The Miscellaneous Thought Thread

[Consumer]

My list would probably be more selective than yours- but if we're talking overall representation I do agree everything here should at least have a T shirt or something for sale in the park.

The Adventures of Ichabod and Toad should be on there, unless we aren't counting it because it's two shorts not one feature length film.

While not Disney's best work, The Sword in the Stone should be on this list, if only because of how awesome it is in Fantasyland.

I have no issue with the Original Star Wars Trilogy and Indiana Jones Trilogy being represented in Disneyland. The Sequel Trilogy should be nowhere near the place.

I didn't include The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad or The Sword in the Stone because those movies aren't very good. That doesn't mean Mr. Toad's Wild Ride or the Sword in the Stone need to be removed from the parks, just that I don't think either deserves representation in the parks. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride is a success because the ride is good, not because the movie it is based on is good, similar to Splash Mountain.

I agree about Star Wars and Indiana Jones, and I would also include the Muppets and many of Pixar's earlier films, I just left them out because they're not really Disney.

 

[PiratesMansion]

As far as I'm concerned, if Disney made it, it's fine for Disney parks. I'd rather Disney focus on the actual themes the parks were designed with rather than shoehorning their properties where they don't belong, but I'm not going to be mad if, say, Raya, a character who headlined a Disney movie, walks around the parks or is integrated into the parks in a larger capacity in an organic and thematically appropriate way, even if I think that film is beautiful garbage.

And to go the other way and look at some of the older films, I'm not going to pretend that I love every single thing Walt Disney himself touched, or that is often seen by the company or consumers as classics-I have little use personally for Dumbo, Cinderella, or Peter Pan.

I've found that whether or not I like a film doesn't necessarily correlate with whether or not I like the attraction based on it. Despite my dislike of the film it's based on, I like Peter Pan's Flight quite a bit and consider it to be a quintessential Disney attraction; in contrast, even though I love the film it's based on, I don't find any value in Pinocchio's Daring Journey.

I am very tired of Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel in the parks, however. Not that I would evict Carsland, ROTR, or Star Tours necessarily, but very little related to those properties has had a positive impact on the parks, and it still feels to me like Disney is often the brand the execs are least interested in, or least eager to talk about.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I didn't include The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad or The Sword in the Stone because those movies aren't very good. That doesn't mean Mr. Toad's Wild Ride or the Sword in the Stone need to be removed from the parks, just that I don't think either deserves representation in the parks. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride is a success because the ride is good, not because the movie it is based on is good, similar to Splash Mountain.

I agree about Star Wars and Indiana Jones, and I would also include the Muppets and many of Pixar's earlier films, I just left them out because they're not really Disney.

A film's overall quality shouldn't necessitate it's addition to Disneyland if there are elements from the film that can make the park better. Unless the film is offensively bad. I'm sure there are stories and worlds that would be far more effective as an attraction instead of a feature length film.

Which of course is idealistic and not how it works.

 

[Consumer]

As far as I'm concerned, if Disney made it, it's fine for Disney parks. I'd rather Disney focus on the actual themes the parks were designed with rather than shoehorning their properties where they don't belong, but I'm not going to be mad if, say, Raya, a character who headlined a Disney movie, walks around the parks or is integrated into the parks in a larger capacity in an organic and thematically appropriate way, even if I think that film is beautiful garbage.

And to go the other way and look at some of the older films, I'm not going to pretend that I love every single thing Walt Disney himself touched, or that is often seen by the company or consumers as classics-I have little use personally for Dumbo, Cinderella, or Peter Pan.

I've found that whether or not I like a film doesn't necessarily correlate with whether or not I like the attraction based on it. Despite my dislike of the film it's based on, I like Peter Pan's Flight quite a bit and consider it to be a quintessential Disney attraction; in contrast, even though I love the film it's based on, I don't find any value in Pinocchio's Daring Journey.

