Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the August 1st Dispatch from Disneyland Column. This article is at: <a href="News-ID103095.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID103095.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By foolishmortal A great idea unevenly executed will still overpower its flaws, but a bad idea lavishly executed will still be a bad idea. In the case of Disneyland, it was so far ahead of its time and so intrinsically unique, it would withstand the shortcomings as its vision was still crystallized and a WOW.. DCA never was designed as a WOW.. but as a way to get tourists to stay the night. apples and oranges..
Originally Posted By ZazuYen I was one of those decrying the commercialization of Disneyland and my fond memories of it from my youth. However, as I've been collecting Disneyland Forever CDs and jogging my memory further it becomes embarrassingly obvious that I, and others, are wrong. Disneyland was built on a financial backbone of commercialization and quite likely wouldn't exist at all if not for that. People who reject this view should find a Disneyland Forever kiosk and take a listen to the Frito Kid and Klondike track or the circa 1956 main entrance announcements (if still available). Companies would pay a lot for that kind of plugging these days but fans, like myself, would have had a fit if they tried it. Maybe we shouldn't though. If it means more money for the park, better up keeping and new attractions AND they followed Walt's rules and kept the THEME of the land paramount above all, it could be a good thing.
Originally Posted By foolishmortal The "Carousel of Progress" was the biggest commercial sell out ever. Appliances are the key to happy family life. But why did it work? For one, when the overall vision is there, you have the luxury of exploiting it. If not, you are left with nothing but the bare commercialism. DCA has 2 factory tours showing dough being squished or baked.. big deal. (La Brea on the outside has a purer and more interesting process and better bread) No relevance or connection to anything we care about. I'd rather think Tortillas were made by hand on a grill (as they really are at El Torito,) than in a laboratory at Mission. The GE Carousel nonstalgically touched people as they had owned those gadgets and appliances and the show worked on a different level. The guest got the emotional kick they wanted and forgave the commercialism. When the sponsor is a bad fit and adds little to a zero experience, then you hate them. (M&M's were never on Endor)
Originally Posted By TDS_Bux Anyone who draws comparisons between Paradise Pier and Tomorrowland circa 1955 is missing the point. Even on opening day, Tomorrowland (and the entire park for that matter) was pushing the envelope of family entertainment. The same cannot be said for PP or DCA. A better comparison is Paradise Pier and Pressler's "New Tomorrowland." Now there's a resemblance.
Originally Posted By cstephens TDS_Bux wrote: > A better comparison is Paradise Pier and Pressler's "New Tomorrowland." Now there's a resemblance. Not for me. I have very little reason to go anywhere in Tomorrowland nowadays, but I find myself spending a lot of time in and near Paradise Pier. /cs
Originally Posted By jonvn "it becomes embarrassingly obvious that I, and others, are wrong. Disneyland was built on a financial backbone of commercialization and quite likely wouldn't exist at all if not for that." I'm really glad to hear that being said by someone, because it's very true. Not only that, but sponsors of attractions that are appropriate for the rides they are sponsoring really enhance the effect of the attraction itself. For example, Adventure Thru Inner Space was presented by Monsanto, which worked with molecules. I always used to call it the Monsanto ride. These sorts of things really add an underlying air of reality upon which the fantasy aspects of the ride can be set upon. It really makes stuff feel more realistic. The best example of this in a non-Disney sense is the movie 2001, where Bell Telephone and Pan Am were product placed to anchor the film viewer and give them a point of reference in what they were seeing. It is ironic, though, that both Bell and Pan Am are gone now. At least as how they were presented in the film.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic There are three things that I always loved and associated with the beach: 1) The waves 2) The sound of the waves crashing against the shores 3) The salty air Paradise Pier has none of those things, therefore I never feel like I'm at a California beach. I feel like I'm at a lake. If they were to just add speakers and smell sprayers to create ocean sounds and salty air, and then make more wave makers I would like Paradise Pier a lot more. Maybe bring out those surfers they promised as atmosphere? Of course I always hold out hope that everything (minus Sun Wheel and Screamin') could be plowed over and become the ocean floor of California ala Mermaid Lagoon. Maybe someday. . .
