"where to start" is right.  

This certainly has become a heated topic.  I'm definitely more on the "preserve the classics" side of the argument but I must admit that if a certain attraction has been consistently losing attendance then, yeah, maybe it's time for a revamp.  That revamp, though, doesn't necessarily need to be some movie tie-in.   Take Tom Sawyer's Island at Disneyland.  While people do go there, yes, and I know many have emotional ties to it the little island hadn't seen much business as of late save for Mickey and some dancing monkeys.  Putting pirates there makes total sense to me.  Heck, even I want to check it out.  But to turn the original PotC ride into the Itchy, Scratchy and Poochie show ("and when Jack Sparrow isn't on screen all the characters should be asking 'hey, where's Sparrow?'")  is just downright an act of desecration in my opinion.  I mean, the ride's been around since the 60's and nobody dispite how far away from the park they'd come (save for one lady who should be punched in her "highly offended" gut) has ever complained.  The ride went on to spawn 3 (IMO) really good movies and, from what I saw up until the revamp, was still garnishing really long ol' lines.  The movie was to pay homage to the ride, not vice versa. At the very least, they could've revamped like Paris' or even the Magic Kingdom's seeing as how that version was an afterthought anyways (and it showed).   Is Expedition Everest doing horribly because there's no movie tie-in? Maybe we should remove the yeti and replace it with a giant Ratatouille who is trying to serve the guests some escargot or some calamari with a lemon sauce and red wine.

Which brings me to point number 2 which is the whole Pixaration going on at the parks.  Unfortunately for the core Disney staffers, Pixar has been the only ones putting out memorable characters for like the last 5 - 7 years.  I don't even think I remember the names of ANY characters from Home on the Range or Brother Bear.  Disney's gonna have to step it up if they want more showing at the parks. Not that going back and revisiting classics is a bad thing.  I mean, heck, the Alice in Wonderland ride didn't come around till the 80's.  But, I understand children are fickle these days with their Shreks and Happy Feet.  Who cares about "old" stuff, right?

They're going to replace the Aladdin musical with the Nemo one? Boo! Nix Pixar is right. I'm getting so sick of them oversaturating the theme parks.

Jim, can you talk more about all the new rides you mentioned, like the Incredibles ride?

"Perry T" writes in with a gripe about the ongoing creep of charcaters into classic rides.  Panchito and Donald, Jack Skellington, Cap'n Jack.  Jim all but ignores this, pivoting on the fact that IASW in HK--a new ride based on a DL classic--will have all sorts of Disney characters and then goes into a Pixar diatribe.   Only two of the Nemo attractions Jim mentions are in any ways "classic." The others are essentially new work.

I do not have Perry's concerns about the appearance of charcaters in classi attractions.  Disneyland was always a very diverse experience, from the earliest days.  Though the connections to "reality" are (arguably) more tenuous these days, the appearance of Muppets and Droids and Johnny Depp residents has served to activate the park experience in new ways.  These characters bring energy and a new identity to the attractions they are featured in.

But if everything becomes Pixar or "new Disney" characters, that diversity, the broad spread of concepts that anchor Disney's lands, will diminish the breadth of the Disney experience.   It will make the experience feel smaller.  The magic of Disneyland was always that it at once feels bigger and (paradoxicaly) more quaint than it actually is.

You also have to wonder if a complete onslaught of "new Disney" properties throughout the Disney parks will, over time, isolate the older attractions, leaving them the an anachronistic veneer.   It's funny, Big Thunder feels so old school anymore.   If the ratio of no Disney/Pixar character-attractions (like Big Thunder) to attractions with these characters falls out of some imaginary balance, will those classics feel irrelevant?

"who have begun complaining about how John Lasseter & Ed Catmull are trying to turn the company's corporate headquarters into Emeryville South, you just have to wonder if ..."

That's been a huge complaint of mine from the beginning.  Disney has so many more properties than Pixar does.  I enjoy Pixar's movies, but it's not called "Pixar World" or "Pixar Land".  If Disney-MGM Studios really will be named Disney-Pixar Studios, then I'm happy that Toy Story Mania is going into MGM...maybe they could find room for other Pixar attractions at that park and leave the rest to be mostly Disney.  

All John Lasseter cares about is Pixar.  I am glad that "Ratatouille" is a Disney film, so, in that respect, I'm glad that Disney owns Pixar.  Disney SHOULD NOT HAVE put Lasseter & Catmull in charge of Disney- as I've said before, for 20-something years, Pixar has been all they've cared about- they can't just automatically care as much about Disney as they do about Pixar.  

I honestly don't see the problem with the whole Pixar-isation thing. Pixar are Disney characters so of course they're going to appear in the parks. Disney is a business and it stands to reason that they would produce rides based on the most successful films. If Disney films had been more successful in recent years we would see more rides based on their movies, but alas that isn't the case.

I go to Disneyland to see Disney. As long as I don't see some fat scottish ogre wlaking around, then I'm happy.

blackcauldron85 addresses my own concerns perfectly. I totally agree with you. Disney will always be second best to John & Ed, and because of that they are in no position to be in charge of Disney Animation. Pixar, okay; Disney, no way.

Look, the problem here is that Disney has not created one single new memorable character in close to 20 years now. Since the golden re-birth of animation under "the little midget." Pixar, on the other hand, has inarguably given us the MOST memorable new animated characters over that same time span.

What's a theme park to do?

Personally, I think they're leaning TOO heavily on Pixar. They have quite a few VERY popular characters sitting on the shelf unexploited to a large degree. Yes, they smack you in the face with princesses every where you go, but honestly? Princess rides and attractions are neigh absent from the theme parks.

I personally have no problem (well ... maybe a little problem) with them adding characters to existing attractions or building new rides with character tie-ins. Would I like to see more of a balance? Yes. But some of the rides and attractions they've made over weren't exactly classics in the first place. My bigger beef is really that the re-dos suck. Had they been done well, then I'd be thrilled.

But really ... Stitch, JIYI, etc. ... they're God-awful.