I am very tired of Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel in the parks, however. Not that I would evict Carsland, ROTR, or Star Tours necessarily, but very little related to those properties has had a positive impact on the parks, and it still feels to me like Disney is often the brand the execs are least interested in, or least eager to talk about.

A film's overall quality shouldn't necessitate it's addition to Disneyland if there are elements from the film that can make the park better. Unless the film is offensively bad. I'm sure there are stories and worlds that would be far more effective as an attraction instead of a feature length film.

Which of course is idealistic and not how it works.

I suppose my greater purpose with this list was more to make a collection of definitive Disney movies. If you were trying to explain Disney to an alien, these would be the ones to pull from, hence why I considered it Disney's canon. Sure, Raya is a Disney movie, but it does not represent Disney movies the way Cinderella does.

Anyway, just look at us - three green crocodilians having a conversation on the internet.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I am very tired of Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel in the parks, however. Not that I would evict Carsland, ROTR, or Star Tours necessarily, but very little related to those properties has had a positive impact on the parks, and it still feels to me like Disney is often the brand the execs are least interested in, or least eager to talk about.

This perhaps is the most disturbing trend at Disney right now, and it's directly related to the fact that Iger played a huge part in acquiring each of those companies. Perhaps we should count our blessings that we haven't seen an influx of Fox properties in the park.

I'd chuck every Lucasfilm addition post 1995 in a second. The new Star Tours does nothing for me and I consider Galaxy's Edge to be a blight on the park.

Carsland is a perfectly acceptable land and ride, though not among my favorites. But Pixar Pier and all the other nonsense they've done with the company in the last few years are of noticeably lower quality.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I suppose my greater purpose with this list was more to make a collection of definitive Disney movies. If you were trying to explain Disney to an alien, these would be the ones to pull from, hence why I considered it Disney's canon.

I think the questions it raises about what should/shouldn't be in the park - and in what capacity- is fascinating.

But I also think every Disney animated film since The Lion King has fallen short, though some are more entertaining than others.

Sure, Raya is a Disney movie, but it does not represent Disney movies the way Cinderella does.

It's also just really easy to forget Raya exists, let alone the fact that the same studio that produced Tangled created it.

Anyway, just look at us - three green crocodilians having a conversation on the internet.

LOL

 

[mickEblu]

If I were tasked to make a list of the Disney canon, this would be my list:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Pinocchio
Fantasia
Dumbo
Bambi
Cinderella
Alice in Wonderland
Lady and the Tramp
Peter Pan
Sleeping Beauty
One Hundred and One Dalmatians
Mary Poppins
The Jungle Book
Robin Hood
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
The Lion King
Pocahontas
Hercules
Mulan
Tarzan
Lilo and Stitch
The Princess and the Frog
Tangled
Frozen
Moana

These are the only movies that are deserving of representation within Disneyland. I'm sure many would disagree, but I don't care because I'm right. If you don't see your favorite Disney movie on this list it's because your favorite movie actually sucks and isn't that good.

Very close to my list but I think if Pocahontas and Mulan deserve to be there then so does Hunchback. I also think the first Wreck it Ralph was pretty good even if it’s feels more like a Pixar movie. Not a huge fan of Tarzan aside from the soundtrack. Lilo and Stitch while fine, kind of feels more like a long Saturday morning cartoon or Disney Channel special.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I suppose my greater purpose with this list was more to make a collection of definitive Disney movies. If you were trying to explain Disney to an alien, these would be the ones to pull from, hence why I considered it Disney's canon. Sure, Raya is a Disney movie, but it does not represent Disney movies the way Cinderella does.

Anyway, just look at us - three green crocodilians having a conversation on the internet.

I suppose that's fair re: Raya vs. Cinderella.

But Sir, I am not a crocodile, I am Pete's Dragon, as seen in Tokyo's Dreamlights parade. Yet another bad film that has had a positive impact on the parks, IMO.

