Tiki Room, Dumbo, Tinkerbell and More: Victims of Shrek 4-D

[General Grizz]

The latest Universal Orlando attraction, Shrek 4-D, has some major spoofs off Walt Disney attractions and characters.

First of all, is a picture of a dwarf wearing a shirt saying, "I'm not with Dopey."

Next are two attraction posters that look nearly identical to the Disneyland versions (edited for theming, of course): Donk-O (Flying Donkey - spoof off Dumbo) and The Enchanted Tick Room.

Tinkerbell is a real victim. In the queue, there are several Hollywood-style footprints/signing. Shrek, Donkey, etc. are featuerd with feet and signature. However, a very pathetic and disoriented version of Tinkerbell's body fills the concrete.

Tink is later (in the show), nearly eaten by a frog (being stuck to its tongue) after doing a 'Disneyland' style introduction, splatted on to a map, and thrown across the theater, crashing into a light.

Kinda disturbing for the kids, I think! :lol:

 

[CmdrTostada]

Just be gald that there are things famous enough from Disney that Universal can make fun of. There really isn't anything famous enough from Universal to be made ffun of by Disney, except ET

 

[Katherine]

Originally posted by Turbogames
Just be gald that there are things famous enough from Disney that Universal can make fun of. There really isn't anything famous enough from Universal to be made ffun of by Disney, except ET

True but it seems Universal's really started bashing Disney.

 

[AdLibSean]

Sometimes I get so mad at myself for even getting upset at Universal's Disney bashing- but in the end, I laugh b/c if all they can do for comedy is to make fun of Disney- that to me shows a real lack of creativity- now THAT'S something to laugh about! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[BigNorm]

Originally posted by AdLibSean
Sometimes I get so mad at myself for even getting upset at Universal's Disney bashing- but in the end, I laugh b/c if all they can do for comedy is to make fun of Disney- that to me shows a real lack of creativity- now THAT'S something to laugh about! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree it is pretty pathetic how the majority of Universal's "in-jokes" have been at the expense of Disney. I like to think of Disney and Universal as children. Disney has the best toys, and Universal is jealous because their toys aren't as good as Disney's. It's pretty laughable.:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[AdLibSean]

Well put Norm!

 

[NowInc]

Thats the only reason shrek did so well at the box office...because of all the Disney Bashing (at least from what I have observed)

 

[blm07]

Some things arn't always about making fun of Disney, some stories have been around way before Disney made the cartoons. I do see that some has directly to do about Disney, but its just all for fun. People take Weird Al seriously, why not Universal? Its all just for fun.

 

[Timekeeper]

Devil's Advocate

After reading a few of the replies, I feel the need to jump in a play a little devil's advocate, or Universal's advocate, rather. (Let's be honest here, we are sumbitting opinions on a "Disney fan site" and contrasting opinions are probably in the majority on a "Universal fan site.")

I think that, although a family theme park, Universal has always been a bit more "grown up" than Disney. Attractions dealing with impending doom, such as Jaws and Twister, really aren't the type of attractions that you'd expect to find at a Disney park. Universal's filmography follows suit in comparison to Disney's. This does not mean that one is better than the other, just that the difference does exist on multiple levels.

In my opinion, Universal (in some cases) tends to do a better job of simultaneously appealing to adults and children. There seems to be more of a "balance," so to speak. Part of that balance is scripting a animated feature (cartoon) that appeals to both parties, or, more to adults. Looking at Shrek, there are jokes for children, and jokes for adults. Most of the children do not catch the adult-targeted jokes, so I don't think that children will make any significant link in the parodies and be disturbed by them.

The Enchanted Tick room, for example: Most people who know what Disney's Tiki Room is in the first place are probably adults who have previously enjoyed it. Children, unless very hard-core Disney fans, will probably not catch the parody and make the connection. Universal is able to make a worth while parody only because of the Tiki room's success. Univresal is not "ripping off" the Disney attractions/trademarks, but simply creating humor in the form of a few parodies.

Disney does not parody Universal's creations. This is not because there is a lack of Univeral works, but because it's just not Disney's style. Universal (park) has, from day one, taken a "we don't have to be nice to you here, this isn't Disney" [jokingly] as part of their "style."

The point here is, there is nothing wrong with parody. In fact, federal law allows parody as a specific exception to copyright. We all enjoy parody. How many of us watch Saturday Night Live, a show almost entirely devoted to parody? Not to mention endless other sources of parody humor.

We - the Disney fan site posters - only have a "problem" with Shrek 4D's parody because it points at Disney. At the same time, we don't seem to have much of a problem with the countless other sources at with Shrek 4D's points at in parody.

:sohappy:

Tk

 

[FlashStash]

Originally posted by NowInc
Thats the only reason shrek did so well at the box office...because of all the Disney Bashing (at least from what I have observed)

Hehee, that's about the most ridiculous thing I've heard...

It did well becuase it was a good, fun, original, creative movie with a unique story, and didn't resort to cutsey songs and singing animals, and it appealed to both adults AND kids. But you keep living in your Fantasyland
FS

 

[kennyj29]

It did well becuase it was a good, fun, original, creative movie with a unique story,

Shrek was a fun movie and I enjoyed it. But I'll take cutsy music and living in a fantasy world any day over Universal. Don't get me wrong, I love Universal but if I had to pick cutsy over that, then I would. Disney is an escape from reality (fanstasy world if you will) and I enjoy it more than anything. I need it at least once a year. Other wise, I will take a day out to go to Universal, but not spend a whole vacation there!!!!

 

[tomman710]

Originally posted by FlashStash
Hehee, that's about the most ridiculous thing I've heard...

It did well becuase it was a good, fun, original, creative movie with a unique story, and didn't resort to cutsey songs and singing animals, and it appealed to both adults AND kids. But you keep living in your Fantasyland
FS

Shrek was many things but original, creative, and good were not among them. The main point being ... Shrek's first hour or so was trying so hard to distance itself from typical fairy tales or disney animated features, and it did, right up until the last fifteen minutes or so. Shrek's last 10-15 min was so painful to watch because they were shoving and pounding this moral down your throat. It was such garbage. Everything they were making fun of about Disney is exactly what they became magnified by millions. I don't ever remember feeling preached to in any Disney movie but Shrek's last 15 min was so preachy and agonizing to watch. Shrek tried hard to be different but in the end it was the same as everyone else, if not worse. If they wanted to keep in tone with the rest of the film and truly make an original, creative, good movie then Fiona should not have changed into an ogre at the end and they still fall in love or even better she should have turned into an ogre and Shrek rejects her. That would be a true parody of Disney films. So don't talk about how original Shrek is. It is essentially a re-tread of every Disney film.

 

[FlashStash]

Originally posted by tomman710
Shrek was many things but original, creative, and good were not among them. The main point being ... Shrek's first hour or so was trying so hard to distance itself from typical fairy tales or disney animated features, and it did, right up until the last fifteen minutes or so. Shrek's last 10-15 min was so painful to watch because they were shoving and pounding this moral down your throat. It was such garbage. Everything they were making fun of about Disney is exactly what they became magnified by millions. I don't ever remember feeling preached to in any Disney movie but Shrek's last 15 min was so preachy and agonizing to watch. Shrek tried hard to be different but in the end it was the same as everyone else, if not worse. If they wanted to keep in tone with the rest of the film and truly make an original, creative, good movie then Fiona should not have changed into an ogre at the end and they still fall in love or even better she should have turned into an ogre and Shrek rejects her. That would be a true parody of Disney films. So don't talk about how original Shrek is. It is essentially a re-tread of every Disney film.

Yea, and being just like a Disney film is what made Shrek the 2nd highest grossing animated film of all time People support quality with their pocketbooks, and the showed it with Shrek. Look at all of Disney's recent animated failures. People aren't interested in traditional Disney animation and storytelling anymore. Disney needs to hang onto Pixar, as that's the only thing in the animation dept. that they have going for them.

FS

 

[tomman710]

Originally posted by FlashStash
Yea, and being just like a Disney film is what made Shrek the 2nd highest grossing animated film of all time People show quality with their pocketbooks, and the showed it with Shrek. Look at all of Disney's recent animated failures. People aren't interested in traditional Disney animation anymore. Disny needs to hang onto Pixar, as that's the only thing in the animation dept. that they have going for them.

FS

I wasn't talking about how much money it made, I have a problem when people call it original, when it clearly isn't. However, box office doesn't mean something is a good movie. I think that was seen when America brought Kangaroo Jack to the number one spot of the box office in it's first week of release. Some people may like that but I think we all can agree it is not a good movie. Box office does not mean it's a good movie.

 

[FlashStash]

Originally posted by tomman710
I wasn't talking about how much money it made, I have a problem when people call it original, when it clearly isn't. However, box office doesn't mean something is a good movie. I think that was seen when America brought Kangaroo Jack to the number one spot of the box office in it's first week of release. Some people may like that but I think we all can agree it is not a good movie. Box office does not mean it's a good movie.

Kangaroo Jack opened in a week with no other good releases...it was the only thing to see and one week's box office receipts mean nothing. Shrek has the 2nd highest animated box office total of ALL TIME. I think that means a bit more than one week of Kangaroo Jack at #1. And the fact that 'it clearly isn't' original is your opinion. A heckuva lot of people went to see Shrek and had no problems with its originality. Disney, on the other hand, keeps putting out the same formulatic movies to theatres, rehashes its classics with lousy direct-to-tape sequels, and people aren't interested anymore, as the box office numbers for its recent releases show.

FS

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by FlashStash
Hehee, that's about the most ridiculous thing I've heard...

It did well becuase it was a good, fun, original, creative movie with a unique story, and didn't resort to cutsey songs and singing animals, and it appealed to both adults AND kids. But you keep living in your Fantasyland
FS

You should try listening to what people have to say. NowInc works with animation, and I believe he has had ties to Shrek in one way or another, so he knows what he's talking about. :wave:

 

[tomman710]

Originally posted by FlashStash
Kangaroo Jack opened in a week with no other good releases...it was the only thing to see and one week's box office receipts mean nothing. Shrek has the 2nd highest animated box office total of ALL TIME. I think that means a bit more than one week of Kangaroo Jack at #1. And the fact that 'it clearly isn't' original is your opinion. A heckuva lot of people went to see Shrek and had no problems with its originality. Disney, on the other hand, keeps putting out the same formulatic movies to theatres, rehashes its classics with lousy direct-to-tape sequels, and people aren't interested anymore, as the box office numbers for its recent releases show.

FS

Granted but again box office doesn't mean a film isn't good. First off, Shrek being unoriginal is not just my opinion it is FACT. Secondly, Lilo & Sitch did well but it didn't tear up the box office and that is a far superior film. Even Treasure Planet, which was an adaptation was more orginal than Shrek. It was a far better film and it didn't do well at all in the box office. I know Atlantis didn't do well but I can't comment on the quality of it because I haven't seen it. It looks more original than Shrek. My argument is just that box office doesn't translate into the quality of a film. I don't care how many people saw Shrek or how much money it made, it still sucks, it's still a lifeless unoriginal movie that completely bites everything off of Disney. In fact their producers should probably give Disney about 90% of their earnings because it wouldn't exist without Disney.

 

[FlashStash]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
You should try listening to what people have to say. NowInc works with animation, and I believe he has had ties to Shrek in one way or another, so he knows what he's talking about. :wave:

Even funnier! Just because someone works in animation gives them the credibility to say that Shrek succeeded only becuase it bashed Disney? Give me a break!

FS

 

[FlashStash]

Originally posted by tomman710
Granted but again box office doesn't mean a film isn't good. First off, Shrek being unoriginal is not just my opinion it is FACT.

Ok, I just realized I'm arguing with a child, which invalidates just about everything else you have said. When you grow up and can tell the difference between a fact and an opinion, maybe we'll talk. "Shrek is green" is a fact, "Shrek is unoriginal" is your OPINION! Want to know how to tell? Because people can argue that Shrek WAS original and disagree with you! Facts are 100% true, your statement is an uninformed OPINION...Give me a call when you're mature enough to realize the difference.

FS

 

[mkt]

here is your warning, tone down your attitude, or go and find yourself another forum