Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 131
  1. #91

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,948

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by HMF View Post
    If Disney continues this trend and the memories dissappear and the park becomes a giant ad and the people lose the magic Disney feeling there will be no money for Disney to make.

    Then that's management's problem to recognize and fix, isn't it? Look at the state of the world - nobody cares about anyone anymore, it's all about money. I know that sounds harsh and negative, but it's a reality we face. This doesn't apply to Disney only, it's all over the place! Disney has that emotional and sentimental tie with almost everyone and it's definitely exploiting it.

  2. #92

    • Sock Puppet
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    126

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    What Disney has sold since the 1930's IS warm fuzzy feelings!

    REALLY? WOW! then everything ive seen of this companies 80+ years is a alternate reality? So this is NOT the same company that has a stepmother want to TAKE OUT her own stepdaughters heart, put it in a box and then kill her w/ a poisnoned piece of food? The same company that portrayed the Russian version of the DEVIL himself complete w/ nude harpies??? The same company that shows an elephants mother incarcerated? The same company that shows a pound dog going to the "one way door"? The same company that wanted to show undead soldiers come out a cauldron and strangle and kill a man in cold blood that Katzenberg had to edit?? The same company that killed TWO animal kids' parents? Ones mother and ones father?? TOTALLY WARM AND FUZZY!!!! And i thought Disney was all overloaded saccrachine.

  3. #93

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,948

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterGracey View Post
    Exactly my point.



    Disneyland itself has been the butt of many jokes over the years. Is Disneyland irrelevant? Disney recently said that 1 in 4 park guests make a point to go on the ride, and 6.7 million guests ride it annually -- and with the attraction being replicated at every Magic Kingdom, I hardly think that "it's a small world" was irrelevant or unpopular with guests.
    Is Disneyland irrelevant? No. Why? Because they constantly refresh their park and have been doing so for YEARS. Whether it's a new attraction, a holiday overlay, a new land, a new park, a new spin on an existing attraction, an addition to an existing attraction - Disneyland evolves and morphs in ORDER to stay relevant. 1 out of 4 people isn't a lot. Look at the recent survey from Zagat.

    Most Popular Overall:
    1. Pirates of the Caribbean - New Orleans Square, DL
    2. Space Mountain - Tomorrowland, DL
    3. Soarin' Over California - Golden State, DCA
    4. Indiana Jones Adventure - Adventureland, DL
    5. California Screamin' - Paradise Pier, DC

    Adult Appeal:
    1. Twilight Zone Tower of Terror (DCA)
    2. Space Mountain (Disneyland)
    3. California Screamin' (DCA)
    4. Soarin' Over California (DCA)
    5. "Remember ... Dreams Come True" (Disneyland)

    Child Appeal:
    1. "Remember/Dreams Come True" (Disneyland)
    2. Toy Story Midway Mania! (DCA)
    3. Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters (Disneyland)
    4. Turtle Talk with Crush (DCA)
    5. Fantasmic! (Disneyland)

    IASW isn't even on the radar with people. BUT, like you pointed out, it's replicated at many parks. Why? Because it's almost iconic and synonymous with Disneyland. What can Disneyland do to make it even better and appeal to more people? Add familiar faces of cartoons that everyone knows and loves.


    EDIT: Looking at this survey again, it just confirms my earlier point about the generation of children that are more into interactive rides and explosions.
    Last edited by brenden; 02-05-2009 at 08:14 PM.

  4. #94

    • Use your imagination...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Santa Clarita, California, United States
    Posts
    372

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by brenden View Post

    Child Appeal:
    1. "Remember/Dreams Come True" (Disneyland)
    2. Toy Story Midway Mania! (DCA)
    3. Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters (Disneyland)
    4. Turtle Talk with Crush (DCA)
    5. Fantasmic! (Disneyland)
    Notice that that list includes shows with explosives and interactive rides....

    Lol as brenden pointed out!
    Last edited by DL2006; 02-05-2009 at 08:13 PM. Reason: brenden added the same thing to his post

  5. #95

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,948

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by dizneyteen View Post
    Notice that that list includes shows with explosives and interactive rides....

    Lol as brenden pointed out!

    BLASPHEMY!!! DISNEYLAND MUST RETAIN AND PRESERVE EVERYTHING I GREW UP WITH!! IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM!!!

