Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 51 of 51
  1. #46

    • " Planet of Puddingheads"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In the TARDIS
    Posts
    2,068

    Re: An Epidemic of Movie-Based Rides...

    Quote Originally Posted by LordVader View Post
    That name, no longer has any meaning to me.
    How about Annie?
    Sorry, couldn't.... resist....
    “No worries, stay calm, one question. 
Do you happen to know how to fly this thing?”

  2. #47

    • Dive ..... Dive.....
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,786

    Re: An Epidemic of Movie-Based Rides...

    The fantasyland attractions have lasted this long because they are Walt Disney's masterpieces and have a special connection with the park, the same cannot be said for any other movie based ride in the history of Disneyland.

    Splash Mountain cannot be put in the movie category because almost no one realizes it's based off anything. Far as the average guest goes they think it's exclusive to the park. Not only that but you forget that the majority of the characters are from America Sings, a classic original.

    Indy is based off a franchise that is so popular that it overcomes any weakness associated with movie attractions. It also was a match made in heaven because of its temple theme which simply works in Adventurelad regardless of the character. The problem is you can't possibly use this attraction as an example to prove movie based rides can replace or fill the shoes of every original. I bet you couldn't count the number of franchises on one hand that match the popularity and timelessness of Indy and Star Wars. Not only that but their popularity is also further enhanced because of their original plot.
    Last edited by Seawolf; 07-18-2013 at 03:40 PM.

  3. #48

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    875

    Re: An Epidemic of Movie-Based Rides...

    Quote Originally Posted by Seawolf View Post

    The fantasyland attractions have lasted this long because they are Walt Disney's masterpieces and have a special connection with the park, the same cannot be said for any other movie based ride in the history of Disneyland.
    Special connection with the park? Is that why they have stood the test of time? No, I do not believe that. Or at least I do not believe that is the whole reason. Those attractions have survived because the movies have lived on. They have become classics and in turn, the attractions have become classics. But that alone is not enough. Like I've said the ride needs to be GOOD. And the FL dark rides are good. Just like the rest of the GOOD tie in rides that we've been arguing about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seawolf View Post

    Splash Mountain cannot be put in the movie category because almost no one realizes it's based off anything. Far as the average guest goes they think it's exclusive to the park. Not only that but you forget that the majority of the characters are from America Sings, a classic original.

    I

    This is the proof I've been talking about the whole time. When the public forgets the connection, that connection doesn't suddenly become some huge detriment to the ride. One day the public could all but forget who c3po, Lightning, Indy are. That won't make the rides worse because underneath the skin, they are all good rides. Does Brer Rabbit irk you when you see him in splash? Does he bother anyone? Then how will the other characters bother anyone once they become obscure? The answer is, they wont.

    But like I said, this only works with really good attractions. So nemo, monsters, astro blaster will not persist because, even though they are based on classic beloved movies, they are not particularly special rides. But Racers, Indy, Splash, Star Tours will live on because they are loved and they are good attractions in their own right.


    So in the end we have 2 real world proven outcomes concerning GOOD movie rides:

    1) Movie becomes forgotten yet because the attraction is so good it lives on.(Splash)
    2) Movie never gets forgotten + Good attraction = It lives on.(Indy, FL dark rides)

    No way am I advocating for the survival of every movie attraction. We all know some aren't going to survive for very long. But when done right, a movie attraction can survive and have none of the supposed disadvantages many claim they have.
    In the quest for quality, I have no problem with the characters footing the bill.

  4. #49

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Notre Dame
    Posts
    2,870

    Re: An Epidemic of Movie-Based Rides...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinrar View Post
    But like I said, this only works with really good attractions. So nemo, monsters, astro blaster will not persist because, even though they are based on classic beloved movies, they are not particularly special rides. But Racers, Indy, Splash, Star Tours will live on because they are loved and they are good attractions in their own right.


    .
    I agree with this. Because Monsters, Pooh, Ariel, and Nemo are passive and do not engage the audience and/or put them in the action like RSR, Indy, Splash, and Star Tours do, I doubt they will survive in the long run.

