PDA

View Full Version : Dumbo or Peter Pan are bad movies to make rides for?



JerrodDRagon
08-26-2010, 03:03 PM
http://www.coasterdom.com/2010/08/20/five-reasons-why-universal-studios-should-make-your-socal-itinerary/

Just loved this article kissing Universals butts. Here is what it says.



Despite Disneyland being the first movie theme park, how many times a week do you watch Dumbo or Peter Pan? Yeah, you love the thematics of all the Disney rides, but you feel a little too old to give your business solely to the mouse. On the other hand, Universal Studios gives you Jurassic Park and The Mummy; two of the most action packed and beloved franchises in movie history.

Now i LOVE USH, it my my third favorite park in CA (besides Disneyland and DCA) but come on Peter Pan and Dumbo are CLASSIC's and even if you might not think the movies aren't the ride ARE. Just want to point out his....opinion article.

Imaginears
08-26-2010, 03:18 PM
This person is out of touch! Jurrassic Park was a popular franchise a decade ago. And, while it was a fascinating movie at the time, who goes back to watch it with their kids or looks fondly back at the characters like the iconic Peter Pan and Dumbo. The Mummy franchise has always been a disappoinment in terms of dollars and catching the imagination of the public. Except for Brenden Frasier being in the movies I can't think of one thing memorable about the film except several Indiana Jones rip offs.

Clearly this person is misguided in what charming and classic attractions mean. Besides which, I don't understand people who only like a park for it's thrill rides. Disney had it right when he insisted on a park that people of all ages, meaning those under 10 and those over 60, would like. A big appeal and endearment of Disney is that you can go with anybody and enjoy the experience, especially the family. I find Universal to be only for the thrill seekers and not much better than a Sixflags experience. JMHO But thanks for the interesting view.

Kuzcofan
08-26-2010, 04:06 PM
What a stupid article. He is comparing kid rides to thrill rides. Why not compare Indiana Jones? Indy is way more popular a franchise then Jurassic park and the Mummy combined.

shna
08-26-2010, 05:45 PM
I haven't ridden the Jurassic Park ride, but I have ridden The Mummy -- and it is awful! It felt as if they ran out of money before they completed its design & definitely before they built it. While you're on the ride, you can totally tell you're in a huge partially-partitioned room.

cstephens
08-26-2010, 06:40 PM
I haven't ridden the Jurassic Park ride, but I have ridden The Mummy -- and it is awful! It felt as if they ran out of money before they completed its design & definitely before they built it. While you're on the ride, you can totally tell you're in a huge partially-partitioned room.

Did you ride Mummy at Universal City or Orlando? Because the Orlando version is SOOOOOOOOO much better. The Universal City version is *lame*.

Tinkermommy
08-26-2010, 07:12 PM
Jurassic Park and The Mummy; two of the most action packed and beloved franchises in movie history.

Hmmm...that would explain why there's never a line for Peter Pan or Dumbo at Disneyland, and why those stories have faded into oblivion after all these decades!!! :eyeroll:

Kuzcofan
08-26-2010, 10:20 PM
quote from author "Because this isn’t an article comparing Universal Studios to Disneyland. The comparison between Dumbo and Jurassic park wasn’t a jab at Dumbo, or any of the classic Fantasyland attractions. It was a lighthearted way to show that Universal offers something that Disneyland doesn’t, so a visitor should not choose between one or another."

I guess I read it wrong. It sounded like a a comparison and jab to me :confused:

JerrodDRagon
08-26-2010, 11:18 PM
^your not he is just trying to cover his tracks. I love riding the mummy and JP both are great rides but I still would not compare them to classic's that have been around for 55 years. No way in Heck is the mummy lasting more than another 15 years at the park(unless they do a rebot)

twindaddy
08-26-2010, 11:42 PM
http://www.coasterdom.com/2010/08/20/five-reasons-why-universal-studios-should-make-your-socal-itinerary/

Just loved this article kissing Universals butts. Here is what it says.



That article is so out of touch and moronic, I have to wonder on his motives. Is he just really an idiot, or did Universal bribe him with a job or something?

wabby1
08-27-2010, 06:38 AM
I think the point about comparing a kids' ride to a thrill ride is spot on! I'm over 50, and one of my favorite attractions is PETER PAN. LOVE IT.

IllusionOfLife
08-27-2010, 08:28 AM
Yeah, Disney is totally out of touch. Indiana Jones, Star Wars? Who are they kidding? No one cares about those movies any more. And Toy Story? psh, give me a break.

Disney really needs to get up with the times and start making attractions based on timeless classics like Transformers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_(Universal_Studios_Hollywood)) because twenty years from now, that's a franchise that people will look back on with fond memories. Mudflap and Skids will truly be cherished memories for not only my children, but my children's children.

I'm telling you guys, Universal's the embodiment of timeless attractions. Because after 55 years of popularity Peter Pan is sure to lose interest soon. We'd all better buy up stock in Universal or else we'll miss the train to the future.

(Now before any of you jump down my throat, that was dripping with sarcasm and snark, I didn't mean a word of it :rolleyes:)

dban3
08-27-2010, 09:23 AM
Forget about the movies a bit, PPF and Dumbo are great because of their charm and imagination, two things lacking in The Mummy and Jurassic Park. Think about it, you are in soaing through the air in a elephant that can fly and a ship that soars through the night.

shna
08-27-2010, 11:59 AM
Did you ride Mummy at Universal City or Orlando? Because the Orlando version is SOOOOOOOOO much better. The Universal City version is *lame*.

It was Universal City. I haven't been to their Orlando park, though someday I'll need to go there to see Hogwarts. I'm glad to hear that the FL version of the Mummy is better than the one here. We might actually ride it. The Universal City Mummy isn't worth the effort of walking through the queue area, especially if there are other people waiting. We waited about 45 minutes and were quite irritated when we got off that sorry excuse for a ride.

Michael24
08-27-2010, 12:36 PM
The Mummy movies are hardly "disappointing" dollarwise. The first two films were big box office success, and there was a third film just a few years ago that didn't do too bad either. They're also very exciting action/adventure movies, especially the first two, that are immense fun to watch.

Jurassic Park is also a groundbreaking film that revolutionized the movie industry, just as Star Wars did in 1977, was an enormous blockbuster, and (just like The Mummy) was the beginning of another fun franchise that has done very well at the box office. We take CGI animals for granted these days, but back in 1993, those CGI dinosaurs were an amazing sight to behold, and they still look great seventeen years later.

Look, I know on forums it's popular to act uppity like whatever we're here for is the greatest thing ever and anything similar sucks by default, but really, be realistic about it. Don't try to belittle something just to make yourself feel better. It only makes you look like a stubborn kid on the playground who can't get his way. Disneyland and Universal Studios both have plenty of good to offer and attractions that are perfectly enjoyable.

dznyphreak
08-27-2010, 12:56 PM
I've always felt that the Backlot Tour at USH is its best attraction, and am always disappointed by how DHS's Tour pales in comparison.

Universal is very much a park "of-the-now," with things getting refreshed every few years. Disney cherishes the classics of the past as much as it celebrates the favorites of the present.

JerrodDRagon
08-27-2010, 07:37 PM
The Mummy movies are hardly "disappointing" dollarwise. The first two films were big box office success, and there was a third film just a few years ago that didn't do too bad either. They're also very exciting action/adventure movies, especially the first two, that are immense fun to watch.

Jurassic Park is also a groundbreaking film that revolutionized the movie industry, just as Star Wars did in 1977, was an enormous blockbuster, and (just like The Mummy) was the beginning of another fun franchise that has done very well at the box office. We take CGI animals for granted these days, but back in 1993, those CGI dinosaurs were an amazing sight to behold, and they still look great seventeen years later.

