News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier

[Disneylover152]

By the way, I really admire your resolve to boycott Disney parks by taking one trip to Disneyland in the spring, one trip to Disneyland Paris in the summer, and one potential trip to WDW next year!

Exactly, the point of that is that no matter whatever they put in their parks, I will probably still continue to go.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

It's all Disney now, what really is the difference?

Bob Iger, is that you???

The difference for me is huge. I want Disney to believe in themselves enough again to confidently create things like Haunted Mansion, Pirates, BTM, JC, SM, Matterhorn, etc. I'm pretty sure I've posted ad nauseum on here before about how uninteresting it is to go on an attraction and be coddled in the hands of a familiar story or familiar characters.

From a film stand point, I (but I'm sure I'm not alone) get bored with the same characters in the same universe for umpteen sequels, spin-offs, and reboots.

 

[dweezil78]

Bob Iger, is that you???

The difference for me is huge. I want Disney to believe in themselves enough again to confidently create things like Haunted Mansion, Pirates, BTM, JC, SM, Matterhorn, etc. I'm pretty sure I've posted ad nauseum on here before about how uninteresting it is to go on an attraction and be coddled in the hands of a familiar story or familiar characters.

From a film stand point, I (but I'm sure I'm not alone) get bored with the same characters in the same universe for umpteen sequels, spin-offs, and reboots.

Ok but you are deflecting the real issue to argue against IP usage. The real issue is not usage of content/studio acquisitions of which everyone cries and screams about here. The real issue is, when you get down to it, is the actual attraction quality and book report type storytelling which simply retells the story on a ride.

There is no reason whatsoever why WDI can't make a compelling attraction based on any number of these properties. It's not the source material that's the issue, it's how they're creating the attractions themselves that are the real root of the problem. But it's far easier to just point the finger at "IP IP IP IP!" all day I suppose.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Ok but you are deflecting the real issue to argue against IP usage. The real issue is not usage of content/studio acquisitions of which everyone cries and screams about here. The real issue is, when you get down to it, is the actual attraction quality and book report type storytelling which simply retells the story on a ride.

There is no reason whatsoever why WDI can't make a compelling attraction based on any number of these properties. It's not the source material that's the issue, it's how they're creating the attractions themselves that are the real root of the problem. But it's far easier to just point the finger at "IP IP IP IP!" all day I suppose.

I'll agree that it's mostly about execution.
For example. Indiana Jones. Amazing execution of an intellectual property where the main character isn't there to simply walk you through the movie(s) he is from. He pops up occasionally, but it fits within the context of the attraction. That I have no problem with.

I said mostly though because for me, a big part of IP-inclusion (in a park that's rife with non-IP greatness), to me at least, is to say that WDI doesn't employ creative enough people to come up with their own ideas, or is overrun by a manager that is afraid of trying anything not tied to a pre-existing film/TV show.

 

[smile]

Exactly, the point of that is that no matter whatever they put in their parks, I will probably still continue to go.

 

[dweezil78]

I said mostly though because for me, a big part of IP-inclusion (in a park that's rife with non-IP greatness), to me at least, is to say that WDI doesn't employ creative enough people to come up with their own ideas, or is overrun by a manager that is afraid of trying anything not tied to a pre-existing film/TV show.

I guess I just really don't understand the difference if the attraction is actually done properly and isn't reliant upon characters (ala Indy). Once you've been on original attraction once you're now familiar with it just like you would a movie/show.

The issue has been focusing on character and not atmosphere/environment when dealing with pre-existing IP. I really think that's where Galaxy's Edge is going to get it right where others have failed. That's also the reason I think Pandora works as well as it does.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I guess I just really don't understand the difference if the attraction is actually done properly and isn't reliant upon characters (ala Indy). Once you've been on original attraction once you're now familiar with it just like you would a movie/show.

The issue has been focusing on character and not atmosphere/environment when dealing with pre-existing IP. I really think that's where Galaxy's Edge is going to get it right where others have failed. That's also the reason I think Pandora works as well as it does.

Fair point. Though as a story-teller myself, I like to create my own plotlines on original attractions that change with each visit. Clearly I'm in the small small minority there

I'll be curious to know how much of GE will rely on character familiarity. And Pandora simply doesn't interest me that much mostly because I thought it was a **** film. Same thought applies to any Inside Out attraction.

 

[Rich T]

Ok but you are deflecting the real issue to argue against IP usage. The real issue is not usage of content/studio acquisitions of which everyone cries and screams about here. The real issue is, when you get down to it, is the actual attraction quality and book report type storytelling which simply retells the story on a ride.

There is no reason whatsoever why WDI can't make a compelling attraction based on any number of these properties. It's not the source material that's the issue, it's how they're creating the attractions themselves that are the real root of the problem. But it's far easier to just point the finger at "IP IP IP IP!" all day I suppose.

