Imagineering Field guide to Disneyland- A Censored look at the Park

[Walt Jr.]

The brand new book in the Imaginnering Field Guide Series is completely focused on Disneyland, and the author has done a wonderful job at translating Disneyland facts and history into a wonderfully done pocket book. The Graphics are diverse and visually pleasing. Everything from models to concept art is displayed. The book is laid out very well with most attractions getting at least one full page to themselves.

Every attraction gets a somewhat detailed description of its background and its final execution process with some fun facts in between.

With that however, it becomes a Disney Censored look at Disneyland, one that real fans would probably not be very pleased with. It continues to make the reader believe that everything done at Disneyland is wonderful and always perfect. We all know that that isn't the case.

The book wastes space in almost every "new" attraction (those built past the 2002's) by spending paragraphs on how great the new additions are and how the imagineers were just so skilled with the artistry. Where was this most evident??? On the Pooh Page. Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage's page states how the subs were left to rot for 8 years because the Imaginners were pondering the whole time for a replacement, not that the attraction was closed down because of operational costs.

There is so much space wasted on that and on worthless attractions. While the entire POTC page is spent on the Johnny Depp additions and a broad paragraph on how Walt wanted a pirate ride and died before it opened, attractions like Honey, I Shrunk the Audience, Innoventions, and Pooh also get full pages full of sappy paragraphs of how wonderful they are. Innoventions is stated as a tribute to all of the corporate exhibits that opened with Disneyland in the original Tomorrowland.

Why are things like that so much of a big deal, because even The Enchanted Tiki Room didn't even get its own Page.

And guess what, It's A Small World doesn't mention the ahem, additions, in this book. But it shows off concept art of the New Guinea Scene that now lives only in our minds.

What's worse is that there are only general nods to the great attractions of the past. What is brilliant about a book like this is that it should state the similarities between attractions of the past and present. But it only does that with one, Splash Mountain and its characters from America Sings. The only place where the attraction is even mentioned. Innoventions is a waste of page space with little or no mention of the great shows that used to occupy the building, only about how great the exhibits are.

In all however, it is a good book, not one suited for the die-hard Disney fan, but to tourists who want to learn a little more about the park. Be careful about giving this book to a new Disney fan who is still learning their park history, they may get Brainwashed by some statements.

[Walt Jr.]

Gosh. I looked through the review and thought it was a bit harsh. I added some praise at the beginning to make it better.

Seriously though, it's not that bad of a book.

[Jerm]

The book is really well done. It is not made for the Disney freaks like us, it is made for Disney fans to get a better idea of what went into the park.


Would anyone like to put money down that the "Rainforest" will be back come late Jan/early Feb? Cause I would!

Oh and Walt Jr. I am not sure what your list is supposed to be but Materhorn has to do with the Disney film 3rd man on the Mountain and Disney made a movie called the Swiss Family Robinson....that the Tree House was made from??? And what is the Honey I shrunk based on? You might want to look into your facts before you start posting things....


JUST SAYING!

[Walt Jr.]

Oh and Walt Jr. I am not sure what your list is supposed to be but Materhorn has to do with the Disney film 3rd man on the Mountain and Disney made a movie called the Swiss Family Robinson....that the Tree House was made from??? And what is the Honey I shrunk based on? You might want to look into your facts before you start posting things....
JUST SAYING!

???

Yeah, I said that the book was well done and that it wouldn't be something really useful to a Disney fanatic. The criticisms I stated were just from a Disney fan's point of view, that somethings were whitewashed to make everything sound good to the average reader.

[Robert Cook]

???

I think that Jerm was referring to the contents of your signature.

[kcnole]

Have you read the one from the Magic Kingdom in Orlando that came out several years ago? If so, does it seem that all of the book is brand new text or in attractions that are similar, do they lift text from the other book?

[ralfrick]

"Sanitized" might be a better choice of words than censored. Considering it has the same # of pages as the DAK book, it's clear that it can't be fully comprehensive. I do enjoy these books, though.

And Jerm is right, WJr, quite a few inaccuracies in your sig. There was also a definite connection between the Mine Train/Jungle Cruise and the True Life Adventure stories (infact, early concept maps referred to the JC location as "True Life Adventureland"). HISTA and the Treehouse are absolutely inspired by films.

But for all the complaints about movie based attractions, "Pixarization" and the like, I've yet to see anyone give a rational explanation of WHY IT MATTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE? An attraction is either good or bad, and my experience is that the original source has little to do with it.

A bientot.

[Robert Cook]

But for all the complaints about movie based attractions, "Pixarization" and the like, I've yet to see anyone give a rational explanation of WHY IT MATTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE? An attraction is either good or bad, and my experience is that the original source has little to do with it.

Perhaps it's because recent attractions based on movies have generally been subpar in both relevance to theme and execution, which implies that they were very likely forced into being attractions for cross-promotional purposes alone, and are therefore ill-conceived.

As for "Pixarization" specifically, from an aesthetic point of view, there is something inherently "plastic" and tacky about the design of Pixar's movies when they are translated to a theme park environment, and many people don't like that. Disneyland has always had a more organic, textured aesthetic which has only become more so over time (e.g. the 1983 Fantasyland upgrade).

More generally, some people prefer adventures that are original and unique to Disneyland, designed specifically for the park. One reason would be to avoid the problems above, which should result in higher quality, and another would be that such attractions can often be more archetypal and universal in the experience they provide. Conversely, movie tie-ins can often make attractions overly specific to a single storyline, leaving less to the imaginations of guests. Some exceptions to this rule are stories that are so classic that they work well in this regard anyway, which includes a small percentage of Disney animated features, and movie-inspired attractions that very carefully and pointedly avoid specific movies, such as Indiana Jones Adventure (execution helps a lot in the latter case).