Ok, if we're going to discuss one critique of Disney, please let it be this one (//http://progresscityusa.com/2011/12/18/the-carsland-conundrum/)!
It's long and will require a few minutes, but it's worth it for a quite brilliant, balanced analysis of what fans thought they wanted during the last decade and how we actually feel about the new developments of this decade. That is - Carsland, Toy Story Playland, Avatar, and so on. You're sensing a theme there: franchises. I'm sure this will resonate with a lot of members here.
I think I mentioned, in relation to DLP's over-reliance on character images for its brochures and advertising, how Disneyland should be built and marketed as its own world, it's own story, an extension of the Disney you see on the big-screen, not just a re-telling. This particular paragraph sums it up:
QuoteThe entire reason so many fans have rebelled against the franchise mania – Cars here, Toy Story there – is it illustrates an underlying insecurity at Disney that they won't be able to get people in the gate without a movie property they can slap up there to assure people. This condemns Imagineering to a spiraling circle of mediocrity, and ensures that they are not allowed to produce something that wows or surprises us like Pirates, or Mansion, or Western River Expedition.
:arrow: Give it a read and discuss: http://progresscityusa.com/2011/12/18/t ... conundrum/ (http://progresscityusa.com/2011/12/18/the-carsland-conundrum/%22%20onclick=%22window.open(this.href);return%20false;)
Yes, I read that article this morning in bed. It was great.
Personally I don't have a problem with Cars Land. I think the end result will be great and very popular. But, it is an odd choice. Cars isn't the best film going, so to dedicate an entire land to it will seem like a really bad idea decades from now (as Michael says in his article). Imagine how dated Big Thunder Mountain would seem if it was the Davy Crockett Experience, or something like that? Cars Land is so highly customised, there's no way they'll ever be able to retheme it. It will forever be a land 100% based on an old film that pre-dates interactive cinema, that only got 74% on Rotten Tomatoes :-)
Thanks for sharing this story guys. This articulate my greatest frustration with Disney at the moment. WHat I always loved about the disney parks is how they took me to another place or time. THe fax attractions had nothing to do with synergy at all. TO me, being on a cruise in the congo, sailing the spanish main, exploring a haunted house, creeping down the matterhorn, or being shrunk to the size of an atom, were all increadible experiences not found in any other park. THe characters and synergy of fantasyland never appealed at all.
When epcot center opened ,i was blown away. And all these attractions inspired me to read and learn more about their subjects. They had heart and intelligence.
But charracter or series synergy in the main turn me off. Just like wanting to fast forward through the adverts on Sky+, I have little to no interest in the character based attractions or lands (except star tours, yes, i recognise the hypocrisy). Carsland looks like it will be epic, but i would have preferred a non toon based approach. Little mermaid and toystory mania hold little appeal, and please do not get me started on tspl. Where is the inspiration? Where is the truly imaginative attractions that surprise us with their genius? Where are the timeless attractions that can be enjoyed by people of all ages?
To be honest, the DCA of 2001 held more appeal to me than the one of 2012, and to me, the money could have been spent much smarter! I feel the same of toon studios and so many other things.
And look at the diisney live action releases. Although I have enjoyed recent okones such as PotC, Tron Legacy, Sorceror's Apprentice, Prince of Persia etc, none of those were original ideas. It is so sad, as i used to hold disney's creativity and risk taking ability aloft as being the halmark of excellence, an inspiration to us all. My unwavering love of the company, my awe, has been poisoned and made me very bitter towards the firm and all that defend. WHile i know this is an unsavoury disposition, I watch in hopes that one day we will see a return to excellence. While iger remains though, I fear my hope is in vain.
You're totally right Dave. People that understand Disney, understand what's wrong with it.
That said, I think the way they're expanding Disney California Adventure is fantastic. Everything they're building is so lush and lavish. They may not be building anything particularly original, but they are building stuff that's attractive, and environments you'd want to be in.
I haven't read the article yet but i will do later. All I can say is the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and what that franchise has done for Universal. If Disney had built Harry Potter and not Carsland and Avatar, how would fans react to that? Harry Potter isn't an original idea from Universal but nobody says anything about that except what a huge success it's been. Cars is an original idea created by Pixar which Disney happens to own.
When i first visited WDW back in 1989, on a family holiday to Florida, it was much against my better judgement, only family pressure forced defeat and a visit to Epcot first was the compromise. Up until then I had little or no interest in Disney and certainly considered Disney for 'Children Only!'.
Well Epcot blew me away, and there were very few toons or franchises to be seen. Epcot, to me, wiped the floor with any entertainment centre I had seen before. Visits to other WDW parks including the later addition of AP helped to seal the deal with me.
To this day I still have an appalling knowledge of Disney Cartoons, films or anything on the Disney Channel. But you see that didn't matter then, the parks were about providing you with the resources to create and develop your own dreams. Its floating down the river on Pirates of the Caribbean wondering about the days of swashbuckling, it's about spooky nights at the Haunted Mansion (I always think of Stephen King at the mansion and wonder what great story he could create from it), it's about climbing to the top of a tree and wandering how people survived such adventures, it's about steaming down the Mississippi on the Molly Brown with a big fat cigar in your mouth, it's about wondering about the history behind the guestroom doors at the ToT, it's about flying through space..........it's about whatever you want it to be about..........it's about using your imagination 8)
The parks were about imagination, but more importantly, they were about my imagination, and that of my children.
Where Disney has failed dismally in recent years is that they have forgotten to help our children use their imagination in the same way we did.
Disney parks appear these days to be absolutely about the promotion of products, not the promotion of the imagination.
I still go to visit DLP because over the years I have learn't to develop an imagination, I've learn't to explore and dream, and that first visit in 1989 played a great part in that.
But is Disney helping the youngsters of today to dream, will Carsland or Avatar Adventures help them learn to explore their imagination....I don't believe so. By the time Avatar is created it will be well and truly past it's sell by date.
But the Pirates of the Caribbean, its still full of adventures, yes even now. And even now I can fly through space to wherever I want, and whenever I want.
Carsland and AA will in the end do nothing for our children, and that to me is Disneys biggest mistake. If you can keep dreaming of new adventures everytime you visit, then you will go again and again.....if you've seen it all before, then you'll look elsewhere, Universal for instance.
I sincerely hope that sometime down the road the powers that be at Disney give the parks back to the imagineers and keep the film characters where they belong, on the big screen. I want the children of today to walk into our Park and let their imagination just run wild and to do that, well Disney can lend them a hand by using it's imagination......wouldn't that be great [-o< :D/
Just imagine ;)
Yep... another very worthwhile article by Michael Crawford.
Quote from: "ed-uk"I haven't read the article yet but i will do later. All I can say is the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and what that franchise has done for Universal. If Disney had built Harry Potter and not Carsland and Avatar, how would fans react to that? Harry Potter isn't an original idea from Universal but nobody says anything about that except what a huge success it's been. Cars is an original idea created by Pixar which Disney happens to own.
Universal has always been based on existing movies. That's its very concept... Disney however has a long history of creating first class original content for its theme parks and that unfortunately seems like a lost art these days.
I like how the article says that Disney started slipping into medeocracy the year I was born -- 1994. XD So basically, I've never known Disney at their best except from their older franchises.
What Disney really need is a CEO like Walt; one that comes from an animator/imagineering background rather than a business background. You could say that Apple will go down hill now that Steve Jobs is gone as well. Microsoft almost went downhill as well after Bill Gates semi-retired; at least until the new CEO Ballmer stood on the sidelines and let the department-heads deal with future strategies.
