Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<The problem here is that you don't want something new. You want a rehash of the old stuff.>> Don't tell me what I want. I'll tell you what I want. It's very simple. Quality, creative, immersive attractions that tell stories and take me to different times and places. In other words, what Disney has done best for decades. I don't simply want a 'rehash' of old stuff. <<Times change, people change, demand changes.>> You sound like a Disney consultant. (seriously) First it was Generation X (which I am a member of), then the MTV attention lack-of-attention-span, then it was the GameBox crowd ... now, what is it? The I-pod, I-phone Generation? It's funny how times change, people change ... and everything changes (Lost reference) yet some of Disney's most popular attractions remain Mansion (Class of '69), Pirates (Class of 67), Small World (Class of '64) and Peter Pan (Class of '55). And they're popular with folks from 7 to 87 ... still. In 2007. Why is that? It sure contradicts your point ... and many of the lousy ones tossed around the halls of Flower Street. <<I love the old shows but the general public is bored with them.>> Based on what? <<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.>> I don't believe I've heard anyone here utter such a statement. <<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.>> Walt may (and we don't know) have loved the technology behind Mission Space. But I'm not sure he'd have liked the attraction. I don't believe when he died that there was a single film-based attraction at DL (I believe America The Beautiful was about to open.) Mission Space could have and should have been so much more ... it should have taken you to a space base on Mars where other attractions (maybe even a film), dining and (of course) retail existed. Instead it is a very expensive technology that has 50% wasted by being turned off. And, even if someone argues that it can be reprogrammed, we all know the reality. That's what the Imagineers behind these kind of projects say to get them greenlighted. Once they have their projects, nothing gets done. That's why HISTA is still playing, a good 7-8 years past when it should have been pulled. That's why Body Wars is boarded up instead of taking you on a different adventure and that's why Captain Rex is still (at least until it FINALLY closes next year) doing trips to the Moon of Endor. Film based attractions simply don't hold up as well as ride-based ones do. <<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.>> Trust me. WDI doesn't base its spending habits on what is written here. Although this stuff does get read in Glendale and Burbank. If Jay Rasulo has a sponsor and Tom Fitzgerald has designed a $200 million film-based attraction, it'll get done even if everyone here hates the idea. <<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.>> Yeah. You see that's what I want to see -- progress. No one will convince me Stitch's Great Fart Contest, Monsters Lack of Comedy Club, The No Imagination WhatSoever Pavilion and The New and Improved Touchscreen SSE (see, geeks, we brought back Horizons for you, took its weakest part and stuck it where it doesn't belong!) are examples of progress ... no, I believe they're examples of regression.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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?>> I think it's a gimmick. An expensive toy ... a great 'let's send it on the road to Hong Kong to mask the fact we're either too cheap or too creatively bereft to build real Disney attractions.' <<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!">> No. I think there's no real comparison. AA tech allowed Disney to do incredible shows and then move on to immersive ride-thru enviromments. The LCP has done nothing of the sort. We have Crush, dudes. And we have Monsters in T-land, dudes. And we have Stitch running amuck in Hong Kong, and soon in Paris, dudes. And WALL*E is on the way. But they're all the same. You sit. You watch. Maybe you laugh. And if you have a cute kid or a bald head, maybe you get to 'interact' with the actor. It's all the same. There's no great leap forward. You aren't actively particpating despite what you're spoon-fed by marketing. You're passive. Just like going to watch Harry Potter or Enchanted at the theater. Much the same way that Disney's 3D films of today (PhilhaMagic) really aren't all that different from their first efforts. AAs went from simple birds to President Lincoln to wild Pirates and grim, grinning ghosts to, IMHO the most spectacular use of them, telling the story of America in 35 minutes. <<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). >> Not true. WED was owned by WDP. You're thinking of MAPO. <<Yes, everything wrong at WDI can be traced back to Euro Disney's failure.