[Chat] Pixar and Disney

[disney-fan-reborn]

I've read quite a few threads/replies from folks who think that there's too much Pixar at Disneyland recently. Many have said that they don't like how there are so many rides themed after recent movies (whether Disney or Pixar, on this I agree). But, the subject of movie-themed rides and Pixar always seems to end up being tied together some how. While it's true that many of the most recent new rides or ride make-overs have been themed around Pixar characters/movies, I don't think that necessarily warrants the rash of "Pixar hater" comments/topics.

I think we ALL must face the fact that Pixar IS Disney and that the characters in ALL the Pixar movies from Toy Story to UP should and will be considered classics in the future.

Remember folks, many of the rides in Fantasyland are based on early Disney movies (Peter Pan, Dumbo, Snow White, etc.) and the movies weren't that old when the rides were built. So, why are there so many people grinding their teeth about all the Pixar-themed attractions? As part of the Disney franchise, shouldn't they get their fair share of the pie?

Now, as far as an "OVERABUNDANCE" of Pixar (Flik's, Carsland, TSMM, BLAB, ITTBAB, MI, Nemo, and Pixar Parade)....that's another subject. I really don't think it's TOO MUCH.....yet. Again, Pixar IS Disney, and as such shouldn't they get their respective lands/attractions?

Your comments/thoughts please....

[Goofy Daddy]

Re: Pixar and Disney

While it's true that many of the most recent new rides or ride make-overs have been themed around Pixar characters/movies, I don't think that necessarily warrants the rash of "Pixar hater" comments/topics.



Now, as far as an "OVERABUNDANCE" of Pixar (Flik's, Carsland, TSMM, BLAB, ITTBAB, MI, Nemo, and Pixar Parade)....that's another subject. I really don't think it's TOO MUCH.....yet. Again, Pixar IS Disney, and as such shouldn't they get their respective lands/attractions?

Your comments/thoughts please....

I believe the reason for the Pixar saturation is because they are the Disney connected studio that is producig actual real quality hits. I have no doubt that some will stamp their feet emotionally and disagree, but Disney's animation studios have produced mostly direct to home sequal/prequal crap that rips off their past classics. The few theater released animated features have been (again, my personal opinion) weak stuff that should have been aired on the Disney Channel rather than general theater release (I exclude the Princess and the Frog here as I have not seen it yet but it looks like a return to the better days).

Pixar produces hit after hit. Each one insanely popular at not just the box office but the DVD market as well once released. That popularity translates into attention from those who's job it is to draw people to the parks. I enjoy most of the Pixar films, but I do agree that it is over saturated in DLR, especially at DCA.

[Aladdin]

Re: Pixar and Disney

I don't mind Pixar characters in DL or DCA, I just don't want to see Toy Story in Frontierland with woody and jessie, and in Fantasyland in small world and in Tomorrowland with Buzz L's Astro Blasters, and in Paradise Pier with Midway Mania, and in the Pixar Play parade, and in the Christmas Parade and ugggg, in the Hyperion theater, too! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, Balance is the key! Give some other great animated movies proper recognition, too.

The same can be said of Tinkerbell, by giving her the lead in the MSEP. (yeah I still call it that)

[disney-fan-reborn]

Re: Pixar and Disney

Pixar produces hit after hit. Each one insanely popular at not just the box office but the DVD market as well once released. That popularity translates into attention from those who's job it is to draw people to the parks. I enjoy most of the Pixar films, but I do agree that it is over saturated in DLR, especially at DCA.

I'm not saying that there's an overabundance of Pixar....yet. But, I do think they are getting close, and we, as Disney fans/critics/armchair imagineers, need to stand up and voice our opinions LOUDLY when they cross the line and it starts crowding out the older classics.

Then again, because most of the successful films as of late have been Pixar films, doesn't it just make sense that that's the direction they go when producing attractions/rides for the park? (BTW, I would MUCH RATHER see non-movie related rides/attractions be built like IASW, HM, SM, POTC, PM, JTIS, etc. Your imagination is allowed to run wild with those because there isn't a pre-determined story that you already know before going in.)

[Goofy Daddy]

Re: Pixar and Disney

I'm not saying that there's an overabundance of Pixar....yet. But, I do think they are getting close, and we, as Disney fans/critics/armchair imagineers, need to stand up and voice our opinions LOUDLY when they cross the line and it starts crowding out the older classics.

