park specific. Think of how many park specific characters/stories they could create and hype. I'm talking things like Harold from the Matterhorn, Hatbox Ghost etc. They could create characters and stories you can only get at the parks and market the hell out of them. Create merchandise you can only buy at the parks. Disneyland would be it's own unique, creative experience full of things to discover instead of just reliving a movie you saw 15 years ago and sort of remember liking at the time.

It’s posts like these that got you inducted into the Hall of Blame with @Kira Nerys and @raven24. Keep up the good work.

 

[marni1971]

Thanks, but that doesn't disprove the assertion that the focus on edutainment themes have played a role in EPCOT's flat attendance.

That will be argued about until the cows come home.

 

[Stevek]

No, someone like me is arguing beyond the first film, the movie franchise is quite forgettable. And another error, the ride does feature Harrison Ford. Characters and themes are the main reason for making an attraction out of a movie franchise, which actually means synergy.

Wait, wut? The franchise is forgettable? All 3 of the originals are classics to many. The fourth...yeah, that's forgettable. At the end of the day, it all comes down to personal tastes and it's clear Indy isn't your cup of team. That being said, you're the first person I've ever heard say they are forgettable.

But anyways, how about Pixar Pier?