Pixar Fest - Reviews and Thoughts, plus Soft Opening News

[DanielBB8]

“I would much rather Disney build great attractions that aren't tied to IP“

Did people forget that this was done spectacularly at Epcot and less grand at California Adventure. The heavy animatronic attractions at Epcot couldn’t last despite original storylines. DCA’s history lessons and poor landmark translations wasn’t that appealing either. So Disney has no choice but to revert to their own IP especially with collapse of corporate sponsorships. If Disney has to pay for it, the attractions have to be about Disney.

 

[Kram Sacul]

“I would much rather Disney build great attractions that aren't tied to IP“

Did people forget that this was done spectacularly at Epcot and less grand at California Adventure. The heavy animatronic attractions at Epcot couldn’t last despite original storylines. DCA’s history lessons and poor landmark translations wasn’t that appealing either. So Disney has no choice but to revert to their own IP especially with collapse of corporate sponsorships. If Disney has to pay for it, the attractions have to be about Disney.

With this line of thinking we would’ve never had Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, Big Thunder, Expedition Everest and so on.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

“I would much rather Disney build great attractions that aren't tied to IP“

Did people forget that this was done spectacularly at Epcot and less grand at California Adventure. The heavy animatronic attractions at Epcot couldn’t last despite original storylines. DCA’s history lessons and poor landmark translations wasn’t that appealing either. So Disney has no choice but to revert to their own IP especially with collapse of corporate sponsorships. If Disney has to pay for it, the attractions have to be about Disney.

Ugh...not this again.

Epcot's attractions could have easily "lasted" had they received the routine upkeep and updates they needed. It has zero to do with content.

Disney has EVERY choice on how to move ahead with their attractions. Unfortunately, Disney has a non-creative CEO who could give two sh*ts about "original content" and only seeks to up the stock price by going for easy softball updates. To call him risk averse (the opposite of Walt) is an understatement. When you think about it, all Iger has done to bolster the "Disney" brand, is acquire outside companies and then call them Disney too.

"If Disney has to pay for it, the attractions have to be about Disney". - That is simply not true. That is a reaction born out of fear of trying something different. It's laughable.

 

[DanielBB8]

Ugh...not this again.

Epcot's attractions could have easily "lasted" had they received the routine upkeep and updates they needed. It has zero to do with content.

Disney has EVERY choice on how to move ahead with their attractions. Unfortunately, Disney has a non-creative CEO who could give two sh*ts about "original content" and only seeks to up the stock price by going for easy softball updates. To call him risk averse (the opposite of Walt) is an understatement. When you think about it, all Iger has done to bolster the "Disney" brand, is acquire outside companies and then call them Disney too.

"If Disney has to pay for it, the attractions have to be about Disney". - That is simply not true. That is a reaction born out of fear of trying something different. It's laughable.

Laugh. Disney wants a sure thing and won’t deviate from proven formulas.

 

[DanielBB8]

With this line of thinking we would’ve never had Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, Big Thunder, Expedition Everest and so on.

Forget Mystic Manor? There are less of these and more non-IP failures.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Laugh. Disney wants a sure thing and won’t deviate from proven formulas.

And the proven formula is that they're increasingly OK with mediocrity.

 

[Kram Sacul]

Forget Mystic Manor? These are less of these and more non-IP failures.

You mean IP failures. I can think of a few.

 

[DanielBB8]

And the proven formula is that they're increasingly OK with mediocrity.

Epcot did end up with Mission Space, Test Track, and Journey into Imagination with less Figment. Still mediocre but slightly better than previous.

 

[SuddenStorm]

When you think about it, all Iger has done to bolster the "Disney" brand, is acquire outside companies and then call them Disney too.

I get, and agree with your point- but to be fair, he has also overseen a revival for Walt Disney Animation, and their live action film departments, DCA 2.0, Shanghai Disneyland, etc.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Epcot did end up with Mission Space, Test Track, and Journey into Imagination with less Figment. Still mediocre but slightly better than previous.

Haha, literally none of those attractions are better than what was there originally. But at least they weren't IP overlays.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I get, and agree with your point- but to be fair, he has also overseen a revival for Walt Disney Animation, and their live action film departments, DCA 2.0, Shanghai Disneyland, etc.

I'll give you animation (though that required buying Pixar) and Shanghai.
Live action has been nothing but sequels and re-doing their animated collection.
DCA 2.0 (outside of maybe BVS) has not really been anything to write home about.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I'll give you animation (though that required buying Pixar) and Shanghai.
Live action has been nothing but sequels and re-doing their animated collection.
DCA 2.0 (outside of maybe BVS) has not really been anything to write home about.

DCA 2.0 did significantly increase the park's attendance- I agree the park still isn't as great as it could be- but it's still much better than it was.

The redoing of classic Disney animation has been incredibly popular, and incredibly well done from a storytelling and technical standpoint. They're about as Disney as you can get.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

DCA 2.0 did significantly increase the park's attendance- I agree the park still isn't as great as it could be- but it's still much better than it was.

