Where/ when will the Incredibles come into play?

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Where is this name calling? You and Dopey both have made accusations, but it's nowhere to be found. Try again.

Your correct I apologise, your just a sarcastic * This is where you would post the icon.

Im still waiting to hear your expert opinion on the original movie themed rides like SAW, Speedway, COP, Big Thunder, that’s a lot of films for me to catch up with. And i take it POC was just a long term teaser for the recent releases.

I know it is bad form but why is it not acceptable to question the Pixarification of Tommorowland? and the creep in general of those characters.

beep beep

 

[dopey]

You should really go back and read your posts... I believe you have contributed to the 'unreasonable' more than anyone else. The lack of civility was first introduced by you and Pumbas.

As for your opinion trumping everyone else's... it doesn't. By saying it doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, nor does it matter if the movie was successful, just because you said it's bad, then it must be so. You said it, so it must be a fact.

Apparently, you have a problem accepting reality. I'm sorry you feel the need to troll along, but if you want to share your opinion of the movie, please do so. But if you think that opinion somehow can be accepted as truth, you are sorely mistaken.

Funny thing... other Pixar and Disney movies were better in my opinion, but weren't as successful. Interesting, huh?

Have a magical day! :wave:

Fine. I did go back and read my posts in order to summarize them just for you. Because you are special.

(Please note that these are all my opinions. In no way do I represent – nor do I suggest or mean to suggest – that the opinions I put forth on a discussion board about Walt Disney World and its attractions mean diddly squat to anyone who has the least amount of influence over at the Walt Disney Co.)

I said “The Incredibles” was overrated and remaking CoP into an Incredibles-themed ride is a horrible idea.

tigger1968 said “The Incredibles” was better than anything put out by Disney Animation, Sony and SKG.

I responded to tigger1968 that I was comparing “The Incredibles” to past Pixar films. I basically agreed with tigger1968 that “Home on the Range” wasn’t a very good film. That’s why I replied by saying that there are no rumors about Disney replacing the horses on Cinderella’s Golden Carrousel with cows. The idea: if they’re not integrating characters from one sub-par film into a classic Disney attraction, it doesn’t make sense to do the same with another.

kachow, in a response to Pumbas Nakasak, made the point that “The Incredibles” won an academy award. It, therefore, is just as worthy as “Lilo & Stich” and other Disney films in becoming integrated with a WDW attraction. It’s basically just the opposite of what I said in my last post. I said they don’t do it for other bad films. kachow says they already did.

So far, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with any of this. We simply disagree.

But then you posted the following: “Once again, we have this issue where people think their personal opinions trump the majority. It's really OK that you didn't like the movie... nobody cares. However, it's easy to see that many others liked the it. Simply put, the movie was well received and was a success. Period. End of Story.”

I realize that you and Pumbas Nakasak were engaged in a heated exchange. But I had nothing to do with that. So why you decided to get rude with me, I have no idea. I have my theories, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to post them here.

For heaven’s sake, I NEVER SAID MY OPINION TRUMPS ANYONE’S! Are you really this obtuse or are you pulling my leg? I keep telling you I didn’t say something that you think I said. You keep saying I did. Nowhere can you show that I said what you think I said. I haven’t edited one post. It’s all right there. Now either put up, shut up or I’ll have to report you for being… you.

Magical day right back atcha, pal. :wave:

 

[dopey]

"Good," is an opinion. You can't prove it on a personal level. Despite billions of people liking chocolate, that won't make someone who doesn't suddenly change their mind. But when deciding whether to serve chocolate ice cream in the parks, you're going to look at the mass reaction to it, not whether you personally like it or not. Yes, if chocolate starts killing everybody like Hitler we'll label it definitively "not good," but until that time there is no way to say it's unquestionably good or bad, just that it's popular.

So a reaction to this topic of, "No, The Incredibles shouldn't be made into an attraction because it's a bad movie," is really pretty silly, because it can't be proven. All there is to go on is popularity and general audience reception. To ignore that and base a decision on one's personal opinion IS, as others have argued, asserting that the opinions of audiences, critics, and movie industry peers, should all be trumped by yours. That's how business leaders make bad business decisions.

I don’t follow the logic that says I can’t dislike something because it’s popular. The world’s most popular sport is soccer, but I wouldn’t walk across the street to watch a match involving the best players ever. Of the top 10 TV shows, as rated by Nielsen, I only watch two – CSI and Monday Night Football. The most popular name for boys right now is Jacob. While that’s a fine name, it’s not one that I would choose if I had a newborn son.

It’s hardly silly for me to say that I wouldn’t want Disney to make CoP into an Incredibles-themed attraction because I didn’t like the movie. Disney can ignore my opinion and do whatever they want. It’s their park. It’s their decision. Nowhere have I said that Disney must do my bidding. You infer otherwise. Guess you must believe I’m some sort of deity – a deity who you think is about to make a bad business decision about turning CoP into an Incredibles-themed attraction. Oh, well.

 

[FigmentJedi]

I don't think they'd even replace CoP with the Incredibles anyway. With the upcoming Meet the Robinsons using Great Big Beautiful Tommorow as a song(a cover by They Might Be Giants), it's more likely that they'd end up replacing the old family. But I would definitely not want that. And again, Disney's got other places to put the Parrs (and the Robinsons too) anyway, like the old Skyway station or somewhere in MGM(Considering all the razing of it's old ties to being an actual studio and the coming of Midway Madness, wouldn't surprise me).

 

[wannab@dis]

Fine. I did go back and read my posts in order to summarize them just for you. Because you are special.

Your condescending attitude is annoying.

I said “The Incredibles” was overrated and remaking CoP into an Incredibles-themed ride is a horrible idea.

Overrated implies the people that did like the movie ... apparently a LOT based on the success of the movie ... do not matter. While you may find it overrated... others do not. Utilizing Incredibles as a basis for an attraction makes very good sense. The movie was popular so they should utilize that success in the parks. I think the idea of CoP replacement has been shot down.

The idea: if they’re not integrating characters from one sub-par film into a classic Disney attraction, it doesn’t make sense to do the same with another.

kachow, in a response to Pumbas Nakasak, made the point that “The Incredibles” won an academy award. It, therefore, is just as worthy as “Lilo & Stich” and other Disney films in becoming integrated with a WDW attraction. It’s basically just the opposite of what I said in my last post. I said they don’t do it for other bad films. kachow says they already did.

Once again, you are saying the movie is sub-par or "bad". However, the facts point clearly that the movie is NOT sub-par. You may think so... that's fine. But your opinion of the movie is not paramount to the use in an attraction... it would be based on the view of the general public.

But then you posted the following: “Once again, we have this issue where people think their personal opinions trump the majority. It's really OK that you didn't like the movie... nobody cares. However, it's easy to see that many others liked the it. Simply put, the movie was well received and was a success. Period. End of Story.”

Appears that your own quotes above have proven my point.

You believe the movie is bad so therefore they shouldn't use it as a basis of an attraction. But the fact is the movie was very sucessful, so it makes sense for them to use it. Whether I like the movie or not would have no bearing on my opinion of its usage. I would accept the fact that it was a popular and successful movie, so therefore I would see the business case for taking advantage of that success. See the difference in the point of views? Mine is based on what is good for the company... not what is good for me.

I realize that you and Pumbas Nakasak were engaged in a heated exchange. But I had nothing to do with that. So why you decided to get rude with me, I have no idea. I have my theories, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to post them here.

Where have I been rude when I wasn't simply replying back to you... many times using your same post structure... :lol:

For heaven’s sake, I NEVER SAID MY OPINION TRUMPS ANYONE’S! Are you really this obtuse or are you pulling my leg? I keep telling you I didn’t say something that you think I said. You keep saying I did. Nowhere can you show that I said what you think I said. I haven’t edited one post. It’s all right there. Now either put up, shut up or I’ll have to report you for being… you.

Magical day right back atcha, pal. :wave:

Here's the deal... you may have not said outright... "my opinion trumps" but the logic in your posts alluded to that point very clearly. You still haven't acknowledged the simple fact that the movie was popular AND it was successful. No matter you opinion (or mine) of the movie, that simple fact alone makes the usage of the Incredibles in an attraction a viable choice.

Report away... I think it's apparent that your posts were much more antagonistic than any of mine. In fact, I've replied to your posts much more tactfully than the posts I was quoting. :wave:

 

[imagineer boy]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/clipserve/B000051VYS002022/0/ref=mu_sam_wma_002_022/102-

 

[Herk]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/clipserve/B000051VYS002022/0/ref=mu_sam_wma_002_022/102-

That was fantastic.

Anywho yes about an incredibles ride, to me I think with the right theming it could go in anyone of the parks(maybe epcot slighlty less than the others)

Even though I think CoP is a great attraction, I wouldn't be suprised if WDI said well the time has come.

They could open a ride similiar to spiderman at IOA, whereby you have been recruited by mr and mrs incredible and zero(??, the guy who uses ice powers) to help take down those robots(forgot what their called again).

They could even create a ride at the the AK whereby the evil genius(forgot his name) comes to AK, because he finds out Disney have a a heard of unicorn which help to create the essence of magic in WDW and he wants to drain their powers, in order to become the worlds richest tycoon - so the incredibles (you) board a vehicle(motion simulator) in order to save the day.

Really all I am trying to say is that as long as fits in with a good backstory and and good ride, then it'll work people

 

[kachow]

I don’t follow the logic that says I can’t dislike something because it’s popular. The world’s most popular sport is soccer, but I wouldn’t walk across the street to watch a match involving the best players ever. Of the top 10 TV shows, as rated by Nielsen, I only watch two – CSI and Monday Night Football. The most popular name for boys right now is Jacob. While that’s a fine name, it’s not one that I would choose if I had a newborn son.

It’s hardly silly for me to say that I wouldn’t want Disney to make CoP into an Incredibles-themed attraction because I didn’t like the movie. Disney can ignore my opinion and do whatever they want. It’s their park. It’s their decision. Nowhere have I said that Disney must do my bidding. You infer otherwise. Guess you must believe I’m some sort of deity – a deity who you think is about to make a bad business decision about turning CoP into an Incredibles-themed attraction. Oh, well.

As I've said, you can obviously personally dislike anything in the world you like. What I'm reacting to is the dislike in the context of this particular discussion. Essentially the point of view was, "The Incredibles shouldn't be made into a ride because it is a second-rate, sub par movie." In the context of whether it should be a ride, if you're discussing it at any level other than a very basic "me no likey" level, that statement is not really valid, nor does it add anything to the conversation. The horse is already out of the barn. It was a success. To me, and I think others, in the context of this discussion it suggested the movie was poorly received, reviewed, and did weak box-office, which is not true. To me it was like if a meeting was being held in Imagineering about if/where/when an Incredibles ride should be made, and someone blurts out, "Nowhere, because that movie stunk." You'd look at that person like, "What?!?" And honestly, I would accept a reason of, "No, because I don't like the invasion of movies that haven't yet stood the test of time," but just throwing out, "No because that movie stunk," just turns into a shouting match. I could list dozens of movies featured at the parks that I don't like, some of them "classics," but what's the point?

Buy hey, maybe I expect too much. I react the same on the dining boards when someone posts that a seafood restaurant is lousy, and then when you press them on it you find out it's because the don't eat seafood.

 

[dopey]

As I've said, you can obviously personally dislike anything in the world you like. What I'm reacting to is the dislike in the context of this particular discussion. Essentially the point of view was, "The Incredibles shouldn't be made into a ride because it is a second-rate, sub par movie." In the context of whether it should be a ride, if you're discussing it at any level other than a very basic "me no likey" level, that statement is not really valid, nor does it add anything to the conversation. The horse is already out of the barn. It was a success. To me, and I think others, in the context of this discussion it suggested the movie was poorly received, reviewed, and did weak box-office, which is not true. To me it was like if a meeting was being held in Imagineering about if/where/when an Incredibles ride should be made, and someone blurts out, "Nowhere, because that movie stunk." You'd look at that person like, "What?!?" And honestly, I would accept a reason of, "No, because I don't like the invasion of movies that haven't yet stood the test of time," but just throwing out, "No because that movie stunk," just turns into a shouting match. I could list dozens of movies featured at the parks that I don't like, some of them "classics," but what's the point?

Buy hey, maybe I expect too much. I react the same on the dining boards when someone posts that a seafood restaurant is lousy, and then when you press them on it you find out it's because the don't eat seafood.

I appreciate where you're coming from. Yes, me no likey. But it's not that I simply don't like "The Incredibles." I also don't like the idea of using that film as an overlay for CoP. If you don't think that adds anything to the discussion (shrug), I guess that's fine. Sorry my posts aren't up to your standards. But I don't imagine myself in an Imagineering meeting or sitting at the board of directors at the Walt Disney Co. I'm some just someone who likes Disney parks.

 

[kachow]

Pumbas:
"Hopefully never. Has to be Pixars worst film. Its incredible how such a bad movie gets such hype."

Dopey:
"Exactly. The same thing happens on a local level here in Chicago with The Second City. There are dozens of funnier sketch-comedy revues playing in town, but the only shows that get reviewed by theatre critics are the ones at Second City. And rarely will a Second City production get panned.

Because of its great success in the past, Pixar has a bright golden halo that blinds people to its dankest dreck. "The Incredibles" added nothing to animation; a ripoff of "The Fantastic Four," it was a mere profit play for Pixar. At least "Cars," which had an equally weak story line, could be considered a creative achievement because its animation wowed. Turning CoP into an Incredibles-themed attraction would be horrific."

