Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>And I like to hang out with elitists, not snobs ... snobs can be the most ignorant bumpkins, but they believe they are smart.<<< I'm an elitist? >>> As much as I'm opposed to charactesr all over Epcot I still firmly believe that Nemo, and Crush gave a dying pavilion new life.<<< Doesn't matter, seeing they killed off any cohesiveness that place had...
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I don;t think that's ALL they want...Original attractions are at the basis of Disney's parks. How the heck did things like PotC, HM, BTMR, SSE, Horizons get to be so popular? There needs to be a balance...Part of the fun of the theme park is seeing what can be made into an actual experience, not just a movie. << I agree with you EE, but Disney is going to go with what they perceive the guest want. I guarantee you the guest want characters out the wazoo.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper << I guarantee you the guest want characters out the wazoo.>> I just don't think that's true, Pierce. I think they want a happy medium. If they didn't all those original attraction would have fallen by the wayside, and attractions like EE, Soarin', Test Track, and ToT wouldn't be so popular.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I'm an elitist? << You hang out with a Figment plush don't you. >> Doesn't matter, seeing they killed off any cohesiveness that place had... << Cohesiveness doesn't much matter if the pavilion is empty. Look at what happened to WoL when it lost it's sponsor.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I just don't think that's true, Pierce. I think they want a happy medium. If they didn't all those original attraction would have fallen by the wayside, and attractions like EE, Soarin', Test Track, and ToT wouldn't be so popular. << If the guest didn't want them why are they out there. Do you really think the Mouse would spend the Money if they weren't hits? I didn't say everything had to be character related to be a hit. I'm just saying the guest want the characters, as well as the rides. And not just an occasional character either.
Originally Posted By Lee hisownself Interesting thread ya got here. I'll add the cool idea we talked about a while back. What the Disney philosophy should be: Don't give guests what you think they want, give them what they don't know they want yet. That's how Mansion, PotC, Indy, Soarin, etc. raised the bar and moved the thematic park experience forward. Don't aim for the public's taste, aim higher. Lead them, don't be led by them.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Don't give guests what you think they want, give them what they don't know they want yet. << Agree, but I also believe in dance with the one that brung you, and that is characters.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>And I like to hang out with elitists, not snobs ... snobs can be the most ignorant bumpkins, but they believe they are smart.<<< I'm an elitist? >>> As much as I'm opposed to charactesr all over Epcot I still firmly believe that Nemo, and Crush gave a dying pavilion new life.<<< Doesn't matter, seeing they killed off any cohesiveness that place had...
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Interesting thread ya got here. I'll add the cool idea we talked about a while back. What the Disney philosophy should be: Don't give guests what you think they want, give them what they don't know they want yet. That's how Mansion, PotC, Indy, Soarin, etc. raised the bar and moved the thematic park experience forward. Don't aim for the public's taste, aim higher. Lead them, don't be led by them.>> Exactly. This is what we were talking about on the 'question for Leemac' thread on the DLR board a while ago. If you had asked people in the 1950s if they had wanted a DL based on how you 'splained it, then I'd bet a vast majority wouldn't have. Same with WDW ... and EPCOT and on and on. Imagine trying to sell folks on a great attraction like the American Adventure ... or even BTMRR ... most folks would say why theme it that way, why have a story, we just want to go on rides. You never raise the bar in anything in life by giving people what you think they think they want. You do it by giving them things they never knew were possible. You do it by raising the bar of what is possible. UNI just did that with FJoHP ... when did WDW last do it? Perhaps, the opening of DAK in 1998 ... attraction wise? Maybe ToT in 1994 or KS in 1998. It's 2010. Time to wake up and smell the bleep Disney!
