Why so much hostility towards pixar?

[ILLmaticS0ldier]

Why is that when a ride gets replaced by a pixar attraction or a new pixar attraction gets announced people are always quick to say o great pixar is taking over. Why is there a problem with that? Pixar is obviously producing amazing films and peopel want to experience them in diffrent ways.I think its great pixar is the hottest animation studio currenly and anythign pixar is great for the parks !

 

[krankenstein]

My problem is they continue to add Pixar based ride (I don't have a problem with that), but they completely ignore classic movies that deserve a ride or attraction. Think about it, 2 Toy Story based rides, 2 Nemo attractions but no The Little Mermaid ride, no The Lion King ride, Aladdin deserves more than those stupid carpets, no Beauty and the Beast ride, nothing for so many classic Disney movies. If Disney would spread the wealth, I wouldn't have a problem. Right now though, they only seem to be only focused on Pixar. Just my opinion. :shrug:

 

[dave2822]

Mostly because people fear change.

Why would Disney create an attraction based on a movie made over a decade ago? Sure, its a classic, but it isn't what is hot now ... the parks are supposed to directly reflect the company's entertainment portfolio, and Pixar is a huge part of it.

And, the Lion King, Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast all have complex stage shows that showcase the movies' greatest aspects (the music) and cost more to manage than an attraction ... so to say Disney snubbed their legendary films is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

The lack of soul

 

[Rob562]

I think that the big beef about all of the Pixar attractions in the parks isn't necessarily because they're *Pixar* but because they're based on movie characters, and they're expanding into places where Disney-character-based rides weren't before.
Another point is that Disney seems to have (for the most part) abandoned any project that might develop its own backstory and original storyline that is unique to the parks. Everything new HAS to tie in to a pre-existing franchise.

Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Big Thunder, Space Mountain, RnRC, Tower of Terror, Everest, Kilamanjaro Safaris, Kali, Soarin, Test Track, Mission Space. These are all great, classic attractions, none of which are based on a Disney cartoon franchise.

With the exception of Everest and Soarin, look at all of the recent attractions from the past couple of years that are based on a Pixar or Disney cartoon franchise: Laugh Floor, Stitch, Seas with Nemo & Friends, Toy Story Midway Mania, Gran Fiesta Tour, Cars Land on its way to DCA, the rumored additions to Pixar Place in DHS...
One final point is that some of these attractions (Stitch and Laugh Floor, for example) replaced *original concept* Disney attractions... Timekeeper and Alien Encounter were great, original attractions.

-Rob

 

[thevader1376]

I'm actually a huge Pixar fan, but I also love the older Disney classics as well. I think the reason we're seeing so many Pixar-based attractions is because it's just smart business to capitalize on a product that is producing right now. It's hard to believe but the Little Mermaid is almost 20 years old. Yes, it's a classic movie, but kids today are much more likely to be familiar with Finding Nemo or Toy Story simply because they've grown up with it.

I'd love to see a Little Mermaid or a Beauty & the Beast attraction but I think as long as Pixar continues to churn out the hits that's what we're likely to see.

 

[krankenstein]

Why would Disney create an attraction based on a movie made over a decade ago? Sure, its a classic, but it isn't what is hot now ... the parks are supposed to directly reflect the company's entertainment portfolio, and Pixar is a huge part of it.

Toy Story is over 13 years old, and just got another attraction.

 

[thevader1376]

Yes but Toy Story 2 is only 9 years old and Toy Story 3 is just around the corner.

 

[thevader1376]

The lack of soul

just curious, do you feel that the Pixar-based rides lack soul or is it the movies themselves that lack soul, or is it both?

 

[cndrellagrl]

My problem is they continue to add Pixar based ride (I don't have a problem with that), but they completely ignore classic movies that deserve a ride or attraction. Think about it, 2 Toy Story based rides, 2 Nemo attractions but no The Little Mermaid ride, no The Lion King ride, Aladdin deserves more than those stupid carpets, no Beauty and the Beast ride, nothing for so many classic Disney movies. If Disney would spread the wealth, I wouldn't have a problem. Right now though, they only seem to be only focused on Pixar. Just my opinion. :shrug:

I totally agree with you- so nicely put! As much as I love Pixar, I too like the Disney classics and want to see more of that in Disney. To me, those are more magical.

