Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "I was just in Legoland. Gives you a whole new appreciation for the job Disney does." Yeah, if you're looking for something on a higher level than what you can find at Disney, you're going to have slim pickins that's for sure.
Originally Posted By smd4 >>>Yeah, if you're looking for something on a higher level than what you can find at Disney, you're going to have slim pickins that's for sure.<<< For now. Disneyland is well on its way to mediocrity. The NOS additions are on par with the superficial "theming" that can be found at parks such as Busch Gardens Williamsburg (which is a BEAUTIFUL park, notwithstanding).
Originally Posted By hopemax Early Disneyland, was the work of movie makers translated into a new medium. Set designers, art directors, production designers, etc. Current Disneyland is the work of who? Imagineers that are supposed to be competent across multi-disciplines, but haven't really been trained in any of the disciplines that they are supposed to excel at. They have education, but different real world experiences, than say, Emil Kuri or Harper Goff and their staffs. People are crying when they enter Diagon Alley, because of how perfectly it recreates what you expect to feel when walking into that world, and it's that overwhelming how much it hits them. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the movie production staff was heavily involved in the theme park application and why it's so successful. I think the Club 33 redo shows that there is a difference in effective execution between someone who comes from movies recreating a world vs being trained as whatever Imagineers are supposed to be. Similar to how people find the Audio-Animatronic programming less successful, Mr. Lincoln's flailing being the most obvious when animators stopped doing it, and it became the tasks of "robot engineers." The differences are subtle, but people have a way of feeling that things are just slightly off. I've been watching a lot of "Say, Yes to the Dress" while my Mom's dealing with health issues. And the women are surrounded with dozens of beautiful dresses, nothing wrong with any of them, but most of them just aren't right for the bride. The difference may not be much, but no matter how minor, makes all the difference to turn a dress into "the one."
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Disneyland is well on its way to mediocrity." Some people said the same thing on opening day.
Originally Posted By smd4 >>>Some people said the same thing on opening day.<<< That was before it was realized that Disneyland was a cultural, societal and artistic tour-de-force. Remember when scholarly types wrote about the societal and cultural implications of the Park? Remember when the most important world leaders felt that a visit to the Park was necessary? Remember when artists such as Salvadore Dali commented on the Park? Well, guess what. Stuff like that doesn't happen any more. Instead of masters of their craft like Charles Laughton visiting, we get dilettantes like Miley Cyrus. Disneyland, through its attempt to keep itself "relevant" by appealing to the lowest common denominator, has lost its cultural significance. Some of us mourn that. Others, not so much.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Early Disneyland, was the work of movie makers translated into a new medium. Set designers, art directors, production designers, etc. Yes <Current Disneyland is the work of who? Imagineers that are supposed to be competent across multi-disciplines, but haven't really been trained in any of the disciplines that they are supposed to excel at. They have education, but different real world experiences, than say, Emil Kuri or Harper Goff and their staffs.>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "That was before it was realized that Disneyland was a cultural, societal and artistic tour-de-force." Mmmkaay...
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Great post, hopemax! It really highlights the gradual changes through the years, and gives a pretty good explanation for why the changes have happened. It's not that the current crop of Imagineers is trying to be bad or is horribly incompetent, but rather they're just lacking the full background to understand how to do this the same way as they were done in the past In a way, this is also reflected in the various marketing campaigns. Instead of being encouraged to visit the parks to create new memories, it has shifted to visiting the parks to remember previous visits; it's still the nostalgic magic-dream-wish stuff, but in a slightly different, less impactful, package. It's a subtle shift, but one that I think is being noticed by the public and has the potential to bring P&R down if they don't begin to turn things around >>Of course if the PFF is an example of poor theming, I don't know what to say.<< I don't understand all the hate for the design of PFF. It's in the wrong location (it should be inside Fantasyland), but it's really a nice area with lots of details. If anything, there are too many details there for the amount of actual substance. Out of place? Yes. Poorly themed? Absolutely not.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo I think smd4 is my new favorite poster. A cultural, societal and artistic tour-de-force! I think I heard angels singing as I read that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I've never liked the idea of Club 33 and its exclusive, members-only access. Am I bitter and jealous? Maybe. But not really. For me, the whole idea of it always seemed to fly in the face of the everyman image Walt Disney spent a lifetime mining and marketing. The appeal of Disneyland is that kings and the average Joe were all VIPs and treated to the same level of experiences. While most others found the idea of this not-so-secret club really cool, I've never had a desire to be a part of it (not that I could afford it anyway). Now that the average guest will be able to peer in, even if only a little bit, it strikes me as especially bad show. At least before, though it was the worst kept secret ever, it remained subtle and out of sight and basically non-intrusive on the average guest's experience. Now, with large windows and stained glass gates, it's screaming for attention. And it's screaming, "There's a party going on, but you're not invited." Bad show.
Originally Posted By ecdc +2. The usual over-the-top rhetoric about artistic tour-de-force being destroyed, etc., etc., that we get anytime Disneyland changes anything aside, 2oony is spot on about Club 33's in your face impact.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I don't know, do you really think it's that in your face to the average guest?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Probably to the average DL frequent guest. They know NOS backwards and forwards and notice the changes. Even if they're okay with the different appearance of the area where the club was expanded, they certainly know the Court of Angels is no longer accessible. The non-frequent guest may not know what he/she is missing. But if Club patrons are clearly visible through the big windows (and we'll see how that works in practice), that average guest might very well think "hey, what's up there on the second story?" And if they ask a cm, they'll be told "sorry, that's a private club. You can't go there." I'm sure they'll be told politely, but it's still kind of a downer.
Originally Posted By berol I don't know if you can see much through the window besides the chandelier. If I was told the New Orleans version of "fairies are at work up there," I'd jump to the conclusion that it is an employee area and move on.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But if Club patrons are clearly visible through the big windows (and we'll see how that works in practice), that average guest might very well think "hey, what's up there on the second story?" And if they ask a cm, they'll be told "sorry, that's a private club. You can't go there." I'm sure they'll be told politely, but it's still kind of a downer.<< This. I'm not naive enough to believe that there aren't all kinds of exclusive perks for sponsors willing to pay for them. But these changes gobbled up a nice little corner of the park that the average guest could enjoy. Not the end of the world, I know. Disneyland is a business, I know. But after 52 years of experiencing the park, reading about it, studying it, I also think I have a pretty good sense of what makes good show and bad show, and this seems like bad show to me. I'm also hoping that the pictures thus far are not close to the final product, and that many more layers of detail and finishing touches will help it blend much more into the rest of NOS.
Originally Posted By Moon Waffle I'm much more annoyed with all of the tacky "Nashville" props and promotion back in Frontierland than I am about anything going on in NOS right now.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Imagineer is someone with an MBA in imagination. Why do you think the movies are not so bueno. Hi-Yo not so Silver. It's like that tripe they keep producing for the die hard fans... doesn't even seem like they are feigning a try.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Would this type of activity be appealing if Universal did something similar with Harry Potter in The Wizarding World or would it be equally distasteful? Serious question.
