-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Rumor Stitch's Great Escape Replacement— Don’t Hold Your Breath
- Thread starter Magic Feather
- Start date
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
People complain a lot about Buzz, Stitch, and Monsters Inc. (I won't argue with that one, as much as I like the Laugh Floor) not fitting in Tomorrowland... but, come on, it's not like If You Had Wings, Dreamflight, America the Beautiful and Magic Carpet 'Round the World were particularly futuristic either.
DCLcruiser
Well-Known Member
If only the Tomorrowland movie did well. It had a chance of giving a real backs story and perhaps a cohesiveness.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
The tomorrowland movie was dreadful. Decent message, bad movie.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
“Immersive storytelling in our theme parks! MAGIC!!!”
Disagree. I love it.
But I also can’t see the appeal of Encanto. 
They really need to get back to basics. Sadly, most of the Imagineers who could help them with that are gone.
JenniferS
When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
Great trailer though.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
The movie had some of the best marketing I've ever seen, which made the actual contents of the movie that much more disappointing.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
One could argue CircleVision was a "futuristic" theater. (CV was inspired by the 3-camera/projector Cinerama of the 1950s)..
VJ
Well-Known Member
Here's where Alien Encounter went wrong.
Walt Disney had one overall edict for Disneyland, and by extension the rest of the Disney theme parks: to be a place where parents and children could have fun together.
AE may have been fun for the parents, but it terrorized the children not old enough to understand what was going on. That is why I think the attraction is better off in Yesterland.
Walt Disney had one overall edict for Disneyland, and by extension the rest of the Disney theme parks: to be a place where parents and children could have fun together.
AE may have been fun for the parents, but it terrorized the children not old enough to understand what was going on. That is why I think the attraction is better off in Yesterland.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
He meant fun at the whole park, not individual rides. Matterhorn was not a kids ride - aimed more at teens and adults. And many other rides - Space Mountain, Tower of Terror, etc - are definitely not aimed at children. As I said, if AE had opened at Disneyland, it probably would have been ok, as it is seen as a park for EVERYONE. Our MK, however, has a reputation of being a KIDDIE park, suitable only for families with children and nothing for teens or adults. True or not, thats the perception of the parks.
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
I'd disagree. How many opening day attractions had a height requirement? All of zero?
It wasn't, "I want everyone to have fun independently at the same place," it's "I want families to have fun TOGETHER"
I do think Alien Encounter has a place at parks today. They could replace the height requirement with a strict age requirement (like 14), regardless of whether parents protest and place it in H.S.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
Height restrictions do not automatically ensure it's ok for kids. And no, he didn't mean everything needed to be dumbed down to the least objectionable limit. There are rides for kids, rides for teens, and rides for older. AE would have been a hit at DL. It's our MK that has that image problem. Even locally I hear people say they'd rather go to the Studios because MK is just for kids.
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
???
That was entirely my point. Alien encounter had a height restriction. This was a design choice to prevent taking your 5-year-old on it, regardless if you wanted to.
My point, was that the height restriction didn’t prevent children from being traumatized.
What ride at early Disneyland couldn’t have been enjoyed by a whole family? Mine Train Through Nature’s Wonderland was a family ride, not the big Thunder experience it is today (also hilariously long title that mirrors the current ride-naming scheme that people groan about).
But in the first decade of Disneyland operation, Matterhorn is the only standout as not being fit for the whole family.
Having rides fit for kids, doesn’t dumb down the ride to the lowest common denominator, different age groups will experience various rides differently. It’s like watching Ratatouille, a 5-year-old can watch it, but it won’t have the effect as when a 30-year-old watches it.
You’re arguing that for entertainment to be suitable for kids, it has to be coco melon garbage. But Pixar and other studios, have shown content can be enjoyed by everyone.
It wasn’t until the Eisner years that he specifically made attractions less family friendly and geared towards teenage interests (like splash mountain and alien encounter).
TWDC has long abandoned the “I want families to have fun together” mantra. I ride far less rides with my elderly parents today than I did 10 years ago. They still ride the same rides they did a decade ago, but they aren’t riding Guardians when they would ride Energy, for example.
I see no reason why the issue of traumatizing kids wouldn’t be an issue at Disneyland.
The issue was that people were taking kids to the experience. There are kids at Disneyland. There may be a more general understanding that not everything is for kids, but that doesn’t stop the issue. It wouldn’t stop the issue at Hollywood Studios or EPCOT either. If a parent wants to experience AE without dumping off their kids, they can’t regardless of which park it’s at. So they bring their kid and ensure them it’s not that scary (maybe selfishly, maybe wrongly because they don’t think it’s going to be that scary). The only thing that stops that is an age requirement, which would allow AE to function anywhere. Selling alcohol at Disney World isn’t an issue because there are kids that could buy it illegally, because there’s an age requirement to sell it.
Since I’ve gone on a bit of a ramble to your silly response, let me summarize.
The parks were originally family fun together. They’ve evolved into a separate but equal fun scenario. The concept that experiences can be enjoyed by a plethora of audiences isn’t dead, as displayed by Pixar. AE’s primary issue isn’t the placement (may lead to slightly more or less traumatized children) but moving it without instituting some other child traumatization preventative measure. The Disney brand as a whole has been very concerned about breaking its family image. We’ve recently ventured into new territory where R-rated content isn’t buried in shadow studies and will be integrated with the main content and sports betting will be pushed by its primary sports platform. Walt’s philosophy, which has mostly been abandoned, absolutely was about family-fun together.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
That was a lot of dead air. No matter how much you blah blah blah disney didn not mean his park was going to be everything to everybody, Wasn't his intent then, Isn't their intent now. Dont bother responding.
Most of those were also free to experience or dirt cheap due to sponsorship.
Tomorrowland 94 was near perfection on both quality and thematic integrity. Buzz was a good side player.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
I would agree with that... there was a lot of style to the Tomorrowland 94'...problem is it was there long after the theme had kind of died... Losing AE and Timekeeper kind of changed the feel. Also the groovy-mod soundtrack in the queue at Space Mountain...all little nods to the theme consistency. the current Tomorrowland is just kind of a mess... Half-restored buildings back to the original gleaming white future...Not having a fantastic entrance to the land, just silver painted rocks, kills the theme that was once there. The entrance to Tomorrowland should have two attractions that tell the story of the land. Two place-setting attractions should not be impossible for a company that is all about telling stories... IP or not... and as we have seen, sometimes a non IP attraction can inspire further development like Haunted Mansion, Pirates Of The Caribbean and Jungle Cruise.
What does "Tomorrow" look like? Well I kind of think it is not silver painted rocks...they can do better than this.
and for the flagship park that WDW is, they should.
What does "Tomorrow" look like? Well I kind of think it is not silver painted rocks...they can do better than this.
and for the flagship park that WDW is, they should.
Disgruntled Walt
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Just spoke with someone in the know...I don't often claim this, but I actually spoke to someone with firsthand knowledge (see discussion of when TRON was going to open if you don't believe my source's track record). I've posted a couple of tidbits in other threads.
Something may actually be going in the former Stitch location in the near future. Could be promising, according to this person. Sorry, that's all I've got. They wouldn't tell me anything else.
Something may actually be going in the former Stitch location in the near future. Could be promising, according to this person. Sorry, that's all I've got. They wouldn't tell me anything else.