[Question] Pixar take over??

[Disguy1955]

Many people are mad at disney for allowing pixar to so called "Take Over". Me I'd take pixar taking over any day, which I dont believe it is, rather than having something like Marvel characters or Universal "Take Over". At least Pixar is and always has been in disney style unlike Most if not all of Marvel or Universal.
I accept all that is being put in the parks, Pixar is a major part of Disney now with John so high up in Disney.
In some things yes I have not liked the pixar stuff like the block party, bugs land (to much for kids and just in the way) and I'm not a big fan of Toy Story the Musical (Ive only seen pix but I think It looks stupid) but for the most part the things like Buzz, Monsters (ok could be better), Nemo, Toy Story Mania, the future cars land, and (personally my favorite parade ever) the Pixar Play Parade are all great and add to the fun and magic.
Of course this is my personal opinion. What about you?

[Ice101]

Re: Pixar take over??

Pixar is great, and they do have their moments, but Disney is using them as a cash cow and not tapping into their own vault of Disney classics that are not represented in the parks.

[Moonie]

Re: Pixar take over??

I really, really love Pixar, and really hate when people whine about the films being over used in the parks, but I can see where they're coming from... sort of. I think Toy Story/Cars/Finding Nemo (maybe Bugs Life.) are definetely getting to that line of "way, way, too much" (or they might of already crossed it) that now Disney fans are starting to reject any Pixar film representation at all. Like how people were getting touchy about an Up attraction in the parks...

[Imagineer Scott]

Re: Pixar take over??

Pixar can't help it creates amazing characters that appeal to a variety of demographics, but I do think DCA is overusing Toy Story . (a huge Pixar fan here) I'd still love to see Wall-E, Up, and Ratatouille get featured in the parks, but I don't blame you wanting DAS classics represented more. Hopefully in the future they will be.

Also, Laseter being a high up in Disney creative helps Pixar get in the parks.

[jcman3777]

Re: Pixar take over??

I am also another Pixar lover. But about the Pixar "take-over", I don't think it exists. I do, however, think there is a lack of Classic Disney being added to the parks. We should be more upset and frustrated over the lack of new Classic Disney being added rather than getting angry at all the new Pixar attractions.

I'm not a huge fan of the Pixar Play Parade though... I get too wet. And it's cold in California at the moment.

[Datameister]

Re: Pixar take over??

I am utterly in awe of Pixar and its films. They consistently produce films that are wonderful on just about every level. They have brilliant animation, humor, sensible messages that aren't usually overdone, very interesting story premises, excitement, engaging characters, great music, etc. So I have VERY few complaints about Pixar, even when it comes to the films I don't enjoy quite as much as the others (e.g. Ratatouille, Cars).

But.

Disney has been usurping their ownership of Pixar. The number of Pixar-based elements has been disproportionately high, and most of them have other issues that deprive them of the brilliant originality of the films they're based on. IMO, Disney would be much wiser to adopt Pixar's methods and attitudes and approaches more than its existing films and characters.

[von Drake]

Re: Pixar take over??

Let me put it this way: if Disney hadn't bought Pixar, eventually Pixar would have been buying Disney.

Disney had, frankly, lost its way when it came to storytelling and artistic quality. Y'all remember Hercules, or Atlantis? Oy. Pixar came out of nowhere and schooled them in what USED to be at the core of Disney entertainments, which was a true sense of wonder, and heart.

The Disney/Pixar deal was structured in such a way that creative control devolved to Pixar visionaries--a sign that Disney understood what it was buying, which frankly was a heart transplant. When you consider that Pixar is deeply suffused with a love for Walt-era standards and spirit, this is one of the most fortuitous deals ever struck, in my opinion. That the first big release under Lassiter is PATF sends a very big message: the new company is going to be MORE quintessentially Disney, not less.

[Datameister]

Re: Pixar take over??

Well, I actually thought Atlantis was a surprisingly mature and interesting Disney movie, but other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

[disneyjedi1]

Re: Pixar take over??

Y'all remember Hercules, or Atlantis?

Yes, actually. And you know what? I LOVE them. I actually saw Atlantis twice opening day. And don't get me started on Hercules... (I watched that every day for a week a couple years ago.)

EDIT: Oh and Kida is definitely my favorite Disney princess.

[von Drake]

Re: Pixar take over??

Oh and Kida is definitely my favorite Disney princess.

I'm certainly not disparaging anyone's enthusiasms; if you liked a film, more power to you.

But Kida didn't make it to the pantheon of Disney princesses, did she? Neither of those films had significant resonance with audiences, and lost vast sums of money. A few more films like that, and there wouldn't have been a Disney animated films division. Just miles and miles of Miley Cyrus and the like.

I like Mulan, personally. But hey, Pixar is the most successful movie studio OF ALL TIME. Not just animation studio, but movie studio--no one has ever had a greater string of blockbuster hits. They've tapped into the zeitgeist in a way that no one has since...well, Walt Disney. Considering what could have happened, I'm very happy to see these forces converge.

[Casey Jr]

Re: Pixar take over??

the pixar films are my favorite Disney movies. I love them.

[Datameister]

Re: Pixar take over??

I'm certainly not disparaging anyone's enthusiasms; if you liked a film, more power to you. But Kida didn't make it to the pantheon of Disney princesses, did she? Neither of those films had significant resonance with audiences, and lost vast sums of money.

Stop making sense and being respectful of others' opinions! It's most unseemly on an Internet forum! Hahaha...

[von Drake]

Re: Pixar take over??

Ha! I'm a professorial duck, not a pit bull, I guess.

[disneyjedi1]

Re: Pixar take over??

I'm certainly not disparaging anyone's enthusiasms; if you liked a film, more power to you.

Oh I know, I'm just saying... there are people who liked those films.

But Kida didn't make it to the pantheon of Disney princesses, did she?

Kida's too good for them.

Neither of those films had significant resonance with audiences, and lost vast sums of money.

Go up to nearly anyone my age (late teens) and they'll tell tell you differently about Hercules. Practically EVERYONE I know LOVES that movie.

I like Mulan, personally.

I like Mulan too, but not in the Princess line.

But then again it's hard to find a film from Feature Animation that I don't like. There aren't that many of those. I think I've found redeeming qualities in all the films... even Home on the Range.

[animagusurreal]

Re: Pixar take over??

Pixar's great. In theory, I have no problem with them having a presence in the parks. I also have no problem with Star Tours or Indy being in the park.

The thing is, Star Tours and Indy were placed into appropriate lands, given tons of theming in their queues and focused on the guest experience rather pushing the "star" characters from the movies. The Pixar attractions, thus far, have not been done that way.

The other thing is that, while the Disney classics (the ones represented in the parks, anyway) typically take you to a fairy tale Once Upon a Time - and that's what Fantasyland was designed specifically to represent - the Pixar films typically take place in our familiar, modern world, but seen from a unique perspective or with a unique twist. That doesn't mean they can't fit into Disney parks, but I think that distinction should be taken into account by the Imagineers, and so far, I don't think it has.

The OTHER other thing is that, for a very long time, there has been no balance of original attractions to offset the number of movie-based attractions added to the park. Since 90% of those movie based attractions these days seem to be based on Pixar movies, that's why people often cry, "not another Pixar attraction!" Not to mention that it all seems to be based on merchandising. That's why we get three Toy Story attractions, two Nemo attractions, and an entire Cars land, but the proposed Ratatouille ride got the axe - seemingly not because of whether or not it would be a good ride or whether it would fit in the land, but because it doesn't have the merchandising power that the others do.

[AcmePunched]

Re: Pixar take over??

I think my opinion is the same as many other's here.. It's not so much that there are lots of Pixar-themed attractions, it's the fact that it all seems so much like "milking the cash cow."

That said.. I really do love Astro Blasters. And A Bug's Land is an awesome place to chill on a hot day. They've got some cool floats in the Pixar Play Parade, and I am excited to see Carsland even though I wish it had a better name. Maybe they should be laying off on the Pixar a little, but I guess I'm not really helping, am I? ^__^'

[von Drake]

Re: Pixar take over??

Animagusurreal, I hear you about there being too reliance on movies driving attractions. As I've posted elsewhere in this forum, management needs to not forget that attractions can drive movies. POTC, Disney's biggest movie franchise, wouldn't have existed if the POTC ride had Initially been tricked out with the iconography of Treasure Island, the 1950 Disney movie. My position is that it should be a two-way street.

But when it does come to movie-based components in parks, keep in mind that we won't have to worry about "not another Pixar attraction", because there won't be that distinction. Pixar IS Disney. Toy Story, Cars, etc. are going to be joined by creations that reflect the fully-blended DNA of both companies. I know Pixar has its own campus and all that, but ten years from now kids aren't going to know or care about such corporate minutae. Disney will be Disney.

[animagusurreal]

Re: Pixar take over??

Animagusurreal, I hear you about there being too reliance on movies driving attractions. As I've posted elsewhere in this forum, management needs to not forget that attractions can drive movies. POTC, Disney's biggest movie franchise, wouldn't have existed if the POTC ride had Initially been tricked out with the iconography of Treasure Island, the 1950 Disney movie. My position is that it should be a two-way street.

But when it does come to movie-based components in parks, keep in mind that we won't have to worry about "not another Pixar attraction", because there won't be that distinction. Pixar IS Disney. Toy Story, Cars, etc. are going to be joined by creations that reflect the fully-blended DNA of both companies. I know Pixar has its own campus and all that, but ten years from now kids aren't going to know or care about such corporate minutae. Disney will be Disney.

I remember that post about PotC and Treasure Island - that was a very good point and I totally agree .

While Disney now owns Pixar, and Pixar does seem like an extension of classic Disney's devotion to story, character and quality, I still say that Pixar films have their own sensibility, distinct from Disney's. In fact, I think Lasseter is trying to help Disney animation revive their unique identity after they spent most of this past decade trying to ditch it.

It doesn't mean Pixar can't be part of the "Disney family" or have a place in the parks, but I do think the difference should be taken into account when adapting them into attractions in a theme park devoted to "Yesterday, Tomorrow and Fantasy" that they don't readily fit into. (They should find a creative way to actually make them fit, not shoehorn them in on a flimsy or convaluted excuse).

Kids may not make the distinction, but then, I've met people who think Shrek is Disney .

[jcman3777]

Re: Pixar take over??

I agree with animagusurreal. I have no problem with Pixar. I welcome it with open arms. But as with any Disney attraction, I want the placement and creation of the attraction to make complete sense. The only distinction that the Monsters Inc. darkride has to be in HPB is that it is a movie... not a good enough reason, in my opinion.

I think if CarsLand has enough "Route 66" roadsigns at the front of it, the distinction and reasoning for the section to be in the park will make sense. Personally, I would like the land to be officially named "Route 66", but I doubt that will happen.

BugsLand was a good idea. But I wish it was a bit more elaborate. I love the epic gliding camera shots in A Bug's Life. It captured a world that I desperately wanted to visit. If they captured more of that in A Bug's Land, it would be a park favorite instead of what many people think is a waste of space.

Toy Story Mania is a fantastic attraction. I would never want to get rid of it. It fits at the pier and I love those Toy Story games and characters. But I think everyone can agree that the attraction was built to fulfill a couple of needs: They wanted a ride for the pier and they wanted a Toy Story ride. The two ideas don't immediately flow seamlessly together. It just doesn't.

Imagineers need to focus on the stories in attractions that flow seamlessly into the according atmosphere.

[Guest]

Re: Pixar take over??

It is not what is represented that makes a good ride per say, but rather it is the execution, detail and imagination that goes into the ride that makes it great.

In conjunction with that though of course comes diversity. I have no problem with movie based rides as long as there is some variety. That as many have stated is the real problem being experienced in the parks atm.