Originally Posted By TP2000 I remember debating this "sponsorship and commercialization" topic years ago on alt.disney.disneyland . Walt was a huge Free Enterprise fan. He thought American Industry could do or invent just about anything. (And I'm inclined to believe him.) He included sponsors in the Park's early days because they helped pay the bills. But later in the 1960's, he actively courted even more sponsors because he thought they were intrinsic to the theme or Show that he was trying to put on for the Guests. The New Tomorrowland of 1967 was a perfect example, and it was crammed full of shiny corporate logo's. However, if it didn't serve a purpose or help the Show, Walt was fine with things not having a sponsor. Pirates and Mansion are good examples. The big commericals at Disneyland worked because, believe it or not, the products and services of American Free Enterprise can and do improve our lifes. Walt knew that, and wanted that aspect of our culture to be part of the Disneyland Show. There is however, a funny story about a Ford Motor Company show that was heavily courted to be a part of the 1967 Tomorrowland. It had singing barnyard animals on a big stage, singing the virtures of their owners new Ford automobiles, while sparkling new Mustangs, Thunderbirds and Fairlanes revolved around to the snappy Sherman Brothers theme song. The theme song was titled "Get the Feel of the Wheel of a Ford". Ford backed out of the concept in 1966, and the area became the Tomorrowland Stage and future home of Space Mountain. Even Walt and the Sherman Brothers felt the "soft sell" was a bit strong on that one, but Walt wanted Ford in Disneyland so bad that he was willing to put up with some obvious commercialism. In my opinion, the Tomorrowland of 1998 would have been a heck of a lot better if General Motors, Microsoft and maybe General Electric or IBM had been included in the plans, with splashy shows and attractions singing the virtues of their products and services. It's got to be better than the New Tomorrowland we got. Blech.
Originally Posted By TP2000 jonvn, my favorite parts of "2001" are the space shuttle and space station scenes. He flies Pan Am into space to get to the moon, uses the Bell System to phone home. He even sits and talks to the Soviet scientists in a lounge just outside the Howard Johnson hotel entrance on the space station. And in 2001, the future world of space travel is made easier and more gracious by the presence of pretty hostesses and stewardesses in sheath skirts, white gloves, and pill box hats. Great stuff! From a late 1960's reference though, the service and hospitality industry was populated by stylish young women like that, so why wouldn't the future? Ever see the video of the New Tomorrowland's 1967 grand opening? They have all the Attractions Cast Members on a stage at the Tomorrowland entrance, and the Bell Telephone and General Electric hostesses are all dressed like classy First Class Stewardesses on a jet plane going to Paris, with sheath dresses with corporate logo's, white gloves, dyed-to-match pumps, and big boufant hairdo's. Have you seen some of the female CM's currently working at Disneyland? They sure don't make 'em like 1967 anymore. :-(
Originally Posted By jonvn No, they don't look like that. I don't mind. Tomorrowland to me is the perfect place for industry sponsorships so corporations can show off their ideas for the future. I think that at one time there was a lot of cachet in being a sponsor at Disneyland, and that it isn't such a big deal anymore. Sponsors used to hang around for years and were very solidly identified with the attractions they sponsored. That was because they worked with Disney to create a showcase just for them. Now it's just not the same. I think a lot of the younger people (like those who don't remember the park before 1980 or maybe even WDW's opening) really don't know what once was there and what the place was actually like. It's kind of a shame for them, really.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA I always felt that seeing Corporate sponsorship in the Parks offered some wonderful credibility. Think of EPCOT -- GE, General Motors, Exxon, Unisys, Kodak, Kraft, AT&T -- big time corporations. Even the restaurant sponsors from the old days like Wonder Bread, Lawry's, Stouffer's, Oscar Mayer, Carnation, just added a sense of comfort I suppose, and also sophistication -- since they're companies that seem more than just everyday foods. Monsanto (a company whose name became synonymous with a Disneyland ride), Good-Year, The Bell System -- were quite obvious at the time. Now, the more subtle versions like in Indy "Choose Wisely" -- and others... Which I suppose causes the outcry when McDonald's comes in as such a noisy sponsor...
Originally Posted By teddibubbles I think that old stuff was neet i wish tomarow land had some more of that cool fillers i think walt would have had fills when something was closed! you guys remember bank of america being Its a small worlds sponcer
