News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier

[shortstop]

I won't argue that the ride should have been updated during its 30 year run... But I also don't know that I'd say closing it was a result of cheapness when you look at the huge overhaul going on in that park now in prep for Galaxy's Edge along with all the other projects absorbing budget around WDW. Unfortunately budgets come and go (and are finite) and timing often plays a critical role in when/how it gets used.

Now Toy Story Land, on the other hand... that's an absolute waste of $$$ and money that would have been much better spent elsewhere.

I don’t mean to say Disney is being cheap in the grand scheme of things. But DHS desperately needs capacity to help out with the opening of SWL. Closing GMR was a poor decision, IMO.

 

[TROR]

IMO PIxar became a noteworthy brand before Disney even acquired them. For the longest time, there were people who didn't want Disney to acquire them in fear that they'd ruin the brand (instead we can thank JL for his best attempt at that.) I think people forget, but the idea of that annual 'Pixar' film was one that was always buzzed about from moment any info dropped. It was a high mark of quality, each and everytime -- in the same way that there are certain record labels where everyone loves every single band/record they release.

It didn't matter what the film was or what it was about, you just knew it was going to be amazing and sell boatloads of tickets. You knew there was going to be a fun little, but just as memorable and great, short in front of the feature. It was an event and so many people bought their tickets just based on the name Pixar alone.

So to answer your question, in my eyes and the eyes of many, Pixar was a beloved brand very early on and easily distinguishable from Disney, Dreamworks, or any one else doing similar work in the industry.

Agree with everything but the idea that it was ever distinguishable from Disney. Ever since Toy Story the Pixar movies have had the Disney castle logo at the beginning of their films. Obviously they're distinguishable from the classic Disney movies in their content, but it'd be very easy to mistake them as Disney movies even before they were purchased by the company. Now, though, the content of Disney movies like Zootopia and Wreck-It Ralph really feel more in line with Pixar movies which makes it only harder to distinguish the two.

 

[TROR]

No, the reason it closed is because it was a downright antiquated looking attraction that lacked any soul or sizzle. Today's audiences were not impressed and it came across as hokey. It had more in common with that weird Asian 'Small World' knockoff where none of the dolls moved than any of Disney's classic AA attractions. Would it have been nice if they had updated some of the movies in it? Sure... but it still wouldn't have been enough to win over modern audiences.

Also this is a terrible take. This is like saying the Maelstrom closed because it was falling apart. It was falling apart because they didn't maintain it so they could close it. Same with GMR.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

Also this is a terrible take. This is like saying the Maelstrom closed because it was falling apart. It was falling apart because they didn't maintain it so they could close it. Same with GMR.

Should we be concerned that they're giving the same treatment to ToT in Florida?

 

[dweezil78]

Also this is a terrible take. This is like saying the Maelstrom closed because it was falling apart. It was falling apart because they didn't maintain it so they could close it. Same with GMR.

Ok...then I am more than happy to say no amount of $$$ was ever worth investing into an attraction like GMR because of the nature of the ride itself. It was a boring clip show told through mannequins and one cool AA (the witch.) Updating it would have been a bad use of $$$ IMO because at its core, it still would have been the same ride. Even with better AAs, it was was a relic of an attraction from when people had an interest in 'studio' parks.

 

[TROR]

Ok...then I am more than happy to say no amount of $$$ was ever worth investing into an attraction like GMR because of the nature of the ride itself. It was a boring clip show told through mannequins and one cool AA (the witch.) Updating it would have been a bad use of $$$ IMO becaue at its core, it still would have been the same ride. Even with better AAs, it was was a relic of an attraction from when people had an interest in 'studio' parks.

 

[dweezil78]

Agree with everything but the idea that it was ever distinguishable from Disney. Ever since Toy Story the Pixar movies have had the Disney castle logo at the beginning of their films. Obviously they're distinguishable from the classic Disney movies in their content, but it'd be very easy to mistake them as Disney movies even before they were purchased by the company. Now, though, the content of Disney movies like Zootopia and Wreck-It Ralph really feel more in line with Pixar movies which makes it only harder to distinguish the two.

As someone who was actually alive when these movies came out, I'd like to respectfully disagree. I was in high school when Toy Story 1 came out, and even then, we all knew Pixar was something very special.

 

[dweezil78]

As a throwback, to show that there was enough of a fanbase for Pixar-specific films, take a look at how they were marketing something like Wall-E (back in 2007) in the teaser trailer --

 

[TROR]

As someone who was actually alive when these movies came out, I'd like to respectfully disagree. I was in high school when Toy Story 1 came out, and even then, we all knew Pixar was something very special.

