Originally Posted By trekkeruss You keep using those arguments, but we're not talking about adding characters to the JC, we're talking about adding characters amid a bunch of dolls in a ride in Fantasyland. IaSW is not a realistic ride.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney You know...if they added Tarzan to the JC, it wouldnt be such a stretch when you think about it? (Waiting for the threats arrive to my hotmail account soon ) But dont worry that will never happen....the spiraling of DVD and merchandising sales doesnt warrant building the AA ;D.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<This was your day to celebrate.>> I'm not celebrating anything. Some changes I think are are good, some I think are bad. You want my scorecard? Pirates Lair: Bad New PotC: Good Tarzan's Treehouse: I preferred the old, but the new really isn't much different, so a wash Monster's Laugh Floor: Bad; nothing to do with TL IASW: Good
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I wonder what the discussion would be like if the internet was around when the original realistic Harper Goff Jungle Cruise was changed in favor of the Marc Davis cartoony JC?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Finally they instituted the One-Disney experience we've been demanding!
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>IaSW is not a realistic ride.<< It's underlying theme is. The added cannon of highly recognizable fictional Disney icons add more to the "glossy" superficial layer of 'it's a small world'. The emphasis on the ride's superficial level is heightened .. while the underlying levels don't have quite the same resonance any more.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I just read the news items about the shakeup in DisCo's management team. << I just read it too. Be scared. Be very, very scared!
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<the underlying levels don't have quite the same resonance any more.>> That's only because you choose to not let it resonate within you. You say that those of us on the other side can't see beyond the superficiality, but I would argue it is you who can't see beyond it. If you could, then the spirit of the ride would still be there for you, as it is for me.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>That's only because you choose to not let it resonate within you. You say that those of us on the other side can't see beyond the superficiality, but I would argue it is you who can't see beyond it. If you could, then the spirit of the ride would still be there for you, as it is for me.<< >>That's only because you choose to not let it resonate within you.<< What's there to resonate? The Disney characters come from "2 dimensional" worlds of their own. Mixed into the "3 Dimensional" message of the ride. I see a clash between the two. If the feeling isn't mixed, it's a blur. It's one or the other.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>If you could, then the spirit of the ride would still be there for you, as it is for me.<< The good news ... the ride is large enough ... I can enjoy it the way I have for the most part, by turning my head away from the "commercial" Disney is inserting. I think what's even more irritating about all this is ....... and I'll give one example: If I'm not seeing Pinnochio in his own attraction just a 150 yards to the south ... or if I'm not seeing him in Toontown, or on Main St., or in a parade, or at character meet, or a Character Breakfast, or printed on thousands of various merchandise items in every shop in Disneyland ... I'm seeing him as "Eric Cartman" in 'it's a small world' Or as Disneyland is devolving into.... 'it's a same world' ..after all .. and forever all!
Originally Posted By oc_dean So, there are more arguments over this addition, than just a clash on certain levels. It's this altering ... where it's not so much about unique experiences of their own anymore.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "It might show you how a Disney theme park can be elevated beyond just being portrayed as a kiddy park." Thanks Spokker, but I have been following Disney parks since the early 70's... a time when EPCOT was ambitiously envisioned as being a real city. Disney’s parks and resorts are amazing when they are built and operated to near perfection. Sadly, what we have now are parks that are no longer about the concrete themes and stories, but are about Disney, Disney, Disney. It is repetitive and boring. Hence, I have less interest in visiting these places than I used to. They are still nice places, but they have lost their luster for me over the years, and I am fine with it. On that note, I’ll take everyone’s word that the current TDR is wonderful place (I've visited TDL a few years after it opened), but honestly, there are so many other things on the top the list of things to see and do that I really have little interest in visiting. Of course, if I am ever in the Tokyo area again I’ll visit, but I would never plan a trip to Japan just to go to TDR.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo After reading this, I think they should put a lap dance club in the DLH. You know, there is a whole demo that would love it, and although the DLH doesn't need it, there is a whole group of people that need an incentive to enjoy the place more. Since it could be tucked away, there would be no harm right? We could prove the need with marketing statsand really, does it matter?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "On that note, I’ll take everyone’s word that the current TDR is wonderful place (I've visited TDL a few years after it opened)" TDL when it opened was just Magic Kingdom 2.0. TDS is the lure for we foreigners. "Of course, if I am ever in the Tokyo area again I’ll visit, but I would never plan a trip to Japan just to go to TDR." Visit just for TDS Of course, airfare is ridiculous these days and it will probably never go down again. TDS was reason #1 for my visit to Japan, but I also wanted to experience Tokyo's train network to satisfy my rail transit habit and to have the experience of visiting another country when I was *young*.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "On that note, I’ll take everyone’s word that the current TDR is wonderful place (I've visited TDL a few years after it opened)" >TDL when it opened was just Magic Kingdom 2.0. TDS is the lure for we foreigners.< I know that DLR isn't the same, but I see no good reason for me to hop on a 10 hour flight to experience things that are mostly the same as those that are a 1 hour flight from here. In fact, I'd rather go to WDW which is a 5 hour flight and has more parks and more to see and do.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<WorldDisney: Back when Walt was designing Disneyland, the park he envisioned was TOTALLY UNIQUE and NOTHING like ANY amusement park. So, while technically, it could be considered an amusement park at the very basic level, it wasn’t one and was specifically designed to not be anything like one from the outset.>> I think I get what you're saying here but at the end of the day, it IS an amusement park, nothing more! Original, yes, innovative, definitely, ambitious, without question, but you strip it down and we are still talking about a theme park, just one of the best ones out there. >> There is a very limiting element by forcing everything into a “nothing more” box. The Mona Lisa is “nothing more” than a painting. Dom Perignon is “nothing more” than a wine. The Bible is “nothing more” than a book. Everything can be brought down to a basic level (which is the point I was trying to make). HOWEVER, that basic level is NOT the identifying quality of any particular item and does not in any way signify the value or importance that people can attach to it. So, it’s not a valid excuse to get away with corrupting something of quality and integrity. Thus, while Disneyland could be looked at as an “amusement park”, only those with no appreciation of the qualities that Walt and his creative teams have invested in creating an outstanding entertainment environment, would assert it to be “nothing more” than one.
