The Disney Renaissance vs. the Pixar Revolution

WARNING: Grumpiness, Next 1,000+ Words.

Yeah...I'm one of those people. The ones who think Pixar movies are great and all, but they really don't belong in our Disney parks...at least not to the extent they have come to dominate the landscape. I could give you all the usual reasons—the movies are Disney-adjacent rather than “true” Disney, the attractions don't really fit the area themes, we often lose better (or at least more original) stuff to make room—but I recently put my finger on another reason the Pixar proliferation bugs me:

This didn't happen with the Disney Renaissance.

See, it's not just that they built a whole bunch of rides based on movies that maybe don't deserve to be made into rides. It's that they did this after blatantly not building rides based on movies that most definitely did deserve it. It compounds the insult.

For having lifted Disney out of its decades-long post-Walt mourning period* and redefined standards of feature animation for a generation, the Renaissance films are shockingly underrepresented in the Disneyland Resort.** They have spawned their share of character appearances and parade units, but out of the nine films usually considered part of the Renaissance (there are actually ten, but not many mainstream fans remember The Rescuers Down Under), only three have been honored with permanent installations of their own in the Disneyland Resort.

For The Little Mermaid, we have: a dark ride, a carousel with only a superficial connection to the movie, and a restaurant...all of them located in the Paradise Pier area of California Adventure, because piers are by the ocean and mermaids live in the ocean, so it totally makes sense that you could see Ariel in Santa Monica you guys. There was also a themed meet-and-greet area in Fantasyland for a while, but it got turned into Pixie Hollow.

For Aladdin, we have Aladdin's Oasis, which started as a restaurant, but has since been downgraded to a backdrop for character appearances. If you're lucky enough to be there on one of the days when they roll Genie out for photos.

And for Tarzan, we have Tarzan's Treehouse, which actually counts as an attraction, but is only there because otherwise they would have torn out Adventureland's treehouse altogether.

For the rest of these top-notch films, we have to look into Yesterland for a list of temporary parades, shows, and re-skinned shops. What little still remains amounts to one or two minor attractions which they have to share with other movies. Despite the fact that these movies did wonders for the studio's finances and reputation,*** Disney wouldn't, and still won't, commit any real estate to them.

Pixar, though?

The Toy Story franchise claims two elaborate rides, one in each park. a bug's life and Cars each boast an entire land in California Adventure. Finding Nemo inherited the Submarine Voyage, while Monsters, Inc. moved into the space vacated by the Superstar Limo (on the grounds that Monsters, Inc. is a movie). Finding Nemo also spawned Hollywood Land's “Turtle Talk With Crush,” a potentially fascinating look at the cutting-edge art of CGI puppetry that completely eschews this opportunity in favor of a few sea turtle facts and a brief lesson in “speaking Whale.” An Up-themed overlay was plastered over the Redwood Creek Challenge Trail, because obviously, the most evocative aspect of that movie was the BSA knock-off.

Isn't there something a bit, well, suspicious about all this? Disney mostly ignores the cream of its own crop, but falls all over itself lavishing attention on the products of another studio? And don't give me that “Well, Disney owns Pixar these days anyway, so it's all the same.” No it's not. The two studios influence each other (more now than ever), but they are separate entities owned by the same media mega-corporation. Furthermore, the Pixar movies that were made before the acquisition are the ones with the most theme park presence. This is Mom and Dad buying the bestest Christmas presents for the neighbor kids, and sticking their own brood with tube socks.

It's bass-ackwards, is what it is.

But it raises the question: Why? Assuming a causal universe in which the boardroom of the Disney corporation is not staffed by utter lunatics, why would they be so neglectful of a set of properties adhering closely to the traditions established early in the studio's history and culminating in Disneyland itself...but go for broke developing attractions for another set of properties that fit those parameters much less well?

I suppose someone, somewhere, has the P&L charts proving that the Pixar films are ever-so-much-more profitable than the Renaissance films, particularly once merchandise sales are factored in, but even if that's true (and adjusted properly for inflation), that's a hindsight perspective. Imagineering and the decision-makers could not have known, as the Renaissance was getting underway, that the neat CGI stuff from this hotshot studio they were partnered with would overshadow Disney's own works at the box office and in the toy store.

But then again, while the Renaissance was getting underway, Imagineering was kind of...busy. The Little Mermaid shared a release year with Splash Mountain. Aladdin came out several months after the premiere of Fantasmic! And the year after The Lion King blew the lid off ticket sales, we got the Indiana Jones Adventure. That's a whole lotta fancy Disneyland development. And by the time those projects were complete and there might have been room in the budget for attractions based on the new movies, two things had happened: the Renaissance itself had begun to decline, and more significantly, Lord Pressler of DisneyStoria—you know, the All Merch, All the Time guy?—had been elevated to the headship of the park.

And then by the time he was gone, Walt Disney Animation was definitely at a low point, and Pixar was ruling the theatrical animation roost.

So yeah.

It still sucks though.

And now it seems like history is repeating itself. The 2000s were a rough time for the studio, but it has definitely found its feet again by now. (If you need proof, locate any little girl and count the number of items on her person featuring Elsa.) Yet again, Disney's own films are receiving only comparatively meager tributes within the Disneyland Resort, while massive budgets are being assigned to projects revolving around Lucasfilm and Marvel properties—IPs the company has purchased rather than inventing.

Seriously...what is the deal?

* I would actually argue that the recovery began a bit earlier, but now is not the time.

** I am aware that they get more attention in other parks.

*** Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture. The Lion King became the biggest animated box-office draw of all time, and held that title for nearly 20 years. The Hunchback of Notre Dame pushed the envelope for the kinds of themes that could be examined in theatrical animation. These films were artistic triumphs.