Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I say bring in some designers from the movie business who know how to pull off great looks without the great expense. That would bring some magic back.>> But those "great looks without great expense" don't have longevity built into them, in other words, their business doesn't require permanant sets that can take the abuse of the public for years at a time. Also, they don't have the stringent OSHA, DOSH, Local and National Building Codes to permit for public access. They don't need the same level of Architectural apporvals, building permits, fire permits as described by Title-24 CBC and now add Green Construction planing methods into the cost of projects. I guess my argument is that Disney has no problem with the craft of themed construction. They do have a serious problem with getting the content right however.
Originally Posted By Manfried crapshoot says, "But those "great looks without great expense" don't have longevity built into them." Harumph. They designed and others built. Gee some opening day Disneyland attractions are still there. The point is to design things and then let professionals build them. And by the way, movie set designers have to follow OSHA standards too. Though they would need architects to finalize the designs for access. But your blanket statement above does not "stand up" at all.
Originally Posted By MeRSiamese I think one of the main reasons *most* people go to the Disney parks in the first place IS for the interraction and "character" environments - to be able to "relive" the movie that was so loved on the screen in either a ride, breathing character, or some other sort of area fashioned after that story. ...To be able to "escape" day-to-day real life routines and just "play" in the different fantasy worlds (yes, even Tomorrowland is "fantasy" about the future and even Adventureland is a fantasy about "safe" jungle adventures. Disney made the centerpiece of his DL park the Sleeping Beauty castle... and most of his movies at the time were represented in some way. Yes, he had attractions based on other stories/themes (Tom Sawyer, Pirates, space travel, etc.) but I'm sure that as time went on and each future movie/character was created and released to the public, he would also have found ways to incorporate them into a place in the park. (I totally see him adding the phenomenally successful PoC movie into the ride as well as Buzz with the space alien battle into Tomorrowland.) If you want sterile rides - there are plenty of amusement parks out there with steel roller coasters, etc... if you want serious learning environments (science, history, etc.) - there are childrens' museums and galleries, etc. But if you want pure entertainment and fun - where you could forget your worries and cares to have fun with the family - Walt Disney was a genius at providing that... in his movies, his television shows, AND his parks. In my opinion - this is why DCA has not succeeded to all projected expectations - it was too "plain" and ordinary - not much more entertaining or theme-immersive than any other generic amusement park in California. Now that they've added some Disney "character" theming to "entertain", it is picking up in attendance and interest. With the new Little Mermaid ride and Carsland - DCA should be a whole lot more popular with the people who come to the Disneyland parks to experience "Disney" and not something that they could get from anywhere else. Just my opinion...
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance ^^^ Yes! This is what I've been trying to say all along! I just can't ever get it out as well as they did! I couldn't agree more. I think they DO feel that a big reason why DCA was so ho hum at the beginning is because it lacked the "Disney" touch that everything else at the resort does. No characters or fond memories to breathe life into the place. Look what they are adding in the upgrades, Disney characters, lands, attractions in new and exciting ways. And suddenly it's becoming a hit! Thanks MeRSiamese!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Making the park more "Disney" can happen without a bunch of character based rides. How do I know? Because Tomorrowland 1967 was very "Disney" even though not every attraction was tied in with a movie or cartoon franchise. So yes, it CAN be done. Will it be done? No. For the foreseeable future, every major attraction will be linked to a character. An attraction being "Disney" means that it has a certain level of detail and craft that is up to the standards people have come to expect at a Disney park. At least, that's what it means to me. Compare the level of detail with the Silly Symphony Swings with those of the Orange Stinger. Same basic ride, but even if they hadn't decorated it with cartoon characters, the level of thematic detail in SSS is far above the more simplified Orange.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan A better example is Main Street USA in DL. The buildings and atmosphere are fun, nostalgic, set a mood whether Mickey happens to be out signing autographs or not. THAT'S "Disney" to me. It doesn't have to be Minnie's Emporium or Donald's Coffee Co. for the buildings to be themed and uniquely Disney.
