About bloody time.  How about Star Tours 2 as well Jim? (Which the cynic in me wants to know if Wall-E will be in.)  This could all make DHS the number 2 park at the resort.  Epcot better up the game!

Also, the addition of The Little Mermaid dark ride being built for DCA was reported weeks ago on BlueSkyDisney and reported again a couple days ago along with the additional rumor that a Seven Dwarfs mine cart roller coaster might be coming as well to Fantasyland.  Way to keep with things.

Also don't get me wrong, I'm excited that they finally settled on Monster's Inc. for Pixar Place coaster but talk about striking while the iron is COLD.  Plus, doesn't this make the Laugh Floor redundant?

Will we see any Incredibles themed attractions coming to DHS's Pixar Place?  It seems a shame to have all these great Pixar based attractions and nothing related to it's most entertaining property!

I'm curious how much of this is a reaction to Harry Potter opening at IOA?

It makes me happy that Universal got Harry Potter instead of Disney...now Disney can't slack...they have to keep up!

Sue in Texas

I like the idea of PIXAR Place because the canon is so rich with possibilities.  Like Tuckenie is wonder about the Laugh Floor in MK and I could only hope that is would lead to it's closure when the Monster's Inc coaster becomes a reality.

On a side riff, Disney has got to get these things in the timeline/budget for every one of their parks whether they come to fruition of not.  With the sale of Anheuser Busch to InBev that potentially puts Seaworld/Aquatica/Discovey Cove/Busch Gardens Tampa into play.  If NBC Universal, with a deep pocketed partner (think Dubai), could swoop in and bundle all of these parks together with more theme hotels, interpark shuttles, etc. then that would really put Disney in a position that they would need to come out blazing with new D and E quality attractions.

I was excited about this up until the very last paragraph, Jim. Why would would anyone ever want to visit Disney's California Adventure when all the unique and exciting attractions slated to be built there are going to be built in Florida as well? First, the Little Mermaid dark ride at Magic Kingdom, now Carsland at Disney's Hollywood Studios (not to mention Midway Mania). If Florida is going to get all the love, then DCA should at least get Rock N' Roller Coaster (or some variation) in the abandoned building between Monsters Inc. and the Hyperion.  

Yeti, the reality is that current management (Rasulo) wants the most from their/his buck and that means that they are into big time cloning.  Good or bad (mostly bad), that means we will continue to see extreme sameness in the worldwide parks.  It's not a new phenomena, heck every worldwide park has a castle, so it will continue.  I for one an not opposed to RnR being added to DCA.  There is certainly a way to at least use that technology and still maintain the current placemaking policy.

Cloning spreads out the production costs. I just have to wonder, though, how much is saved by completely cloning an attractions versus using the same ride system on two different attractions like with Indy and the Dinosaurs? You're certainly spreading out the cost of creating the ride system by implementing it in 2 places but each coast has a different experience on it- becoming an exclusive experience to draw in visitors who don't have that in their local/semi-local Disney park.

YAY!!!  I've always wanted a ride based on the doors sequence in "Monsters, Inc."!!!  I'm so thrilled!!!

On the subject of cloning, I like Tomoyo's idea- use the same ride system, but have different theming- I think that that's a terrific idea.  I'm going to Disneyland and DCA for the first time in a couple months, and I'm definitely mostly excited for the rides and shows that we don't have here at WDW.  

Interesting that it took WDI seven years to come up with this attraction.  My then (2001) 10 year old daughter did a very basic design of this attraction right after the movie came out.

Jim Hill has a story up this morning about how the success of Toy Story Mania at Disney World has loosened the purse strings for a brand-new Pixar-themed roller coaster that would open in 2011: "So what's it going to be?," you ask. That long-rumored clone

Sorry, but I'm a naysayer here, and there's a reason.

This just depresses me to no end.  Can Jay Rasulo's thinktank, led by John Lasster, think of nothing but ways to "leverage existing properties"?  It's sad that Disney parks have become about shilling the movies -- way more than they ever were in Walt's Day through the mid-1990s.  They've become predictable and boring.

I couldn't really explain this even to myself properly until a trip just recently to Japan, where I went to Tokyo DisneySea with some friends.  As we walked around this extraordinary, unbelievable and remarkably popular park, which seems to have a fantastic reputation among locals, two of them started saying, "I'm a little depressed being here, because Disney should be ASHAMED of this place."

I asked them to explain themselves a little further, and what they said opened my eyes.  Tokyo DisneySea celebrates the imagination.  It is the park of a Disney fan's dreams -- a place where you can see what Imagineering is capable of doing when they aren't led by finance managers but by creative developers.  It is a rich and sumptuous park, where there is virtually no "Disney" -- the "Disney" in the park comes from defining Disney as a place where anything is possible, where the only limit is the imagination, where fantasy is real.  Tokyo DisneySea showcases the kind of theme park that defines Disney as peerless in its class.  It is beautiful, it is thrilling, it is adventurous, it is magical.

Every ride, every show, every attraction doesn't scream out DISNEY and MICKEY and PIXAR ... but WONDER and BEAUTY and VISION.  From the remarkably improved and lovely Sindbad ride to Journey to the Center of the Earth to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to the awesomely detailed Tower of Terror, every turn in this park is a joy to behold.  It is Disney at its absolute best, and with the exception of The Little Mermaid area (and Indiana Jones, though not a Disney film), it's not about glorifying known commodities ... it's about creating a NEW KIND of Disney entertainment, about making NEW classics.

And then, back at home, we get a Monsters Inc. roller coaster.

Sigh.

Next time you wonder what Disney is really capable of doing, splurge a bit and visit Tokyo DisneySea.  It will make you cry when you get back home.

I don't see how this terrific-sounding "Monsters Inc." ride would make the Laugh Floor redundant. That's an interactive, audience-participation show while the aforementioned ride would be like a dark-ride roller coaster. The Laugh Floor rocks, BTW. One of my favorites of the newer attractions. I think this "Monsters" ride sounds awesome. And I am REALLY pleased to read about new attractions for Fantasyland at WDW. I was a little surprised by how little there is to do there. The Dwarf's Mine Trains sounds wonderful, and the Mermaid ride too. The Imagineers ought to think about a Narnia ride also. All in all this news is exciting. Thanks, Jim!

Tokyo DisneySea is not a Disney Park.

It's an OLC park, built by Imagineering, with Disney licenses.  

If OLC and Disney part ways, all they have to do is remove the characters and Disney signage and verbiage.  It will go on as an independent park.

Now, THAT's depressing.

What's depressing is that OLC believes more in Walt's vision and philosophy than the Walt Disney Company does.

That said, I think the original Disney/OLC contract back in 1979 was for 45 years.  That would take it to 2024.  Not sure if it was changed/extended when DisneySea opened.  

I like the Monsters Inc coaster idea. When I rode Monsters Inc at DCA going through the door section of that ride I actually though that building a coaster ride like that would be a neat idea.

I share the sentiments IrvThal.  It depresses me that new attractions seem to be exclusively movie tie ins...and mostly, if not all, Pixar movie tie ins.  Nothing against Pixar but Disney does have a library of animated films they can tap into.  Now since it is Pixar Place I would expect a Pixar ride to go in there and the Monsters ride could be real fun.  For Pixar Place...got nuts..put a bunch of cool stuff...thumbs up from me.

The thing with a Pixar Place is this...There is really no cohesive, all in one land, for Pixar attractions because they are peppered all over WDW.  It's like there is no master plan here......hey we want to add some Nemo magic to Florida like we are doing in Cali...hummm...just stick it in Epcot.  They get shoehorned in where ever there is room regardless of the park...

More and more the Florida parks are starting to feel the same to me.  Will we ever get another original attraction like Everest, Pirates, HM, the original Journey into Imagination or Tower of Terror? (yes i realize there is a loose tie in to TZ show)  It starting to feel like no...OR for every Everest there will be 5 or 6 based on a movie ride...

ww.raymation.net

OLC owns it, but it's definitely a DISNEY park, gloriously so.  A real Disney park.  What an amazing place.

They do own it.  And they hired Imagineering to design it, and okayed the designs, and paid for all of it.  It's their park, not Disney's.

