News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier

Curious Constance

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
I understand the lure of synergy to a businessman. Hey let's ride the new Star Wars ride and because we loved it so much, let's buy a T-shirt afterwards. Then when vacation is over and we go to Target, we'll see something Star Wars and all those good family vacation memories will spring up and we'll be more likely to buy something Star Wars there. Then when the new movie comes out, we'll want to go see that probably too. And on and on and on. It's really genius when you think about it. Not so much for the fans who want to go to the parks and not have to feel like you're just going on one movie ride after another. Especially when you're like me and kinda getting tired and bored of Hollywood in general. Most of Hollywood is a reboot or based on a book. There is almost no originality there either.

I've always like Marvel, but how many times can I watch superheroes beat each other up before my eyes start to glaze over?
 
Stevek

Stevek

Well-Known Member
Dr. Hans Reinhardt said:
That would be great, but synergy is a powerful thing, therefore I wouldn't expect that to happen when leadership changes.
Click to expand...
I don't expect anything different either. While I do think that a great, non IP attraction will still resonate with guests (Mystic Manor would be a home run), I also believe that Disney is firmly in the IP camp at US parks. I don't believe there is anything to make them believe that going away from this strategy would be a good thing...just look at how long the lines are to ride Frozen Ever After. Yes, I know Soarin' (non-IP) is incredibly popular and you would think that would make them understand that it's not about the IP, it's about the experience. I just think they feel the experience resonates better with guests when it's characters they know and love.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
mickEblu said:
Metrics Schmetrix. Build something great and they will come. IP or not.
Click to expand...
If it was your job to approve movie scripts but you aren’t really interest in movies, what do you think you are more likely to approve? Something that might work or the sequel to the hit?

choco choco said:
I disagree with this vehemently (not against you, but Disney's thinking that this is true). What data is there that IP drives merchandise sales and traffic? Did Disney do a study where they opened two attractions with identical budgets and creative teams, one based on an IP and one a totally original idea, and then do studies to see which one had longer waits, sold more merchandise and had higher satisfaction scores?
Click to expand...
The metrics most definitely exist, but they miss the referential nature of language. Even an original attraction will initially be described by referencing existing works.
 
mickEblu

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
If it was your job to approve movie scripts but you aren’t really interest in movies, what do you think you are more likely to approve? Something that might work or the sequel to the hit?


The metrics most definitely exist, but they miss the referential nature of language. Even an original attraction will initially be described by referencing existing works.
Click to expand...

Well I would need to see the scripts. How original and what potential I think they might have. Then I would compare them to the reboots and sequels on my desk. So in short, I don't know
 
Last edited:
nevol

nevol

Well-Known Member
HatboxGhostbuster said:
As Ive stated before...fingers crossed that whoever succeeds Iger will actually steer the ship back in the opposite direction of this and not take us further down the road where the parks become just living adverts for whatever happens to be opening that weekend.
Click to expand...
Agreed! The irony here is that box office returns are falling in the US. Movies are making most of their money on international box offices, and once enough modernization happens and enough people are in the western matrix, those too will be flat. So film studios/producers are looking at all these alternative secondary revenue streams because they can't sell a product anymore that nobody will buy. They want to sell merchandise, game licenses, theme parks. Theme parks are their lifeline, yet everybody acts like IP projects are saving the theme park industry. Really? Theme parks are being saved by what is essentially a vulnerable industry/medium? Theme park operators are being used, not the other way around!

It makes sense in a lot of cases, but at the same time, it really doesn't. WDW's parks used to mean different things and offer different products. Disneyland and Magic Kingdom basically limited IP to fantasyland. Studio parks were either pedagogical about movie making or IP-related because, movies. Now everything is about movies, and the only precedence for that are the Universal parks that had half the attendance of WDW parks. I'm happy they are investing heavily now, and I think investment+quality=revenue/visitation boosts, but in the bigger picture, we have a company whose parks were raking in 10-20 million visitors a year imitating a chain whose business model was raking in 5-10 million.

And all this panic about epcot, sure, it needs a face lift.. But it is also the secondmost visited park in WDW. Great Movie Ride was visited by40% of the guests who walked into Disney Hollywood Studios, more than any other ride there. And they are closing it when the park is already empty and replacing it with a Mickey ride?
 
Last edited:
Ismael Flores

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
mickEblu said:
The micechat article isn't really adding up. So it's going to be called Pixar Pier but Silly Symphony Swings, Goofys Sky School and Ariel (and possibly Mickeys Fun Wheel) will still be a part of it? Retheming SSS and GSS looks like it would be incredibly easy. Why wouldn't they retheme them?

