Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>--let me ask you this- when they decided to build the MK did they design everything completely differently ? No...who , alhtough he did not get to see the finished product directed those efforts up front? Or were they untrue to their legacy also ? Did they try and invent a new way of animating for 'every' picture they did ? <<<< Um... Actually... They did. I bare with the rest of your post, though. They have to be smart about it.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///complete unqiue attractions everywhere - completely unrealistic./// I disagree, It worked for DL Anaheim It worked for EPCOT Center before Soarin' clone It worked for MGM Studios before TSMM clone It worked for Animal Kingdom It worked for Disney Sea, mostly(it did have a couple of low level duplicates and one high level but very plussed up one)
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer And most importantly, it worked from DL to MK. MK was not a direct clone of DL in 1971. Save for FL, most was really different.
Originally Posted By barboy2 I forgot about MGM's Star Tours clone, sorry(but at least it did have an original set of props outside of the show building)
Originally Posted By leemac barboy2 - your examples aren't relevant. We are talking about a MK-style park here. There has been some replication in every single incarnation. We aren't talking about a second/third/fourth gate. EE - MK didn't directly lift from DL for a reason - it wouldn't have worked. A higher capacity park was required and there are other specific issues to the area like the high water table etc. Ultimately the bare bones of Disneyland are visible at MK - they were more tweaks than anything. Obviously there was a whole new land though. Cloning isn't a bad thing - the notion that every Disney resort should have unique attractions isn't workable - and even more compelling it isn't necessary. The number of folks that regularly visit all eleven parks is infinitesimal - it is about the guest experience. Attractions like POTC, HM, iasw, ToT, Soarin' etc. are hugely popular attractions that should become staples of all MK-style parks. The point is if it ain't broke don't fix it. Disneyland's Main Street and Sleeping Beauty Castle work beautifully - they are the right size for that park. The guests that visit every day aren't ever likely to experience another MK-style park (SDL is different) so why not give them something you know already works?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>EE - MK didn't directly lift from DL for a reason - it wouldn't have worked. A higher capacity park was required and there are other specific issues to the area like the high water table etc. Ultimately the bare bones of Disneyland are visible at MK - they were more tweaks than anything. Obviously there was a whole new land though. Cloning isn't a bad thing - the notion that every Disney resort should have unique attractions isn't workable - and even more compelling it isn't necessary. The number of folks that regularly visit all eleven parks is infinitesimal - it is about the guest experience. Attractions like POTC, HM, iasw, ToT, Soarin' etc. are hugely popular attractions that should become staples of all MK-style parks. The point is if it ain't broke don't fix it. Disneyland's Main Street and Sleeping Beauty Castle work beautifully - they are the right size for that park. The guests that visit every day aren't ever likely to experience another MK-style park (SDL is different) so why not give them something you know already works?<<<< Right on MK/DL, but it's also like they didn't totally redesign buildings, and start using new concepts in building the MK. DL's bones are there, you are right, but it's a given that they are. It's a MK park. They have to go off of the original. That's the only part of the park that they should be using, in that sense. Use the basis of the park, being layout, core, traditional, attractions and rides, and have the presentation and look of it be different. Not totally different, but at least allow a certain level of uniqueness to each park. Carbon copies of MSUSAs and Castles don't do that. Even if guests don't see it, it still goes against Disney's own level of creativity, and their "resume", if you will. Who wants to say we built HM A, B, and C, when you can build a DL HM, a MK HM, a DLP PM, and now, a MM in HKDL. Tokyo's HM is just a clone of WDW's. At least between the latter four I mentioned, there is underlying similarity, (because a HM without that spirit, or "bones", as you say, isn't what the MK needs...) but there are differences in facade, ride length, and even storyline. The same goes for out PoTC. I'm happy ours is different, even if it's a tad shorter. We have a queue and a building that makes up for it. In the end, though, it's just the fact that they need to be creative and unique when building new attractions. I'm not saying for them to go out of their way, and not to fix anything that isn't broke, but at the heart of it, leaving something to be EXACTLY the same in each park cheapens your product.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 You're right. It reminds people of McDonald's. The same plastic tasting low grade product everywhere. I fear within a few decades McDisneylands will be popping up in every third world country from India to Uzbekistan.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^ I don't think it will ever get that bad, but I do think that they do clone things too often. Hopefully SDL is totally different, as it's been described as.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It reminds people of McDonald's.>> Right - it is exactly the same. One corporation has 31,000 properties worldwide and the other has five. Huge similarities.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Even if guests don't see it, it still goes against Disney's own level of creativity, and their "resume", if you will. Sorry - and your point is? If guests don't see it - and 100m annually can't be wrong, right? - then what difference does it make? And seriously - it affects their resume? Creativity for the sake of creativity is inherently costly. TWDC is a profitable corporation. Spending millions to redesign a MSUSA just for "creativity's sake" is a nonsensical notion. DLP had a wonderful MSUSA - but did they need to spend tens of millions of dollars deliberately trying to "reinvent" the concept? With the example at hand - what difference to the average guest does HKDL replicating MSUSA and the Castle have? Absolutely none.