Originally Posted By FerretAfros Dalmatians!!! >>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.<< Personally I don't think it would be as big of a deal. The Universal parks have always had up-charge experiences, so having a private club wouldn't be quite as out of line as at the everyman DL. The Universal parks (at least in Orlando, where the HP stuff is) also don't have the history and mystique that attract so many people to DL. NOS is usually considered to be one of Walt's last big achievements in the park, so to see the changes really takes that away for a lot of people And for what it's worth, I think most of the HP stuff (both at IOA and the new Diagon Alley) is built at full scale, so having large windows on the upper levels wouldn't be nearly as obtrusive. The Hogwarts castle on top of the Forbidden Journey building seemed to use forced perspective, but everything else felt rather large (Ironically, excluding the shops, which were incredibly cramped) so I think that large windows like the new Club 33 ones could easily be blended in, unlike in NOS where each floor (including the ground floor) is built on a smaller-than-real scale
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Disney, for years, has bragged about how their Imagineers set the standard for theme park design. And they point it out every chance they get. - Attention to detail - use of forced perspective - the hub concept of the park layout - the berm that keeps the outside out - the icons that draw guests from one part of the park to the next - the visual transitions from one land to the next And on and on. Disney points them out. Shows us where they are, what they are, and how they are the ones who do it right. Then, when Disney takes the rules from their own 'brag book' and chucks them out the window because it's easier to not block out the Anaheim Convention Center and the Paradise Pier Hotel from the inside of Paradise Pier at DCA, and they add pieces to New Orleans Square that don't maintain the original aesthetic (Forced perspective - gone) (Tinkerbell?), we, as those educated by The Masters and with 40+ years of spending time in the Parks, are asked to overlook these rule breaking additions. See what I'm saying?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Personally I don't think it would be as big of a deal. The Universal parks have always had up-charge experiences, so having a private club wouldn't be quite as out of line as at the everyman DL." I was talking about the Frontierland thing.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "See what I'm saying?" Absolutely, but boasting about your accomplishments and high standards doesn't change the fact that some of Walt's ideas were flawed and the parks aren't perfect.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Absolutely, but boasting about your accomplishments and high standards doesn't change the fact that some of Walt's ideas were flawed and the parks aren't perfect.> You realize that's a pretty weak response, Hans. It's like the walk around characters. They have increased the quality 10 fold since opening day and during 'Walt's time. So now, in 2014, the 'standard' for walk around characters is at a new level of higher quality, characters that look better, and some that blink eyes and move mouths. Marching out those old rubber heads they had in the 50s would be unthinkable. The bar has been raised and you can't go back. Same with architecture, theme-ing and other aspects of the Parks. The bar has been raised since 1955, and Disney has a self-imposed high level of quality that is expected. Our apologies if we notice.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "You realize that's a pretty weak response, Hans. " Is it? Are you saying that the parks have been perfectly flawless up until recently??
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Although the parks have never been flawless, it seems like the general intent until semi-recently was to constantly improve them. For example, in the 90's they added the ship's masts that can be seen "in a distant port" behind NOS from certain angles. That sort of stuff was never necessary, but adding it gave a lot more detail and texture. It seems like most of the stuff that's been done in recent years has been a response to building code changes and/or subtractions by addition, without nearly as much care for the finished product Of course there will always be exceptions to this on both sides, but that seems to be the general change of trend that I've noticed through the years. The current crop of Imagineers really want to put their stamp on the parks, regardless of whether it actually improves them or not
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <"You realize that's a pretty weak response, Hans. "> <Is it? Are you saying that the parks have been perfectly flawless up until recently??> I'm certainly not suggesting the parks are perfect. I'm not sure how that would be determined. What I am saying is that since 1955, Disneyland has pushed their boundaries of excellence. Some things in Disneyland are even better than they were when Walt walked the Park. So when something new is added, and the attention to detail that we have come to know over the past 60 years seems 'off' or 'substandard' - we notice. And sometimes, try as we might to let the Imagineers off the hook, it's hard to just look the other way or just say 'pretty!' Because again, they have created their own legacy and have a higher standard than they did in 1954. How do we know that? They tell us. If you're going to put an addition on New Orleans Square, which, from a theme park perspective is darn near perfection, that new add-on should be amazing. And overall, the changes are okay, but seem 'off.' Because the Imagineers have taught us what to look for, and when we notice it's not quite right, we should like it any way because the Park has never been perfect. Sorry. We can't unknow what we know.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "For example, in the 90's they added the ship's masts that can be seen "in a distant port" behind NOS from certain angles." Yeah, and they also imagineered Tomorrowland '98 during the same decade.
