It's Happening ... I'm Getting Over Disney

[chesirecat]

John Lasseter is without a doubt the most overrated person in the entire Walt Disney Company. Even more overrated than Staggs and George K.

Perhaps people forget that he is suppose to make movies not parks. Yet everytime he buts his heads in the park we get infinite Pixar attractions in areas they don't fit. The greatest attractions have had no ties to Lasseter. Since Lasseter has been on board, we've gotten Nemo, Crush's Coaster Carsland, Midway Mania, more Buzz Lightyear's and more Pixar everywhere.

I guess Pirates has no ties to Lasseter because it was put into the park before he started working there? Doesn't seem like that's his fault . . .

Seriously, Carsland and RSR in particular are monster hits and Lasseter fought to keep the budget from getting the axe. Seems like the guy deserves a lot of credit for that, Carsland might be the most popular land in all of DLR. Personally, I hope that another Pixar property is turned into a highly themed land like Carsland, and I thought Brave was pretty good, and though I wasn't in love with the first Monsters Inc. film, the second one looks a lot better.

Midway Mania is a nice ride, don't see it as evidence of a major failure, though more dark ride scenes would be nice.

I think Iger is the most over-rated person working for Disney, a non-creative type at the top of the food chain, though he made the right call with Star Wars.

[chesirecat]

Me neither. I don't know why most fans think that Disney parks and Disney movies must remain as far away from each other at all costs.

^This.

Would people want Peter Pan's Flight changed to, "Soarin' Over London and a Tropical Island with Generic Pirates", with some generic classical music?

Sure, it's nice having an attraction like Country Bear Jamboree that has characters which are exclusive to a theme park, but I find the completely generic stuff like Grizzly River Run completely boring. A majority of guests expect, and even enjoy, seeing certain characters in the parks.

[Steve DeGaetano]

I don't know why most fans think that Disney parks and Disney movies must remain as far away from each other at all costs.

Because they generally need to be shoehorned in thematically and most guests can see right through this.

[LangenFox]

Yes, Disney's business practices has gone downhill ever since the Pressler Era came about. Eisner isn't really that bad of a CEO since he let Disney imagineers created Disneyland Paris and give imagineers more freedom and autonomy when it comes to creating attractions/rides and shows. Look at Fantasmic! Star Tours, Indiana Jones Adventure, and Splash Mountain! Fans like us should be appreciative for the creation of the now classic movie-based attractions and same for Fantasmic! Currently, Disney has been refurbishing attractions to keep in good condition, though I do agree that cast members and others has not been good during the past years for some. But, you shouldn't get over it. I don't, I'm a Disney fanatic, I own most of the animation movie and Pixar movies on Blu-ray. Plus, I have wide variety of interests other than Disney so that my Disney hardcore interest won't get sour. You're never too old for Disney. I also like Universal for their movies as well!

Some of you Micechatters, you should at least be appreciate what Disney has done for Disney California Adventure and Disneyland. I used to be a hard purist, but eventually I get off of that and let it flow. I'm still upset to the 'changes' to the classic attractions like IASW, POTC, and HM. But, those changes are not over the top, they still retain their classic charm but with updated props, lightning, animatronics, and effects. However, I wish the attic scene was the original one and I wish there was no Disney characters on IASW, and I wish they remove Barbossa and Jack Sparrow but keep the Spanish soldier speaking head figure on the fort and 1 hidden Jack Sparrow cameo instead. Other big problems is the Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage, not my favorite, I prefer the original one with updated effects and complete overhaul. The rotting Peoplemover Track needs to have something!!! Tomorrowland needs more TLC and it's still something something fresh and unique.

I will never get over of Disney, because I grew up with Disney and you're never too old for Disney. I know how most AP Holders will get tired, because they seen too much already and slowly let the magic slip. That's why I go ever year 1-3 times, but I don't mind going every other month. Premium AP is expensive and I don't plan on getting that any time soon, but the select day AP is good enough for me.

