mickEblu
Well-Known Member
YES. This one boggles the mind. So with that in mind, did anyone really expect any group of fans to agree and nod their head with every change? Or just talk about how great everything is all the time?
-
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
YES. This one boggles the mind. So with that in mind, did anyone really expect any group of fans to agree and nod their head with every change? Or just talk about how great everything is all the time?
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
But the land already had brands and characters slapped on it. That's not dumbing down, that's doing the exact same thing. The lipstick is already on the pig, they are just changing the shade. If they improve upon the Screamin queue and put something where Maliboomer was, then it is an improvement. The land is ugly and empty. If the land is less ugly and less empty, it's an improvement. Plus, Pixar is located in California. Nothing wrong with California being represented with a Disney twist.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
It seems like people did expect just that!
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Aesthetics are important. No doubt. But they could have done that without renaming the land Pixar Pier and slapping The Incredibles onto California Screamin. Ask yourself this. Is this something they are creating to give the guest a truly entertaining and one of a kind experience or is this some half @$$ change for "political" (Lasetter needs to make up for the loss of Pixar IP somewhere) / business reasons that in the end won't drive business all that much because rethemed flat rides don't get people excited.
TBH I've never heard anyone once call Splash Mountain the Log ride.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
The suits want a reason ($) for throwing money at the park for beautification. Synergy is the easiest way to get a project approved. Want to fix up the pier, swap out the fab five for more financially successful Pixar brands and management gives it a green light. Its sad, but its the way it works. If the Pier improves, I don't care what they call it. Midway Mania is the best thing to happen to it and it makes sense to embrace that change to fuel more changes.
And I've heard Splash Mountain called The Log Ride manyatimes. Just like how people will call Galaxy's Edge "Star Wars Land" no matter what. Names are fun, but a lot of the general public doesn't take too much notice of them.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
You're reading too much into my comment...I was just being cheeky.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I get it. It's business and I understand the motivating factors in 2017. With that said, their business tactics are not why I became a fan of Disney or why I joined WDW magic. More to do with their classic animated movies, quality parks and attractions and Walt. I do try to see the best in every situation though so if there are some aesthic improvements and a future dark ride I will appreciate them.
The name Pixar Pier is just so tacky though and reeks of corporate penetration (lol sorry couldn't think of a better word at the moment) I don't mind really any of the superficial changes. I just think the name sucks and changing the park icon (not confirmed) and Rehtheming Screamin to the Incredibles are dumb.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Haha sorry. It was kind of an overarching post for anyone who has ever used that line.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
All good... It does fit the journey of a project like GotG, for example, rather well though I think!
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
I'll have to wait until I see concept art or hear more about the rethemes before I can begin to judge. Right now, there's just rumors floating in the air.
I get it. That's why I cringe when I see Disney World call their ride Toy Story Mania rather than Midway Mania. Plus, I am a fan of alliteration.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Haha yeah that's better. Although, personally, I was pretty consistent throughout The entire project and would like to think I presented balanced and logical reasoning why I was against it. In the end, it's a fun ride but not a better experience than TOT. My one surprise after riding GOTG is that I found TOT to be more thrilling.
Ismael Flores
Well-Known Member
I am not really sure about this change myself but hoping that whatever they have in mind fixes parts of the pier that were left untouched or that they fix the parts that had minor updates done from opening day.
This Pixar theme does seem a bit off in Design but I do think they did a great job in Tokyo Disney when they integrated the Midway Mania section. Not only did they capture the heart of the Toy Story characters but they were also able to maintain the theme of the American waterfront and a themed carnival pier seaside area.
I think that we might be able to see the same outcome here in DCA, just because they will be adding pixar themed characters i don't think that that it would destroy the theme of the pier but maybe instead enhance it.
Looking at historical pictures and documents of old seaside piers i don't see any one defining theme in any of them. These old seaside piers/carnivals had such an eclectic array of rides and themes all put together into one area. Creepy Haunted mazes, western shooting galleries, ghost trains, noahs ark themed play grounds, circus acts, mermaid themed dark rides and many many more themes thrown together.
I think that is what most people don't seem to understand when talking about Disney screwing up with the theme of the Pier and California.
In essence WDI can add any themed ride into a Paradise Pier area and it would still be within the theme of a Carnival Pier. what WDI has been doing and it seems like they will continue to do is add one element that marries all these themes together and that is architecture.
