Originally Posted By Doobie Maybe times have changed but when I was growing up (I'm 37 now) and was looking forward to a trip to DL with my relatives, we were looking forward to Mansion and (and I shudder at the thought now) Pirates. I don't think the characters were in our minds at all - at least not that I remember (maybe when I was very young). Also remember anticipating Adventure Thru Inner Space, the Monorail, Big Thunder and the Matterhorn. The only character based attraction I remember looking forward to was Peter Pan.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Totally with you, Doobie. When I was a little kid I most looked forward to Pirates, HM, the Matterhorn, the (original) subs, Jungle Cruise, the Mine Train, the autopia... I loved the FaL dark rides too, but they were somewhere down the list. Seeing the walkarounds was WAY down my list, even as a small kid.
Originally Posted By dshyates When I was a kid what I remember most was that everything just blew my mind. The hotel (poly), the monorail, the Castle, 20k leagues, HM, and Jungle Cruise, etc. I thought WDW was the coolest place on the planet. And Mickey Mouse got to live there. It wasn't the coolest place on the planet BECAUSE Mickey Mouse lived there.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<I'm a DVC member. We go to Disney twice a year, east coast or west, and haven't paid for a hotel room in years.>> Uh, don't you have to pay an annual fee?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "...postcard creations of reality are why I fell in love with Disney." You fell in love with Disney because of the DCA main entrance?? That's fine by me, but you may want to know that they are going to tear out your favorite part. : ) (For what it's worth, I think the DCA entrance is really one of Disney's best creations in recent years. The problem is that it looked good from a distance, but not upclose. If they had put something better on the back of the murals and inside the buildings, along with something a little more substantial in the 'hub' area, we wouldn't have this problem today. "I do not believe that Disney would ever allow their properties to deteriorate, they are Disney." While they may not be physically deteriorating to the point that they are on the verge of collapse, Disney has certainly allowed many of their different properties to deteriorate in quality over the past several years. Shutting attractions and not replacing them leads to less quality for the same price. Sure, that's a little harder to translate to DVC, but it could mean closing a pool or a restuarant. These may not seem like huge things, but they certainly take away from the overall quality of the experience. "Saying that "only 20% of Disneyland" was devoted to Disney characters is A LIE! NOTHING short of A LIE! Frontierland was devoted almost entirely to Disney characters (Davy Crockett, True Life Adventures, etc), Tomorrowland had Disney characters (a 20,000 leagues attraction, a movie exhibit first), Main Street had Disney characters (roaming characters, Disney themed parades and the Mickey Mouse Club in the opera house and a Babes in Toyland exhibt before that) and Adventureland was an extension of the True Life Adventure series." I would hardly say that anything or substance outside of Fantasyland was character-driven when the park opened. The character greetings were limited and only in Fantasyland. The Main Street Cinema actually showed real silent films from the proper period. The Babes in Toyland exhibit didn't show up until the early 60's when they made the film. Disney characters didn't even start appearing in the parades until around 1960, so there really wasn't anything on Main Street in the early days that was based on characters. Sure, Davy Crockett was in Frontierland, but he was as much a part of American folklore as he was a Disney symbol. The Davy Crockett episodes of the Disneyland TV show had only aired a couple months before the park opening and they were only shown once each (along with theatrical releases later on), so the popularity was largely based on people's prior knowledge of what he had done. The True Life Adventures really didn't have any characters at all in them (other than Perri, which I still really have trouble saying that there were recognizable characters), as they were documentaries about animals and nature. It's no different than saying that Discovery Channel's series "Planet Earth" didn't have any characters. Sure, the lands were based off locations visited in the documentaries, but the similarities stopped there. Nobody called it True Life Adventureland, it was just Adventureland. I think the only TLA that was even based in the jungle was one about big cats, while th erest were based in deserts, parts of the US, and cold places. Tomorrowland did have the 20K walkthrough, but it was also very clear that most of what had been done in TL was very last-minute. Most of the attractions were corporate exhibits, and they were really just doing anything they could to get the attraction count up. I really doubt that the walkthrough was considered to be a highlight of anybody's day at the park, and was rooted in well-known literature, not just the Disney version of it (although we do start getting into the iasw argument here a bit). The park was a place that could only exist in a fantasy, but not because it was based in a fantasy world. It was because it was an idealized version of each place. To most people, the idea of having a cartoon character living in the jungle never crossed their mind, and it made the park a stronger place overall, with more clearly differentiated themes between each land, IMO.
