Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "But lets face it when Comic-con can draw 130,000 people to a convention even Disney is going to take notice." Of course, but that isn't how they once did things. I can't even fathom the today's WDI coming up with something as fantastic as the original EPCOT now. Disney parks are still fun, but what I think what some people are saying is that in the process of focusing on franchises the parks have lost their edge.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Moondoggie and Hans are spot on. People want to be challenged. They want some substance. I maybe went a little OTT earlier, but only because I feel we are losing the real magic.
Originally Posted By Moondoggie I'm just curious, dave and Hans, who do you consider to be the most Disney-like innovators at the studios now? Those who still remain in touch with Walt's vision, and that of his "Nine Old Men." I know Tony Baxter has a real passion for Disney that goes way back, and the guy over at PIXAR must have similar feelings as I know he also was a former CM, and it would be hard for me to believe that a former CM who has gone on to Imagineering would ever want to lose touch with the goals and objectives of the man himself, Walt Disney. I know the park isn't a museum, and that things will change. But I so want to believe that Disney itself has something there that they can create and develop on their own. Hitting up other studios, etc. for their properties is not something I dig. I'm seriously a purist in that way, maybe to a fault.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones One problem is that Disneyland is not an auteur vision anymore. There isn't one man with a vision calling the shots, but a faceless, soulless conglomerate. Creative types take their cues from market research, financial reports and focus groups.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Death by committee: <a href="http://redskydisney.blogspot.com/2010/06/death-by-committee.html" target="_blank">http://redskydisney.blogspot.c...tee.html</a> "There will always be a need for managers and market research, but they should support art, not dictate it." Only good thing I've ever written, to be honest
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>I'm just curious, dave and Hans, who do you consider to be the most Disney-like innovators at the studios now? Those who still remain in touch with Walt's vision, and that of his "Nine Old Men."<< In my opinion the Eisner/Wells team were the last executives at Disney who had a vision similar to the company's founder combined with an understanding of how a modern day multi-national corporation ought to be run. Eisner made several serious missteps, particularly toward the end of his tenure enraging Disney fans along the way, but there's no question that Disney wouldn't be where it is today without his leadership. As corporate managers go, Iger is more than adequate, but it's pretty clear now that his vision is purely financial and his milking of the company's assets proves that he lacks the curiosity and creative spark that made Eisner such a perfect fit for Disney. I'm very unimpressed with pretty much everyone at the helm these days. Spokker's link says it all.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Yep, third voice of the chorus. Eisner's first 10 years were amazing, no doubt there. He was a great visionary leader, who cared, and my conversations with him, although brief, always supported that. He had Roade and Baxter (though he is egotistical and sometimes opts for style over substance) at his side park wise (and other greats like Delaney, Tietz, Sotto et al - many of them are history). But Iger and especially Jay Rasulo (could not stand him at Paris when he was at the helm) have pulled the parks down. I have no doubt that when given the right brief, WDI can still work their magic. TDS shows that. They did a great job recently on WDSP's ToT, and HKDL looks interesting. And although I would prefer no toons, WOC and Carsland seem pretty spectacular. I had a lot of hope for my fav Jungle Cruise skipper, after all John works magic with his films, but so far I have been unimpressed with the Pixar park offerings (and I really like Pixar). But no, I think there is a lack of quality leadership out there, and my pal Lee has only added to my cynacism and disdain for the contemporary WDC.
Originally Posted By Manfried Unfortunately, I think John L has been beaten back by the politics at WDI and at the old hand-drawn animation group in Burbank. Though he's a fan of Tony's work, he's not a fan of Tony's huge ego either. Let's see if there's a change in the winds soon.
Originally Posted By emman I think everyone is missing the main picture here, whether the attractions are based on movies or not,Walt built Disneyland for one purpose only, to entertain, all of the inaugural speech can be summarized in that, so, are the parks doing their job? I think they are, I know I don't like some things, and you don't like other things, but it is supposed to please everyone, not just us "hardcore" disney fans, don't you think we're being a little selfish? I was just in the parks this last week and realized something, and I'll pose this as a question, would you rather please someone who comes to your place every week, but won't buy anything? Or someone who come from out of state, has saved for a while for their vacations and are willing to spend their bucks in the park, and since they can't go everyday, everything is special to them, even the Mickey ears you can find in EVERY Disney park in the world? I think WE the Disney fans are missing the real big picture, and think we deserve to be pleased for the fact that we are fans.