This, to me, is the pointless rant I was talking about not adding to the discussion, and just turning the whole thing into a shouting match. As we've been trying to explain, that horse is already out of the barn. In terms of whether it is "good" enough to be an attraction - it flat out is, in relation to the standard that's been set for attractions. Plus, it didn't help by insinuating that people that like it are "blinded." It's another statement that made people think you thought you were more enlightened than them.

Look, I agree with you that it would be a total disconnect to use it as an overlay of CoP, and despite me personally finding the attraction boring, knowing the apprectiation many have for it, I wouldn't suggest replacing it with anything. I also don't think "The Incredibles" belongs in Tomorrowland since it has nothing to do with "tomorrow," and I would not agree with changing Tomorrowland to Pixarland, first because I would not agree with eliminating any of the original lands, and second, I'm still on the fence about how Pixar should be handled as an individual brand within Disney as a whole and whether it makes sense to have characters segmented into Pixar and non-Pixar.

But that said, Studios is starving for new attractions. That park is rapidly becoming a half-day affair. The Incredibles was successful, and has a storyline that easily could be made into a great thrill ride. I picture a ride that in someway simulates the family's powers.

 

[dopey]

kachow, the one area we might all agree is that it would be fine if Disney were to create a NEW attraction based on "The Incredibles." Even though I didn't think much of the movie, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to Disney adding on rather than doing a conversion of a classic. Maybe it can go in that Villains park we hear about every so often; the superhero attraction to offset all that villainy.

As to my initial post, the purpose was to explore the reasons why a film that I and others believe is far from Pixar's best effort remains so popular. Maybe it comes off as smug. But doesn't everyone feel a little superior when they see a large group of people taken by something that seems ridiculous? For example, France's obsession with Jerry Lewis. Yes, I admit, I feel more enlightened than French Jerry Lewis fans.

Anyway, maybe you'll find this interesting and maybe not, but there is a legitimate term in marketing called "the halo effect." One Internet business consultant defines it this way:

"The extension of an overall impression of a person (or one particular outstanding trait) to influence the total judgment of that person. The effect is to evaluate an individual high on many traits because of a belief that the individual is high on one trait. Similar to this is the 'devil effect', whereby a person evaluates another as low on many traits because of a belief that the individual is low on one trait which is assumed to be critical."

Call it a rant if you like, but it was a rant based on a legitimate business theory. I guess another way I could have put it was to say Pixar is living off its reputation. That would have avoided the whole "blinding halo" deal. Regardless, I don't apologize for trying to provide the strongest arguments I can make to back up my statements. That's what you're supposed to do when debating an issue. For the most part, you do that as well. So I know you understand where I'm coming from.

But one thing I am sorry about is that this thread has gotten off track. It's a good topic. I think it would be interesting to know what people think about overlaying CoP with ANYTHING. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing CoP tightened up a bit and updated with the latest available technologies. The basic structure should remain the same. And, of course, you've got to keep the song playing over and over and over again. It's quaint and fun and a reminder of gentler times. If they could keep all those elements and freshen it up at the same time, I don't see how that would go against Walt's wishes.

Peace.

 

[wannab@dis]

kachow, the one area we might all agree is that it would be fine if Disney were to create a NEW attraction based on "The Incredibles." Even though I didn't think much of the movie, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to Disney adding on rather than doing a conversion of a classic. Maybe it can go in that Villains park we hear about every so often; the superhero attraction to offset all that villainy.

As to my initial post, the purpose was to explore the reasons why a film that I and others believe is far from Pixar's best effort remains so popular. Maybe it comes off as smug. But doesn't everyone feel a little superior when they see a large group of people taken by something that seems ridiculous? For example, France's obsession with Jerry Lewis. Yes, I admit, I feel more enlightened than French Jerry Lewis fans.

Anyway, maybe you'll find this interesting and maybe not, but there is a legitimate term in marketing called "the halo effect." One Internet business consultant defines it this way:

"The extension of an overall impression of a person (or one particular outstanding trait) to influence the total judgment of that person. The effect is to evaluate an individual high on many traits because of a belief that the individual is high on one trait. Similar to this is the 'devil effect', whereby a person evaluates another as low on many traits because of a belief that the individual is low on one trait which is assumed to be critical."

Call it a rant if you like, but it was a rant based on a legitimate business theory. I guess another way I could have put it was to say Pixar is living off its reputation. That would have avoided the whole "blinding halo" deal. Regardless, I don't apologize for trying to provide the strongest arguments I can make to back up my statements. That's what you're supposed to do when debating an issue. For the most part, you do that as well. So I know you understand where I'm coming from.

