Originally Posted By TMICHAEL And mawnk, the last part of that is not directed at you . Your observations are well thought out, a good read and not too judgemental. ;-)
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<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.>> Disneyland was not designed to be a character park. It was a theme (environment) park. Characters weren’t even associated with the park for it’s first five years outside of their attractions. In Europe, parks that are heavily character oriented are considered “kiddie” parks. When EuroDisneyland was first marketed, they emphasized the characters, which had the adverse effect of putting off a lot of potential guests. If the focus on characters continues to be the driving force of all future creative efforts for the parks, Disney will have lost the essence of their theme parks and turned them into the “kiddie parks” that the Europeans deride.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Disneyland was not designed to be a character park. It was a theme (environment) park.< Disneyland was designed to be exactly what Walt wanted it to be. And since he was still very much alive when characters were introduced in 1958 (sorry for the bad date above), it's pretty safe to assume that characters were OK with Walt. He built many of his attractions based on animated movies, and thus on characters. There isn't a thing wrong with characters in the parks, as long as the attractions that they build are great attractions. They totally missed with MILF. In my opinion they hit a home run with the Nemo subs.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""He built many of his attractions based on animated movies, and thus on characters."" Name ONE attarction that was based on a "ride the movie" mentality since Alice opened in '58
Originally Posted By danyoung I can't think of one. But I don't see why that matters in the least. Walt was definitely prone to being in the frame of mind of "been there, done that". In the late 50's and early 60's he didn't much care for animation at all, and was living to plus his existing park and deeply into planning his new venture in Florida. But all of that does nothing to change the fact that many attractions were built on existing characters, and Walt definitely approved and was actively involved with them. Now, does that mean that EVERY attraction needs to be animation character based? Of course not. Walt put in great non-character attractions like Pirates and the HM and the Matterhorn. That still doesn't change the basic theory I have that there's nothing inherently wrong with character based attractions as long as they're well designed and executed. Midway Mania is a great example of a well done attraction. It's no Pirates, but it's been well received on both coasts. And I keep coming back to the Laugh Floor as an example of a poorly designed and executed attraction. Stitch is another one. When I read about new attractions, I don't even begin to worry about whether they're character based (like DL's reworked subs) or not (like Everest). All I care about is that it's a great attraction. It doesn't have to be an E ticket, but it needs to be well designed, interesting to experience, and have a high repeatability.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<If the focus on characters continues to be the driving force of all future creative efforts for the parks, Disney will have lost the essence of their theme parks>> I don't think there is anyone who disagrees with that. The argument has been, and remains, are the characters OK in IASW, which is based in Fantasyland, a land primarily based on characters and animation. I'm basically over dissussing it further though; I don't think anyone has or will change their mind over the additions.
Originally Posted By Bellella >But the America room, well, that needs a lot of help.< Apparently they wanted the whole "Western/rural color scheme to work with the rest of the ride. It doesn't. >After going on, I thought they were actually one of the better additions.< Does this opinion cover all the characters, or just the Three Caballeros? And what about Stitch? Maybe if they toned down the America room, it'd be all right.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Why do they keep doing this? Why do they have to toon up EVERY SINGLE CORNER of their theme parks? The only things sold in their stores are Disney related merchandise, and now they toon up every single ride? When will it stop?" You can't figure it out? Seriously? The public wants this. "But the America room, well, that needs a lot of help. Very jarring going from the cool hues and whimsy of the rainforest to the warm colors and bland scenes of America then back to the cool blues, purples and white of the finale." Speaking of the finale, am I the only one who doesn't care for the "colorizing"? Which is strange, I usually love color. But for some reason, I don't like the change. Maybe it's because the pure white meant that it has no nationalistic links and really symbolized world unity and the colors change that. It ruins the message of the ride and is an abomination!! Time to start a website protesting this change!!! Where can I get picket signs made?? Ok, maybe not. But I don't really like the colors in the last room for some reason. I preferred the lily white. "In Europe, parks that are heavily character oriented are considered “kiddie” parks. When EuroDisneyland was first marketed, they emphasized the characters, which had the adverse effect of putting off a lot of potential guests." You have a cite for this?
Originally Posted By oc_dean You write just for the sake of heckling. Why don't you just present your opinion, which is you like the change - and be done with it?!
Originally Posted By oc_dean This has been his style since day one of this discussion. After posting on this site for almost 10 years ... I think I know the difference by now ... who's presenting logical, and rational thoughts - like Hans, and Dan do ... but at this point in the discussion? It's tiring!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Or another way to look at it ... at least Trek, Hans, Dan are, or try to be nice. When topics start off .. they can get passionate and heated. But at this point on this topic? I've had enough.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 OK I am just wondering, was it the Imagineers or the marketing people who went with the color scheme for the America room? And was it the imagineers or the marketing people who made Pinocchio so fat? Just curious, since there seems to be an argument running that the Imagineers are not responsible for the content of the ride and were just carrying out their orders. I am OK with this argument, though it means that they should still be responsible for how the orders were executed. Add to this the complaint that the character music doesn't fit and there is no way tonaly to make it fit, and you have a case where the order was an impossible one to execute smoothly. - Anatole
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL >> >After going on, I thought they were actually one of the better additions.< Does this opinion cover all the characters, or just the Three Caballeros? And what about Stitch?<<< Hey there Belle, I was referring mainly about the Three Cabilleros and how my opinion changed after riding. But I had no problem with most, not all, but most of the additions. And I really am the wrong one to ask about Stitch. Love the little bugger and think he looks pretty cute on the surf board. BUT, Lilo should definitely be in her swim suit not a mumu.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""You can't figure it out? Seriously? The public wants this."" Oh really, stop pandering like we're six. No guests before or since were throwing hissy fits over LACK of characters INSIDE attractions. It's just that WDI has CONDITIONED guests since 1998 to ACCEPT toons 24/7 in the other lands.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Take an entire decade's time: 1999 - Tarzan 2000 - cartoony Chevron cars 2001- 2002- 2003- Pooh 2004- 2005- Buzz Lightyear 2006- 2007- Nemo 2008- Pixie Hollow 2009- Disney Characters - 'small world' Everything there caters from the kindergarten to 4th grade. So little has been done with an "art direction" to 'spur' the adult in us. I'd say the last time anything was done to strike a more "mature" chord was Indy. Almost a full decade and a half.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Except DL doesn't exist in a vacuum; you're leaving out all the attractions in DCA.
Originally Posted By Bellella >It ruins the message of the ride and is an abomination!! Time to start a website protesting this change!!!< Colorizing the finale room ruins the message of the ride? If you'll pardon my French, that change "pales" in comparison to what they did with adding the characters in. If anything is an abomination that ruins the message of the ride, that's it. But wait- I'm repeating myself! All that they did with the finale room is waste some resources with all those hokey colored lights.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Except DL doesn't exist in a vacuum; you're leaving out all the attractions in DCA.<< Only in the eyes of a parkhopper. While they are two parks next to each other - they are still TWO SEPERATE PARKS. It's not ONE giant park.