Seems to me that the new characters might be a side note to the crowd when it comes to attendance at these new attractions. The beloved subs in Disneyland were shut down for a decade, so is it any wonder they are a big attraction when they are re-opened? If they had a new version of the ride without any Pixar characters, I think the crowds would still be huge. And the Nemo ride at The Seas in Epcot is a new ride, too. Did it have to have Nemo and Friends®? Only to continue the theming started with Crush, but beyond that, no. It was a new ride and it was better than the absence of a ride that had previously been there. If a new attraction opens, and it is any good at all, people are going to want to ride it regardless of who stars in it. I would be interested to see how the surveys for these new rides are set up, particularly to look for questions like "Was your primary reason for riding this attraction: A) to see my favorite Pixar characters, B) because it is a new ride, C) a little of both A and B." I like Finding Nemo the movie, sure, but I do not go to the parks to see the characters from the movie. The parks did pretty well for a long time with characters built out of the imagineers' fertile imaginations, and not with characters with box-office clout in the rides. Rides like The Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Jungle Cruise, it's a small world, Space Mountain, and so on... Certainly, they've been right there with rides like The Mickey Mouse Review, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, Peter Pan, Snow White, and Alice in Wonderland, but it looks like the mix is getting skewed just to satisfy some beancounters' reports... didn't we get enough of that sort of irresponsible justification in the 90s, or is Disney just trying to get the most out of their purchase of Pixar?.

Hm, if they keep this up, then they won't have anything "Theme park-" brand left. People didn't ONLY go to Disney parks to see their favorite characters in ride form (though that's a huge part of it). Pirates of the Caribbean and It's a Small World and their ilk aren't movie related (or, in the case of Pirates, "weren't"); it's the rides themselves that made them so popular and memorable. Yeah, I'd talk about riding the teacups or the Dumbo elephants, but I'd also talk about attractions like the Tiki Room, something that's only at the theme parks. I mean, It's great to see character tie-ins, but going to a theme park of nothing but gives you the feeling of "I could have seen this at home," even though you clearly can't ride little boats at home. There must be some sort of business terminology for this...

While I don't agree with those that think that Lasseter only cares about PIXAR (I think his initiating the return of 2-D shorts, his work on The Princess & The Frog and his calling for the ousting of Morrill show a DEEP repect for old Disney tradition and quality control) I DO agree with those who would like to keep some semblence of classic Disney and/ or non-tie in attractions intact. I have no problem with the Nemo upgrades to the Seas (any way that you can give kids a recognizable gateway into LEARNING is a good thing in my opinion) or to the submarine voyage (though I find it odd that one of the main issues that led to its closing wasn't just outdatedness... but a capacity issue- one that seems to have been forgotten in the upgrade). I also have no problem with the POTC upgrades. There are millions and millions of people now (kids and adults alike) whose main association with the name Pirates of the Caribbean IS Jack Sparrow. Plus the POTC movies and their merchandise have retroactively covered the entire costs of the original design and build of the whole Animal Kingdom park. I understand the feelings of the purists, but those two factors are just impossible for Disney to ignore. Also, the changes are so minor to the overasll scheme of the ride... I just don't buy the rampant criticism.

(and for the record, I would personally LOVE to see an Incredibles E-Ticket attraction, but that is because I'm a huge fan)

Now with that in mind, I WOULD like to see a return no more autonomous attractions. I'm not sure what, how or where... but the autonomous attractions are, to me, what gave the Disney parks a real mystique to those folks who had never been to the parks. A mystique that was probably as good or greater an allure than the familiar stories and characters.

I suspect what's really nagging in the back of people's minds isn't solely the perceived "loss" of older attractions, as it is the feeling that the new stuff is inferior across the board.  It seems unlikely that a lot of the movies being represented are going to have the timeless quality that so many of the older rides have - PotC and Finding Nemo were great movies, but when the sole value of the addition of these characters is in recognition (Hey! There's Bruce!  Hey!  There's Johnny Depp!), it just doesn't feel terribly long lasting or high quality.  If the popularity of the movie fades, then the ride fades with it.  It's sort of the direct-to-video theme park attraction syndrome.

The few novel attraction being put out don't give much hope either - Expedition Everest is bland and colorless.  Oh well.  I can only hope that making timeless attractions both makes business sense and makes business sense in an obvious enough way to be done, because otherwise, I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of darkened, empty attractions full of once-popular movie characters.

There is that fine line mentioned in among several posts that if an attraction needs plusing then do it but not to overdoit it - and since WDC is tending to be very fomulaic then it's applied across the board - and that's bad. However, we here on these chat boards have such a passion for Disney and it's history that we're not the audience that should be the measure of whether this is good or bad - are we?  We are one voice - but the other is the obviously large crowds coming to these attractions.

If something gets people in the door at Futureworld in Epcot because it's Nemo'ed - and then they visit other attractions - has not this new attraction with the character done it's job?  Sparrow on Pirates. Yes - they really did not need it - but the volume of people riding it now (even after two years of new stuff) is a lot higher than before. There is nothing stopping the WDC and WDI from the model since the numbers show they were right.

I do have one MAJOR complaint. I wish that Jim and other online bloggers/writers would STOP using the annual passholder crutch. We get it - there are many overzealous fans - but there's passion on this board too and I don't see Jim claiming that the foamers include all of us online. There is a very vocal minority of AP holders that seems to be taken as the symbol for all of us - and frankly I'd wish writers would be more ascertive in their analysis of the fan demographic.

The thing is that many of these attractions (POTC, Stitch, The Seas... even Submarine Voyage etc...) can be re-themed in the future if the popularity of their theming fades. These are movies/ characters whose popularity isn't going to fade though, at least I don't think so. These are characters as enduring as Snow White or Cinderella. This is the same argument being thrown at the new Harry Potter island at IOA. "This is too late, the series is almost over... blah blah blah". It's an argument that I don't buy when you look at the popularity. There is a point when a property's draw just can't be looked at as a fad anymore... and has to be seen as a classic. I think too many of us, as adults, fail to see that the "new-fangled thingamajigs" of the present are going to our children's classics when they are our age.