Wow are we really arguing over this?  While we are splitting hairs, OLC owns the whole Disneyland Resort in Japan.  So the Cinderella Castle in Tokyo Disneyland looks exactly like the Cinderella Castle in WDW...if you really want to argue that the castle in Japan is not a Disney castle because they don't own it....well o-k.

Does owership really matter...I mean come on..seriously?  When I was at Disneyland in Cali..there is a world map in the Downtown Disney store that listed the Disney Parks.  Someone better tell them that thems Parks in Japan aren't Disney Parks.

For more info on OLC visit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oriental_Land_Company

www.raymation.net

I got distracted by the arguing and had to look back to remember my comment...the only thing I can think when I read that description is LOUD.  We're going to actively encourage children to scream IN LINE?  This will be one I'll fast-pass, thanks very much.  That does not sound like an enjoyable time to me, no matter how well themed.

Just a couple of notes:

First, if the DCA Cars attraction has a $200 mil pricetag (which sounds like press puffery to me, but maybe...) that doesn't necessarily mean that a WDW clone will cost as much. Any brand new attraction of that kind and caliber has a lot of R&D investment and first-time graphics creation that can be re-created much cheaper in the 2nd venue.

Second...from the very bEGINNING of DCA, there were plans for a Monsters, Inc. attraction--the entrance was supposed to be under the coaster arches amidst the midway attractions--in the "second phase" and that's well before the Disney-Pixar deal happened (indeed it was delayed by the negotiations going sour back then) so...that's always been one of the DCA folks's dreams for that park.

Third, re OLC/Disney/Whatever in Tokyo: Gosh, now THERE's a STRONG endorsement "See this park and cry when you get home"!! (Smile) Yes, Tokyo DisneySea is gorgeous and wonderful....and mostly original, but hey, y'know, if you ever played "Myst" or read Jules Verne.....oops: Something is awfully familiar. My point is that ALL mass-marketed creativity stems from prior sources and the intellectually-satisfying but real-world-impossible concept of something "uniquely original" is just nonsense. Furthermore, to "justify" the investment in a major attraction or park, a "hook" for marketing is needed. It is really, really hard to get audiences to come based on "This is something utterly original you have never seen, heard, imagined, or experienced before...so unique we can't even describe it using current terms. Trust us. You'll like it. Spend a couple grand on a trip and we promise, pinkie-swear, you'll be happy."  NOT likely, not with $5 gas. But if we say "Remember that movie you LOVED? Remember all the roller coasters you LOVE? What if we put them together AND added Disney/Pixar "magic" to the mix and gave you a whole new reason to enjoy all the stuff you know you ALREADY like here? C'mon down!" then maybe, just maybe, they'll spend the dough.

That's reality, folks. Get used to it.

JohnWayne- Everest is based on no Disney movie and no Pixar film AND it cost quite a bit of change. The ride fits with the land it lives in and the park in which it resides.  The marketing folks didnt seem scrapped for ideas on how to get people to come to Florida to check it out.  The real reality is that its a easier sell when you can say "Toy Story Mania" and toss around images of Buzz and Woody.  It's why Disney made so many cheapquels rather than original DVD content.....built in audience and name recognition.

Your right though...movies, tv, music everything is drawn from established sources.  I believe the words "unique and original" were being used in comparitive terms, rather than true descriptions...

When Disneyland opened, a small part was devoted to rides based on animated films.....now days much, much more so...I'm an animator....hell I love animation.. but it would be great to have more attractions like Everest, ToT or HM that are not based on the last Disney/Pixar animated film....or any film for that matter...that fit they land they reside in and the park in which they live.

Ask yourself this: does Nemo really belong in Epcot?  In the Living Seas of Future World?  The attraction is great...I really enjoyed it.  But it didn't feel like it should have been in Epcot but rather MK.  If they were to revamp The Land, to Bug's Life and Universe of Energy, to Monsters Inc how would Epcot be much different than the Studios or Magic Kingdom?  C'mon down!! Flick and Sully now appearing at Epcot.... might sound crazy, but in a way...its already happening...