QuoteThat said, I think the way they're expanding Disney California Adventure is fantastic. Everything they're building is so lush and lavish. They may not be building anything particularly original, but they are building stuff that's attractive, and environments you'd want to be in.
Certain things like Buena Vista Street are great. It's just a shame that there isn't a centrepiece of the park like the castle in the Magic Kingdoms or Spaceship Earth in Epcot.
Quote from: "ed-uk"I haven't read the article yet but i will do later. All I can say is the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and what that franchise has done for Universal. If Disney had built Harry Potter and not Carsland and Avatar, how would fans react to that? Harry Potter isn't an original idea from Universal but nobody says anything about that except what a huge success it's been. Cars is an original idea created by Pixar which Disney happens to own.
Parks like Universal are successful for different reasons. This issue isn't necessarily about success in terms of visitor numbers, but success in terms of originality and quality.
Quotethe parks were about providing you with the resources to create and develop your own dreams. Its floating down the river on Pirates of the Caribbean wondering about the days of swashbuckling, it's about spooky nights at the Haunted Mansion (I always think of Stephen King at the mansion and wonder what great story he could create from it), it's about climbing to the top of a tree and wandering how people survived such adventures, it's about steaming down the Mississippi on the Molly Brown with a big fat cigar in your mouth, it's about wondering about the history behind the guestroom doors at the ToT, it's about flying through space.......... it's about whatever you want it to be about.......... it's about using your imagination 8)
The parks were about imagination, but more importantly, they were about my imagination, and that of my children.
Where Disney has failed dismally in recent years is that they have forgotten to help our children use their imagination in the same way we did. Disney parks appear these days to be absolutely about the promotion of products, not the promotion of the imagination.
That quote should be blue-tacked onto the wall of every Imagineer's office. :D
I never knew Disney had a ride about Mormons:
(//http://progresscityusa.com/wp-content/themes/atahualpa/images/header/pcusa_horizons_banner.jpg)
It's a good article, although frankly it's a point that has been made six thousand times on web sites such as MiceAge. I haven't developed an opinion on it yet. (Originality trumps stock footage, but then why do I love Splash Mountain so much?) But I will say that I find it peculiar that all these Disney blog philosophers seem to agree that a park about the state of California was a good idea or would have been a good idea if it had been done well. Basing a theme park on a US state is a ridiculous, awful idea.
Not one based on California. One based on Utah or deleware, yes, I would agree. But geographically, California has more diversity than europe, and a very rich and diverse history too. Cowboys and indians ,miners, railway builders, immigrants from around the world, movies, agriculture, science and tech, gangsters, heavy duty war effort, the beat movement, the happy movement, human rights activism, earth quake, floods, a wealth of themes that many parks have borrowed from.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Not one based on California. One based on Utah or deleware, yes, I would agree. But geographically, California has more diversity than europe, and a very rich and diverse history too. Cowboys and indians ,miners, railway builders, immigrants from around the world, movies, agriculture, science and tech, gangsters, heavy duty war effort, the beat movement, the happy movement, human rights activism, earth quake, floods, a wealth of themes that many parks have borrowed from.
France has a cultural history a thousand times richer than California's, which was after all colonized about two weeks ago and had quite a stable period before that, yet I would never want to see a theme park based on that or any European country. Or Europe, for that matter. A specific geographic place is just not a good idea for a Disney park. Disney parks should be based on concepts, ideas, things that are as flexible as the imagination. California limits everything to the question: "but is it in California?"
So no deal, sorry.
I wholly disagree. Afterall, Walt built Mainstreet USA and Frontierland in California (where there are dozens of ghost towns and paddlewheelers still ply the Sacramento river). And DLP has a European flair in Fantasyland and discoveryland. It's not what you do but the way that you do it!
and i am more excited about our trip to Puy de Fou than DLP next year to explore recreations of European history!
Quote from: "Alan"Personally I don't have a problem with Cars Land. I think the end result will be great and very popular. But, it is an odd choice. Cars isn't the best film going, so to dedicate an entire land to it will seem like a really bad idea decades from now (as Michael says in his article).
Actually I rather like the film, and regardless of how good or bad it is, you have to admit that the characters etc have become immensely popular as a theme for merchandise. That will give Carsland some legs for quite a considerable time, possibly not as long as Harry Potter, but long enough. And you need a "boy" thing to try and balance out all the princess stuff.
Re: the point that it has nothing to do with California, that IS where Lightening is meant to be going...Not the strongest link maybe, but a link!
Lol, I must confess I like the Cars movie and toys too (haven't seen the second one yet), but the link is tenuous (though Route 66 was the main highway from Chicago to LA. And although I would rather have a Journey to the Centre of the Earth at Paris rather than a Cars Race Rally, I wouldn't complain too much if this came here too.
At least in decades to come, while the film may or may not still be in the mind of people who visit, boys will always like cars. I really like the film but as a master stroke of merchandising it's one of their very best.
I guess Disney Parks are a way to discover new Disney films as well, though. I'd never seen Sleeping Beauty, for example, when I was a kid. A big and elaborate land like Carsland may help to continue to popularise the franchise.
It will be difficult for Cars to be a "timeless classic" like Snow White is, because it's set in the modern era whereas other films are set in a point in history outside of living memory that will never change.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"I wholly disagree. Afterall, Walt built Mainstreet USA and Frontierland in California (where there are dozens of ghost towns and paddlewheelers still ply the Sacramento river). And DLP has a European flair in Fantasyland and discoveryland. It's not what you do but the way that you do it!
and i am more excited about our trip to Puy de Fou than DLP next year to explore recreations of European history!
"European flair," "small town USA" and "the Wild West" as partial themes of a park are not the same as a park based on California. For one thing, they merely occupy sections of a park that has quite a bit of diversity. I'm not opposed to bits here and there involving specific geography; but an entire park based on such a narrow theme? Awful idea.
Let's review the non-Disneyland-style parks with the most successful, fruitful, nonobstructive themes: Epcot was born out of ideas of utopianism and eventually became a celebration of innovation and community. (And also far away places.) Animal Kingdom is dedicated to the wonders of nature. (And also far away places.) DisneySea, while masquerading as a park about the oceans, is really a park about the universal longing to go beyond the horizon, to explore. (And also far away places.) The ocean theme merely gives it some really neat landscaping.
See a common theme here? They were all founded on very broad, almost philosophical ideas, and they all quench our thirst for traveling to far away places. The sucker parks (Studios 1&2 and California Adventure) are stuck in unsatisfying little corners and are forced to live on with very flawed basic genetic structures.
As for Disneyland; I need only to point to the names of the lands to make that point. There's also that sign at the entrance...
I do think that we should not forget that the Disneyland Parks are in the main American, or at least a representation of America (It could be argued that it's a very loose association I guess). After all when we enter the parks we go through Liberty Square into Main Street, USA, not the Rue Saint-Jacques or Russell Street (Hong Kong) or Shinsaibashi Osaka in Japan.
But yes, where Disney (The Company) was clever in those early years was applying diversity in the other lands and Disney theme parks. You could experience the Culture (Disneys interpretation not withstanding) of various places around the world without having to travel to do so.
Disneys exploration of various cultures within their theme parks has facinated me and to be honest it's never really bothered me if that happens to be a Californian town during the gold rush or a trip back to medieval times with King Arthur's Carrousel.
The facination for me was Disney's interpretation of the various cultures, not really where they came from. So America, Europe, Asia I don't really mind, I just want Disney to remember its own history :)
Yes, there's an interesting thing there in the way that entering through Main Street makes us see the world from an American point of view. (In essence: Walt's.) A similar point can be made about DisneySea, where the starting point of Mediterranean Harbor renders guests Europeans who are exploring the rest of the world. Very apt.