OK, I'm rambling.

Everyone has seemed to capture my thoughts here already, but I can't let this hot topic go by without a comment. Walt Disney and his creations hold a very strong sense of nostalgia for many, the classic elements are entertainment comfort food!. That is one reason why it is so hard for many of us to accept the changes that have been made. But, businesses need to change and adapt to their strengths and to the consumer's interests. I am not bent out of shape for adding noted characters to "It's a Small World" but, as good as the Jack Sparrow movies are I was irked that a successful, classic ride (PofC) was tweaked the way it was.

A large portion of the parks, IMO, should always have that classic Disney feel. Why couldn't they regulate a portion of property to a "PixarNation, a themed area similar to ToonTown. I have to agree that Lasseter/Catmull are going to promote their baby (Pixar) a lot harder than the classic overall Disney theme. Roy Disney needs to speak up again and before the name of the company changes! OK, maybe, it isn't that bad a situation. It is hard to accept the changes when the original concept and leadership is so fondly loved.

Isn't part of HK's Small World meant to introduce Disney characters to a Chinese audience? Not sure I buy that, except in reference to official releases. Just read that POTCAWE confused Chinese viewers because half of Sao Feng's scenes (including his introduction) were cut out.

But I wonder how many Disney based attractions are being pitched right now. So Ratouille is being worked out even before its release. Were there plans for, say, Meet the Robinsons taking over the Carousel of Progress before it came out? I'm sure there wasn't the business at the box office to keep moving forward on that, but are things like that even considered? Or is it just pitching Pixar attractions for John and Ed?

Meet The Robinsons was not a Pixar production.

evilash43 said:

"Meet The Robinsons was not a Pixar production."

That was the whole point of Tomoyo's argument..

evilash43 said:

"Meet The Robinsons was not a Pixar production."

That was the whole point of Tomoyo's argument..

Hate to give them ideas, but if Ratatouille is huge (I hope it is) then the theming is easy - convert part of France into a "learn to cook" pavillion and add breakfast and lunch character meals at the French restaraunt with Remy and the gang. Bang, done, and it can be educational and fun!

Yeah, I misread the post.

Okay, my two cents...

As I've said in other threads, I don't mind the addition of new elements as long as the old classics aren't ignored. Add new things, sure, but only when they're tried and true and have crossed the line from "fad" to "classic".

I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to add Pixar elements, because, let's face it, the recent Pixar movies have been more well-crafted than a lot of newer Disney movies. And last year, when I went to Disney World (the Nemo ride at Epcot wasn't finished but Turtle Talk was and I loved it) there were kids leaning over the tanks, squealing, "Cool! There's Dory!" So if the addition sparks kids' interest and adds a little more kick, I'm all for it.

I'm also perfectly OK with the Three Caballeros upgrade in Mexico. That ride NEEDED the zip of the Three Caballeros characters.

And you're right that John Lasseter isn't JUST gung-ho for Pixar. I like the fact that he's pulling for 2-D to make a comeback.

I say get rid of Honey I Shrunk the Audience and replace it with Pixar mini movies

in 3D that can be changed out regularly.  It would be fun and wouldn't get as stale

as Honey or Captain EO did.  Even Chicken Little adventures or Meet the Robinsons

would be great!  Meet the Robinsons might even fit into Tomorrowland's theme better then anything else.

This WHOLE argument DRIVES ME CRAZY!! This proves that NO ONE pays attention to HISTORY!!

The ONLY reason that Walt Disney built Disneyland in the FIRST PLACE was to showcase his MOVIES! ARE YOU PEOPLE THAT LAME!

OH! They took out the Swiss Family Treehouse to put in Tarzan. YOU IDIOTS! Swiss Family was a Disney MOVIE!! Just like TARZAN!!

Let's break it down for the SLOW people (e.g. RETARD). When Disneyland opened in 1955, we had Fantasyland (obvious movie tie-ins), Adventureland (built around Disney's True Life Adventure MOVIES), Frontierland (built around the Davy Crockett and other historical Disney MOVIES), Main Street (built around Walt's home town, but more of a transition area, than an actual land), and Tomorrowland (which pimped Corporate products, the Hall of Aluminum, even Carousel of Progress was built to sell GE products).

The ONLY exception to ANY of this is Pirates, Mansion, Country Bear (which was designed for a ski resort), Big Thunder, Space Mountain, America Sings (which NEVER belonged in Tomorrowland anyway), Small World (which was paid for by a Corporate sponsor for the World's Fair) and there are probably 1 or 2 others that I am forgeting.

As to the arguments for Epcot, I would probably agree ONLY because Epcot's ORIGINAL vision was different than ANY other Disney park (as is Animal Kingdom). BUT Epcot has lost it's way and Disney Management has NO idea what to do with Epcot anymore. And that's a WHOLE different "can of worms".

While I think it’s nice for kids to be able to go to Disneyland and "live" the movies so to speak, I also think that Disney is treading a thin line here by making every ride and attraction based on their movies.

Don't get me wrong.... I love some of these rides. Attractions like "its tough to be a bug” are cool. Im sure that the Nemo Sub ride is state of the art and entertaining. so I'll like it.

But if everything at the park seems to almost require that you either see a movie or shell out the money for a DVD or rental in order to fully appreciate what you see in the park. This seems cheap to me ... and almost obvious that it’s all about marketing ploys and less about imagination. While this may work for young kids.... you're not inspiring young adults or teens in this way.

The parks should provide a different product than the movies. Not just more of the same. Disneyland has a land for the youngest of kids... it's called Fantasyland... the rest of the park was supposed to be more realisticly "themed" on real life.

I can't help but think that Disney started doing this because of Universal Studios. The difference is that Universal is nothing without its movies. Universal is a "studios".... Disneyland was not meant to be.