  5. #50

    • Dive ..... Dive.....
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,786

    Re: An Epidemic of Movie-Based Rides...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinrar View Post
    Special connection with the park? Is that why they have stood the test of time? No, I do not believe that. Or at least I do not believe that is the whole reason. Those attractions have survived because the movies have lived on. They have become classics and in turn, the attractions have become classics. But that alone is not enough. Like I've said the ride needs to be GOOD. And the FL dark rides are good. Just like the rest of the GOOD tie in rides that we've been arguing about.
    That's the issue, how many classic stories are you going to be able to build in the park, there are only so many of these golden franchises? That severely limits how many successful attractions you can build which have the ability to last more than 30 years. The only movie based attractions that have proven they can achieve this status are Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and Walt Disney's classic animated films. That's a tall order to believe you can replicate this kind of success on a frequent basis, it wont happen.

    Even further illustrating this point, I can show you numerous examples of movie based attractions that didn't work for the park but only a select group of success stories; while on the other hand Disneyland is saturated with examples of original ideas that have stayed relevant over 50 years. Walt understood that people deserved better than a rehash of his movies and was the reason why almost everything his team built in the later years were original concepts. What do you think Pirates and Haunted Mansion are about? Why didn't he just build attractions that were tied into his motion pictures? You think that was just a coincidence? He knew that Disneyland was far better off and had more potential with ideas you couldn't experience on the big screen. You had to show the audience what they liked, not follow trends.

    This is the proof I've been talking about the whole time. When the public forgets the connection, that connection doesn't suddenly become some huge detriment to the ride. One day the public could all but forget who c3po, Lightning, Indy are. That won't make the rides worse because underneath the skin, they are all good rides. Does Brer Rabbit irk you when you see him in splash? Does he bother anyone? Then how will the other characters bother anyone once they become obscure? The answer is, they wont.

    But like I said, this only works with really good attractions. So nemo, monsters, astro blaster will not persist because, even though they are based on classic beloved movies, they are not particularly special rides. But Racers, Indy, Splash, Star Tours will live on because they are loved and they are good attractions in their own right.
    The difference is that Splash Mountain tells a story that is completely new to the majority of visitors. How many people have seen Song of the South? Not many... It comes off as original and exclusive to visitors that go on the attraction, unlike other stories such as Finding Nemo, Cars, Monsters Inc, Bugs Life, Little Mermaid that almost everyone has seen a million times before. Heck you can't even buy Song of the South if you wanted to because it is banned in the United States. Splash Mountain is a unique anomaly in the park that cannot have its success attributed to it's movie's roots because the majority of the public doesn't even know the movie existed. It is by definition an original concept in the minds of the every day guest and its totally original cast of America Sings characters only further cement this.

    I would argue that if a once popular franchise becomes old hat and doesn't achieve classic status, the attraction loses its appeal. The chances people will simply forget the movie and characters entirely is not a scenario I see happening.
    Last edited by Seawolf; 07-19-2013 at 12:24 AM.

  6. #51

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mission Viejo
    Posts
    1,161

    Re: An Epidemic of Movie-Based Rides...

    You and me both, James. I think we've fallen into that chasm that says the public has spoken so we just have to deal with it.

    I can't help but believe that if Disney put in something very E ticket, and very innovative and creative, it would be popular too.

    I can see the billboards along the freeways of Southern Cal advertising such an attraction and getting some real interest flowing with the public. I just can't imagine that you'd have THAT many people saying, "Looks okay, but I'd rather see something related to a movie."

    I think if you give the public something that is creative, original, innovative, interesting, and maybe even a little thought-provoking (?!?), they'll be just as likely to respond as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by JamesDusenberry View Post
    To everyone saying that it's just inevitable because movie-tie in rides and lands are just 'so popular' or 'more popular' ... I don't buy it.

    I'd wager that 90% of Disneyland fans, when asked to rank their favorite rides at the park, will all place non-movie based rides at the top. Classics like POTC (Ignoring Johnny Depp in it now), HM, BTMR, Space, and I'd throw Splash in there since probably close to 99% of people who ride and love it have no idea there's a movie behind it or if they do they've never seen it.