They started it with Mermaid and instead of adding the fantasy based facade they went with a facade that kept with the old architecture of the era. the same goes for Toy Story Midway Mania and the Paradise grill area. all slightly different in architecture to give each one their own identity but also different enough to remind us of the eclectic array of architectural designs used in these old seaside amusements.
with that said the theme of a Pier still looks like it will be maintained whether it has a Pixar character or an offbeat character that no one knows. In my mind I would tend to also say that this change in no way distances the park from the California theme. the park will still have a land based on seaside amusement parks would be found along the coast of the State with the exemption of having a unified character theme that is tied to Disney.
it is the same way that i see the whole of DCA's theme. A park with a main central heart themed to Los Angeles, Buena Vista (DCA's mainstreet) branching out into individual lands that carry unique themes but still have a connecting aspect that links it to Buena Vista Street. Grizzley Peak showcasing the national parks of the state, Paradise Bay with Pixar pier showcasing the eclectic amusement Piers of California Coasts and Cars Land a somewhat twist of the American car culture.
where i do have trouble understanding the reasoning in theming is when it comes to Bugsland. when that land was added i still felt it somehow fit with the theme because they maintained several aspects of the farming industry within the land. As years progress many of those props disappeared and the land just became an odd fit. If they do remove it and then integrate it into a much larger Hollywood themed land i personally think that it might work. If they could pull of a Hollywood land that has sub districts that can include Marvel, Disney and non IP brands it could make for a land that fits within the Filming Industry of Hollywood.
It will be interesting to see how WDI slowly integrates the themes so that they at least have one unifying connection within them. Something that i think they can pull of
Last edited:
nevol
Well-Known Member
I am all for placemaking and aesthetic enhancements; since the land was already a worst-of in terms of disney theming, it is a lateral move at worst (though unlikely), an enhancement at best (minus of course the oddity of rebranding the wheel, not opening that up again though). Given that PP is relatively flawed, it is easy to get over. Yes, other areas need more investment. Yes, it came out of left field, it limits how the pier gets used because it limits itself to pixar, etc. They could pull off everything they want to, and turn the pier into a Pixar counterweight to fantasyland, without calling it pixar. yes. But again, it isn't sacred, as we've all said a million times. and by keeping the Pier nomenclature, they are keeping the pier as an overarching environment setting. The lagoon stays, and the placemaking and architecture all grows out of and contributes to that type of place. It is easier to enrich with detail a location that has some reference in reality, so at least we aren't getting Pixar Place. By preserving the "Pier," they in essence are maintaining some commitment to the California theme (despite the pier looking a bit Jersey 
).
While I don't expect something like this, it wouldn't surprise me if this "administration" overreached here and started making mistakes of a Pressler proportion; the kind of changes that are permanent or take two decades to erase. Let's take a look at Epcot getting Guardians, and the Blue Lagoon restaurant in Paris (blue bayou) becoming Captain Jack's. They took the blue bayou essentially and turned it into JOE'S CRAB SHACK. I hope they understand that some stuff is better without character tie ins, and with Disneyland being far less desperate than Paris' park (that resort has been bleeding money for most of its life and its on thin ice in the less-loyal European marketplace), we don't need horrendous stuff like that to take place. People would no doubt lose their minds, and others would no doubt just defend the company's decision making, as if being able to predict their operating logic is equivalent to endorsing said logic.
What Marvel will look like is truly anybody's guess. I trust Pappa Joe Rohde but I also know that they are trying weird things with the Marvel Theme Park Universe, like acknowledging the theme park's existence because Marvel takes place in our world, and therefore not really trying to create convincing standalone superhero universes. Does that mean we don't need a NY area to support marvel? Maybe that's a good thing for DCA's integrity, but on the other hand, every marvel ride existing in some museum or convention center within a theme park as a standalone thing doesn't really lend itself to a land extension or contribute to the park theme overall. Darn you P+R making us wait to find out more...