The redoing of classic Disney animation has been incredibly popular, and incredibly well done from a storytelling and technical standpoint. They're about as Disney as you can get.

Better than it was, sure (which isn't too hard since DCA 1.0 was terrible). But still without an identity and thematically incoherent.

And there is it exactly, the re-do's are "popular" aka, profitable. That's all they care about. Not innovation or originality. It's all about making that money. And yes, I know making money is important to a company, but it shouldn't be its sole aim, especially a creative company.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Better than it was, sure. But still without an identity and thematically incoherent.

And there is it exactly, the re-do's are "popular" aka, profitable. That's all they care about. Not innovation or originality. It's all about making that money.

I avoid DCA, and agree that it's a mess. I've argued that point extensively online. But Iger was dealt a lousy hand, and at a certain point, nothing short of a complete teardown + rebuild would fix that park.

Yes. They care about money. Disney has always cared about making money. The have an obligation to their shareholders and employees to do so. They still do original live action films (Queen of Katwe, Darkest Hour, etc.) but the fact is, in the 21 Century- these films don't make as much money as re makes and sequels do. It's where the pendulum has shifted, and Disney's remakes and sequels are as a whole, much higher quality than other studios.

The live action remakes have helped make those stories relevant to today's generation, which will do wonders for Disney's long term growth.

It could be argued that the Cinematic Universe was an innovation- something Warner, Fox, and Universal are desperately trying to replicate with limited success.

Iger is far from perfect. I wish Disney would find more of a balance between IP and original content, but they're supplying what the market demands and their stock prices are soaring because of it. Disney is dominating in all aspects of the film, vacation, and toy industries. They continue to grow to keep their brand relevant- and to pretend that Disney is creatively dead is absurd.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Would people enjoy DCA more if there was a name change/restructure of the story of the park?

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I avoid DCA, and agree that it's a mess. I've argued that point extensively online. But Iger was dealt a lousy hand, and at a certain point, nothing short of a complete teardown + rebuild would fix that park.

Yes. They care about money. Disney has always cared about making money. The have an obligation to their shareholders and employees to do so. They still do original live action films (Queen of Katwe, Darkest Hour, etc.) but the fact is, in the 21 Century- these films don't make as much money as re makes and sequels do. It's where the pendulum has shifted, and Disney's remakes and sequels are as a whole, much higher quality than other studios.

The live action remakes have helped make those stories relevant to today's generation, which will do wonders for Disney's long term growth.

It could be argued that the Cinematic Universe was an innovation- something Warner, Fox, and Universal are desperately trying to replicate with limited success.

Iger is far from perfect. I wish Disney would find more of a balance between IP and original content, but they're supplying what the market demands and their stock prices are soaring because of it. Disney is dominating in all aspects of the film, vacation, and toy industries. They continue to grow to keep their brand relevant- and to pretend that Disney is creatively dead is absurd.

Fair enough. You make good points.
I guess balance is what I wish they'd have too.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Would people enjoy DCA more if there was a name change/restructure of the story of the park?

A name change would be a good start, especially considering what's to come with Marvel.

OR, figure out a way to indicate that the "California" in the name is more representative of the park's geographical location and not thematic basis.

 

[DanielBB8]

A name change would be a good start, especially considering what's to come with Marvel.

OR, figure out a way to indicate that the "California" in the name is more representative of the park's geographical location and not thematic basis.

A name change would do nothing to fix the perceived theming errors or shortcomings. They are a highly expensive change that will only prove temporary. Disney is better off focusing on attractions. There’s only so much money to add new attractions, food, and shops. Suggesting California should be geography instead of theming is obvious by not associating the theme with history. Otherwise it seems like it doesn’t count. The Pixar Pier makeover with modern mid century architecture in combination with Victorian is a combination that some here find off limits. They are the prevalent architectural styles in California. They might not tell a consistent story, but the architecture fits in California.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Epcot's attractions could have easily "lasted" had they received the routine upkeep and updates they needed. It has zero to do with content.

No offense but this has to be one of the most naive statements I've read here in a long time. Disney is a $150 billion global media company. Content is literally everything. For better or for worse the resorts exist today more or less to shill Disney brands in every shape and form possible.

I fully appreciate why people are clinging to long held perceptions about Disney Parks and what they once were, but c'mon, we aren't even close to talking about the same mindset within the organization today that created Disneyland or EPCOT. TBH, it's not even the mindset that existed 5 or 10 years ago.

 

[Disney Irish]

No offense but this has to be one of the most naive statements I've read here in a long time. Disney is a $150 billion global media company. Content is literally everything. For better or for worse the resorts exist today more or less to shill Disney brands in every shape and form possible.

I fully appreciate why people are clinging to long held perceptions about Disney Parks and what they once were, but c'mon, we aren't even close to talking about the same mindset within the organization today that created Disneyland or EPCOT. TBH, it's not even the mindset that existed 5 or 10 years ago.

Or 20-25 years ago...