www.raymation.net

Somepirateguy,

Agreed on almost every front---but Everest was a special case in that it was in a wholly "different" kind of park which, of course, has added the animated characters and not only in the form of the Lion King show (which fits the theme) but the main Mickey etc. etc. folks on demand by the guests. HOWEVER, if you want to be REALLY picky, well.....the Yeti was in the Matterhorn first (which had ZERO historic sense, of course, since as far as I know one has never been sighted in Switzerland) and of course the Matterhorn was inspired by the DIsney film about mountaineering, so there is a tenuous connection. For that matter, "Space Mountain" was never a movie, but it certainly took some style cues from the late UNlamented "The Black Hole" and the whole original Tomorrowland re-do from "Tron"  Frankly, I think there is a kind of two-faced crisis of confidence going on in all this---on the one hand they think "Gosh, we'd better do rides tied to NEW characters from Pixar 'cause that's THIS generation's touchstone (not MUCH pun intended) of identification" but on the other hand they say "Ah, but Mickey & the gang are perrenials, so we should do them over and over."  And let us not forget that a film's success has never been a marker as to whether it would get "attractionized"----one of the few serious FLOPS in Walt's career was his version of "Alice In Wonderland" which he spent years reworking and reworking and which lost a bundle and became a film he allegedly hated because of it...but hey, the ride has been popular for decades at Disneyland (albeit with more "history" behind it as a children's classic story long before Disney did his version)  On the other hand, the flopola of Disney's "Oz" film allegedly killed attraction plans in the works. The answer is...y'never know, y'know? IF they invest in an attraction while a film is in production (a 3 yr period or so on an animated film even in the computer age from inception to opening night) they may be adding financial insult to injury if the film flops and the kids don't care about the ride. But if they WAIT, they have to hope for endless rerun life on DVD and/or the direct-to-disc or screen sequels to keep the project "timely."

Ah, this is why I'm not in the animated film and themepark business....or at least not in both. (Smile)

This really is a silly discussion.

1st) Nemo is just the start of what doesn't belong in Epcot but since it's more popular then most of the stuff that DOES and is actually of a pretty high quality and sparks an interest in the rest of the pavilion then why get in a tizzy?

2nd) We're talking about an attraction at PIXAR Place in HOLLYWOOD studios.  We're also talking about a ride based on a movie scene 95% of those watching HOPED would inspire a ride.  This isn't exactly an out of place or uninspired idea.  It's more like a big huge "no duh!".  I'm just surprised they still seem to be ignoring the Incredibles.

3rd) OLC owning TDR doesn't make those parks any less Disney and going to those parks would probably make me wish for more from WDW even if they weren't Disney Parks.  WDW is supposed to be the best in the World and seeing someone else do it better hurts no matter who it is.  

4th) Peter Pan's Flight, Snow White's Scary Adventure, Mad Tea Party, DUMBO, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, 5 or 6 Pooh Attractions, SPLASH MOUNTAIN, Casey's Corner, Pecos Bill's, are you kidding me?!  Being based on a cartoon character means it's less original and creativeand classic?!  Give me a break.  Creativity of attractions has nothing to do with whether or not it's based on a movie or character.  It's the creativity and quality of the actual ride that really counts.

Just as a brief reminder, here are some classic attractions that are NOT based on any pre-existing Disney movie (though those based on classic books are in here), which utilized the imaginations of the artists involve to create something that, arguably, is much more memorable, successful and eternally popular than, say, the Nemo Sub Voyage:

* Pirates of the Caribbean

* The Haunted Mansion

* Big Thunder Mountain Railway

* Space Mountain

* Expedition: Everest

* Carousel of Progress

* Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln

* The Enchanted Tiki Room

* The Jungle Cruise (well, loosely based on the non-Disney "African Queen")

* Journey Into Imagination

* Spaceship Earth

* Adventure Thru Inner Space (now defunct)

* The Tower of Terror (Twilight Zone theming aside, it's not BASED on the show)

Compare those with, say, the Toy Story Midway Mania ride, which, while being a lot of fun, doesn't have nearly the memorable immersion or sophistication of most of those listed above.

There was a time when Disney realized its best source for creativity was its own people, not just its movies.  That time continued through the mid-1990s ... then, "Synergy" took hold in a big way, and we lost creativity.

JohnWayne, I'd much rather see an original attraction based on the work of Jules Verne (or an entire park for that matter), something that really expands my own imagination, than just another Pixar ride.

