Originally Posted By vbdad55 I think there is a difference though between a singular ride which is an experience unto itself- and a 'self immersive ' land. I do think you have to have some knowledge or liking. Think of WWoHP- one can like the 3 rides - but what about the rest of the experience ? They are not 'selling' the three rides there as really only 1 is unique- they are selling Diagon Alley- Olivanders - Butter Beer etc etc. that is why the place is so popular, not 2 rethemed coasters and a cool new ride.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed, though if it is done properly, it can make a huge difference. My wife did not know much of the world of Dr Suess. After a visit to IOA, she fell in love with the place and acquainted herself very quickly with the stories and made sure our kids grew up with them. I think this can happen too. Personally, I prefer attractions and lands not to be linked to IPR, but if done right, this to me is more exciting than the WWOHP (though I confess, the look of WWOHP reminds me of a lot of places I work, if I lived in the US, I would likely be more interested) or FLE or most projects in Florida. I would be more excited if it were beastly kingdom, or Oceania, or the american west or something else. But still, at least it is a cool and masculine setting, unrelated to child centric IPR. Rare for WDI these days.
Originally Posted By Manfried Does it really matter if an attraction is based on a movie or not if it is a fun attraction?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed. Though if I could have a preferrence, it would be for it not to be linked to a film property.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "But still, at least it is a cool and masculine setting, unrelated to child centric IPR. Rare for WDI these days." Or feminine interest related. As a mutual acquaintance and I discussed last Sunday, since there seems to be a less than average number of straight imagineers at Disney these days, we seem to only get princess and girly related attractions. Yes, the correlation HAS been noted.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Well, I didn't want to cast such broad aspersions. But I think it has been as while since we have seen some cool masculine offerings (though sexuality shouldn't really have a bearing on it - we have known some of the eligable bachelors of WDI to produce some awesome work over the decades.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<we seem to only get princess and girly related attractions>> I'm pretty sure this has more to do with direction from the top of the company, and less to do with the sexuality of the Imagineers. I'm sure there have been plenty of masculine ideas tossed around the corridors of WDI, only to be left on the cutting room floor in favor if the latest Princess or Toon craze thanks to Disney Management decisions.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper ^^^I dunno. I'd call M:S, Everest, DAK in general, an updated Star Tours, and LMA are all fairly "masculine". But really, I don't think the problem is lack of masculinity, it's lack of quality.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Right again Hokie. The original generation of Imagineers were made up of fathers, husbands, mothers, wives, and yes, gay. No big deal. Their art speaks for itself. The difference was that they all understood what entertained the guests of that era. If anything they were all ahead of themselves and their creations, created for contemporary audiences, continue to live on delighting many today. The same cannot be said for the current crack pot crew of designers. Again, folks from all walks of life. Unfortunately, their fringe taste and preferences do not translate to today's Disney audience, nor do I think they will ever have the longevity of the creations from the past. Some of which are openly mocked by the same current imagineers, or at least they were until Retro became in vogue at fanboy conventions.
Originally Posted By ChiMike UGGGHH!!! >>The original generation of Imagineers were made up of fathers, husbands, mothers, wives, and yes, gay<< ... and yes, gay individuals.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip What, pray tell, is a "masculine attraction"? The whole concept sounds goofier than hell to me!
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>There is always a chance that the Avatar sequels could pan out like the Matrix sequels. Would not be good for AK.<<< I could easily see that happening.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Does it really matter if an attraction is based on a movie or not if it is a fun attraction?<<< Yes. Placement is paramount in a Disney Park. Would you think POTC was a great fit for EPCOT?
Originally Posted By Manfried <<Yes. Placement is paramount in a Disney Park. Would you think POTC was a great fit for EPCOT?>> No, and this is just a silly absolute. Furthermore, POTC was not based on a movie. However, if the movie tie-in works and the attraction is right, who cares? And yes, I think Nemo works fine in the Seas Pavilion.
Originally Posted By Manfried <<>>The original generation of Imagineers were made up of fathers, husbands, mothers, wives, and yes, gay<< ... and yes, gay individuals.>> I need to speak to this. I don't think it matters whether a person is gay or not, though I will admit there is a larger percentage of gay than at other companies. That said, what I find lacking is the larger percentage of actual artists and designers. All there seems to be nowadays are "producers." Many of them are gay too. I guess my question is, what kinds of talents should Imagineering be hiring?
Originally Posted By ChiMike You know Manfried, that is exactly what I think. I tried to be clear in my post that persuasion does not matter. In the 60's the art spoke for itself. The issue is that the ''producers'' they currently have while straight or gay have no concept of what is popular to mainstream audiences, which like it or not, make up most of the Disney guest population, and are the very mainstream people who are willing to pay $$$$ for Disney vacation packages. I think you hit the nail on the head. Harry Potter was successful for it's appeal and the artistry/design backing up the end product. Disney on almost personnelonel levels, has simply lost the pulse of their own customers. When this happens, which it is, things as big as Avatar creep in, as well as, things as small as a pointless HM queue. Its simply not the best way to deliver new ideas to Disney's audience.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Disney on almost all personnel levels. To answer your question, Manfried, it is my own belief that they need again to pull more folks from theater, film, animation, and clean house of all the technocrats who have outstayed their welcome. There are plenty of great artists still present in Glendale, they just have little to no impact on the direction of the """"producers""""
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>No, and this is just a silly absolute. Furthermore, POTC was not based on a movie. However, if the movie tie-in works and the attraction is right, who cares? And yes, I think Nemo works fine in the Seas Pavilion<<< It's an absolute, yes, but it still says a lot about how theme and presentation works. Disney's parks are better than just FUN STUFF HERE. They are organic, they tell stories, they flow. Nemo fits the sea, sure, be he doesn't fit the future. (world)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Much of Future World never was about the future. Universe of Energy, Horizons, World of Transportation and Spaceship Earth all concentrated on the past and just provided a brief glimpse of what the future might hold... Horizons providing more of a glimpse than the other attractions.