Originally Posted By emman PS - This is in no way an excuse for the lesser quality we've seen in the parks lately, but we need to think in the imagineers' shoes before gettin' angry about everything
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Walt built Disneyland for one purpose only." I couldn't disagree more. Walt Disney could have easily built a carousel and a couple of spinning rides next to his studio as originally planned and it would have been very entertaining for most families. This debate has nothing to do with hard core fans - it's about a gradual shift in the principle that guides the development of the content in the parks. With DL Walt Disney had much higher goals and pushed for storytelling and theatrics that played on his cultural view of America at the time. Yes, there were references to his films and characters, but those attractions were within a specific context and balanced with original ideas and themes elsewhere that were created specifically for the park. It's rare to find that kind of organic innovative and creative spirit at Disney Parks now. The DL of today feels like part of a large corporate empire. The marketing stuff that they put out on sites like the Disney Parks Blog may sound "Disneyish", but the business objectives that guide their decisions are completely out of line with what Walt Disney set out to achieve back in the 50s and 60s.
Originally Posted By Manfried "I think WE the Disney fans are missing the real big picture, and think we deserve to be pleased for the fact that we are fans." Bravo emman for saying the right thing.
Originally Posted By RogRabbit Though I agree that Walt Disney wanted to tell stories, Hans, the Disney company has always been big on marketing. There were TV shows to tell you about the theme parks, theme parks that had characters from the movies, and toys with the movie characters' likeness being sold on TV. By the time Disneyland was open, Disney had already become a corporate empire because Walt had his hand in so many different forms of media. And who's to say this is a bad thing? You like the movies/TV shows so you go to the parks to see the characters. You like the parks, so you buy some souvenirs. This isn't new, it's hasn't just started in the past 20 some odd years, Walt was basically advertising the park on TV weekly. Just because you tell people about something with sincere enthusiasm doesn't mean it's not marketing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yes, what Walt did with the TV shows was indeed marketing. But there was a little more behind it than just making money. Marketing can also be a way to spread ideas, and Disneyland was a big idea. He was interested in making the park a showplace for new ideas and to get people wondering and imagining what the future might be like with Tomorrowland. I feel very lucky to have been around to see the original '67-'77 version of Tomorrowland. When you saw it for the first time, you immediately imagined what it would be like in the future. It felt vibrant and alive and exciting and contemporary. It's difficult to explain it, yet many of the posters here who feel that the current version of TL misses the mark think that largely because they have seen the future, and it was back in that era. Futurism is not what very many folks are into these days. We are very wrapped up in the here and now. Big, complex problems, political polarism, environmental concerns, etc. The future looks more Bladerunner than TL right about now. So it's easy to see why Disney would offer escapism and movie tie-ins instead of attempting something grander, more challenging. Maybe people (guests and Imagineers) just don't have the stomach right now to think ahead. Maybe it all feels too grim. But to me, that's exactly why Disney is uniquely qualified to step up and present an inspiring, optimistic, and even reality-based look ahead. There are still futurists out there, thinking and dreaming and inventing the future. It won't happen, but personally I'd love it if Disney would level the whole land there and start completely fresh.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "The DL of today feels like part of a large corporate empire." In all fairness, the Disneyland of today IS a large corporate empire. It's much, much different than the Disneyland of 1955. I think the differences of Disneyland today compared with 1955 is nearly a direct response to the differences of the world in general. And how business is all about corporate empire today. This topic goes way over my head, but I still can't get passed the fact that, it seems like there is no way around corporate empire, when that seems to be the goal in today's society. How would they ever get boards and higher ups to agree to anything other than whatever is the fastest track to making the most money?
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Leveling Tomorrowland and starting fresh, with the current administration in charge of the purse strings, would be a terrible idea. It would just be rides devoted to merchandisebale properties, so basically more toons and less ideas about the future. No thanks. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It would just be rides devoted to merchandisebale properties, so basically more toons and less ideas about the future.<< Even though I would much, much prefer they go with a futuristic vision, it's already become far more about toons and fantasy than "a living blueprint for the future." So, rather than placing toon based attraction in existing buildings, which only serves to remind some of us what came before, perhaps going all-in on the toon/tie-in route would result in something great.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan In fact, other than Innoventions, is there any Tomorrowland attraction that isn't fantasy or toon based? Maybe the Monorail, that's it.