Originally Posted By MPierce >> No, croquet is so yesterday ... I much prefer water polo ... and the horsies seem to enjoy the swimming too! << Peta will be protesting outside of your mansion tomorrow. >> And I like to hang out with elitists, not snobs ... snobs can be the most ignorant bumpkins, but they believe they are smart. << An elitist think they are the only intelligent life on the planet, yet they have no idea how to till the soil nor the soul. >> Oh, and no one I know has Warhol (original or copy) on their walls. << I've got 3.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I agree with you EE, but Disney is going to go with what they perceive the guest want. I guarantee you the guest want characters out the wazoo.<<< I don't think it's ALL they want... People do come for the originals, too. It's not all MK. >>>You hang out with a Figment plush don't you.<<< Explains it... >>>Cohesiveness doesn't much matter if the pavilion is empty. Look at what happened to WoL when it lost it's sponsor.<<< Not to me... It's not right to kill off an entire pavilion and topic in FW because of what's selling plush. >>>Don't aim for the public's taste, aim higher. Lead them, don't be led by them.<<< Exactly. Uni did that with FJ, I think. I had no idea about KUKAs before that...
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer Hah, Spirit and I used the same example of FJ. LOL. Our posts crossed...
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I don't think it's ALL they want... People do come for the originals, too. It's not all MK. << I'm not saying that all they want is characters. I'm saying if you have a good idea that just so happens to involve characters give it to the folks. They'll love it. Just like they will love RSR. Disney spent a lot of time raising Mickey to the status of being, and ICON. He's no longer a Movie Star. After Mr. Disney passed away the Disney corporation no longer had it's real Icon. Disney does a lot of things besides cartoons. They are a very diversifiesd corporation. However when you think of Disney you think of Mickey Mouse. You just can't get away from that fact.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Disney spent a lot of time raising Mickey to the status of being, and ICON. He's no longer a Movie Star. After Mr. Disney passed away the Disney corporation no longer had it's real Icon. Disney does a lot of things besides cartoons. They are a very diversifiesd corporation. However when you think of Disney you think of Mickey Mouse. You just can't get away from that fact.<<< I would not expect them to. I would expect them to do OTHER things besides that, though.
Originally Posted By Britain Sigh... Selfishly, if I got to choose for myself between a Mysterious Island or a CarsLand, sure, I'd pick Mysterious Island. But not 'cause I hate the CarsLand concept, just for personal preference. But if Carsland would be more financially healthy for the entire company, then thank heavens they are doing it right as a uber-expensive immersive, fun family thrill ride. I mean... gosh are we really complaining about this!?
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I mean... gosh are we really complaining about this!? << Isn't that what we're suppose to do here at LP?
Originally Posted By leemac <<Uh, talk to Mr. Steven Spielburg who just last year reluctantly had to enter into a partnership with Disney because he couldn't raise money for the movies he's developing. Fame doesn't equal fortune.>> Actually he entered a partnership with India - Reliance Big Entertainment to be precise. Disney is just the distributor just like Paramount was throughout DreamWorks life.
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ Shucks - no problem. The issue is that for those of us that want the parks to be all that they can be and for WDP&R to be the innovation leader in its field the company needs to back that up. Picking safe choices like Cars Land isn't enough. I'm actually the opposite of what was suggested earlier - if an existing attraction is dying on its feet (read: The Living Seas) then I have no issue with a character makeover. I just want to see something new and fresh in the parks - attractions like Mystic Manor should be the norm and not the exception.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<If the guest didn't want them why are they out there. Do you really think the Mouse would spend the Money if they weren't hits?>> You're twisting my words around, Mpierce. Where did I say they didn't want the characters? <<I didn't say everything had to be character related to be a hit. I'm just saying the guest want the characters, as well as the rides. And not just an occasional character either.>> Right. But I doubt they want to be bashed over the head with a character at every ride. If they did, Epcot would have closed along time ago and Tokyo Disney Sea would have fallen flat on its face. Neither have character attractions as tentpoles. And even then, neither do the MK or DL for that matter. I guarantee if you ask 9 out of 10 guests what their top 5 rides are at the Magic Kingdom you'll see a lot of HMs, Space Mountains, Big Thunders, Pirates, Splash Mountains, and Jungle Cruises. Only two of them have characters, and even then only one of them have a character people are familiar with. If all people wanted were characters, would Fantasyland be everyone's favorite land?
