The Pixar drum continues to beat at the Studios
The drum keeps beating on the rumors of a Pixar-land being added to the Disney-MGM Studios, and MiceAge.com’s Kevin Yee is adding some fuel to the fire this morning. Besides an exhaustive array of ideas for the park, some good and some not so good, Mr. Yee is speculating that this area might be much bigger than originally reported and can perhaps be seen as the Mouse’s answer to Harry Potter.
…what I’ve heard recently goes much, much further. Imagine the Backlot Tour closing, and that entire land space given over to the Pixar land (or Pixarlandia, as I wish they would call it, in honor of Disneyland’s original moniker during the planning stages. Actually, the true name is Pixar Studios, as was detailed on paperwork filed with the county a few weeks ago testifies). If they demolish the rest of Mickey Avenue, except the new Toy Story Mania, that would open up some land. If they tear down the queue buildings and prop warehouse for Backlot Tour, that would open up even more.
Can an area themed totally to Pixar, from bow to stern, be popular enough to stop the marketing juggernaut called Harry Potter? Do the Pixar characters pack enough punch among children to keep the Wizard at bay? Frankly, I have no idea. Certainly taken as a whole, the Pixar films are on par with the Potter films. But what it will come down to is whether Imagineering can execute an idea that will blow people away. I would imagine it needs to be on par with Frontierland and the like.
Whenever we discuss the future of attractions at Disney theme parks from this point forward, Mr. Potter is the elephant in the room. It can change everything.
Biblioadonis said,
June 19, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Ugh…Pixar vs. Potter.
Pixar is rooted firmly in animation with a few succesful attractions.
Potter is a literary world that has been aided by a few hit and miss films.
Potter fans are completely different from Pixar fans–they mix (I am an avid fan of both). But many people cry satan and witchcraft when they talk about Potter. You don’t hear that about Pixar.
In the long run, I bet that Pixar will be able to hold attention and relevance longer. Potter is a publishing phenomenon. The fans are rabid. We will make the trek to Islands of Adventure–but I’m not going to do much else at Universal. My heart belongs to Disney. Once the books are finished (too soon) and the movies are done, there won’t be a lot to keep Potter on the radar. But a new Pixar film every 18 months or so could keep the area full of characters.
Mike said,
June 19, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
I still think Disney would be better served in Star Wars, Muppets, and Pixar vs Potter war. I’ve thought for years they should blow up the Backlot Tour as its wasted space at this point. Add a Muppets restaurant, some Pixar attractions (like an Incredibles ride) and those Star Wars ideas I wrote about.
Jon said,
June 19, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Cinderella, the film, is over 50 years old, yet, people still flock to see the castle. I don’t think its the popularity of the film, I think it entirely depends on the spectacle of the building and the attractions’ appeal. Many attractions outlive their fad popularity and go on to become icons. Here is a small list that shows time isn’t the issue:
- Star Wars (Star Tours): ~30 years ago
- Back to the Future (BTTF Ride): ~20 years ago
- Cinderella (the castle): ~50 years ago
Sure, some of these have had sequels, but none rivaled the hype of the originals. If the visuals of the space or the experience are great, it will be around for a long time. Considering that Universal seems to hire a lot of former Imagineers, I suspect it will be great.
Ray said,
June 19, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Biblioadonis beat me to the punch.
I was going to comment that the concept of attempting to compare Harry Potter to Pixar is not sound. To me they are like comparing apples to oranges. As Biblio pointed out, Harry Potter is a literary hit. Pixar is creating animated movies.
The fans of Harry Potter can sometimes be compared to the fans of Star Wars or Star Trek, but I really think, that with time, those fans will diminish their fanaticism as time spans the gap between the last movie and now.
The best competition to the Harry Potter franchise would be a Star Wars expansion of some sort. They have similar fan bases
David said,
June 19, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
But we are not comparing the content of these two franchises. The comparison is how well they are used to drive attendance at parks. It may not be an entirely fair comparison, but it is one that everyone, including Disney execs, will be making for the next decade.
Biblioadonis said,
June 19, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Harry Potter will always be popular. Kids are going to discover him about the time they hit 10 years old. I love that Stephen King has proclaimed that Harry will live through the ages.
But we are talking about a theme park property. Adding Harry to IOA will drive the attendance figures way up. For a short time. Maybe 10 years at best.
But the idea of Pixar branded attractions and areas will definitely have a much longer appeal. Especially with new movies and characters continually being delivered.