Originally Posted By ExpDave As with many others here, I think EPCOT is DW's best park, while I certainly enjoy the others as well. Still it could be so much more. There is a LOT of room for more countries and attractions in WS. I've heard the Russia may be coming, others I'd like to see would include India, Egypt, Greece, Spain, and many others. Plus attractions in existing pavilions that don't have any. In FW I'd love to see an updated version of my favorite lost DL attraction. Adventure Through Innerspace. I've also been thinking recently about the industrial park that was to be adjacent to Walt's EPCOT. I believe that it was to have been manufacturing facilities with attractions, part of which would have included a tour of the production area. I think M. E. thought of something along the same line too. I think it could be very interesting, right now The Land comes the closest to that concept and it is hands down my favorite FW pavilion, I wonder if anything else like that could be added in FW? Wouldn't it be cool if, for example, on Test Track the ride was about presenting and testing future concepts in cars and how they create them, I know there is a bit of that after the ride, but I'm talking about making it part of the ride and que area.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>"...postcard creations of reality are why I fell in love with Disney." You fell in love with Disney because of the DCA main entrance?? That's fine by me, but you may want to know that they are going to tear out your favorite part. : )<<< I meant like World Showcase, Harambe, Adventureland, NOS - they feel like being in the real places, but an idealised version.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No little kid says, "Mommy, mommy can we go to Disneyland and go on the Haunted Mansion?" NO, they say, "Mommy, mommy can we go to Disneyland and see Mickey Mouse and ride on the Monsters Inc attraction<< No little kid? Well, I disagree. And in any case, these parks were designed to appeal to entire families, not just little tots. The balance has been tipped and now there has been overkill and total saturation in the number of character-based attractions. As much as I enjoyed Epcot, I can sense already that there has been an influx of characters there where perhaps there were not early on. I never paid a lot of attention to Epcot, so I can't say with 100% certainty where characters might have been added over the years, but I think I can make a pretty good educated guess. It hasn't, thankfully, reached overkill there -- yet. My hope is that there will be some restraint and Epcot will stay unique and at least somewhat limited in terms of how many characters they load into things there. The type of restraint that they haven't had at just about every other park (except, perhaps TDS?)
Originally Posted By leemac <<The type of restraint that they haven't had at just about every other park (except, perhaps TDS?)>> There are a lot of characters in TDS. Probably more than at Epcot overall. Every land is touched by them.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I would say that DAK and Epcot are probably the two safest parks for protection from characters, and they are heavily in both now. Sadly, they seem to be the two least popular parks for Joe Sixpack. For me, they are a bastian of hope.
Originally Posted By Lloydian Okay, I understand the disclaimer of "Here's all the problems, but I still love the place." It is, of course, a little disingenuous to nitpick about these things and have that disclaimer, but point by point, I'm going to disagree a lot: Pirates and Mansion: There have been lots of follow ups. Where have you been? America Sings, World of Motion, Splash Mountain, both incarnations of the Energy Pavilion, The Great Movie Ride (apparently, some of us like it more than you do), Indiana Jones/Dinosaur. DVC: I groan when I see a reference to a "Best Kept Secret" too, but each time, a little voice in me reminds myself of how much money they saved me on the current vacation. Disney's Name: The only time this ever bothered me was with the movie, "Disney's The Kid." Outside of that, I expect branding to take ownership of a decision or location. Same Pricing: Next thing you know, people who have no use for Mission: Space will have to pay the same price to enter Epcot as those who have no blood pressure issues. I'm not paying for the totality of the park; I'm paying for a period of entertainment. Urban Planning: Of course it could be layed out worse, but I'll agree that getting around could have been better. EPCOT: (aka Epcot since the acronym was dropped): Of course it didn't encompass the original Walt Disney plan, but his idea for a permanent World's Fair is still present here. It had to have some name. Resort: I live in Phoenix. Here, we have the Phoenecian Resort, a truly beautiful resort to visit. And yet, they don't even have one theme park there. What were they thinking? Budget: No park was too expensive, none was too cheap. How the money was allocated is certainly worth discussing. Disney's America: Okay, that was always questionable. What were they thinking? Characters: The kids get excited every time they see a character. Hard to fault Disney for catering to the kids. Substituting Fake for Real: Here is where you really lost me. Fake is what I like from Disney. I don't want real. If I wanted real, I'd ditch the Jungle Cruise and head off to the San Diego Zoo to see real animals. But it isn't the real animals I want to see. I want to see elephants bathing with their trunks on. I want to see an old man on a bayou creek listening to the strumming of a banjo. Disney's ability to evoke the real through the use of machines is what amazes me. And the tree of life is simply wonderful to look at. By the way, what's wrong with the San Angel Inn?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Disney's Name: The only time this ever bothered me was with the movie, "Disney's The Kid." Outside of that, I expect branding to take ownership of a decision or location.<< I get branding, but it gets a little crazy and cumbersome at times. "A bug's land, inspired by Disney/Pixar's motion picture 'a bug's life'." Sheesh.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I find it ironic that fans continually argue that Pirates & Mansion are Disney's most "famous" attractions and yet, according to Disney, Soarin' and Space Mountain are DLR's most popular attractions. My own list of Disney theme park blunders looks like this (in no particular order): Disney not purchasing more land adjacent to DL 40 years ago for future expansion Building out DLR Paris at opening rather than waiting to see market response Building DLR Paris in France rather than Spain Allowing TDL to be operated as a franchise instead of owning it Opening a park in China Poor execution, PR and marketing of DCA Dumbing down the Disney theme park experience with an overabundance of pointless synergistic movie tie-ins Not owning the DL Hotel from the outset Ignoring the important story-telling elements that make the company’s parks unique and special