    And more importantly, as I showed in my first post, other parks in Florida and around the world have been consistently getting new original attractions and people LOVE them! Expedition Everest is one of the most popular rides in the whole resort, Mystic Manor looks so amazing that fans all around the world were clamouring to find ride throughs on YouTube. For people who have visited it, Tokyo DisneySea comes in as a very close second place finish as their all time favorite park - second only to Disneyland of course.

    While we get A Bug's Land and Cars Land, Hong Kong gets Mystic Point and Grizzly Gulch. Disney and Pixar films are just as popular, if not more popular, in Asia and the China parks have waaay more people who could be potential guests. So if these movie rides are as popular as some are making them out to be, wouldn't Disney have just filled their new parks there with movie-based rides? Instead, they are building classic Disneyland replicas with most all being copies of the original non-movie rides at Disneyland. Then when they are expanding they are creating new lands and new rides, nothing to do with any film franchise.

    So the argument that "movie-based rides are just more popular" or "movie-based rides are what the people want" is just simply not true at all and merely propoganda the executives would like you to believe so that they can keep spending as little money as possible fixing up Disneyland while they focus on putting the real good stuff in other parks they feel are their money makers because the almighty dollar is all they really care about these days. But the fact is, it's not true. I mean, how many of you were sooo excited with Mystic Manor or Grizzly Gulch? How many of you have just drooled with you mouth agape in amazement while watching videos on YouTube of Tokyo DisneySea. And then how many started talking with your friends or family saying, "we gotta go!". These are just a couple lands and a couple rides that are powerful enough, precisely becuase they are great stories and adventures we have never seen before, so much so that people start trying to find ways to travel halfway across the globe just to see them in person. So really... which type of rides and lands are more popular, hmm?

    And as for what other theme parks are doing with their movie tie-ins ... who cares?! Disney has always led the pack with new inovative rides and showing everyone what the people want, not the other way around. Of course Universal makes movie based rides... their whole thing is that they are a real working movie studio and you can come to their park, tour a working backlot, and then you can do what their tagline says and 'ride the movies'. Disney should not feel the need to copy them in any way.

    Even looking at movie-based lands here, they don't measure up to new original lands elsewhere. A Bug's Land is a land many people skip entirely and when they don't it's derided for not measuring up to other lands and having all 'kiddie' rides that even some kids find too short and boring. Cars Land is the big new one of course, but most everyone I've talked to doesn't really love the land itself... they love the rock work. That rock work is impressive and really is the big seller for the whole land, but they could have done that same work without needing it to the themed to a movie. And then RSR people do seem to really love (although many thought/wished it went faster than it actually does), but the rest of the rides are kind of duds. Mater's is sort of fun, but it's nothing truly new or something you'll immediately go back in line for, and Luigi's tires are a rehashing of the failed UFO ride which was shut down for the same reason I imagine Luigi's will eventually be too ... it had consant break downs and the ride itself, leaning one way or another to slowly build up momentum and then slowly bump into someone else, is just really not that fun to do over and over. So if movie-based lands are so popular.. why does everyone always talk about getting rid of Bug's Land and why do most people say the only thing they really like about Cars Land is the one E-ticket and the surrounding rock work?

    Disneyland can do better, Disneyland should do better, Disneyland must do better.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. [Chat] The "General Public" and Non-Movie Based Attractions
    By animagusurreal in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-03-2009, 11:01 AM
  2. [Fun] Of all the "PIXAR Movie Based" attractions in DLR, which is your favorite?
    By SILVERMOUSE21 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 02:09 PM
  3. The Movie-based Attractions That Could Have Been...
    By animagusurreal in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-02-2008, 10:14 AM
  4. New Movie Based on a Ride!
    By Chapter13 in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-30-2006, 05:17 AM
  5. News article: Disneyto film movie based on Irish writer's novel
    By Crazy Legs in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-12-2005, 05:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •