One more cross over for the day.
Hello and Welcome to In Too Deep, where I over-analyse a certain section of pop culture.
Well I'm not gonna lie, I'm honoured to have this blogger appear in my little blog series. He's a man that needs no introduction, but I'll let him introduce himself anyway, MovieFan12 (or they guy that writes 'A Look at Disney' for the five of you who don't know). Thank you for discussing this topic with me.
MF12: Thanks for having me on and I'm looking forward to discussing the idea of Disney turning their beloved attractions into films.
R8: Well tonight's topic was suggest by MovieFan12 and, as you can see from the title, it's about movies based off attractions. With the new Jungle Cruise movie coming out soon and a Haunted Mansion movie in the works, should we continue the trend set by Pirates of the Caribbean? I'll let MovieFan12 start off since I invited him, arguing against this trend.
MF12: I have always had a love/hate relationship with these attraction based films. It's not that I think they are bad but after Disney saw the success of Pirates, it just feels as though that they want to turn every single ride that have in the parks into a movie. I mean there are rumours for a Jungle Cruise movie starring Tim Allen and Tom Hanks. I guess you could call that Toy Story: The Reunion. There are also plans for a Matterhorn film. I mean, what's next a film about Magic Kingdom. Oh wait that is next because Jon Favreau is working on that. Along with Gullimo del Toro being brought in to work on a reboot of The Haunted Mansion.
Now as I state in my review for Tower of Terror, it's also hard to tell who the star of the film should be. What I mean by this is that should the star of the film be the actors or the setting that is based on the ride. For example, I think with The Haunted Mansion film that the Mansion should have been the true star and not Eddie Murphy. One of the biggest problems here is sometimes the setting can overshadow the actors or vice versa. I feel the only film based on an attraction to even come close to having a nice balance of setting and actors was Tower of Terror.
Now another of my biggest issues is that while yes I can recognize that majority of these attractions. I think it's more enthralling for the guests of the parks to experience the story of these attractions in their own way and come up with their own way as to how these vignettes are connected. By adding in these tight stories and characters, you take some of that away.
Perhaps my biggest issue with these films isn't even about the films themselves but rather the impact that they have had on the attractions they are based on. Around the time, Pirates 2 was hitting theatres Barbarossa, Davy Jones, and Jack Sparrow were added to the ride. At the time I thought it was just temporary but that proved to be untrue. As Jack and crew are there to stay. I guarantee you if the Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion successful. You would see Eddie Murphy pop up in the attraction somewhere. Now this just bugs me because personally I feel as though that you don't need the film characters to make these rides entertaining. They were great rides before the films ever came out and their legacy will last longer than anyone remembers these lackluster films.
Now it has already been confirmed that if the del Toro Mansion is successful, at least one character from his film will be added to the ride. Though to be honest, this doesn't bug me as much seeing as the character they are looking at adding is actually a character that was originally a part of the ride. With the Hatbox Ghost, he was originally part of The Haunted Mansion had been taken out. He will be in the new Mansion film and as stated this doesn't bug me because he was once part of the ride.
Again, I don't hate these films but I just feel they are cash grabs and I'm more upset with the outcome they can have on the classic attractions they they are based on. Now I know that Disney has done this before such as they have added classic Disney characters to Small World and for the longest time, Tiki Room has Iago and Zazu. It took Iago catching on fire to convince Disney to get rid of him and Zazu. So if Jack Sparrow were to catch on fire in Pirates of The Caribbean would they get rid of him? No because so many guests who go to the parks expect to see Jack and crew. I understand that Disney is giving the guests what they want with this but as I have stated, you don't need them.
Now as I state in my review for Tower of Terror, it's also hard to tell who the star of the film should be. What I mean by this is that should the star of the film be the actors or the setting that is based on the ride. For example, I think with The Haunted Mansion film that the Mansion should have been the true star and not Eddie Murphy. One of the biggest problems here is sometimes the setting can overshadow the actors or vice versa. I feel the only film based on an attraction to even come close to having a nice balance of setting and actors was Tower of Terror.
Now another of my biggest issues is that while yes I can recognize that majority of these attractions. I think it's more enthralling for the guests of the parks to experience the story of these attractions in their own way and come up with their own way as to how these vignettes are connected. By adding in these tight stories and characters, you take some of that away.
