Originally Posted By Liberty Belle Haha, thanks Dave - yeah, I have the least exotic food tastes of ANYONE. My sister Melanie's favourite food is Thai, which means we get it at least once a month. I stick to steamed rice and spring rolls - unless I make pasta instead! Yeah, I think you could easily spend two days there, especially with two young kids and if you want to explore the hotel a bit as well. I didn't come away feeling like I'd had a day at Disneyland, but I knew that I wouldn't. I was expecting a smaller scale park, so when I received that it wasn't a problem. And yeah, it definitely is toony but at this point, that's not exactly unique amongst Disney parks!!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Lol - hence why I am not clamouring to get over there yet. It is getting to the point where I am starting to hate toons. It will be interesting to see how our trip to DLP goes next month in those stakes. Thankfully they haven't fully sold out to the toons yet.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, I'M a 'toon', too, you know and I resent all the nasty implications you're throwing around at me and the rest of Disney's wonderful family of animated characters, davewasbaloo!! I mean, really! If you don't like 'toons' I'm surpised you like Disney at all! It all started with a mouse and will most likely END with one, too! You should just go to some other theme park that has no particular mythology if you don't like us so-called 'toons'!!! ORGOCH: Fer once I gotta agree with my big, fat sister. If'n ya cain't stand the heat git away from the cauldron, dave.
Originally Posted By Mr X Witches, you are missing the point. As Dave has mentioned, Disneyland began with very LITTLE emphasis on the toons...that being Fantasyland and Tinkerbell as the symbol of the park. Walt Disney did NOT conceptualize Frontierland, Adventureland, or Tomorrowland to revolve around toons. In fact, the were all "real life" in a very real sense. And thus the concept of taking you away from the world of YESTERDAY, TOMORROW, and FANTASY. Unfortunately at this point the Magic Kingdoms (with Hong Kong being the worst of the bunch) have abandoned real "yesterday" and "tomorrow" (not to mention "adventure") in favor of toon, toon, toon, toontown, and more toon. I can certainly appreciate his point (he resents it because it is too overbearing, NOT because there's anything "wrong" with it per se...it's just one aspect of what makes Disney a special place...but these days it feels like that's all they can come up with). <==cringes in anticipation of angry spells coming his way.
Originally Posted By Mr X And thus the concept of taking you away from the world of today and into YESTERDAY, TOMORROW, and FANTASY.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Thank you Mr x, that is spot on. I adore DAK, I love Epcot, as a boy Adventureland, Frontierland (and NOS) and Tomorrowland were the whole reason to go to Disneyland. I dare say I will have to change my pants after seeing TDS. Too many toons around (even if I much enjoyed Wall E today). But I like variety. When I switch on my tv, I don't just want toons. As much as I love Pizza, I don't want to eat it for every meal, and in my Disney parks, I don't want toons everywhere.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 It's called Disneyland and not Toonland for a reason. It's meant to represent the imagination, hopes and aspirations of Walt Disney. Toons were a part of that, but only a part. I see the argument as being as long as there is a balance in the parks, it is ok to have some toons. I am neautral on this except I appreciate the fact that keeping a balance means that the marketing guys are prevented from turning everything into an opportunity to sell more character plush dolls. Mainly because of that, I agree with there being too strong an emphasis on toons. Ok, back to the main topic. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Hmmmm....it's Don Imus all over again...being politically incorrect in how one goes about addressing animated characters. It's akin to calling a white man the 'H' word, etc. Anyway, no one can truly speak for what Mr. Disney would have done in regard to placing certain animated characters in other lands beyond Fantasyland. We can only speculate. ORWEN: Now there's a Pecos Bill's Cafe in Frontierland and I don't think it would be out of place to have Pecos Bill or Sloo Foot Sue running around for meetings and greetings there. ORDDU: Actually I thought ALL the lands within the Disney theme parks were meant to be an escape from the 'real' world outside; not just Fantasyland. After all, even Frontierland, Adventureland and Tomorrowland have always been represented as romantic versions of themselves, without TOTAL basis in reality. Since you don't usually find animated characters in the real world, it makes perfect since that you can and do encounter them within the realms of a Disneyland or a Disney World. It's like running into a treasured personality you've seen in the movies that you're not likely to find anywhere else. It would seem that most guests really love it when this happens. ORWEN: It really comes down to a matter of preference, I think. It wouldn't bother us one bit if EVERY attraction at the parks had a character tie-in. Since there weren't as many characters back when Uncle Walt was alive, compared to how many there are now, I'm not so sure he WOULDN'T have let them find homes in the other lands, if he were still alive to have a say. And I repeat that it only makes since for characters like Mowgli and Tarzan and Simba to be found in the Jungles of Adventureland. ORGOCH: Got the points yet?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Unlikely ladies, considering he could have put Bambi in Frontierland, or Captain Hook on the Columbia. He did not. Disneyland was always about recreating idealised visions of various realms, like walking into a movie. Not all animated movies, that's all.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I didn't realize the witches were concerned with political correctness. It seems to me that if someone gave you grief for using the wrong word regarding toons, you could just zap them into a toad and be done with it. LOL. Otherwise, I am not sure how Don Imus got into this discussion, and I am inviting him to leave now since he is an unwanted party crasher. >_< - Anatole
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I dare say I will have to change my pants after seeing TDS.*** Aging is such a difficult process, eh?
