Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Tanya Roberts, who happened to be the only original angel seen (briefly) in the first Charlie's Angels movie with Barrymore.. Jacklyn was in the 2nd one.>> DING-DING-DING!!! We have a winner. Yeah. And she wound up as a Bond Girl too. You know what movie? >>God, I'm old because I know what you're talking about.<< <<That's nothing. I am old and not even straight! So what gives?!?!?>> I think you can appreciate beauty even if you don't want to take it to bed! Tanya was hot back then ... now, not so much. And you likely watched way too much 70s/80s TV!
Originally Posted By TDLFAN Yes I did. Always had crushes on Dan Tanna and Dominic Lucca (name the shows where those characters appeared) >> And she wound up as a Bond Girl too. You know what movie?<< Yes, I do. "View to a Kill" (1985) I think it was Moore's last movie as Bond.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN Ha, this could be fun. Name who played Toni on Charlie's Angels and what was her business on that show.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>I guess when it comes right down to it two things have changed -- Disney seems to have lost its creative touch and daring, and I have grown as a person to where simple WalMart crap doesn't impress me just cause it's at 'Disney World' and the marketing machine tells me I'm supposed to be impressed.<<< The problem here is that you don't want something new. You want a rehash of the old stuff. Times change, people change, demand changes. I love the old shows but the general public is bored with them. Right or wrong, in the words of Walter Cronkite, that's the way it is. What I feel we can fight for is the continuation of the "old" classics as they add new different types. Some of the reasons that things have gone are the need for Disney to use "sponsors for everything. As soon as that happens all creativity must follow the lines of the sponsors wants. Imagination and World of Motion are giant examples of that. Whenever Disney tries something new, like Mission Space, which in my mind is awesome, someone else thinks it is the ruination of WDW or DL or whatever. The reality is that it is a current technological version of the old. Remember Mission to Mars? I feel that Walt would have been first in line to develop MS. If one cannot get immersed in that ride then I doubt anything will do it. With the comments from the "purists" that have been so negative and sent the fear of instant death to all that haven't tried it, I will bet that it will be a long time before WDI has the desire to put that kind of money in a new attraction. As much as we like the old ones, about 90% of the visitors to WDW now only know Walt Disney as a statue in front of Cindy's Castle. Nostalgia is not going to influence them. Reality in themeing, something fun or new, will. It was easy to entertain the folks from the 50's and 60's...not so much now. Good or bad, that is the reality. Walt's own words were something like..."it will continue to change and evolve as new things are developed." Disneyland, to him, would always be a work in progress. New or old, where else do you find that kind of entertainment.
Originally Posted By Brian Noble >>>Even the hits, don't appear to be the type of attractions that are timeless. Pirates ... and American Adventure... and Big Thunder ... and Mansion ... and Small World ... are. But will anyone here honestly tell me TT, Mission Space, Soarin, Everest and PhilharMagic are? <<< I can only tell you my family's perspective. First, the classics: Pirates: awesome. We ride as often as we can (but we miss the harder-to-get-to California version.) American Adventure. We've seen it. Once. I'm the only one of the four of us who wants to go back. My daughter likes the music. Big Thunder: Awesome. We ride as often as we can. Manion: Prior to the re-do, Mansion was a once-a-trip, maybe twice-a-trip attraction. Partly because my kids are scared of it after sunset, but partly because I'm the only one who really digs it, and that's mostly out of nostalgia. My wife, who first encountered Disney as an adult, doesn't "get" Mansion, but she "gets" most of the others. We'll have to see post re-do. Small World: a couple-of-times-per-trip attraction. Viewed more fondly by the family than Mansion, because the West Coast version was our kids' "first Disney attraction", and that singular moment carries some fond memories for us. But, it's those memories, not the attraction itself, that carries the day. So, we have a scale from AA (don't care) to Thunder/Pirates (awesome). I'll put the new attractions on your list on that scale, with our feelings today. Note that for everyone but me in my family, all of these attractions are relatively "as old as" the classics, because I'm the only one who