Originally Posted By FiveBearRugs Speaking of Chaka Khan...one of the Homer Simpson moments that stands out for me is when he got stuck or trapped or was in trouble or something and so he shouted "Oh help me ChakaKhan-ChakaKhan-ChakaKhan!", as in the song "I Feel For You".
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I know Mr. X's sense of humor .. I've had the honor of meeting him .... so .. I understand his demented, twisted mind. ~*** Thanks! <--off to start "Toon the whole damned park" thread.
Originally Posted By danyoung >The Jungle Cruise- one of the last rides from opening day. May they NEVER toon this one up.< Just a side note about that, Bellella. When the JC opening in '55, it was totally serious - no jokes, everything was all OOHH look at that huge elephant, etc. I don't recall exactly when the change came - perhaps early in the 60's, when the elephant bathing pool was put in, and the theme changed from a realistic expedition to a funny one. Talk about completely changing your themes! But I can't imagine going back to the old way - it just wouldn't work (and maybe it never did!).
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<^^^^ Ya. Like Walt Disney His High Standard gave us Pirates of the Carribean, TL:67, and more. If he was interested in "general satisfaction" - He would have done a simple dark ride to the, then, future Jungle Book movie .. and maybe a parade or stage show on "The Happiest Millionaire"!>> You totally missed my point. I was trying to explain why they seem to be TOONING everything RIGHT NOW. Obviously, there was a different vision when PotC, HM, etc. were created - hence the frustration. Tell me, what's your explanation for why everything seems to be getting tooned up these days? Isn't that the underlying question of this thread anyway?
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: My sisters and I think that certain of you are over-analyzing this business about us so-called 'toons' to the point where you're forgetting that most of the Disneyland attractions are based on some sort of fictional character--whether they be live action characters or animated characters. The park was never intended to reflect reality. Instead, it was intended to reflect a romanticized version of it. So to become overly concerned about too many animated characters being represented at a theme park that is based on fantasy and fiction only robs you of much happiness and serenity. ORWEN: And, as I've said many times, if it weren't for us 'toons', you wouldn't even have a Disneyland to begin with. So stop letting yourselves fall into a negative pit where you eventually become paranoid and even AFRAID of us animated characters. Just enjoy us and be happy. Take 'toons' away and you just might end up with something worse that you wouldn't like. And everybody knows that it was animation that led to Walt Disney Studios before it led to a theme park that was supposed to be based on Disney movies--both animated and live action. I'm grateful that we have a theme park based on Disney movies, myself. Things could be so much worse. ORGOCH: Got jobs?
Originally Posted By Bellella Here's your answer, EighthDwarf. The Disney people just can't get enough money from the characters. They probably figure that if people can see characters on all of the rides, they'll be all the more inclined to buy character-related merchandise. If that's the case, their nobler artistic aspirations have given way to greed, and that's probably what already has happened. Tragic, isn't it?
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin Um...did you think they were there to not make money? Let the profits dry up and Disney would soon fold as fast as a car dealership.
Originally Posted By Bellella FYI: D-land did perfectly well for 50-plus years without tooning up all the rides.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The majority of Disney theme park guests define an attraction being "Disney enough" as being one that features familiar Disney characters. It wasn't always this way but for a variety of reasons, this is what people now look for. To me, it means my interest in the parks is likely to diminish a bit. My own preferences are not matched with the increasing number of character-based attractions, as I preferred the original direction of the park (a more diverse mix of "edutainment" along with characters and so forth). But I am, I'm sure, not in step with what the majority of guests now enjoy. They'd be bored with attractions along the lines of Adventures Through Innerspace and the PeopleMover. DCA's makeover is almost entirely toon-based and will likely be quite popular, thereby proving the point that a Disney park that doesn't emphasize the toons will not do as well as one that does. We can argue until we are blue in the face that this is not a good trend, but Disney is providing what people are asking for -- and paying for.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>You totally missed my point. I was trying to explain why they seem to be TOONING everything RIGHT NOW. Obviously, there was a different vision when PotC, HM, etc. were created - hence the frustration.<< I didn't do a good job making the connection to your post. I was immediately following your last sentence> Like this - "Generally appeasing the masses is the name of the game. And general satisfaction of everyone is much more profitable than the extreme satisfaction of the minority." And Walt was THAT minority. He was part of that class of people who believed in "extreme satisfaction" - Instead of meeting your satisfaction, he exceeded it. >>Tell me, what's your explanation for why everything seems to be getting tooned up these days? Isn't that the underlying question of this thread anyway?<< It does not require the expense of new attractions - Why spend money on new rides when we can just "tu(oo)ne" up current attractions for pennys? And throwing in Jesse, or Baloo, or Buzz somewhere does not require a lot of imagination and creativity. There's little risk on properties that have shown profitability in the movie theaters or store shelves. That's my educated guess.
