DVDizzy Forum

In-tune town: Iger conducts peaceful investors meet

By Paul Bond
Get ready for more rides based on animated Disney characters that have yet to be seen -- and having them up and running at the company's theme parks within two months of the corresponding film's release.

John Lasseter, soon to be the Walt Disney Co.'s creative head of Imagineering, unveiled his speedier movie-to-ride timeline Friday at the company's first shareholder's meeting under CEO Robert Iger.
[...]
Of his new role at Imagineering, where Disney rides are conceived, Lasseter said: "I never understood why you wouldn't start designing a ride when you start making a film, so two months after a film comes out you have a ride."

Along those lines, Iger stressed the importance of the Pixar acquisition and of animation in general, calling it "our biggest wave-maker."

Overall, I agree with Lasseter. Imagine if they'd been doing this all along... we'd have an interesting menu of attractions. On the downside, this mean we might see lots of "out with the old, in with the new" in order to make room for showcases for new movies. So long as Lasseter remembers that movies are better advertisements for the parks than vice-versa, and that a new "The Wild" attraction isn't going to satisfy guests the same way Pirates of the Caribbean does, then I think he might be thinking on the right track.

-Aaron

AwallaceUNC wrote:On the downside, this mean we might see lots of "out with the old, in with the new" in order to make room for showcases for new movies. So long as Lasseter remembers that movies are better advertisements for the parks than vice-versa, and that a new "The Wild" attraction isn't going to satisfy guests the same way Pirates of the Caribbean does, then I think he might be thinking on the right track.

Didn't Walt build the Sleeping Beauty Castle BEFORE the movie came out so that he could plug the forthcoming film?

While I generally disagree with the 'out with the old, in with the new' mentality, there is a point when some of the older rides just have to be retired. As Walt once said, Disneyland (and by extension, the other parks) will never be completed. However, I also think that a perfect place for new attractions based on current films would be DCA.

DCA already has a contemporary feel to it anyway, and most would agree that is definitely needs more rides and attractions.

Even if this only results in one or two extra attractions a year, I like the general attitude here. It is different thinking and that's a good thing.

The one thing I wonder, though....

What happens if an existing attraction gets replaced with "the latest Disney movie character," but then the movie ends up being a flop? Think "Valiant" or "Treasure Planet," etc.

Consider all the production efforts involved (design, theming, continuity, engineering, assembly, on-site demolition and construction) WELL BEFORE the movie is brought before the public. The imagineers and the board of directors can't foresee everthing.

It would be a shame if a standing ride is dismantled (One person's "lame" attraction is another's "classic") for what could turn into a temporary-from-lack-of-demand ride -- a parcel that just ends up being recycled and repurposed as the years go by.

C3PO wrote: What happens if an existing attraction gets replaced with "the latest Disney movie character," but then the movie ends up being a flop? Think "Valiant" or "Treasure Planet," etc.

As much as I would LOVE a Treasure Planet ride, I agree with that.

I don't like this news all that much to be honest! Disneyland is supposed to have a somewhat "classic" feel to it, so they need classics films to represent the parks.

I mean I wouldn't mind seeing Chicken Little signing autographs for example, but do the really need to add a Chicken Little Attraction anytime soon? I don't think so.

I don't know, this idea may grow on me, but not anytime soon. This sounds more like an advertisment to me! And I was looking forward to hearing John Lasseter's ideas.

I don't have a problem with it. If the movie IS a flop, it doesn't matter. Take the Waterworld attraction at Universal, for example. It's a great stunt show, and no less of a stunt show because the movie that went along with it was a flop.

If the ride is a good one, then the ride will stand up by itself, regardless of the commercial success of the film.

I like the idea of pushing to build more rides but I hate the idea of having them all linked to movies.

Disneyland has not had any major/("E-Ticket") ride added to the attraction roster that DID NOT have a movie tie in since the addition of Big Thunder Mountain Railroad back in September 1979.

It's been 26 1/2 years now. Will Disneyland EVER get another major ride that's 100% original ?

thank goodness.

I was hoping Mickeys PhilHarMagic was just a taste of more character themed attractions.

I would love to see more Mickey Mouse attractions @ WDW besides the parades...

Loomis wrote:I don't have a problem with it. If the movie IS a flop, it doesn't matter. Take the Waterworld attraction at Universal, for example. It's a great stunt show, and no less of a stunt show because the movie that went along with it was a flop.

If the ride is a good one, then the ride will stand up by itself, regardless of the commercial success of the film.

I actually agree with you competely!

I think it would be great if Disney decided to give the more "underwhelming" fims attractions. I mean "The Black Cauldron" could make a great stunt show, "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" would fit into the subs area, and then we'd have Treasure Planet where it could be a roller coaster ride through the destruction of a planet and... okay I better stop since it's obvious that the coolest Disneyland isn't going to happen.

However, don't you think it would seem to "advertismenty" to have rides for "Meet the Robinsons" or "Rapunzel" just a week before they came out. I mean it works for Universal, since it's on a working studio, but Disney has a magical feel to me that could get killed by this idea.

I just think if they would make a ride based on a flop, that they would still give it time and not have to replace an attraction.

Oh well, maybe I'll change my opinion.

As for the room space, that is problematic. Maybe they could only take down only one attraction and make it an official area where they add new attractions, and if the attractions ends up great, they could add it to the park permantly. That way we don't have to loss as many classic attractions and we can get a different taste of a new ride every once and a while.

How about that Snow White show at Disneyland? That's where I'd put it.

i want more of Mickey Mouse attractions too.:mickey:

Timon/Pumba fan wrote: I mean I wouldn't mind seeing Chicken Little signing autographs for example, but do the really need to add a Chicken Little Attraction anytime soon? I don't think so.

When I was at Disneyland during Thanksgiving, we saw The Ugly Duckling from Chicken Little in Toon Town and we got pictures of her and her autograph, They also had a giant Chicken Little Balloon over the store a the main entrance to California Adventure, so they had pleanty of advertising.

While I know that Walt always wanted the parks to be ever-changing, I can't see this "new movie = new ride" as a good thing. The movie not being a success is only one factor. The ride itself may simply not be a success.

For example, there are always mixed reviews about Stitch's Great Escape. A sh!tload of people hate it, a sh!tload of people love it, and then there are those who don't care enough about it to ride and make a judgement. And that's for a film that WAS successful. What would happen if there's a cookie-cutter ride for a film that was a flop? It'd simply be a waste of time, money, and space that could have been put to better use.

Let's say that Disney makes an adaptation of Jack and the Beanstalk, and decides that they'll put a dark ride for the film in Fantasyland, and decide to build it where Snow White's Scary Adventures is. It's a fantastic ride, much better than what Snow White was, while still retaining the charm of a classic Fantasyland dark ride. It opens the same day that the movie does, but the movie does horrible. It's a critical and financial flop, and is a very forgettable version of the film. What happens to the attraction? Do they keep it despite its film tie-in not being a success? Or do they mothball it and bring back Snow White? That's why there were hardly any new movie tie-in rides in the 70s and 80s. The films weren't successful enough to have a ride devoted to it. Plans were drawn up, for rides based on movies like Robin Hood, Tron, Watcher in the Woods, etc. But they were never done because the films weren't a success, weren't memorable enough to merit placement in the parks.

Now they're saying, "A new movie has a possiblity of having a new ride" but do they have that much confidence in the movie? Is the movie strong enough to pull off having its own attraction and standing well on its own at the box office?

Escapay

Again, nothing about what he said seems to imply that every new movie will get a new ride. However, he did seem to indicate that there is a good idea behind developing a ride and movie at the same time.

Very cool. I just hope they remember that some attractions are classics for a reason, and they shouldn't mess with success too much. I still miss Mr. Toad.

I would prefer for disney to make some rides on movies that they have completely missed like The Jungle Book, Hercules, Mulan, or Atlantis. I mean some of these weren't tremendous success stories, but they are recognizable movies that i think people would enjoy a ride for. I mean i guess focusing on new rides for new movies is ok, but it would be a complete shame if the parks became mostly all new rides and maybe 5 classic rides that wont change (Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Splash Mountain, Space Mountain, ect.).

Though of course disney has about 11 parks to plop these new attractions into, excluding it's waterparks.

I think the key to this whole concept is, if they are really going to design a ride at the same time as the movie, to put the quality of the ride ahead of how well it plugs the movie, if that makes any sense. I mean, one of Disney's most popular rides, Splash Mountain, is based on characters from a movie that people in the US aren't even "allowed" to see, and yet the ride is clearly not faltering in popularity due to the fact that Song of the South is making almost no money stateside. People ride it because it's a good ride, not because they just saw the movie and want to sink all their money and time on merchandising and rides.

Another idea is to design a ride that is loosely based on the concept of whatever the movie is, thus avoiding any direct ties should the movie bomb. I believe this is how the dinosaur dark ride (forgot the name, sorry!) at Animal Kingdom was done, i.e. you are looking for an iguanadon which looks suspiciously like Aladar as a Carnotaur chases you, yet the ride is not a direct adaptation of Dinosaur.

If the ride is exciting and memorable enough, ultimately it won't matter WHAT its inspiration was. People will want to ride it in spite of how much the movie it was based on made, and THAT is what will bring profit to the parks.

Karushifa wrote:I believe this is how the dinosaur dark ride (forgot the name, sorry!) at Animal Kingdom was done, i.e. you are looking for an iguanadon which looks suspiciously like Aladar as a Carnotaur chases you, yet the ride is not a direct adaptation of Dinosaur.

It's um...called "Dinosaur", lol. Though of course, you were probably thinking of its original (and IMO, superior) name, "Countdown to Extinction".

Escapay

Karushifa wrote:Another idea is to design a ride that is loosely based on the concept of whatever the movie is, thus avoiding any direct ties should the movie bomb. I believe this is how the dinosaur dark ride (forgot the name, sorry!) at Animal Kingdom was done, i.e. you are looking for an iguanadon which looks suspiciously like Aladar as a Carnotaur chases you, yet the ride is not a direct adaptation of Dinosaur.

That's a good example. It used to be called Countdown to Extinction and then Dinosaur, with a statue of Aladar added to the front fountain area.

ETA: Escapay you beat me

Perhaps Disney will give us a new thrill ride of a tour of Oakey Oaks (or whatever the town is called) and then a dramatic falling from the sky. Maybe we'll get a Rapunzel stage show or dark ride. I dunno, just pondering...Though I'm with singerguy04. I would rather have new attractions of past movies to advertise those instead of the new stuff. Walt Disney did this with the Alice in Wonderland ride. The movie wasn't very popular, but he still made it into a ride.

Also, I don't think they'd tear down the attraction if the movie flops. Imagine if Walt tore down Sleeping Beauty's castle after its initial release?

Kram Nebuer wrote:Also, I don't think they'd tear down the attraction if the movie flops. Imagine if Walt tore down Sleeping Beauty's castle after its initial release?

Then they'd give us the next castle, which will have been from The Sword in the Stone! Woohoo! Oh wait...it didn't happen. Darn.

I personally would rather see renovations for some of their current rides before they try and add new ones. CoP could use an update, even though they want to close it (did they? I don't remember if they did or not). And maybe some new scenes in The Great Movie Ride. Better yet, get rid of the damn hat in front of it first...

Escapay

Escapay wrote: I personally would rather see renovations for some of their current rides before they try and add new ones. CoP could use an update, even though they want to close it (did they? I don't remember if they did or not).

CoP had been operating regularly but is now back on that oh-so-scary place called...The List of Seasonal Attractions. Not everyone who goes there comes back...see "Timekeeper" and "Wonders of Life."

And maybe some new scenes in The Great Movie Ride. Better yet, get rid of the damn hat in front of it first...

Escapay

Not a hat fan either, huh?