Why For do the Imagineers keep adding new characters to Disney's classic theme park attractions?

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!