  6. #96

    • Use your imagination...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Santa Clarita, California, United States
    Posts
    372

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by brenden View Post
    BLASPHEMY!!! DISNEYLAND MUST RETAIN AND PRESERVE EVERYTHING I GREW UP WITH!! IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM!!!
    LOLOL!!!! Now you're sounding like my grandfather! jkjk

  7. #97

    • It's all about Theme!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,604

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    I for one do not resist change at all.

    Why then do I resist Small World so much? Simply that it isn't right.

    Change should enhance an attraction, it's message, and its theme. Small World simply does nothing for that.

    I welcomed the new attic with opened arms. It didn't change the attraction, it was an enhancement that was totally in-sync with the theme and the mood.

    No, I don't resist change when it works with theme and the ride. I resist change when its only there for the sake of change and to not enhance the ride itself.
    Friend walks into line of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh-
    "Come on, Let's go see Country Bear- .......Oh."
    -August 1st 2010

    And this elevator traverls directly to The Twilight Zone The Gift Shop!
    -August 2nd 2010

  8. #98

    • враг народа
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    13,911
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by brenden View Post
    Because Disney films, cartoons especially, are timeless and relevant. Everyone can rent a video of Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty. Not everyone can drop their kids into a boat and send them through a ride that is considered timeless. More association means more relation more relation means more attendance more attendance means more sales.
    I think you are over emphasizing the recognition of the Disney film library. Disney intentionally suppresses the availability of a large portion of its film library. This suppression even extends to rental establishments that did not grab a DVD copy the last time the film was released. Disney learned very quickly that they could artificially inflate demand by periodically suppressing the supply, the birth of the seven year rerelease system. The very [financially] successful direct-to-video sequels were hurting the emotional attachment to the larger company brand, the one that Disney constantly exploits by suppressing supply.

  9. #99

    • Dive ..... Dive.....
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,738

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by brenden View Post
    EDIT: Looking at this survey again, it just confirms my earlier point about the generation of children that are more into interactive rides and explosions.
    The way a child thinks is a lot different than the way an adult thinks. I grew up loving certain things and grew out of it. Disneyland was never suppose to be catered solely for children and lately Disney has broken this rule big time. If they continue on this path you might just see a conversion to legoland in our lifetime, then we will see what "relevant" change really is about.

  10. #100

    • I'm not really here
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Too Far From Disneyland
    Posts
    10,991

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by brenden View Post
    Maybe you don't quite understand what I mean by relevance because you're so blinded by your opinions you're unwilling to see the other side of the coin, something I'm also familiar with and something I don't blame you for. I have opinions, I don't think the ride needs to be changed, but aside from my own thinking, I'm able to dissect and recognize the reasoning behind it.
    Please be careful with the ad hominem attacks, I would really hate to see this thread litter boxed.

    Actually, brenden, I am fully capable of looking at both sides of the coin dispassionately. I have to do it routinely in my job. Yes, I have a very strong opinion on this matter, but I am not so set in my opinion that I can not be swayed, as many on here will attest, I have changed my opinions in the face of really good and well thought out arguements/responses to my posts. But this thread is not about me, it is about the idea of change and what makes it a good change vs what makes it a bad change. I too can dissect it and see the reasoning behind it. I have done so in several posts recently as well as throughout the past year since this change first began. Trust me, I really do get why Disney says this change needs to be done. What I am saying, and where I don't think I'm being understood, is that their reasoning is flawed.

    Relevance: n; 1) term used to describe how pertinent, connected, or applicable something is to a given matter. 2) practical and especially social applicability.

    Disney is trying to make iasw relevant to the children of today. So in the definition above, "given matter" = children of today. So Disney sits down and asks how they can make iasw, the something in definition 1, can be made more connected or more pertinent or more applicable to the children of today. The answer they come up with is to plop in characters, some of which are decades older than the attraction itself.

    You state that these movies are timeless and that the attraction isn't. What is it that makes the movies timeless? It isn't the animation, nor is it the characters. It is the lessons, morals and values that these movies represent. Lessons such as loyalty, friendship, love, family, trust, etc. it's a small world is also timeless for this same reason. Not for the animatronics, nor for the song, but for the message of the attraction: peace, understanding, friendship, compassion because we are all people and we all share this planet. Both the movies and the attraction are timeless.