I also never had a chance to buy products from Disneystore.com and/or paid a subscription to D23. I wish I have a subscription. I'm also planning to buy more old and vintage Disneyland books and as well as newer ones too for my collection, I still need more.

I love both the old Disneyland and the new one as well. I still watch old videos of Disneyland found on video and old video of attractions before their change and that's how get my fix.

I'm 22 and still pretty young, don't get me wrong. I'll will never get tired of Disney and the Disney theme parks. I wish I can to the other Disney theme parks around the world like Tokyo, Paris, and Hong Kong. I also still need to experience to WDW resort at least once! Hong Kong Disneyland already got one of their exslusive original attraction such as the Grizzly Gulch roller coaster ride and Mystic Manor.

Edit: I definitely agree that Disney is shoving their brand name down to our throats when everywhere we go.

[RegionsBeyond]

Me neither. I don't know why most fans think that Disney parks and Disney movies must remain as far away from each other at all costs.

It's not so black-and-white as the generalization of, the movies need to be kept entirely separate is a viewpoint a lot of people have that I have seen: that's a generalization itself.

People like original characters like in Country Bear Jamboree, Pirates (the redhead, the auctioneer, the jailed pirates, etc), The Haunted Mansion, Carousel of Progress, Small World, and the like. It's the execution of say having the name 'CAPTAIN JACK SPARROW' shouted at you incessantly in Pirates that grates, or the mist screen with uninspiring movie Blackbeard babbling at you: lack of subtlety and appropriate integration. There absolutely would be a way to integrate movie items into Pirates that would be more tailored to the pre-existing attraction: Disney just didn't do so particularly well.

Carsland works for me as is, as a separate land, and is very well themed. I do hold minor reservations about how much it relates to California, but by that point, they'd been chipping away at that aspect of the park's theme for many, many years. Star Tours is a marvelously executed attraction overall, as is Indy, neither of which were owned by Disney when built and based on film franchises.

Finding Nemo submarine voyage? Failure of execution and the 'land' they claim it is a part of doesn't match it. Stitch's Great Escape? Failure of execution. Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters? Largely accepted as a good attraction and fun with possibly less-fitting location. Pooh? Decent dark ride if not inspiring, somewhat poor location. Splash Mountain? Accepted both as a fun ride and well-matched to setting at Disneyland. Tarzan? Forgettable/not awful overlay of a genuinely appreciated lost 'classic' DL experience. The old Zazu/Iago Tiki Room overlay at WDW? Generally seen as dreadful and trite, obnoxious. Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin? Successful and overall well-liked, seemingly.

So, no, for most, the fact that something is a movie first is not a kiss of death or an automatic 'keep it away' that I have seen, it's more complex than that. Pixar specifically has a less stellar track record at Disneyland Resort is all, with Nemo and Monsters Inc. not inspiring much devotion, little feeling about the 'Up' elements at the Redwood Creek either way, Buzz Lightyear being liked generally as a ride but questions about locale, and Carsland and Midway Mania seeming to win over most.

[Mr Wiggins]

I don't know why most fans think that Disney parks and Disney movies must remain as far away from each other at all costs.

I don't know why some fans insist on claiming "most fans think that Disney parks and Disney movies must remain as far away from each other at all costs," when it repeatedly has been shown that the issue is one of balance between movie-based and non movie-based rides:

The number of posts calling for balance between brand and non-brand attractions is too many to count, and still the bogus label is slapped on posters of "You just want to remove all brand franchises from Disneyland" (and its equally bogus corollary, "Even Walt used the park for marketing").


More examples of the call for balance:

Originally Posted by Datameister
I don't think anyone's trying to make a case for movie tie-ins being bad. It's balance we want, and when Disneyland itself (as opposed to the whole resort) currently lacks any original attractions less than 40 years old, balance is not what we're getting.

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins
It has never been argued that brand-based rides are bad in and of themselves. The argument is that the balance between brand-based and original rides has been lost.