has Disney experience prior to 2003. Test Track: awesome. We ride it as often as we can. Partly because the competition for my kids in Epcot is not stiff. Will it age well? Possibly not, but neither did World of Motion, which I thought was boring when it was new. Mission Space: my daughter likes it, my son and wife are afraid of it, so it's a once-a-visit attraction. I think it will age better than TT, because everyday space travel is still a ways off. But, it's not all that popular now, so who cares if it ages well? I think Disney over-shot their market with this one; had Universal installed it, it would be drawing much better crowds. It *sounded* like a good idea, but ended up *too much*. Soarin': Awesome, we ride it every chance we get, and have since we first rode DCA's in 2003. It's still a very moving experience for all of us, and while it is a screen, it is immersive and detailed enough that we always find something in it---it just "works better" than any of the other screen-based attractions because of the ride system. The music is one of the few that I make a point of keeping in my permanent ipod rotation. I think this one will age well. Everest: Awesome. We ride it every chance we get. Absolutely comparable to Thunder, and probably a winner in comparison. Will age incredibly well. Philharmagic: sort of in the Small World category for us. Nice, we definitely see it once or twice per trip, and everyone enjoys it, but not an over-and-over each trip sort of attraction. So, tallying the score: of your five classics, my family finds two clear winners, a solid performer, one that is tolerated for Dad's sake, and one dud. Of your five new attractions we find three clear winners (one certainly will age well, one *I* think will, and one probably won't), one solid performer (which probably won't sink to dud, but will continue to lose audience), and one ambitious dud. Doesn't look like a guy in a leather jacket on water skis to me. But, I'm sure I'll be dismissed as just an apologist for not toeing the party line. But, it's the way my family reacts to these attractions---just a data point, nothing more.
Originally Posted By Brian Noble >>>With the comments from the "purists" that have been so negative and sent the fear of instant death to all that haven't tried it, I will bet that it will be a long time before WDI has the desire to put that kind of money in a new attraction.<<< I think you over-state the influence of the Disneyana community. Of the tens of millions of people who visit WDW, how many do you think even buy a guidebook, let alone read Disneyana sites? Not many. Most guests have no contact with the World prior to arrival, other than through Disney channels.
Originally Posted By leobloom <Soarin': Awesome, we ride it every chance we get, and have since we first rode DCA's in 2003. It's still a very moving experience for all of us, and while it is a screen, it is immersive and detailed enough that we always find something in it---it just "works better" than any of the other screen-based attractions because of the ride system. The music is one of the few that I make a point of keeping in my permanent ipod rotation. I think this one will age well.> The fact that the ride system and the IMAX screen are totally exposed during loading really detracts from this ride. If they don't update the film, it'll become like Star Tours is today---only impressive to those people who have never been to WDW before. <Everest: Awesome. We ride it every chance we get. Absolutely comparable to Thunder, and probably a winner in comparison. Will age incredibly well.> I really like Everest, at least when the Yeti is in A mode, but I don't think it compares to the other Mountains. If I had one day to spend at WDW, it wouldn't pull me to DAK for it alone. Re: BTM vs. Everest: I was thinking that Everest doesn't have many show scenes (the temple-lift, the broken track, the cavern, the blink-and-you'll-miss-him Yeti), but BTM doesn't really have too many scenes either. BTM has the town of Tumbleweeds and various animals...but there aren't show scenes in the sense of Pirates and Mansion. Which makes it more difficult to explain why BTM is more immersive to me. I think it might be because BTM seems to disguise the coaster track better than Everest does. On Everest, during the helix, it's very obvious you're riding a roller-coaster, not a mine train. And yet, if there were only a couple of more show scenes in Everest, it would probably be an unqualified home run...it's certainly an attraction that could be plussed into that category. But for right now, I'd say it's just "really good", but not quite a home run like classic WDI attractions. Then again, the argument about the number of show scenes doesn't being to explain why Space Mountain is my favorite Mountain.