But in both cases these are just starting points. What comes next is a deep, exciting plunge into imagination. At California Adventure, Buena Vista Street will be the start of a journey that leads no farther than... Upstate. Bring a book.
Quote from: "pussinboots"But in both cases these are just starting points. What comes next is a deep, exciting plunge into imagination.
Absolutely :thumbs: My fear is that if they're (Disney) not very careful, they will lose that most fundamentally ingredient, Imagination :(
and commercials such as toon synergy do not take much imagination at all. I would rather spend a day in DCA than one big glorified fantasyland of toons (though DCA today fits that description more than 10 year ago did).
Makes me wonder what road they are going to take with Shanghai DL - too much toon or brand new unique attractions.
Tokyo DisneySea has hardly any disney movie inspired/toon character attractions. The only real exception is Mermaid Lagoon, which has attractions aimed at young children. TDS is the most incredible theme park on earth in my opinion - and without actually having Disney movie themed attractions
Quote from: "mattboywonder"TDS is the most incredible theme park on earth in my opinion - and without actually having Disney movie themed attractions
Hmmmm. Doesn't it strike that the whole
point of having a Disney theme park is to have a park with a Disney theme? Otherwise logically what you have got is a park with some other sort of theme. Calling it Disney is then probably contravening trade descriptions.
Quote from: "DutchBrit"Hmmmm. Doesn't it strike that the whole point of having a Disney theme park is to have a park with a Disney theme? Otherwise logically what you have got is a park with some other sort of theme. Calling it Disney is then probably contravening trade descriptions.
It depends what you understand of the word "Disney" to start with. Animated films... or much more than that?
Tokyo DisneySea actually appears to have more than its fair share of Disney characters, but the important thing is that they're not the entire
landscape. You can't physically spot them on the park map. They're a layer on top, almost like visitors enjoying the park alongside you. Having said that, I'm actually quite pro-Cars Land, specifically, and think there is room for developments like that within the parks, but they're not the be-all and end-all, no way. You need a Buena Vista Street or an American Waterfront, something that says "Disney" but in a non-branded, purely imaginative and escapist way, to balance things out.
Sorry dutchbrit, but as a Disneyland since 1974, and my family had been going since opening day In 1955, to us disneyland had very little to do witht he films. It was always about immersive themes, state of the art attractions that delivered a sense of place, live musical and comedy entertainment arount every bend, themed shopping and dining, a place of learning too. The experience dlp offers is too toony inmho and lacks a lot of what makes the original dl special. Much was there in 92 but it has been hacked away over the last 20 years.
This one has really been picking away at me, silly i know. But i wanted to demonstrate how the best of disney has nothing to do with disney films. Here is a list of my fav disney attractions, in no set order. Please have a loook, think of your own lists and think - how much do they have to do with films being made before them? To me they are disney because of the quality:
Train
Horse drawn streetcar
Jungle cruise
Tiki room
Indiana Jones and the temple of the forbidden eye (synergy but not disney)
Pirates of the Caribbean
Haunted mansion/phantom Manor
Splash mountain (ok, i'll conceed this one)
Country bear jamboree
Mark Twain
Golden Horshoe Revue
Big Thunder Mountain
The matterhorn
It's a Small World
Submarine voyage (the original, non nemo version)
Carousels of progress
Hall of presidents
Mission to mars
peoplemover
Adventure thru inner space
Star tours (synergy, non disney)
Le Visionarium
Capt Eo
Space mountain de la terre au la lune
The nautilus (disney attraction)
Hall of presidents
Main street electrical parade (ok, disneyfilms here)
Spaceship earth
Universe of energy
Wonders of life
Horizons
World of motors
Test track
Journey into imagination
Soarin'
Listen to the Land
The Living Seas (pre Nemo)
American adventure
Impressions de France/O canada/wonders of china
World showcase
Illuminations reflections of earth
Tapestry of nations
Great movie ride (some disney touches, but wouldn't miss them if removed)
Rock n roller coaster
Tower of terror
Muppetvision 3D (Disney did not own the muppets when built)
Motors action (would welcome the removal of the disney references)
Cinemagique (some Disney references - minority of show)
One man's dream (ok, can't get more disney, so grant you that one)
It's tough to be a bug (ok, synergy)
Kilemenjaro safari
Pengani Forest Exploration trail
Kali/Grizzly River rapids
Expedition everest
Maharaja jungle trek
Countdown to extiction (they synergised this as dinosaur)
Screamin'
Power of blast
Chance to shine
Animation (ok, granted)
Aladdin/Tarzan le recontre/roi lion/Mulan stage shows (granted)
Golden dreams
Seasons of the Vine
Journey to the centre of the earth
20k leagues under the sea (ok)
Fortress exploration
Big band beat
Stormrider
Aquatopia
Sinbad
Mystic rhythms
Bravesemo
The daytime lagoon show (Disney)
F! - DL and TDS (not WDW) -Disney
Remember dreams come true (Disneyland themed)
Buffalo bill's wild west show (before the rubberheads ruined it)
Crescendo
La Nouba
Polynesian luau
Tahitian Terrace
So out a list of my 87 fav shows and attractions, the ones that were tied to a disney film on their opening day = 12. 14 if you include the great movie ride and cinemagique. How does your list compare?
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Sorry dutchbrit, but as a Disneyland since 1974, and my family had been going since opening day In 1955, to us disneyland had very little to do witht he films.
Which is fine. But it's a matter of opinion and it doesn't mean that other people have to a) agree or b) be the way that the Disney company chose to run the company now. Disney is a film company. It's what they started out doing, it's what they still do. If you want to run a theme park, you pick a theme. It's a good idea to pick a theme that promotes your company, it's an even better idea to pick a theme that no-one else can do. Every successful compnay loves a monopoly.
I'm not going to get into a favourite ride discussion, because although I like Disney, I'm not an obsessive. I like the films, I like the characters, I like having parks where those are the themes. And the thing is that there are more people like me than there are obsessives.
Quote from: "DutchBrit"I'm not going to get into a favourite ride discussion, because although I like Disney, I'm not an obsessive. I like the films, I like the characters, I like having parks where those are the themes. And the thing is that there are more people like me than there are obsessives.
Such a shame, Disney, especially within the leadership team and WDI could really use more obsessives. Actually, the whole world could. Obsessives are what drive forward the world - Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Walt Disney, all obsessives.
Quote from: "DutchBrit"Disney is a film company. It's what they started out doing, it's what they still do. If you want to run a theme park, you pick a theme. It's a good idea to pick a theme that promotes your company, it's an even better idea to pick a theme that no-one else can do. Every successful compnay loves a monopoly.
Funny, this was the case when DL opened, and it had very few attractions that were based on their films (thank goodness, if it was like today, I would have never been as invested). Up until 2002, there were very few lands that were synergistic:
Main St USA
Adventureland (working title was True Life Adventureland when in development)
Frontierland/Adventureland
New Orleans Square
Liberty Square
Bear Country/Critter Country
Fantasyland
Toontown/Mickey's Toontown Fair
Tomorrowland/Discoveryland
Future World
World Showcase
Hollywood Bvd
Sunset Bvd
Backlot
Animation courtyard
Oasis
Harambe
Asia
Dinoland
Camp Minnie Mickey
Sunshine Plaza
Hollywood Pictures Backlot
Golden State inc. Condor Flats, Grizzly Peak Recreation Area, Pacific Wharf, Golden Vine Winery and the Bay Area
Paradise Pier inc Route 66
Front Lot
Studio 1
Production Courtyard
Backlot
Animation Courtyard
Mediterranian Harbor
Mysterious Island
Mermaid Lagoon
Arabian Coast
Lost river Delta
Port Discovery
American Waterfront inc. Cape Cod
Post 2002
Pixar Place
Toon Studios
Toy Story Playland
Flik's Fun Fair - a Bug's Land
Coming soon:
Grizzly gulch
Mystic Point
Avatarland
In terms of settings these are diverse and grand and thankfully few shout "Disney film". That is a fairly modern (and worrying trend). and I hate it. I long for a return to greatness, rather than dumbing down the product because of casual fans. I bet very few casual fans ever said - hey, I would love to go on a boat ride with robotic pirates. It takes imagination, vision and know how to create these great expereiences, and that is what makes people travel to Disney parks IMHO.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Funny, this was the case when DL opened, and it had very few attractions that were based on their films
But that was half a century ago when they had a monoploy on the whole concept of theme parks! I'm afraid I can't accept that as a valid comparision to the situation today.
