Originally Posted By tashajilek Bellella, i was just at WDW 2 days ago and all the things you would like back and nothing to brag about. I was able to to COP, Country bears and people mover only because the park was so busy and that was the only attractions with no waits LOL. I liked the Country bears, but if you are a DL fan you wont know any of the music because it's not at all the same. COP was alright, but i found it really funny that the whole row in front of me was sleeping.
Originally Posted By Bellella I already know the music for the Country Bear show in Florida. Its the original Country Bear show that opened in WDW and D-land in the 70s. Another version I've never seen live. I just have a shoddy video version on a DVD that I bought online. I do have the soundtracks for all three shows, though. WDW's Haunted Mansion doesn't get decorated for the holidays? Why the heck not?! They could do wonders with it!
Originally Posted By Bellella < No one not specifically looking for them could possibly tell that they hadn't been there since the beginning.> That's just the problem. No one who is a newcomer to the D-land IASW will know how it was before, how it still should be. They'll just assume that the character dolls were always there. So, no. I cannot let this go and I won't.
Originally Posted By danyoung So what you're saying (and sorry, but I just love persuing this discussion!), is that the new characters fit perfectly in with all the characters that have been there since the 60's, but this is a bad thing?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Would it be ok to put a logo on the Mona Lisa if it looked like it had always been there?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Both are artistic masterpieces of a different time and media.having seen both live a number of times, I would say iasw is the greater work of art.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I just got back from DL today. I would tend to agree with Dan on this. I did not like them when they were first placed in SW and they did seem out of place. This trip I looked with the same critical eyes and heart and found they no longer seemed intrusive. Their faces are just as sweet and adorable as all of the Mary Blair creations. Maybe the Americana section is most noticeable as being new and different with Woody. That still did not blend but it is not a reason to continue this "dis"like... If you want to be "dis"tressed take offense with the giant snowman in the wintry wonderland section that replaced the sparkly holiday xmas tree masterpiece! This monstrosity looks like the giant marshmallow man that was in Ghostbusters!!! The person that made this decision should be looking for a new job. I hated it!
Originally Posted By danyoung >Would it be ok to put a logo on the Mona Lisa if it looked like it had always been there?< In a way that's the crux of the whole argument. Of course the Mona Lisa is a work of art that was painted with the idea that it would never be changed. Some people think iasw (or any given Disney attraction) should have this same "hands off" treatment and never ever change. And I can appreciate that. But what I don't understand is that Walt himself made many changes to attractions and whole areas of the park. Why, now that he's gone, should some people want to change that basic philosophy and demand that attractions never ever change?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Hmmm, hard call. To be fair, I am ok with change in the parks to classic attractions (floating leota, the pirana in jungle cruise). What I am not ok with is shoving synergy, particularly in toon form - the treehouse, iasw, potc, tom sawyer island - I hate what they have done to those.
Originally Posted By Manfried Well gee, Walt did nothing but synergy. You might think he didn't shove it, but he did. Sleeping Beauty Castle is the first example. He used this castle as it related to a movie not yet out when Disneyland opened. Frontierland was very heavy with Davy Crockett, which was all ready out, but Walt was planning a sequel. Especially after the merchandise sold millions. And yes, Fess Parker and Buddy Ebsen were all over the park, and in particularly Frontierland, opening day. So the anti-synergy argument holds absolutely no water. But others are entitled to their opinions. If people want a museum, which is what a lot of the really hard-core fans who have those premium multi-park passes seem to want, then instead of spending money on the passes; spend your money either buying up the stock and taking the company private, or design and build your version of the "perfect" theme park and never change a thing and see how long it lasts. Theme park rides are artistic, but only as long as guests actually go on them. But leaving them as is, no. They are not "art" ever lasting. If Disneyland and the theme parks do not make changes, even to the so-called "classic" attractions, they will eventually whither and die due to negligence and lack of caring. What we are in right now is a bubble of nostalgia for the "good old days" when things were more black and white for a number of people. Gee, that sounds like our parents and grandparents in the sixties. Trust me, the "good old days" they remembered were not good, just an age of innocence. Many of the "purists" suffer from that same issue. They were growing up during the "good old days" at Disney theme parks and did not have to face the reality side of life back then like I did of having to possibly go into combat in Vietnam. In reality it is a whole generation that really did not have to face the specter of war. Well, they were nice days, but not "good old days" and it is time to stop beating that tired old drum. And yes, you who I am talking to will use all those cliches against me. But I doubt you will write as well as I do.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub i think we are just saying some times it works and sometimes it does not. And we like to consider the changes with respect to the spirit of Walt Disney. When Walt Disney and the original imagineers created an attraction it was entertaining but also educational or appealing to our musical and artistic senses. It was not an automatic commercial scream to spend more money on Pixar or teen Disney merchandise. But you are correct Disney has always needed to manipulate our minds for financial reasons.
