Could Disney live action remakes lead to new attractions?

Edited: March 10, 2015, 3:29 PM

Could the new line of Disney live action movies like Malificent, Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and now Dumbo lead to new attractions in Disney parks?

Replies (19)

March 11, 2015, 1:21 PM

Shame the speedway closed... Lost opportunitunity for a "Herbie the Love Bug" self driving car experience???

Edited: March 11, 2015, 3:07 PM

You forgot Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson. 2016 release date.

My feeling is the existing attractions and Meet and Greets will have new life breathed from the adaptions. More people will enjoy the live action reboots.

The problem with Malificent was Aurora's character was shortchanged a bit in favor or the villain. Also, the "Once Upon The Time" ABC series are now showcasing Malificent, Ursula, and Cruella de Ville. Maybe the villians are getting some love in the theme parks too?

March 11, 2015, 3:54 PM

I don't think the live action adaptations will result in new attractions in the "traditional" sense.

Ultimately, I think it just increases the awareness (or popularity) for the characters & franchise.

In terms of theme parks, I'd say meet n greets, or experiences live the "Mad Tea Party" are more likely than a traditional "ride" based attraction.

Merchandise will probably the biggest impact the live adaptations have.

March 11, 2015, 4:34 PM

I think the live action films could lead to new attractions, but I don't think those attractions would be based on the live action films. Instead, if the new film is popular enough and revives interest in the original animated version, I could see attractions being added based on that version. The live action films could launch smaller attractions such as character encounters and shows, but for an actual ride Disney would be more likely to go with the classic version rather than the modern incarnation. Using a live action film for a Fantasyland ride would be a little awkward as well given that everything else there is based on an animated film.

March 12, 2015, 7:28 AM

I'm kinda 50/50 on this. Huanted Mansion starring Eddie Murphy was terrible but the first Pirates was good and sparked a new re-theming of the ride. Cinderella looks by the tomato meter like a pretty good movie to go see so I would say yes in that case. You have to take it case by case though.

Edited: March 12, 2015, 8:15 AM

I saw Cinderella earlier this week, and while it's a decent movie, it does not break new ground. It looks more like an excuse for Disney to sell dresses and slippers to little girls (and their moms that reminisce about being little girls), more than inspiring new attractions. I actually think Frozen Fever, the short before Cinderella, will create more buzz than the feature itself. I just don't see this live action adaptation leading to any dramatic changes in the parks aside from merchandise and new character outfits. Future live action adaptations may lead to something, but these first two (Malificient and Cinderella) won't lead to significant in-park changes.

Favreau's Jungle Book is probably the best bet of the currently announced live action remake projects at this point to make an impact at the parks.

March 12, 2015, 8:31 PM

I don't think so. None of those movies seem like they are going to be a classics. Good rides should have good Source Materials. I know an article was just made about rides with bad source materials, but good rides with bad source materials is a minority. Think about it. Jurrasic Park, Star Tours, Radiator Springs Racers, Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, Toy Story Mania, Depcile Me Minion Mayhem, and the Simpsons ride all have great source materials, and they are all pretty good.

Edited: March 13, 2015, 6:06 PM

Lots of VERY positive ink for Kenneth Branagh's 'Cinderella.' Content below is collected from E's "Review Roundup"

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: "The color, vibrancy and unabashedly romantic heart explode off the screen ...Anyone nostalgic for childhood dreams of transformation will find something to enjoy in an uplifting movie that invests warm sentiment in universal themes of loss and resilience, experience and maturity..."

VANITY FAIR: (Chris Weitz's script is) "... spry and sparkling, airy and pretty as spun sugar ... I was won over, seduced by its warmth and good looks, its quaint, modest proportions."

VARIETY: (Branagh) "reverently reimagines Charles Perrault's fairy tale for a new generation the world over ... though this Cinderella could never replace Disney's animated classic, it's no ugly stepsister either, but a deserving companion."

USA TODAY: "With its vibrant sparkle and enchanting visuals, Cinderella almost makes you believe in magic. The oft-told story has a surprisingly fresh exuberance."

US WEEKLY: (While) "some may quibble that this kind of snark-free narrative is hopelessly dated in 2015 ... That's what makes this rendition so charming and timeless."