Originally Posted By Britain The Living Character Program a gimmick? Is Turtle Talk a one-trick pony that they just keep redressing or is it a substantial step in the evolution of WDI's three-dimensional animation? It's like saying, "Gosh, that Tiki Room thing was fun, but Lincoln is really just the same thing but with a person instead of birds. What's that? A ride full of animatronic Pirates? Give this animatronic gimmick a rest, will you Walt!" WDI was originally created to bring these crazy ideas Walt was having to life. It technically wasn't even owned by the Walt Disney Company (until Eisner folded it in to the rest of the company, I think). After Walt died it sort of started living two different lives: One, as a dream factory that nurtured Imagineers' own crazy ideas instead of Walt's; and the other, as a marketing tool wielded tightly by upper management, to create wallet-vacuuming machines. This dual nature of imagineering sometimes works complementary when WDI's creative ideas makes big money, but when they don't, it's hell. Yes, everything wrong at WDI can be traced back to Euro Disney's failure. Do you remember the news stories about how before opening, Eisner thought the hotel color was a shade too peachy and had them repaint the whole thing? That sounds a like a Walt-esque, "Quality will out" type of CEO, huh? Post-Euro Disney (and post-Frank Wells), Eisner became a different CEO. One that would never say, "Eh, paint it again, it's not quite right." Marketing projections, not creative ideas, became sacrosanct, and that corporate mindset has seeped into the company and remained there for a decade. Now, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. But that kind of directive from the top brass can be wisely or foolishly implemented by middle management. I've had supervisors who were under plenty of pressure to be profitable, and some were still nurturing and supportive of the creative process, while others saw it as the enemy, and tried to snuff it out. I'm sure everyone, not just people in "creative" professions, but everyone hates it when their boss leans over their shoulder and barks out orders. You can't be an inventive and effective performer when you are always being questioned. The real difference between OLC and TDA when it came to TDS and DCA isn't the budget, it's the emphasis placed on budget. OLC didn't have a blank check, but it acted as if it did. TDA's budget for a 2nd gate in Anaheim was quite hefty, but they acted as if they'd be happiest if they could get away with building a strip mall. Corporate culture takes a long time to change. We're still seeing the fruits of rattled imagineers trying to appease marketing executives. But give it time. In another ten years, things could be totally different.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I really like Everest, at least when the Yeti is in A mode, but I don't think it compares to the other Mountains. If I had one day to spend at WDW, it wouldn't pull me to DAK for it alone." You know, I had this same reaction to Everest as well - it's really fun, but I just don't care for it as much as Space or Thunder. I think the difference is that Space and Thunder are in a park full of classic Disney attractions - you can get off the ride and experience some of the greatest attractions ever created. You just don't get that at AK - I find that I enjoy a couple of attractions there, but not the vast majority. And they certainly don't draw me over there when I only have one day at the parks. Same can be said for MGM - I love Tower and Muppets, but I just don't want to waste precious time by travelling all the way there to do only a couple rides. When I only have a day at Disney, I only go to EPCOT and MK - and it's been that way for years now! Anyway, I guess that last comment sort of ties into what Spirit was saying -- it's kind of sad that the only parks that really draw me in are ones that were built over two decades ago -- and most of the stuff that really draws me was built that long ago as well. That doesn't say much for the current crop of Imagineers.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "The Living Character Program a gimmick?" Maybe not a gimmick, but I've personally never found it all that appealing. It's basically an advanced form of puppetry - you just can't see the ventriloquist because he's hidden from sight. You're basically talking to an actor playing a part - he's just using the AA or video screen as his persona instead of being in costume or talking through a puppet. The coolest thing about the AA's for me was that there was no human interaction at all - they were completely autonomous and you didn't need people staffed all the time to make them go. These new Living Characters do - and I just don't find it as impressive. Now, if they could come up with an AA with an advanced Artifical Intelligence that worked like these Living Characters -- now THAT would be amazing!! (And a little scary too!)
Originally Posted By barboy "Post-Euro Disney (and post-Frank Wells), Eisner became a different CEO. One that would never say, "Eh, paint it again, it's not quite right." Well, I seem to remember Eisner demanding Alien Encounter be retooled to be scarier after his first viewing when Magic Kingdom's Tomorrowland was redone in the second half of the 90's.
Originally Posted By DAR When I saw the title of this thread I thought "yes the Fonzi ride I wanted is finally coming true."
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: As usual, my sisters and I know exactly where you're coming from, as well as where you've already been, Spirit, duckling! Something is obviously wrong with the theme park leadership at Disney. Isn't his name Jay Rasulo? ORWEN: And I just wanna' say I coulda been one of Charlie's original Angels, if'n I had been drawn right! ORGOCH: Yeah, well, I coulda been Bosley--if'n the PAY'd been right!!