The fact that Walt Disney used his own popular characters in Disneyland rides has never been an issue. The historical fact is that brand-based rides in the pre-Eisner era were in the vast minority compared to original rides. Again, the issue is balance.

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins
...nobody's saying "Walt would never use the parks for marketing;" obviously he did. Using Disneyland to market Disney characters is not a "new thing," but now it's the only thing -- and not "lately," it's been happening as an Only Thing for decades.

In the years before Eisner, there was a balance of character brand rides (Pete Pan, Alice, Toad, Snow White, Swiss family Treehouse) and "original in Disneyland" rides (POTC, HM, Autopia, SF&DL RR, Mark Twain, Small World, Carousel of Progress, Space Mountain, People Mover, Adventure thru Inner Space, Submarines, etc.). With Eisner & Iger, it's all brand marketing, all the time. The difference is that with Walt, Disneyland was the brand. Its mix of attractions was aimed at all age groups. With Eisner & Iger, Disneyland is a marketing platform for whatever brand (toons mostly, and lifestyle brands especially) that Disney is currently hyping, primarily to the youth and kiddie demographics.

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins
I'd really like to see Disney give these movie franchise-based attractions a rest, and restore the balance between marketeering and true imagineering. Carsland... Avatarland... it's all the same idea as Universal Studio's "Ride the Movies," which was ripped off by Michael Eisner when he redefined Disneyland as "all about turning movies into rides." Where's the innovation and creativity that brought us Pirates of the Caribbean, Haunted Mansion and so many other Disneyland originals?

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins
I would like to see no more character-based attractions brought in until a balance is restored between character-based and original attractions. For years they've been turning Disneyland into a marketing-mall-with-rides that push franchise brand toons. Enough.

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins
Disneyland became a world-wide phenomenon for its creative and innovative use of themed land storytelling, with a balance of original attractions and movie-based attractions -- a fact that is irrelevant to the Marketeers running the place today.

Originally Posted by JerrodDRagon
we want balance...an ALL movie made park would be worse then one that allows both ideas to follow freely

Originally Posted by Diznygrl
For me, it's not that I hate Pixar or anything. I love Pixar movies. It's just that Disney is relying WAY too heavily on the popularity of Pixar to carry their attractions instead of doing what they used to be good at and creating completely original things that are not based off an existing franchise, like Haunted Mansion or Space Mountain. The balance of movie to non-movie attractions is being thrown way off these days because they've become too afraid to take a risk on something that doesn't have a character's face slapped on it.

Originally Posted by animagusurreal
...The other concern is the erosion of originaltiy at DL. The park also had original attractions from day one (e.g., Flight to the Moon, Mark Twain Steamboat) and in the 60's and 70's, the majority of the additions to the park were original/non-movie based (e.g., Tiki Room, Pirates, HM). Nobody is arguing movie based rides are bad, but a balance makes the park feel more like it's own entity, and less like a dumping ground for the company's franchises.

Originally Posted by RegionsBeyond
...Some attractions crop up or replace other solely because there is a modern film to tie it to, regardless of end quality or enjoyment factor for all guests or if the movie story fits a brand new attraction, is well adaptable to the theme park medium. This seems to happen more rapidly sadly, even at the same time as they make undeniably good enhancements and changes that I love. The balance can tip, and it might already be doing so. I hope the day doesn't come when even the fact of the high quality of the experience, ambiance, and detail can't hide the fact the only purpose of Disneyland is to support the sale of DVD's or to bolster theatrical grosses at the expense of attraction quality or artistic coherence/thematic design....

Originally Posted by sbk1234
...I'd also like to see some balance, rather than EVERYTHING being a movie tie-in. Some of each would be nice....

Originally Posted by Aladdin
I don't mind Pixar characters in DL or DCA, I just don't want to see Toy Story in Frontierland with woody and jessie, and in Fantasyland in small world and in Tomorrowland with Buzz L's Astro Blasters, and in Paradise Pier with Midway Mania, and in the Pixar Play parade, and in the Christmas Parade and ugggg, in the Hyperion theater, too! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, Balance is the key!...

