Rich T
Well-Known Member
DCA's new name should be Pixneyland.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Pixar Fest - Reviews and Thoughts, plus Soft Opening News
- Thread starter GiveMeTheMusic
- Start date
Disneylover152
Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about the DCA show, I'm talking about the new musical on Broadway in NYC.
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
I honestly had no idea what that ball is.
Disneylover152
Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
You mean 15 years of minimal investment and non-stop festivals aren't a good way to sustain or grow theme park attendence?!
MTBaymax
Well-Known Member
I’m gonna mention this again, and I’ll explain why. Instead of the fireworks show just randomly starting with the Ball rolling from the castle down the street (or elsewhere depending on viewing area), it should’ve been sent in motion by Luxo Jr and all his hopping. Not only that, but the Lamp be the narrative link throughout the show, beginning to end. At the very least, it would make things more fluid - to a point - and be the connecting force to all of these movies. (Not to mention, we all know they have more than full length features; they can spotlight a few of their lesser known short films too).
I can understand why there’s a SHARP divide between who loves it and who hates it (again, the finale is the only thing I like about it); however, if the guest scores match the suits’ expectations, we may not see the end. (Although, if there is a sequel, it should carry the late winter/spring season - this thing cannot carry summer)
Rich T
Well-Known Member
Oh, I know. Your observation made me think Pixney is a good name for what Disney-owned animation is becoming. And DCA is a park in need of an identity... even a bad one...
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
The Fireworks show is ridiculous.
When planning a Disneyland firework show, the first question in the first planning meeting will be "How will this integrate the Disney brand- both old and new- in the most evocative way possible?" And if the answer to that is "There won't be any Disney related stuff in it", the show should instantly be scrapped and revised.
When planning a Disneyland firework show, the first question in the first planning meeting will be "How will this integrate the Disney brand- both old and new- in the most evocative way possible?" And if the answer to that is "There won't be any Disney related stuff in it", the show should instantly be scrapped and revised.
TragicMike
Well-Known Member
I understand THAT point. I'm confused why you brought up classic literature. Are you saying only attractions of classic literature should be used for IP-based attractions? Is Indiana Jones not going to stand the "test of time?"
Disneylover152
Well-Known Member
I really hope Pixar Fest isn't coming to Disney World (although we are getting our own minor version of it with Incredible Summer).
It won’t, it’s too expensive
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
LMAO.
TROR
Well-Known Member
Disagree. Neither the 4th of July and the Christmas show feature anything Disney but still manage to poke at our emotions.
__r.jr
Well-Known Member
Okay everyone, pardon this slight deviation of the thread...
I brougt it up because Disney's interpretation of classic literature from their animated films is brought to life, again, into the real world this time by urban design, architecture and atmosphere one can actually step foot into. Those same characters, stories, themes and settings that transcend time is executed and reflected upon in Fantasyland in terms of style and aesthetics, cohesively and believably.
Pixar on the other hand doesn't rise to the same plateau. It's subjected to same scrutiny but ultimately fails because of its own initial encompassing design. When incorporated into the parks, they hold one or more of the following problematic attributes:
• Most Pixar properties (in and outside of the derived films) are portrayed in current contemporary times and places
• Most do not adequately support the theme or share any relevance of the area where they're located
• Most that do try to support the theme, doesn't fully commit or hold any convection regarding it
• Most conflict stylistically and/or conceptually with those areas to at least a moderate degree
• Most of them are not the cream of the crop in terms of immersion and/or innovation
• Most of the them don't really recapture the elements that made their films so special
Opinions on whether or not these are true will vary, of course, but I think it would make sense for someone who believes in some or all of them to be weary whenever Disney integrates Pixar into the theme parks.
Now, for context...
For much of their history, Disney creates 'lands' that were meant to evoke real time periods; to artistically show how real places looked, or would look. They aren't replications of any actual places, but they strive to convey impressionistic feelings for eras and places that actually exist (or could, in the case of Tomorrowland) in our temporal world.
To be sure, most of the 'lands' they create contains fantasy elements, but these elements work within the structure of the "story" being presented. This is why the 18th century Sailing Ship Columbia never quite looked out of place in a 19th century Frontierland; or why a 1920's fire engine seems to work on 1900 Main Street, or that a fictional Swiss-owned treehouse meshed well in an African, Asian and South American influenced Adventureland. The fantastic elements fit into the stories of the lands, and were executed realistically.
This is why placing Pixar elements into the quasi-realistic environments of realistic 'lands' is detrimental to our believing the fiction (what Disney touts as being called "immersed").
Like it or not, all the Pixar creations to date are, in fact, cartoons--artistic creations, to be sure, but creations that have no correlation with the real world (and please spare me the argument that Woody and Buzz can now be purchased as toys. That's far beside the point).
Placing cartoon elements into the quasi-realities destroys that sense of reality. All good, believable fantasy relies on a very thin veneer of reality to make it work. The Mark Twain is really a powered steam boat; Main Street is composed of actual shops, just like the real thing. Peel away some of that reality, and the fantasy begins to suffer. Off the top of ones head, Woody could make sense in Frontierland until you realize he is a star from a 1950's Western children's show. Woody's Round-Up is a typical exaggeration for dramatic effect perception of the Old West... It doesn't exactly have any correlation to an actual portrayal of an idealized 1800's Old West Disney intended to create.
One may perceive Fantasyland doens't share the same sense of grounded reality as the other 'lands' do but it does.
Fantasyland can be seen as an American's interpretation of European fantasy, legend and magic just as Adventureland is American's romanticization of fantasy, legend and magic of the world's exotic locales. Many Fantasyland IPs are based on public domain fairy tales and it's like Disney showing off their interpretation of said stories via films while also paying homage to where the stories come from using different architecture and music styles. Most of Disney's animated films at the time come from European fairy tales so they were filtered through American eyes when Disney made them and again when being placed in Fantasyland. There's its grounded sense. It maybe not be as blatant or obvious but it's there. And speaking of Adventureland...
Not at all but I'm glad you brought up Indiana Jones. Where Temple of the Forbidden Eye succeeds in theme, concept and execution most Pixar attractions fail to achieve on one if not on multitude levels of those principles.
On the surface, it seems like an archaeologist exploring and having an adventure in a 'land' that is inspired by remote jungles and locales that span multiple continents makes a for a beautiful combination. It does but the huge benefit of integrating it in Adventureland was in its inception was not tied to a specific bygone era. It is meant to be an American romantic interpretation of a collection of exotic locations containing touches of fantasy, magic and legend just without a time period allotted (somewhat like on the same merits of Fantasyland). Not that it needed one but Indiana Jones fills that "void" and does so along with not only checking off on other key principles but maybe even enhancing them: Theme, concept and execution.
They made it work without it feeling forced; they put time, thought, and effort into it. Some placemaking needed to be altered, the Jungle Cruise had to be edited but overall it didn't thematically or narratively compromise anything integral that was already there. Is it perfect? No by any means. Overly simple? Perhaps, but it stands as a testament of how IP (especially ones that Disney did not create) should be integrated within the theme established parks. With a full comprehension of both the IP and the park's 'lands' and overarching identity.
I brougt it up because Disney's interpretation of classic literature from their animated films is brought to life, again, into the real world this time by urban design, architecture and atmosphere one can actually step foot into. Those same characters, stories, themes and settings that transcend time is executed and reflected upon in Fantasyland in terms of style and aesthetics, cohesively and believably.
Pixar on the other hand doesn't rise to the same plateau. It's subjected to same scrutiny but ultimately fails because of its own initial encompassing design. When incorporated into the parks, they hold one or more of the following problematic attributes:
• Most Pixar properties (in and outside of the derived films) are portrayed in current contemporary times and places
• Most do not adequately support the theme or share any relevance of the area where they're located
• Most that do try to support the theme, doesn't fully commit or hold any convection regarding it
• Most conflict stylistically and/or conceptually with those areas to at least a moderate degree
• Most of them are not the cream of the crop in terms of immersion and/or innovation
• Most of the them don't really recapture the elements that made their films so special
Opinions on whether or not these are true will vary, of course, but I think it would make sense for someone who believes in some or all of them to be weary whenever Disney integrates Pixar into the theme parks.
Now, for context...
For much of their history, Disney creates 'lands' that were meant to evoke real time periods; to artistically show how real places looked, or would look. They aren't replications of any actual places, but they strive to convey impressionistic feelings for eras and places that actually exist (or could, in the case of Tomorrowland) in our temporal world.