I would love a new Star Wars attraction. I wrote about the fact that we don’t need a new movie, we need a new attraction:
http://disneygeeks.blogspot.com/2007/06/do-we-need-new-star-tours-ride.html
I love the Muppets and Star Tours so much more than Pixar. But I grew up on them…there is nostalgia associated with them. I love the Harry Potter books. I have nostalgia for them. But if my kids want to ride Toy Story Mania instead of a hippogryf–then we are going to spend time at Pixarland!
Jeff Pepper said,
June 20, 2007 @ 12:45 am
I don’t think Potter is quite the elephant in the room you stated. We are currently at the peak of Potter-mania but it will eventually run its course. It wasn’t so long ago that Universal’s partnership with Spielberg and properties like Jurassic Park were thought to be serious threats to Disney parks. We all see now how that ultimately panned out.
Mike said,
June 20, 2007 @ 1:00 am
I agree with Jeff. We know Star Wars and the Muppets have staying power. Star Wars at least is still as popular 30 years laters and the Muppets have been around as long as well. We just don’t know Potter’s staying power and if the rumor is true that he dies in the end, then I think that will sorely test his longevity. Lets be honest, where Lucas has taken Star Wars as his baby to culivate, Rowling seems to want to get past Potter
Ray said,
June 20, 2007 @ 1:19 am
I don’t envy the Disney Imagineers. If you can develop something that taps into the nostalgia of the collective consciousness, you are pretty well assured a long standing hit in comparison to something based on a flash-in-the-pan fad. Granted, a flash-in-the-pan fad can bring in alot of money, but how does that compare to something that can stand the test of a half-century?
Universal is banking on the fact that the Harry Potter themed land at their park will either be gang-busters and bring in the loot before the fad fizzles (ala Jurassic Park) or it will be nostalgic enough to bring people in for years (I don’t think it will, in my opinion).
All Disney needs to do is come up with something that is “shinier” to draw the attention back to themselves.
Let’s face it, we are all like a bunch of kids with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). All we need is a brighter, shinier object to makes us look in the other direction. The problem, just like with our educational system, is figuring out how to keep our gaze.
I would love to see another Muppet attraction either in addition to the current MuppetVision 3-D or in lieu of. I would also like to see another Star Wars attraction. Let’s face it, the current simulator is pretty much based on the 30 year old original. The choices are endless.
In regards to Pixar, there are a few options from the Meet the Robinsons family. I remember a few scenes in the movie when I leaned over to my wife and said, “That would make a good ride” (I think it was the bubble people mover).
Whatever they decide, it needs to be appealing to kids of all ages. The long standing hits that build nostalgia seem to be, in my humble opinion, the rides that have very loose requirements on who can ride them (in other words, no stringent height requirements).
Mike said,
June 20, 2007 @ 2:51 am
Meet the Robinsons is a, not Pixar so low on the current totem pole, and b, a flop
Ray said,
June 20, 2007 @ 3:17 am
Well, color me embarrassed!
I just assumed that Meet The Robinsons was a Pixar flick.
Also, I guess I stand in a minority. It was one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time. I rank it better than Spiderman 3 and Pirates 3. From an CG Animation standpoint, I ranked it higher than everything else but the 3 Shrek movies (I know not Disney). I hated Cars, Toy Story 1 & 2 made me yawn, and I fell asleep during Monsters, Inc.
But I digress from the topic…..sorry
Jeff Pepper said,
June 20, 2007 @ 4:27 am
While Meet the Robinsons was not a blockbuster, neither was it a flop. It grossed just under $100 million, which was much, much higher than initial expectations. Adjusted for inflation, that’s comparable to what Little Mermaid made back in 1989.
David said,
June 20, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
True, it did fine in the box office thanks to a marketing blitz unlike anything they’ve done in years. But it was a bad movie! A terrible, disjointed waste of time. 20 years from now, no one will get excited about a re-issue of Meet the Robinsons.
The elephant in the room has nothing to do with what staying power Potter has. It has to do with how much HYPE it will have in 2008-09 when the area opens at IOA. That is what Disney will react to.
Matt said,
June 20, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
First, I don’t think Disney needs to respond directly to Universal getting Potter because Universal has been in a downward spiral for years; look at their attendance. Therefore, you can’t put Universal on the same level as Disney and treat them as equals.
Second, I don’t see the Backlot Tour going anywhere soon. Disney is sinking a considerable amount of money into Toy Story Mania. I doubt they’re looking to rip up the Backlot Tour and re-do nearly a third of the theme park. The soundstages are still in use for real production and the bungalows are being used by park management. Besides, I strongly dislike these “blue sky ideas” by less than connected folks. Anyone can come up with whimsical ideas so while we’re at it, let’s just have the Monorail connect to Pixarland, which will be right behind the villains roller coaster park.
Jeff Pepper said,
June 20, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Sorry to keep this off-topic, but Dave, I really feel your clearly passionate hatred for MTR is coloring your judgment. The marketing and promotion for the film was really pretty low key. Sure there was a big advertising push, but even with the 3D angle it was nothing on the level of a Pixar or POTC. Merchandise tie-ins were next to nil. Even then, its box office was a steady revenue that lasted well into the month of May, indicating favorable word-of-mouth and repeat viewings. If its success is solely attributable to a marketing blitz as you describe, then it would have had big opening numbers and seen very dramatic subsequent week drops ala Spiderman, Shrek, etc. While it does have its critics (yourself included), there are a lot of folks out there who really love the film (myself included).
Sure the 3D certainly enhanced the box office receipts, but if you listen to the folks that are really passionate about the film, it was its positive, non-cynical tone and very emotional, uplifting ending that made the biggest impressions.
David said,
June 20, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Well Jeff, I think your love for the film may be coloring your judgement here. Many bad films have a positive message. Ishtar comes to mind…
Remember, I didn’t call it a flop. And it was not. But let’s keep in mind that the film that was supposed to mark the return of WDFA only grossed roughly half what “WIld Hogs” grossed and was murdered in the box office by Ghost Rider. Did it do poorly? No, it did not. But can we please dispense with the Little Mermaid comparisons? Mermaid was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture Comedy/Musical. I don’t think that’s happening here…
But we are seriously getting off topic. Onto Matt…
1. We ALL know that if Potter is a hit at IOA, Disney will respond. Whether it is a good idea or not, I would be stunned if they didn’t knee-jerk in response.
2. Are you saying Yee is “less the connected”?
Jeff Pepper said,
June 20, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Dave, all I said was MTR’s financial success was comparable to Mermaid’s, relative to the comment that MTR was a flop. I never made any comparison of the two beyond that.
Our individual opinions of MTR are subjective and personal, that’s clear. The only point I disagreed with was that you seemed to feel that the film’s relative success was attributed to overblown marketing.
I’m also confused by your point that MTR “was supposed to mark the return of WDFA.” It was following Chicken Little which proved to be a surprise success for WDFA considering it being their first foray into CGI. The company did not have very high expectations for MTR at any point, especially considering Lasseter insisted on considerable changes to the film when he came on board to WDFA.
And I’m not sure I understand how Wild Hogs and Ghost Rider somehow invalidate MTR’s success.
David said,
June 20, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Oh, Jeff. I was just having some fun with it. Any chance to use Wild Hogs as a benchmark is always fun! The point really was that a film receipts do not validate it as important or popular. Just that people paind to see it. Something that can be attributed to marketing as much as word of mouth.
I know you never compared the two…but you did in that you used one’s gross to validate the others. Again, the most popular movie in the world was Titantic…need I say more??
The company absoultely had high expectations for MTR. That was until Lasseter saw it…then they took that down a few notches.
All in good fun, my friend.
Jeff Pepper said,
June 20, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Thanks, Dave. We’re cool. : )
Let’s just keep moving forward . . .
(God, I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist. As you said, all in good fun. : )
Biblioadonis said,
June 20, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Whew…I was afraid we were going to have to impose a time-out on Jeff and David!
But great points from both of you.
I really enjoy this site–not only for the articles and news items, but for all of the great comments and interactions.
David said,
June 20, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Thanks for the kind words Biblio!
And Jeff, that was fantastic! LOL!
Ray said,
June 20, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
I feel bad for ever bringing up “Meet the Robinsons”. It seemed rather tame at the time. Who would know that there were such passionate opinions about the film.
I think David might be right though when he mentioned that he’s afraid that Disney’s response to any Harry Potter success at Universal’s Islands of Adventure will be a knee-jerk reaction.
I am hard pressed to think of a knee-jerk business decision that has ever paid off. After-thoughts….yes…but not knee-jerk
biblioadonis aka George said,
June 20, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
I loved Meet the Robinson’s. Mainly because my 8yo connected with the main character. It is so rare to find a lead character with blond hair…and one really interested in science!
That is why The Incredibles is such a favorite at my house. The dad and the son are both blond!
But thanks for stirring up trouble, Ray. Seems to happen wherever you go.
David said,
June 20, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
With all due respect, we need to credit Mike for the stirring up trouble. Ray just mentioned the film, Mike called it a flop…and the rest, as they say, is history
Mike said,
June 21, 2007 @ 1:20 am
And to be fair, I never saw it but my wife and kids liked it. For some reason, I did not relaize it hit near $100 million. Of course, $100 million is not what it used to be