Why so much hostility towards pixar?

[jakeman]

Disney is going to the proverbial "Pixar Well" one to many times, IMO.

The Pixar Well is the only one that has water currently.

Instead of lamenting about them incorporating successful Disney films (four pages and no one has said Pixar=Disney yet) into the parks, we should wring our hand about the fact that there are still "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" references in two parks.

The attractions with original characters had become unpopular and they were replaced. The two that have been referenced the most (AE and Timekeeper) are just two of dozens of original ideas that are in the Magic Kingdom and across the property.

 

[krankenstein]

The Pixar Well is the only one that has water currently.

Instead of lamenting about them incorporating successful Disney films (four pages and no one has said Pixar=Disney yet) into the parks, we should wring our hand about the fact that there are still "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" references in two parks.

I don't buy into that first statement. I think Disney has limitless opportunities to create attractions that aren't based on Pixar characters. Pixar is not the be all end all.

BTW, in post 31 I said Pixar is Disney. :animwink:

 

[Timmay]

but they completely ignore classic movies that deserve a ride or attraction. :shrug:

Says who?

When was the last time WDI did something with a new character just for the parks-I honestly think that it's Figment.25 years ago.That's a little much if you ask me.

Which should tell you that guests may not want something "original" (in other words, something they are not familiar with). Maybe guests gain more enjoyment with characters they already know and are familiar with, and Disney is aware fo that.

 

[krankenstein]

Says who?

Me! :wave: I understand what you mean. As I have said in numerous posts during this thread, all this conjuncture on my part is purely opinion, you do not have to agree.

That said, most of the movies I am referring to did a lot to help turn the company around. If the movies I mentioned hadn't happened, Disney would have most likely been sold off in chunks by now. They helped turn Disney into the power house it is today, a company that was capable of acquiring Pixar.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Thanks,Krank!:wave:

I really don't see the need to create a separate character just for the parks..... it really doesn't tie into Disney. I agree that Figment is a great and unique character for the Imagination pavillion, and it worked.
But why go to the well to fish out a "new" character?? Why are Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy, Daisy, and Pluto not good enough for WDW?

That's another issue too,where is at least ONE attraction that is for the fab five that's moderately new?

What's wrong with Disney allowing WDI to use there full creativity to create a unique experience not based on or incorporating any known characters?

BTW Dragonrider1227, I don't have a problem with CGI films. I find them highly enjoyable. I just would like to see Disney diversify there in park attraction development by using all the entities they have at there disposal. Disney is going to the proverbial "Pixar Well" one to many times, IMO.

:sohappy:

Says who?



Which should tell you that guests may not want something "original" (in other words, something they are not familiar with). Maybe guests gain more enjoyment with characters they already know and are familiar with, and Disney is aware fo that.

Sounds to me like you think guests want the same boring overdone Pixar rides.All we want here is for Disney to stop focusing on what makes money for them in the movie business and try to make money on something creative in the parks.

 

[EpcotServo]

That's another issue too,where is at least ONE attraction that is for the fab five that's moderately new?

Philharmagic.

Which honestly, for me, is enough of the fab five and the older Disney movies in one show that they don't need to make another.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Philharmagic.

Which honestly, for me, is enough of the fab five and the older Disney movies in one show that they don't need to make another.

Curse my memory!:lol:

That's true...But c'mon...One attraction out of the all te ones in WDW and all of the new Pixar ones?It's a little silly.

 

[Dragonrider1227]

Philharmagic.

Which honestly, for me, is enough of the fab five and the older Disney movies in one show that they don't need to make another.

Very true. Not to mention every castle show (minus Cinderellabration and the Halloween show) and every parade stars the classics and fab five.

 

[SWatsi]

Very true. Not to mention every castle show (minus Cinderellabration and the Halloween show) and every parade stars the classics and fab five.

Is Donald in the Mexico ride?

Fantasmic! obviously as well..

 

[Dragonrider1227]

Another good point and come to think of it, Walt himself never used the actual fan five in any rides, did he? And krankenstein, You actually make a good point. I personally have no issue with Disney using Pixar. If several hundred people want something with original characters, and several THOUSAND people want something with Toy Story characters, guess which side Disney's going to favor, but at the same time it's generally bad business to "put all your eggs in one basket" as they seem to be.

 

[krankenstein]

^ It's Intro to Business 101. Take it from somebody who has taken Intro to Business 101. :animwink:

But, like I said earlier, I'm not in the big chair, so my opinion doesn't count for much at all.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

What about the third group who dont want any characters? Possibly one of the reasons WDW is looked at as a kids place, especially here.

 

[Skipper Dan]

Let me second what’s previously been stated. I love Pixar, and everything they do. Since I’ve seen Wall-E, I’d actually love to have a Wall-E attraction now, but I would love to see more technologically advanced attractions, based on - I don’t know if I’d call ‘em all classics yet - previous, 2D Disney films. Such as, Aladdin. (That’s my favorite .)

Pixar needs it's own park. It would solve the problem of the over crowded Magic Kingdom and we wouldnt have to worry about a Pixar movie taking over one of our favorite attractions....