As for being able to "sell" a crazy concept to the public -- well, it's been done before, and successfully.  Disneyland.  EPCOT Center.  And now Tokyo DisneySea, wihch is, let's not forget, a very close third when measuring the most popular theme parks in the world ... and since Tokyo Disney Resort doesn't offer much in the way of "park hoppers," that's saying something.  It has achieved incredible success, and not once did I hear anyone saying, "We wish there was more Disney in here!"

I didn't say it COULDN'T be sold to the public. I said that "suits" are AFRAID of the EFFORT involved when spending major bucks and prefer a "pre-sold" commodity. It is why movies with roman numerals in their names are made, after all. As for being based on things as a good/bad indicator of creativity....note your list above and notice how many RIDES have since been turned into MOVIES of late. I mean, does the fact that it is based on a Disneyland attraction make the "Pirates" movie franchise any LESS creative? Does the fact that the Country Bears movie was (I thought lots of fun, btw, but...) a flop commercially reflect back on the long-time popular attraction? For that matter, does the fact that the Country Bear "variations" (the Christmas show and the Summer Vacation versions) were "based on" the original give THEM less creative juice? AND if we're getting really "purist" about sources and motivations, does the fact that MOST of the others on your list were "Sponsored" and thus commercially/creatively influenced by either major corporations involved (EPCOT and World's Fair) or states/govts (Illinois for the Lincoln original, UNICEF for "Small World" which was not on your list but should have been) somehow lessen the creativity quotient?  And as for your request for a Jules Verne-based ride...well gosh, doesn't old Jules' appearance in the formula make it "just another Jules Verne ride" the same way "just another Pixar ride" is or would be?

Here's the thing: NOTHING creative exists in a vacuum, divorced from what's come before. And it doesn't even have to be formally art/commerce source material--real life provides plenty of "original stories" for creative endeavors to be "based on" even if they aren't famous or own popular brand names. Heck, Walt's boyhood memories of Marcelline were the "source material" for the design of Main St. USA, right? OR should he have shared copyright on Mickey and his other characters with the original barnyard/forest ANIMALS he saw and was charmed by as a child, too?

Um...  Yeah everything JohnWayne said.  Again I repeat, "Creativity of attractions has nothing to do with whether or not it's based on a movie or character.  It's the creativity and quality of the actual ride that really counts."  Oh and a funny thing IrvThal, a lot of the attractions you mentioned came AFTER most of the rides I mentioned.  There's always been a tradition of using BOTH the Disney characters and outside sources at the parks.  

Plus it's hard to make the case that the company is leaning one way over another when Everest is less then three years old and we're talking about blue sky attractions that the company hasn't broken ground on yet.  Given the bad economy I'm surprised Disney is looking at spending huge amounts of money on anything at the moment.

Tuck, re. the economy, actually spending more is EXACTLY the way to respond to it. Companies that retrench and cut back during such times tend to be so behind-the-curve that when times turn around they are unable to capitalize on them, whereas companies that keep expanding and improving during lean times get the lion's share of an overall down market AND are able to grow faster when the times get better.

One example of the above? Today the stock market gave a drubbing to Costco because they announced that they were going to see a downturn on this quarter's revenues. However, if you read between the lines, what you found was that actual customer counts and sales VOLUMES in unit numbers were NOT off DESPITE the downturn and were, in fact, slightly higher (which makes sense since people seek bargains more in times when they count more.) The REASON for the downturn? Costco's own EXPENSES going up, especially on fuel-related transportation costs and rising food costs also largely tied to energy policy. Costco's decision was NOT to raise prices to match those increased costs EVEN THOUGH it would hurt them in the short run because if and when they DID raise prices to cover the increases they'd lose their niche as a bargain store and lose customers that would not come back. That's SMART management in down times--cut via increased efficiency where you can, but reinvest even MORE to stand out and to be ready for the uptick that surely is to come.

As SeaWorld Orlando & Universal Studios Florida press ahead with construction of brand-new thrill rides, Jim Hill brings an update on that "Monsters, Inc." -themed family coaster that Disney has planned for Hollywood Studios

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2008/07/21/monday-mouse-watch-get-ready-for-wdw-s-monstrous-new-coaster.asp