I do think they have reached that level, especially in DCA. One ENTIRE parade is dedicated to ONLY Pixar's films, Monster's Inc ride, Toy Story Mania, Green Armymen Drum Show, Mater & Lightening meet and greets...all in one park. I'd say that is over saturation already...and then comming soon is TS Musical and a whole land just for the Pixar movie "Cars".

Pixar films and their characters are part of the Disney brand and so I don't mind them showing up in parades in both DL and DCA but when you start having whole parades and lands based solely on Pixar or even ONE particular Pixar film, then it is going too far I think. To use a sports metaphore (or is it metafore?) Disney has a really "deep bench" that they can draw talent and attractions from. I think due to the high popularity of the current Pixar films, they seem so stuck on going to that particular well when they need/want a new attraction and/or show and I think that will hurt them in the long run.

[micromind]

Re: Pixar and Disney

It seems to me as though the management at Pixar is a lot like the management at DL many years ago.

Not afraid to break new ground, take a few chances here and there, and mostly, produce something that is creative enough to appeal to every age group.

It seems to me that the Disney company in general has lost the creative edge that established DL as world-class entertainment. Pixar seems have picked up where Disney left off.

Rob

[MarkTwain]

Re: Pixar and Disney

It seems to me as though the management at Pixar is a lot like the management at DL many years ago.

Not afraid to break new ground, take a few chances here and there, and mostly, produce something that is creative enough to appeal to every age group.

It seems to me that the Disney company in general has lost the creative edge that established DL as world-class entertainment. Pixar seems have picked up where Disney left off.

Rob

I really don't think this is the fault of decisions at Pixar. Notice that the movies from Pixar are getting better and more creative each year - they can hardly be accused of creative stinginess. Rather, I think this is the fault of Imagineering / Disney Parks executives who are afraid to base an attraction or piece of entertainment off of a property that isn't a financial hit - which in recent years, has pretty much just been Pixar.

[kburford]

Re: Pixar and Disney

of course i undertand pixar is disney and yes, pixar has been the one coming out recently with hit after hit so when disney wants a new ride, they want a hit which is pixar. so with that logic, it can be understandable that there is a sudden increase in pixar themed attractions.

however, for myself, pixar is oversaturated in dca. it's not just that there are pixar themed attractions, but it's expanded to the point where dca is going to have two themed lands based on pixar movies. that is just over the line and so uncreatice in my opinion. and pixar is not what comes to mind when you think of a california adventure (even though pixar is ca based). i feel like disney is limiting themselves when they have such a large empire of movies and what not to base attractions on. just because children are very familiar with pixar movies does not mean everything should be pixar...disney should be encouraging an interest in other & older movies too.

[micromind]

Re: Pixar and Disney

I guess I need to learn to write a bit better.

What I meant to say was that Pixar is turning out some pretty good stuff, like Disney used to.

Disney, on the other hand, not as good as it once was.

Rob

[animagusurreal]

Re: Pixar and Disney

I'm a big Pixar fan. I belong to a fan forum called Pixar Planet .

Disney owns Pixar, but they also own Miramax, and as much as I'd love to see "Pulp Fiction: The Ride", I don't think it's going to happen any time soon . (They could have a McDonald's nearby that serves a Royale with Cheese).

What makes Pixar and Disney seem related (even more than Disney's ownership) is that Pixar continues Walt's traditions of attention to story, character and detail in their films, capturing a sense of childlike wonderment, and putting a new twist on familiar concepts. However, the way they go about doing that is very different. This, I think, is why the two were kept seperate after Disney bought Pixar. In fact, I think Lasseter is working to restore Disney Animation Studos' distinct style, after they spent the better part of this past decade running from it.

Pixar is part of the Disney family (or "ohana") and they shouldn't be left behind...or forgotten in the parks. But there is still a distinction. It's not that one is better than the other, they're just unique, and should be treated uniquely when being adapted into attractions.

Disneyland (specifically Fantasyland) was tailor-made to be the home of the Disney fairy tales. The Imagineers need to find a way to tailor some part (or parts) of the parks to the Pixar films, instead of just cramming them in anywhere they'll fit, damaging both the theme of the land and the franchise they're trying to promote, or devoting an entire land to one movie, which seems very limiting. (Carsland does have some potential though, with the Route 66 connection).

Or better yet, let Pixar design it themselves (at least the concept) the way Walt's studio artists did for Disneyland.

The rides themselves need to capture the timeless element of the films - toys come to life, a world of monsters beyond the closet door, the mysterious wilderness beneath the waves - instead of focusing on rehashing the plot. (Or, in the case of BLAB, sticking the characters into the middle of a raccous fakey shooting gallery.)

