Rumors from abroad

[dxwwf3]

Disney is just a very different place today. The people of America are a very different group today. Not sure which this decision would reflect more on, but I just think it shows a downgrade either way. And please don't bring up the "Disney purist" argument that I was there for the original or anything. I went to Disney for the first time in 1988 at the ripe old age of 6. Even then, EPCOT Center was my favorite b/c of the sheer grandeur. Yes, I felt that as a very young chid. So, I am living proof that saying EPCOT was boring for young children cannot be absolutely true.

Great points. I even thought Epcot was my favorite park when I was young too.

 

[Pongo]

Disney is just a very different place today. The people of America are a very different group today. Not sure which this decision would reflect more on, but I just think it shows a downgrade either way.

This is very true. And I think we both understand that If Disney didn't change with the world, then we wouldn't even have one today.

I went to Epcot for the first time when I was four and also found it to be a very entertaining park. My favorite was The Living Seas and (strangely, at the the age of four) Living with the Land.

I was a weird kid.

 

[LoisMustDie]

you can say add it to MGM and give it a sort of "Sounds Dangerous" twist where it would have something to do with sound effects but... Monsters Inc. has NOTHING to do with Sound Effects! you'd just be stretching it too far.

Are you serious? MI is a movie. Movies have sound effects. Am I missing something here?

Actually, I think MI has the greatest potential as a sound-effects show than most anything else. Think of the possibilities.

EPCOT changes, Pixar is Disney's only supply of currently popular movies, deal with it.

Except Epcot is not the park where the popular movies have attractions. MGM and MK are. That's where they go...MGM exists solely for this purpose. It would be like putting Test Track in Adventureland.

Every new attraction is NOT based on PIXAR creations.

I believe everyone was subconsciously factoring in the Disneyland additions as well. With Buzz, Turtle Talk, MI, and Finding Nemo coming online by 2007, that will be 4 Pixar attractions in 2 years (at one resort, no less). Not to mention the rumored CARS attraction and Toy Story Frontierland expansion. So, actually, every new attraction at Disneyland IS based on Pixar.

The roller coaster comment was my own personal opinion that even this would be better than a tie-in that tries too hard and imports characters unnecessarily. If they could do an original ride that is family friendly and brings the message of energy, I would be absolutely all for it. Even if they had a character set that talked about how energy is REALLY gathered and used, that could work, too. Having said that, this is all very speculative because the "screams" or "laughter" angle came up here. However, I just agree that Epcot is the one park founded in reality and actual human accomplishment and understanding. This angle seems only appropriate for Imagination. To think there are no concepts to present something educational in a fun and entertaining way without, IMHO, unnecessarily relying on characters is very sad. I think the current version does a pretty good job of this, although it needs some sort of larger draw for the amount of time it takes.

*applause* Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Pongo]

I believe everyone was subconsciously factoring in the Disneyland additions as well. With Buzz, Turtle Talk, MI, and Finding Nemo coming online by 2007, that will be 4 Pixar attractions in 2 years (at one resort, no less). Not to mention the rumored CARS attraction and Toy Story Frontierland expansion. So, actually, every new attraction at Disneyland IS based on Pixar.

The original Buzz first opened in 1998, which is obviously more than two years ago. Also, I was only figuring in the PIXAR themed attractions that have opened in Walt Disney World in previous years. I was also counting Turtle Talk with Crush as part of the Finding Nemo overlay and considering the whole thing as one attraction.

But in any case, half of the attractions you mentioned opening in Disneyland are clones of WDW-original attractions. So they can't really be considered as "New," only "New To The Area." As for the CARS and Frontierland rumors, they are just like the rumor that started this discussion. They don't really mean a thing as of yet.

But my point of writing the original paragraph that you commented to was that as long as PIXAR continues to make successful films and as long as WDI continues to create successful rides based on those successful films, what do we have to worry about?

 

[Mimi]

I think they could easily make the energy tie-in work (like several people have already said) however, I must agree with those who mentioned the fact that the energy source in the movie is completely fictional and UoE is all about reality.