I hate to say this folks but most people that Disney has surveyed are in favor of the new stuff. At least, so far. As far as completely saturating the parks with Pixar characters, I think we'll have another stock holder rebellion before that happens. Personally, I like the changes that I have seen so far. As far as Disney characters being added to It's a Small Wolrld in Hong Kong Disneyland, it will probably be a huge hit. My first wife was born and raised in Hong Kong. She and all her friends really liked things like stuffed animals so Marie from The Aristocats would probably work, however bizarre the idea seems to us westerners. (Not to mention all of us staunch Mary Blair fans)

Disney and Pixar are now one! Once that is accepted, everyone can move forward!

Run for the hills!!! Pixar is taking over!!!

Nevermind the fact that John, Pete Doctor, Andrew Stanton, and Brad Bird were among the first to take the Animation program that Walt Disney himself help to set up.  Or the fact that Brad Bird was trained by Milt Kahl (look him up if you dont' know who he is) when he was a teenager.  Yep, Brad was hanging around the old Disney lot when he was a teenager.

Face it, Pixar is what Walt Disney Feature Animation should have been in the 70's and 80's.  The next generation of Walt Disney Animators who know how to tell a great story.  There is a great podcast called Splinecast (done by Pixar animators) with an interview with Brad Bird.  I highly recommend it to everyone.

Still complaining about Disney spending too much for Pixar?  There was an article on Variety about how Cars is going to make Disney $2 billion dollars this year in product sales... that's without the Cars movie being release this year.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117967178.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1&query=%22cars%22+andy+mooney

The buyout of Pixar never hurt Disney's wallet.  It was an all stock deal.  Guess who had 51% of Pixar stock... I don't think the largest Disney shareholder, Steve Jobs, is cashing in that $3.5 billion plus worth of stocks anytime soon.

Can we move on from the "Disney paid to much for Pixar... Pixar is taking over" debate?  Guess what, it was a fantastic deal for Disney.

I honestly, I would love to see the "Nemo" musical at California Adventure. I was disappointed with the "Alladin" one because it was too short. I love "Finding Nemo".

As for the changes to old attractions, they shouldn't add any Disney character to "its a small world". Its one of the last remaining works of the great Mary Blair.

I don't have much to add to all this. Let's face it folks - the goal is to get people into the parks, and if "all Pixar all the time" is what it takes (especially since WDAS hasn't had many wild successes in the last few years), it's gonna happen.

I'm more concerned about Disney's desire to want to establish "tracks" for everyone in the parks to follow. Last time I was down at the Park, I was handed a brochure that listed three possible themes to follow - "Little Ones, Big Times" (young kids), "The Call of Adventure" (pirates), and Princesses. The brochure had a listing of suggested attractions, and you were given a button for your preferred theme.  

Whatever happened to everyone enjoying everything together, guys?

Anyway, so much for my comments. But wait - is that singing I hear coming from the Michael Eisner Building?

"Synergy

These are a few of your faces

You're seen in many places

Bringing our stock new graces

Synergy

We have learned never to doubt you.

What would we do here without you?

Hope that we never need how to.

Synergy

You are profound.

You make our world go 'round and 'round.

You make our world go round."

Thank you - I'll be here all week! Be sure to tip your waitresses.

I was always under the impression that John Lasseter loved Disney and wanted to do everything to protect its legacy.  And building the new animation studio exclusively for the Disney artists (no suits allowed) makes me think he wants Disney to succeed.  If he really wanted to show Pixar was superior, he could have kept WDFA the way it was.  

Jedited is right that a lot of the original Disneyland was built as movie tie-ins, but I think he underestimates the originality inherent in the project - Disneyland does not seem to be as blatant a cynical marketing ploy as say, Stitch's Great Escape, in that Disney was trying to do something far greater than simply make a buck off an existing Disney property - there was a great deal more romanticism, love of progress, nostalgia, and desire to build a better, happier place totally under Walt's control (as I understand it).   This is what has allowed the parks to be more than just an elaborate Looney Tunes section of Six Flags over Georgia.

This sort of thing seems to be emphatically missing from a lot of the new stuff going into the parks - the spark that made Fantasyland more than just a county fair themed after animated Disney flops, or Adventureland into more than just an elaborate advertisement for the True-Life Adventure Series - is not as much in evidence.

@pschnebs' song: hahaha, great fun :)

@LiverGap: oh, he just loved Disney when he was kicked out a few decades ago (:P).. And he also loved to protect its legacy when he practically forced out a big Disney talent, Sanders, and apparently changed the projects title from "American Dog" to "Bolt" (seriously, "Bolt"?!).. Of course he has done good things for Disney, just in my opinion more bad pushy things.. I mean, was building a new animation studio even necessary? And aren't they more separated from all the action now more than ever? And was it even his idea to build a new studio, or did some executive think, "hey, we can use that random looking building across the road for some offices"? If Pixar isn't superior, why doesn't he move Pixar closer to Burbank? Oh, and the whole but-he-returned-2d-back-to-Disney-thing; any fool could have seen that it is in the best interest to bring back traditional animation, and that they made a mistake a few years ago when they announced 2D was history at Disney..

Okay, I'm such a pessimist sometimes.. I'm going to stop ranting now..

If they want to keep disney characters front and center, Disney needs to make animated films that are successful and have good characters.  They haven't really done that since what, about Tarzan?  Right now Pixar is hitting home runs and disney is striking out, and as the lines at the new rides show, audiences are still going nuts for Pixar stuff.

I'd love to see plenty of disney characters in the parks, but first I'd love to see some new disney movies that were actually good.  How much of this is just anti-pixar bias?  If Disney has a huge animated hit, would you guys be complaining if those new characters were heavily featured at the parks?

"ARE YOU PEOPLE THAT LAME!  YOU IDIOTS!.. SLOW... RETARD)"

Hey, 'JEDITED'...Just trying to make some new friends? Or looking to join the "angry, nasty, debate club". You must be a blast at dinner parties...

I for one am thrilled that Disneyland is bringing Pixar into the fold.

The Pixar films are the best thing that's happened to Disney in over ten years. And the fact that the popularity of Disney in general (movies, merchandise, and yes, even the Park itself) has skyrocketed since Pixar came along would be incentive enough to begin theming rides to Pixar films.

I am a huge Disneyana fan. But we will always have the memories of the old Park, and as the rides are being updated to appeal to younger Guests (it's true... Tarzan and Nemo are WAY more interesting to young kids nowadays than Swiss Family Robinson and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea are) we should just sit back and enjoy the evolution.

I say, bring it on!

I guess I'm just biased, in that I've loved all of Disney's animated classics.  I'd watch a Disney film over a Pixar film anyday.  I just can't comprehend why people don't like the last few Disney animated classics.  I honestly don't think that, if, let's say, that "Atlantis" ride Jim wrote about a few months ago, got built, people wouldn't go on it because the movie flopped.  Fans of the movie would go on it, but I'm sure most visitors to the park would, too.  Many people haven't seen the film, and, even if you haven't seen the film, you can still check out the ride- if you like the ride, chances are that you'll ride it again and again.  And maybe you'll check out the movie it came from again...

I meant that even if you've seen the movie and didn't like it, you can still check out the ride, and maybe you'll re-watch the movie.

I have just three words for Imagineers and theme-park "executives" who feel the public "needs" cartoon characters: The Haunted Mansion.

Four more: Pirates of the Caribbean.

OK, just two more: EPCOT Center.

These are three examples of the extraordinary expertise that Disney used to bring to its theme parks.  They were the reason why nobody -- NOBODY -- could touch Disney in this realm.

Now, look -- Universal's right on Disney's heels (again) with its Harry Potter addition.

The public doesn't know what the public wants until it gets it.  And Disney executives don't know what the public wants until they do a focus group.

Disney used to be best in class, used to do things no one else would even THINK of attempting.  Now they just cash in on the latest fad, not even stopping to think that Finding Nemo may very well be the Aladdin of its time ... wildly popular for a while, always a hit with kiddies, but not exactly "classic."  (Yeah, boo me for that.  But it's possibly true; Nemo was very, very sweet and nice and colorful, and not a lot more.)

The Subs would and could have been a gigantic hit if they had simply been "dusted off" and refurbished, then re-opened with great fanfare.  But they didn't go that route.

Disney's most classic, most time-honored, most evergreen attractions are those that sprung from imagination and a genuine desire to build a great ride or show ... not to "leverage brands across all areas of the company."

I agree with McMagicland.  I think the Pixar additions are a great idea.

The classic characters aren't going anywhere.  I wore a Minnie Mouse t-shirt when I visited a friend last week, and her 3- and 2-year old kids noticed who she was, and proceeded to name the rest of the Fab 5 characters with no prompting from me.  I know them from the classic cartoons, they know them from Mickey's Clubhouse.

Everything just evolves.  Pixar is part of the family now.  Ask anyone with small kids who's sat through "Cars" or "Finding Nemo" a million times.  They would be disappointed if they took their kids to the parks and those characters weren't there.

If they didn't do it, they wouldn't be able to keep up with what the other parks are doing...I love the classic rides too, but I haven't been terribly upset about any of the upgrades so far.  I'm looking forward to seeing Captain Jack on POTC when I go back to WDW in December.

I remember a time, not too long ago, when no new rides were being built, developed, budgeted, or even discussed. Scary thoughts.

Rides involving a easily identifiable character are "designed by spreadsheet" to sell more merchandise - no one's clamoring for Big Thunder merchandise until you slap a character on the mine car. It's less risky for a beancounter to say, "this new ride should be very popular, since it's based on the $$$ hit movie," instead of, "this new ride should be interesting and once the public rides it a few times (over a few years) we should be able to sell lots of related merchandise." One of the earliest souvenirs from Pirates and Small World was a program to take home and learn all the new characters - making them familiar to the future consumers. Today's Disney Co isn't willing to wait that long.

The general public does not pay as close attention to these details we obsess over - otherwise the Disney Toon sequels wouldn't have made the company "billions".  I have not been to the Anaheim or Orlando parks in the last two years without hearing someone ask, "Where's the Shrek ride?" Let's be thankful that the dark days of closing attractions and only opening stores appear to be over.

If you think Lasseter is only out to promote Pixar and hates "classic Disney", I would suggest you have never met him. Even if no Pixar rides were ever built, the little lamp company up north clearly outperformed WDFA during their head-to-head competition, both creatively and financially. Pixar's already won - nothing left to prove.

Personally, after going across country to be less than impressed with "Expedition Matterhorn 2006" in AK, I would install the John Ratzenberger yeti at the top, let him make some observations about the crazy people in your car, then have Mike and Sulley swoosh down the snow covered slopes right beside you. Call it Randal's Revenge. Bring on the tie-in's.

empoor - I'm a pessimist too so I understand.  :)  But I truly haven't seen anything to make me think Lasseter's in this to stick it to Disney.  

>>> "oh, he just loved Disney when he was kicked out a few decades ago (:P).." <<<

I thought he left because he was too... exuberant (kinda like the way he is now)?  (That's a real question, I really don't know.)

>>> "And he also loved to protect its legacy when he practically forced out a big Disney talent, Sanders, and apparently changed the projects title from "American Dog" to "Bolt" (seriously, "Bolt"?!)... Of course he has done good things for Disney, just in my opinion more bad pushy things.. " <<<

I wasn't happy with this either.  I liked Lilo and Stitch, and I thought Chris Sanders could have been one of WDFA's "Brain Trust" along with Keane (Similar to Pixar's brain trust) as he was responsible for Disney's last great movie.  Maybe Lasseter and the rest of the Pixar folk could have given WDFA a bit more leeway in trying to build their own storymaking culture at first just so they weren't too shell shocked with all the changes.  

Still, I don't see this as Lasseter forcing Sanders out on purpose.  It just seems like Sanders couldn't take the criticism which was really given to help him make a better movie, not make him leave altogether.  And I don't see it exclusively as a Lasseter vs Disney thing.  The Pixar brain trust did it to Jan Pinkava with Ratatouille.  They did the same thing to Stephen J Anderson and Meet the Robinsons, and Anderson took it fine.  And I was worried that Glen Keane would leave as well after reading Jim's articles on how the Pixar folk wanted Rapunzel to change completely, but thankfully it sounds like he's sticking around and making a better version.  