To be sure, most of the 'lands' they create contains fantasy elements, but these elements work within the structure of the "story" being presented. This is why the 18th century Sailing Ship Columbia never quite looked out of place in a 19th century Frontierland; or why a 1920's fire engine seems to work on 1900 Main Street, or that a fictional Swiss-owned treehouse meshed well in an African, Asian and South American influenced Adventureland. The fantastic elements fit into the stories of the lands, and were executed realistically.
This is why placing Pixar elements into the quasi-realistic environments of realistic 'lands' is detrimental to our believing the fiction (what Disney touts as being called "immersed").
Like it or not, all the Pixar creations to date are, in fact, cartoons--artistic creations, to be sure, but creations that have no correlation with the real world (and please spare me the argument that Woody and Buzz can now be purchased as toys. That's far beside the point).
Placing cartoon elements into the quasi-realities destroys that sense of reality. All good, believable fantasy relies on a very thin veneer of reality to make it work. The Mark Twain is really a powered steam boat; Main Street is composed of actual shops, just like the real thing. Peel away some of that reality, and the fantasy begins to suffer. Off the top of ones head, Woody could make sense in Frontierland until you realize he is a star from a 1950's Western children's show. Woody's Round-Up is a typical exaggeration for dramatic effect perception of the Old West... It doesn't exactly have any correlation to an actual portrayal of an idealized 1800's Old West Disney intended to create.
One may perceive Fantasyland doens't share the same sense of grounded reality as the other 'lands' do but it does.
Fantasyland can be seen as an American's interpretation of European fantasy, legend and magic just as Adventureland is American's romanticization of fantasy, legend and magic of the world's exotic locales. Many Fantasyland IPs are based on public domain fairy tales and it's like Disney showing off their interpretation of said stories via films while also paying homage to where the stories come from using different architecture and music styles. Most of Disney's animated films at the time come from European fairy tales so they were filtered through American eyes when Disney made them and again when being placed in Fantasyland. There's its grounded sense. It maybe not be as blatant or obvious but it's there. And speaking of Adventureland...
Not at all but I'm glad you brought up Indiana Jones. Where Temple of the Forbidden Eye succeeds in theme, concept and execution most Pixar attractions fail to achieve on one if not on multitude levels of those principles.
On the surface, it seems like an archaeologist exploring and having an adventure in a 'land' that is inspired by remote jungles and locales that span multiple continents makes a for a beautiful combination. It does but the huge benefit of integrating it in Adventureland was in its inception was not tied to a specific bygone era. It is meant to be an American romantic interpretation of a collection of exotic locations containing touches of fantasy, magic and legend just without a time period allotted (somewhat like on the same merits of Fantasyland). Not that it needed one but Indiana Jones fills that "void" and does so along with not only checking off on other key principles but maybe even enhancing them: Theme, concept and execution.
They made it work without it feeling forced; they put time, thought, and effort into it. Some placemaking needed to be altered, the Jungle Cruise had to be edited but overall it didn't thematically or narratively compromise anything integral that was already there. Is it perfect? No by any means. Overly simple? Perhaps, but it stands as a testament of how IP (especially ones that Disney did not create) should be integrated within the theme established parks. With a full comprehension of both the IP and the park's 'lands' and overarching identity.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Back when lands had more thought and nuance behind them than, "You'll remember this from a movie you probably saw because we literally copied it shot for shot."
This can easily be summarized as contemporary theming does not count as theming even if not in Disneyland. Pixar is contemporary so incompatible with historical theming so cannot be in Disneyland and shouldn’t be in California Adventure either or any other Disney theme park since Disney should only do theming as narrowly defined.
Whether Woody or Buzz works in Frontierland or Tomorrowland, well it just doesn’t because fake or unreal. You have to trust Disney was always sincere about those lands.
Disneylover152
Well-Known Member
Disagree. That's like saying Mickey doesn't fit on Main Street because Mickey wasn't around when Main Street was created. Pixar can fit in certain lands. Example, UP can fit in Grizzly Peak with the Wilderness Explorer's camp. Star Wars is fake and unreal yet its in Tomorrowland. Most say ghosts are fake and unreal, yet they are in New Orleans Square.
Ghosts are real. I know because Walt shows up in my room every night to kvetch and moan about the Incredicoaster.
TragicMike
Well-Known Member
I think Walt would've moaned more about California Screamin' and Paradise Pier.