Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<It's interesting to note that the Xmas version is well received.>> As you said, it only runs 4 months and was never meant to replace the original show forever. Same with the Haunted Mansion Holiday. Imagine the uproar if they decided to keep that one all year.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Yes imagine. I would probably be outraged, since I hate the Holiday version of the Haunted Mansion! LOL.
Originally Posted By danyoung >It's interesting to note that the Xmas version is well received.< Interesting point. And with all the talk about how the new Disney characters have changed the theme of world peace, note that the Christmas version drastically changes the message of the attraction from world peace to holiday cheer. But that's OK so long as Mickey & Stitch aren't in view.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But that's OK so long as Mickey & Stitch aren't in view.<< It's okay because it is actually more ambitious and creative. IMHO. I'm not one saying don't ever change the rides. I am saying, if you're going to change it, really go for it and do something amazing. Donald Duck in a sombrero isn't amazing to me. Redressing a well-known ride in it's holiday finest is more creative, something to see, something that is more marketable.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "So what you're saying is that Disney should only cater to what the lowest common denominator wants? They shouldn't strive to give us something that we didn't even know that we wanted, but should just instead meet our expectations?" Try not to put words in my mouth. Saying they should give the public what it wants isn't the same as saying they should only give the public what it wants and nothing more. Disney is a business. If the public loves the characters so much, they'd be irresponsible not to try to incorporate them where possible. You don't have to like the decision, but if you can't see why they make it, then you've got a pretty narrow view of things. Besides, even ignoring the corporate/stockholder pressures and demands, at this point in history, Disney has an enormous amount of marketable characters. There's just a very practical reason for the characters popping up in areas other than Fantasyland/Toontown. I don't think anyone will argue that all the post-Walt characters should be kept out of the parks, so the question becomes where do you put them? It's easy to complain that Buzz has no real business in Tomorrowland (and I won't argue that it isn't a valid complaint). Or Tarzan in Adventureland. Or Captain Jack on Tom Sawyer's Island. Or any number of questionable theming/character decision. But where do you put them? You can't squeeze them all into Fantasyland. Sure, a lot of the complaints are valid. And I sure won't argue that character creep hasn't gone too far. But these decisions are a lot harder than the purists are willing to admit or understand. And it really gets hard to take then seriously when they completely lose all perspective ("IASW's message has been ruined!!!" or "DL is no different than Six Flags now!!"). Or how about this: "Congratulations to all those who want more toons in your face .. to more sophisticated, adult creativity!" In a thread about IASW, the epitome sophisticated, adult creativity.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<I'm not one saying don't ever change the rides. I am saying, if you're going to change it, really go for it and do something amazing.>> That's how I feel as well. Adding the characters to Small World is creatively lazy, and does nothing to really enhance the ride. I'm sure they could have done something far more ambitious if they really wanted to bring this ride into the 21st century. (As an example, how about using some of that new animatronic technology they used on Sinbad at TDS to update the dolls? Or maybe some amazing lighting, water or projection effects?)
