Jungle Cruise - The Movie
 

Can a reboot of the ride be far behind?

News blip here

Have they no shame?

duh

of course not. shame requires conscience

Meh. I'll just go watch The African Queen again.

That's what I thought. Either that or Toy Story. A family guy in a jungle? Don't tell me they start out at Disneyland and are magically transported to a real jungle :rolleyes:

I'll wait until I see it, but I don't have any solid expectations. Pirates was going to suck too.

But that one line sounds like Captain Ron.

If only they show the backside of water in 3D.

I'm trying to hold the same viewpoint regarding the upcoming Disneyland movie but so far I'm failing miserably at that.

Better go ride the Jungle Cruise before it gets "plussed"

Disneyland is so much nicer as someone who doesn't go on rides much and has little emotional attachment to their present state.

But then if I were reincanated as Walt Disney's corporate descendant I'd put in place a rule that all attractions, shows, rides, restaurants, etc. must be torn down after 15 years of existence and something new put in its place. The past is best memorialized without tether.

But on this idea it is really just the though of looking at Tim Allen for two hours that turns me off at first consideration.

I'm going to have a hard time watching Buzz and Woody playing in the jungle.

I'm not so sure how well this plan would work out. In a couple of weeks, I'm taking someone to Disneyland who hasn't been in 14 years! I got so excited about all the new attractions he'll get to experience that have been created in that decade-and-a-half.


Oh ... wait.



He missed nothing.


Buzz Lightyear? The re-do of 1959's Sleeping Beauty Walk-thu? Re-do of 1959's Submarine Voyage? Get my drift?

From the point of view of someone that missed the 80's and 90's at Disneyland, the first trip back in that long is all about nostalgia anyway.

That's how it was for me when I toured the park with NA in 2005 for the first time since approximately 1976. A memorable day!

I'm not sure what you're saying. It reads to me that you're saying my plan to require redevelopment every 15 years wouldn't work because Disney hasn't been adding much new stuff?

And you may not like it but they did add an entire new park in that window.

I think the movie should just be about Mowgli, Baloo and Baghera on a cruise.

Under your 15 Year plan, would Pirates have to be completely replaced with say an attraction based on "The princess and the Frog" or stay as Pirates but be redesigned from scratch?

Completely new thing.

Experience Pirates in the 15 year window or just hear about how you missed something wonderful.

I know it makes me an oddball but I find it kind of depressing that if I don't ride Pirates this year I'll just go ride it 30 years from now. Plus you eventually fill up the park with historic successes and eventually can't change anything significant because of the nostalgic inertia. And when they try, if it isn't an unassailable success the calls are immediately go put back what was there before. I'd prefer a culture of "oh well, we tried, on to the next thing..."

Maybe that worked when Walt Disney would have a new attraction up within a year.

On to the next thing ..... bring your grandchildren to see it.

They could alway burn down 1/3 of the park, market the rebuilding process, build an excellent new attraction with the insurance money and have the best attended year in 38 years.

;)

Sure, there are many reasons why in reality it wouldn't be a practical plan. But it did start with the assumption that somehow I'm in charge of Disneyland so it isn't like it started out reality based and then went off track.

But my larger view is that there should be no permanent attractions at Disneyland. Change should be the norm and if they won't actually rip out and replace attractions then constantly modifying the ones that are there, even if much of the time the changes don't work is, to me, preferable to stasis for even the most cherished of attractions.

Nostalgia is boring when the thing one is nostalgic for never went away (and likely never will).

I don't enjoy Space Mountain for the nostalgia. It's 36 years old, and fondness for my childhood never enters into it for me. There have been many changes over the years, almost all for the better. Seems like a good process to me.

I don't enjoy the Haunted Mansion for nostalgia either, though I admit that seeps into the equation a tiny bit more than it does for the likes of Space Mountain. They've done a few changes in recent years, too. 50% success rate, in my opinion - but I appreciate the effort to keep things fresh(ish).



I appreciate Alex's concept. But in a world where Idiocracy is coming to be more like truth than satire, do we want out-with-the-old and in-with-the-new? In that vein, how many of Disneyland's post-Walt ideas have been successful through time compared to the quantity of successful "originals" either executed or conceived during that brief 11-year span at the start?

The part of me that resists change in theme park attractions seems to reason thusly: A really good attraction is a bit like a favorite film or piece of music. I revisit my favorite tunes for the emotional resonance, and relish my favorite parts over and over. Much of the pleasure is in anticipating my favorite bits, and reveling when they invariably arrive. If someone were able to come in and change all the tracks in my Beatles collection with slight (or overt) modifications and "improvements," without leaving me recourse to hear the originals, I would be entirely resentful. (Much like the teeming millions who didn't want their Star Wars trilogy mucked with, I gather.)

On the other hand, I seek out new music and new films all the time. And I want them to be innovative, surprising and unfamiliar.

Parks are a very expensive business to be in. Attractions have to keep attracting, and parks have to be dynamic. To whatever extent the folks in charge have a long term view, I hope they aim to keep a balance between the emotional gratification of the familiar and the lure of the novel, the delight of unexpected surprise. (Qualities that made those old attractions so much loved in the first place.)