Originally Posted by Aladdin
Some Pixar in the parks is ok, BUT overload is not good. The balance is too much pixar at this point.

Originally Posted by Seawolf
I absolutely agree there needs to be a balance.

Originally Posted by Datameister
I don't think anyone's suggesting that Disney parks should consist entirely of original material and never draw on any Disney franchises. Some people are simply concerned that there hasn't been a proper balance of original and non-original projects lately, a sentiment I can definitely relate to. But then again, I also understand that if you're just looking at the bottom line, it could be pretty tempting to pick the least risky approach.

Originally Posted by calsig31
The thing that was successful from the beginning was the balance between character and original rides. Disneyland must be made up of both, but there has to be a balance. That is what made Disneyland so successful and what must be restored.

"Most fans think that Disney parks and Disney movies must remain as far away from each other at all costs" is a misrepresentation of the critique of Disneyland's current runaway glut of branding. The above posts are just a handful of examples of what the critics are really saying; countless more of the same may be found in this forum going back to its founding.

[chesirecat]

I don't know why some fans insist on claiming "most fans think that Disney parks and Disney movies must remain as far away from each other at all costs," when it repeatedly has been shown that the issue is one of balance between movie-based and non movie-based rides:

. . .

"Most fans think that Disney parks and Disney movies must remain as far away from each other at all costs" is a misrepresentation of the critique of Disneyland's current runaway glut of branding. The above posts are just a handful of examples of what the critics are really saying; countless more of the same may be found in this forum going back to its founding.

I'm not sure what "repeatedly been shown" means as we're all just sort of expressing our own opinions. The diehard fans may well have a different take on the matter when compared to the average park guest, and I don't think all diehards, or even a majority of diehards, have a problem with the current franchise saturation level in the park.

I don't see many APers tossing rotten vegetables at the Jo-Ho's sign and faux chaulk drawings because it uses Mary Poppins, instead of being a generic type restaurant.

In the end, its kind of abstract to draw a line between franchise and non-franchise attractions. Rides becomes movies, movies become rides, and rides not specifically based on a movie borrow heavily from them, i.e. Jungle Cruise/African Queen, Main Street USA/So Dear to My Heart . . . A future franchised ride might become "unbranded" if most guests don't recall the film. What if Toy Story Mania is still going in 50 years, and the ultra high level trivia question is "did you know what movie Toy Story Mania was actually based off of?"

Carsland is fun even if you don't know about the film, as far as I can tell.

Space Mountain may be made into a film, they may go back and add references to the film . . . is this somehow diluting the "purity" of the ride?!? I don't think so, often times rides in Disneyland didn't have a strong theme (film tie in), because vault Disney was smaller back then, and it was quicker to add generic stuff.

I want to see how big of a firestorm there will be when the Jungle Cruise movie comes out, if it becomes a big hit they might consider putting in a Tom Hanks animatronic or something like that. I say do it!, if the film becomes a well-loved blockbuster.

[Tiny Mermaid]

This is a great post.

I was at Disneyland last October, and definitely experienced the burned out feeling expressed by the OP. I've never had an AP; I go to Disneyland once a year if I'm lucky. But this trip was different. It was so crowded. Everything just felt like a hassle, and less magical, I guess is the way to describe it.

I'll definitely be taking a break from the resort this year. As some earlier posters have said, I think I'm more in love with the Disneyland in my head than the Disneyland that actually exists.

[DL714]

I don't know why some fans insist on claiming "most fans think that Disney parks and Disney movies must remain as far away from each other at all costs," when it repeatedly has been shown that the issue is one of balance between movie-based and non movie-based rides:

To you, balance is important. But Disney's own internal research might show that more people will buy a ticket to come ride Radiator Springs Racers than Red Canyon Racers. In that case, it is really the consumer that is determining what the balance should be.