Well again, popular media talk of DL being the first theme park, but there was Knott's Berry Farm that predates DL, as does Tivoli Gardens. And as my previous post states, the character thing really only started ruining the place in the last 10-15 years, 20 tops.
In that time, Disney has been competing with dozens of theme parks. If Disney is not careful, they will end up being compared to Gulliverland or Legoland as a place for kids. This critique used to be levied by folks who had never been, but now they are right, the place is being turned into kiddyland.
Hence the concerns raised in the article that started this debate. It is a worrying trend. I douby Disney parks would ever have the fan following they enjoy if it had started being about the toons.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"In that time, Disney has been competing with dozens of theme parks.
Exactly. So you focus on what makes you unique.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"If Disney is not careful, they will end up being compared to Gulliverland or Legoland as a place for kids.
And some of us think that that's not the worst thing in the world. It's a matter of opinion again: I happen to think that kids SHOULD be the primary focus of theme parks. Which doesn't mean that adults can't enjoy them too, of course.
Quote from: "DutchBrit"And some of us think that that's not the worst thing in the world. It's a matter of opinion again: I happen to think that kids SHOULD be the primary focus of theme parks. Which doesn't mean that adults can't enjoy them too, of course.
But that flies in the face of Walt's vision and philosphy:
"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway". Walt Disney.
"To all who come to this happy place: Welcome. Disneyland is your land. Here age relives fond memories of the past, and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America; with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world." Dedication of Disneyland, no mention of toons.
"I suppose my formula might be: dream, diversify and never miss an angle." WD - everything about tooning is the antithesis of diversity
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether we be six or sixty. Call the child "innocence". The worst of us is not without innocence, although buried deeply it might be. In my work I try to reach and speak to that innocence, showing it the fun and joy of living; showing it that laughter is healthy; showing it that the human species, although happily ridiculous at times, is still reaching for the stars."
"I believe in being an innovator." Walt disney
"Fantasy, if it's really convincing, can't become dated, for the simple reason that it represents a flight into a dimension that lies beyond the reach of time."
"I have long felt that the way to keep children out of trouble is to keep them interested in things. Lecturing to children is no answer to delinquency. Preaching won't keep youngsters out of trouble, but keeping their minds occupied will."
"I think what I want Disneyland to be most of all is a happy place — a place where adults and children can experience together some of the wonders of life, of adventure, and feel better because of it."
all of these statements come from the creator of Disneyland. They are the inspiration for the parks, and all stand behind why I think it is terrible to think of theme parks as places for children. They should be places for all of us, to be enjoyed together. This is why I especially hate TSPL - attractions that are themed to appeal to little ones and are designed, in the case of RC Racer, to be ridden by older folks. This flies in the face of the inspiration of DL (as does something like Playhouse Disney too).
While people are entitled to their opinions, they should not be at the expense of knowing the origins and intent, the philosophy and ethos. I find it very upsetting that so many other places out Disney Disney because WDC have lost their way with a mandate by some of the "where's the best character meal" brigade.
Consider this, Disney parks have more than 100 million visitors through their gates every year around the globe. The character experiences only used to account for a very small part of their expereiences. The value of Disney used to be a diverse menu of offerings, like a buffet. Now, there are too many sweets and it is making us diabetic as a fan community. well it certainly makes me feel sick.
I used to like things like Peter Pan fine, but now, the thought of a rubber head expereience makes me very angry indeed, as it has poisoned the park expereience, like a cancer.
Quote from: "DutchBrit"Quote from: "mattboywonder"TDS is the most incredible theme park on earth in my opinion - and without actually having Disney movie themed attractions
Hmmmm. Doesn't it strike that the whole point of having a Disney theme park is to have a park with a Disney theme? Otherwise logically what you have got is a park with some other sort of theme. Calling it Disney is then probably contravening trade descriptions.
I think the point is that is is designed/created by Disney. I think its the "Disney difference" that makes TDS to incredible - brilliantly designed, imaginative unique attractions, jaw dropping appearance. I don't think anybody else other than the Disney team would have come up with anything so loaded with "WOW" factor around every turn!
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"But that flies in the face of Walt's vision and philosphy:
"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway". Walt Disney.
Uh-huh. And Henry Ford thought that all cars should be black. Most things are not true forever. Different world, different needs.
I think one of the problems is that Disney see other parks using film franchises to attract crowds and probably feel that to compete in the same advertising space they need to push their own big franchises. As much as we may hate it, the pull of Harry Potter is far greater to the new generation of potential visitors than the history and imagination of classic Disney Parks.
It's very hard to advertise things like It's A Small World, Big Thunder Mountain and Main ST USA to people who have no idea what they are. It is much easier and possibly/probably more effective to pull them in with brands they know such as those created by Pixar. However to do that you need those attractions in the parks in the first place. Once in the parks they will undoubtedly fall in love with the classic rides, as did my little boy with It's A Small World.
I don't think it's the fault Disney but a change in society's expectations and desires and if they don't hit those points of interest then they will fall behind those places that do. As long as they keep the classic rides and areas then they can offer the best of worlds, but in this day and age they can't rely solely on their roots to compete.
However, that said, it would be nice if new development had an equal measure of classic as they did film franchises, but it's probably very hard to get it past a board that you want to spend £x million on an attraction that has no mass marketing potential.
Quote from: "mattboywonder"I think the point is that is is designed/created by Disney. I think its the "Disney difference" that makes TDS to incredible - brilliantly designed, imaginative unique attractions, jaw dropping appearance. I don't think anybody else other than the Disney team would have come up with anything so loaded with "WOW" factor around every turn!
Right, so Disney ARE meeting these requirements? So what are we complaining about here? There are enough parks to specialise. Those that hate characters can go to TDS. Problem solved.
Quote from: "DutchBrit"Quote from: "mattboywonder"I think the point is that is is designed/created by Disney. I think its the "Disney difference" that makes TDS to incredible - brilliantly designed, imaginative unique attractions, jaw dropping appearance. I don't think anybody else other than the Disney team would have come up with anything so loaded with "WOW" factor around every turn!
Right, so Disney ARE meeting these requirements? So what are we complaining about here? There are enough parks to specialise. Those that hate characters can go to TDS. Problem solved.
Except it costs 10 times more to take my family to TDS. All Disney parks are born of the same ethos.
And I think you all forget. When DL opened, people thought it needed roller coasters and ferris wheels to compete. Because it was Disney, people expected toons around every corner. what people got was far better. Disney should be raising the bar, not pumping the toons.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Except it costs 10 times more to take my family to TDS. All Disney parks are born of the same ethos.