Originally Posted By smd4 >>>Yeah, and they also imagineered Tomorrowland '98 during the same decade.<<< Ah. So you are capable of percieving when something at Disneyland is built not quite up to Disney's standards.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "So you are capable of percieving when something at Disneyland is built not quite up to Disney's standards." What I'm capable of perceiving is that WDI doesn't always deliver, and it's been that way since the beginning. For example, it's all fine and dandy that Walt said Tomorrowland would be a living blueprint of our future, but the Imagineers have yet to fulfill that promise at any point in the park's history.
Originally Posted By hopemax I took a longer look at the photos of the Club 33 stuff. I believe that if those architectural and design choices were made in a city the neighbors would be throwing a fit about it. My Dad used to subscribe to some home renovation magazine and the last page was called "remuddling." This would be the type of things that make that page. If you turned this project in for a design school assignment, I don't think the student would get a very good grade. Things like that window and arches looks that bad to me. Forget theme parks, this would be a failure in any real world environment.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA So...don't hold Disney to a higher standard, because they've always had moments where things were not perfect. Here's to middle of the road and the good college try! Yay!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I never said or even suggested that Jim. All I'm saying is that Disney missing the mark is nothing new. Missteps are rare, but they do happen and have been from the opening day fiasco in 1955 right up to the tacky new architectural details in NOS.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>...Walt said Tomorrowland would be a living blueprint of our future, but the Imagineers have yet to fulfill that promise at any point in the park's history.<< In all honesty, I'm glad that TL has never been a true blueprint of the future. As we've seen, the real future isn't nearly as exciting as the future-based ideas that have been added to TL through the years. Innoventions is probably the closest we've gotten to that mantra, yet it's overwhelmingly criticized for being lackluster. Giving people the chance to "savor the challenge and promise of the future" is more than showing exactly what it will be like; it's giving them some of the possibilities of what may be, and letting each person's mind run with that. Of course, there doesn't seem to be much of that sort of vision any more, but this post is already off-topic enough
Originally Posted By PeterPan1313 >>>Walt said Tomorrowland would be a living blueprint of our future<<< I don't think that Walt intended Tomorrowland to be primarily a "living blueprint" of the future, from the dedication speech: "A vista into a world of wondrous ideas, signifying Man's achievement. A step into the future, with predictions of constructed things to come. Tomorrow offers new frontiers in science, adventure and ideals. The Atomic Age, the challenge of Outer Space and the hope for a peaceful, unified world." I think Walt was aiming to firstly entertain guests, and offer up his "prediction" of what the future might look like, which was part of the entertainment as was the "wondrous ideas". >>>As we've seen, the real future isn't nearly as exciting as the future-based ideas that have been added to TL through the years.<<< Really?? Airports have people movers, similar in concept to Disneyland's, but Tomorrowland didn't showcase Google's self-driving cars or how complex the internet would become. When you think about it, the present day world has just about everything in Walt's Tomorrowland, monorails (not ubiquitous, but present in some parts of the world, and there are high speed levitating trains), people movers, free ways, spaceships, nuclear powered subs, heck, you can join the Navy and work for six months on a real submarine. Tomorrowland, and Epcot, have always had a world's fair flavor to them, but I wouldn't call them visionary exactly, more exploiting the appeal of futuristic concepts for entertainment purposes. I don't think anybody looked at the Autopia then or now and figured that the ride was primarily "about" the highway system, and kids having fun driving cars is secondary to some vision of the future. Yes, Walt hoped that monorails took off, but it was still just a prediction, and riding the monorail is still fun and occasionally practical. Similarly, the old Sub voyage was entertainment first and foremost, it sure wasn't educational as it had Atlantis and mermaids, it was Jules Verne style entertainment.
Originally Posted By berol All I put into what was said in the dedication speech is that someone wrote a script for him to recite on TV which said that.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I can't believe that anyone is trying to defend Walt Disney's Tomorrowland. It's widely accepted that it's always been the area at both DL and WDW with the most potential, but with the poorest execution.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 TL '67 (which Walt had plenty of input on), was really wonderful. Yes, it got dated, which is the problem with the whole "show the world 30 years in the future" concept. But for a while there it was arguably the MOST compelling area of the park - ask anyone who was around at that time (me, 2oony, JiminMerced, et al).
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "TL '67 (which Walt had plenty of input on), was really wonderful. Yes, it got dated, which is the problem with the whole "show the world 30 years in the future" concept. But for a while there it was arguably the MOST compelling area of the park - ask anyone who was around at that time (me, 2oony, JiminMerced, et al)." It's the Tomorrowland I grew up with, and I agree that it was wonderful at the time. As you pointed out though, it grew dated very quickly. With the exception of replacing Carousel of Progress with America Sings, changing Flight to The Moon to Mission to Mars, and the Space Mountain mini expansion in 1977, Disney never gave it a proper refreshing until 1998.