Disney is known principally for its movies or intellectual property. Consequently, when the average consumer goes to the park, that is what they expect to see. If that means that the balance becomes skewed to movie-based attractions, it would seem to make perfect business sense.

[Rave]

Walt Disney also made movies and not parks, at first. Seemed to work out ok, no?

Yet Walt also devoted time to creating original attractions such as Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Tomorrowland 1967, etc.

Lasseter has solely worked on movie based attractions and some monstrosities at that such as Toy Story Playland and bugs land.

[Disneylandfan85]

Fans like us should be appreciative for the creation of the now classic movie-based attractions and same for Fantasmic! Currently, Disney has been refurbishing attractions to keep in good condition, though I do agree that cast members and others has not been good during the past years for some. But, you shouldn't get over it. I don't, I'm a Disney fanatic, I own most of the animation movie and Pixar movies on Blu-ray. Plus, I have wide variety of interests other than Disney so that my Disney hardcore interest won't get sour. You're never too old for Disney. I also like Universal for their movies as well!

Some of you Micechatters, you should at least be appreciate what Disney has done for Disney California Adventure and Disneyland. I used to be a hard purist, but eventually I get off of that and let it flow. I'm still upset to the 'changes' to the classic attractions like IASW, POTC, and HM. But, those changes are not over the top, they still retain their classic charm but with updated props, lightning, animatronics, and effects. However, I wish the attic scene was the original one and I wish there was no Disney characters on IASW, and I wish they remove Barbossa and Jack Sparrow but keep the Spanish soldier speaking head figure on the fort and 1 hidden Jack Sparrow cameo instead. Other big problems is the Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage, not my favorite, I prefer the original one with updated effects and complete overhaul. The rotting Peoplemover Track needs to have something!!! Tomorrowland needs more TLC and it's still something something fresh and unique.

I will never get over of Disney, because I grew up with Disney and you're never too old for Disney. I know how most AP Holders will get tired, because they seen too much already and slowly let the magic slip. That's why I go ever year 1-3 times, but I don't mind going every other month. Premium AP is expensive and I don't plan on getting that any time soon, but the select day AP is good enough for me.

I also never had a chance to buy products from Disneystore.com and/or paid a subscription to D23. I wish I have a subscription. I'm also planning to buy more old and vintage Disneyland books and as well as newer ones too for my collection, I still need more.

I love both the old Disneyland and the new one as well. I still watch old videos of Disneyland found on video and old video of attractions before their change and that's how get my fix.

I'm 22 and still pretty young, don't get me wrong. I'll will never get tired of Disney and the Disney theme parks. I wish I can to the other Disney theme parks around the world like Tokyo, Paris, and Hong Kong. I also still need to experience to WDW resort at least once! Hong Kong Disneyland already got one of their exslusive original attraction such as the Grizzly Gulch roller coaster ride and Mystic Manor.

My sentiments exactly. As for Pirates, I can take the addition of the movie characters or leave it. I will never get tired of Disney, either. I'm an Aspie, as I said, and it so happens that my main obsession, as I said, is Disney, especially Disney parks, especially Disneyland. I never WANT to get over Disney.

[Retrocool]

Nothing was SADDER to me than watching last year the "Modern Family" episode where they went to Disneyland, and the whole thing made FUN of Disneyland. At the end, they went to the groundbreaking, Walt-created "Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln," and they turned it into a disrespectful joke ... so ABC could get extra promotion at Disneyland and vice-versa and "synergies could be realized."

Now I'm glad I've never watched that show, if that's the kind of disrespect the suits have for Walt's creation. This is why I don't believe Iger and his cronies when they spout their carefully created platitudes in PR interviews. It's easy to see that they're just BSing.