    Adding familiar characters to a ride that most people skip is probably done to draw more people in. Yes, this has to do with relevance in order to appeal to today's audience. Most children are familiar with the character's they've put in, I'm sure showing the characters in their respective countries will cause them to point them out, spark curiosity, etc.
    But do they really pull more people in, or is it a fad, a novelty that wears off after one or two trips through and then it's back, as you say, to the most annoying song in the world? If this is true, then adding the characters has no value to the attraction. Disney has frequently pulled things because they are no longer relevant, e.g. Tom Sawyer, Swiss Family Robinson. I know many children who have never seen Peter Pan, or Alice in Wonderland. These older animated classics are not relevant to today's children unless they are being actively watched. Pixar is relevant to today's children, hence the massive influx of Pixar into the parks. This is not always a bad thing. It is good when it is done right. Sometimes it has been, some times it has not.

    The message of the ride is one that is generally glossed over - sorry to say. I doubt many children, or even adults, really pay attention or care enough to "get it." Aside from holiday time, when is there ever really a line for IASW?
    I don't know when you are going, but I have yet to go, and we go in the off season, when there is NOT a line for iasw. There are plenty of times during the day when Pirates is a walk on, HM is a walk on, Indy is a walk on, BTMRR is a walk on. iasw fluctuates throughout the day as well, just like all the rides. It has lines, and often times long ones, and not just during the holidays.

    The message, in all its years of operation, has never been glossed over until now. The message was clear and unmuddled by addtional stuff. People, knowing it or not, hear those lyrics. It gets in your head, by design, and stays there. Conciously or subconciously doesn't really matter. With the additions to the ride, the message is muddled. Now you have something pulling you out of the message and into the world of Alice, or Lion King. These things muddle the message. These are the things that will gloss it over. For 4 decades the message has been crystal clear.

    Comparing common business practice of WANTING TO MAKE MONEY to genocide is just ridiculous. If every business sacrificed the basic goal of wanting to make money, our economy would probably be in a stickier situation that it is now.
    Yes, I gave and exaggerated example, to make a point. It is done in debate frequently. The logic behind the point is valid weather it is exaggerated or not... the point being, just because others do it, does not make it right. To take your economic example, because all the businesses behaved the same way, we are IN the situation we are in.

    My point is that Disney is held to a higher standard than what others do. Disney needs to continue that higher standard, pushing themselves to be better, to find new ways to do things, to innovate, create, go down new paths and open new doors rather than repeat the tired old methods of yesterday and yesteryear.

    See the correlation there? What was the figure released the other day? A 32% profit loss first quarter for the company and 4% for theme parks? Disneyland is a catalyst for the entire company. Updating attractions attracts more guests and brings people back. More guests means more money. It's a very simple equation.
    The equation is very simple, but the factor that isn't simple is "what brings people to the parks." Monsters, Inc. was supposed to bring people to DCA, it really didn't. Updates to Pirates was supposed to make the ride "relevant" and keep people coming back to visit. For the first few months while people experienced it... it did, but then the "newness" wears off and things drift back to normal. "Plussing" like this doesn't drive attendance in the long term. It drives short term visits and that's it. New attractions and keeping the experience different that the standard amusement park are what drive attendance to Disneyland. This is why change must be examined very carefully for the long term value it will bring to the park. If a change only drives attendance short term, then is it worth the money spent on the change? I simply do not see how adding in these characters will drive long term attendance.

    Quote Originally Posted by brenden View Post
    Because Disney films, cartoons especially, are timeless and relevant. Everyone can rent a video of Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty. Not everyone can drop their kids into a boat and send them through a ride that is considered timeless. More association means more relation more relation means more attendance more attendance means more sales.
    I think I addressed this above... if people can't drop their kids into a boat on a ride that is timeless, how is adding timeless characters to the ride going to increase the ability of people to drop their kids into said ride?

    Having these characters on the ride is not going to be the deciding factor in a families decision to visit Disneyland.

    I have looked at all the facts, both from the viewpoint of my opinion, and from the viewpoint of the company. I have looked at how the possible reasonings for this change would affect the companies bottom line as well as daily/yearly attendance. The conclusion that I come to is that it simply will not affect things in any significant way at all. The fixes they made to the boats and the flume will have a lasting impression and allow for better operation of the attraction. These are improvements that have a long term payout. Keeping the attraction clean and painted and the lighting and sound up to date will have long term payoffs. Adding the characters, simply will not. In the equation of the bottom line, the characters are a negative as they cost money to develop, create and install that simply will not receive a return, or profit, on investment.