For myself and a lot of us, there's a huge difference between Disney-created properties and Disney-aquired properties.

The name "Disney" used to mean something. It was a studio with a voice, a style, and a huge, wonderful stable of characters and films created over several decades--including the most innovative, important decades in film history. Disneyland was the place that took all that and brought it to life.

The truth is the Disney many of us grew up with no longer exists. It's morphed into a monstrous, faceless entity eating up everything in sight, putting profits ahead of creativity (instead of trusting creativity to bring profits) and trying to pretend its acquisitions have been part of the company since 1923. This new version of the company can certainly still hire the right people to create quality experiences for younger generations than mine to enjoy, but it's not really "Disney" anymore. That ship has sailed. I hope to enjoy what's left of the original vision while it still exists, before it all gets Marveled, Star Warred, and Igered into oblivion.

 

[Disneylover152]

The difference for me is huge. I want Disney to believe in themselves enough again to confidently create things like Haunted Mansion, Pirates, BTM, JC, SM, Matterhorn, etc. I'm pretty sure I've posted ad nauseum on here before about how uninteresting it is to go on an attraction and be coddled in the hands of a familiar story or familiar characters.

Also, if Disney creates a new ride, its going to get people to ride it. The general public will ride anything that is new.

Disney claims it doesn't give attendance boosts, but neither did Pandora or Frozen Ever After. Expedition Everest gave more of an attendance boost than Pandora did. (For WDW)

 

[Deleted member 107043]

There is no reason whatsoever why WDI can't make a compelling attraction based on any number of these properties. It's not the source material that's the issue, it's how they're creating the attractions themselves that are the real root of the problem. But it's far easier to just point the finger at "IP IP IP IP!" all day I suppose.

I agree with your points 100%, however there is something about the constant barrage of IP, well executed or otherwise, that starts to grate after awhile. Today Disneyland Resort feels more like an experiential advertisement for the various Disney owned studios than a collection of immersive themed experiences from the mind of Walt and the Imagineers. The new alien popcorn buckets epitomize precisely the kind of commercialization of the Disneyland experience I'm talking about. I have no problem with Disney routinely changing things, but I'm fatigued by all the branding.

Shouldn't "Disney" mean something besides Studio characters and stories? What about some of the more inspirational themes that early WDI projects aimed for like the retelling of American folklore, classic fairy tales, or attainable dreams of the future? I don't hate IP but I sure do hate IP everywhere.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I agree with your points 100%, however there is something about the constant barrage of IP, well executed or otherwise, that starts to grate after awhile. Today Disneyland Resort feels more like an experiential advertisement for the various Disney owned studios than a collection of immersive themed experiences from the mind of Walt and the Imagineers. The new alien popcorn buckets epitomize precisely the kind of commercialization of the Disneyland experience I'm talking about. I have no problem with Disney routinely changing things, but I'm fatigued by all the branding.

Shouldn't "Disney" mean something besides Studio characters and stories? What about some of the more inspirational themes that early WDI projects aimed for like the retelling of American folklore, classic fairy tales, or attainable dreams of the future? I don't hate IP but I sure do hate IP everywhere.

Very well said.
For me, I think what initially starts as an emotional "anti-IP" cry is ultimately just a call for balance. The scales are tipped completely in the IP direction that it feels like we're being smothered in an itchy blanket.

 

[Disneylover152]

 

[TragicMike]

For myself and a lot of us, there's a huge difference between Disney-created properties and Disney-aquired properties.

Even the Disney "created" properties were just centuries-old tales in the public domain that Disney re-told and then cried to Congress in order to prevent their interpretations from entering the public domain (irony.)

I never bought into the whole Disney indoctrination regarding their work. They should be applauded for their advancements in technology and contribution to animation. Originality? Meh, let them swallow up Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars. Interpreting other people's works and making it their own has always been what they do best.

 

[dweezil78]

I agree with your points 100%, however there is something about the constant barrage of IP, well executed or otherwise, that starts to grate after awhile. Today Disneyland Resort feels more like an experiential advertisement for the various Disney owned studios than a collection of immersive themed experiences from the mind of Walt and the Imagineers. The new alien popcorn buckets epitomize precisely the kind of commercialization of the Disneyland experience I'm talking about. I have no problem with Disney routinely changing things, but I'm fatigued by all the branding.

Shouldn't "Disney" mean something besides Studio characters and stories? What about some of the more inspirational themes that early WDI projects aimed for like the retelling of American folklore, classic fairy tales, or attainable dreams of the future? I don't hate IP but I sure do hate IP everywhere.