I think more in terms of fun.... Wouldn't it be great if they made a M's Inc. based on the scene where they were chasing after all the doors? That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the movie. They could make it low-key for the little ones yet slightly thrilling for the adults - a mini rollercoaster perhaps???

I agree that it would not blend well in fantasyland. I think it could fit nicely in tomorrowland where they could plug a bit about future energy possibilities.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

At the end of the day, it gets dark, a lot of attitudes o this concept and others are generally influenced by things greater than any concept for this single ride. Pixar, over all park themeing, general presentation have all shaped peoples viewpoint.

Perhaps, and this may be the basis for another poll/thread we could guage what is the general opinion of a fan (ie people that take time to use boards like this).

1. Is WDW becoming over Pixarised
2. Should Epcot be a knowledge based park, but with a fun element
3. Given the MGM situation should the oportunity be taken to make the studios be more "thrill" based
4. (perhaps the most contentious) Should attractions have a tie in or do they need a tie in(it seems to be merchandising driven) to help get them built
5 Should the Magic Kingdom retain the focus as the family park or is this something that should be a focus in all parks.

For me Id just like to see attractions that are organic in creation and not linked to any movie or character that could age and fade. And i quite like the idea of MGM being the focus for thrills while maintaining its original spirit, as i can see a guest base for thrills, but as a family man understand the varying needs of a group.

 

[stitchcastle]

Are you serious? MI is a movie. Movies have sound effects. Am I missing something here?

Actually, I think MI has the greatest potential as a sound-effects show than most anything else. Think of the possibilities.

sure but Monsters Inc. has so much more possibilities as a "movie" kind of attraction other than one conscerning sound effects. you could have a monsters Inc. attraction where the screams/laughter of the people are secretly being used to power up the studios. or you could make it that the monsters from Mosnters Inc. are the monsters being used for todays movie monsters.

Except Epcot is not the park where the popular movies have attractions. MGM and MK are. That's where they go...MGM exists solely for this purpose. It would be like putting Test Track in Adventureland.

Universe of Energy is tied in to Ellen, just not as blatant as it would be if it were Monsters Inc.. But it's still tied-in. Movies or not i don't really care much as long as they teach people something.

Test Track in Adventureland? It's a top secret GM testing facility hidden in the jungle. There it fits!

I believe everyone was subconsciously factoring in the Disneyland additions as well. With Buzz, Turtle Talk, MI, and Finding Nemo coming online by 2007, that will be 4 Pixar attractions in 2 years (at one resort, no less). Not to mention the rumored CARS attraction and Toy Story Frontierland expansion. So, actually, every new attraction at Disneyland IS based on Pixar.

you forgot the totally Pixar based WDSP animation backlot expansion.




If the Pixar movies were done exclusivley by Disney and in 2d, there wouldn't be that much complaints about these sorts of things.

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

If the Pixar movies were done exclusivley by Disney and in 2d, there wouldn't be that much complaints about these sorts of things.

I've disagreed with most of your posts in this thread, but I have to mention this one. Pixar tie-ins are not my personal issue with this whole thing. To me, it makes no difference if it's Pixar/Disney or just plain Disney...in fact, I prefer the Pixar/Disney movies over plain ole' Disney, so I'm more okay with Pixar being used. And I've even become semi-okay with movie tie-ins being used in MK, because they work well there. Epcot, however, not so much. Lion King show in The Land, ok. Living Seas w/Nemo and friends...eh, it badly needed an update, so that's better than nothing. But turning UoE into Monsters Inc? I don't buy it. I want the WDW Imagineers to be able to let their creative juices flow without restraint (and yes, a movie tie-in would create some degree of restraint). The only way I'd be completely ok with something like this is if they retained the same reality-based education level. I could understand bringing in familiar characters to bring it to a younger child's level, while still educating older people. But this could also be acheived with original characters, ala original Figment (amazing how many people connected so well to a character that could only be seen on an attraction...I've been looking for this same connection since original Figment "died", but haven't found it). If this Monsters Inc thing does happen, Disney had better do a kick A job with it...I'm tired of seeing classics being replaced with sub-par, often movie tie-in attractions.
Being Pixar/Disney or just Disney means absolutely nothing to me. I'd complain either way.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I could understand bringing in familiar characters to bring it to a younger child's level, while still educating older people. But this could also be acheived with original characters, ala original Figment (amazing how many people connected so well to a character that could only be seen on an attraction...I've been looking for this same connection since original Figment "died", but haven't found it).

