Mouse Extra

Today marks an anniversary that fills me, and many long time fans of Epcot, with nostalgia.  On this date in 1983 Journey into Imagination opened its doors for the first time to welcome Future World audiences at Epcot Center.  Now it is twenty six years later and the pavilion is only a shadow of what it once was.

Frequent readers of Mouse Extra already know that I am rarely a nostalgic guy when it comes to extinct attractions at Walt Disney World.  I usually applaud change and look forward to something new from the Imagineers.  But this attraction is different for me.  Not because I am a purist, which I am not by any definition, but because WDI has never been able produce a version of Journey into Imagination that even comes close to how good it was in 1983.

Don’t get me wrong, the original Journey into Imagination was by no means a perfect attraction.  And I certainly remember that only a few years after it opened it was the ride in that side of Future World that usually had little or no wait to get on.  My family and I went there often only to get out of the sun and have a nice air-conditioned few minutes in a seat.  But regardless of those shortcomings, it was always able to entertain and that song would stick in your head all day.  Now, Disney has removed many of the pavilion’s great features and turned the ride into something barely worth the few minutes of air-conditioned rest.  After two attempts they still do not have a story, or even a song, that comes near the entertainment value it once had.

It is hard for me to believe that the attraction’s sponsor, Kodak, is happy with this pavilion as it currently stands.  As a marketing engine I don’t see what it really produces for them.  The ride is often empty, and most people don’t even seem to hang around the post-show area much either.  In the early days this entire pavilion was an imagination playground with so many things to see and discover.  Now it is a disappointing way to cool down and quickly move along to something more interesting.  If you go in the winter when heat isn’t an issue, it can just be skipped over without ever missing it.   That’s a sad thing to say for a beautiful Epcot pavilion.

I am not calling for a return to the original ride, though I know many readers would be thrilled with such a result, but it is time to give this one another try.  Hopefully the third time will be the charm.

Bob Iger was recently quoted on CNN Money as saying the following:

“And not everything has to be a franchise. I was recently asked whether “Ratatouille” was a franchise. I said no: “Ratatouille” is an extremely good animated film and will be a classic unto itself, but it is not a franchise. You are not going to see “Ratatouille” attractions in parks. When you look at “Toy Story,” we’re making our third film, we’re opening two Toy Story Mania attractions at parks this summer, we have a very strong consumer products line, we have a “Toy Story” musical opening on the cruise line, we have a game in development - that’s a franchise.”

Of course, this nips in the bud the many rumors of a Ratatouille “wild mouse” coaster in Disney Hollywood Studios, a clone of the Crush Coaster from the Paris park. Which is too bad, since I think a wild ride through the sewers of Paris as a rat might have been fun. I feel Ratatouille is one of the better Pixar films.

But the real problem is the reasoning behind this. I can certainly live without a Ratatouille coaster, but i don’t want all future attractions restricted to those of a franchise. Does everything have to be based on the Princesses or Toy Story? Yes, I know Expedition Everest is not a “franchise” based attraction, not a pirate to be found anywhere. But that seems to be the exception to the rule these days. I hope this is not a sign of the end of original attractions like the Haunted Mansion or Soarin’ being imagineered. Lets hope not!

Our final entry in the 12 Milestones in Disney World history is the most recent of them all.  And it is very possible that it will be the biggest and most important to the future of the theme parks, not only in Florida but around the world.  It took place on January 24, 2006, the day the Disney Company acquired Pixar.

The shockwave has already left no stone unturned.  Nemo has made his way into Epcot and the Animal Kingdom.  Monsters Inc. was added to the Magic Kingdom.  And soon a very expensive new e-ticket attraction will be added to Disney’s Hollywood Studios, formerly the Disney-MGM Studios, called Toy Story Mania.  And there is no reason to believe the Pixar invasion will stop there.  More and more rumors of Pixar additions seem to be swirling around the internet everyday.

The biggest reason why we can fully expect this trend to continue is that Pixar’s creative chief John Lasseter was named to head Imagineering as part of the deal.  It is the first time since Walt Disney was alive that a true filmmaker headed this much heralded group of creators.  Will it make a difference and bring new attractions that have the same enduring quality Walt’s did?  Only time can answer that.  So far most of what he has introduced has been Pixar related.  When he breaks out of that mold we will see what he is really made of.

As a result of this merger the extremely annoying phrase “the Pixar-ization of the parks” has come into the vocabulary of Disney purists.  It carries a negative with it, a fear that Lasseter will turn the theme parks into a Pixar promotional zone and erase the memories of the Disney legacy.  There are two problems with that. The first is that I, and many others, love Pixar’s films.  I have never disliked anything they have done, so the more the better as far as I am concerned.  The second problem is that anyone who thinks Lasseter will try and erase the Disney legacy must not know anything about the man.  This is a former Disneyland cast member who speaks of Walt with the kind of glowing worship that someone in his position should.

Besides being the most recent and probably the most important milestone in our list for the future of Disney World, the Pixar merger is also the most exciting.  The final years of Michael Eisner’s reign brought budget cuts and scaled-down attractions.  Though it is a bit early to say with any certainty, it does seem that Lasseter may reverse that to some degree.  The re-making of California Adventure will answer many of these questions and fans of Disney’s theme parks around the world will be watching this project very closely.

