Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance So I'm reading "Mouse Under Glass" By David Koenig, and I found this passage including a quote by Tony Baxter to be interesting, so I'll post it, maybe it'll generate some discussion. I had told Hans, I'd post a quote from Tony Baxter about synergy, but I can't find it! I'm one of those people that read something and can't find it ever again, lol. So, while I continue looking for that, here is this in the meantime. This passage is coming from around the mid 80s, when they continued having one bomb after another in the animation box office. "The company's more aggressive new management would permit the theme parks to once again lay track, in innovative directions. After THE BLACK CAULDRON bombed, the Imagineers realized they would have to look outside their own company for inspiration. Blockbuster entertainment in the 80s was Michael Jackson music videos and the Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies, so Imagineering brought in those movies' characters and producers to make theme park versions...... Many Disney purists weren't happy with rides based on non Disney properties, charging that the Imagineers were getting lazy and unimaginative. Walt, they cried, wouldn't have rented the Muppets, he would have created his own characters. "A lot of people tell me it's sacrilege, but I tell them if they want to get technical, Walt Disney died in 1966, so movies made after that really aren't Disney movies." Tony Baxter responds. "Kids growing up in the 70s and 80s don't have great Disney movies, so anybody who does a film for Disney now, like Robert Zemeckis, it's just his film released with the Disney name. The spirit's more important, the state of mind. Look at ET, Star Wars, the parent's missing, there's the sense of something different, all the things that endear you to the characters are there and work for many of the same reasons. ETs truisms are the same as Disney's, and it was sort of sad that we had no movies like that (at the time). But we were committed that Disneyland be the place where the very best of American myths reside. If you're a child now, it's an entirely different situation. We not have a constant supply of excellent animated films, and today's literature is film" Interesting?
Originally Posted By Manfried Yeah, interesting considering Tony fought to keep Star Wars out of Disneyland at first.
Originally Posted By oc_dean But since the Ashman/Menken musicals came in .. and thus Disney has a breed of their own content again. And many of their works still have yet to be turned into mega Disney theme park attractions. Little Mermaid in Paradise Pier is really the first full-out attraction. And still to this day ... many of those properties have yet to be turned into full fledged attractions. Meanwhile ... Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and now Marvel are pushed to the front ... but what about their own content that they DO have, now?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I believe the past problem has been a lack of motivation to push for non-testosterone driven attractions outside of Fantasyland. The Disney musical revival beginning with Little Mermaid wasn't exactly the street Glendale or Burbank wanted the parks to reside on, once certain personalities inside Imagineering started pushing their preferred attraction profile. They saw the films as too soft or not thrilling enough to be compelling attractions, compared to the other non-Disney franchises that served as a basis for the parks' more recent successful E-Tickets. As much as I hate to admit this, I believe we can thank the recent Pixar additions for why we're finally getting an attraction like Little Mermaid. The "softer" Pixar attractions have been huge successes, without the usual testosterone adrenaline wash inherent in previous rides like Star Tours and Indy. With the addition of Pixar properties in the parks, Disney has once again embraced its theme park roots typically found in the classic Fantasyland dark rides and iasw. They've proven that an attraction doesn't need to be geared toward high riding adventure and the "something goes terribly wrong" mythos in order to be entertaining. (Case in point: proposed Atlantis sub makeover versus Finding Nemo.) The Disney parks had been straying from the classic "family-friendly" E-Tickets during the past two decades, and I'm glad to see them finally returning. I think Little Mermaid would be a wonderful addition to most of the Disney theme parks.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I've never been a fan of Baxter. This only solidifies my position. In that quote he's towing the company line pure and simple.
Originally Posted By RogRabbit I find the part about the Disney purists who "weren't happy with rides based on non Disney properties, charging that the Imagineers were getting lazy and unimaginative" very interesting considering that many, if not all, Disney films are based on a book or fable or classic fairytale. "Walt, they cried, wouldn't have rented the Muppets, he would have created his own characters." OK, but he did "rent" the story of Alice going through Wonderland from Lewis Carrol, or Snow White and her Dwarfs from the Brothers Grimm; how is "renting" stories for theme park attractions any different. It's essentially a story by someone else being turned into a well made Disney property, much like the movies.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think it is lazy and unimaginative to do nothing but create rides and attractions built on existing film properties. A few here and there are fine, but does the entire place need to be filled with such things?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance It does if they want to fulfill ultimate synergy Hans! I wish I could find that quote from Tony about synergy Hans, it would have got your goose in a gander!
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I feel the same way RogRabbit. Almost everything is based off of something else. Which is fine. It doesn't bother me. There are very, very few Disney movies that weren't based entirely off of something else. In part, I enjoy the synergy of Disney. I think that's what pulls a lot of people to the parks. The whole familiarity of the characters they've grown up with, watched on movies, read about it books, and now new characters are being added for their children to grow up with.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt As an individual who remembers a very different Disney theme park experience I find it troubling that the places have become so overtly commercial. This goes beyond synergy. I'm talking about the subtle dismantling of lofty goals that Walt Disney set in place for DL when he dedicated the place. For instance, it's hard to convey exactly what Tomorrowland at WDW and DL was like back in mid 70s long before all the out of theme toon branding came along, but the overall tone was far more cutting edge, ambitious, and smart. Those adjectives could also have also been used to describe other areas of the parks as well. Today, one would be hard pressed use those words to appropriately describe DL or the MK now. There was a real sense back then that the brightest minds in the business worked at WDI actually inventing things like robotics and new transportation systems, rather than just creating a series of experiences based off of the latest Hollywood blockbuster. There was a genuine feeling of purpose to the parks and the people running them exibited a commitment to excellence and showmanship. I'm not directly opposed to change, but when I see this slow dismantling of the principles that made me a fan in the first place it bothers me. As fun as Disney parks are, their corporatization has taken away much of what caused me to be fascinated with them in the first place.