This is one of the more interesting statements made, I think. I completely understand your point, but I think this may be the crux of where Epcot has steered wrong (or society has steered wrong, not sure which yet). When Walt was designing attractions (using this as a reference, not a Long Live Walt statement), he explicitly said not to aim for children. The reason: you bore adults and the trip becomes a chore. However, the solution to that is not to make attractions that have something for the kids and something for the adults like using childrens' characters to promote and adult message. Instead, it takes developing an attraction, story, ride system, etc. that can be appreciated by everyone. Look at some of the most successful attractions: Pirates, Mansion, the original JII, etc. They have are one cohesive attraction (each). It's not like children ride Pirates because they see Pirates and adults ride it to get some concept of historical pillaging. Every person developed their own personal backstory and understanding from their experience. There is no explicit, blatant story or moral. There is no "this for the kids" and "this for the adults" dichotomy. It's a great attraction because it creates a sense of wonder and challenges the imagination of everyone. Although I have not ridden it myself, it sounds like Soarin' is this EXACT type of attraction (although it has a limitation from a safety perspective, I'm sure small children would enjoy it just as much). I guess if you create something that is "interesting" and "wonder-inspiring," the total package, everyone will enjoy it, regardless of age.

I appologize for getting so passionate about this. It just hits a big nerve with me! :wave:

Oh... And, P.S. - Living with the Land (well, Listen to the Land to be technical) was my favorite too when I was very young. The reason I got my degree in Biology and went to work for Disney during College!

 

[Testtrack321]

You people are way too narrow minded. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the Universe of Energy needs something big and new to happen to it and that EPCOT needs more kid-friendly attractions. having Monsters Inc.'s plot of having screams and laughter be used for a source of energy; it would be ridiculous to not even explore the possibilities of a tie-in between the two.

you can tell them to put it in MK sure, but it would NOT fit in MK with all the movie's industrialized look and feel, it would certainly not fit with the renaissance fair look of MK's fantasyland.

you can say add it to MGM and give it a sort of "Sounds Dangerous" twist where it would have something to do with sound effects but... Monsters Inc. has NOTHING to do with Sound Effects! you'd just be stretching it too far. (Although there are many other ways you could tie in Monsters Inc. to MGM...)

EPCOT changes, Pixar is Disney's only supply of currently popular movies, deal with it.

Yeah, so every ride has to have a movie tie in? And explain how the hell Monsters, Inc fits in with current energy problems & trends, and I'll listen. What the hell happened to Epcot offering some EDUCATION in it's experience? I mean, we are going from TT and MS that offered some looks into their world and ideas, but now to Monsters Inc. I'd love to have someone explain how Monsters, Inc would allow for a ride to explore our energy problems, trends, and history and dosn't make it boring, then shoot.