The rest of this post is just disconnected thoughts.

It would have been more merciful to have demolished IASW than to have brought about the cynical "spot the DisneyPals" version now in place.

The current regime seems to have given in to a perception that all people want is characters. New attractions without a tie to a feature or character? Very much an endangered species. Yes, good attractions can be made from other properties, but there is something to be said for the theme park "originals." (If all future attractions have to be based on features, then how will anyone make feature franchises out of attractions anymore?)

I don't know why the company hasn't embraced virtual versions of closed attractions. If people could buy really good, complete virtual versions of the old stuff, it would remove a lot of the sting. And, it would be pretty lucrative for the company, I imagine. (Indeed, it could become part of the expected life cycle of an attraction - brand new ride to old favorite to Virtual YesterLand, but look at all the great new stuff we've built in its place!)

I have enough of an inside track to know that designers get a LOT more excited by projects that are not tied to existing franchises.

Back on topic, the prospect of a Jungle Cruise movie seems like a dim one. In fact, as much as I love it, I think the Cruise is a pretty good candidate for Fond-Memory-Land.

Count me there!

Requiring character tie-ins to everything makes me think they've run out of imagination. It's nice once in a while, but all the time? Really?

That's fine, I don't mean to say that anything applies to every one. There'll be plenty of individual variation, but collectively hardly a change happens where the average response, to my perception, isn't some form of "it was better before, the way it has always been is fine, put it back the way it was." Watch any discussion of what should be done with Tomorrowland and 90% of the suggestions will be putting back some attraction that used to be there. Witness the collective internet orgasm that resulted just from repaining the iasw and Space Mountain exteriors to be the same colors they used to be.

I'm completely opposite in this regard. No matter how much I enjoyed something the first time I tend to get very little pleasure out of repeating the same experience again. I very rarely watch movies a second time (and people who report having watched the same movie dozens of times are completely confusing to me). To the extent I watch TV shows again it isn't for their stimulating effect but for the soporific effect (I don't get pleasure out of Law & Order episodes I've seen before I get mental numbness and sometimes that is what I want).

I reread books a bit more often but I've still probably never read any one book more than five times. Again, when I hear someone say they read a book and then immediately started reading it again the unkind part of me wonders what it is like to live as a mentally retarded person (because the thought of doing that seems so alien to me).

I've ridden Pirates of the Caribbean. After I had ridden it once I didn't really need to ever ride it again even though I think it is a brilliant thing. If left to my own devices I never would and when I do it isn't for the ride but for the company I keep while on it.

So, the more DL is in a constant state of change the more I'm interested in it as a place to be. Riding the incredibly crappy Winnie the Pooh ride for the first time is a more interesting and rewarding experience than riding Pirates of the Caribbean for the second time.

Do you re-listen to music? (I used to rewatch films a lot, but as I get older, I find myself doing almost none of that. Life's too short. But my favorite music? That I gotta keep going back to.)

I don't listen to music the first time.

Well, I listen to it in the sense that it is played within my hearing; but I don't listen to music in the sense of seeking it out and listening to it; the only time I'm intentionally listening to music is to use it as white noise downing out other noise, I'm not actually paying any attention to it. This is why I for four years had an iPod nano with the same 100 songs on it and despite "listening" to it for several hours a day at work I still couldn't tell you what was on it.

But my quest for the new (I do it with road trips too, a boring drive on a road I've never been on before is better than an exciting drive on a road I've traveled many times) is probably why gambling is my only real vice. I don't care about winning or losing (since I don't gamble in amounts that would cause me any great pain to lose or any great wealth to win) it is simply that I don't know what is going to happen.

A recent study demonstrated the physiological benefits to hearing a familiar piece of music and the anticipation people feel for certain passages, as flippy referred to personally above. This can't happen with new music.

I'm not sure if these benefits accrue to moldy old theme park attractions, but in some cases (such as music), it seems old is better for you than new. :p

Just adds more evidence to support my theory that Alex is an alien.

Fvck it all, if it doesn't have airtime, TAER IT DOWN!!

Sorry if nobody else gets the joke, I've been chatting with some long lost rrc'ers & there's a lot of fumes in here still...

WHOOSH









The sound of that going right over my head.

I remember when everyone thought the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was going to suck.

It did. ;)

It did eventually. It was good and successful and therefore they had to make sucky sequels. Why do they have to make (most) everything suck??? Sigh.

Alex, I think this is where you and I have the largest distance between us. I am infatuated with living in nostalgia. My iPod's playlist hasn't changed much in the last 4 years either, but only because I can't let the old things go.

Because when you are faced with the question "Do I stick to a sense of artistic integrity and just walk away or do I make millions of dollars, put food on the table for hundreds or thousands of people, entertain 100,000s of people even if it does suck and maybe even not actually suck" it really isn't that hard of a decision.

I guess making sequels that sucked less was not an option? Good movies would have made more money, put more food on the table, entertained more people and cured cancer.

(ok, maybe not that last one)

Do you think they were trying to make bad movies (and I don't necessarily agree they were bad, though they weren't as good as the first one)?