Look, I know on forums it's popular to act uppity like whatever we're here for is the greatest thing ever and anything similar sucks by default, but really, be realistic about it. Don't try to belittle something just to make yourself feel better. It only makes you look like a stubborn kid on the playground who can't get his way. Disneyland and Universal Studios both have plenty of good to offer and attractions that are perfectly enjoyable.

If the Mummy rides last 15 more years I will be SURPRISED!

ET I would say is more of a classic than the Mummy and it got the boot, now Jurassic Park wont EVER leave, but it will get HUGE updates in the next ten years once they make the new movie.

Imaginears
08-28-2010, 09:22 PM
The Mummy movies are hardly "disappointing" dollarwise. The first two films were big box office success, and there was a third film just a few years ago that didn't do too bad either. They're also very exciting action/adventure movies, especially the first two, that are immense fun to watch.

Jurassic Park is also a groundbreaking film that revolutionized the movie industry, just as Star Wars did in 1977, was an enormous blockbuster, and (just like The Mummy) was the beginning of another fun franchise that has done very well at the box office. We take CGI animals for granted these days, but back in 1993, those CGI dinosaurs were an amazing sight to behold, and they still look great seventeen years later.

Look, I know on forums it's popular to act uppity like whatever we're here for is the greatest thing ever and anything similar sucks by default, but really, be realistic about it. Don't try to belittle something just to make yourself feel better. It only makes you look like a stubborn kid on the playground who can't get his way. Disneyland and Universal Studios both have plenty of good to offer and attractions that are perfectly enjoyable.

I appologize Disney 24 if I sounded uppity, but my superior opinion and my elite posts can on occassion come across that way.:p I was baseing my OPINION:eek: on the box office facts that I read on Wikipedia. :cool:

I think perhaps you misunderstood my point Disney 24. I am NOT a fan of that stinking Second Rate, no class, nothing to offer Universal studios, however I'm pleased that the competition keeps disney on its toes. And in all seriousness I believe tha Universal does have something to offer, the plebians!

To clarify though, my point was that while indeed Jurassic Park was an amazing franchise and truly revolutionary when it came out and the Mummy (stutter, choke) had its moments, but I was really speaking to the staying power of the Disney characters. The reason Peter Pan and Dumbo endure to this day is the memorability of it's characters and thus their enduring quality as attractions. The Disney films have a decided advantage because they focus so much on developing the personality of their characters. And of course, the animation has a more timeless quality than live action. The Universal films while good, do not have the same timelessness because of the simple fact the actors and live action just age faster than animmated film characters. Sure the Universal films will be looked back on as ground breaking, but they simply don't have the staying power of ageless animated films that constantly get revived by new generations who view the films with their parents. That's simply the power of a great animated film!

I admit that I am loyal to a fault, esp. with Disney and Coca Cola. But I respect people's right to like other things, ie Universal Studios. But being this is a site devoted to Disney, and the original post asking for our (the devotees of this site) opinion in regards to a statement made by a Universal fan, I can't see why anyone would expect anytthing else than a passionate response back. If that's uppity, then I guess I got a case of the ups!:D JMHO

Kuzcofan
08-28-2010, 10:01 PM
Wow. the whole blog web page is gone now. Not just that article but the whole blog is gone. unless that 1 article was the whole blog, I really didn't look that much at the other stuff, if there was other stuff to look at.

quackinup
08-28-2010, 10:17 PM
They have a post on their Facebook page from 12 hours ago that says "The site is having some technical difficulties; please bear with us while we try to get everything back up and running"

carolinakid
08-29-2010, 04:18 AM
Being a big fan of Orlando's Mummy attraction, I was SOOOO disappointed in the Hollywood version!

HauntedKid
08-29-2010, 07:43 PM
There`s no point comparing....like mixing oil and water.....Disney will always win no matter what! ;)