This perhaps is the most disturbing trend at Disney right now, and it's directly related to the fact that Iger played a huge part in acquiring each of those companies. Perhaps we should count our blessings that we haven't seen an influx of Fox properties in the park.

It reeks of his personal insecurity with what should be the core brand.

I'd chuck every Lucasfilm addition post 1995 in a second. The new Star Tours does nothing for me and I consider Galaxy's Edge to be a blight on the park.

Carsland is a perfectly acceptable land and ride, though not among my favorites. But Pixar Pier and all the other nonsense they've done with the company in the last few years are of noticeably lower quality.

GE is at least cut off from the core of the park and you have to seek it out-there aren't even signs for it. I found it very easy to ignore this past summer and I wasn't even doing it on purpose. By contrast, you're going to see Pixar Pier whether you want to or not.

Very close to my list but I think if Pocahontas and Mulan deserve to be there then so does Hunchback.

Hunchback 100% deserves to be there.

 

[Consumer]

Carsland is a perfectly acceptable land and ride, though not among my favorites. But Pixar Pier and all the other nonsense they've done with the company in the last few years are of noticeably lower quality.

Radiator Springs Racers is a strong attraction, but Cars Land all ought to be scrapped in favor of a midcentury small town with a focus on diners and hot rods.

Very close to my list but I think if Pocahontas and Mulan deserve to be there then so does Hunchback. I also think the first Wreck it Ralph was pretty good even if it’s feels more like a Pixar movie. Not a huge fan of Tarzan aside from the soundtrack. Lilo and Stitch while fine, kind of feels more like a long Saturday morning cartoon or Disney Channel special.

Great comment. I share all the same thoughts but Hunchback's an overall forgotten movie and the others are more fondly remembered by the general population, even though I don't particularly love any of them.

I suppose that's fair re: Raya vs. Cinderella.

But Sir, I am not a crocodile, I am Pete's Dragon, as seen in Tokyo's Dreamlights parade. Yet another bad film that has had a positive impact on the parks, IMO.

Are dragons not crocodilians? The one at Disneyland Paris certainly has crocodile like features.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I've never seen Pocahontas or Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I've also never seen Princess and the Frog, I was a teenager when it came out and was 'too cool' for princess movies at the time. Now I'm not seeing it because it contributed to the removal of my favorite ride, though I'm sure it's a perfectly fine animated film and better than most of what WDA has put out in the last 20 years.

 

[SuddenStorm]

GE is at least cut off from the core of the park and you have to seek it out-there aren't even signs for it. I found it very easy to ignore this past summer and I wasn't even doing it on purpose. By contrast, you're going to see Pixar Pier whether you want to or not.

This is true inside the park, but driving it the backside of GE is visible to every person parking at Mickey and Friends. Little care was taken to make the rockwork convincing from all angles- it's poor show.

 

[Consumer]

I've never seen Pocahontas or Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I've also never seen Princess and the Frog, I was a teenager when it came out and was 'too cool' for princess movies at the time. Now I'm not seeing it because it contributed to the removal of my favorite ride, though I'm sure it's a perfectly fine animated film and better than most of what WDA has put out in the last 20 years.

That's how I feel about Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. I would have seen that movie in theaters had it not been the reason Tower of Terror was obliterated.

 

[SuddenStorm]

That's how I feel about Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. I would have seen that movie in theaters had it not been the reason Tower of Terror was obliterated.

Too be fair, while fun films- Vol. 2 and Vol. 3 are skippable. The first one was far and away the best.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I've never seen Pocahontas or Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Pocahontas isn't worth seeking out IMO and is painfully dull, but Hunchback is a fascinating case study. It's Disney trying to do a more adult story-and somehow getting away with a G rating!-and actually succeeding much of the time. But then it gets insecure and kidifies its story with the Gargoyles and those parts of the film just don't work at all. The songs and animation are largely stunning throughout, and it's definitely one of Menken's best scores. It's the highest of highs and the lowest of lows of the Disney Renaissance all within one film. It's flawed, but the parts of it that work really, really work.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Pocahontas isn't worth seeking out IMO and is painfully dull, but Hunchback is a fascinating case study. It's Disney trying to do a more adult story-and somehow getting away with a G rating!-and actually succeeding much of the time. But then it gets insecure and kidifies its story with the Gargoyles and those parts of the film just don't work at all. The songs and animation are largely stunning throughout, and it's definitely one of Menkin's best scores. It's the highest of highs and the lowest of lows of the Disney Renaissance all within one film. It's flawed, but the parts of it that work really, really work.

You know- I might have to give it a watch at some point.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

You know- I might have to give it a watch at some point.

Hunchback is my favorite Disney animated feature! That doesn't mean it's the best, but it's really a fantastic film. I'm so glad it exists—it is mindboggling that Disney has a movie with such religious motifs and messaging (God Help the Outcasts alone is an example of this).

If they had rethemed Splash Mountain to Hunchback, I would have been okay with it. It wouldn't have made any sense, but Hunchback is my weakness.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I've never seen Pocahontas or Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I've also never seen Princess and the Frog, I was a teenager when it came out and was 'too cool' for princess movies at the time. Now I'm not seeing it because it contributed to the removal of my favorite ride, though I'm sure it's a perfectly fine animated film and better than most of what WDA has put out in the last 20 years.

Pocahontas is painfully boring and it rubs me the wrong way with how it inaccurately paints the story of a real person that existed. An overall terrible film that really doesn’t have any redeeming qualities.

Hunchback and PatF are “fine”. They are perfectly acceptable mid tier Disney films. But I don’t really feel the need to watch them again.

 

[Consumer]

Pocahontas is painfully boring and it rubs me the wrong way with how it inaccurately paints the story of a real person that existed. An overall terrible film that really doesn’t have any redeeming qualities.

Hunchback and PatF are “fine”. They are perfectly acceptable mid tier Disney films. But I don’t really feel the need to watch them again.

Amazing how the response to Pocahontas has shifted over the past several years. A decade ago it was still a well liked film for its representation, messaging, animation, and music. Yes, it's inaccurate to history, but so is Anastasia which doesn't receive nearly any criticism. Pocahontas is by no means a favorite of mine, but I find a lot of the recent pushback to be artificial.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Amazing how the response to Pocahontas has shifted over the past several years. A decade ago it was still a well liked film for its representation, messaging, animation, and music. Yes, it's inaccurate to history, but so is Anastasia which doesn't receive nearly any criticism. Pocahontas is by no means a favorite of mine, but I find a lot of the recent pushback to be artificial.

I hated it 10 years ago when I watched it for the first time . I’m not mad at anyone that happens to like it, though if someone is a massive Disney Pocahontas fan and is virtue signalling about Brer Rabbit, they’ve got their priorities out of whack .

 

[PiratesMansion]

Amazing how the response to Pocahontas has shifted over the past several years. A decade ago it was still a well liked film for its representation, messaging, animation, and music. Yes, it's inaccurate to history, but so is Anastasia which doesn't receive nearly any criticism. Pocahontas is by no means a favorite of mine, but I find a lot of the recent pushback to be artificial.

Well, Anastasia isn't a Disney movie (despite the misremembering of many and the fact that Disney now owns it) and also wasn't about real groups of people still living in the United States, both of which explain why it hasn't, and will not ever, receive as much scrutiny as Pocahontas.

And less-than-positive feelings about Pocahontas aren't entirely new either. You can go back to reviews of the movie from 1995 and find plenty of disappointment with it even then.

There are some nice aspects of it-beautiful animation in which shades of blue and green dominate, strong vocal performances, etc-but it feels didactic to me in a way that other Disney movies don't. YMMV.