Originally Posted By MrDisneyGeek One of my favorite memories of DL was getting volunteered into the Laughing Stock Co. skit of a bachelor show. I like the rides, but it’s the overall feeling and the disconnect from everyday live that do it for me. It’s our happy place. And I do believe in Pixie Dust.
Originally Posted By DBitz2 >>This story (Walt at the park watching his daughters on the merry go round and wondering why they didn't build a park that adults could enjoy with their kids) was obviously invented by the Disney PR flacks. It contradicts everything we know about the genesis of Disneyland, which was originally intended to be a studio tour sort of thing in Burbank.<< So, you are saying that the filmed interview in which Walt tells that story is not really an interview, but, was scripted and made up, or he was just telling tales? Can you provide proof of that?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So, you are saying that the filmed interview in which Walt tells that story is not really an interview, but, was scripted and made up, or he was just telling tales? Can you provide proof of that?<< I'm not mawnck, but.... I have no idea if the entire thing was scripted. I do know that memory and motivation are very fluid. The stories people tell for why they do what they do change over the years. Anyone who's read or written a biography know this. People make their own narrative, and it's rarely consistent. This isn't lying or deception; it's human nature. People seem to assume I'm accusing Walt Disney of publicly saying one thing, then privately rubbing his hands together going "Muhawawawawa!!!" I don't doubt that Disney watching his girls play was a factor, perhaps it planted an idea...I really don't know. I suspect it started as a very small part of it and then grew into a larger reason, both in Walt's mind and in the publicity. As mawnck said, the story plainly contradicts other reasons given. I'm not enough of a Disney historian to know which came first, but always trust contemporary accounts over later memories. That the story is used so prominently in Disney histories makes me skeptical - again, not because I think people are lying, but because it makes a wonderful story, and wonderful stories sell.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Using it over and over is not really a head scratcher. It seems that Walt hasn't said much of anything quotable since December of 1966. The problem with the deification of Walt is that there are a couple of likely results of Walt's way of thinking. My guess is that the Tiki Birds would be gone, (old technology, not current) the same would apply to CoP, Toad would have been forfeited for newer less carnival type attractions and probably others that I don't want to even think about. He didn't believe, from what I read about him, in keeping old things forever. Upgrade the parks, make them relevant would be more his way. So anyone that calls on the spirit of Walt Disney, might want to rethink what they are asking for.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"His "dream" was to make a bungload of money off of a theme park. > IMO, mawnck's first statement (above) was intended as a sort of "snap out it!" thing to those who have almost a "too good to be true" view of Walt. He later did make it clear that making a bungload of money wasn't the ONLY dream, or the only goal. Art and commerce can indeed (sometimes) go hand in hand.
Originally Posted By nutmegpeach Where's the (new) Art? Closures: Skyway, Peoplemover, Rocket Jets, Country Bear Jamboree, Rocket Rods, Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse, HISTA, Disney Gallery, Plaza Gardens. Renovated or Replaced: Great Moments w/Mr. Lincoln, Chip n Dale Treehouse, Tarzan's Treehouse, TSA, the Submarines, Captain EO, Sleeping Beauty Castle walkthrough, Disney Gallery (not the same), Star Tours etc. "New" Attractions: Pooh, Buzz.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<So anyone that calls on the spirit of Walt Disney, might want to rethink what they are asking for.>> I believe the spirit of Walt Disney was Bourbon, and you had better have kept a bottle of it in your desk drawer so he could stop by at night to review your day's body of work left sitting on your desk.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Renovated or Replaced: Great Moments w/Mr. Lincoln, Chip n Dale Treehouse, Tarzan's Treehouse, TSA, the Submarines, Captain EO, Sleeping Beauty Castle walkthrough, Disney Gallery (not the same), Star Tours etc.>> TSA??
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<lol-Apparently I am subconsciously wishing to board a plane...>> Aren't we all, aren't we all.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I believe the spirit of Walt Disney was Bourbon<< Just another reason to love the man.
Originally Posted By oc_dean "To raise the $17 million he needed to build Disneyland, company founder Walt Disney mortgaged his house, life insurance, and sold off a one-third stake to the ABC network." Would anyone like to call that *PR Fluff*?
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I guess my problem with the post that started all this is treating Walt Disney like the second coming." Yes. And to invoke the man to bolster your argument and thinking you actually know his what his thought would've been really doesn't help you (and makes people wonder if you have an altar to the man hidden in a closet somewhere). As to whether Walt would've approved of the rumored replacement of Subs/Autopia/Innoventions? Who can say? There's evidence that he'd have no problem yanking out attractions. But I don't doubt there was a sentimental side to him too. Or maybe he'd still see a strong need for something like the Autopia. Who can say with any certainty? I know I can't. Dropping him into the argument really doesn't help. So, no, I really don't care about Walt's opinion on the matter. It's unknowable.
Originally Posted By Manfried Walt never wanted to go backwards. So he would not bring back a Peoplemover, and would probably have changed out Autopia and gotten rid of the Monorail, as they no longer represent the future. He would have found something else. He definitely would not bring them back. Oh, and he would not have brought back "Captain EO" either.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>gotten rid of the Monorail, as they no longer represent the future.<<< I, for one, am getting so tired of seeing those damn monorails everywhere I turn. Every city, every town...no matter where you look there's a monorail looking back at you. It's so yesterday!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>So, you are saying that the filmed interview in which Walt tells that story is not really an interview, but, was scripted and made up<< YES. As was nearly every other piece of film that he appeared in. Walt wasn't that good an actor. Didn't we already go through all this in that "House Hunters" topic? >>From what I've read<< Just wanted to point out how often this phrase is coming up in these discussions. ;-) Thanks, ecdc, Autopia Deb and Dabob2 for the backup while my employer was forcing me to work. ;-) >>Would anyone like to call that *PR Fluff*?<< How about "a risky investment that paid off"? >>I, for one, am getting so tired of seeing those damn monorails everywhere I turn. Every city, every town...no matter where you look there's a monorail looking back at you. It's so yesterday!<< You don't see 8-track tapes anymore either. They must be the future too. Oy vey.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "I thought Walt created his park so families could enjoy doing something together, not just the parents watching the kids have fun, but letting the adults recapture the fun they has as a kid. Disneyland is a park I grew up with, thanks to my grandparents who enjoyed sharing their love of it as early as the 1955 photos they took before I was born. I shared my love of Disney with my three children and now I have a 3 month old grandson that I can't wait to take to Disneyland. I can only hope that most of the rides I loved as a child will still be there for him to share with me. It's one thing to ADD to the park, but if the plans include tearing down numerous existing rides or even a whole land that has been there for many, many years, it just seems wrong. If it's new and exciting thrilling and maybe futuristic rides you want, try going down the road to Six Flags. I'm sure the crowds are smaller there and the prices aren't as high." While I can sure understand this sentiment, I think it just doesn't make sense in reality. Certain people's nostalgia for certain attractions they remember from their youth, is not reason to keep an unpopular attraction around. You could say that about any attraction added at any point in history. After all, an attraction that was added 5 years ago but is suffering poor attendance is bound to be lots of little kids's favorite ride that they will always remember when thinking back on their childhood and going to Disneyland with family. But does that mean it shouldn't be removed if it proves to be unpopular and replace it with something new? Of course not. Whether it was added in 1955 or 2005, if it's unpopular it should be removed.
