Do Pixar movies need their own land to fit in?

[dogtherock]

It is no secret that the Pixar rides just do not fit in thematically where they are. Why should a toy space ranger be in Tomorrowland... he is a toy. Are the Pixar stories just so original that Walt himself didn't include them in his park plans (of course the techno was far ahead of his time)?
It seems to me that when you make a land for Pixar the attractions are great! a bug's land is really fun for kids and I love walking through it because it is so adorable.
And how does Nemo fit in a city of the future. He doesn't. And Monsters Inc. doesn't fit in at the Hollywood PIctures Backlot.
It is near impossible now because of space issues but shouldn't Pixar just get there own theme park? Maybe they should slowly turn DCA into Pixarland, or even better Lasseterland. Or is the plan already in effect. a bug's land, Cars Land... MU AH HA HA HA Would you like a Pixarland better than DCA?

[aduecey]

The varying subject matter of the various pixar properties doesn't exactly lend itself very well to stuffing a bunch of pixar branded rides together in one space like the old classics can get away with in the castle courtyard. Woody rubbing elbows with Lightning Mcqueen just wouldn't ever look as natural as Snow White hanging out next to Pinocchio does.

I feel they are doing a nice job of creating lands around the pixar subject matter though. Bugland is nicely themed and carsland looks very promising. I just wonder if these properties will have the staying power that the old classics have had. I didn't exactly think that Bug Life was so amazing that I need to experience that film in the park.

[sunrider]

buzz lightyear in tommorow land. fits.amd dont fit..i notice no one cries about star tours..since buzz is a disney/pixar product and star tours is not.. and as far as the subs..well if you look at it this way it really wasnt meant for tommorowland ..it just kinda got stuck there..so no matter what happend to them theme wise.. wether it be 20,000 leauges or nemo..it would stick out just a bit..
now although in dca, bugsland is cool but its basicly all window dressing for the tough to be a bug show..its not even a Land. like adventureland is. and the whole preposed carsland idea..sounds good but instead of carsland..i think they should just call it radiator springs and be done with it....

[aashee]

Too late, Pixar has already infiltrated many lands regardless of whether it fits the theme or not.

[MadHatter45]

Does the Matterhorn fit in with the land of Disney Classics? No. I haven't seen an old Disney movie that was about the Matterhorn.

Does Star Tours fit into the future? No, it takes place "Long ago in a galaxy far, far away."

So, the same goes for Pixar. If they make one single attraction, not an entire land, then they need to find somewhere to put it where it will fit in the most. If they create an Incredibles attraction, we will most likely be seeing it in Tomorrowland because the Incredibles contained certain futuristic elements (giant robots, laser weapons, etc.) If an Up ride was created, we would most likely see it in Adventureland. It's just how it works. The Imagineers don't always design a whole land to fit around an attraction. They sometimes just have to take what they're given, and find a place for it in one of the exsisting lands. I think that Finding Nemo fits into Tomorrowland, same with Buzz Lightyear. I think that in the ride, they imagine him as an actual Space Ranger, not a child's play thing like he was in the movie.

[EpTxGuy]

I'm still surprised that "Cars" is getting an entire area in DCA. Was "Cars" that huge of a hit? Did it do like 10 or 20 times the box office of the other recent Pixar or Disney films? I liked the movie, but I can't see an entire area devoted to Carsland. Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other Disney/Pixar movies that deserve at least some attention (like an attraction). But I'd be hard-pressed to think of a film that deserves an entire "land".

[sunrider]

i agree with madhatter45 the incredebles would work in tommorow land..they are the most under used pixar charecters to date

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by EpTxGuy

I'm still surprised that "Cars" is getting an entire area in DCA. Was "Cars" that huge of a hit? Did it do like 10 or 20 times the box office of the other recent Pixar or Disney films? I liked the movie, but I can't see an entire area devoted to Carsland. Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other Disney/Pixar movies that deserve at least some attention (like an attraction). But I'd be hard-pressed to think of a film that deserves an entire "land".