    I have given the reasons behind my views... they were arrived at by carefully considering all sides of the situation over many months. I hope tat you can see that I don't simply have my opinion and that's it. Something that I value highly is the ability to look at all sides of the situation and determine the reasons for a decision. I prize the ability to look for the reasons behind a decision and to be able to look at them dispassionately to see if they are going to have the desired effect or if they are not the right decisions. I don't simply go on my emotional reactions to things. There have been many times when emotionally I have been all for something, but it isn't the right choice, or the converse. I am a physicist by training and the scientific method rules most of my life. Emotion and seeing one side simply do not enter into that. I can see Disney's side of things, I simply do not thing that their reasons will pay off in the end. I think that their reasoning is flawed in the long run and therefore a mistake. There are better ways to accomplish their goals... some of which I've stated in this thread and others as well.

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and Are melted into air, into thin air: And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep. mycroft16 on Twitter

  11. #101

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,948

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seawolf View Post
    The way a child thinks is a lot different than the way an adult thinks. I grew up loving certain things and grew out of it. Disneyland was never suppose to be catered solely for children and lately Disney has broken this rule big time. If they continue on this path you might just see a conversion to legoland in our lifetime, then we will see what "relevant" change really is about.
    Agreed - look at the top list for adults. IAWS still isn't on the list.

  12. #102

    • Dive ..... Dive.....
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,738

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by brenden View Post
    Agreed - look at the top list for adults. IAWS still isn't on the list.
    It's not on the list because it doesn't have a cool factor, something that hasn't been added since Indy. It just can't compete with those top themes, so it's kinda unfair to compare it to them. Adding Fantasyland characters and marketing to children isn't going to change that. If they want to drive attendance maybe they should start thinking outside the box for once and create that E-ticket mature audiences have been craving instead of wasting time and effort by ruining timeless classics.
    Last edited by Seawolf; 02-05-2009 at 09:23 PM.

  13. #103

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    8,890

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by OTownGuy View Post
    REALLY? WOW! then everything ive seen of this companies 80+ years is a alternate reality? So this is NOT the same company that has a stepmother want to TAKE OUT her own stepdaughters heart, put it in a box and then kill her w/ a poisnoned piece of food?

    ... The same company that killed TWO animal kids' parents? Ones mother and ones father?? TOTALLY WARM AND FUZZY!!!! And i thought Disney was all overloaded saccrachine.
    If your post is serious (I really can't tell), you're confusing Disney-style immersive transportation to fantasy realms, nostalgia and the architecture of reassurance with Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

    The thing people take home from Snow White isn't the horror of the Wicked Queen, it's the Dwarves' tears of joy at the end of the last reel. The emotional darkness of the villain contrasted with the emotional light of the hero's resolution gives the experience its wide emotional dynamic range.

    That's Disney warm fuzzies.
    "With the acquisition of Marvel and now of Lucasfilm,
    Disney may have finally found the grail. You don't need
    imagination or art. All you need is a brand."

    - Neil Gabler


  14. #104

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,948

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Relevance: n; 1) term used to describe how pertinent, connected, or applicable something is to a given matter. 2) practical and especially social applicability.

    Disney is trying to make iasw relevant to the children of today. So in the definition above, "given matter" = children of today. So Disney sits down and asks how they can make iasw, the something in definition 1, can be made more connected or more pertinent or more applicable to the children of today. The answer they come up with is to plop in characters, some of which are decades older than the attraction itself.
    Yes. Age aside, let's look at the emotional, long lasting qualities of films and attractions. How many times did you watch Disney cartoons as a kid? Even in the 80s, I'm sure you watched Disney cartoons before the ones that were released when you were a child. Those films have a stronger tie with kids, even kids of today, than IASW. I don't think IASW is a horrible attraction that needs this addition, but adding characters, "some of which are decades older than the attraction itself," create a stronger tie with the attraction. My point is ESPECIALLY true for the kids of today, who are so fixated with attractions that hold some kind of significance with their TVs and computers.

    You state that these movies are timeless and that the attraction isn't. What is it that makes the movies timeless? It isn't the animation, nor is it the characters. It is the lessons, morals and values that these movies represent. Lessons such as loyalty, friendship, love, family, trust, etc. it's a small world is also timeless for this same reason. Not for the animatronics, nor for the song, but for the message of the attraction: peace, understanding, friendship, compassion because we are all people and we all share this planet. Both the movies and the attraction are timeless.
    I think I can agree there. Although I think some kids, myself included, love characters and personalities, songs and other aspects of the films aside from the morals. I mean, when I look at the Little Mermaid or the Lion King, the soundtrack is what stands out to me more than the message behind the film. BUT, I do agree, the message and the morals involved with the films are what makes the movies stand out.


    But do they really pull more people in, or is it a fad, a novelty that wears off after one or two trips through and then it's back, as you say, to the most annoying song in the world? If this is true, then adding the characters has no value to the attraction. Disney has frequently pulled things because they are no longer relevant, e.g. Tom Sawyer, Swiss Family Robinson. I know many children who have never seen Peter Pan, or Alice in Wonderland. These older animated classics are not relevant to today's children unless they are being actively watched. Pixar is relevant to today's children, hence the massive influx of Pixar into the parks. This is not always a bad thing. It is good when it is done right. Sometimes it has been, some times it has not.
    The older animated classics are still relevant to today's children. How many little girls do you see running around the parks dressed up as Snow White or Cinderella? And, like you said, Pixar is also prevalent, but the older animation is still around and something long standing for multiple generations. I'm sure in 20 years, people will still be watching Sleeping Beauty, The Lion King, etc. and Toy Story is bound to be shuffled in that mix of "classic" films sooner or later.


    I don't know when you are going, but I have yet to go, and we go in the off season, when there is NOT a line for iasw. There are plenty of times during the day when Pirates is a walk on, HM is a walk on, Indy is a walk on, BTMRR is a walk on. iasw fluctuates throughout the day as well, just like all the rides. It has lines, and often times long ones, and not just during the holidays.
    I go year round and you're right, there are plenty of times when several rides are walk ons. But, I can walk by the Haunted Mansion and see a 30 minute wait. Same with Pirates. Same with Indy, which gets up to what - over 90 minutes? IASW has been closed for over a year? At least 9 months, I think, and going to the parks regularly for over 5 years as an adult, I can confidently say IASW has always pretty much been a walk on regardless of time of day - except when the parks are exceptionally busy during the summer or holidays where everything is a huge wait.

    The message, in all its years of operation, has never been glossed over until now. The message was clear and unmuddled by addtional stuff. People, knowing it or not, hear those lyrics. It gets in your head, by design, and stays there. Conciously or subconciously doesn't really matter. With the additions to the ride, the message is muddled. Now you have something pulling you out of the message and into the world of Alice, or Lion King. These things muddle the message. These are the things that will gloss it over. For 4 decades the message has been crystal clear.
    I don't think adding the characters muddles the message. The song is still the same. They're placing characters in their respective environments, in the style of the original ride. If they were completely revamping the ride, getting rid of the children, changing the song to be movie-related in each room then I'd understand. For the most part, the message is the same, it's still about the kids. Again, the word relevance pops up - kids going through the ride see the characters and probably ingest it better than random dolls they've never had any experience with outside of the ride itself.

    Yes, I gave and exaggerated example, to make a point. It is done in debate frequently. The logic behind the point is valid weather it is exaggerated or not... the point being, just because others do it, does not make it right. To take your economic example, because all the businesses behaved the same way, we are IN the situation we are in.

    My point is that Disney is held to a higher standard than what others do. Disney needs to continue that higher standard, pushing themselves to be better, to find new ways to do things, to innovate, create, go down new paths and open new doors rather than repeat the tired old methods of yesterday and yesteryear.
    I really didn't see the relevance of genocide and racial slaughter compared to the way companies operate. Besides, genocide isn't something prevalent in every country around the world, but I guess that's besides the point? In any case, it might not be right, but it's a business decision. If you want to control how a business conducts itself, I suggest becoming a shareholder, get on the board of directors, etc. Regardless of what's right and wrong, the company is going to do what it sees fit for its best interests, and for the sake of this thread, unfortunately, that is making money.

    Disney is held to a higher standard because that's something they've set themselves. That's not the problem, they definitely deliver - at least in my opinion - I can't go to another theme park and not think about how Disney does it. But, like I said in an earlier post - times change.

    The equation is very simple, but the factor that isn't simple is "what brings people to the parks." Monsters, Inc. was supposed to bring people to DCA, it really didn't. Updates to Pirates was supposed to make the ride "relevant" and keep people coming back to visit. For the first few months while people experienced it... it did, but then the "newness" wears off and things drift back to normal. "Plussing" like this doesn't drive attendance in the long term. It drives short term visits and that's it. New attractions and keeping the experience different that the standard amusement park are what drive attendance to Disneyland. This is why change must be examined very carefully for the long term value it will bring to the park. If a change only drives attendance short term, then is it worth the money spent on the change? I simply do not see how adding in these characters will drive long term attendance.
    Monsters, Inc. probably bumped attendance when it debuted, but it's not like DCA has an outstanding attendance rate anyway. And really, DCA is it's own entity with its own direction and irrelevant to the values and principles of Disneyland, right?