But haven't you made a lot of fuss in the past about Disney being something you have to save up for? And it's a lot easier and cheaper for anyone to get to Japan now than it was for anyone not in the US to get to the original Disneyland when it opened.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"And I think you all forget. When DL opened, people thought it needed roller coasters and ferris wheels to compete. Because it was Disney, people expected toons around every corner. what people got was far better. Disney should be raising the bar, not pumping the toons.
Subjective. What you think of as raising the bar isn't necessarily what other people think it is, or what is
really true....
There is a difference between saving up for a quality experience, and having to save up to go to another continent because of inconsistancy of delivery in product and service quality. Why should one need to fly 6000 miles (9000km) to get a quality Disney experience when there is one 360 miles (540km away). Especially when on open day, Euro Disney as was, had the finest Disney park on the planet.
Your arguement is as specious as one who says "If you don't like the PM, emigrate".
Quote from: "DutchBrit"Quote from: "davewasbaloo"And I think you all forget. When DL opened, people thought it needed roller coasters and ferris wheels to compete. Because it was Disney, people expected toons around every corner. what people got was far better. Disney should be raising the bar, not pumping the toons.
Subjective. What you think of as raising the bar isn't necessarily what other people think it is, or what is really true....
My perspective is based on learning from over 60 years of a theme park industry in terms of what delivers, who has stayed in busines and not, IAAPA reports and other documented evidence. What is your persepctive based upon?
There is a reason there is no longer a Smurf park in Europe, or that the Flintstones theme area is no longer at Universal Studios Hollywood. These fads fade, quality endures. Otherwise, why are PotC and Big Thunder the most popular attractions in the Disney parks around the globe?
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"There is a difference between saving up for a quality experience, and having to save up to go to another continent because of inconsistancy of delivery in product and service quality. Why should one need to fly 6000 miles (9000km) to get a quality Disney experience when there is one 360 miles (540km away). Especially when on open day, Euro Disney as was, had the finest Disney park on the planet.
Your arguement is as specious as one who says "If you don't like the PM, emigrate".
But it is unreasonable to expect that should Disney cater just for you by having exactly what you want in the park most convenient for you. If they have multiple parks and multiple users requirements, specialisation is a sensible option. If there is somewhere anywhere offering the Disney experience you particulary want, then that's better than it existing nowhere, surely? There are probably people in Japan who would prefer the American or European options.
Although I get the feeling that what you want is not so much a close park, but a time machine.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"My perspective is based on learning from over 60 years of a theme park industry in terms of what delivers, who has stayed in busines and not, IAAPA reports and other documented evidence. What is your persepctive based upon?
That more and more people are visiting Disney parks? So whether you like it or not, it's WORKING. For now. It might not work in the future, but then they can change again. Strategy is meant to be a dynamic thing rather than static.
Part of "Raising the bar" in the entertainment industry is responding to customer demand better. It might not be what YOU, as an individual customer want, but nothing can be done to please just one customer, or even a group of customers, if they remain a minority.
QuoteThere is a reason there is no longer a Smurf park in Europe, or that the Flintstones theme area is no longer at Universal Studios Hollywood. These fads fade, quality endures. Otherwise, why are PotC and Big Thunder the most popular attractions in the Disney parks around the globe?
I have to argee, and thats the problem after all with Movie Franchise Attractions..! What is Universal doing if Harry Potter losses his Hype he has now? if the popularity gets lost and no visitor is interested anymore? Demolish this whole area again and retheme it to another movie? For the short therm of use it will work, but it won´t work for the long time period like PotC, PM, SM ect. E-Ticket Attractions should not Themed after Movies, same goes for Lands Themed to one specific Movie it´s just a no go.
Someone else said here that its hard to advetise attraktions like BTM ect. I don´t think thats true, if you look at other Parks lets say Europapark and the Blue Fire coaster or the upcoming wodden coaster don´t have any movie franchizes and draw in visitors, right these are Coasters, but it was just a sample... Disney could do both, look alone what TOT did for DLP or SM in the 90´s... It works today the same way, you just need to make a good attraktion and a perfect advertisment...
Maybe am the Only one but i think the planned Ratatouille Attraction is a good idea, but i also think that with this Technology they could have made something not Movie Related. Attractions like POTC do work today as in the past you just have to sell it well.
Lets see what happens in the future when Mr. Iger steps down in 2015/2016 maybe we will get Unique Attractions again and they let us Play again with our Imagination.
Think of it another way. What is the hourly throughput of the Princess Meet and Greet - 60 an hour? How does that compare to many of the attractions? By that rationale, there are a far greater number of guests who ride PotC, Big thunder, PM, IASW (1200-1500 riders per hour) than do the princess meet and greets.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Think of it another way. What is the hourly throughput of the Princess Meet and Greet - 60 an hour? How does that compare to many of the attractions? By that rationale, there are a far greater number of guests who ride PotC, Big thunder, PM, IASW (1200-1500 riders per hour) than do the princess meet and greets.
It's not an either/or. The same people who visit the Princesses also ride PotC etc. But if Princesses are your bag, you are now happier to have a princess attraction, even if you also like the other stuff. I guess management have decided that there are enough people for whom adding the princesses has increased the appeal of the park to justify doing it. Are they wrong?
Personally, I don't understand why people would specifically ask for more franchise attractions. It's rare for film sequels to score better than three stars from the critics (except for films that were meant to be a series from the beginning), because they're just more of the same and they're stretching characters that were created to fit into a specific plot. Why would people want to see those characters stretched out in a ride as well? When it's done a few times, it seems nice to see them again in a different medium, but when it's
everywhere the opportunities for new characters are lost.
Quote from: "DutchBrit"Uh-huh. And Henry Ford thought that all cars should be black. Most things are not true forever. Different world, different needs.
A different world wants more of the same franchises? People ask all the time for sequels to be made out of their favourite films, but what they don't notice is that they feel more excited about new and
original films. That logic applies to theme parks, as well.
Quote from: "PirateSteve"I think one of the problems is that Disney see other parks using film franchises to attract crowds and probably feel that to compete in the same advertising space they need to push their own big franchises. As much as we may hate it, the pull of Harry Potter is far greater to the new generation of potential visitors than the history and imagination of classic Disney Parks.
Imagineering are the only company I know of that would do better by ignoring their competition than trying to do what they do but better. They need to start doing their own thing.
@DutchBrit
Are your arguements based on increasing visitors and profits, or are they based on enjoyability and quality? Do you think that Disney could have the same quality with their most recent rides if they
didn't have franchises associated with them?
QuoteE-Ticket Attractions should not Themed after Movies, same goes for Lands Themed to one specific Movie it´s just a no go.
I've never though of it like that. That's a great way of compromising on this.
(Also, breaking news: Toy Story Mania is coming to TDS in a new land based on Toy Story in the style of an abandoned amusement park. Here comes the characterisation of TDS...)
Yep, American Waterfront went from having no attractions other than the theatre, to having ToT. And now Turtle Talk and TSMM :(
Quote from: "Meph"Imagineering are the only company I know of that would do better by ignoring their competition than trying to do what they do but better. They need to start doing their own thing.
When you think of this glorious list provided by DWB..........