Originally Posted By gmaletic >Substituting Fake for Real: Here is where you really lost me. Fake is what I like from Disney. I don't want real. If I wanted real, I'd ditch the Jungle Cruise and head off to the San Diego Zoo to see real animals. I've been holding off addressing a lot of these points so I could get a good sense of how people were reacting to the article, though I will address all of these issues soon. But the "fake vs. real" point is one where I feel there could be some confusion, so I thought I'd clarify it now. "Fake" as manifested in Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Tom Sawyer Island, etc., is more than fine, it's necessary for Disneyland to be what it is. "Fake" is required in order to give people experiences that they couldn't otherwise have, and to make things look like they otherwise wouldn't (Big Thunder Mountain, for example. I'll even throw the Jungle Cruise in as a place where "fake" is okay, because there's no way to deliver the experience that the Jungle Cruise wants to give you by using real animals.) Where "fake" becomes a problem is when it substitutes for reality in places where reality would have been more than adequate. The one example that really hits home for me is the first one I cite. In the Canada pavilion, Disney could have more easily finished their film with a real, authentic Canadian folk song than write their own song. Then we'd actually be getting a slice of the real Canada, which is supposed to be the point of the film and, indeed, of Epcot itself. But they didn't. "Disney Magic" works when it improves what it's applied to. (Undoubtedly, Big Thunder Mountain is a better coaster than it would have been were it just unthemed steel.) But in the example I cite, they put some extra "Disney Magic" on the movie, and the result is worse (regardless of what you thing of the song itself, which is certainly pleasant), less authentic than it could have been, in a park whose goal is to deliver at least a little piece of authenticity. I don't know if that clears anything up, but that's what I'm trying to get at.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>In the Canada pavilion, Disney could have more easily finished their film with a real, authentic Canadian folk song than write their own song.<< Yes, but they went the extra mile and did something custom. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. JiminMerced has mentioned it before, but it's worth repeating. At California Adventure, they dropped in a bunch of familiar California tunes. Which after awhile, get pretty old. It would have been a better thing to create fresh music that evokes the feeling of the various regions of the state. It's those custom touches that make a big difference.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan From the column: >>Yet it didn't occur to the team that built Animal Kingdom that a "hundred-forty foot tall sculpted tree" is not a "natural icon?"<< Well, sometimes "fake" is more real than real. One of my favorite memories of my visit was spending a good hour with my brother, pointing out to each other all the creatures interwoven into the Tree of Life. I can't think of a more amazing icon in any Disney park. In terms of "real" being better than "fake" I would say a better example would be the safari ride at DAK. It's cool being able to drive about and see all the animals in a naturalistic setting. Very well done. Where it goes a bit over the top in my opinion is the whole "keep an eye out for poachers" storyline. To me, while I understand the intent of the message, it intrudes on what could be simply a pleasant and educational ride without all the invented drama. It's a classic example of where less could be more.
Originally Posted By gmaletic >>>JiminMerced has mentioned it before, but it's worth repeating. At California Adventure, they dropped in a bunch of familiar California tunes. Which after awhile, get pretty old. It would have been a better thing to create fresh music that evokes the feeling of the various regions of the state. <<< I'd suggest that any song would get old after being played as many times as the songs in California Adventure are! I do, however, think you might be correct in saying that it wouldn't be as important for California Adventure to use "authentic" music, because that park is a stylized take on California. It's not really trying to -be- California, or provide visitors with an "authentic" California experience: they're already in California, after all. (That being said, I think the use of "real" music was a good choice.) Epcot, however, is supposed to be different. The Epcot pavilions are presented as "authentic," built in cooperation with the governments the countries represent, and staffed by people from those countries. So that's why I get a little frustrated when I see the Canada film end with a song written by Disney: that was an easy place to deliver a piece of authentic Canadian culture, and they passed it up. Why they did that, we can only guess, but it ends up feeling like the folks at Disney think that their take on Canada is more compelling than what Canadians themselves can come up with. >>>Where [Kilimanjaro Safaris] goes a bit over the top in my opinion is the whole "keep an eye out for poachers" storyline. To me, while I understand the intent of the message, it intrudes on what could be simply a pleasant and educational ride without all the invented drama. It's a classic example of where less could be more.<<< Yeah, I think you're totally correct here.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Why they did that, we can only guess, but it ends up feeling like the folks at Disney think that their take on Canada is more compelling than what Canadians themselves can come up with.<< Careful what you wish for. The Canadians gave us Celine Dion and Bryan Adams. I'm just sayin'. ; )
