Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't understand the need for high brow sophistication in a fun park. I go there to find my inner child, not carry along the baggage I live with everyday.<< If you'd ever visit Disneyland in the late 60s and early 70s, you'd have seen that there was a really nice balance. It wasn't "highbrow" but it was more sophisticated. Especially in Tomorrowland, which was like a park unto itself, there was energy and wonder. You left Tomorrowland imagining and wondering if, someday in the future, there would be a world of PeopleMovers and Monorails and vacations in space. You wondered what would be possible in a future when, according to Disneyland, ANYthing was possible. Of course there were characters in the park. But most of the rides, attractions and shows didn't have those characters as the focal point. Disneyland was telling stories about history, fantasy, adventure, the future. Characters such as the pirates, ghosts in the mansion, the skipper of the subs and others were created as part of these attractions. Times change, and the modern audience demands more characters. That's not "wrong" exactly, but it is quite different from the original intention of the park. For some of us, it means recalibrating our Disney compass from where we thought true North was. It's difficult to do, having experienced the park during that exciting, innovative era. Increasingly it has become more and more about the kids, not so much stuff "for the whole family." On some of the new additions, I can picture Walt on a bench while his daughters ride, which is exactly the thing he was trying to change with Disneyland.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo i have put a post up on the WDW board about our recent trip to the English Space Centre last weekend. It felt very much like the tomorrowland I knew and loved (minus rides - though there were a couple sort of). My kids are still talking about it today, and drawing rocket ships and building lego spaceships. This is how DL used to inspire me when I was there age. After a trip to a Disney park, the kids talk a little about it, but not in the same way. It seems very short term. Is there actually a danger of Disney becoming an age related fad like Chucky Cheese?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And yet over in the MK, they now have a princess meet and greet set up in Adventureland and a Mickey and Minnie in normal clothes in Tomorrowland. That for me is a real WTF moment, remembering that Walt wanted the utilidors in the MK because he hated seeing a cowboy in tomorrowland on his break.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "For some of us, it means recalibrating our Disney compass from where we thought true North was." Some of us seem to be having more trouble recalibrating than others. It's time to either just accept the way things are or move on. You can't mourn "the way it was" forever.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Now you have me singing I don"t want to grow up I'm a ToysRUs kid...And then I want to go to ChuckECheese for lunch and not have to register as I enter and what happened to CECheese anyway? Are they touring with the CCBear Jamborees?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I was always hopefully that if we campaigned and got a critical mass together the management team might listen. Now I am thinking it is futile. I will treat Disney as something for the kids and look forward to other activities with them now too. We are going to try a Seine Cruise and maybe visit the Louvre on our upcoming visit to Disneyland Paris.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Some of us seem to be having more trouble recalibrating than others. It's time to either just accept the way things are or move on. You can't mourn "the way it was" forever.<< That's really true. I am at the "acceptance" stage, more or less. And trying hard to realize that since the parks are more popular and crowded than ever, Disney is providing what the majority of people today want. I know that the way I wish it was is not the majority view, and there's not a thing I can do about that. I bellyache here on the boards about the way I wish it was (specifically Tomorrowland), because that's part of what the boards are here for. Kindered spirits and armchair Imagineering and all that. But I can still go to the parks and enjoy myself and I don't spend a moment discussing any of this stuff.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That's really true. I am at the "acceptance" stage, more or less. And trying hard to realize that since the parks are more popular and crowded than ever, Disney is providing what the majority of people today want. I know that the way I wish it was is not the majority view, and there's not a thing I can do about that.> I'm not so sure that's true (but also not sure we can do anything about it). Attendance is up (at DL, anyway), mostly because of AP's, as far as I can see. If the current management had kept more to Walt's vision, I think the place would be just as crowded - maybe more. I'd like to think so, anyway.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost That's kind of the way I see it. There are many things that have gone by the wayside that I miss, but there are three or four times more things to see then when I first visited in 1983. Epcot is now my favorite park...back then I thought it sucked big time. They took out things I liked (Imagination, Motion and so on. Still I like it there. Dave...I know that something happened to you that ruined the experience for you and you are choosing the absolute proper path for you and that is to target your interests elsewhere. When I get that feeling that's what I intend to do. No harm, no foul...that is a personal choice. For me, I still see things that fascinate me. Things that educate me. Things that amuse me and most importantly things that I enjoy. That's why I continue to go back and discount the things that aren't the same anymore. I have changed...it has changed. It's the (get ready for this cause it's sappy) the cycle of life.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Sorry, I forgot that this was a DCA thread so my references are WDW (Disney general) related. But it still represents my feelings on the subject.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Times change, and the modern audience demands more characters. That's not "wrong" exactly, but it is quite different from the original intention of the park.>> I do believe that DCA was too sterile in the opening moments without any character tie-ins. On a different plane, with the advent of character meet & greet themed environments, that in of itself, increases guest demand for character interaction.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Parents, I feel, tend to plan vacations more around their kids nowadays more so than in the past. In the past, I think it was more like "We're going here on vacation, and you're coming whether you like it or not Billy and Suzie!" Now it's more like "Where could we go that would make little Billy and Suzie the happiest?" Most kids freak out about characters way more than anything else. Nothing makes them happier than giving Goofy a high five or hugging Mickey. And it's really fun watching your kids and grandkids interact with the characters. That's why I think the characters are coming more and more.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And the changes to DCA are no more radical than the changes to MGM in its first dozen years.<< The changes being made in this concentrated three year period (2009-2012), and the amount of money being spent, are unlike anything in the "first dozen years" of Disney-MGM, or any other theme park. Even Disneyland, the first of its kind, wasn't radically altered in such a short time period. Again, no one has suggested that changes to a Disney theme park are unprecedented. But the level of change, and the amount being spent at once, is unprecedented. >>So this "b-but... MGM got better numbers, and that's why they built" is a distinction without a difference...<< It's a distinction, and a difference. A crucial difference, really. Disney-MGM was changed to meet demand; DCA has been changed in an effort to create demand. (P.S. I don't stammer or mutter when discussing this topic.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Weird. When I was a kid, the characters were way down on my list of "to-do's." I was just shy of 6 on my first visit, and I knew they were people in costumes. And what little interest I had dissipated when I discovered that the rubberheads couldn't even talk to you, just mime. My response: "I wanna drive the cars!!" (i.e. the Autopia).
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I don't understand the need for high brow sophistication in a fun park.<< If one thinks of the Disney theme parks as merely "fun parks," this makes sense. But the original intention was to go beyond that. Disney parks are supposed to be a "show." Good shows are more than just fun for the kiddies. A good show appeals to multiple demographics. The problem with many parks is the loss of the sense of show.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Some of us seem to be having more trouble recalibrating than others. It's time to either just accept the way things are or move on. You can't mourn "the way it was" forever.<< I don't know that we "mourn" things here. so much as question why we should simply accept what is presented.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Weird. When I was a kid, the characters were way down on my list of "to-do's."<< I only ever saw the Disney costumed characters on TV. To my mind they were actors, not actually Mickey and Minnie and so on. I became aware of the huge appeal of the characters on my first visit to the Magic Kingdom, when I was a grad student. People were literally pushing and shoving to get next to those characters! It was strange to me. In some ways, it still is. But I understand it, and think the direction Disney is going (more formal meet 'n greets) is the right way.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>And the changes to DCA are no more radical than the changes to MGM in its first dozen years.<< <The changes being made in this concentrated three year period (2009-2012), and the amount of money being spent, are unlike anything in the "first dozen years" of Disney-MGM, or any other theme park. Even Disneyland, the first of its kind, wasn't radically altered in such a short time period.> I disagree. In these three years we'll have a new land, a re-worked entrance, and some additions to existing lands. DL 1956-1959 added more than that. The NE corner may not have been a new land per se, but it's as large as Carsland and had 3 E-tickets, not just one. Also added during that period were major features as TSI, the skyway, the Columbia, the re-worked canal boats, the Grand Canyon, Alice, the junior and midget autopias, and more. In just 1966-67 they completely re-did TL, plus added the new land of NOS, Pirates, iasw, the Primeval World... The reason I picked a dozen years for MGM is because it's an even number that roughly corresponds to DCA's first dozen. Most of MGM's changes were compressed into even less time than that. >>So this "b-but... MGM got better numbers, and that's why they built" is a distinction without a difference...<< <It's a distinction, and a difference. A crucial difference, really. Disney-MGM was changed to meet demand; DCA has been changed in an effort to create demand.> The motivation doesn't matter to me on this level - I'm only looking at the question of if it's unprecedented or not. It's not. Especially because if the park-hopper paradigm hadn't been set, and WDW's demographic was similar to DLR's, there wouldn't have been the demand there either. How many people do you think would have paid full fare for MGM in 1989? Not many, when the MK and EPCOT were there for the same price. But the demographic and settled paradigm WERE different. So you have to rely on an apple and orange comparison to get to "unprecedented," which makes it worthless. <(P.S. I don't stammer or mutter when discussing this topic.)> Foam?