Well to a lot of people it didn't. It made craploads of cash, and still does. So, I'm not going to just dismiss something as being a POS until it's actually done.

Interestingly, the two sequels made nearly twice as much money as the first one did. The second movie made a over billion dollars worldwide ($1,066,179,725), and the third just under ($960,996,492). The first made only ($654,264,015). I think that bit of info may nudge it out of the "crappy" category. Of course, what people choose to spend their money on and what is a good work of art may not always agree. And I have to admit that I like all of the POTC films, including the sequels. I can say the same about the Shrek franchise, but not many others.

PotC is my 'background noise' when I am doing stuff around the house but don't want to get sucked in to the TV. Sure, I can watch CotBP over and over again but I can also just have it on in the background.

No, I have no idea what they were trying to do, I only know the end result. I read your comment to say they were trying to make a bad movie.

No, it was saying that the choice presented doesn't really argue against the risk of making a bad movie considering the non-artistic benefits that accrue regardless of whether you end up making a bad movie or not.

In fact, I'd say since I assume most biz people acknowledge that most sequels suck, but that they exist precisely because they make more money than their predecessors regardless of same, that - yes - most people making sequels, though they make not intend to make a bad movie, know they are in fact making a bad movie.

Do sequels suck at a rate significantly higher than non-sequels? Most movies suck.

I know it is the kind of quantification that only interests me but I just looked at the top 100 grossing films of 2010 and compared the Top Critic RottenTomatoes rating for sequels and remakes as compared to non-sequels/remakes.

There were 75 movies in the top 100 that weren't a sequel or remake. The average rating was 47.3%.

There were 25 sequels and remakes in the top 100. The average rating was 48.2%.

So, at least for 2010, if you had the choice of making a mainstream sequel or making a mainstream not-sequel it looks like your chances of making crap were about the same (the standard deviation in the two groups was about the same as well). Both groups contained a 100% rating (Toy Story 3 and The Social Network). And your chance for making metric buttloads of money at the box office were much higher with the sequels.

And just in case one wonder if the remakes were keeping the average up, 19 of the 25 were pure sequels and their average rating was even higher: 49.8%.

McDonald's makes billions more on their sh*tty hamburgers than somewhere like Slater's 50/50 can ever hope to make. That makes McDonald's burgers more marketable, not better.

Yes, it's not a great analogy as there's the whole cost thing. But I still like it as a extreme (if not representative) example that hints that "commercial success" is not equivalent to "quality". And definitely not equivalent to, "Long term benefit to culture."

That said, the only issue there should be with the preference towards commercially successful but artistically bland/safe movies is if that preference precludes the existence of more ambitious and artistically "quality" films. I think it's a difficult argument to make that it does. It may seem so since studios make far more crappy mindless commercial flicks than thoughtful, risky, interesting flicks. But while the percentages may favor the popcorn, there's a strong argument to make that the popcorn flicks subsidize many more quality movies that would never get made if the studios weren't making stupid money on Pirates.

Sequels are a lower-risk investment, that's the reason so many of them get made.

I think that's the opinion of most critics.

I think it's a great analogy for me, due to the fact that my first job was there (in 1976!) and came to hate their food. I always think to myself "why do people go there?" I think part of it is advertising, a good portion of which is aimed at kids with Happy Meal toys. The same can be said about movies, too. How many times have you watched a movie because the trailer looked good, only to find the movie sucked?

But isn't the problem with art the fact that what is pleasing or enjoyable to one persons' eye, may not be to someone elses? I've struggled with that concept and I've tried to not push their opinions into my mold (my unfortunate use of a joke about music once notwithstanding).

That is true, and I'm sure it may even go back further than that. If the studio lost a lot of money on a previously risky project, a sequel my get a green light much more easily. There may be a lot more behind the "why" of making a sequel as well, and it's success. Including which artists say "yes" to the project.

And then there are the remakes. After mindless trivil like the 1970's and 80's TV shows (Dukes of Hazard comes to mind), do we really need movies like the Smurfs? To answer that question, one would need to answer this one question: why do you go to the movies?

But it boils down to the fact that I think GD is right, if the high grossing money makers weren't made, some of the better films might not get made.

They may think they think that, but when it comes to actually reviewing mainstream widely released films they don't actually appear to.

BTW, even if you try to look at a purely populist definition of "best movie" you get a murky picture. Box office gross gives you one result. Opinion rating gives another. For example, for quite a while now the highest rated movie on imdb has been... (go on, take a guess)



A movie that is "the best" in neither box office terms (it's barely made its money back) nor, I'd argue, in critical terms. So when people look at the Oscars and say, "How can they not recognize the highest $ maker as as the best that's clearly what 'the people' thought was the best," that isn't even the case.

Perhaps they were wined & dined at a junket? Of course, they also have a job they have to protect, and I wonder if that has effect on their review? Unlike someone like you who can give an honest opinion because you are not pressured by a paycheck.

BTW Alex, have you ever been invited to or attended a Junket?

Do they really ever do them, or is that a thing of the past, I wonder?