Train
Horse drawn streetcar
Jungle cruise
Tiki room
Indiana Jones and the temple of the forbidden eye (synergy but not disney)
Pirates of the Caribbean
Haunted mansion/phantom Manor
Splash mountain (ok, i'll conceed this one)
Country bear jamboree
Mark Twain
Golden Horshoe Revue
Big Thunder Mountain
The matterhorn
It's a Small World
Submarine voyage (the original, non nemo version)
Carousels of progress
Hall of presidents
Mission to mars
peoplemover
Adventure thru inner space
Star tours (synergy, non disney)
Le Visionarium
Capt Eo
Space mountain de la terre au la lune
The nautilus (disney attraction)
Hall of presidents
Main street electrical parade (ok, disneyfilms here)
Spaceship earth
Universe of energy
Wonders of life
Horizons
World of motors
Test track
Journey into imagination
Soarin'
Listen to the Land
The Living Seas (pre Nemo)
American adventure
Impressions de France/O canada/wonders of china
World showcase
Illuminations reflections of earth
Tapestry of nations
Great movie ride (some disney touches, but wouldn't miss them if removed)
Rock n roller coaster
Tower of terror
Muppetvision 3D (Disney did not own the muppets when built)
Motors action (would welcome the removal of the disney references)
Cinemagique (some Disney references - minority of show)
One man's dream (ok, can't get more disney, so grant you that one)
It's tough to be a bug (ok, synergy)
Kilemenjaro safari
Pengani Forest Exploration trail
Kali/Grizzly River rapids
Expedition everest
Maharaja jungle trek
Countdown to extiction (they synergised this as dinosaur)
Screamin'
Power of blast
Chance to shine
Animation (ok, granted)
Aladdin/Tarzan le recontre/roi lion/Mulan stage shows (granted)
Golden dreams
Seasons of the Vine
Journey to the centre of the earth
20k leagues under the sea (ok)
Fortress exploration
Big band beat
Stormrider
Aquatopia
Sinbad
Mystic rhythms
Bravesemo
The daytime lagoon show (Disney)
F! - DL and TDS (not WDW) -Disney
Remember dreams come true (Disneyland themed)
Buffalo bill's wild west show (before the rubberheads ruined it)
Crescendo
La Nouba
Polynesian luau
Tahitian Terrace............there was never a truer statement =D>
Quote from: "Meph"@DutchBrit
Are your arguements based on increasing visitors and profits, or are they based on enjoyability and quality? Do you think that Disney could have the same quality with their most recent rides if they didn't have franchises associated with them?
Not clear which arguments you are refering to, but my main point is that having Disney films and characters as themes for attractions etc in Disney parks is
not the end of civilization as we know it. Not only is it what a large percentage of potential visitors both expect and want, but it makes sound business sense in what is now a very competitive market.
I agree that the attraction of the latest rides is mostly the films they came from. But when that IS an attraction, I don't see it as a huge problem. My son only rode on Slinky Dog in TSPL, but he was very taken with it. Same for the Cars ride. And as I still and always will think that theme parks are meant to appeal primarily to children, if a ride has kid appeal, then there should be a place for them.
Not only is it what a large percentage of potential visitors both expect and want, but it makes sound business sense in what is now a very competitive market.
I would love to see the stats to show that this is really the case. There is no doubt that it is a competitive market out there, but what that requires is some original thinking, out of the box, so to speak. Not more of the same old drivel :(
And as I still and always will think that theme parks are meant to appeal primarily to children, if a ride has kid appeal, then there should be a place for them.
Thankfully Walt Disney didn't feel this way in those early years, Epcot is a testament to that ;)
Great Theme parks surely should appeal to all ages, all sexes etc etc. That's what makes sound business sense :thumbs:
Quote from: "Epcot_Boy"There is no doubt that it is a competitive market out there, but what that requires is some original thinking, out of the box, so to speak. Not more of the same old drivel :(
What is needed is to supply something that is popular and cannot be supplied anywhere else.
Quote from: "Epcot_Boy"Thankfully Walt Disney didn't feel this way in those early years, Epcot is a testament to that ;)
Hadn't Walt been dead almost 20 years when Epcot opened? I agree that Epcot is quite an unusual theme park, but it came at a time when the Disney company had a solid base to build on with other theme parks that are more child-like in their appeal.
Quote from: "Epcot_Boy"Great Theme parks surely should appeal to all ages, all sexes etc etc. That's what makes sound business sense :thumbs:
Just because the focus is on children, it doesn't mean that grown-up children can't enjoy them. People who don't enjoy acting like big kids occasionally generally don't enjoy theme parks full stop.
QuoteWhat is needed is to supply something that is popular and cannot be supplied anywhere else.
Right but every Park can Build a Crush Coaster, the Ride system is not Unique to Disney and also everyone can use a Turtle,
the only thing it won´t have is Crush´s Name on it, same goes for Cars ect... If Disney want´s to Build stuff no other can do then they need something like TOT Own Ride System and an not Film Related Story with copyright.
QuoteJust because the focus is on children, it doesn't mean that grown-up children can't enjoy them. People who don't enjoy acting like big kids occasionally generally don't enjoy theme parks full stop.
Knot´s Berry Farm, Europapark, Universal ect. ect. are Parks not only aimed to Kids..! The only Park Frenchize in the world who got caled a kids Park is Disneyland..! Sorry but Theme Parks are not just for Kids, the main visitor puller are still coasters, if themed or not. A Park like Disneyland should have Rides and Entertainment for every Age as it was supposed to be.
I don´t have problems if they make some rides with they´re film franchizes but i don´t like it if every ride is just about them. How long till the Toons overrun the whole DisneyPark and Attractions? Disney has to make new unique to disneypark story themed rides, with no movie overlay ect.
Imagine if everyone suddenly had the mindset "Disney Parks are for kids. It's only worth going if I'm a parent." Visitor numbers would probably half if that were the case. Disney Parks are not a very big and expensive version of Gulliver's World.
How come so many people ( adults included ) can appreciate Sleeping Beauty Castle at Disneyland Paris, a fairytale Castle based on a fairy story and a Disney cartoon film, they look at it in awe, yet bulk at the thought of Carsland? Carsland it ment to entertain surely. Walt Disney poured his heart and soul into animation, he invented the cartoon film and Toon characters beloved all over the world. I love Disneyland, but I can't credit him with inventing the theme park or roller coaster ride. But he did build the best theme park ever and TWDC have contiued in that fine tradition.
Hmm. That's a good point. But the issue with Carsland isn't that it's based off a franchise. It's that it's an entire land based off one film, whereas Fantasyland sets itself as a template for anything related to fantastical animation. I wouldn't mind if the new land's cliff face became the icon of the park, but still: Walt said that Disneyland will never be complete, but can you ever see anything new added to Carsland? It's an entire and very large land dedicated to one franchise.
If, however, it was set as just a Californian desert and the Radiator Springs Racers was the only ride there based off Cars, the land would have a lot more opportunities to change and expand.
Quote from: "NanookJackal"the only thing it won´t have is Crush´s Name on it, same goes for Cars ect...
Correct. Which is my point.
QuoteSorry but Theme Parks are not just for Kids, the main visitor puller are still coasters, if themed or not. A Park like Disneyland should have Rides and Entertainment for every Age as it was supposed to be.
That's your opinion, I have mine. And I think that coasters are also for kids, just bigger kids.
QuoteI don´t have problems if they make some rides with they´re film franchizes but i don´t like it if every ride is just about them. How long till the Toons overrun the whole DisneyPark and Attractions? Disney has to make new unique to disneypark story themed rides, with no movie overlay ect.
You see, this to me is like someone calling themselves a fan of Legoland, going on countless trips to Legoland and yet going on a Legoland forum and saying "You know what ruins it for me? All those pesky plastic brickie things! I hate them!". I bet when Legoland build a new attraction, their fan sites are not full of people complaining that yet AGAIN, those stupid bricks are the chosen theming, and bewailing the lack of imagination and out of the box thinking.....
i don't know if they could add anything to Carsland or not. But they could always add to DCA, carsland is only one part of the experience. World of Colour, a fantastic show full of Disney film characters.
