Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<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?>> After all, the DLH is “nothing more” than JUST another hotel.
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL >>>FWIW, I DID tear up once while riding Small World, shortly after 9/11.<<< Well, to tell you the truth, quite a few things made me tear up after 9/11. I still get misty hearing our National Anthem when before that day, I never did. I feel kind of silly when it hits me at an Angels game. God, I hope a hell like that never happens again in our life time.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<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.>> Okay, fair enough, but I guess I still have a harder time seperating something like the Bible that has transformed a billion lives with an amusement park. And I never had Dom Perrigon so wouldnt know . I seen the Mona Lisa in person though, she is tiny!!! And to be fair, while Disney is a great product that has touched many, myself included, I think to the vast majority out there it IS an amusement park and no more. I mean, see how seriously people think of you outside of the Disney circle when you tell them you are a Disney fan? In fact, tell them that when you are over 25 years old and have no kids . Most people look at it as still a child's playground, while we certianly know better, my point was that for many out there its not percieved that way at all, its just an overly detailed fun land UNLIKE the Bible, Mona Lisa and etc. See where I'm going with it? But I understand your analogy of course and for the record I think VERY highly of the parks and what they represent, but for many out there, it is just a theme park for a few hours of enjoyment although many would probably place it in the high column section of their enjoyment and how vital it is for their entertatinment. <<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.>> Again, you assume that by adding the characters it automatically 'corrupting' the ride. I really dont know, the problem is there is no right or wrong, its simply an opinion. I just think its a little strange to put something like a ride where a bunch of singing dolls in high regard in the first place. But you just said it yourself, you obviously attach a much higher importance on this ride and probably Disney than I do and hence where our views divide. But I have to ask, if the vast majority thinks these changes as a positive and their view of the ride doesnt change, what then? Would you still consider it corrupt? <<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.>> Okay, well said . But I dont think just because some people keep it in the 'just amusement park' category as belitting it or anything, it can STILL be a well done, well made place even if they at the end of the day see it mostly as a place to ride rides and catch fireworks. I think to this day, as popular, innovative and old as it is, I just dont think it has trancend beyound that for the general public out there even today. Places like this obviously doesnt count .
Originally Posted By oc_dean OKAY lets be honest everyone - We DO think it's something more than JUST an amusement park .... Or why do we subscribe to this discussion board and pour post AFTER post, AFTER post, every day, every week, every month, every year here?!! Tell me you put this much effort into the discussion boards for those "just" amusement parks Knott's, Universal, Six Flags, etc. IF they even do have a discussion board dedicated just for them!
Originally Posted By danyoung We're playing with semantics here. Of course DL and WDW and TDL are amusement parks. But calling them that doesn't by definition diminish them. DL is an amusement park, but it's probably one of the most amazing, unique, incredible amusement parks on the planet. I think what started this part of the discussion was the idea that DL was NOT an amusement park, but something greater. Well, yeah, it's great, but it's still an amusement park.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo ">>IASW has never appealed to adults<< Oh really?! And just how do YOU come to this conclusion?" Common sense. ">>And it's still only an entertainment company.<< Today it is. It USE TO be something a bit more." Not really, no. "It's more subtle than that." Small World? Subtle? It's the exact opposite of subtle. "a compromise thanks to the media nightmare it caused TDA and WDI for a year." A nightmare? The first I heard of it was after renewing my AP after a couple of years off and revisiting the Disney message boards. I really doubt anyone at Disney were having nightmares. "We know we're just talking about an attraction. A ride." I don't think you do. "Can I tell you all a very interesting word a poster of another site used referring to the changes? Cloying." So the changes are a perfect fit. "I think statements like this one are pure promotion. Of course DL and WDW are not like other amusement parks, but they ARE amusement parks by definition." Right. This is pure marketing. They wanted to differentiate themselves from what was available at the time. Walt set a new standard, but in the end, it's still an amusement park. When you start treating it as something much more important, you're going to find yourself disappointed and angry when they do something you don't approve of. If you keep things in perspective, you're trips to the park will be much more fun. "Truth is if IASW was built today as a new attraction and the characters were already included like HKDL, no one would care, honestly. " Not only that, they'd be complaining about the quality of the ride. Especially if it first showed up in DCA. "Today, the message of world peace is muddled with characters," No, it's still there loud and clear. Obnoxiously so.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “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.” I do not think anyone here can disagree with this. However, many fans hold the parks in a much higher regard than is deserved. I have repeatedly seen people come here and talk about something new they disliked at DLR and remark that it was a “slap in the face” or something to that effect. When you start feeling that strongly about a theme park, it is time to reconsider your feelings about it. Admittedly I have been frustrated by some things that Disney has done, especially recently, but I have chosen to come to terms with the decisions and let management do what they feel is best. I’ve adjusted my expectations, and in doing so these places are not as important to me as they once were, and I am okay with that. It is not going to be the end of life on Earth if the parks go down the toilet.