Perhaps my biggest issue with these films isn't even about the films themselves but rather the impact that they have had on the attractions they are based on. Around the time, Pirates 2 was hitting theatres Barbarossa, Davy Jones, and Jack Sparrow were added to the ride. At the time I thought it was just temporary but that proved to be untrue. As Jack and crew are there to stay. I guarantee you if the Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion successful. You would see Eddie Murphy pop up in the attraction somewhere. Now this just bugs me because personally I feel as though that you don't need the film characters to make these rides entertaining. They were great rides before the films ever came out and their legacy will last longer than anyone remembers these lackluster films.
Now it has already been confirmed that if the del Toro Mansion is successful, at least one character from his film will be added to the ride. Though to be honest, this doesn't bug me as much seeing as the character they are looking at adding is actually a character that was originally a part of the ride. With the Hatbox Ghost, he was originally part of The Haunted Mansion had been taken out. He will be in the new Mansion film and as stated this doesn't bug me because he was once part of the ride.
Again, I don't hate these films but I just feel they are cash grabs and I'm more upset with the outcome they can have on the classic attractions they they are based on. Now I know that Disney has done this before such as they have added classic Disney characters to Small World and for the longest time, Tiki Room has Iago and Zazu. It took Iago catching on fire to convince Disney to get rid of him and Zazu. So if Jack Sparrow were to catch on fire in Pirates of The Caribbean would they get rid of him? No because so many guests who go to the parks expect to see Jack and crew. I understand that Disney is giving the guests what they want with this but as I have stated, you don't need them.
R8: Hmm a well thought out and research argument. But let me see if I can counter.
Yes Disney are basing a lot of their movies on theme park attractions. But Disney has spent most of its history adapting something into film/animation. All the greats in the Pixar archive (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty etc etc) have been based in fairy tales or other similar stories. And look how well they turned out. I think they have a good track record proving they can take an idea and turn it into a really good movie.
Mmm yeah, the Haunted Mansion movie should have been the 'star' of the movie. But, to be fair, there isn't an immediately obvious plot in the Haunted Mansion, or there wasn't when the movie was released. Sure Disney Fans can go onto doombuggies.com and learn about it, but the general public have no idea. They treat it as a bunch of random scenes connected one after the other. So all the movie did was translate the scenes in the ride into that of a movie. As for the Tower of Terror movie I'm afraid I can't comment on it, since I've only just learnt from you it exists. But perhaps the Jungle Cruise Movie will be similar to the Haunted Mansion movie, where they just take scenes from it and come up with a story to match.
I do agree, some of the fun does come from making up your own story on why everything is the way it is in attractions. I will admit, I have doodled a bit of Disneyland fan fic in my spare time. But does that really work for the average park-goer? Or do they just like going on the ride.
Well to talk about the idea that adding characters is bad, I'll reply with a quote from one of the greatest men to ever live: "Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world. (...) Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved." I am, of course, referring to the great Walt Disney. As long as the trees keep growing, Disneyland will never stop evolving. And perhaps that's why the characters need to be in there. Pirates of the Caribbean was, what, 30 odd years old when the films were released? It would start to get boring after a while. Remember, the best customers are the locals that go to Disneyland in the weekend. So you'd need to spice it up. But yes, I agree that you shouldn't in theory tamper with the classics. I think It's A Small World is the greatest ride ever (when I went to Disneyland Paris when I was 4 I refused to get off it, much to the chagrin of my parents), but do I think the integration of Disney characters is bad? No, I see them as 'plussing' the ride. For those not in the know, 'plussing' meant trying to make the attraction better. It was part of Walt's philosophy. So I think it's a good thing that we get to see these characters in various rides.
Yes, it would be nice seeing the Hatbox Ghost back. And I know what you mean about putting back what was originally taken away. But again, this would only interest Disney history buffs such as ourselves. To the average public, do you think they have any idea.
You may have a point that you don't need them, but I argue that you do need these beloved characters. Would you expect not to see Snow White or Peter Pan if you went on their respective rides? People wanted to see the characters, so they were added. But to be honest, have they made that much of a difference? Are they really that noticeable? Sure if your a Disney fan, you can see it. But could the average public-goer really notice that Alice in Wonderland is in the Small World ride. I certainly didn't till I started paying attention. Disneyland is built for the guests, not for anyone else. Walt hated spending money off-stage. So at the end of the day, is the customer always right?
Yes Disney are basing a lot of their movies on theme park attractions. But Disney has spent most of its history adapting something into film/animation. All the greats in the Pixar archive (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty etc etc) have been based in fairy tales or other similar stories. And look how well they turned out. I think they have a good track record proving they can take an idea and turn it into a really good movie.
Mmm yeah, the Haunted Mansion movie should have been the 'star' of the movie. But, to be fair, there isn't an immediately obvious plot in the Haunted Mansion, or there wasn't when the movie was released. Sure Disney Fans can go onto doombuggies.com and learn about it, but the general public have no idea. They treat it as a bunch of random scenes connected one after the other. So all the movie did was translate the scenes in the ride into that of a movie. As for the Tower of Terror movie I'm afraid I can't comment on it, since I've only just learnt from you it exists. But perhaps the Jungle Cruise Movie will be similar to the Haunted Mansion movie, where they just take scenes from it and come up with a story to match.
I do agree, some of the fun does come from making up your own story on why everything is the way it is in attractions. I will admit, I have doodled a bit of Disneyland fan fic in my spare time. But does that really work for the average park-goer? Or do they just like going on the ride.
Well to talk about the idea that adding characters is bad, I'll reply with a quote from one of the greatest men to ever live: "Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world. (...) Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved." I am, of course, referring to the great Walt Disney. As long as the trees keep growing, Disneyland will never stop evolving. And perhaps that's why the characters need to be in there. Pirates of the Caribbean was, what, 30 odd years old when the films were released? It would start to get boring after a while. Remember, the best customers are the locals that go to Disneyland in the weekend. So you'd need to spice it up. But yes, I agree that you shouldn't in theory tamper with the classics. I think It's A Small World is the greatest ride ever (when I went to Disneyland Paris when I was 4 I refused to get off it, much to the chagrin of my parents), but do I think the integration of Disney characters is bad? No, I see them as 'plussing' the ride. For those not in the know, 'plussing' meant trying to make the attraction better. It was part of Walt's philosophy. So I think it's a good thing that we get to see these characters in various rides.
Yes, it would be nice seeing the Hatbox Ghost back. And I know what you mean about putting back what was originally taken away. But again, this would only interest Disney history buffs such as ourselves. To the average public, do you think they have any idea.
You may have a point that you don't need them, but I argue that you do need these beloved characters. Would you expect not to see Snow White or Peter Pan if you went on their respective rides? People wanted to see the characters, so they were added. But to be honest, have they made that much of a difference? Are they really that noticeable? Sure if your a Disney fan, you can see it. But could the average public-goer really notice that Alice in Wonderland is in the Small World ride. I certainly didn't till I started paying attention. Disneyland is built for the guests, not for anyone else. Walt hated spending money off-stage. So at the end of the day, is the customer always right?
MF12: Touché on using Walt to back up your argument. Well played as for the Disney and Pixar characters not being noticeable. I can't comment on Small World seeing as I haven't been on that ride since they added the Disney characters but from the pictures that I have seen. They do seem to blend in well as they are done in Mary Blair fashion as to feel adjusted to the rest of the ride. However with Pirates of The Caribbean, I actually think that it is noticeable because they planted Jack in three locations as to where the guests can get a good view of him.
Do these characters take away from the ride? For someone such as myself who is an avid Disney fan a little bit but you are right in saying that to the average park goer this has no affect. However while they don't take away anything. I also feel that they add no value. In all honesty adding the characters just feels tacked on and dare I say cheap. Now as I have stated in the past I'm not a fan of The Nightmare Before Christmas and I bring this up because Disney has a holiday tradition of adding Jack Skellington and friends to the Mansion but it is only temporary. So guess what, people who don't like that film don't have to put up with the characters being there 365 days a year. Whereas with Pirates, Jack Sparrow is there all year. Now if Disney had decided to go that route and make it like a summer special type deal that would be okay.
Now I won't argue that these characters aren't beloved because lord knows Captain Jack has a huge following. Though I just feel that Disney could have found a different way of including him in the park than just the ride. Which they have with Pirate classes. You know though for all the popularity Jack has though, you rarely ever see park photos of him.
You do bring up a good point as to how does the average park goer experience the attraction. For most of them they probably don't care about the story of the ride and just want to have a good time. I'm not trying to demean these guests and some of the narratives for these rides are hard to understand. I will admit that before I learned of doombuggies.com, I had no idea what the story of the Mansion was supposed to be. Through reading about the story and the characters I gained a better knowledge. Though unlike us uber Disney fans, average park goers probably don't care about researching the story of Madam Leota and the Bride.
Still though Disney knows that these attraction have their fans and the fan do care about these characters and the stories of the attractions. That is perhaps one of the biggest reasons why people get so miffed at these attraction based films.
Let's not forget the music of these attractions. Perfect example, there is one scene in the Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion where the singing Busts start to sing Grim Grinning Ghosts but then go into a melody of other songs. I feel that scene just teased the audience with a snippet of that song. If your not going to include all of the song then don't use it. Yes, there as decent cover of Grim Grinning Ghosts by Barenaked Ladies on the film's soundtrack but that doesn't make up for the mistreatment of the song in this film. Another example would be The Country Bears that film is based on a attraction that has so many great songs but a single song from Country Bear Jamboree appears in The Country Bears. C'mon, that's just not cool.
I will agree with your point about adaptation and it is shocking and saddening that Disney has troubles adapting their own stories to the silver screen. Perhaps they should just stop with these attraction based films. But that would upset some people. I don't know sometimes it just feels like they don't know how to do adapt their own attractions into a story that would work for a film. I will say it does seem that they are trying to get better at this with del Toro. Going back to the whole adaptation thing for a second here. I wonder why hasn't Disney ever thought about adapting any of their attractions using the medium that made them famous. Animation! Personally, I think an animated Haunted Mansion film or short could work better at bringing the characters and the Mansion to life better than any live action version ever can.
Do these characters take away from the ride? For someone such as myself who is an avid Disney fan a little bit but you are right in saying that to the average park goer this has no affect. However while they don't take away anything. I also feel that they add no value. In all honesty adding the characters just feels tacked on and dare I say cheap. Now as I have stated in the past I'm not a fan of The Nightmare Before Christmas and I bring this up because Disney has a holiday tradition of adding Jack Skellington and friends to the Mansion but it is only temporary. So guess what, people who don't like that film don't have to put up with the characters being there 365 days a year. Whereas with Pirates, Jack Sparrow is there all year. Now if Disney had decided to go that route and make it like a summer special type deal that would be okay.
Now I won't argue that these characters aren't beloved because lord knows Captain Jack has a huge following. Though I just feel that Disney could have found a different way of including him in the park than just the ride. Which they have with Pirate classes. You know though for all the popularity Jack has though, you rarely ever see park photos of him.
You do bring up a good point as to how does the average park goer experience the attraction. For most of them they probably don't care about the story of the ride and just want to have a good time. I'm not trying to demean these guests and some of the narratives for these rides are hard to understand. I will admit that before I learned of doombuggies.com, I had no idea what the story of the Mansion was supposed to be. Through reading about the story and the characters I gained a better knowledge. Though unlike us uber Disney fans, average park goers probably don't care about researching the story of Madam Leota and the Bride.
Still though Disney knows that these attraction have their fans and the fan do care about these characters and the stories of the attractions. That is perhaps one of the biggest reasons why people get so miffed at these attraction based films.
Let's not forget the music of these attractions. Perfect example, there is one scene in the Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion where the singing Busts start to sing Grim Grinning Ghosts but then go into a melody of other songs. I feel that scene just teased the audience with a snippet of that song. If your not going to include all of the song then don't use it. Yes, there as decent cover of Grim Grinning Ghosts by Barenaked Ladies on the film's soundtrack but that doesn't make up for the mistreatment of the song in this film. Another example would be The Country Bears that film is based on a attraction that has so many great songs but a single song from Country Bear Jamboree appears in The Country Bears. C'mon, that's just not cool.
I will agree with your point about adaptation and it is shocking and saddening that Disney has troubles adapting their own stories to the silver screen. Perhaps they should just stop with these attraction based films. But that would upset some people. I don't know sometimes it just feels like they don't know how to do adapt their own attractions into a story that would work for a film. I will say it does seem that they are trying to get better at this with del Toro. Going back to the whole adaptation thing for a second here. I wonder why hasn't Disney ever thought about adapting any of their attractions using the medium that made them famous. Animation! Personally, I think an animated Haunted Mansion film or short could work better at bringing the characters and the Mansion to life better than any live action version ever can.
R8: Why thank you, thought I should include Walt in here somehow. And yeah, I totally agree that it works when the characters are in the background. And Jack can be a bit too much of the centre, sort of ruining the feel of the ride.
You say that they don't add anything to the ride. I say they do, but solely because it makes it more interesting for old-time riders to see something new. Perhaps it would be better if it was merely a temporary thing, but I still embrace change at the parks.
Yeah you can't really get your photo with Jack, and that is a shame. But does he really intrude that much on the ride. From memory he's in the barrel, hiding somewhere and at the end. Now at the end of the ride, there was nothing there before. So at least they managed to make that bit more interesting. And does he really have that large of an impact on the whole thing?
Yeah it is stink that the classic songs aren't in the movie. I'd argue that is rule number one. But on the flip side, if they stuck with the traditional music from Pirates of the Caribbean, would we have had that awesome theme music played all the time?
Yeah I think the biggest problem is that they're not using the animation department enough. I mean, Country Bears Jamboree would work better as an animation because you wouldn't have those creepy as bear costumes. But sadly Disney seems to hate hand-drawn animation, which is a shame. Still, one can hope.
And now is the part where we come up with our closing statement to finish with. I argue that movies should be based on rides because there is an untapped wealth of ideas just lying in wait. There is so much that can be done with them. Plus it's great advertising. How many people had heard of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride before the movie? So at the end of the day I like the adaptations, because it gives us a chance to see something we've never seen before.
You say that they don't add anything to the ride. I say they do, but solely because it makes it more interesting for old-time riders to see something new. Perhaps it would be better if it was merely a temporary thing, but I still embrace change at the parks.
Yeah you can't really get your photo with Jack, and that is a shame. But does he really intrude that much on the ride. From memory he's in the barrel, hiding somewhere and at the end. Now at the end of the ride, there was nothing there before. So at least they managed to make that bit more interesting. And does he really have that large of an impact on the whole thing?
Yeah it is stink that the classic songs aren't in the movie. I'd argue that is rule number one. But on the flip side, if they stuck with the traditional music from Pirates of the Caribbean, would we have had that awesome theme music played all the time?
Yeah I think the biggest problem is that they're not using the animation department enough. I mean, Country Bears Jamboree would work better as an animation because you wouldn't have those creepy as bear costumes. But sadly Disney seems to hate hand-drawn animation, which is a shame. Still, one can hope.
And now is the part where we come up with our closing statement to finish with. I argue that movies should be based on rides because there is an untapped wealth of ideas just lying in wait. There is so much that can be done with them. Plus it's great advertising. How many people had heard of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride before the movie? So at the end of the day I like the adaptations, because it gives us a chance to see something we've never seen before.
MF12: At the end of the day, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject. Are all of these attraction based films bad? No but I just don't think Disney knows how to adapt the attractions into a film. At the end of the day though these are just my thoughts and thanks again for having me.
So there you have it. Two different viewpoints on an interesting and under-appreciated subject. I'll like to thank MovieFan12 for his time; and I strongly urge those that haven't seen his blogs to go read them. This is a man that knows more about Disney then I think Disney themselves.
If you have anything you want to add, or anything you disagree with, feel free to add a comment. If you want to do a crossover with me feel free to send me an email. Till next time.
Why would they need to make a Matterhorn film?
ReplyDeleteThe ride was based on the movie "Banner in the Sky" so unless it's a remake of that film it doesn't make much sense.
I agree and it's getting odder as they now wish to make a film based on Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, which itself is based on the Disney short, Wind in The Willows. As for Matterhorn, I had known Jungle Cruise was inspired by The African Queen, which itself is getting a film but I hadn't heard that about Matterhorn.
Deletehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0560978/
DeleteLook into it it's one of what you might call a forgotten Disney great.