 

[ead79]

This is one of the more interesting statements made, I think. I completely understand your point, but I think this may be the crux of where Epcot has steered wrong (or society has steered wrong, not sure which yet). When Walt was designing attractions (using this as a reference, not a Long Live Walt statement), he explicitly said not to aim for children. The reason: you bore adults and the trip becomes a chore. However, the solution to that is not to make attractions that have something for the kids and something for the adults like using childrens' characters to promote and adult message. Instead, it takes developing an attraction, story, ride system, etc. that can be appreciated by everyone. Look at some of the most successful attractions: Pirates, Mansion, the original JII, etc. They have are one cohesive attraction (each). It's not like children ride Pirates because they see Pirates and adults ride it to get some concept of historical pillaging. Every person developed their own personal backstory and understanding from their experience. There is no explicit, blatant story or moral. There is no "this for the kids" and "this for the adults" dichotomy. It's a great attraction because it creates a sense of wonder and challenges the imagination of everyone. Although I have not ridden it myself, it sounds like Soarin' is this EXACT type of attraction (although it has a limitation from a safety perspective, I'm sure small children would enjoy it just as much). I guess if you create something that is "interesting" and "wonder-inspiring," the total package, everyone will enjoy it, regardless of age.

I appologize for getting so passionate about this. It just hits a big nerve with me! :wave:

Oh... And, P.S. - Living with the Land (well, Listen to the Land to be technical) was my favorite too when I was very young. The reason I got my degree in Biology and went to work for Disney during College!

Excellent points! I agree that truly excellent attractions attract people of all age groups. Haunted Mansion and Pirates are excellent examples of this, as you mentioned. In Epcot, I think that Soarin’, Spaceship Earth, and Living with the Land are all good examples of this concept.

Add me as another person who visited as a child and liked Epcot the best. Spaceship Earth was and is my favorite attraction.

 

[Sorcerer1]

Very interesting rumor indeed. I am a WDW purist, but I doubt that i would miss this ride much. I think it needs something new. The only problem i have with this rumor, is where will i nap now when I'm at Epcot. :snore:

 

[marni1971]

The latest buzz was UoE would go down after WoL`s future is decided, but that the building would survive, the ride system would almost definatley surveve, and the diorama would probably survive. Gemini made no mention of Energy changing.

At least try to keep one park fairly adult orientated (I too loved EPCOT Center as a kid).

 

[dxwwf3]

The latest buzz was UoE would go down after WoL`s future is decided, but that the building would survive, the ride system would almost definatley survive, and the diorama would probably survive. Gemini made no mention of Energy changing.

Hey if this were the case, then I could handle any change that comes UoE's way. I am more fond of the attraction layout and the ride system than the actual show.

 

[stitchcastle]

Yeah, so every ride has to have a movie tie in? And explain how the hell Monsters, Inc fits in with current energy problems & trends, and I'll listen. What the hell happened to Epcot offering some EDUCATION in it's experience? I mean, we are going from TT and MS that offered some looks into their world and ideas, but now to Monsters Inc. I'd love to have someone explain how Monsters, Inc would allow for a ride to explore our energy problems, trends, and history and dosn't make it boring, then shoot.

The Monsters themselves are suffering from an energy crisis so they run over to epcot and try to scare guests into giving them screams to power Monstropolis. Then, someone from the human world would foil their plans and begin explaining to them how humans get their power. And to not make it boring, how about Mike and Sully providing comentary as you go through those dioramas and watch the movies. That's one way to tie them into the attraction without loosing much of its purpose....

I don't recall saying that every ride has to have a movie tie-in.

 

[nibblesandbits]

Yeah, so every ride has to have a movie tie in? And explain how the hell Monsters, Inc fits in with current energy problems & trends, and I'll listen. What the hell happened to Epcot offering some EDUCATION in it's experience? I mean, we are going from TT and MS that offered some looks into their world and ideas, but now to Monsters Inc. I'd love to have someone explain how Monsters, Inc would allow for a ride to explore our energy problems, trends, and history and dosn't make it boring, then shoot.

The Monsters themselves are suffering from an energy crisis so they run over to epcot and try to scare guests into giving them screams to power Monstropolis. Then, someone from the human world would foil their plans and begin explaining to them how humans get their power. And to not make it boring, how about Mike and Sully providing comentary as you go through those dioramas and watch the movies. That's one way to tie them into the attraction without loosing much of its purpose....

