Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "BTW, did you ever wonder what Disneyland would've looked like if Walt had been born ten years later?" I wonder what Disneyland would look like if Walt had simply lived ten years more. I think the issue is that, for whatever reason, for all his triumphs and flaws, we admire this showman, businessman, and producer and his little theme park. We see current management's actions as messing with his baby. Though Disneyland was certainly a collaborative effort, and Walt Disney never denied that, he was definitely the auteur. He was the visionary. If supporters of the changes feel like telling the opposition, "The park needs to change. Deal with it." I feel like telling them and park management, "Walt not only dreamed up this place, walked through it, but put his career and financial security on the line for this place. As such, you're going to get a lot of passionate people like me bitching about changes. Deal with it." Though I don't agree that Disneyland should become a museum, would it be the worst thing in the world if it did? The success of Disneyland has allowed these modern MBAs the ability to go into these other markets, other countries even, and build more Disneylands. That's great. Experiment with those parks. Put all the characters you want in those parks. But when it comes to Disneyland, show some restraint. It's the reason you can do all this Disney stuff in the first place.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones It should be noted that Walt Disney died suddenly. He didn't leave a plan. The company scrambled after his death to find their way. There was a period where no one wanted to make the first move. Projects Walt had a hand in before he died were finished. But after that there was a period of stagnation. I would say many of the moves made without the guidance of Walt but before Wells/Eisner were good ones. The Matterhorn was plussed. Fantasyland got a great makeover. America Sings. Space Mountain. Big Thunder. Then Eisner and Wells show up. There is a great explosion of big attractions opening every couple of years or so. 1987: Star Tours 1989: Splash Mountain 1992: Fantasmic! 1993: Toontown 1995: Indiana Jones Are these the kind plot-less original attractions that WED used to be responsible for? No. But I sensed a great deal of investment and they've all become modern classics in their own right. And then it ends. There is a period of poor maintenance, awful makeovers and accidents. Today, they seem to have discovered the important of making sure the park is clean and well maintained, but characters, pixies, princesses and Pixar rule the day. There have also been some efforts to preserve and restore classics, such as the Tiki Room and the Sleeping Beauty Castle walkthrough, and I appreciate that. So, in my view, that while today's era (2005-?) is still way better than what was going on between 1996-2004, I would still rather it be like 1987-1995. And I understand 1955-1966 ain't ever coming back.
Originally Posted By crazycroc Spokker, I enjoyed post 161. I still don't necessarily agree with your sentiment, but your point is taken. Anyway, my kid asked me one time when we were riding the rails through Primeval World. "Dad, can you imagine what Walt Disney would have built here if he were still alive? Why did they stop inventing cool things after he died?" I didn't really have an answer for her, but I knew exactly what she meant. I tried to explain something about how he just did things because he wanted to see them himself, and not necessarily to make money, and now the company was run by businessmen. It is difficult to explain, isn't it.
Originally Posted By avro_imagineer ^^^ Just to play cynical even if Walt was a genuine bad guy. He at least tried to portray a genial old man. He portrayed himself as friendly with staff on Disneyland (I understand he cared, but also had very high standards people had to live up to and normally didn't dole out compliments). We all know that other people (The retlaw/imagineers) did the work and probably came up with a lot of the concepts (or even some main ideas). But Walt embodied the ideas and presented them to the public. I forget the name of the one president everyone likes, but he did much the same thing only quieter. I'm not a parent but I'd try to explain Walt cared (see in this video he's sharing popcorn...). Today the park is ran by business men. Once they punch the clock, that's it. Once they leave the company that's it. If Walt had lost Disneyland to financiers/take over or whatever. Walt would still embody Disneyland. The men now see it as a job not a life. Yes we won't get Walt back, but in some ways if there was someone in the Disney family that cared (and to a certain extend Roy did after Walt's death), and run as a private company over a corporation there would probably be more of that "squishy" feeling around it. Small World doesn't however just embodies Walt, it embodies Unicef, and I think it's the Sherman Brothers, and Mary Blair. These are also aspects that make it dear to us. Those aren't just AA's those are Mary's dolls.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "We all know that other people (The retlaw/imagineers) did the work and probably came up with a lot of the concepts (or even some main ideas). But Walt embodied the ideas and presented them to the public. I forget the name of the one president everyone likes, but he did much the same thing only quieter. I'm not a parent but I'd try to explain Walt cared" Could Walt draw? Barely. Did Walt know all the engineering it took to make a monorail move? Probably not. Did he have a vision? Yes. Here is a guy who was genuinely excited about the things he was doing. You could see this in the old Disneyland specials. One of my favorites is when he introduces Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion and the Tiki Room. He's like a kid in a candy store in those shows. Those episodes, where the premise is that he's just touring WED and showing off a few things, are awesome. The guy was a nut. It was great.