Originally Posted By Manfried When Walt built his park it was based on both the films, and his experiences growing up and more. Now folks have had different experiences growing up and more. If the parks don't evolve with the changes in society they will die. "As long as there is imagination left in the world." That quote doesn't mean use or not use things like animated characters or other things. But lets face it when Comic-con can draw 130,000 people to a convention even Disney is going to take notice.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Now folks have had different experiences growing up and more." Their experiences are all based on movies? Are all our memories and feelings of nostalgia based on commercial entities now? Reminds me of The Simpsons joke, "Does this family know any songs that aren't commercial?" "I feel like chicken tonight, like chicken tonight, like chicken tonight!" I guess you are right though. Walt Disney felt nostalgic about his small home town in Missouri. I admit that, today, Suburban Tract Housing Complex #40413 isn't quite as interesting.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo CC - the results of my survey seem to indicate people are more attracted to attention to detail environments and experiences than the character synergy.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Of course Hans summed up how I feel. I went to DL and obsessed about it because it took me to another place. It inspired me to read the works of Mark Twain, to learn more about Piracy and the geography of the world (thanks to the Jungle Cruise and IASW). I wanted to go to Polynesia, but the review and Tiki Room helped transport me there. Then there was the huge inspirational Tomorrowland, that urged me to take an interest in chemistry (thank you ATIS) and dream about becoming an astronaut (I wanted to be on a real Mission to Mars). I hoped to develop new urban systems (which I have done in real life). DL inspired me to be more than I am. Sorry, toons are for entertainment value only unless you want to be an animator.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And as a parent, I want my children to be inspired. I am not against change, if it is for the better or to push the envelope, but it feels like I am in idocracy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "There was a real sense back then that the brightest minds in the business worked at WDI actually inventing things like robotics and new transportation systems, rather than just creating a series of experiences based off of the latest Hollywood blockbuster" Well said. In the 60's and early 70's, you really got the feeling that "these guys can do ANYTHING.". It really was cutting edge.
Originally Posted By Moondoggie I totally agree, dave. And sorry for the novel that follows. For me, DL was always about entering into another world for a few hours. And what I liked so much about it was that it not only served to entertain, but educate as well. There was that nice balance. Visiting Tom Sawyer's Island didn't give you the whole story of Tom Sawyer. You got bits and pieces of it from things on the island, but it didn't tell you everything. You had to seek that out for yourself. Same went for the Mike Fink Keel Boats or the Davy Crockett Explorer Canoes. You were taking in a piece of history (or literature), maybe even living it to a certain degree as you traveled up and down the Rivers of America in these different conveyances. And it made you want to learn more about Mike Fink, Tom Sawyer, Davy Crockett, and Mark Twain. As dave noted, toons are entertainment...and that's okay. Fantasyland is a truly magical place. It beautifully embodies one of the two aspects that make DL special...that of entertaining in a very special and unique way. It's true that the stories that are represented there were not originally written by Disney. But the attractions you see there are directly connected with Disney animated features that give you Disney's vision of those characters. The Alice, Toad, Peter Pan, etc. that you're seeing are Disney's own, unique vision of them. Not someone else's. Conversely, the Darth Vader, C3P0, and R2D2 you see now in Tomorrowland are someone else's creation. And they look exactly like that someone else's creation. Not Disney's vision of those characters. Therein lies the difference for me. Same goes with Indiana Jones. It's someone else's property that has not gone through any sort of Disney-manipulated metamorphosis like the characters in Fantasyland have. As for Tomorrowland? That was an educational adventure. And it was awesome. Now it's largely passive thrills in the guise of a flight simulator (based on a movie) and a glorified video game (also based on a movie). A restaurant has replaced Mission to Mars. And a voyage to the North Pole aboard a submarine has been "toon"ified. The Peoplemover tracks have sat idle forever, and the Carousel building has housed something that tries to be educational, but falls a little short in my opinion. For me it seems the attractions that are going in now are largely movie-based, and that's about it. Everything is right there in front of you. Not a lot of room for your mind to think beyond what has been given to you. You might muse over how neat the ride technology is, but it stops there. It doesn't make you think, it entertains. Which again, to a certain degree, is great! But having that thinking part is one of those pieces of the Disneyland I grew up with that made it so special. I remember being fascinated by the ride systems they used, but I also remember being educated at the same time. Especially in Tomorrowland. When I get off of Buzz Lightyear, Star Tours, or Indiana Jones, there is really nothing more that I want to know. Yes, it excited the senses for a bit, but that's it (for me, anyway). I may as well be at Universal. Now if Star Tours had an educational piece to it that taught you about space as you were touring through the stars rather than just allowing you to passively experience a scene from a movie that was created almost 35 years ago, I would think it fine. It would definitely come closer to fitting the Tomorrowland I grew up with. Some of the other parks have made great strides in such things as ride system technology. Some people even think they have surpassed Disney in that realm. But for me, those parks will never be Disney. Why? Because those great "rides" they're putting in at those parks are largely based on movies. It doesn't go much deeper than that. There are a lot of "oohs" and "aahs," but they really don't make you think. They just entertain. I want Disney to go beyond that because I know they can. I've seen what they can do because I experienced the old DL firsthand. DL was, and should continue to be, different. I would love to see Disney get back to that other part of their roots....the educational part. Forget about what the other parks are doing, perhaps redirect the focus a bit, and look at the sciences, and see what you can do with those. Break away from the movie mold for a while. My opinion, of course.