My theory is...IF Disney does decide to turn UOE into a Monster's Inc. ride, they would try to keep the "educational" feel to it...stitchcastle's idea is probably a decent one and I'm assuming that if the Imagineers were given the task to create a ride similar to the one he described, it would probably work. This way, we get to see the educational side that EPCOT is famous for, but we also get a "family-friendly" ride that everyone can partake in. (Not just the adults, ala Test Track and M:S.) Do not undestimate the skills of the Imagineers. (Although, some would say that lack of money is causing them to use less of their skills...but to those people, I say look at Everest!)

Plus, as a side note, I was TERRIFIED of the original UOE when I was a kid (and I'm sure other kids are probably terrified of this new version too) because of the dinosaurs! For that reason, I don't see how this is a totally "family-friendly" ride.

 

[AngryEyes]

The Monsters themselves are suffering from an energy crisis so they run over to epcot and try to scare guests into giving them screams to power Monstropolis. Then, someone from the human world would foil their plans and begin explaining to them how humans get their power. And to not make it boring, how about Mike and Sully providing comentary as you go through those dioramas and watch the movies. That's one way to tie them into the attraction without loosing much of its purpose....

Similarly, I think they could do the movies with Mike & Sully instead of Ellen, have them do the commentary, keep the lesson of the attraction the same. The only difference would be that a silly story of Mike & Sully needing to discover something more powerful than screams to generate power would replace a silly story about Ellen dreaming about being on Jeopardy. After discussing all the real energy issues, they discover that laughter is more powerful than screams and has none of the negative aspects of the fuel we currently use. Final message, they will use laughter as fuel until we can develop other useful, clean, and affordable energy sources.

I'd ride it.

 

[Master Yoda]

Plus, as a side note, I was TERRIFIED of the original UOE when I was a kid (and I'm sure other kids are probably terrified of this new version too) because of the dinosaurs! For that reason, I don't see how this is a totally "family-friendly" ride.

There is no such thing as a totally family friendly ride. Some are more family friendly than others (ie SE more family friendly than MS) but bottom line there are people whose phobias will not allow them to get on anything. My mother in law can't ride PoTC because of the drop, she can't ride HM or SE because they go backwards etc etc. IMHO if there are no height restrictions it is a family friendly ride.

 

[nibblesandbits]

There is no such thing as a totally family friendly ride. Some are more family friendly than others (ie SE more family friendly than MS) but bottom line there are people whose phobias will not allow them to get on anything. My mother in law can't ride PoTC because of the drop, she can't ride HM or SE because they go backwards etc etc. IMHO if there are no height restrictions it is a family friendly ride.

Very valid point.

I was just using the example of the fact that the dinosaurs were scary to some children b/c a lot of people seemed to think (at least how I was reading it) that UOE was a great ride to take the whole family on, when in fact, it could be a ride like Snow White in which there is at least a warning that children might be scared, or the HM where people (Ok, people with common sense) realize that the ride might not be right for their child.

I wasn't trying to say that every ride at Disney that is supposed to be family friendly is totally family friendly...sorry if it sounded like that.

And to bring it back to the Monster's Inc. idea, I think that if it were similar to the ride described above, then it would have less of a chance to scare little children. (Or adults who are afraid of dinosaurs... :lookaroun )

 

[Master Yoda]

Very valid point.

I was just using the example of the fact that the dinosaurs were scary to some children b/c a lot of people seemed to think (at least how I was reading it) that UOE was a great ride to take the whole family on, when in fact, it could be a ride like Snow White in which there is at least a warning that children might be scared, or the HM where people (Ok, people with common sense) realize that the ride might not be right for their child.

I wasn't trying to say that every ride at Disney that is supposed to be family friendly is totally family friendly...sorry if it sounded like that.

And to bring it back to the Monster's Inc. idea, I think that if it were similar to the ride described above, then it would have less of a chance to scare little children. (Or adults who are afraid of dinosaurs... :lookaroun )

I agree not ever ride needs to be of the family friendly ilk...a few more would be nice but thrills are an important part of the WDW experience.