Ariel can easily be placed in Pacific Wharf on the map but leaving the other said attractions with their current theme in Pixar Pier doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
A simple name change can fix that.

The whole land on the map can be referred to as Paradise Bay. The Pier itself would be a subland called Pixar Pier.

Actually think it would make better sense than calling the whole thing Paradise Pier. The northern end never looked like a Pier to begin with. To me it was a boardwalk that led to the actually Pier.

The original WDI really screwed up when they designed this area anyways. They had Paradise Pier and Route 66 on the north end.
For some reason they had a bridge with a prominent sign leading to the Pier but the Pier never ended. They should have at least added a waterway somewhere near the west helix to simulate that the Pier ended.
 
mickEblu

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Ismael Flores said:
A simple name change can fix that.

The whole land on the map can be referred to as Paradise Bay. The Pier itself would be a subland called Pixar Pier.

Actually think it would make better sense than calling the whole thing Paradise Pier. The northern end never looked like a Pier to begin with. To me it was a boardwalk that led to the actually Pier.

The original WDI really screwed up when they designed this area anyways. They had Paradise Pier and Route 66 on the north end.
For some reason they had a bridge with a prominent sign leading to the Pier but the Pier never ended. They should have at least added a waterway somewhere near the west helix to simulate that the Pier ended.
Click to expand...

Sure a name change can fix it on the map but the said attractions are obviously an extension of the rest of the pier, flat carnival rides adjacent to the water. What would separate the two "lands" aesthitcally or thematically? Other than Disney characters on flat rides instead of Pixar characters or a name change on the map?

Really the only part that looks like a pier is from the main entrance to Cove Bar.
 
Ismael Flores

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
True but I do think there is a subtle difference. The theme of the surrounding area. The area that is supposedly going to be Pixar Pier has maintained its wood flooring giving it the feel and look of a Pier.

At least that's how I see it.

The rest is just an extension of the carnival area flowing Into the boardwalk. Kind of reminds me of some of the areas in the east coast or Europe where they have a Pier with attractions and the carnival area extends into the boardwalk.

I do wish the Pier had actually had water on the west side. It would have emphasized the transition better
One thing that I think would help create a more definite distinction between both areas would be to move the zephyr.

I still believe they should use the helix for the Screamin queue and then move the carousel to where the existing queue for Screamin is now.

Once that is done, build a themed pedestal where the carousel is now and put the zephyr there at an elevated spot.
Remove the jumping jellyfish completely and then re do the northern area so that the one eating location next to goofy sky school is built along the waters edge. Add a roof seating area to serve for WOC viewing.

Tear out goofy sky scool and the Greek food eatery and build another enclosed attraction.

The whole northern area would be indoor attractions making it look like a real seaside boardwalk. The Pier itself would consist of all the open ride with one or two darkride including midway mania
 
Last edited:
mickEblu

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Ismael Flores said:
I still believe they should use the helix for the Screamin queue and then move the carousel to where the existing queue for Screamin is now.

Once that is done build a themed pedestal where the carousel is now and put the zephyr there at an elevated spot
Click to expand...

I like this idea.
 
Ismael Flores

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
They probably should look at some of the original art for Paradise Pier before budgets were cut. The Screamin queue was indoors and inside the eastern helix. The attraction entrance was near where the photo both is now.
The whole land had layering and was full of kinetic energy. Yes some of the rides were not something I would enjoy in a Disney park but the idea of a real full of life Pier was there. With a proper budget and theming even if Pixar they could really make this place look like Pleasure Island from Pinocchio fame
 
Last edited:
Ismael Flores

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
I think the major problem is that they are trying to fit things within the footprint of what is there now by simply adding some theming instead of saying

What needs to stay and what can be removed or moved and how can we better utilize the areas footprint.
 
D

Deleted member 107043

Curious Constance said:
I understand the lure of synergy to a businessman. Hey let's ride the new Star Wars ride and because we loved it so much, let's buy a T-shirt afterwards. Then when vacation is over and we go to Target, we'll see something Star Wars and all those good family vacation memories will spring up and we'll be more likely to buy something Star Wars there. Then when the new movie comes out, we'll want to go see that probably too. And on and on and on. It's really genius when you think about it. Not so much for the fans who want to go to the parks and not have to feel like you're just going on one movie ride after another. Especially when you're like me and kinda getting tired and bored of Hollywood in general. Most of Hollywood is a reboot or based on a book. There is almost no originality there either.

I've always like Marvel, but how many times can I watch superheroes beat each other up before my eyes start to glaze over?
Click to expand...

I've said for years that the parks primarily exist today as vehicles to push Disney brands, and this post neatly sums up why it's true.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom