Why Have Pixar Been Gettin’ The Short End of the Stick?

[Miru]

Considering imagineering, I have noticed that in recent years that Pixar in particular have gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to quality of attractions. Case in point being their coasters; such as “Chase-A-Baby”; notably, while other IP do get at least one AA, even if only in the queue, Pixar-based rides have had none since Cars Land; only static figures. Yup, static figures, not animated. Even the figures on dark rides have more motion. Sometimes they do have screens in the queue or lighting effects, but nothing more.
A lot of what Pixar has been getting post-Cars Land have been flat rides; Emotional Whirlwind and Alien Flying Saucers to name a few. So, why the choice to give Pixar such a poor treatment? Why haven’t we gotten solid Pixar stuff since Cars Land?

 

[SuddenStorm]

We did get solid Pixar stuff after TSM- a whole land dedicated to Cars that many consider to be the best of what Imagineering has to offer.

 

[Miru]

We did get solid Pixar stuff after TSM- a whole land dedicated to Cars that many consider to be the best of what Imagineering has to offer.

Duly noted. I forgot when it came out, sorry.

 

[Fox&Hound]

It is a good point. I feel like the quality of Pixar movies has gone down too while Disney animation has gotten better....

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

They seem to have no idea what to do with Pixar outside of the Cars franchise, which seems to translate perfectly to a nostalgic Route 66 Americana setting at Disneyland.

Everything else is fairly slapped together from what I have seen and just baffling. Toy Story turned into a Honey I Shrunk the Kids land with giant statues of the dolls, The Incredibles slapped into a boardwalk rollercoaster, which probably doesn't make any sense even considering I never saw the movie, Toy Story turned into, again, a boardwalk ride that doesn't feel anything like the movies and whatever else they've done, which seems to mostly be converted from old rides at DLR.

 

[el_super]

Considering imagineering, I have noticed that in recent years that Pixar in particular have gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to quality of attractions.

I don't think there is a strong connection between the IP chosen for a project, and the strategy behind implementing it (budget/timing). At least not in relation to Pixar. Carsland was given a huge budget, because the strategy was to expand DCA, not necesarily to promote the movie. Pixar Pier was given a smaller budget (and impossible time frame), because the strategy was to open something prior to Star Wars opening to draw crowds away from Disneyland. The IP in these cases just sort of seems like happy circumstance rather than a purposeful decision to short Pixar.

Up until the opening of Star Wars, the single most expensive attraction built at Disneyland was the Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage.

What I do see as a solution to the question as you proposed it, was that Pixar, through the breadth of theme in their movies, has a wide range of utility in every application. Pixar movies can be used for big blockbuster attractions (like Carsland or Crush's Coaster), medium sized attractions like Monsters Inc and Midway Mania or even flat rides like Inside Out now. Pixar works for something like a flat ride in a very playful sense, where it probably wouldn't have worked for Star Wars.

 

[Miru]

They seem to have no idea what to do with Pixar outside of the Cars franchise, which seems to translate perfectly to a nostalgic Route 66 Americana setting at Disneyland.

Everything else is fairly slapped together from what I have seen and just baffling. Toy Story turned into a Honey I Shrunk the Kids land with giant statues of the dolls, The Incredibles slapped into a boardwalk rollercoaster, which probably doesn't make any sense even considering I never saw the movie, Toy Story turned into, again, a boardwalk ride that doesn't feel anything like the movies and whatever else they've done, which seems to mostly be converted from old rides at DLR.

I feel like the gigantic Woody figure should have been animated, good point.

 

[TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives]

They seem to have no idea what to do with Pixar outside of the Cars franchise, which seems to translate perfectly to a nostalgic Route 66 Americana setting at Disneyland.

Everything else is fairly slapped together from what I have seen and just baffling. Toy Story turned into a Honey I Shrunk the Kids land with giant statues of the dolls, The Incredibles slapped into a boardwalk rollercoaster, which probably doesn't make any sense even considering I never saw the movie, Toy Story turned into, again, a boardwalk ride that doesn't feel anything like the movies and whatever else they've done, which seems to mostly be converted from old rides at DLR.

This. Which is a damn shame because there are so many great properties and outside of TSM and Cars Land, they've dropped the ball in this regards.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I don't think there is a strong connection between the IP chosen for a project, and the strategy behind implementing it (budget/timing). At least not in relation to Pixar. Carsland was given a huge budget, because the strategy was to expand DCA, not necesarily to promote the movie. Pixar Pier was given a smaller budget (and impossible time frame), because the strategy was to open something prior to Star Wars opening to draw crowds away from Disneyland. The IP in these cases just sort of seems like happy circumstance rather than a purposeful decision to short Pixar.

Up until the opening of Star Wars, the single most expensive attraction built at Disneyland was the Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage.

What I do see as a solution to the question as you proposed it, was that Pixar, through the breadth of theme in their movies, has a wide range of utility in every application. Pixar movies can be used for big blockbuster attractions (like Carsland or Crush's Coaster), medium sized attractions like Monsters Inc and Midway Mania or even flat rides like Inside Out now. Pixar works for something like a flat ride in a very playful sense, where it probably wouldn't have worked for Star Wars.

Good points but having ridden it, I’d say Crush’s Coaster is far from being a blockbuster attraction. Fun? Yes. But it’s a simple coaster with minimal scenes and a big box warehouse you can easily see when riding.

 

[el_super]

Good points but having ridden it, I’d say Crush’s Coaster is far from being a blockbuster attraction. Fun? Yes. But it’s a simple coaster with minimal scenes and a big box warehouse you can easily see when riding.

Eh that's true... but at that park particularly it feels like a much bigger ride.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Pixar in the parks definitely peaked with Cars. I’d go as far to say that it is the shining example among modern Imagineering. Just everything else Pixar related in the American parks feels off. Which is a shame, because Pixar’s suite of films from 1995-2009 are really stellar.

That being said, they’re mostly character driven films. It’s certainly harder to make solid theme park attractions with character driven films than it is with environment driven films. Radiator Springs is arguably the most detailed location in a Pixar film. It was a natural fit.

Nobody thinks of Andy’s Backyard, or Metroville, as visually distinct and memorable locations.

 

[Mac Tonight]

Pixar in the parks definitely peaked with Cars. I’d go as far to say that it is the shining example among modern Imagineering. Just everything else Pixar related in the American parks feels off. Which is a shame, because Pixar’s suite of films from 1995-2009 are really stellar.

That being said, they’re mostly character driven films. It’s certainly harder to make solid theme park attractions with character driven films than it is with environment driven films. Radiator Springs is arguably the most detailed location in a Pixar film. It was a natural fit.

Nobody thinks of Andy’s Backyard, or Metroville, as visually distinct and memorable locations.

This, 100%.

For me, Pixar peaked in 2009, and has been just sequels and mediocre films since.

Additionally, I feel like no Pixar property has gotten the attraction shaft as much as The Incredibles. Convince me that a film that great only deserves to be an afterthought addition on a pre-existing roller coaster... It's just a shame.

 

[Brer Panther]

Pixar in the parks definitely peaked with Cars. I’d go as far to say that it is the shining example among modern Imagineering. Just everything else Pixar related in the American parks feels off. Which is a shame, because Pixar’s suite of films from 1995-2009 are really stellar.

That being said, they’re mostly character driven films. It’s certainly harder to make solid theme park attractions with character driven films than it is with environment driven films. Radiator Springs is arguably the most detailed location in a Pixar film. It was a natural fit.

Nobody thinks of Andy’s Backyard, or Metroville, as visually distinct and memorable locations.

For what it's worth, I really like Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor (even if it doesn't belong in Tomorrowland), Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin, and Toy Story Midway Mania, though those obviously all came before Cars Land.

I do think you're right about PIXAR's films being more character-driven than environment-driven. I will say, however, that I would love to see a Monstropolis land of sorts come to Disney's Hollywood Studios. I think that would have potential.

 

[Brer Oswald]

For what it's worth, I really like Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor (even if it doesn't belong in Tomorrowland), Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin, and Toy Story Midway Mania, though those obviously all came before Cars Land.

I do think you're right about PIXAR's films being more character-driven than environment-driven. I will say, however, that I would love to see a Monstropolis land of sorts come to Disney's Hollywood Studios. I think that would have potential.

Monstropolis has a lot of potential, but I think they’d need to take it beyond what’s present in the films for it to really soar.

 

[Miru]

This, 100%.

For me, Pixar peaked in 2009, and has been just sequels and mediocre films since.

Additionally, I feel like no Pixar property has gotten the attraction shaft as much as The Incredibles. Convince me that a film that great only deserves to be an afterthought addition on a pre-existing roller coaster... It's just a shame.

Not just mediocre; at least a few of them verge on genuinely bad; such as The Good Dinosaur and Cars 2. Dreamworks has had it even worse; with a higher percentage of truly bad films, making Pixar look better by comparison.

 

[Robbiem]

Monstropolis has a lot of potential, but I think they’d need to take it beyond what’s present in the films for it to really soar.

The monsters inc ride in Tokyo is really fun and fairly epic for a dark ride

 

[Professortango1]

Ratatouille ride, Crush Coaster, Cars Land, Midway Mania, Slinky Dog Coaster, Tough to be a Bug, Astro Blasters, Incredicoaster, Nemo subs, Living Seas with Nemo, multiple Monsters Inc rides....seems like Pixar has a ton of attractions.

I think the biggest hurdle is that Disney likes to focus on fantastical worlds whereas Pixar likes their films set in our world. Even Monstropolis just looks like a slightly tweaked gray city. Inside Out's world is pretty barren and open. While I would like a Toy Story dark ride with Sid's toys being a thing, most of the Pixar films just don't fit Disney's park aesthetics.

Take Ratatouille...that ride really only works in a film park or Epcot. You can't stick that ride in Fantasyland or DCA. Up doesn't fit Adventureland with its cartoonyness, but then where else would it go? This is also why we rarely see the non fairy tale setting Disney films get attractions as well. Aladdin could be a great flying darkride or coaster, but it doesn't fit in Adventureland or Fantasyland. I always wondered that if Home on the Range was a hit, would we have seen an overlay of Big Thunder.

 

[Miru]

Ratatouille ride, Crush Coaster, Cars Land, Midway Mania, Slinky Dog Coaster, Tough to be a Bug, Astro Blasters, Incredicoaster, Nemo subs, Living Seas with Nemo, multiple Monsters Inc rides....seems like Pixar has a ton of attractions.

I think the biggest hurdle is that Disney likes to focus on fantastical worlds whereas Pixar likes their films set in our world. Even Monstropolis just looks like a slightly tweaked gray city. Inside Out's world is pretty barren and open. While I would like a Toy Story dark ride with Sid's toys being a thing, most of the Pixar films just don't fit Disney's park aesthetics.

Take Ratatouille...that ride really only works in a film park or Epcot. You can't stick that ride in Fantasyland or DCA. Up doesn't fit Adventureland with its cartoonyness, but then where else would it go? This is also why we rarely see the non fairy tale setting Disney films get attractions as well. Aladdin could be a great flying darkride or coaster, but it doesn't fit in Adventureland or Fantasyland. I always wondered that if Home on the Range was a hit, would we have seen an overlay of Big Thunder.

A lot are generic flat rides or cheaply-executed, however. That is the question, not the number of them. Aladdin would fit in Epcot.

 

[Professortango1]

A lot are generic flat rides or cheaply-executed, however. That is the question, not the number of them. Aladdin would fit in Epcot.

Tough to be a Bug is the best 3D attraction they have created. RSR is the best ride at DCA and Cars Land is the best themed land Disney has on the West Coast. Midway Mania is a hugely popular fun attraction, Astro Blasters was a highly enjoyed ride when it debuted. Nemo suffers from a bad idea (screens), but they did throw a TON of money at it.

I don't feel like Pixar has been short changed. If anything, its been the focus for most of their park additions in the past 20 years or so. The DLR hasn't had a new Disney animation inspired attraction since Pooh in 2003. Before that and the Tarzan overlay to the treehouse, the next earliest Disney animation inspired ride was Splash Mountain in 89.

Even if we look worldwide, we see a Frozen ride at Epcot and a Beauty and the Beast ride in Tokyo being the outliers.

And I don't really think Aladdin fits Epcot. I don't think Frozen fits it either, as both take place in fictional places and are not really indicative of their culture/folklore.

 

[No Name]

It’s really been two things. The rise of Toy Story Lands that have often served as a cheaper addition before the main project. And then Pixar Pier, which is horrendous. But the Ratatouille ride isn’t cheap.

Lately they’ve definitely wanted to captilize on Marvel and Star Wars, which is fair, since both had big moments in the late 2010s. I think Bob Chapek was absolutely justified in being appalled that DLR had no Marvel rides in the works when he took over.