On the whole, seems like it takes a certain type of person to work with them.  Lasseter mentioned the whole reason they brought Brad Bird in was to shake things up and to keep everyone at Pixar on their toes (including himself).  But I'm not a fan of losing all these good creative people to other studios like Dreamworks (like Chris Sanders), but at the same time, if these people aren't able to take criticisms well enough to see how it can help the movie they're making, then maybe it's better for the company in the long run.

>>> "I mean, was building a new animation studio even necessary? And aren't they more separated from all the action now more than ever? And was it even his idea to build a new studio, or did some executive think, "hey, we can use that random looking building across the road for some offices"?" <<<

If I recall correctly, building a new animation studio and everything that will be put in there was a result of the new Disney regime asking the Disney artists what they wanted to have to help them work better.  And again, the suits weren't given any power here - it was all about giving the creative people their own comfort zone, like the way it works at Pixar.  

>>> "If Pixar isn't superior, why doesn't he move Pixar closer to Burbank?" <<<

If the company I worked for decided to relocate, I am positive not everybody I work with would move along with the company.  Same for Pixar.  Plus, I don't think Steve Jobs would have agreed to sell the company if that meant potentially losing a lot of Pixar folk.

I wouldn't worry...  Though I am curious to read what Jim's story on Monday is going to be.  It will probably be something to show we need to worry about Pixar taking over again; but then again if Jim's sources are more connected to the suits and people with that mentality rather than to the artists, I can see why they'd be worried.

I don't have such a big problem with Disney doing movie tie in attractions, it's where they are placing them. It's Monsters Inc in Tomorrowland and Pirates in Frontierland that bother me. If it's done well and makes sense I'm all for it- and if a lot of money is spent on it, but it is in a bizarre mismatched place thematically, is it really done well? I think if you took most of the attractions that people are complainging about (Subs or the Seas, Laugh Floor etc...) and plopped them in to a better themed area, 90% of the criticism would cease. It's boggling that Disney has sister parks at all the resorts that could essentially be "Dump zones"- parks that are so loosely themed that you could place just about any attraction there without conflict AND these parks also happen to need new attractions (DCA, MGM, and WDSP) and what do they do? They plop the movie tie ins where they aren't needed and don't fit. You want more Pirates? What would a Pirates Movie Adventure have done to DCA's attendance? Would it have hurt to keep Timekeeper vacant (or open?) for a while and put Laugh Floor into MGM? It reminds me of how DL built Toontown and then the next year started installing plywood backdrops around the park for various character meet and greets- didn't they just spend money on a whole new land geared all around guests could meeting characters?

I'd be allright with the characters in HK's small world, if I didn't think that they would eventually infect the other small worlds. And lo and behold Marty Sklar gave an interview saying he's love to see it happen. He talks about how the beauty of small world is the simplicity of the message and presentation, and 2 minutes later he says how it's just gonna be great to have the characters in small world and hopes they'll come to the US parks. How simple is that message? Is the attraction about the kids living together or about Disney's character stories? Or about how the stories all come from different regions of the world? Or about why there's a fairy tale castle in the middle of styilized french architecture?

As for John Lasseter- I'm taking the wait and see approach. I truly think he knows how to make a great film and keep the product a valued commodity. I also thinks he's got a great love for Disney. So do we all. It doesn't mean that that's enough to do great things with the Company, or that his way of doing things will jive with all of us, whether they are succesful or not. I'll be honest, I would love if it was 1983 and Epcot was a new wonder waiting to be discovered. And I'd love if Alien Encounter was back and the Country Bears were still in Critter Country. That doesn't mean that I'm not for new attractions, or that part of me doesn't like the new stuff that I've been overheard complaining about. But the other part of me is aware that something is being lost, something that IS more sophsiticated. Maybe not better (which is of course an opinion), but let's be realistic- it's a lot harder to create an attraction from scratch, than it is to take whatever film property is hot and shoehorn it in somewhere. Fortunately the Pixar film people have proven they can create original memorable stories. Perhaps the change will come if some of them were to try their hands at WDI. I mean if you were given the chance to let your imagination run wild and create an attraction would you base it on a film property that you already spent 3 or 4 years working on, or would you see what new things you could create?

AND another thing... I love the reasoning that "well people who are asked say they love it". That's great and all. And they'd like it just as much if you did something else, as long as it's done well. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should and just because people will pay for it doesn't mean you did a good job. It's gratifying to learn that people are enjoying themselves but it's just one more sign of Disney the trend chaser instead of Disney the trendsetter. Disney used to show people great things before people had imagined them. Now by the time Disney does something it's been a proven success by 2 or 3 other companies, but gosh darnit, the public loves it when they get it!

Epcot82, your bring out the original Epcot Center as an example of great success with no pre-existing characters? You and I both know that people were disappointed 25 years ago when they came to Epcot and there was no Mickey to be found anywhere.

I have no problem with Disney using existing characters to create experiences for their guests that they want to have. And many of the guests want them and their children to meet and play with the characters they watched on the screen. The ones the kids keep pushing play over and over again in the DVD player.

I mean, the theme parks are really living, breathing entities, aren't they? They grow, adapt, expand and change over time. They're not museums.

As a Mom with a 4 and 6 year old who just returned from a 5 day trip to WDW, the addition of Nemo characters has made my kids happy.  We went on the new Nemo ride in Epcot and it was so much better than I anticipated and the excitement of the kids is what makes the whole thing worthwhile.  Kids know the Fab 5 and the Princesses and mostly all other characters but they really know and love the Pixar characters from going to the theater and seeing them at the movies.  Last year when we went to WDW all my son wanted to see was Lightning McQueen and Mater and he got his wish with Lightning leading the parade at MGM.  You have to remember these young kids are attaching themselves to these new characters like their parents did to the older Disney characters.  If you make a good ride people will come.  Why do people insist on creating friction between the two companies when they are one now.  I am so glad that Disney bought Pixar, I love the characters from both studios and you can't have too many tie ins because that is what people look for.  Everest has its own character in the Yeti.  My son never rode Everest but he knows the Yeti.  I loved the new Mexico ride update with the Donald.  I didn't even know that it was up for a redo.  Everytime I go to Disney they have updated something and I think it keeps it fresh and exciting.  Sometimes people over analyze situations, just sit back and enjoy.  