). While I don't expect something like this, it wouldn't surprise me if this "administration" overreached here and started making mistakes of a Pressler proportion; the kind of changes that are permanent or take two decades to erase. Let's take a look at Epcot getting Guardians, and the Blue Lagoon restaurant in Paris (blue bayou) becoming Captain Jack's. They took the blue bayou essentially and turned it into JOE'S CRAB SHACK. I hope they understand that some stuff is better without character tie ins, and with Disneyland being far less desperate than Paris' park (that resort has been bleeding money for most of its life and its on thin ice in the less-loyal European marketplace), we don't need horrendous stuff like that to take place. People would no doubt lose their minds, and others would no doubt just defend the company's decision making, as if being able to predict their operating logic is equivalent to endorsing said logic.
What Marvel will look like is truly anybody's guess. I trust Pappa Joe Rohde but I also know that they are trying weird things with the Marvel Theme Park Universe, like acknowledging the theme park's existence because Marvel takes place in our world, and therefore not really trying to create convincing standalone superhero universes. Does that mean we don't need a NY area to support marvel? Maybe that's a good thing for DCA's integrity, but on the other hand, every marvel ride existing in some museum or convention center within a theme park as a standalone thing doesn't really lend itself to a land extension or contribute to the park theme overall. Darn you P+R making us wait to find out more...
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I am all for placemaking and aesthetic enhancements; since the land was already a worst-of in terms of disney theming, it is a lateral move at worst (though unlikely), an enhancement at best (minus of course the oddity of rebranding the wheel, not opening that up again though). Given that PP is relatively flawed, it is easy to get over. Yes, other areas need more investment. Yes, it came out of left field, it limits how the pier gets used because it limits itself to pixar, etc. They could pull off everything they want to, and turn the pier into a Pixar counterweight to fantasyland, without calling it pixar. yes. But again, it isn't sacred, as we've all said a million times. and by keeping the Pier nomenclature, they are keeping the pier as an overarching environment setting. The lagoon stays, and the placemaking and architecture all grows out of and contributes to that type of place. It is easier to enrich with detail a location that has some reference in reality, so at least we aren't getting Pixar Place. By preserving the "Pier," they in essence are maintaining some commitment to the California theme (despite the pier looking a bit Jersey
While I don't expect something like this, it wouldn't surprise me if this "administration" overreached here and started making mistakes of a Pressler proportion; the kind of changes that are permanent or take two decades to erase. Let's take a look at Epcot getting Guardians, and the Blue Lagoon restaurant in Paris (blue bayou) becoming Captain Jack's. They took the blue bayou essentially and turned it into JOE'S CRAB SHACK. I hope they understand that some stuff is better without character tie ins, and with Disneyland being far less desperate than Paris' park (that resort has been bleeding money for most of its life and its on thin ice in the less-loyal European marketplace), we don't need horrendous stuff like that to take place. People would no doubt lose their minds, and others would no doubt just defend the company's decision making, as if being able to predict their operating logic is equivalent to endorsing said logic.
What Marvel will look like is truly anybody's guess. I trust Pappa Joe Rohde but I also know that they are trying weird things with the Marvel Theme Park Universe, like acknowledging the theme park's existence because Marvel takes place in our world, and therefore not really trying to create convincing standalone superhero universes. Does that mean we don't need a NY area to support marvel? Maybe that's a good thing for DCA's integrity, but on the other hand, every marvel ride existing in some museum or convention center within a theme park as a standalone thing doesn't really lend itself to a land extension or contribute to the park theme overall. Darn you P+R making us wait to find out more...
Great points. TBH This project doesn't mean nearly as much to me as the destruction of TOT. I can see some positives with the aesthetic upgrades and if we get a future dark ride somewhere. I'm going to reserve final judgment until we hear the fate of California Screamin and the Pier side view of Mickeys Fun Wheel.
Last edited:
vancee
Well-Known Member
BLAH BLAH BLAH! this happens every time when Disney changes something, all people do is complain.. Lots and lots of people complained about GOTG:MB, but now they love it. Same thing is going to happen with the marvelous Pixar Pier! I said this when people were complaining about GOTG:MB in the early stages, if you don't like it please don't come to the parks, and please cancel your annual pass. Less people I have to deal with in the crowded parks.
Oh, and when I said the same thing about GOTG:MB over at Micechat (don't come to the parks if you dont like change), I got an infraction point for some reason haha!
Oh, and when I said the same thing about GOTG:MB over at Micechat (don't come to the parks if you dont like change), I got an infraction point for some reason haha!