I agree that it's tipped too far in the other direction and they're cramming stuff where it doesn't necessarily belong, but I also don't know that I really believe most people want to see the kinds of stuff you're talking about inside a theme park anymore. There are some exceptions of course, it's not an absolute rule... on occasion, there's something like Soarin that sneaks in there (or Animal Kingdom). Maybe I'm just jaded...who knows. It's a wonder we still have stuff like Lincoln, Hall of Presidents, American Adventure, CoP, etc. And the sad reality of it all, the top reasons most people visit those it is 1) They're over the hill or 2) They offer quick paths to A/C on blazing hot days.

Also... just yet another reminder, this is not a new trend -- it's just that mostly, we don't care for the newer stuff these attractions based on!

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

For myself and a lot of us, there's a huge difference between Disney-created properties and Disney-aquired properties.

The name "Disney" used to mean something. It was a studio with a voice, a style, and a huge, wonderful stable of characters and films created over several decades--including the most innovative, important decades in film history. Disneyland was the place that took all that and brought it to life.

The truth is the Disney many of us grew up with no longer exists. It's morphed into a monstrous, faceless entity eating up everything in sight, putting profits ahead of creativity (instead of trusting creativity to bring profits) and trying to pretend its acquisitions have been part of the company since 1923. This new version of the company can certainly still hire the right people to create quality experiences for younger generations than mine to enjoy, but it's not really "Disney" anymore. That ship has sailed. I hope to enjoy what's left of the original vision while it still exists, before it all gets Marveled, Star Warred, and Igered into oblivion.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I agree that it's tipped too far in the other direction and they're cramming stuff where it doesn't necessarily belong, but I also don't know that I really believe most people want to see the kinds of stuff you're talking about inside a theme park anymore. There are some exceptions of course, it's not an absolute rule... on occasion, there's something like Soarin that sneaks in there (or Animal Kingdom). Maybe I'm just jaded...who knows. It's a wonder we still have stuff like Lincoln, Hall of Presidents, American Adventure, CoP, etc. And the sad reality of it all, the top reasons most people visit those it is 1) They're over the hill or 2) They offer quick paths to A/C on blazing hot days.

or 3) they just appreciate good quality attractions!

Remember, the public is fickle. They ultimately don't know what they want until a company like Disney gives it to them. But if all you're going to offer your guests is book-report type experiences, then no thank you. I'd rather stay in the stroller-free comfort of my own home and watch things on blu-ray for much cheaper. The parks should aim higher.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Even the Disney "created" properties were just centuries-old tales in the public domain that Disney re-told and then cried to Congress in order to prevent their interpretations from entering the public domain (irony.)

I never bought into the whole Disney indoctrination regarding their work. They should be applauded for their advancements in technology and contribution to animation. Originality? Meh, let them swallow up Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars. Interpreting other people's works and making it their own has always been what they do best.

If you wanna go all the way down that rabbit hole, there are only like 7 basic plots in storytelling which means nothing is actually "original".

 

[TragicMike]

If you wanna go all the way down that rabbit hole, there are only like 7 basic plots in storytelling which means nothing is actually "original".

Complete difference between coming up with a "new plot" and using an established character that has literally been around for hundreds of years.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly but I have no problem with that approach. In fact, that's my whole point. I don't have a problem with Disney taking established Marvel and Star Wars characters, creating their own stories with them and calling that Disney.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Also... just yet another reminder, this is not a new trend -- it's just that mostly, we don't care for the newer stuff these attractions based on!

Sticking this stuff in every conceivable space at the resorts, whether it's a ride, a show, a parade, hotel room, retail shop or restaurant is most definitely a new trend. They can't even build a gondola transit system without slapping characters on the cabins.

 

[Rich T]

Even the Disney "created" properties were just centuries-old tales in the public domain that Disney re-told and then cried to Congress in order to prevent their interpretations from entering the public domain (irony.)

I never bought into the whole Disney indoctrination regarding their work. They should be applauded for their advancements in technology and contribution to animation. Originality? Meh, let them swallow up Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars. Interpreting other people's works and making it their own has always been what they do best.

Disney took those public domain tales (or negotiated for the rights of more modern works) and ran them through their filter (while Walt Disney was alive, the filter was him) and changed them (drastically) to appeal to the General Public of the time. It was a relatively small group of artists and writers all working together, and a definite studio style emerged right in-step with the advancing technology. It was lightning-in-a-bottle that no one was able to replicate-- Just like the Loony Tunes developed a particular style and flavor based around the tastes, humor and attitude of a small handful of artists and writers at Warner Bros.

When I say "created" I don't mean the original tales. I mean, of course, the specific Disney versions created by Walt, the Nine Old Men, Mary Blair, and the other amazing artists and talents working together to create a body of work with the Disney studio style. In other words, the versions generations grew up loving.

It's amazing Disney (the company) was able to retain that identity as long as it did; nothing lasts forever. But now the company is well and truly becoming just another faceless media giant with no style or vision at all. Unless, of course, "Big Golden Parachute " counts as a vision.