But one thing I am sorry about is that this thread has gotten off track. It's a good topic. I think it would be interesting to know what people think about overlaying CoP with ANYTHING. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing CoP tightened up a bit and updated with the latest available technologies. The basic structure should remain the same. And, of course, you've got to keep the song playing over and over and over again. It's quaint and fun and a reminder of gentler times. If they could keep all those elements and freshen it up at the same time, I don't see how that would go against Walt's wishes.

Peace.

Walt's wishes... I love seeing that. :lol:

The parks and attractions in particular were built to entertain the guests. If one failed to do so, it was time for a change. The list of changes during the early years of Disneyland is quite extensive. I wish I had a quick link over to some of the history and replacements of attractions, but it is more than we see today. It seems to be apparent to me that Walt's interaction with DL development was the polar opposite of the purist notions we see today.

If an attraction's message and entertainment value had dropped or if the guests were looking for different avenues... it was changed. The whole idea that CoP should not be changed is an urban legend spread by purists and nostalgia addicts. I've looked into it and I know others have, and nothing is found other than speculation by some fans. In fact, I seem to remember reading a letter / memo from an executive / WED (maybe one of the nine) that basically dispelled the myth.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing CoP updated... but I'm honestly not sure that it would be money well spent. I just don't see how an investment in CoP really helps the park to continue to build and foster future success. I highly doubt Disney could ever use a rehab of CoP as the basis for a marketing campaign. It does, however, enjoy that "classic shield" like some of the other attractions at MK... probably its saving grace.

Just my opinion... but quaint seems like a scary adjective to use for a successful theme park attraction. *shrug*

 

[dopey]

Walt's wishes... I love seeing that. :lol:

The parks and attractions in particular were built to entertain the guests. If one failed to do so, it was time for a change. The list of changes during the early years of Disneyland is quite extensive. I wish I had a quick link over to some of the history and replacements of attractions, but it is more than we see today. It seems to be apparent to me that Walt's interaction with DL development was the polar opposite of the purist notions we see today.

If an attraction's message and entertainment value had dropped or if the guests were looking for different avenues... it was changed. The whole idea that CoP should not be changed is an urban legend spread by purists and nostalgia addicts. I've looked into it and I know others have, and nothing is found other than speculation by some fans. In fact, I seem to remember reading a letter / memo from an executive / WED (maybe one of the nine) that basically dispelled the myth.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing CoP updated... but I'm honestly not sure that it would be money well spent. I just don't see how an investment in CoP really helps the park to continue to build and foster future success. I highly doubt Disney could ever use a rehab of CoP as the basis for a marketing campaign. It does, however, enjoy that "classic shield" like some of the other attractions at MK... probably its saving grace.

Just my opinion... but quaint seems like a scary adjective to use for a successful theme park attraction. *shrug*

I didn't know it was a myth, but it follows. Walt was an innovator. He wouldn't stand pat. And I doubt he'd be satisfied with taking an existing attraction and just overlaying it with the theme from one of his films. There's no creativity in taking, say, The Living Seas and adding a bunch of Nemo stuff. Some would say that's even a step backwards.

Maybe they could give CoP the Enchanted Tiki Room treatment: put it under new management and add some wisecracking character to poke fun of all the "progress" being made.

It would be interesting to see how successful a park would be if it were filled with old and outdated Disney rides attractions. I think tons of Disney fans would be excited about the idea, but I don't think it would gain many new customers. And without new customers, the park wouldn't last very long.

 

[kachow]

Well, the "Meet the Robinsons" movie coming out is supposedly about time travel, so you could probably use that on CoP, but to me, you either keep CoP exactly like it is, or you kill it. The main draw to it is nostagia for adults. They sing along with the music and laugh at the bad AA, like a cult film. If you made an updated CoP, with new AA I think it would become less popular than it is now, because you lose your core audience. It would be like remaking "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."

Overall, I don't know what the formula is, but there have to be some attractions or elements of MK that are untouchable, or the park will lose its soul. Because I don't think any entertainment that comes out now has the ability to become a classic like the older stuff. I just don't think our culture works that way anymore. There's too much stuff out there for any one thing, no matter how good, to hold our attention and affection for that long. So if you go the route of just following the whim of the moment at all times, you're going to end up with an ever-changing park that loses its timelessness.

And I would throw all that stuff in The Studios anyway. That park should be all about the whim of the moment. It's Hollywood for Pete's sake.