    Pirates already has one of the highest capacities in the park - 2k an hour? It's already popular, but like you said, most of the time it's a walk on. What I understand is that there was a massively popular film franchise that dominated box offices and DVD sales for over 5 years. Of course Disneyland wanted to hop on that gravy train - it probably made them plenty of money to add Pirates merchandise, tie in the movies with the rides and retheme the island. Would you consider 5 years short term? I don't know if I would, I can see it either way, but regardless, I'm sure there weren't a lot of complaints about the cash it brought in.

    But look at a lot of the changes in Disneyland - are they long term? Yes. But do they have a long term effect? No. Is the treehouse any more popular now than it was as it was Swiss Family? Probably not. But for that brief period of time, when it was close to Tarzan or "new" - I'm sure it was.


    I think I addressed this above... if people can't drop their kids into a boat on a ride that is timeless, how is adding timeless characters to the ride going to increase the ability of people to drop their kids into said ride?

    Having these characters on the ride is not going to be the deciding factor in a families decision to visit Disneyland.
    I wouldn't be so sure. Like I've tried to reiterate above, compare the amount of Disney movies the average child has seen with the amount of times the average child has ridden IASW. I'm sure there's a massive difference. Attempting to make a ride that isn't so relevant with movies that are extremely relevant to many childrens' lives is what I believe TDA has done. It might not be a deciding factor for a family to visit the parks, but it might let kids relate to the ride itself more, by identifying it with these classic films, thus boosting attendance of the park itself and more importantly the ride.

    I have looked at all the facts, both from the viewpoint of my opinion, and from the viewpoint of the company. I have looked at how the possible reasonings for this change would affect the companies bottom line as well as daily/yearly attendance. The conclusion that I come to is that it simply will not affect things in any significant way at all. The fixes they made to the boats and the flume will have a lasting impression and allow for better operation of the attraction. These are improvements that have a long term payout. Keeping the attraction clean and painted and the lighting and sound up to date will have long term payoffs. Adding the characters, simply will not. In the equation of the bottom line, the characters are a negative as they cost money to develop, create and install that simply will not receive a return, or profit, on investment.

    I have given the reasons behind my views... they were arrived at by carefully considering all sides of the situation over many months. I hope tat you can see that I don't simply have my opinion and that's it. Something that I value highly is the ability to look at all sides of the situation and determine the reasons for a decision. I prize the ability to look for the reasons behind a decision and to be able to look at them dispassionately to see if they are going to have the desired effect or if they are not the right decisions. I don't simply go on my emotional reactions to things. There have been many times when emotionally I have been all for something, but it isn't the right choice, or the converse. I am a physicist by training and the scientific method rules most of my life. Emotion and seeing one side simply do not enter into that. I can see Disney's side of things, I simply do not thing that their reasons will pay off in the end. I think that their reasoning is flawed in the long run and therefore a mistake. There are better ways to accomplish their goals... some of which I've stated in this thread and others as well.
    I'm not sure I can agree. Fixes to the boat, painting, etc. are all part of regular maintenance that can only be expected from ANY attraction at the park. Adding the characters might not be a long term payoff - but are many of the additions/changes to Disneyland long term payoffs? I brought up the treehouse, POTC, etc. All of these changes are subtle and/or have little or no effect in the long run. What they DO do is keep attractions fresh and relevant, something I've been trying to express all along.

  15. #105

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,948

    Re: "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seawolf View Post
    It's not on the list because it doesn't have a cool factor, something that hasn't been added since Indy. It just can't compete with those top themes, so it's kinda unfair to compare it to them. Adding Fantasyland characters and marketing to children isn't going to change that. If they want to drive attendance maybe they should start thinking outside the box for once and create that E-ticket mature audiences have been craving instead of wasting time and effort by ruining timeless classics.
    It's not on anyone's list - adult or child. You're right, it's not cool, it's not thrilling, it doesn't entertain today's youth.

    Adding characters and marketing to children seems to work with other attractions (Nemo, Buzz, Toy Story, POTC, etc.) seemed to work, though. I really don't think their time or efforts will be wasted. It looks like a cheap, quick fix to refresh a ride that's lost it's touch with today's audience.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?
    By TheManator in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 193
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 05:50 AM
  2. "Disneyland will never be completed
    By Disneyfanatic in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-15-2005, 11:03 PM
  3. Affleck brings "Resistance" to Touchstone
    By ALIASd in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-15-2005, 08:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •