WDW Pirates - I rode it today

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I think what bothers me MOST about the new Pirates is the "commercial product placement". I don't WANT to see a commercial when i go to DL. I think that, more than anythin else, is what leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Eh, that's not so much an issue for me. The castle was a commercial for Sleeping Beauty. Heck, the whole park was a commercial for the company's products. I don't believe for a second that Walt didn't see the revenue possiblities of a life-size, full sensory advertisement. What separates the good from the bad is, is the advertisement value coming from "Let's get it in front of their face as much as possible for brand recognition," or is it coming from, "Let's make it as good as we can so that they'll want more."? It's that latter type of advertising that once distinguished Disney.

[innerSpaceman]

I beg to differ. The Matterhorn was not a commerical for Third Man on the Mountain. And though the Fantasyland Castle was hastily renamed for an upcoming release, only one of the Fantasyland dark rides was tied in to a remotely recent movie, and none to anything upcoming.

Since then, during Walt's time, there were - count 'em - zero product placements in attractions and structures (though entertainment had plenty of proto-synergy).

Swiss Family Treehouse was well after the fact. There were no other movie tie-ins, period.


Even post-Walt ... Star Tours, Indiana Jones and Splash Mountain were years, ahem - decades - after the films they tied in with.


Sorry, but the product placement of Commericals of the Caribbean is a Disneyland first!

[Not Afraid]

Thank you ISM.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I wasn't claiming that each element was an advertisement for a specific product. But Disneyland as a whole is and was a marketing piece for the Disney brand as a whole. Walt wasn't stupid.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Since then, during Walt's time, there were - count 'em - zero product placements in attractions and structures (though entertainment had plenty of proto-synergy).

To bring up just one example - Monsanto? What am I missing here? The ride was one big commercial.

Don't even try to tell me that because the Fantasyland rides didn't come out when the movies did that that means they weren't advertising. The movies were relased in theaters over and over again. Proto-synergy my ass - this was real-deal-in-your-face-see-it-again-buy-the-toy-synergy.

I cannot comprehend how anyone could claim that Walt was not aware of the inherent ads, backwards and forwards and sideways between all his various products, and didn't use it to his full capabilities. Yes, he wasn't an idiot - and he did it all without allowing it to hamper the experiences and products.

[CoasterMatt]

A big part of why Pinocchio got such a big ride in the "New" Fantasyland was an impending rerelease.

[flippyshark]

I been workin' on DERAIL-road, all the livelong day ...

s'okay, guys. The topic may have morphed, but it's an interesting discussion.

[CoasterMatt]

WDW got a "Reader's Digest" version of PotC because the original just kicked so much ass... there, thread back on topic

[RStar]

You guys definatly bring up some good points about the POTC update. As ISM pointed out, the original goes back in time, but stick Captain Jack in there and- "wait a minute! I saw him at the theater last week!" It's a slap in the face to bring you back to the present. I'm with GD, I'll wait and see.

And as far as the product synergy, it's the reason Disneyland has it's charm. Think about the themeing of any other ride in any other park, it doesn't have the charm, heart, or memorability that the rides at DL have. It's not meant to simply sell product though there is that side to it (look at the shops at the end of the ride for that ). It's so you can experience the movie while on the ride. Otherwise we would all be going around in circles on roller coasters and ferris wheels and calling it a ride.

~Bob