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<You don't have to like the decision, but if you can't see why they make it, then you've got a pretty narrow view of things.>> Oh, I can see why they're doing it - I just don't agree with their reasons. I think they're making a mistake here, and homogenizing the attraction experiences. If they keep this up, then Disneyland will only be about toons, and not much else. And by doing that, they'll have lost half their audience.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<"DL is no different than Six Flags now!!>> I never said this - I only said that they were heading down this path with their whole "Disney Parks" marketing scheme.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<So what you're saying is that Disney should only cater to what the lowest common denominator wants? They shouldn't strive to give us something that we didn't even know that we wanted, but should just instead meet our expectations? Frankly, that just doesn't sound like a recipe for success - that sounds like a recipe for being the next Six Flags.>> Actually, it sounds like most of WDW! ~Oops, wasn't gonna enter this fray!~
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Oh, I can see why they're doing it - I just don't agree with their reasons. I think they're making a mistake here, and homogenizing the attraction experiences. If they keep this up, then Disneyland will only be about toons, and not much else. >> Been to the MK recently? The lands have no meaning at all anymore. They are all about Disney characters and properties being wedged into anywhere and everywhere. DL is almost pure in comparison ... but they clearly know the direction they'd like to take. ~There you go again!~
Originally Posted By danyoung >The lands have no meaning at all anymore.< Sorry, but I just don't buy that hyperbole. The lands still have exactly the same feel that they've always had. If you see Mickey in Frontierland, he's in buckskins and a cowboy hat. On Main Street he has on his dress reds & blacks. Yes, there are more toons than there used to be, but for the most part they are designed to fit in. You should never see Buzz Lightyear in Liberty Square. I do have a problem with the Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor showing up in Tomorrowland, as there's just no possible link to future (I guess there's a sci-fi link, but for me that's not enough). But other than that, the MK is still made up of Fantasyland and Frontierland and Adventureland and all of the other great lands that have made this park such a hit. ~I ain't no Pollyanna!~
Originally Posted By mawnck >>If you see Mickey in Frontierland, he's in buckskins and a cowboy hat. << Everything you describe here as "fitting in" has been there for many years. Including the cowboy Mickey costume.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 Hello? Have we not been saying this for YEARS Spirit. I can tell you, there is NOTHING Frontier-ish, Adventure-ish, or Colonial-ish, about said lands. DL can bitch all it wants about Astro Orbiters at the entrance and empty PPlmover tracks. They DONT have TWO, count em TWO Stitch Attractions, Monsters, AND BUZZ, AND Disney Channel Merch at the exit to Space.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""If you see Mickey in Frontierland, he's in buckskins and a cowboy hat."" That is the ENTIRE POINT. We didnt NEED him then and we DONT NEED him there now. We had the Diamond Horseshoe which FIT the THEME and STORY of what was taking place. An 19th century Saloon in Missouri in an land about the westeard expansion of the U.S.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 "Adventureland and all of the other great lands that have made this park such a hit." AL was a hit even before cartoon carpets and Gilbert Godfried.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Everything you describe here as "fitting in" has been there for many years. Including the cowboy Mickey costume.< True. I don't see your point. >That is the ENTIRE POINT. We didnt NEED him then and we DONT NEED him there now.< In your opinion. In my opinion (and the opinion of millions of other guests), characters are very welcome anywhere in the parks, as long as they are themed to the area that they appear in. It's been that way since 1955. You can probably say that the appearance of characters has increased over the years, and I'd probably agree with you. But I don't see it as a bad thing. Characters don't mean much to me. If people want to stand in line to get an autograph, fine - that's that many less people in line in front of me.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Sorry, but I just don't buy that hyperbole. The lands still have exactly the same feel that they've always had.>> I disagree - I think the feel of the lands at the Magic Kingdom has changed dramatically. Take Tomorrowland - it used to be about a realistic vision of the future, and the attractions, shops and restuarants all reflected that theme. But now, it's all about sci-fi - an almost "cartoony" vision of the future. And the addition of Stitch, Monsters and Buzz have made this "cartoony" feel even more apparent. Adventureland is another great example - that land has gone from feeling realistic to being "cartoony" as well. While sining birds were never completely realistic, at least it was done in a somewhat realistic style - the birds looked like real birds, the flowers and tikis too. But now, we have cartoon characters included, and that just completely destroys the illusion.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I disagree - I think the feel of the lands at the Magic Kingdom has changed dramatically." I think so too.
Originally Posted By danyoung Guys, I can easily agree that the lands have experienced a change in some of their themes. But the original statement from the Spirit was, and I quote - "The lands have no meaning at all anymore". And that's what I disagreed with.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Fair enough. While the transformation may not be equally administered through the entire park, I think that generally it is true that most of the Magic Kingdom's authenticity has been tossed aside with synergistic marketing tie-ins pushed to the forefront. So, I guess I took Spirit's remark to mean that each land's story or theme has been marginalized to the point of being meaningless.