Quote from: "DutchBrit"You see, this to me is like someone calling themselves a fan of Legoland, going on countless trips to Legoland and yet going on a Legoland forum and saying "You know what ruins it for me? All those pesky plastic brickie things! I hate them!". I bet when Legoland build a new attraction, their fan sites are not full of people complaining that yet AGAIN, those stupid bricks are the chosen theming, and bewailing the lack of imagination and out of the box thinking.....
There is a huge difference. In Legoland, opening day in the park in Denmark in the 1960's, it was all about showcasing the bricks and what could be done with them.
Disneyland was not about showasing Disney movies. Go back and read the dedication speech and my Walt quotes earlier in this thread. Disneyland is not all about Disneyland. It is about:
"To all who come to this happy place; welcome. Disneyland is your land. Here age relives fond memories of the past...and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams and the hard facts that have created America...with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world."
Not go fill your boots with a bunch of rubber head BS.
Legoland is like Toys r Us, and Disney used to be like Harrods. Sadly DL is now becoming a little more Mothercare.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Disneyland was not about showasing Disney movies.
"Was not": perhaps. 60-ish l...o...o...ng years ago. In a different time, in a different market (and they are quotations, you know, not holy writ.)
What was does not mean that it must be so forever more. No company works like that.
Well for the first 35 years it wasn't either. It is really since Iger came on board the place has gone to pot. The whole damn company. What they are producing these days are rubbish.
Things can and should change, but the ethos should remain the same.
Tooning the place is creeatively lazy, and the fans of that shit are too
I've read Walts opening address. But it didn't stop him building Peter Pans flight, and the Tree House based on his film The Swiss Family Robinson. So although he didn't mention toons and films in his address, he did use them in his park and TWDC have built on that. Walt Disney had as much to do with animation and cartoon films as he did with theme parks, his reputation was built on films. Disney made his address in 1955, he died in 1966, that can't mean a CEO or Imagineer in 2011 should never deviate from anything he said.
QuoteWell for the first 35 years it wasn't either. It is really since Iger came on board the place has gone to pot. The whole damn company. What they are producing these days are rubbish.
I argee with you, as much as i don´t like Eisner but this guy did get it at his beginning in the company, he did let the imagineers work how they´re supposed to be. Look at Animal Kingdom, Tokyo Disney Sea, Disneyland Paris and some added Attractions to every other Disney Park, unique rides, with great theming and good storytelling. Even on the Opening of EuroDisneyland he quoted Walt Disney.
Iger on the other Hand, has nothing more to do as to put in as much franchize as possible, stopped the imagineers for dreaming and creating great rides and storys. The best Imagineers retired from Imagineers just because they don´t wanna produce rubbish and non creative stuff. The Imagineers we have nor are Igers infantry and do what he says...
But one positive thing we have with Iger, he spends Money and he knows when he has to step down and end his CEO job at Disney, and it will be in just 4-5 years..!
QuoteI've read Walts opening address. But it didn't stop him building Peter Pans flight, and the Tree House based on his film The Swiss Family Robinson. So although he didn't mention toons and films in his address, he did use them in his park and TWDC have built on that. Walt Disney had as much to do with animation and cartoon films as he did with theme parks, his reputation was built on films.
Wow great you come up with 2 semples of Rides who are based on Films Walt put into his Disneyland...
What is with the Monorail (non film based), Pirates of the Caribbean (non film based), Haunted Mansion (also non film based), The Matterhorn (same here non film based) and a few more, who Dave can tell you about. It is okay if Disney is using they´re movies vor rides, but it should not be only this way. And if somebody will tell me nothing else works at this time has to proof it. Because as i remember TSPL did not pull in any more visitors as TOT did!!!!!!
TOT is based upon a television show, the Twilight Zone, Carsland is based upon a film, Pirates was not. I don't think the theme parks have gone to pot. So what if a ride is based on a film, it doesn't mean to say no creativity went into it. Splash Mountain, Indiana Jones, Star Tours, Dumbo and the Flying Elephants, they come from films just like Snow White, Peter Pan and the Tree House. Anybody would think that Cars was a flop film and people had stopped going to Disney theme parks. And TSPL hasn't stopped people going to DLP, 15.6 0000 people went last year, thats up 600.000 on the year before so it hasn't put people off. I think what is clear is that Disney and Pixar want to work closer together in the theme parks and create greater synergy between them. And when we consider the huge sums of money involved, a billion dollars being spent on DCA, it's not surprising if they want to use a popular franchise.
Quote from: "DutchBrit"Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Disneyland was not about showasing Disney movies.
"Was not": perhaps. 60-ish l...o...o...ng years ago. In a different time, in a different market (and they are quotations, you know, not holy writ.)
What was does not mean that it must be so forever more. No company works like that.
But this isn't an issue of genres. It's true that different markets appreciated different genres, hence the lack of Western films these days. However, whether a ride is based on a franchise or an original story is irrelevant. It's like saying, "No one likes buying green coloured cars any more, so I better stop making cars out of metal," which obviously makes no sense.
Think about Mystic Manor at Hong Kong Disneyland. Are you
less interested in it because it's
not based on a franchise? Same goes for Buena Vista Street in DCA.
Listen:
no one in this debate is saying that
all rides should not be based on a franchise. We're saying that there needs to be a balance. But that balance was lost in the last decade.
But Mystic Manor and Buena Vista Street proove that Disney isn't all about franchises today. CarsLand is based on a franchise Buena Vista Street is not, so both can live together in the same theme park and be enjoyable, I think.
Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Tooning the place is creeatively lazy, and the fans of that sh*t are too
oh behave, you make a good point then you diminish it by insulting fans who don't share your views, that's lazy.
Quote from: "DopeyDad"Quote from: "davewasbaloo"Tooning the place is creeatively lazy, and the fans of that sh*t are too
oh behave, you make a good point then you diminish it by insulting fans who don't share your views, that's lazy.
Good call pulling me up on this one. Sorry folks, it has been a bad couple of days with lawyers and politicians, I suppose I ran out of articulate debate in an issue that frustrates me greatly and therefore went to a base level. However I still assert that franchise based attractions are creatively lazy.
QuoteBut Mystic Manor and Buena Vista Street proove that Disney isn't all about franchises today. CarsLand is based on a franchise Buena Vista Street is not, so both can live together in the same theme park and be enjoyable, I think.
Haha nice u bring this one up... Mystic Manor got Toonyfied, Henry Mystic and his Ape are not looking as it was showcased in 2009, no they changed it to a Toony looking ape like Henry Mystic does now too... Just look at the new drawings and models.
As Meph said already, there can be franchize filled Attractions, i don´t have a problem with that, my problem is just that in the last few years it got too much of it, and less original stories... The Balance at the moment is not right anymore...
There is one Story in the disney parks, about the S.E.A. Society of Explorers and Adventurers that story could work better and in a greater way than just TOT at TDS or MM at HKDL... They have great ideas just not pulled out on the full potential and this just because they think to build rides on film franchizes... As said allready am not complete against it, just not every new ride should based on franchizes...
Fine, but I'm not worried if Mystic Manor has toonyfied characters, it could be whimsical and fun. Splash Mountain has toonyfied characters and that doesn't bother me either. So it's a problem for you and not me I think.
Yeah, I'm not worried about Mystic Manor looking a bit toony, either. A lot of Disney's older rides are toony, anyway; that's just part of their charm. :)
Quote from: "ed-uk"But Mystic Manor and Buena Vista Street proove that Disney isn't all about franchises today. CarsLand is based on a franchise Buena Vista Street is not, so both can live together in the same theme park and be enjoyable, I think.
True, but that's it. Every single other change that has been made to the park involves adding toons. Those two projects (and Grizzly Glutch) are the only original designs I can think of that Imagineering have created in the last decade.
DCA opened without Disney characters and toons and it wasn't as popular as TWDC had hoped. The park had Condor Flats, Sunshine Plaza etc. So I think history shows here that Disney characters, entertaintment, parades, shows and rides do work together. If we go to a Disney park that's what we can expect to find.
Ya, I am sure it had nothing to do with the fact there was very little there, most of which could be found in a similar form elsewhere, or why soarin' is the most popular attraction on both sides of the US.
"Most of which could be found in a similar from elsewhere," may sum it up. But Disney are spending a billion dollars on it to make the Disney difference, even if Carsland is a franchise and remembering that Buena Vista Street is not.
ok, my tuppence worth and and attempt to find middle ground perhaps.
I think that Disney can make that Disney difference with any attraction, franchise or not, but what is important is if the imagineering process is successful or not. And a strictly franchise project may either be more constraining or tempt creative laziness as it offers quick wins. These quick wins can still have a credible economic argument I believe, but do need to be part of the larger picture still, and that is the whole park experience for guests. That, I think, is where Dave et al make very useful points, and I would guess most users here can reflect on those experiences that made a Disney park trip something special, beyond their expectations and providing experiences that they go on to treasure and want to repeat. Often, I believe, those experiences may or may not relate to characters from Disney films, but almost certainly do relate to creativity, immersion, inclusion, fantasy and story telling. And here at least it is vital, imho, for the non franchise part because it allows a more personal experience somehow by the participant and it makes up part of that 'you know Disneyland is so much more...' conversation that I'm sure we've all had with friends and family.
......................maybe :)
I think you have to find a compromise. For me, Disneyland has always been a mix of rides based on great atmosphere and storytelling without movie characters and rides based on disney movies. But the recent development is only focusing on the disney brand. While other theme parks spend a lot of money on creating new realities, Disney just spends its money on boring attractions overlayed with toons. In my opinion there is so much potential not being used in the recent years at DLP. At least they tried to refurb the stuff already being there in the last months, the best decision made for years. It was pretty bad to see old attractions like the pirate ship or the tree house fall apart. But we discussed that often enough.
My problem is: Why altering the Disneyland Park so much? We have the (Film) Studios right aside - why not building the film-based attractions there? Of course we had them in Disneyland Park right from the beginning, too (Snow White, inoccio etc.), but these are the classics. Why not building all this new stuff in the Studios? They will never reach the Disneyland Park in its perfection, even if it has decreased in the recent years there, too. The Studios are fun to go for a while, the rides are funny, but not more. They are good, but not fascinating. They are funny, but not unique (Every time I'm in the Studios I think: You have to go back do the other park soon. Not that I don't like the Studios, it's just that Disneyland Park has so much more to offer concerning details, atmosphere, storytelling).
I actually dont think theme parks are for kids only. Especially here in Germany, or at least within the people I know, theme parks are more perceived as places for, I would say, young adults. Europa Park for example advertises with its new rollercoasters and automatically attracts more than just kids and families. DLP instead just focusses on this group and automatically creates this "for kids only" image.
As for Princess Pavillon. I dont know why such a low capacity "attraction" is built while others (Keelboats, canoes, old mill) are closed or seldom used due to this argument.
So of course I understand why Disney tries to place their own brands in the parks, but as I said, I would have focussed on the Studios with this Toon-uprising.
They want to sell merchandise, that's comprehensible, but in my opinion Disney also sells something more valuable at the moment: Their soul.
I think a lot of you are being quite unfair on Disney. Times have changed and so have the people. I think the evolution of the Disney parcs is nothing but naturall. I'll explain why.
Saying that Disneyland used to be about imagination and unbranded attractions isnt true. From the day Disneyland was born Walt knew exactly how to use his toons and characters to get people in the Parc. Just watch the opening of Disneyland in 1955. By that time Disney was associated with their toons and movies. It was a strong household brand which is why he named it Disney land! The Pink castle is connected to Sleeping Beauty (which was in preproduction at the time and Disney knew he could give that movie free publicity by dropping it in his park), frontierland was marketed as the place of Davie Crocket, Swiss Family Treehouse, Snow White, Peter Pan. Not to mention all the toons walking around the parc (which arguably is the thing Disneylands around the world are most recognised for.)
Yes not all the attractions had a movie/franchise connection. But Disney's portfolio of movies was smaller at the time and the emphasis on movies/tv was smaller aswell. Keeping that in mind, fastforward to 2012, where movies and franchises play such an increasingly big role in our lives. Children are glued to tv sets, computers ect, where they are bombarded with stories and characters.
Now consider the expanding market of theme parcs and having to stand out to beat your competitors. It gets increasingly difficult to come up with innovative attractions as we have been spoiled rotten. It costs millions and millions of dollars to create an attraction and you have to explain this expenditure to your shareholders. The safest way to insure guest satisfaction is to use your incredibly famous portfolio of characters.
When you account for all those things its only natural that you see more and more toons in the parc. Also the regular guest (believe it or not) LIKE the character connection with the attractions. The regular person doesnt visit Disney as frequent as we do. Its a large expenditure and they want to make sure their kid gets to meet and experience their favourite characters. I remember being young and visiting EuroDisney and being dissapointed because there were no attractions based on Ariel, Beauty and the Beast, Alladin, Lion King ect. I grew up with those movies and I wanted to see those characters and ride their attractions. I could not have cared less about Snow White or Alice ( Although I loved Peter Pan).
However where I do agree with the negative comments is about the lack of imagination with the new attractions. Its not lazy to smack a character or franchise on an attraction. Actually, a lot of thought has previously gone into that Franchise and is ussualy expanded upon in the attractions. But the attractions themselve are lazy and unimaginative. They are generic, common and easy to build.
But we can't expect amazing attractions when a Theme Parc does not make money. Could you imagine TSPL without the toy story reference? Nobody would have cared as it's too plain and common. At least the Toy Story theme keeps the kids entertained.
Attractions without a toon reference will still be made IF they are strong enough in execution to create the buzz and hype needed to pull more people. For example Soaring. It will come sooner then later as we all know Soaring over the world is being produced. I think they are developing Soaring at the moment to make the attraction more stunning and more innovative before it will have a world release.
But it will come, and so will other attractions not based on a toon or franchise.
Timwatch, you make some good points and I agree with you, Disney parks have evolved. I think some people sneer at cartoons and toon characters like they are not good enough for the parks, and had it not been for the success of Mickey Mouse and Snow White, Disneyland probably would never have been built. Walt Disney had as much to do with toons as he did theme parks, and as you say the park is called Disney-Land.
But it isn't called Toon-Land. Disney of course had a strong connection to movies and characters, but he also represented other virtues. Walt Disney never stood for 100 % toon based environments in my opinion. He also wanted to tell stories independent from his movies, for example in Main Street or Frontierland. So you need a mixture of both if you want to follow Walt's visions. But unfortunately, in the recent past there was a clear shift towards the toon/character part because you might make more money with it. But I think many permanent visitors come again and again because they were attracted by the non toon areas and are pretty frustrated about the recent development (obviously including myself ;)).
I know it's not called Toon-land, but I associate Disney with animation and film. Most theme parks in the world have non toon areas, so what makes Disneyland different? If there has been a clear shift towards the toon/ character part because Disney think they can make more money out of it, I can understand why they might take that approach. And Disney having bought Pixar for billions, want to make more money out of the characters and films in the Parks. Would Walt Disney have done that, maybe in 2012 he would of? That's pure guess work on my part.