Originally Posted By vbdad55 The question is is it WDI that has the issue or is WDI just a microcosm of a larger talent drought. Look at the mess Television is right now. I was just asking this question the other day - while watching holiday reruns of old sitcoms -- from Andy Griffith to the Addams Family, Get Smart, Sanford & Son etc.. what reruns will people want to see from the least 10 - 15 years besides maybe Raymond? Will anyone want to watch a 10 year old rerun of any of the reality crap ? Most of the shows now take very little creativity to run - write. Isn't that what's troubling WDI also ? Now I think Everest has the same long term repetability as say BTMRR - but not Splash. Not bad though. HM - Potc etc come from an era when imagination ruled -- today everything is reality and with technology I am not so sure these types of attractions can be repeated. Listen to most people who think CoP is boring and not worthwhile. Even if they updated the scenes people today do not seem to want to take a chance of learning something ....would rather have an AA fart in their face...go figure. I think the change is way deeper than just WDI
Originally Posted By barboy "Now, if they could come up with an AA with an advanced Artifical Intelligence that worked like these Living Characters -- now THAT would be amazing!! (And a little scary too!)" I don't know about this "AI" stuff but I find several specific AA's to be quite life-like and most impressive: Wicked Witch of the West(Movie Ride) SIR(Alien Encounter/Stitch) Hopper(It's Tuff To Be A Bug) Cobra(Magic Lamp Theater--Disney Sea) Yeti(Exp. Ever) Jack Sparrows+Barbarosas(POC,DLR+MK) Buzz Ltyr in the queue(HK,Tokyo,Paris,DLR,MK) The Phantom(Phantom Manor, DLParis)
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Yes, everything wrong at WDI can be traced back to Euro Disney's failure. >> Actually, if you look a little deeper, you might find that WDI began to come under more scrutiny back when Splash Mountain was built for DL. WDI went over-budget by two times the amount that was originally planned. There are a number of anecdotes about a certain Disney executive being furious about the poor fiscal planning for that project. Who was that executive? Frank Wells. Immediately after Splash Mountain was built, the amount of oversight at WDI increased substantially. << The question is is it WDI that has the issue or is WDI just a microcosm of a larger talent drought. >> I think it is a microcosm of how poorly corporations manage human resources these days. Back when Walt Disney cobbled together the team to build Disneyland, he didn't map out specific skill sets to hire for specific tasks. He banded together the best artists, engineers, and jacks of all trades that he had available and then assigned them to create things that they probably had no experience ever doing before in their lifetime. Today, you would be hard pressed to find a position at WDI as a jack of all trades. You have to have specific experience in a specific discipline to perform specific work assignments. It's the same everywhere else in corporate america. People are no longer expected to do things outside of their narrow field of experience. I think a lot of innovation is lost by applying such a narrow minded scope to employees' work. So, at WDI, you end up with a bunch of different factions that don't work together all that well. There's the mechanical engineer, the set designer, the story board writer, the sculptor, the video technology guru, etc., etc. They all compete to make sure their particular skill set is relevant instead of collaborating and stepping out of their comfort zone to really create things that are out of this world. I see it every day in organizations and by every indication WDI operates exactly the same.
Originally Posted By leobloom <People are no longer expected to do things outside of their narrow field of experience. I think a lot of innovation is lost by applying such a narrow minded scope to employees' work.> Smartest thing said yet in this thread. Hire specialists and don't let them out of their boxes.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Listen to most people who think CoP is boring and not worthwhile. " And they may be right. CoP as a strict entertainment piece may be dull now. But the ideas of family, progress and optimism about the future have no reason to be. That is what is the problem in removing CoP and replacing it with a mind shriveling cartoon. You remove the heart of what these parks are about. "you might find that WDI began to come under more scrutiny back when Splash Mountain was built for DL." That was SUCH a disaster. When I mention that, people seem to totally brush it off.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Yes I did. Always had crushes on Dan Tanna and Dominic Lucca (name the shows where those characters appeared)>> Wasn't that Vegas? I never watched that regularly, but I recall it was another Aaron Spelling production. >> And she wound up as a Bond Girl too. You know what movie?<< <<Yes, I do. "View to a Kill" (1985) I think it was Moore's last movie as Bond.>> Yep. Very, very cheesy ... and Christopher Walken was over the top as the baddie, but at least the music was good thanks to Duran Duran.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Brian Noble's opinion is far more representative of the average WDW visitor than the opinions of the 'purists' here. Plus, Brian Noble's contribution was actually new and different and not just a rehash of the same old crud by the same old people that we usually see here. Brian Noble for President!!