Also, Imagineering needs to preserve variety in the parks, with original attractions, and attractions based on non-Pixar films. The latter should be chosen not simply because they're the "hottest", most merchandisable brand, but because they would make the coolest ride. Splash Mountain proves that that can work.

It should also be noted that after the park opened, Disney added just one movie-based ride to Fantasyland - Alice-in-Wonderland, even though the film had been a huge financial disappointment for the studio - and there wasn't another all the way until the 1980's with Pinnochio, by which time the film (which is great) was over 40 years old (My least favorite Fantasyland attraction BTW, but that's beside the point ).

So far, not one of the Pixar attractions has been a total home-run for me - BLAB is actually my least favorite in DL - but I have high hopes for Radiator Springs Racers.

I'd also like to see Pixar create an original attraction "in the Pixar style," the way Disney did original attractions in the Disney style.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Pixar and Disney

I think we ALL must face the fact that Pixar IS Disney and that the characters in ALL the Pixar movies from Toy Story to UP should and will be considered classics in the future.

With that logic then Marvel IS Disney also and since Spiderman is such an iconic and classic character then "Spideys Webslinging Swings" or "Wolverines Daring Journey" should be accepted since they are part of the Disney family.

In 2009 those seems like extreme examples that would NEVER happen, but what about in 2015 when they decide to cash in on the popularity of certain "Disney" franchises like the Fantastic 4 or X-Men? Do we really want Spiderman character in front of Cinderella Castle? Or Doctor Doom in the Color of Magic Show? Or how about an X-Men Play Parade?

The complaints aren't about distancing from Pixar, it's about using franchises where they fit rather than ONLY because the kids of 2007 seem to love them.

[Goofy Daddy]

Re: Pixar and Disney

With that logic then Marvel IS Disney also and since Spiderman is such an iconic and classic character then "Spideys Webslinging Swings" or "Wolverines Daring Journey" should be accepted since they are part of the Disney family.

In 2009 those seems like extreme examples that would NEVER happen, but what about in 2015 when they decide to cash in on the popularity of certain "Disney" franchises like the Fantastic 4 or X-Men? Do we really want Spiderman character in front of Cinderella Castle? Or Doctor Doom in the Color of Magic Show? Or how about an X-Men Play Parade?

The complaints aren't about distancing from Pixar, it's about using franchises where they fit rather than ONLY because the kids of 2007 seem to love them.

I agree, and I can see the Marvel stuff showing eventually since Disney has shown in recent years a pathological need to milk every possible cash cow fad until it dies.

I think my biggest issue with oversaturation of anything in the parks is that it just turns good, well liked, properties into something fans get tired of quickly.

SOME Pixar attractions make sense and should be welcome in the DLR if they are done right and all. Despite the huge volume of source materiel they can draw from I would like to see the IMagineers and the execs who are over them have enough courage to develope attractions that are totally original and not based on a popular fad/movie. The original DL was full of rides like that! Some of its most popular attractions in fact were themed originally, with out it being based on a specific hit film. I'd like to see them return to that balance.

There's nothing wrong with attractions based on the latest hit, or even a past hit...but not everysingle one has to have an attachment to a curerent hit film...though that seems to be how Disney is designing things now.

[techskip]

Re: Pixar and Disney

Somehow with everything going on I managed to miss this thread.

I'm a bit surprised that Wiggins hasn't popped in yet. I'll try to find it but he has an amazing post in another thread detailing the differences in creative style between Disney Animation and Pixar Animation. It's not to say that either style is "better" but one takes a classic storytelling approach while the other is a great deal more modern. Disney in recent years has modernized characters (starting with Aladdin I would say). But the self awareness of characters in Pixar is above and beyond what Disney has done.

I think my main complaint isn't the proliferation of Pixar material, it is the application of Pixar themes on attractions. Subs gained nothing with the addition of Nemo. They essentially brought back the beloved Subs and then used them as a floating theater to screen Finding Nemo 1.5 the DVD out your porthole window. BLAB really does nothing for Tomorrowland. Is it a future video game? Are you a toy? It makes no attempt to explain why it is there. To add insult to injury the various scenes are beyond cheap and cheesy, with minimal storyline, minimal plot, and minimal effort on even the basic elements of set design. Just when I thought they couldn't do less in an attraction, they make TSMM. TSMM is a video game, plain and simple, with NOTHING inside but video screens.