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 You're right. It reminds people of McDonald's. The same plastic tasting low grade product everywhere. ------ except for a few fanbois here who does it affect like this? What % of people who attend WDW will EVER see Tokyo DL- DLP - HK etc ? very very small- so I think there is a lot of hyperbole about generics here that apply to a very small audience. Disney is not going to build unique buildings for MK's around the world for <1% of attendees - it just isn't going to happen and really has little application. - most people I know view me as a Disney 'nut' and yet this ISSUE you see doesn't affect me at all- what are the chances it affects almost anyone else ? Most people I know take their kids once in their childhood to either DL or WDW - maybe twice so I doubt they'd be overcome with griefthat buildings might look somewhat the same- or even remember that much. funny McDonalds having banner years right now as they get ripped here for being the same everywhere- having had my wife work in Mcd's corp offices for 17 years- one of the MAIN goals is consistency in product delivery- that is what consumers value and it is showing in record growth and profits.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 With the example at hand - what difference to the average guest does HKDL replicating MSUSA and the Castle have? Absolutely none ------------------ logic has no place in the land of pixie dust apparently - and you are dead on
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>One corporation has 31,000 properties worldwide and the other has five. Huge similarities.<<< The generalization is... Homogenous product.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Creativity for the sake of creativity is inherently costly. TWDC is a profitable corporation. Spending millions to redesign a MSUSA just for "creativity's sake" is a nonsensical notion. DLP had a wonderful MSUSA - but did they need to spend tens of millions of dollars deliberately trying to "reinvent" the concept? <<< It's not creativity for the sake of it Lee, it's about living up to their goals as a company. They are in the brand of storytelling... and while it's necessary for the stories to be similar, why should they tell the same story, over and over again? They can do it, WITH costs in mind. They did it for MK and DL, and in DLP. HK shouldn't be the "Disneyland Lite", and done without creativity, and on the cheap.
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ sorry dude then you haven't visited more than one MK. The notion that all 5 of the MKs are entirely "homogeneous" is ridiculous. At the very minimum there is local influence on the park - particularly with entertainment. The same thing that might work in Florida might not fly in Tokyo and vice versa. McD's are typically homogeneous within a country - you don't often come across intra-country variances - but even McD's make changes (sometimes significant changes to their menus) across borders. You need to be aware of your target audience.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>With the example at hand - what difference to the average guest does HKDL replicating MSUSA and the Castle have? Absolutely none<<< So, Disney should cater to the average. Just because Joe Shmo won't notice, means that we can't do that. I think that it's that attitude exactly, is what is bracing up creativity in the company. Disney USED to put differences and details into their work, and it WAS noticed. Not by all, but by those who did, it made the experience that much more evocative of quality and of what Disney wants to do. Now, I'm not saying that I'm out here in "pixie dust land" thinking that the company should overspend on EVERYTHING just to be different, and new, and creative, but I do think that the same funds can be applied to a similar structure or attraction. See DL's and MK's HM. Or our Pirates. Same goes for details and effects in the park. Not OVERLY needed, but there needs to be a return to intricacy. We have not seen that in a while.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>> The notion that all 5 of the MKs are entirely "homogeneous" is ridiculous. At the very minimum there is local influence on the park - particularly with entertainment. The same thing that might work in Florida might not fly in Tokyo and vice versa. <<< Did I say that they were ENTIRELY homogenous? Nope... But the fact is, the same Castle and MSUSA are, you don't have to visit to know that. Agreed, though, that the entertainment, and even mood differs. That's a good thing. The issue, for me, is that the structures don't differ, and that, is a very large issue.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It's not creativity for the sake of it Lee, it's about living up to their goals as a company. They are in the brand of storytelling... and while it's necessary for the stories to be similar, why should they tell the same story, over and over again?>> Firstly you fail to grasp what their "goals" are then - product needs to be international now - when they opt to make a movie or TV show it needs to be portable - either directly or via local remakes. I don't see anything in their "goals" to say you need to reinvent the wheel. Secondly the hyperbole is entirely unnecessary. "Over and over again" - seriously we are taking about 5 Magic Kingdoms in the world. That is one per 1.3 billion people. That is hardly repetition. EE I thought you were smarter than this. No idea what kind of lawyer you want to be but if it is in the commercial arena then I suggest you start brushing up on your Business 101 as you are failing right now. No company allows their creative ideals to run the place - it would be a recipe for disaster. Just look at Pixar - they are happy to make substantial changes to their movies mid-production to make them more commercial (Ratatouille and Brave).
Originally Posted By leemac <<So, Disney should cater to the average. >> There is a difference between catering to the average and catering to the average guest. WDP&R should be focusing on the average guest - it is those folks that make up the bulk of visitors. WDP&R shouldn't be focusing their attentions on guests like you - unless it is a by-product of reaching regular Joes.