The plan was a brilliant one.  Walt Disney always wanted to have a tour of his California film studio but just couldn’t do it.  So instead of trying to make it work out west, Disney decided to build a brand new working studio in Florida and have the tour there.  The Disney-MGM Studios were born.

The idea was to make the park a tribute to “the Hollywood that never was”, but more importantly a real working studio.  Here guests would come to see Disney animators working their magic, as well as live action films being made, television shows worked on and more.  It was all the things California’s tour might have been and more.   It defined the park, and made people not even notice the lack of other attraction when it first opened.

The theme the Disney-MGM Studios was based on, the “Hollywood that never was”, was quickly being jumbled throughout the park.  As attractions like Star Tours and the Rock n’ Rollercoaster opened one began to wonder how they fit in.  But behind all this was the fact that this was a working studio, so it all seemed to make some sort of sense.  All of these things related to making entertainment at a studio.  But then on February 1, 2005 that all had changed.  Due to cost-cutting measures, the working studio was closed, and the park forever altered.

Now Imagineers are left struggling with the theme of this park.  As we speak it is being renamed Disney’s Hollywood Studios but that still doesn’t solve the problems left by the decision to close the real working studios.  It seems now that any coherent theme is no longer in existence and instead the Studios park is home to whatever attractions are either somehow related to films or not able to fit in the better themed areas of the other parks.  .

Change is certainly coming to Disney’s Hollywood Studios, but will it ever be returned to its old self?  It doesn’t appear that way.  But it still has some of Walt Disney World’s best attractions.  All it needs is a coherent theme to bring it all together.  It had it once, but it is long gone now.

Picture if you will a park dedicated to animals of all kinds, big ones, scary ones, and even mythical ones.  It is a place where lions and giraffes captured the imagination while unicorns and dragons sent it soaring.  That was something near what the experience was going to be like at Disney World’s latest, and quite possibly greatest, theme park.  But as fate would have it, Disney’s Animal Kingdom ended up being very different indeed.

It was to be called “Beastly Kingdom” and it would have included e-ticket sized attractions based on mythical animals.  The plans are simply incredible and there is little doubt how big the appeal of the Animal Kingdom would have been had this land been included.  For a terrific explanation of what the Beastly Kingdom was to be, read this Jim Hill piece from 2001.  It will make you more than a little frustrated that this dream still has not been brought into reality.

So what happened to this incredible sure-fire-hit idea?  Mr. Hill explains…

There was only enough money left to build one more land. Which should the Mouse go for? Dragons or dinosaurs?

In the end, the deciding factor here was the money the Disney Company had already blown on the soon-to-be-released computer animated film, “Dinosaur.” Even back in 1995, the Mouse had already invested upwards of $30 million into production of this movie. (Current estimates suggest that Disney may have spent as much as $150 million to finish this film, making “Dinosaur” even more expensive than James Cameron’s infamously over-budget 1997 epic, “Titanic.” ) Eisner wanted to make sure that Disney’s “Dinosaur” movie made a return on that investment, so he insisted that DAK feature an attraction that heavily hyped the forthcoming film.

This is the kind of annoying story that so often destroyed the best laid Eisner-era plans.  Because of this decision to prioritize one film over the park’s quality the Animal Kingdom opened to mixed reviews and is still the most criticized park in Disney World.  It was a decision that is still felt today at the park and may be felt for years to come.  Expedition Everest has helped, but there is more to go to turn this park into the type of experience that was once planned.

Now I am the first one to understand the importance of budgets in business, and the Imagineers certainly over extended their budget, giving the bean counters the ability to pull this plug.  But is this the type of legacy Walt Disney left behind?  Would promoting one film and a strict budget really have kept Walt from creating another “wow”?

On April 30, 1989 Disney gathered a team of stars and dignitaries for a television event to commemorate a great milestone in Disney World history.  The broadcast was a success, and the next day the Disney-MGM Studios opened its doors to a hungry and excited public.

Walt Disney had always had the idea of making a studio tour at the California film studio location, but never went through with it.  So I guess in some way, like Epcot before it, building a movie studio based park was a sort-of fulfillment of another of Walt’s inspirations.  But when it opened, many fans had to question whether or not Walt would have done it this way.

Disney-MGM Studios opened with a very limited offering of attractions and things to do, unlike any of the Disney theme parks that came earlier.  It was because of this that people began to first question Michael Eisner’s motivations for building the park.  Did he think this was the best they could do?  Or did he only want to beat Universal to the punch?  But Imagineers soon began adding to the park and building some of Disney World’s best thrill rides.

Now, as the Studios continues to evolve, things are very different from the days of Walt and those who worked along side him.  It is also very different from how it looked on May 1, 1989.  The theme is often jumbled and somewhat stretched.  The rides are great, but the total immersive experience achieved at Disneyland is often not present here.  Is this the representation of the modern Disney theme park?  Only time will tell.

The Disney-MGM Studios was, and still is, the first example of the Eisner-era at Walt Disney World.  It also marked the beginning of a huge expansion at the Florida resort.  I have always adored this park, so please don’t think they I am trying to be negative.  It has evolved wonderfully to suit my taste.  But upon its opening, it meant something historic if not completely positive to Disney World.  Now, as time marches on it will be even more different.