Originally Posted By underminer As a long time reader but rare poster, I find this discussion very interesting and want to offer my 2 cents.... I love DL for many reasons and can relate to most of the different opinions offered in this discussion but also find that by and large people wax very idealistic/nostalgic. This world today is so much different now than when DL opened its gates. Perhaps Disney did a much better job "educating while entertaining" in the past because there wasn't much else out there. Now we have incredible science, history and kids museums that do a much better job and much closer to home. We don't need to go to DL for this. There seems to be a lot of malcontent regarding attractions based on movies/toons. For me, a good attraction is a good attraction regardless where the idea originated. Critter Country presents a good example: - Splash mountain. A great ride/story based on a mostly forgotten movie. - Pooh ride. A poorly conceptualized ride based on a wonderful series of children's books. The difference is in the imagineering, execution and of course $$. I find it ironic how some resent rides based on movies the way others resent movies based on books. They are different mediums of entertainment and need to be recognized as such. Its hard to put all of the details of a 600 page book in a 2 hour movie and its hard to put the details of a 2 hour movie in a 3 minute ride. So, while I love the Toy Story movies for so many reasons it would be easy to dismiss the TSMM attraction as shallow and unimaginative. But we love that ride! On the other hand, I love the movie Monster's Inc but find the ride a bit boring and pointless. Imagineering and execution again! If the idea for a ride is based on a movie character such as Indiana Jones and its done well, who cares! A movie idea is just another template from which creativity can flow. Is it really so much more creative to say "let's make a cool pirate ride,"compared to let's make a cool jungle adventure based on a certain movie character?! My last point is this...what we disney forum people wax nostalgic about our kids may care less about. And unless I'm mistaken, Disneyland is for them too. We may want Tomorrow Land to be cutting edge and "non-cartoon" based but my 4 year-old loves the "Buzz Lightyear ride" more than any other ride and would be greatly disappointed if it were gone. Disneyland has to cater to so many different groups of people and we all hold it to different standards. Thank goodness for the variety which keeps us all coming back. Is DL perfect? No. Have mistakes been made? Of course. But there is still no other place quite like it!
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "I find it ironic how some resent rides based on movies the way others resent movies based on books. " That's an interesting comparison. " My last point is this...what we disney forum people wax nostalgic about our kids may care less about. And unless I'm mistaken, Disneyland is for them too. We may want Tomorrow Land to be cutting edge and "non-cartoon" based but my 4 year-old loves the "Buzz Lightyear ride" more than any other ride and would be greatly disappointed if it were gone. " And I couldn't agree with this statement more. While some would like the "toons" to be restricted to Fantasyland, and only Fantasyland, as a Mom whose life revolves around my two little kids, I love that they have things spread all around the park that they can recognize and get instantly excited about. And I cannot wait to go back and see my 2 1/2 year old little Evan's face light up when he sees the Buzz Lightyear ride, or the huge talking Mr Potato Head. He's a huge Toy Story fan and he'll just love it!
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance " This world today is so much different now than when DL opened its gates. Perhaps Disney did a much better job "educating while entertaining" in the past because there wasn't much else out there." I also love this point. Back when DL opened, there really wasn't any other option for going to learn about space or history for that matter. There wasn't the internet or awesome books like we have now. Education is definitely important and should be fun, but we get so much of it from other mediums in our life, and there are so many vast options to choose from now a days, that it would seem kinda dull and ordinary to have loads of it in the parks. Kinda like, they couldn't think of anything creative, so they threw a science book at us instead. It's just so different now a days.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Look, I'm not the Grinch out to make Disneyland boring for children. But I am the Ghost of Disneyland Past who remembers when the park offered a more diverse experience, where some of the rides were character based while others were not. To me, it was more interesting when there was that mix. The point of the place is that it was where families could have fun together.
Originally Posted By underminer Maybe some of the newer rides are character based...but isn't there still a good mix of both now?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I think it's still a place where families can have fun together. Don'cha think 2oony? (Hope you don't mind if I call you that
Originally Posted By LPFan22 A few people have called him 2oony (including myself) and he hasn't scolded us yet. At least not that I can remember. I find it endearing.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Yeah, I do too : ) I just don't know if he will be okay with ME in particular calling him such endearing things, lol.
Originally Posted By Daannzzz What constitutes "Disney" There are people who go to Walt Disney World and only want to stay at the All Star resorts because the other (Moderate and Deluxe) resorts are not Disney enough. I think as we get farther away from the original parks designs people seem to think that Disney meens animation and our characters and nothing els.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance To me "Disney" all started with the animation, so it seems natural to constitute it as a large part of the parks. It doesn't have to be only animation or cartoon characters, but it doesn't bother me as long as it's played out in creative and fun ways. I don't want to go to Disneyland and feel like I"m at Chuck E Cheese, so creative, new, exciting, and fun are all very important. No offense Chuck E!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>(Hope you don't mind if I call you that << Not at all! >>I think it's still a place where families can have fun together.<< Absolutely. And I'm sure, when asked, people say that the characters are their favorite thing or an important part of their day at the park, so I'm sure I am in the minority on this overall, swimming against the tide. I'd just like there to be more of a mix of attractions -- some based on movie/animated characters, others not. Just to keep it more interesting. Things like the People Mover and Monorail and the Stagecoach and the horse drawn trolleys on Main St. and other sorts of things like Space Mountain and Big Thunder that are in theme with the various lands, but not directly attributed to a character. I'd rather have the subs with Nemo than no subs at all. It's a well done attraction. But I bet there was a way to make the subs an exciting, all-new attraction without the cartoon tie in, too, if they'd wanted to. I'd rather have Buzz Astro Blasters than nothing at all. But I bet they could have come up with something amazing and futuristic if they'd chosen to.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think as we get farther away from the original parks designs people seem to think that Disney meens animation and our characters and nothing els.<< Exactly, Daannzzz. And it seems like at WDI, increasingly that's how they see it, too.