Like I've said before, if I were in charge of the company, I'd be looking to sell ABC/Cap Cities as fast as I could, as well as a lot of the other acquisitions, then do a stock buyback and take the company private again (and invest whatever was left over from the sales back into the company). I'd overhaul the entire cable TV division (creating a Walt Disney Classics channel in the process), and invest more in the film and parks divisions. (Creative originality would be encouraged in both! Enough of the sequels, remakes, franchises, and film tie-ins all the time - let's bring back originality!) I'd also bring back Disney's old tagline (that they advertised on every movie poster) - "Look to the name Walt Disney for the finest in family entertainment!" - and insist on awesome artwork for movie posters and DVD/Blu-Ray covers. I'd also do theatrical re-releases of a lot of the classics (including the modern classics), then triple or quadruple the prices of APs, reduce the one- and two-day park tickets, and even bring back ticket books as a special option!

[Mr Wiggins]

Now I'm glad I've never watched that show, if that's the kind of disrespect the suits have for Walt's creation. This is why I don't believe Iger and his cronies when they spout their carefully created platitudes in PR interviews. It's easy to see that they're just BSing.

The disrespect that the Eisger regime holds for Walt-era Disney product and values is legendary. Suits and (especially) suit wannabes impress their bosses by subtly (and un-subtly) snarking at traditional Disney. As a badge of membership in management, eyerolling pre-Eisner Disney is second only to eyerolling Disney fans.

Yet Walt also devoted time to creating original attractions such as Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Tomorrowland 1967, etc.

Exactly. Disneyland was a world-class hit and has lasted so long because it was founded on standards of innovation and risk-taking that Lasseter (for all his talents) and his beancounter bosses can't begin to conceive -- and will never be able to approach.

[chesirecat]

The disrespect that the Eisger regime holds for Walt-era Disney product and values is legendary. Suits and (especially) suit wannabes impress their bosses by subtly (and un-subtly) snarking at traditional Disney. As a badge of membership in management, eyerolling pre-Eisner Disney is second only to eyerolling Disney fans.

Yes, Eisner didn't "grow up on Disney", but I think it is an exaggeration to say that a snarky attitude towards canon Disney, and towards fans, is the way to get ahead at the company, or a rite of passage.

Exactly. Disneyland was a world-class hit and has lasted so long because it was founded on standards of innovation and risk-taking that Lasseter (for all his talents) and his beancounter bosses can't begin to conceive -- and will never be able to approach.

Are we talking about the same John Lasseter who risked his career by going into computer animation, and by butting heads with Disney repeatedly in the early years?

This is the same John Lasseter who worked in the park on the Jungle Cruise, and as a custodian in Tomorrowland.

I'm not sure if you noticed Wiggins, but Carsland is a gigantic success, and rivals some of Disneyland's best lands, such as NOS and Frontierland. Lasseter also pulled a lot of strings to get funding for Carsland, had the project failed it would have cost him influence at the company. Lasseter has taken a lot of risks during his career, and they've all paid off so people tend to forget that they were risks in the first place.

Not saying there aren't bean counter bosses, but Lasseter sorta went out on a limb by attacking WDI for keeping budgets for attractions so low, I am glad he won and we got Carsland and BVS. Fans should thank Lasseter, not think he's part of a culture at Burbank/Glendale that has insidiously developed over the past many decades.

I'm ready for Dinosaurland should they let Lasseter build it!

Oh, and the top bean counters have basically said that the Carsland model of building a detailed land, versus stand-alone attractions, has won out. I think we have John Lasseter to thank for that.

[mindy327]

This entire thread was a popcorn eating 15 minutes... Everyone to their own. I can chime in and say I returned from a WDW trip we won for 9 days. I found myself underwhelmed and wishing I were at DL. I can't stand that APs have increased in price and I now have to shell over 1800$ for the four of us to get APs but I WILL AND I AM renewing in Feb. I love being at Disneyland and it still brings tears to my eyes when I walk down mainstreet. In a previous post, it mentioned an analogy to Christmas... We go 3-4 times a year and that builds the excitement and we love going. Soooo, Ill put on my flame suit and say MORE ROOM FOR ME!!!