Yes, but as with most elections, we must choose the lesser of two evils.

Which would you pick if you had to choose?









(Apparently we can't choose Not-Pixar.)

I'd pick the version with no Peoplemover. I'm of the camp that they should just tear down the track so people will shut up and move on.

Which brings up an ancillary point.

Are whiners at fault for Peoplemover Longings and, in its day, Carousel of Progress angst? Or is Disney at fault for leaving the Peoplemover track up, visible, and obviously unsused and the vast Carousel building empty for decades yet occupying prime real estate? (Leaving out the question of whether Innoventions is better or worse than empty was.)

Between those two options I'd obstain.

Courteously, I hope. ;)

I'm no New Yorker.

Yes, Disney deserves most of the blame for the years of hope (only sometimes crossing into what I'd call whining) for the return of submarines and the Peoplemover.

Nobody seriously begs (though there is the occasional wistful sigh) for the return of the Skyway. Why? Because they tore down the towers and filled in the Matterhorn hole.

I've said it before but I think Disneyland should be constantly moving forward. If a ride is open for eternity, great. But once you close it, move on. If the subsequent use fails, close it and try something else. Don't go back to what was there the first time. Rocket Rods didn't work? Move on to the next thing or tear it out. The day after the subs closed, if they didn't have an immediate lagoon based plan for it they should have started paving it over. Just my opinion. Bringing back the subs. If they bring back the Peopolemove you don't just have Pixar Tomorrowland you have Pixar Yesterdayland.

How about something else on the Peoplemover tracks. Would putting up an attraction themed to the Incredible's be moving backwards or forwards?

If closing things was just to maintain a static number of attractions rather than a creative choice for the advancement of Disneyland, I have no problem with going back to things that were cravenly removed for the sake of cost savings only.


There was nothing wrong with the Peoplemover. It was not a wildly popular attraction, but pleasant enough ... and served to create kinetic movement in an area of the park that needs it.

In fact, all areas of the park could benefit from kinetic movement. Putting Big Thunder Mountain on an island may not look authentic in France's Frontierland, but the entire land benefits from the ultra-visibility of the constantly kareening trains.

The skyway was a benefit to Fantasyland for this same reason.

In a place where the main attraction is RIDES (even if not the carnival kind), the visible movement of some of the rides is of great appeal beyond the mere ridership of those rides.



Oh, is this about Wall-E? Well, it may not be a perfect fit. But since the Parks are destined to be dominated by Pixar, and Tomorrowland in particular ... I'm thrilled there's a Pixar movie that actually takes place in Earth's future. I don't care if it's pessimistic, let's roll with it. It can depict the wonderful Earth rebirth that happens after the credits roll. Wall-E and Eve and the cockroach lead the way to a great big, beautiful tomorrow!

I suppose it would depend on what form it took.