phillipsa9 said:
I don't have any issues with pixar theming, but was MI even that popular? I think it was the least successful of all of the pixar movies, right? Just curious...
Monsters, Inc. grossed $255 million in the US in 2001, not counting its brisk DVD sales, which is a very good gross. To put it in perspective:
Toy Story (1995): $191 million
A Bug's Life (1998): $162 million
Toy Story 2 (1999): $245 million
Finding Nemo (2003): $339 million
The Incredibles (2004): $261 million
So Monsters Inc. was a very big money earner, earning about the same, when adjusted for inflation, as every Pixar movie except for the phenomenally successful Finding Nemo. A Bug's Life seems to be the weak link here, yet that has not prevented it from spawning two clone attractions in Florida and California (although It's Tough to Be a Bug opened a bit before the movie did, so it was a gamble).
Plus Monsters Inc. has proven to be popular for reasons beyond what the numbers would say, as those characters and voices, especially Billy Crystal as Mike Wazowski (great name) and especially Roz seemed to resonate more with people than some of Pixar's other characters (a link with a work environment?). Maybe because most of those characters seem more adult-like, I like to think they are more popular than they really are, making my ramblings moot, but it's safe to say they are pretty popular characters. They must be at least more popular than Stitch, whose movie didn't even earn $150 million in 2002.
Plus Disney has made attractions based on films that did not do well at all, such as Alice in Wonderland at DL, and of course Mr. Toad, who didn't even have his own full feature movie. Bottom line, if the attraction is enjoyable, and I see this as at least a solid C or D-Ticket, then no one will complain, no matter who the attraction features.