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Yes, to an extent we're concerned about political correctness. Beyond that, we aren't allowed to use our magic for or against anyone in this realm. We are 'toons', after all and only if you happen to be in OUR world, would you be vulernable to one of our spells. ORWEN: Besides that, we're not evil like some witches you hear tell about. ORDDU: And actually, davewasbaloo, duckling, we agree with you that it wouldn't be right to have Captain Hook on the Sailing Ship Columbia--beyond his appearance there during FANTASMIC--because he is one character who really does belong in Fantasyland most of the time. ORWEN: Bambi, Flower and Thumper--since they're woodsie type creatures could work in Critter Country maybe--but we agree with anybody who says it was wrong to put Winnie the Pooh ove there. Pooh & Company are from England and have nothing to do with American Folklore. Br'er Rabbit fits in just fine though. I wish the Country Bears had never left Critter Country because they were there first and they were the ones to inspire the Critter Country theme to begin with. ORDDU: So, maybe we're closer to agreeing with you than you think, Dears. In any event, we enjoy discussing all these things even when there's a difference of opinions. ORGOCH: Off topic much?
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle I do agree with your point, Dave, about the toons - although I actually quite like them in their place, I do think that when they end up everywhere it gets to be too much. But then, Disney has never really got the concept of moderation! Remember when everything was Pooh? Now I guess it's pirates and princesses. But despite that, Disneyland is still my favourite place in the world and things would have to get a *lot* worse for that not to be the case. But I do appreciate your point and understand why you haven't rushed to visit HKDL yet!
Originally Posted By Mr X LB, did you find Tomorrowland and Adventureland to feel sort of "cartoonish"? I certainly did, particularly Tomorrowland. Whereas it worked fine for me in Fantasyland (perhaps the most well crafted Fantasyland of all the parks), I felt like the other two lands were just about the same. So I didn't feel like there was any "transition" from one vibe to the next like I do in the other Magic Kingdom parks. Did you get that impression (maybe it's just me lol)?
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Liberty Belle, thank you so much for sharing your trip report with us! I'm really enjoying your report, your opinions, and your photos! As for the whining... Hey, I'm totally sympathetic to complaints about heat and humidity! (But -- bonus tip here! -- next time sacrifice the fashion [you both look wonderful!] and skip the skin-tight black, purple, and navy clothing. Go for loose, gauzy, and light-colored -- without the tight caps.) Some random-action reactions to your pics: ... Wow, a shot of Main Street that contains no visitors. Was it not crowded? ... (Sorry, but) I like DCA's Mulan better than HK's! "Our" version seemed lots more regal to me. ... Interesting. I didn't know (or remember) that HKDL had a Snow White's Grotto. I'm not sure how I feel about that being recreated in Parks. It was such a spontaneous, organic addition to DL. ... What a GREAT photo of you with Chip and Dale!!! ... And what a lovely photo of you with Donald and Daisy! Thank you again, Liberty Belle! I know that these reports don't write themselves and that the photos don't auto-upload. Muchas gracias for taking the time to allow us to share your experience!
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>LB, did you find Tomorrowland and Adventureland to feel sort of "cartoonish"?<< Yeah, and as you said, particularly Tomorrowland. Tomorrowland's not my favourite land at any of the parks I must admit, but it definitely didn't have much of a 'futuristic' vibe about it! We had fun there for a few hours, but it did seem a bit lacking in atmosphere, or something. THANKS, Inspector, for all your nice comments! Yeah, I know what you mean about the Grotto - I was actually surprised to see it there. It looked completely identical to the one in Anaheim. >>(But -- bonus tip here! -- next time sacrifice the fashion [you both look wonderful!] and skip the skin-tight black, purple, and navy clothing. Go for loose, gauzy, and light-colored -- without the tight caps.)<< Haha - thanks for the compliment! Funny you should say that, we actually commented that we'd never looked worse at a Disney park. But I did mention to Raechel on the second day that I wished I had more light-coloured clothing. The picture with Donald and Daisy - I actually love it, but about a minute before taking it I happened to catch a glimpse of my reflection in the shop window and I looked TERRIBLE. My makeup was melting off and my hair (which was drenched thanks to UFO Zone) was everywhere. I quickly stuck my cap on and tucked my hair back, and I was surprised that I actually looked somewhat put together in the photo!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< LB, did you find Tomorrowland and Adventureland to feel sort of "cartoonish"? I certainly did, particularly Tomorrowland. >>> Absolutely. I think the original TLs in Anaheim, Orlando, and Tokyo tried very much to be a "view to the future" along with what Walt's vision for tomorrow was. Discoveryland in Paris and TL98 in Anaheim seemed to recognize the difficulty (and expense) of maintaining this goal due to the rapid advancement of technology, with the latter kind of falling flat on its face due to constrained budget, and went with a Jules Verne-esque take on TL. HKDL's Tomorrowland took another approach at an other-than-possible-future-reality Tomorrowland. Cartoonish is one way to look at it. I suppose others might use the term "whimsy." Whatever you call it, I think it's an attempt to do TL even cheaper than the Jules Verne version would allow. I've seen it said that "Guests would prefer whimsy much more than realism in a Disney park." I translate this into "TWDC needs to justify doing things on the cheap, and here's what we came up with." It's interesting that it was felt that HKDL needed to go with the traditional lands for a MK park (albeit an abbreviated list). Ironically, even though HKDL's TL has the only big-iron E-ticket in the park and it's more or less a copy of the one in Anaheim, its TL as a whole is a completely new concept. Although it does get across the notion of it being futuristic, it does so in a way completely different than in the other parks. And I'd wager that the ability of a "new and innovative approach to TL" to just so happen to fit into a constrained budget is more than mere coincidence.