>> First of all, I can argue all day that Euro Disney wasn't a failure. But that's not worth doing yet again. The problems at WDI began when Frank Wells died and Eisner became gunshy based on a lot of things (likely his heart problems as well as business) but most of all the ABC takevover. ME always wanted to own a network and he got one. That took his attention away from the parks when they really needed him most. <<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.>> I've never heard it quite put that way, but you're 100% correct. That was the 'tude in the TDA building back in those late 90s days. They thought they could get away with anything. <<Corporate culture takes a long time to change. We're still seeing the fruits of rattled imagineers trying to appease marketing executives.>> Yeah, that's true ... to an extent. But it's largely sytemic problems from the top down. Jay Rasulo runs the parks yet has no use for them. He takes no joy in them. He doesn't appreciate them. You'll never see him in one if it isn't for a media op or during an investor's conference. Yet, he is steering the ship ... I also don't get why people aren't down on him. He really is quite a vile, crude person yet Paul Pressler, who was/is a very nice person on a human level even if he had no business running the theme parks, was the subject of so much venom from the fans. Paul enjoyed the parks. Really. He enjoyed being in them with his family. Really. But I'm digressing as usual ... it starts with Jay and then falls all throughout the upper management of both P&R and WDI. That's why we get crappy attractions. I recall John Lasseter was quoted as saying something to the effect of 'we're not going to build lousy attractions anymore' when he first greeted the troops at WDI ... yet almost two years after getting his leadership role, I don't see much to show that statement has any bite. <<But give it time. In another ten years, things could be totally different.>> Well, the way our country is being run, I wonder if any of us will be around in 10 years to worry about the state of Disney parks (anyone see them tasering and pepper spraying the populice in New Orleans today ... you know where only 1/10th of one percent of the funds that the Federal government was supposed to be sending for Katrina relief has ever made it ... I bet we spend that much in a day in Iraq ... nah, an hour. ... Oops, went off-track sorry ...) Yeah ... WDI ...
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 "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. >> Yep, Jon, it was waaaay overbudget BUT let's also not forget that it least was successful both creatively with the public and as a driver of higher attendance. Also, you'd likely be shocked at how much money those end-of-ride image-capture pics earn so that helped ease the pain. As opposed to say something like Rocket Rods that was just a total waste of millions and millions of dollars and is still giving with its decrepit, empty track looming over T-land.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Brian Noble's opinion is far more representative of the average WDW visitor than the opinions of the 'purists' here.>> Based upon what exactly, Trippy? And I don't necessarily disagree, but I doubt you can back that statement up. <<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.>> So you like new crud better? Makes you sound like a 'typical' WDW visitor, Trippy ;-) Oh, and no disrespect Brian, you're just telling about your family's opinions of attractions.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN <<<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.<< DING! DING! DING! It was 'Vegas', long before Cheryl Ladd made the current Vegas show with James Caan watchable. As for the other character... it was "SWAT", Lucca was played by my teen dreamboat Mark Shera. Both SWAT and Vegas were Spelling productions, and they Robert Urich (who was also a SWAT regular) made a cameo appearance as Tanna on Charlie's Angels' 3rd season opener, feat. Dean Martin... with Kate's best line ever on the show, "You can't bet your life on a pair of dice!!" Oh the telememories...
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>Don't tell me what I want.<< This is why I am dismayed at the Spice Girls getting back together again.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Wasn't that Vegas?< Dan Tanna was played by the late great Robert Urich, who also hosted a really great Christmas music special back in '93. If you're good to me, TDLFAN, I just might find it in my heart to run you a dvd of it! I might also be persuaded to include my recording of Donna Summer singing live in D/MGM!!!
Originally Posted By TDLFAN But I *am* good to you, that's why I keep reminding you about your weight problem, so that slight heart palpitation doesn't get any worse!!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I sense a thawing in the steely cold relationship between Danny and TDLFAN! I guess Donna really can bring nations together!
