What's your opinion on Disney rides/lands themed to movie franchises?

I enjoy original attractions more, but I don't mind movie-based attraction. As long as there is a good balance that's ok.

My opinion is I don't care. I honestly just want to experience something fun which is why I go to Disneyland. If it's based off a movie or not it doesn't even phase me. I don't hate Star Tour or like it more than Space Mountain because it's based off a franchise that's just silly to me.

Transformers at USH is a good example of how a franchise can be made original. The attraction tells it's own story outside the movies pretty much and I love it I know it borrows from the movies lore but it's presented in such a awesome style. RsR does the same thing.

So give me a movie tie in or original Disney made attraction i don't care but make it good!!!!

I generally prefer original stories to sequels/prequels. Disney has shown a penchant for sequels ....whether in rides or movies ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disneymike

So then you don't like Haunted Mansion, Big Thunder, Space Mountain, POTC, Matterhorn. :???:

---

Don't get me wrong, I love all of those attractions, but unlike others here, I'd rather see movie-based rides taking up the majority of the park, with a few splashes of original rides here and there.

With a current popular idea being vampires let's say they build a vampire ride.

Do they wrap thier Babysitter Vampire show into it?

Do they buy Dark Shadows the Warner Film with Jonny Depp?

Or make a ride with no film relation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins

In Disneyland's heyday as a place that attracted kings, queens, presidents and dignitaries from around the world, the most famous attractions were not ride promotions. From the railroad and the Mark Twain to the submarines and the monorail, Disneyland's originals outnumbered the movie-based rides and outranked them in fame and popularity. That all changed with the advent of the Eisger regime, when Disneyland became all about "Turning Movies into Rides" -- a blatant copy of Universal's "Ride the Movies."

---

Ride promotions? If you mean rides promoting the movies (which I think you do...?), that's totally not what Disney does. Rides promoting the movies would be creating a generic coaster and re-theming it slightly to the newest movie that came out. Disney creates new rides based off movies that came out over 10 years olds, I'm pretty sure that they aren't creating the rides to try and convince people to go out and buy the movies. They're creating the rides because they were great movies!

Sorry in advance if I mis-understood what you were saying.

Disney = films. People and fans want to see those films brought to life. Despite purist complaining, films attractions are a huge draw and they belong in a Disney park. Non Disney films is a different story, and entire lands based on one movie is a bit much, but Disney attractions should be there and always will belong. Complaining about them is like complaining about someone having a picture of themselves in their own house. Walt created new stories, but they didn't have a quarter of the movies they have now to pull from.

I have no problem with movie tie-ins as Walt started the park with them. What I have a problem with is when little to nothing new comes without a movie tie-in, creating an oversaturation of movie related attractions.

It shows both creative laziness and cowardly business decision making.

I don't care, as long as it is a great, well themed attraction that fits in with its surroundings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sambo

I have no problem with movie tie-ins as Walt started the park with them. What I have a problem with is when little to nothing new comes without a movie tie-in, creating an oversaturation of movie related attractions.

It shows both creative laziness and cowardly business decision making.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sambo

i have no problem with movie tie-ins as walt started the park with them. What i have a problem with is when little to nothing new comes without a movie tie-in, creating an oversaturation of movie related attractions.

It shows both creative laziness and cowardly business decision making.

---

yes!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sambo

I have no problem with movie tie-ins as Walt started the park with them. What I have a problem with is when little to nothing new comes without a movie tie-in, creating an oversaturation of movie related attractions.

It shows both creative laziness and cowardly business decision making.

---

This. I also agree with the idea that the attractions should be about Disney created films; not outside properties that Disney has purchased.

Although I would hate to have an enitire land or especially a whole park based off one franchise, I like movie-themed rides, IF they're done well.

To me, some movie franchises, even though not made by Disney seem, well, more Disneyish than others. It's just my personal preference. The Indy and Star Wars movies were both made without the influence of Disney yet attractions based off these movies in the parks are some of my favorite in Disneyland.

To me though, I don't think Disney should be using any other non Disney made franchises for rides or Lands anymore. Even though Disney bought Lucasfilm still doesn't mean they made the movies. That being said, I'm all for attractions based off of Disney-made movies in the parks.

Look at World of colour, almost ENTIRELY based off disney movies yet still stands as the best nighttime show on the planet.

Then again, take the Tower of Terror. Now I know it's based off an old TV show which Disney had rights too but if you took away the Twilight Zone label and simply had a story of a Hotel struck by Lightning that you are investigating, we'd still have the mind-blowing ride we have today. All you'd really have to do is change the name and a re-film the pre-show and a bit of the ride audio mentioning the show and BOOM; you have a completely original attraction.

What I really HATE though, is when Disney takes one of the best origianl rides they've ever created which has been operating for decades **cough**piratesofthecaribbean**cough** and slaps ANY movie reference on it. That just makes me sick and I hope the same does not happen for such a beloved ride as Thunder Mountain while it is being renovated.

The movie based rides are unique creations for instance Star Tours and Indiana Jones does not reflect any plot points from the movies and barely feature the memorable main characters. You mostly see the secondary characters and the set designs are in the spirit of the movies.

What makes the rides "Disney" or "Disneyland" is its approach to the ride and backstories. The attractions appear to offer more detail than can be seen in one ride. They inspire wonder. That's why I never saw a conflict if I first went on Pirates and then went on Indiana Jones. The Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland isn't the Indiana Jones movie by Paramount. Now, the movies are part of Disney. It came full circle.

Disney doesn't have an monopoly on ideas. George Lucas was the new Disney in the sci-fi realm. John Lasserter was the new Disney at Pixar for 3D animation. They are all Disney now.

I suppose one day Disney will own Avatar. Perhaps it shouldn't take Titanic and Terminator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sambo

I have no problem with movie tie-ins as Walt started the park with them. What I have a problem with is when little to nothing new comes without a movie tie-in, creating an oversaturation of movie related attractions.

It shows both creative laziness and cowardly business decision making.

---

Yep.