Originally Posted By Manfried On that I agree. Some of their decisions do not make sense. Its as if they are populated with decision makers who are making decisions like they are high school business class graduates. It would be nice if they put some people in charge who did not necessarily work at Disney their entire professional lives. Maybe they worked there in college, but left to do something else, then came back. I think the company is being run by too many insiders, and too many accountants, and not very street smart folks.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Once again Manfred, your condescension and tone demonstrate a void in comprehending the reason I loathe the recent additions at Disney parks. They lack the heart and the vision of edutainment which were a hallmark of Disney attractions. I am all for change, as I stated, I like the enhancements of the haunted mansion and the jungle cruise. But it is about the direction of travel that I am concerned, where everything is linked to a juvenile property to play to the lowest common denominator and devoid of risk and creativity. I am perhaps most bitter because my local park is Paris, where it was a masterpiece and has really been raped of it's soul. As for my writing, it is in dribs and drabs on a cell phone often, between meetings and writing papers - legislation, legal reports, business cases and journal articals. So please forgive me if they do not measure up to your former wdi standards. Fatigue sets in sometimes in my 80 working week with 6 hour commute sometimes.
Originally Posted By Manfried My condensation in my tone was fully realized. It does not in any way represent a lack of understanding of other views. Just the inglorious non-validity of those views. Or perhaps more accurately, my entire dismissal of those viewpoints. Of mine I am sure you are just as so. Paris never stood a chance for several reasons. One, too much money spent on those inglorious details that no one sees that you claim to want so much. Two, a lack of spending in the amounts needed to support the capital and ongoing costs. Many more can come, but I prefer to offer them in "dribs" and "drabs."
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo On the contrary, I do read many of your thoughts with interest and sometimes agree. But when I see universal, merlin, Puy du Fou, Europa park et all take risks and step up, while Iger's Disney dilute, as a life long Disney fan, a stock holder, and a property owner at DLP, it annoys me greatly. There is no drive to travel 1000's of miles and spend 1000's of dollars/euros to play a toy story video game or ride toy story spinners. The where's wally/waldo approach of characters to it's a small world or the pirate film synergy all over PotC ( a cameo would have been fine but now it revolves around sparrow) and worse, tom sawyer island is putrid and revolting to me. It seems to happen in everything these days. Sure, sleeping beauty castle was built, but at the time, so were rocket ships and jungle cruises and turn of the century towns. Now Disney give us more fantasy tied to film IP than anything else. That is my gripe. Not change, I am fine with change. But blatant commercial synergy all the time is a real turn off.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I'd never really considered it before, but having Disney's Davy Crockett was plastered all over Fronteriland at the park's opening is a very direct forerunner of the POTC mess they have now. The land inspired the TV shows, which became very popular, and inspired attraction overlays in the park that had originally inspired the shows. But the difference that I see is Davy Crockett existed in the real world, long before Disney's telling of his story. He was an actual historical figure who fit perfectly into the reality-based land, without having the 5 shows as a background. Yes, those shows helped launch a pop culture phenomenon, but he was already a well-known figure. Jack Sparrow and Captain Barbosa are both purely fictional, Disney-created characters, set in a very much fantasy-based world. By adding them to the attraction (and particularly changing the audio tracks), it completely hijacks the original sense of adventure and limitless possibilities that the attraction hand, and now focuses it entirely on Disney's money-grabbing franchise. I understand the reasons for it, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it. And don't even get me started on what they did to Blackbeard, a real-life historical figure, who had a significant impact on the development of certain areas of the US, who has now been turned into a magical sea sorcerer in this fantasy world. I guess I shouldn't expect the California filmmakers to understand other states' history (since they tend to hardly realize they exist), but it would be akin to giving Junipero Serra magic powers and having him hang out with Zorro; it just doesn't work.
Originally Posted By Manfried Yes, let us by all means find yet another logical argument to preserve the old Disneyland. "Both purely fictional." Gee, Fantasyland? Ah, yet another inconvenient truth to let the air out of the balloon.
Originally Posted By danyoung I agree with you on this one, dave. There are obviously many sides to this discussion. And a discussion can only continue if all sides at least respect the opinions of others.