Originally Posted By Socrates "BTW, did you ever wonder what Disneyland would've looked like if Walt had been born ten years later?" "I wonder what Disneyland would look like if Walt had simply lived ten years more." Or Epcot. That's another great "what if" we should explore sometime. I bet we could have a lot of fun with that! Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster I rode Small World today. Let me first say I never liked the idea of characters being added to the ride. But I figured I'd wait until I saw it to judge for myself. I thought I would probably just shrug and think the whole thing wasn't a big deal. Nope. The issue isn't that characters were added to the ride. The issue is that nearly every scene is now focused around the characters. Aladdin is the first thing you see in the Middle East room. Alice in Wonderland is the first thing you see in the United Kingdom. Cinderella is on an all-new pedestal rightnext to the flume. Ariel dominates the under-sea section. Lilo and Stitch are in your face immediately as you enter Polynesia. The fat Pinocchio puppet is surrounded by bright lights and directly in front of the boat. Same thing with the Three Caballeros in Mexico. Woody and Jesse are the obvious focus of the America room. Adding characters isn't the problem. It's the way they did it. The ride now feels like every scene is about Disney characters and the singing dolls are just the background. To compound things they added Disney songs in every scene which creates an audio mess. Simply terrible. This is just another step towards completely diluting everything that has a specific theme. Everyting in every park now has to be about the characters. It's all about the merchandising now and it's just sad.
Originally Posted By crazycroc I agree, let's all stop going. Knott's Berry Farm here I come, a place where I know they won't sacrifice theme and history for hip and edgy.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 #167 - I was naysayed by a number of posters on this board when I said Cinderella stood out like a sore thumb on the pedastal. It's nice to hear someone else thinks the same as me. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Disney parks history is based on their NOT just being 'a theme park with enjoyable rides and attractions'." What is it if it isn't a theme park? A spiritual center? An institute for higher learning? A research center furthering the cause of science? Anyone treating as anything much more than a theme park is getting way too emotionally invested. Disney is, and always has been, an entertainment company. If you're looking for more than entertainment, you may want to take a closer look at you life and your values. "Walt Disney DID invest more meaning in his park. If he hadn’t, it would have ended up being just another amusement park." It is an amusement park. Nothing more really.
Originally Posted By The Duck What amazes me most is the number of people who seem to think that they're "channeling" the ghost of Walt Disney and they and ONLY they, know exactly what Walt would have liked or disliked. Have we grown that arrogant and self-important? The ride changed a little. One day, it will change again. So what, big deal, get a life, move on.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I don't see anyone saying that this is not what Walt would have done. As for it being just an theme/amusement park, I think a lot of people feel an ownership; they understand change, but it can't be anything that doesn't seem "right." I feel that way. Not as strongly as others, but I certainly want DL to maintain its ability to entertain and to inspire. I also think it *is* a spiritual center of sorts. I know davewasbaloo has said it's as close to a religion as he has, and I am sure others have similar feelings about the park and even Walt to some degree. I can tell you I have shed a tear or two of joy when I have an extraordinary Disney park experience. I don't think there are many if any other parks that can boast bringing out such emotions in people. So... I think it's important to respect those who you disagree with. No one here needs to "get a life;" we all love, or at least like, Disney. Otherwise we wouldn't be here on LP, right?
Originally Posted By oc_dean Whether you two understand this or not ... many of the experiences that came to be in the 50s and 60s .. and even beyond that ... are meant to strike a chord, that in a way, is like a life-changing moment. Maybe not quite that, but close. The art direction in many attractions, past and present work on the mind in some very subtle fashions. I think it's why Disneyland is revered as it is. Far more than any "Six Flags" park could ever receive.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Anyone treating as anything much more than a theme park is getting way too emotionally invested. Disney is, and always has been, an entertainment company. If you're looking for more than entertainment, you may want to take a closer look at you life and your values." Yep. More and more I'm starting to feel this way. My emotional connection with the parks has waned greatly over the past decade or so, particularly after watching the company dismantle so many of the guiding principles that had been been hallmarks of the Disney experience. I'm okay with most of what Disney is doing these days, but I've found that I'm less fretful about the junk I don't like now that I've adjusted to the fact that the glory days of Disney's parks has passed.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “I think it's why Disneyland is revered as it is.” It was. I actually think that once upon a time it was far more revered than it is now. Even Eisner seemed to hold the parks in higher esteem than today's management. I get the strong sense that Disney views its parks and resorts as little more than assets to that need to be reinvested in every now and then in order to keep the cash flowing. For whatever reason these places are no longer the testing grounds for new technologies and entertainment concepts that they once were. Clearly, there is a mandate today to use Disney’s parks and resorts as a way to reinforce the company’s various brands in front of millions of enraptured visitors who are under the spell of Disney “magic”. This seems especially true at the international properties. There is certainly inherently nothing wrong with Disney’s current infusion of characters as a marketing ploy; modes of business have changed drastically since DL opened and the characters have proven to be very lucrative. The fact that Disney is probably the only media giant that has not been sold since its inception can probably be attributed to that Disney synergy we all know and hate. Since it’s so painfully obvious that there was a shift in the principle direction of the parks long ago, I find it difficult to have empathy with those who seem to be in denial or simple want to do nothing more than gripe about it.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Hans, they've certainly crushed your spirits. Eventually it'll happen to all of us.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Oh my spirits are definitely not crushed. I just understand that Disney parks aren't as important to me as they once were, and I'm fine with that. Sure I'll come here and vent or chat about some rumor, but I see no reason to take any of the changes like Small World so personally as to be angry about them. Of course I will still visit the parks occasionally, but instead of fretting about this or that change, or how things used to be, I'll just enjoy the things I like and ignore the rest. I'm not knocking anyone who gets upset about this stuff, but I can't see any sense in doing so. It just isn't really all that important.
Originally Posted By Socrates I've had another thought. (It happens.) How many members of the Great American Public do you think will be able to identify all the characters? Or even half the characters? Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