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan ^^^^^ I agree with your assessment, and you seem to understand the point I was trying to make.I also agree concerning the excesses some people go to in relating to the parks. I can definitely relate to losing enthusiasm due to some of the decisions Disney has made. That's why I get a bit aggravated at those who seem to be willing to accept anything that Disney does. I'm one who knows what Disney WAS capable of. And that just makes it all the more frustrating when Disney puts out these weak efforts and then makes excuses claiming that it's part of the company's heritage. My hope is that the pressure that can be applied may, in some small way, have a long term influence on the decisions Disney makes.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones The issue I struggle with is that few in big business seem to care about the art. If there's an idea and executives think it's going to make a boatload of money because it appeals to the masses, but isn't the greatest idea in the world, more often than not they do it anyway. Here's a non-Disney example. Yesterday KLSX 97.1 flipped formats from hot talk to top 40. It's yet another station in LA that's going to play Kanye West over and over. They flipped not because they were losing money, but because they weren't making *enough* money. So people say that it's just a business. It's just a radio station. The bottom line is money. Sure, this new format is probably going to double the ratings, but there's no soul in it. There's no feeling to it. All they are doing is playing music that others have created and are creating nothing themselves. That's how I feel when Pixar characters, movie tie-ins and cloned attractions get dumped in various Disney parks. Even if Toy Story Mania! is fun, it feels like a designed-by-committee-for-mass-appeal video game with no soul. It just doesn't make sense to me. This relentless corporate drive for shareholder profits is frustrating sometimes.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "That's how I feel when Pixar characters, movie tie-ins and cloned attractions get dumped in various Disney parks. Even if Toy Story Mania! is fun, it feels like a designed-by-committee-for-mass-appeal video game with no soul." Exactly. More frustrating to me perhaps is the fact that consumers aren't always as selective as they should be. I mean why shouldn't Disney build junk like Pixie Hollow if people are willing to line up and have their picture taken with the latest corporate character franchise? I know my attitude may sound cynical, but I realized a while ago that having a more realistic understanding of how these places are run (and are going to be run) is needed if you are going continue enjoying them.
Originally Posted By SleepingBeauty82 We went on the ride yesterday. Is it the same ride? Yes. Are there a few changes? Yes. Are they totally drastic? No. I don't think the new characters stick out that much. In fact, we had to keep our eyes peeled to find some of them. The song is pretty much the same. The boats aren't even THAT different. I mean it's obviously cleaned up a changed a bit but not as much as Pirates was. Not that different, in my opinion.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<SpokkerJones: Here's a non-Disney example. Yesterday KLSX 97.1 flipped formats from hot talk to top 40. It's yet another station in LA that's going to play Kanye West over and over. They flipped not because they were losing money, but because they weren't making *enough* money. So people say that it's just a business. It's just a radio station. The bottom line is money. Sure, this new format is probably going to double the ratings, but there's no soul in it. There's no feeling to it. All they are doing is playing music that others have created and are creating nothing themselves.>> The trouble is, while they may think that they are going to be more “relevant”, increase their ratings and make more money, they are actually just joining the myriad of other top 40 stations that are all playing the same music, hoping to get high ratings and make money. Abandoning what they have established and made successful in search of greener grass may end up in their demise. Next month they may become a Spanish language talk radio station.
Originally Posted By Sweeper IASW is still the same ride as before with a few more dolls. The sky is not falling.
Originally Posted By oc_dean If you are (1) Sensitive to art, (too few are) these days .. and are (2) Getting pretty sick of the over saturation of the cartoon characters ... The needless changing of this classic, is the icing on the cake!
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I can agree with and understand #2, but with regards to #1, Walt liked the idea that unlike a film, DL could be changed after-the-fact. You may not agree with the change, but Disney obviously did not believe his DL "art" was untouchable.
Originally Posted By oc_dean You make these generalizations about change, as if no one should ever take a real deep look at how it affects the "core structure" of any attraction. You know ... we'll be going around in circles forever on this ... because everyone comes from a different point of view/core value system.
Originally Posted By oc_dean If the Disney characters are in 'small world' to help lend a hand with it's core theme .. then what are they doing playing their own theme music? That's the one jarring thing I find irritating. Instead of "seamlessly integrating" them into the attraction, they are spotlighted. It goes against it's core theme of "We're all one people".
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<You make these generalizations about change, as if no one should ever take a real deep look at how it affects the "core structure" of any attraction.>> I merely was commenting on the practice, not the execution. That's why I wrote "you may not agree with the change..."