BlackCauldron85, don't you think people would rather go on a ride with a good theme than a crap theme? I mean, "Atlantis?" Really? The reason they didn't make that ride is because it would be immediately followed by a resounding "What?!"

And be not mistaken... Disney owns those characters now. They are, officially, Disney characters. So what's the problem?

All I can say is THANK YOU!

So many podcasts and bloggers always see the wrong side of this argument. Pixarization is a word tossed around the internet all the time now, and many people think that the hatred is for these characters. Many think that whoever argues this point thinks of Pixar as the bastard step-child of Disney. It's just not true!

I like the Pixar characters, but it's come to the point where they're EVERYWHERE! There's a total over-saturation of these characters, and it would be nice to see some other Disney characters, with just as much punching power (The Little Mermaid, Aladdin), be used.

I'm a realist though and understand that the Pixar characters are working. That's true. But I do also fear for the time when the GP gets a little tired of Pixar Pixar Pixar.

I have been noticing this pattern for the last few years, but i thought it was just a phase to make some extra $$, but now it is really starting to scare me.

I would always get excited when a new attraction was being built. The excitment of entering a new experience with new original characters created that feeling of leaving reality. But now, if WDI is only making character based rides, i feel theres nothing to really look forward to. I see these characters everyday, and I do like to see them at the Parks, but I don't want to see only them.

When I was little, I would wonder what would ever happen if WDW was shut down, but this is by far worse. To slowly see all our favorite disney attractions slowly go extinct and watch these character based rides replace them is like a punch in the gut. The one that scares me the most is what they're doing to Its a Small World in HK. If they can do this to a classic Disney staple, then whats to stop them from doing it to the HM,Space Mountain,Thunder Mountain, Malestrom, Tower of Terror, or Spaceship Earth. We've already seen this happen to Tiki Room, El Rio Del Tiempo, Alien Encounter, Living Seas,Pirates, just to name a few.

As a little kid, the attractions that DIDN'T have characters in them were my favorite ones. They were special because they could only be found at the parks. I understand Disney, as a business, needs to make money, but not at the expense of they're originality, creativity, and obligation to set high standards. We now live in a time when the real Disney Parks are fading away into a faint memory. Their rides and attractions are becoming nothing more than 3 dimensional commercials.

I fear for the day the Haunted Mansion features an Eddie Murphy AA and I say goodbye to Disney.

I am glad Disney did not own Pixar while Space Mountain was being overhauled. Management would want the ride to be re-themed to the Little Green Men from Toy Story and their struggle against Zurg's New Weapon after being defeated in Buzz's ride. Lets just be thankful Disney does not own the rights to Monster House. You could then kiss the Haunted Mansion goodbye.

If Disney wants to make money off of Pixar make the movies better and greater than the ones before.

I am quite unhappy with Disneyland these days.

First,

Country Bears should have stayed.... it didn't take up much room... and really ... the Pooh ride just bites. The kiddies have the rest of the park ... leave a couple of attractions for Grandma and Grandpa.

Then.... Great Moments with Mr Lincoln.... need I say more here? Is an 18 minute film hosted by Donald Duck and Steve Martin really a better idea for this space?  Travesty.

Then ... Pirates of the Caribbean. Jack sparrow everywhere? Come on. Why is Barbosa now on the ship?  Here is an idea... put the guy that was originally on the ship IN THE MOVIE !!!

Hold on kids... the next ride to get "improved" will be the Jungle Cruise.

Ok, I have a bit of mixed feelings on the issue.

I love the age old Disney rides, but let's face it the parks have always been built around the characters, and since Disney owns Pixar now, I say as long as the rides are good, put them up. As for changing rides, here's where I'm conflicted. I'm not in favor, but on the other hand, sometimes it works. I mean, I'm sorry, but Living Seas was boring as hell, and something needed to be done. If the Nemo characters fit, I'm all for it. Also, the musical at Animal Kingdom looks really good, and I can't wait to see it in Jan. As for the Sub Voyage, I don't mind it being rethemed to Nemo, only because I'm happy at least one's still alive. That being said, I think the classics should stay as they are.

Now, I do have some bones to pick with a few posts in here:

I LOVE POTC. It's my all time favorite Disney ride. It has been since I first rode it when I was four. I preface with that because I feel I'll get killed for what I say next. I adore the additions to Pirates. First off, as GREAT as the ride is, it never had a super coherent storyline, so nohing there got ruined. Also, it's not like they gutted the building, or ripped out all the great works. They just added three Sparrows (Two of which are simply background characters) a Barbosa, and the Davy Jones effect. And since the movie's are such a massive success, I see no problem with this, and still think it was a great "plus" to he ride.

Small remark. There's a great reason for the large amount of Pixar related additions to the themeparks. The movies that Pixar has produced is without a doubt the most inspiring, creative and original content to come out of Disney for a long time. I understand the gripes and have to agree that maintaining old fashioned Disney magic in the parks should be a priority, but give Pixar the credit it deserves. We'll talk again when non-Emeryville productions start mesmerizing again.

"I preface with that because I feel I'll get killed for what I say next. I adore the additions to Pirates. First off, as GREAT as the ride is, it never had a super coherent storyline, so nohing there got ruined"

That kinda was the point. Roll into any town during the busy part of a day ... (or boat in) .... and see if there is a "coherant" storyline to what is going on arround you.

Pirates Of The Carribean was an "environment",  a separate world and time different from our own. There was meant to be so many things going on at once that you never really "got" all of it each time you road the ride.

I too still like the ride... the changes don't bother me all that much... and I do appreciate the state of the art animatronics used for Sparrow.

But this ride was never meant to be a movie theme "dark ride" ... like Peter Pan, Snow White, etc.

What I am saying is the characters who appeared in the ride for more than 30 years should have had a better presence in the movie. For instance... the lady with the red dress, the pirate captain with the big boots and red coat... the guy originally on the ship before they replaced him with Barbosa. ... these characters were here first. There would still be room for Sparrow, Barbosa and the rest.

one more thing, I'm all for updates, refurbs, and such, but I really despise the impluse to slap a character in there to make a few extra bucks. Disney is one of the most creative companies around, they have an obligation to push their imaginations as far as they possibly can, and not resort to cheesing it up with a disney or pixar character EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Well, I think that the one thing to keep in mind is this: no matter how much we enjoy the past, and no matter what we think the Disney parks mean to us, they are and always have been giant advertisements for the company itself.

Disney is a long way from where it was when Disneyland first opened, and it is now a publicly-owned company with shareholders to answer to. God forbid they should try and make some money out of the venture!

Some "fans" seem to be the parks own worst enemy. Finding Nemo Subs have caused the biggest amount of controversy outside the Pirate Island concept lately, but the Sub arguments are a contradiction. Those who wish to return to the past get their wish with an old ride re-opened, and that doesn't seem to gel with people who think it should have re-opened with characters that were around pre-1959. I don't wish to pull out the old Walt quote about Disneyland never being complete, but the times they are a-changin'. TOY STORY is now 12 years old. Twelve! An entire generation of Disneylanders will have grown up with those Pixar characters as THEIR classic characters.

It's funny. I'm sure there was arguments on the equivalent of these message boards back in 1987 and 1995 when Star Tours and Indiana Jones opened respectively. However, these both seem to be accepted now because they are not only popular, but they are decent rides too. I have not had the privilege of riding Nemo yet, but it looks like a decent ride to me. Certainly not a cheap "cookie cutter" attraction, giving regulars no reason to complain about cutting corners for the sake of the bottom line. My contention is that in another decade, these characters will all be the 'classic characters' of a generation. To object to something simply because it is new is just as absurd as insisting everything be new and shiny. Besides, we are not talking about rides coming out to anticipate their films, like a cheap tie-in computer game, we are talking about films that have already captured the public imagination conclusively, and have become firmly entrenched in popular culture. PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN is the ultimate tribute to Disneyland, as it the success of the original ride coming full circle and finding its way back to the parks. Who would have guessed in the late-1960s the ride would be three successful films and spawn new attractions and entertainment? It's amazing, I think.

Now, none of this is to imply that Disney should forget its roots. One of the things that appeals to me about Disney parks, and what keeps willing me to come back, are the strong ties to the past. The Americana aspect of the parks is what makes them unique, and Main Street is one of my favourite places to simply sit and enjoy the day. Mickey, Sleeping Beauty Castle, Splash Mountain, Mad Tea Party, Dumbo the Flying Elephant, Davy Crockett's Explorer Canoes and all the Fantasyland dark rides are. Surely this generation has just as much right to leave its stamp for the next as well?

Thus endeth the rant.

Good points all of them.  What are they going to change/refurbish in the currently closed Haunted Mansion in Florida?  Maybe they should change some or all of the names of the separate “lands” to something more generic so they don’t have to adhere to such strict themeing?  How about add some Muppet or Fraggle Rock rides/shows/attractions?  We have to trust the Imagineers to always do quality work/the best story, even if it’s not everyones favorite choices they use.  There’s plenty to see and do, you can choose not to go to any or all.  Disney/MGM Studios definitely needs to completely re-do the attraction currently housing the “The Great Movie Ride”.  Maybe change the Indiana Jones stunt show to coincide with the new movie or transplant the ride from California?  Imagineering also needs to find other interactive ways to engage the guest more than just their shoot-em ups/laser tag galleries that they’re over populating the parks with.

"Disney is a long way from where it was when Disneyland first opened, and it is now a publicly-owned company with shareholders to answer to. God forbid they should try and make some money out of the venture!"

Disney has been publicly traded since 1925.

Are you sure, cause I just found this:

1957: Walt Disney Productions went public on November 12.

Where did you find that.  In Gabler's book, it said 1938 was the year the company went public (not 1925, as I originally said.)  

I found it online.

I'm sure the book is more reliable, though.

Regardless of the date, which seems to now be the point of contention rather than the issue at hand, the point was that these are very different times to when Walt was still in the land of the living. (The 1925 date refers to when they first became Walt Disney studios I believe. On 12 November 1957, Walt Disney Productions began trading on the New York stock exchange. Anyways, this is still beside the point...)

There are so many competing media interests now, not to mention competing animation studios which would have been unheard of even a decade or so ago. At the time, Disney was the beginning and the end of animation and they had a fair chunk of the kiddie corner marketed. Now, between the Internet; gaming; cable; TV; other films; comics; books and any other form of multimedia you care to name, Disney needs to catch and grab any attention they can.

What I was trying to say above  - and I think I did around that contentious date - was that Disney NEEDS to start branding these new logos now. Why wait until they are "proper classics" when they have a bottom line that needs answering right now? Besides, who is to say these aren't classics. As I pointed out, Toy Story is now a generation old, and certainly a 'classic' as far as anyone under the age of 12 would be concerned.

Generally, I am against the attitude that would have us believe anything 'new' and 'Pixar' (which like it or hate it is now 'Disney') is automatically inferior to a 50-year-old attraction because it isn't "Walt's". It may sound callous, but he has been dead forty years now and there are people in the here and now that are creating new and interesting characters. That's not to say we bulldoze over the past, but surely some older attractions can afford to be let go in favour of the new. Finding Nemo seems like a perfect blend of the two from what I've seen and heard: reminiscent of the past with the face and Imaginations of Disney now. Sounds perfect to me!

Wouldn't we all love to see new and interesting takes on the movies coming out? What about brand new characters created specifically for the park? Would they be acceptable as "real" Imagineering? Or is this simply more Pixar-hating for the sake of it?