Originally Posted By mousermerf Quick note on M:S... The space sat empty for too long, way too long, and people really liked Horizons. Working at Epcot in the months leading up to the opening of M:S, people still wandered around future world wondering where the ride with this or that was.. it was always Horizons they couldn't find but remembered. So that part of the deck was firmly stacked against M:S - creating expectations that it'd be nearly impossible to achieve. M:S is an "ok" ride built on the grave of a really good ride. If they built M:S on an empty plot in Future World, people would view it as the "ok" ride. Did you know it's ridership is very much inline with another "ok" attraction - Energy? Anywho, we can see the opposite over at Soarin. Most people wouldn't give a crap if you had painted mural of Food Rock's characters tied down and being tortured while you built Soarin. It wasn't a particularly good attraction. Soarin opens and impresses all the folks who never saw it in DCA (seriously, with how bad it sounds online, would you want to visit DCA if you were a WDW regular?) Expectations were low and were surpassed.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The problems at WDI began when Frank Wells died and Eisner became gunshy based on a lot of things (likely his heart problems as well as business) but most of all the ABC takevover. >> Not really the case. As I stated in a previous post, Frank Wells was actually responsible for implementing a great deal of fiscal and organizational oversight at WDI after the Splash Mountain debacle. Some of these things were amplified in the mid-90s when Disney's animated films stopped minting money like there was no end to it. It's pretty easy for a company like Disney to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into theme park attractions when they're making billions of dollars in profit on a relatively cheap animated film and don't have to really worry about return on investment. The cash flow climate changed significantly after the Lion King cash cow wore out and they started to think a lot harder about how and where they were spending their money. There were some really good years there when people just spent money like crazy because it was falling into their lap like manna from heaven. Those days are over and really have nothing to do with either Michael Eisner or Frank Wells.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip "<<Brian Noble's opinion is far more representative of the average WDW visitor than the opinions of the 'purists' here.>> Based upon what exactly, Trippy? And I don't necessarily disagree, but I doubt you can back that statement up." If I wanted to spend the time I'm sure I could. Disney always ranks very highly in customer satisfaction surveys. In my mini-search I didn't find anything on the Theme Parks, but folks sure seem satisfied with the Disney hotels. <<MMHI Top-Hospitality Rankings 1Q 2007 Car Rental: Enterprise Hotel Overall: Walt Disney World Resorts Airline: JetBlue Luxury Hotels: Ritz-Carlton Upper Upscale: Walt Disney World Resorts Upscale Hotels: Homewood Suites Midscale w/ F&B: Holiday Inn Select Midscale w/o F&B: Hampton Inns & Suites Economy Hotels: Microtel Inns & Suites Timeshare Accommodations: Disney Vacation Club Upscale Casino: Bellagio Casino: Rio Hotel Reservations Website-Hotel Brand: W Hotels Hotel Reservations Website-Travel: Hotwire.com>> Source: <a href="http://aboutus.enterprise.com/file/138/Market_Metrix_May07.pdf" target="_blank">http://aboutus.enterprise.com/ file/138/Market_Metrix_May07.pdf</a> Of course the purists don't think much of Disney's hotels either... I don’t have any problem with occasional criticism of WDW… lord knows TDLFAN takes his shots, but he also doesn’t hesitate when he sees something good. The Spirit used to be that way too, but lately seems pretty down on anything having to do with Disney.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What's a 'manna'?>> Someone isn't up on his Bible stories... Main Entry: man·na Pronunciation: \ˈma-nə\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek, from Hebrew mān Date: before 12th century 1 a: food miraculously supplied to the Israelites in their journey through the wilderness b: divinely supplied spiritual nourishment c: a usually sudden and unexpected source of gratification, pleasure, or gain
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Sorry, just finished reading all this and how could they update Soarin' Over California. Earthquake and fire changes to the landscape? Unless they did Soarin' Over .... like maybe some of the countries from WS? I'd like that. They could bring back the scene from Timekeeper where I got to fly over Neuschwanstein Castle.
Originally Posted By barboy Oh God no! This talk about Soarin' is really disturbing..... why do so many accept that attraction in EPCOT? There should have been a full-scale boycott. Hey, I've got a great idea....... maybe Disney could build California Screamin' in front of Italy that passes by USA and reaches the Japan pavilion.
Originally Posted By Brian Noble >>>Brian Noble for President!!<<< Sadly, I have committed enough "youthful indiscretions" that I am unelectable. ;-) >>>no disrespect Brian<<< None taken! >>>If they built M:S on an empty plot in Future World, people would view it as the "ok" ride. Did you know it's ridership is very much inline with another "ok" attraction - Energy?<<< Given the amount of money spent on M:S, and the fact that it's not yet five years old, I'd guess the Powers That Be view this as a total disaster.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Maybe I wasn't clear, I meant to leave Soarin' where it is, but periodically change it to, Over Italy, Over Germany, or whatever landscape would be interesting. I didn't suggest putting it in WS, just using some of the WS, or other, countries as the subject of Over.