THE VILLAGE VOICE: "There's no empowerment message embedded in Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella, no 'Girls can do anything!' cheerleader vibe. That's why it's wonderful ... This is a straight, no-chaser fairy story, a picture to be downed with pleasure."

Then there's this from VARIETY: "Walt Disney Studios has had success of late raiding its catalog of animated hits and giving them a live-action spin. 'Alice in Wonderland' with Johnny Depp made $1 billion and 'Maleficent' bolstered by Angelina Jolie earned $758.4 million.

'Cinderella,' which stars Oscar winner Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother and Lily James as the one-heeled heroine, looks likely to keep the momentum going when it opens to roughly $60 million."

If the girl with the Swarovski shoes succeeds and rakes in hundreds of millions, can you imagine how much Disney will collect when the drop 'Beauty in the Beast' starring (stolen Potter starlet/draw) Emma Watson?

Clearly the success of Disney's army of princesses will continue to be measured in billions of dollars annually and by the millions of families that will keep Disney's parks squarely at the top of attendance estimates and the theme park industry.

March 16, 2015, 6:36 AM

"(stolen Potter starlet/draw) Emma Watson"

You keep focusing on this as if Universal/WB has some right to prevent an actress from working on other projects. Emma Watson has taken deliberate steps to distance herself from Hermione from her extended cameo in "This is the End" (hilarious if you've never seen it) to a leading role in Aronofsky's Noah (decent, but overshadowed by Aronofsky's bizarre interpretation of the Biblical story). She'll be seen in a very serious leading role opposite Ethan Hawke in Regression, and another leading role in Colonia before putting on the Belle dress. I really don't see the point in continuing to circle back to the fact that Watson has been cast in a Disney movie that will be released 5 years after her final bow as Hermione. Disney didn't "steal" her, and she's a draw because of her strong acting chops, not because she was cast as a kid for an iconic character.

Also, consider that Beauty and the Beast is a full musical treatment that is targeted for a holiday release. While I think it will do well, it's success will hinge on the ability of Bill Condon (director of 2 Twilight films, but also helmed Dreamgirls) to deliver a competent production that connects to a wide audience. The financial success of holiday-released musicals typically hinges on the ability to attract a wide audience and deliver Oscar nominations. It's a bit too early to tell at this point how it will do, but the pieces are certainly in place.

Edited: March 16, 2015, 1:03 PM

Movie actors can't be stolen because long-term studio contracts are not done anymore. This isn't true for television actors tied to series or music artists. Some television actors may need to get permission to appear in movies. This depends on how exclusive their agreement is with the production company or television network.

I'm sure Disney will hold Emma Watson to contractual terms in case any sequels are offered. That way they don't have to pay her more money for a big hit. She can still balk at performing the sequel. If her agent is good, she'll renegotiate.

I can't help thinking that Harry Potter is ripe for a reboot. The first movie was released in 2001, fourteen years ago.

March 16, 2015, 2:36 PM

It's getting a holiday release?

Edited: March 16, 2015, 2:49 PM

It was just announced for a March 2017 release today along with Josh Gad as Lefou (wonder how confusing that's gonna be for kids used to hearing him as Olaf ten times a week) and Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts (actually good casting there).

March 16, 2015, 3:28 PM

"Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts"

We should look for more Harry Potter alumni getting roles.

March 16, 2015, 6:59 PM

"It's getting a holiday release?"

That was the early word because the full musical treatment tends to play better during the holidays and Oscar season, but obviously they just gave it a firm release date on March 17, 2017 earlier today. Perhaps they were reading this thread?

March 16, 2015, 7:29 PM

I just Tweeted that if Disney gets Benedict Cumberbatch as Lumiere, I'm done.

March 17, 2015, 3:00 AM

Wow! So Disney launches it around the same time of year that it released blockbusters like 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Cinderella'? Genius! And what's especially shrewd is the longevity this content will maintain -- introducing these visually stunning films to new generations -- which continue to draw more families to the parks year after year.

Very well played, Disney!

March 29, 2015, 11:15 AM

To answer the original question....I would actually say no.

March 29, 2015, 11:50 AM

I could see this happening with Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, very easily. Not a fan of the film myself, but it made a ridiculous amount of money at the Box Office.

March 29, 2015, 2:46 PM

Bambi live action. With Dwayne 'The Rock" Johnson as Bambi.

This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.

Park tickets

Weekly newsletter

New attraction reviews

News archive