We can also talk about the decision to base entire lands on one movie franchise. Flicks has incredible detail in its theme. The problem is they spent more on the theme then they did on the actual attractions. The result is an amazing play area with attractions likely found at your local school carnival. Carsland promises to be even more detailed, with better attractions, but it is still tied to one specific franchise. What happens when Cars is no longer popular? Bugs Life is already seeing this phenomenon.

And that brings me to my final thought. Monsters was IMHO the perfect solution to a horrible attraction. I wish they had done more to promote the "movie set" theme of the ride... but out of everything Pixar related it is IMHO the best fit. I do think there is an oversaturation of Pixar but I think the more pressing issue is the poor execution of those Pixar properties.

[disney-fan-reborn]

Re: Pixar and Disney

With that logic then Marvel IS Disney also and since Spiderman is such an iconic and classic character then "Spideys Webslinging Swings" or "Wolverines Daring Journey" should be accepted since they are part of the Disney family.

That's not what I meant when I said Pixar IS Disney. What I meant was that when we think of Pixar, we think of movies created for and funded/produced BY Disney. Just because Marvel owns Disney, doesn't mean that people are going to automatically think Spiderman or Wolverine is a Disney character. They existed DECADES before any Disney take-over, and will always be considered Marvel super heros. Pixar characters, on the other hand, will always be tied to Disney because they were created under the Disney/Pixar name FOR Disney movies. I really don't think that Marvel heroes will be finding their way into the parks in the future, because they just don't fit under the Disney umbrella as well as the other Disney and Pixar characters do.

[Goofy Daddy]

Re: Pixar and Disney

Well said Skip!

[techskip]

Re: Pixar and Disney

Well said Skip!

:blush: thanks... found the quote as well

The clash between Pixar and Disneyland is stylistic and aesthetic, but it's deeper than that. In comparison to classic era Disney feature animation characters, the personalities of Pixar characters aren't softer; they are comedically edgier, culturally more hip, and infinitely more self-aware. Which makes them a perfect fit for the modern Pixar stories they're cast in, but dissonant with the story sensibility of classic Disneyland.

Disneyland was created by an animation studio with a long established storytelling style. They applied the same cultural sensibility, story style and film sense to Disneyland's creation and the classic WED years that followed as they had to their previous two decades of animated feature films.

What modern Pixar and classic Disney share in common is the enormous sense of heart and character appeal. Pixar characters and classic Disney characters tug on our same heartstrings -- but in different ways that play different tunes. Which is as it should and must be: they are the creations of different filmmakers born into different times, who express themselves with different sensibilities.

Some Disneyland customers feel the difference; I think most do not. The older Disneyland fans and the respective studios' filmmakers definitely feel it. The ones who don't are the Disney businessmen who jam them together willy-nilly -- hey, toons are toons, eh? No matter than Woody the Toy Puppet doesn't fit in Frontierland any more than Kermit the Frog fits in Fantasyland, if Disney's purchase of Hinson had gone through ten years ago that's exactly what you'd see today.

Along with a new generation of Disneyland customers who don't feel the difference.

thread is now locked can be read at the following link
http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...and-fit-3.html

I feel this is by far the best description I have read of the differences between Disney and Pixar.

[plagued]

Re: Pixar and Disney

i agree with techskip.

i'm a really big fan of Pixar. so much that i prefer their movies/films over Disney's recent attempts, both hand-drawn and CGI alike (i'll make an exception for Bolt though. in my opinion, one of disney's most pixar-esque calibur films).

i'm one who actually LIKES the fact that there's a lot of Pixar in the parks.. but i'm very disappointed in the execution, like techskip says. if the Pixar rides/attractions were anywhere close to how Disney has been executed in the past, i'd actually prefer those attractions over the 'classic' Disney ones by miles.

[techskip]

Re: Pixar and Disney

Before I become the poster child for high quality Pixar attractions... I want to state for the record that I would prefer unique original attractions that are not taken from a movie. I believe that WDI's inability to make an original attraction now is directly related to the repeated decisions to base every attraction off of a movie. It is entirely possible to loose your creative edge if others feed you the story and characters. WDI has been degraded to a point where they now appear incapable of even designing a land without having a built in movie tie-in. The sad thing is that the adaptations are supposed to be the easy part, someone else did the creative thinking for you... and yet somehow the adaptations aren't even up to the high standards many expect from Disney.

Someone else has a quote from Tony Baxter describing Nemo as a high quality E Ticket attraction...

[plagued]

Re: Pixar and Disney

Someone else has a quote from Tony Baxter describing Nemo as a high quality E Ticket attraction.

:lol: fail.

[techskip]

Re: Pixar and Disney

Considering the proliferation of Disney Pixar threads all I can say is