As someone who was actually alive when these movies came out (at least from a bug's life onward), I'm sticking with my point. While I always knew Peter Pan and Toy Story were two separate things, I still always viewed them both equally under the Disney umbrella.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

In addition to the reasons stated, I believe GMR also closed because it contained movies and characters Disney doesn't own. I imagine they didn't want to continue to pay licensing fees to promote products of their competitors.

 

[dweezil78]

As someone who was actually alive when these movies came out (at least from a bug's life onward), I'm sticking with my point. While I always knew Peter Pan and Toy Story were two separate things, I still always viewed them both equally under the Disney umbrella.

Then we'll agree to disagree. With Disney being the data driven company they are today, I would tell you Pixar Fest would never have happened if the stats weren't there to show that Pixar is indeed a beloved brand though. As you are among the quickest to point out, they are not a company who takes a lot of risks today.

 

[TROR]

Then we'll agree to disagree. With Disney being the data driven company they are today, I would tell you Pixar Fest would never have happened if the stats weren't there to show that Pixar is indeed a beloved brand though. As you are among the quickest to point out, they are not a company who takes a lot of risks today.

But I'm not disagreeing with that. Just saying I've always viewed it as a part of Disney even before it was acquired.

 

[Professortango1]

As someone who was actually alive when these movies came out, I'd like to respectfully disagree. I was in high school when Toy Story 1 came out, and even then, we all knew Pixar was something very special.

Pixar was special, but it was still seen as attached to Disney. It was a Disney brand before it officially became a Disney brand.

 

[TragicMike]

I think more people would confuse a Disney film as Pixar before they'd confuse a Pixar film as a Disney film if you were to tell people there's a distinction. Most people probably think of a high quality computer animated film when they think of Pixar (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, Monsters Inc.) and classic animation/princess movies for Disney. This is where'd they probably confuse Zootopia and Wreck-It-Ralph as Pixar films. I think Moana and Frozen follow the Disney formula enough to distinguish themselves as "Princess Disney movies."

 

[SteamboatJoe]

I think the Pixar-Disney distinction really started to become blurred when Disney Animation started producing it's own full length CGI films in 2000.

 

[TROR]

I think more people would confuse a Disney film as Pixar before they'd confuse a Pixar film as a Disney film if you were to tell people there's a distinction. Most people probably think of a high quality computer animated film when they think of Pixar (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, Monsters Inc.) and classic animation/princess movies for Disney. This is where'd they probably confuse Zootopia and Wreck-It-Ralph as Pixar films. I think Moana and Frozen follow the Disney formula enough to distinguish themselves as "Princess Disney movies."

Definitely a fair point. I've even heard some say Frozen is a Pixar movie...

 

[shortstop]

Bring back traditional animation please

 

[lazyboy97o]

I seriously cannot believe that the brand identity of Pixar is in doubt. For a time Pixar was popularly synonymous with computer animated films. The post-acquisition branding of Disney-Pixar was all about making sure the goodwill of the Pixar brand was reflected onto Disney, which was killing its own brand with ill conceived films and sequels not based on telling a good story (just like Pixar Pier).

 

[Professortango1]

I seriously cannot believe that the brand identity of Pixar is in doubt. For a time Pixar was popularly synonymous with computer animated films. The post-acquisition branding of Disney-Pixar was all about making sure the goodwill of the Pixar brand was reflected onto Disney, which was killing its own brand with ill conceived films and sequels not based on telling a good story (just like Pixar Pier).

I don't believe people are saying Pixar wasn't a brand. What people are saying is that brand has always been linked to Disney in the public's consciousness. I knew Toy Story was Pixar, but I also knew it was Disney.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

I seriously cannot believe that the brand identity of Pixar is in doubt. For a time Pixar was popularly synonymous with computer animated films. The post-acquisition branding of Disney-Pixar was all about making sure the goodwill of the Pixar brand was reflected onto Disney, which was killing its own brand with ill conceived films and sequels not based on telling a good story (just like Pixar Pier).

But it never was originally seen or marketed as a independent standalone brand. On the VHS release of Toy Story (1996), it is Disney's name above the film title. Pixar is relegated to the bottom right corner.

Disney capitalized on Toy Story's success from the beginning in the parks as well. I don't know about DL but within a year of it's release, MGM had a Pizza Planet and a Toy Story parade. The parade may have even debuted when the movie came out in November of '95.