Originally Posted By oc_dean And I'm about to read the riot act to the witches .. and tempted to call them by their real first name to make a serious point! Listen R. ........... I know you love the Disney characters a lot, and that's fine. The point is not whether Disneyland is based on some sort of fictionalized character - real or animated, with this "over arching" spectrum of FANTASY in the air in Disneyland ....... The point is - Disneyland in the past felt more "mature". I didn't feel like I was being played down as a child .. like it's becoming now. Most to all Disney characters have an overall "child" like quality to them. We all like having the inner child in us all brought out when we are inside the "happiest kingdom of them all" ... but it's of no doubt .. they are ratcheting up the "immature" qualities of it all. By inserting MORE of the Disney toons! And Disneyland is beginning to feel more "shallow". It's like it's layers of "depth" are starting to unravel .. as it appears today's audiences only care for how things like superficially .. while anything that could spur the adult mind ... is being forgotten. Disneyland has made an impression on me .. Not so much because of the kid in me that it brought out .. but MORE .. bringing out the 'Growing inspired adult' in me. I don't think I could have spent the last 10 years here at LP .. and THOUSANDS of posts .. if that park in Anaheim did not make a profound impression in the ADULT "oc_dean"! From: * The original 1965 "Lincoln" show * The 1967 TL * Both of New Orleans Square's E Tickets * The Jungle Cruise * 'it's a small world' with it's adult message of unity and peace * The romance of the old west in attractions in Frontierland * the adult thrills of going on the Matterhorn, Big Thunder, Space Mountain * Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse - with it's glimpse of how "real" people like me could relate and feel subtle connection to ALL that I just mentioned in my list. It's the quality of the fact a lot of it did feel real ... and made the impact as it has for 40 years. I could meet a Jasmine character .. and a have a little giggle, smile, get the photo ...and act like Jasmine was a real character .. but I'll always remember .. she came out of 2D cartoon. That IS what she represents. And yet .. I could watch Abraham Lincoln deliver his speech .. and it's going to be a more "resonating" experience for me, because of the fact he was real. And anytime some sort of "realistic" quality shows through in the art direction of any attraction .. the more connection I'm going to make with it. The more 2D cartoon characters that show up .. they are STILL TWO DIMENSIONAL .. no matter what.
Originally Posted By oc_dean You all remember how Republican Bobby Jindel made a crack about spending money on a high speed train from Disneyland to Las Vegas - It reminds me how a lot of people look at 'Disneyland'. * Just a silly theme park. * Trivial * Not to be taken seriously * JUST FOR KIDS Now ... It's as though ... "Oh well, so much of the world thinks of our parks as just silly parks for kids" (That was not the truth before) ...... So, we'll just totally give in to that impression for the rest of world, now! If they continue down this path - There will come a time that they are nothing more than 'silly parks for kids'. Lets see how profitable they'll REALLY be!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan * Just a silly theme park. * Trivial * Not to be taken seriously * JUST FOR KIDS<< I know where you're coming from, but I'm saying that is indeed how most people look at the parks. Maybe it's a generational thing, maybe it's because people don't look for inspiration and enlightenment from this sort of entertainment anymore, I don't know. But whatever the reason, the trend is clear. Disneyland and the other parks are really seen as a place for kids first and foremost. That's just how the majority of folks view Disneyland. I know that it was founded with higher ideals than that, but those days are over now. The choice for those of us who liked the original direction of the park is to either learn to enjoy the toons, enjoy the detailing and so forth in the more tooned environment, or to move on and find other interests entirely.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>to either learn to enjoy the toons<< For me, it's not a question of trying to enjoy the toons more. I enjoy them, FOR WHAT THEY ARE. But I enjoy the attractions that aren't LIMITED to a toon's "universe." In our own human world ... or more specifically - our romanticized/surrealistic world we call Disneyland, we can 'reach across the horizon' .. to make a series of "connections" .. where a toon is only going to capture a few!
Originally Posted By oc_dean edit - But I enjoy the attractions that aren't LIMITED to a toon's "universe", MORE.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>The choice for those of us who liked the original direction of the park is to either learn to enjoy the toons, enjoy the detailing and so forth in the more tooned environment, or to move on and find other interests entirely.<< Worlds Fairs! They're more enlightening and spur the imagination in me.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Worlds Fairs! They're more enlightening and spur the imagination in me.>> And most World's Fairs lose money.
