Originally Posted By oc_dean Hey ... with the economy down ... and people spending less money in retail establishments ... lets make places like Macys and Bloomingdales more relevant to todays youth .. and plant Disney character dolls all over the place! Yeah! That should have people flocking in!
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<danyoung: On the other hand, when you talk about the direction Disney and the fans are taking, it's an indication that you realize that Disney is responding to its visitor base, who seem to want more toons. Or at least, they don't seem to mind it. >> Current Disney is intent on promoting their current stable of cartoon characters at the expense of the significance the parks once held. And, while it may seem like a chicken/egg situation, the fans that are being drawn along with the direction they are taking are mostly the oblivious ones, those who are easily entertained by pretty much anything. The quality Disney of the past focused on quality, unique and innovative attractions, often based on stories people could relate to or at least recognize. Characters were limited to the realm of their attractions. Now it appears that they want the attractions to cater to the realm of the characters, ANY characters, if they are just put into the right costume. So, when Disney focuses on doing anything that their marketing people come up with as long as they can say their guests “don’t seem to mind”, then, they’re just one step above catering to the lowest common denominator.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Yookeroo: "And Disneyland is nothing more than a trivial set of attractions with superficial meanings." Well, kind of. It's a theme park with enjoyable rides and attractions. It's at the apex of theme parks, but the bottom line is that it's a place where people go to have some fun. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call them trivial or superficial, but they are just rides, attractions and shows. To invest much more meaning than that is to lose perspective.>> Disney parks history is based on their NOT just being “a theme park with enjoyable rides and attractions”. Walt Disney DID invest more meaning in his park. If he hadn’t, it would have ended up being just another amusement park.
Originally Posted By Socrates ">>IASW has been around for roughly 45 years. If its purpose was to promote world unity, how successful do you think it has been? << And where's this leading to?" You tell me. How much impact do you think it has had on the world? Socrates "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."
Originally Posted By Socrates "The painting of the Mona Lisa has been around for hundreds of years. If its purpose was to promote an ideal beauty, then how successful do you think it was? People seem to be just as butt ugly as they have always been, and even fatter now!" Was that Leonardo's purpose? If so, I've never realized that before. I know the last time I was at the Louve and really examined his style, it seemed like he used that smile on every picture that was on display. Socrates "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "How much impact do you think it has had on the world?" Whatever impact Disneyland has had on the world, Small World was a part of that. Small World isn't negotiating peace in the Middle East if that's what you're getting at.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Walt Disney DID invest more meaning in his park. If he hadn’t, it would have ended up being just another amusement park.>> I think the primary reasons for DL's success was Walt's sense of showmanship, his (and his Imagineers) expertise in storytelling, and the fact that the place was clean.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 How much impact does there have to be, in order for it to still be a valid artwork? I wasn't aware that art was judged on whether or not it has managed to change the world in any perceptible way, in order for it's message to still be just as meaningful. Unless you are trying to get at something different. I am not going to guess what your implying though, so you may as well say it straight. I am too stupid to read between the lines, I guess. lol. - Anatole
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>with the economy down ... and people spending less money in retail establishments ... lets make places like Macys and Bloomingdales more relevant to todays youth .. and plant Disney character dolls all over the place!<<< Ya, because we all know how successful that model has been for the Disney Stores!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Walt's sense of showmanship, his (and his Imagineers) expertise in storytelling, and the fact that the place was clean.<<< Two things that have been diminishing from the parks over the last few years.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo IASW is not just about world piece, it is also about tolerance and an acceptance that people are different and at the same time, the same. I would say that recent events show we are going in the right dirrection.
Originally Posted By Socrates RE: 148 I was just throwing out a question to help the discussion along (I hoped). And art is definitely subjective; you should see some of the pieces I have. BTW, earlier you had mentioned the UN. Personally I wouldn't compare IASW to the UN. But how successful the UN has been is another question open to interpretation. I'll just say that we've been more successful working within broad-based alliances (WWI, WWII, Desert Storm) than narrower ones (Vietnam, Iraq). Of course, someone will ask where Korea fits -- a UN operation that we didn't win. I would say we didn't win militarily, but we did win politically. After all, we held the line and still won the Cold War. What were we talking about again....? Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I was just throwing out a question to help the discussion along (I hoped).<< Well, you're a pretty smart person .. you've been largely quiet on this subject, and it would be interesting if you could throw your thoughts into this.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<trekkeruss: The ride was in BAD shape. Since they had to do some major work anyway, they decided to do a little bit more... plussing, if you will. Obviously, not everyone feels it is a plus, but some do.>> Unfortunately, they apparently felt that the character plussing was more important than actually correcting ALL the issues that the needed addressing. So while improving the paint, lighting and sound, they decided that adding new irrelevant characters was more important than replacing and/or repairing all the missing or damaged original IASM dolls.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones How about not letting an attraction get into such horrible shape in the first place?
Originally Posted By avro_imagineer I think we learnt in the 60's and 70's that preventive maintenance while costing nominally more initially is much cheaper than deferred maintenance which ends up saving a little in the mean time but costing a lot (complete early replacement) in the long term. However corporations live for this quarters profits above all else (Bonuses and shareholders come first). Did I mention Walt and Roy are gone? As are certain presidents that ran the theme park as a theme park (ongoing concern) not as a "division" of a corporation.
Originally Posted By avro_imagineer Disney characters are a tie-in. Marketing synergy. Marketing synergy = character and related merchandise sales = advertising campaign. Apparently PR is lower priorities these days then marketing.
Originally Posted By Socrates "Well, you're a pretty smart person .. you've been largely quiet on this subject, and it would be interesting if you could throw your thoughts into this." Okay, some thoughts. And remember, you asked. I prefer just to ask questions. My reasoning is because over the years I've seen how passionate people can be about their opinions, no matter how, uh, unusual those opinions are. So I figure no one will change his/her mind despite what I might tell them. But if I can get someone to think a little deeper... I'm a long-time Disney fan. And I also consider myself a Disney observer. My observer viewpoint is centered on two basic facts: 1. Walt Disney is dead & not coming back. Therefore changes in management philosophy are inevitable. 2. The world constantly changes. For example, our concept of family has changed since Disneyland first opened. And who knows, maybe someday we won't have theme parks; we'll all have holodecks a la the Starship Enterprise. Specifics will come in the next post (so I don't bore everyone too quickly). Socrates "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."
Originally Posted By Socrates Anyway, I agree that Walt had some great business principles, and that the trend seems to be more and more characters. But in the final analysis this is a business. Management's job is to maximize profits for the owners by giving the public what it wants - "The customer is always right!" Are more Disney/Pixar characters what the public wants? Current management thinks it is. I'm just going to watch what happens. If current management is wrong, there will be changes. BTW, did you ever wonder what Disneyland would've looked like if Walt had been born ten years later? Socrates "And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you smartest of all."