This is a GREAT idea!!!! Can anyone guess the centerpiece? :lookaroun :lol:

 

[MousDad]

It would not surprise me one bit if the WDFA brand is scrapped after 2012. I see no way Bolt, Rapunzel and King of the Elves will come close to Pixar profitablility.

Their only hope is the Princess and the Frog. If that much-heralded return to hand drawn animation doesn't put up Pixar numbers, wouldn't it begin to be an embarassment (and a waste of money) at that point?

Oh yeah, by that time Pixar will have added Up, Toy Story 3, The Bear and the Bow, and Cars 2 to their canon, and raked in hundreds of millions of dollars for TWDC.

I'm not saying it will happen, just not surprised if it did. The folks at Pixar should be proud that they are carrying on the Disney legacy. By 2012, they will be basically funding WDFA anyway. Maybe that's why they were acquired.

 

[Philo]

My issue with the pixar based attractions are that I fear they are going to be a fairly generic ride with a few characters thrown in (i.e. they don't have that same magic as the original attraction).

Fortunately my fears haven't really come to light yet so I guess I'm more skeptical than anything else. Hey - as long as it's a new attraction then I'm happy really

 

[Dragonrider1227]

I don't buy into that first statement. I think Disney has limitless opportunities to create attractions that aren't based on Pixar characters. Pixar is not the be all end all.

BTW, in post 31 I said Pixar is Disney. :animwink:

I buy it. Aside from Pirates, Princess' and Stitch, what other franchises does Disney have that REALLY works?

 

[sandicinderelli]

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but with Disney putting out traditional animated films like Aladdin once every blue moon, it's going to take time for them to dream up those kinds of attractions for the parks.

Since Pixar is pumping out films, it's only fitting to create attractions that emulate those films. Besides, the next traditional film that Disney is going to put out is "The Frog Princess", but that's not coming out until 2009.

Believe me, I've had the same thoughts when I first visited MGM...er Hollywood Studios for the first time last year, but with Pixar booming as it is, I guess were in for more Pixar attractions to the chagrin of some folks.

Hopefully, hopefully, they can do a little more with Frog Princess than they did for both Enchanted and Prince Caspian. Meet and greets are great, but guests would like to see new attractions go along with the new movies.

And speaking of waiting...Frog Princess is going to feature the first African-American (Black) princess. It's been a long wait, but it's finally going to happen...

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

For me, its not that Pixar is going into the parks; that I can accept. What I have a problem with is Pixar attractions going into areas where they should not be, or into attractions that don't fit the theme or the land/park.

For example, I'm all for Monsters Inc Laugh Floor, but it doesn't fit into the theme of Tomorrowland, no matter how hard Disney tries to make it fit. Yes, the idea of the Expo Center is helpful, but still, there is nothing futuristic about Monsters Inc, so why is it in Tomorrowand?

Another area would be Nemo going into the former Living Seas pavilion. Now, I've said before that this had the makings of a great pavilion, but WDI fell short with the storyline. The ride itself is just a remash of the movie. I feel the attractions at Epcot should be a) educational, b)inspiring, and/or c) an experience you could never have anywhere else. The Seas isn't any of these things right now, and it could very easily be all of those things. In its current state, its a glorified Fantasyland attraction with no educational or inspirational aspect to it, and does not fit into the ideas of Epcot.

Of course Pixar should be in Disney parks, but they have to fit into the theme of the park or land they are placed in. For me, it just seems that Disney is so intent on getting all things Pixar into the parks that they are forgetting the basic theming/purpose that made the parks so great in the first place. :shrug:

 

[Dragonrider1227]

I never saw anything "futuristic" about that race track in Tomorrowland either, but that's a "classic" nor did I find anything "futuristic" about the fact that one of the Matterhorn entrances is in Tomorrowland or the Submarine voyage in Disneyland. Haven't we had Submarines since WWII? :shrug:
Also, while I agree the movie itself isn't futuristic, you gotta admit the idea of harnessing the power of laughter for electricity can be pretty futuristic

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

I never saw anything "futuristic" about that race track in Tomorrowland either, but that's a "classic" nor did I find anything "futuristic" about the Submarine voyage in Disneyland. Haven't we had Submarines since WWII? :shrug:

The Speedway is modeled after Autopia at Disneyland. Autopia was a representation of what would become the U.S. Interstate Highway System. You have to understand that, at the time Autopia debuted, President Eisenhower still had not signed the Interstate Highway Act. When you look at it this way, the idea of a wide, multi-lane highway for cars (which Autopia represented) was a rather new, and therefore, futurisitc idea in the 50's. Is it still today? Of course not, and in all honesty, I agree that it no longer fits into the theme of Tomorrowland. But when first built for Disneyland, the concept was futuristic.

As for the Submarine Voyage, no, submarines were not futuristic, and had been around since WWI. However, the attraction itself was based on the movie "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", which was based on the Jules Vern book of the same name. The book is based in 1866, where a submarine would have been extremely ahead of its time and futuristic. I know that that's a stretch and still doesn't make the attraction "futuristic", but there was some representation of the "future" when the attraction was built.