Some movies should not have rides.

[dogtherock]

Disneyland has many rides that have been based after a movie (It would be quicker to name the rides that are original ). What Disney movies do you think should NEVER get a ride at the Disneyland Resort. On the other hand which rides do you think should have a ride (Disney or not. Indy, Star Wars, etc...).

[Quacky4Donald]

Honey, I Shrunk The Audience.

[dland_lover]

Honey, I Shrunk the Audience

[Athlonacon]

Honey, I Shrunk the Audience

[hollywood1939]

Tarzan's Treehouse. The movie didn't do well yet it still exists?

[caesarboxfan]

HISTA, hands down.

[Austin]

HISTA

shulda been removed years ago

[techskip]

This may lead to an interesting discussion. I would say a lot of the times it isn't so much the decision to tie to a movie. It's the application of said movie upon the attraction. Indy the ride has elements that are common in Indy the movie... but it tells it's own story and stands on it's own. The Indy franchise is there to encourage more individuals to ride, but at it's core it is a fun jeep ride that could work with or without the tie-in. Indy also serves to support the exotic nature of the Adventureland theme. Star Tours can be seen in a similar light, both in it's core and in it's ability to support the futuristic theme of Tomorrowland.

HISTA relies heavily on a marginally successful movie franchise and 3D gimmicks. It really doesn't "add" to the futuristic view of Tomorrowland. BLAB is a fun ride, but again relies heavily on the movie to sell a theme about toys... in Tomorrowland... Buzz is a Space Ranger but even that is not truely supportive of Tomorrowland's theme.

Finding Nemo is basically the DVD in the comfort of a Submarine. Again heavy reliance on the movie it is tied to. The sad reality is that this was at one time a truely unique experience that was loosely tied to 20,000 leagues. Tarzan can be seen as Finding Nemo's Adventureland compliment in many ways. It too was a replacement for another movie based attraction (Swiss Family Treehouse). Tarzan also relies heavily on the movie, and retells the story though both books and static visual cartoon characters. The sad reality is that Swiss imo did a lot more with a great deal less. At one time the treehouse felt real, and lived in. It didn't feel like a Disney Store display.

Pooh is an attraction that was literally shoe-horned into location. It doesn't even bother to attempt to support the often confusing theme of Critter Country. It stands as a testament to the powerful draw of a character. Many ride it simply to see Pooh, and leave wondering why there wasn't even a hint of Disney's storytelling charm. Some have gone so far as to say it is an example of Disney at it's lowest point. Roger by comparison has an extremely well themed queue and is completely supportive of the ToonTown theme. At it's core is a unique and fun attraction. It does retell the story of Roger, but again you could have pulled this off without the need for a movie tie in. The movie serves to support it, not prop it up.

And that leaves the "Classics". You will likely hear differing opinions on what makes them either great or horrible. Personally I don't like Pinocchio or Snow White... but that is merely personal preference. Each of the attractions allow the Guest to experience one of Disney's classic animated features... to "live it" if you will. They all rely heavily on their respective movie both for theme and story. Yet they provide an experience that transcends a mere passive show. You are driving Mr Toad's car and things are jumping out at you. You are flying in Peter Pan's ship helping to rescue Wendy etc. Some would argue what truly separates them is their classic status. That those attractions benefit from decades of memories. It is questionable if they would still be as popular if they were built recently. Some individuals like to compare them to Pooh. Personally I would be insulted if an attraction I had a part in were compared to another attraction that was 50 years old and my design was the one found to be lacking! Somehow WDI doesn't see it that way.

So again I say, the fact that a character or movie is in an attraction isn't really an issue for me. The issue is how that character or that movie is applied to it.

[ni_teach]

Tarzan's Treehouse. The movie didn't do well yet it still exists?

From my memory it did do fairly well at the box office and Tarzan is well know from the books, TV shows and other movies.

But I would like to see HISTA be retired.

[Quacky4Donald]

Tarzan's Treehouse. The movie didn't do well yet it still exists?

I think a GOOD ride based on Tarzan could be amazing. There's lots that could be done with swinging on a vine while being around the jungle atmosphere. I say call it something lame like Tarzan's Swingin' Good Time. LOL

This may lead to an interesting discussion. I would say a lot of the times it isn't so much the decision to tie to a movie. It's the application of said movie upon the attraction. Indy the ride has elements that are common in Indy the movie... but it tells it's own story and stands on it's own. The Indy franchise is there to encourage more individuals to ride, but at it's core it is a fun jeep ride that could work with or without the tie-in. Indy also serves to support the exotic nature of the Adventureland theme. Star Tours can be seen in a similar light, both in it's core and in it's ability to support the futuristic theme of Tomorrowland.

HISTA relies heavily on a marginally successful movie franchise and 3D gimmicks. It really doesn't "add" to the futuristic view of Tomorrowland. BLAB is a fun ride, but again relies heavily on the movie to sell a theme about toys... in Tomorrowland... Buzz is a Space Ranger but even that is not truely supportive of Tomorrowland's theme.

Finding Nemo is basically the DVD in the comfort of a Submarine. Again heavy reliance on the movie it is tied to. The sad reality is that this was at one time a truely unique experience that was loosely tied to 20,000 leagues. Tarzan can be seen as Finding Nemo's Adventureland compliment in many ways. It too was a replacement for another movie based attraction (Swiss Family Treehouse). Tarzan also relies heavily on the movie, and retells the story though both books and static visual cartoon charcters. The sad reality is that Swiss imo did a lot more with a great deal less. At one time the treehouse felt real, and lived in. It didn't feel like a Disney Store display.

Pooh is an attraction that was literally shoe-horned into location. It doesn't even bother to attempt to support the often confusing theme of Critter Country. It stands as a testiment to the powerful draw of a character. Many ride it simply to see Pooh, and leave wondering why there wasn't even a hint of a story. Roger by comparison has an extremely well themed queue and is completely supportive of the ToonTown theme. At it's core is a unique and fun attraction. It does retell the story of Roger, but again you could have pulled this off without the need for a movie tie in. The movie serves to support it, not prop it up.

And that leaves the "Classics". You will likely hear differing opinions on what makes them either great or horrible. Personally I don't like Pinnochio or Snow White... but that is merely personal preference. Each of the attractions allow the Guest to experience one of Disney's classic annimated features... to "live it" if you will. They all rely heavily on their respective movie both for theme and story. Yet they provide an experience that transcends a mere passive show. You are driving Mr Toad's car and things are jumping out at you. You are flying in Peter Pan's ship helping to rescue Wendy etc. Some would argue what truely seperates them is their classic status. That those attractions benefit from decades of memories. It is questionable if they would still be as popular if they were built recently. Some individuals like to compare them to Pooh. Personally I would be insulted if an attraction I had a part in were compared to another attraciton that was 50 years old and my design was the one found to be lacking! Somehow WDI doesn't see it that way.

So agian I say, the fact that a character or movie is in an attraction isn't really an issue for me. The issue is how that character or that movie is applied to it.

Good response, but dude, do you ever post short responses? LOL J/k

>Joe<

[techskip]

From my memory it did do fairly well at the box office and Tarzan is well know from the books, TV shows and other movies.

But I would like to see HISTA be retired.

It's main contribution was Phil Collin's music (which I believe won some awards).

[MarkTwain]

I think a GOOD ride based on Tarzan could be amazing. There's lots that could be done with swinging on a vine while being around the jungle atmosphere. I say call it something lame like Tarzan's Swingin' Good Time. LOL
>Joe<

I once armchaired a coaster for Animal Kingdom at WDW, essentially a suspended-coaster dressed-up as a tree. The coaster featured AAs of gorillas and elephants, as well as some intense bongo music, and the queue was a sort of Tarzan's Treehouse.

But anyway...

I feel like the problem with Tarzan's Treehouse was not the movie tie-in, for what was there before was only a movie tie-in, but rather its execution. They are trying to retell the movie, whereas SFRT merely recreated the environment. If WDI removed the figures and books, and put in a water-wheel and other "homey" features that made it feel more real, it would be much more successful.

[DLFreak71]

To be technical (I know, I'm being picky).
The two listed items that I want removed from the park are attractions, not rides.
HISTA because it wore out it's welcome a long time ago (nothing wrong with it 20 years ago (or close to it)
and Tarzan Tree house isn't so much a bad idea, the transformation of it was just not thought out well (I do say the bottom area (after you climb) isn't too bad).

[anziodogface]

I said HISTA. I'm pretty sure we all knew how this poll would go.

[jagass]

Honey, I shrunk the Audience...