 

[krankenstein]

True about TS 3, like I said I don't have a problem with the Pixar rides, I just feel Disney is ignoring a lot of the classics that deserve more than a show. All I am asking is for them to spread the wealth. Instead of opening 2 TS rides and multiple Nemo attractions, do something else. Rumors say we are getting another Monster Inc. ride. Why is my only question? My opinion, it isn't going to change, btw.

 

[donniedisney]

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....

 

[thevader1376]

True about TS 3, like I said I don't have a problem with the Pixar rides, I just feel Disney is ignoring a lot of the classics that deserve more than a show. All I am asking is for them to spread the wealth. Instead of opening 2 TS rides and multiple Nemo attractions, do something else. Rumors say we are getting another Monster Inc. ride. Why is my only question? My opinion, it isn't going to change, btw.

While I don't disagree with you at all, I think it comes down to what Disney feels will be the profitable investments. I think that's why we're seeing an abundance of Pixar rides.

 

[Yankeeplex]

I'm sure that the fact that that Toy Story 3, which will be out within the next 2-3 years, has nothing to do with the new ride, right??? The fact is the movie has some great characters that children today still relate to and is basically Pixar's version of Steamboat Willie...this is the movie that really started it all and they are paying major homage to it. After all, John Lassiter is a major part of the Disney organization.

 

[SWatsi]

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....

I really don't like that idea. It only emphasises this gap between Pixar and Disney that the public have created. The studios and products should be brought closer together, because it is all Disney now.

Sure I'd love to see come classic properties and some original concepts, but if it means seperating the studios into different parks.

There are great shows for the little mermaid, aladdin, beauty and the beast and the lion king, and TLM will get a new ride soon. They haven't been forgotten yet.
I would give it a little longer before getting too worked up about it. There looks to be a number of changes going on in California, so hopefully that will spread out to the other parks.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

My problem is they continue to add Pixar based ride (I don't have a problem with that), but they completely ignore classic movies that deserve a ride or attraction. Think about it, 2 Toy Story based rides, 2 Nemo attractions but no The Little Mermaid ride, no The Lion King ride, Aladdin deserves more than those stupid carpets, no Beauty and the Beast ride, nothing for so many classic Disney movies. If Disney would spread the wealth, I wouldn't have a problem. Right now though, they only seem to be only focused on Pixar. Just my opinion. :shrug:

I'll even take this a step further...Why not something ORIGINAL?

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.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

just curious, do you feel that the Pixar-based rides lack soul or is it the movies themselves that lack soul, or is it both?

A couple of the movies and all of the attractions. Rampant commercialism focussing on merchandise sales

 

[krankenstein]

Hey EE, does The Yeti count in your opinion?

 

[thevader1376]

I'll even take this a step further...Why not something ORIGINAL?

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.

Maybe the fact that it's been 25 years tells us something about where their heads are at on this issue. Is it not much simpler to create an attraction around an existing brand? Audiences are already familiar with the characters and as such they have a built in desire to come and visit them.

I would think that from a business perspective it's much easier to sell a spin off of an already wildly popular product than it is to create something new altogether. Your costs are much lower and the turn around would be loads faster and WDW is after all a business.

It seems to me they're leaving the character development to the people that are doing it best right now, and that would be Pixar as far as the Disney brand is concerned.

Plus there have been loads of attractions over the past 25 years that have nothing to do with movies... i.e. Test Track, Mission Space and Soarin just to name a few.

I think the proposition of creating an entire character that exists solely at WDW might be something they've deemed ineffective. I'm not the expert here, just my 2 cents.

 

[dave2822]

I guess I'll just agree to disagree with the general consensus. I don't think Pixar "lacks soul," and I certainly do not think the movies lack originality ... all of Pixar's story lines and characters are completely original, whereas all of the classic Disney movies are mainly based on previous fairy tales and characters ...

And I know this sounds ridiculous but ask any Disney exec. and they will tell you Disney is not a "theme park" company, they are company based around their movies, tv shows, etc etc. There's much more profit in those than in the parks. And the parks were created to showcase Walt's tv shows ... like Jungle Cruise and the original Tomorrowland, etc ...

So anyway, the parks should always have the classics, and should always have the newest and greatest original attractions, but it is also important that they continue to reflect the most popular products in the Disney portfolio ...

At least IMO