It don't think it matters how the movie did, as long as the attraction(s) are relevant and up to date that don't go out of date even if the movie does. Does anyone seriously remember seeing (let alone buying them!) Song of the South or the Wind of the Willows? The movies aren't very popular at all today, but the rides sure are. Cars will be the same way, but I think the movie will live on much longer to help support the land.

Originally Posted by MadHatter45

Does the Matterhorn fit in with the land of Disney Classics? No. I haven't seen an old Disney movie that was about the Matterhorn.

Hello? Third Man on the Mountain!

[Director_Guy]

Originally Posted by EpTxGuy

I'm still surprised that "Cars" is getting an entire area in DCA. Was "Cars" that huge of a hit? Did it do like 10 or 20 times the box office of the other recent Pixar or Disney films? I liked the movie, but I can't see an entire area devoted to Carsland. Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other Disney/Pixar movies that deserve at least some attention (like an attraction). But I'd be hard-pressed to think of a film that deserves an entire "land".

I agree with Nautilus, it doesn't matter how well the film did. I think what really matters is how well the characters, subject matter, and visuals lend themselves to have an entire land.

What's likely to have happened is that the Imagineers sat down, went through the list of Pixar films, and thought up attractions for each. Cars was probably the biggest spring board for them, so they went with that.

However, that's just a theory, but it makes sense to me.

[ryno1986]

The reason the Pixar attractions don't fit is because the Pixar films take place in the present, real world (except for Wall-E and Cars, sort of). They are just told from the unique perspective of toys or bugs or fish etc. Most of the Disney classics take place in exotic locations or the past, which is similar to the parks.

[Padriac]

It's true that most of the Pixar stuff doesn't strictly fit the themes of Disneyland. This is simply a limitation of Disneyland which will always be constrained by the small set of themes it has chosen to make into lands.

A Pixar "land" could help this: this is basically what Walt did with the original Fantasyland:

Originally Posted by Padriac

Disney just needs to make what is essentially Fantasyland II, except theme it modern rather than medieval village. They could then easily stuff half the Pixar movies in there and it would fit thematically. Hell they could even theme it like the 1950's to keep it somewhat nostalgic: most of the Pixar movies would fit just as well there as the 90's/2000's. Andy's house for Toy Story. Boo's house for Monster's. Balloon house for UP. French restaurant for Ratatouille, and some house/building for the Incredibles. That just leaves Nemo (already has a ride), Bug's Life (already has a land), Cars (getting it's own land) and Wall•E (which should go in Tomorrowland).

This modern-ish themed land could also be used for non-Pixar contemporary ideas/properties as they come up.

[animagusurreal]

Originally Posted by MadHatter45

Does the Matterhorn fit in with the land of Disney Classics? No. I haven't seen an old Disney movie that was about the Matterhorn.

Does Star Tours fit into the future? No, it takes place "Long ago in a galaxy far, far away."

So, the same goes for Pixar. If they make one single attraction, not an entire land, then they need to find somewhere to put it where it will fit in the most. If they create an Incredibles attraction, we will most likely be seeing it in Tomorrowland because the Incredibles contained certain futuristic elements (giant robots, laser weapons, etc.) If an Up ride was created, we would most likely see it in Adventureland. It's just how it works. The Imagineers don't always design a whole land to fit around an attraction. They sometimes just have to take what they're given, and find a place for it in one of the exsisting lands. I think that Finding Nemo fits into Tomorrowland, same with Buzz Lightyear. I think that in the ride, they imagine him as an actual Space Ranger, not a child's play thing like he was in the movie.

The Matterhorn is there because Walt saw the real one in Switzerland and wanted one of his own. It shouldn't have fit, but it did somehow. Since the 1980's refurbs, with FL redone as a Bavarian village and the fantastical Abominable Snowman added, I think it fits even better.

The theme is fantasy. A lot of the land is filled with Disney classics, because their subject matter is also fantasy (which is why they chose that theme in the first place, when they had a blank slate and could have chosen anything) but non-movie based attractions can also fit, so long as they involve fantasy.

Unfortunately, Buzz is caught in limbo between toy and "real" space ranger in the ride. Note the presence of Etch-a-sketch, the plotline about "stolen batteries" and if I remember correctly, I think they even say they're bringing Zurg back to the store for being a bad toy. My guess is that they kept Buzz a toy to remind people of the movie they wanted to advertise, because they wanted people to buy toys of him, and as an excuse for making everything look so cheap. However, they also made him a "real" space ranger so they could shoehorn it into Tomorrowland. As others have said, Buzz the Space Ranger (as he was shown on the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command TV show) would have fit Tomorrowland.

Another solution I came up with would be to make the ride about an exciting new technology that lets you go into a video game, and the game happens to be a next-gen version of the Buzz Lightyear game shown at the beginning of Toy Story 2. That way you could have your three-dimensional video game (the main draw of the attraction) you could have your Buzz Lightyear tie-in, and still have it fit in Tomorrowland (cutting-edge future technology). Of course, they would still have to redo the entire ride with much higher production values for me to be satisfied .

To me, Star Tours fits perfectly into Tomorrowland with its "space tourism" plotline. It does say, "a long time ago", but everything about the movies is very futuristic compared to present-day Earth, like Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, but unlike the Toy Story films and Nemo.

Incredibles is more of a take on the superhero genre (and to some degree the spy genre) than sci-fi. The supers have super tech, but society in general is very present-day.

On the original subject of the thread, I am curious what a theme park specifically tailored to Pixar would look like (I armchair Imagineered a concept for one once myself). I agree with the idea that the different films don't fit neatly into one land the way the Disney classics do.

I also posted an idea for a "Toyland" sub-section of Fantasyland, which would have been built near, and incorporated "it's a small world", and would have included a Toy Story ride that was actually about seeing the world from the perspective of a toy, and a Pooh ride, because he's really supposed to be a stuffed animal come to life (bursting his seams in Winnie-the-Pooh and Hunny Tree, etc.) But of course, it's already too late for that...

Originally Posted by eptxguy

I'm still surprised that "Cars" is getting an entire area in DCA. Was "Cars" that huge of a hit? Did it do like 10 or 20 times the box office of the other recent Pixar or Disney films? I liked the movie, but I can't see an entire area devoted to Carsland. Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other Disney/Pixar movies that deserve at least some attention (like an attraction). But I'd be hard-pressed to think of a film that deserves an entire "land".

No, it wasn't the biggest box office hit, but it was a huge merchandising hit. Unfortunately, that seems to be what it's all about. Despite that, Cars still had a very atmospheric setting and I think it could make a good land if done right.

[Coheteboy]

I think it would have been fun to let Pixar people design their own theme park. And while it's fun to think about the 'what if's', it really is too late for our stateside parks.

And with Monsters Inc and Buzz already in Japan's Tomorrowland, it's' too late for them as well.

[aduecey]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

It don't think it matters how the movie did, as long as the attraction(s) are relevant and up to date that don't go out of date even if the movie does.

Weren't they considering doing a Journey to Atlantis theme to revitalize the subs way back when but then the movie tanked so bad it was left alone?

[Imtat]

Originally Posted by EpTxGuy

I'm still surprised that "Cars" is getting an entire area in DCA. Was "Cars" that huge of a hit? Did it do like 10 or 20 times the box office of the other recent Pixar or Disney films? I liked the movie, but I can't see an entire area devoted to Carsland. Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other Disney/Pixar movies that deserve at least some attention (like an attraction). But I'd be hard-pressed to think of a film that deserves an entire "land".

Cars is most likely getting the special attention of an entire land in the redone DCA because Cars 2 is set to open at around the same time as the section of the park that will be devoted to it. They'll serve to market each other.