Maybe the problem with all the attractions being based on movies isn't from a Disneyland point but more that Disney doesn't make the type of films that they once did when Disneyland was first built. A lot of Disneyland was originally based off of something Walt did.
There is absolutely merit to this type of park theming - guests can invent their own unique story within the attraction, the experience is unique to the parks, and its more difficult for the attractions to feel "dated" - I get that. However, you forget that a HUGE reason that people visit the parks is to experience the Disney characters, songs, and movies that they have become familiar with. That's a huge draw, and most guests really enjoy it.Originally Posted by JerrodDRagon
As far as E/D Tickets added to the resort that aren't themed to movies...I can help: they added Soarin' Over California (which you mentioned), California Screamin, Mulholland Madness, Grizzly River Rapids, and the Maliboomer. If you look at the ones that closed - all of those were NOT themed to Disney characters or movies. I'm not saying that they were good rides... Superstar Limo was a terrible concept! But I can understand why Disney is reluctant to green light projects that don't draw from the popularity of the Disney brand. It's more of a risk.
I would love to see imagineers producing more original content, but I don't go "against Disney" pretending that adding more characters to attractions is a terrible idea and disgracing the parks - because it's not. It's a wise move on behalf of the parks drawing strength from one of their most beloved assets: Disney Movies.
Again, I don't think there should JUST be character based attractions, but I WILL be riding Radiator Springs Racers and The Little Mermaid... A LOT!
The last 15 years? Versus the 40 or so before that?
I can only think of one major change....
"Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."
They are not the same company. In Name Only. Those folks who created the former list of attractions, as well as those folks who LET them create, are long gone. They've been replaced by folks who might be creative, but are suppressed by those who do not allow them to create -- people whose income depends on stock prices and short-term financial results, not long-term works of entertainment art. (IMO.) The result is the latter list of "attractions."
"Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."
Exactly right.
While the company may have been able to get away with it once upon a time, there is now no way the board is going to pony up a hundred million dollars for an attraction without a proven tie-in guaranteeing a modicum of success. Were it not for such properties as "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones", there would be no such rides of that sort in any of the parks.
While it might have been nice to see something completely unexpected, it's just gotten too expensive, and far too risky. We'll have to make do with whatever we can.
What about parts of Tokyo Disney Sea, Expedition Everest, and the rest of Animal Kingdom.
TDS is run by another company.
Animal Kingdom was created to stem the tide of WDW guests going to Sea World and Busch Gardens.
Expedition Everest is Joe Rohde's baby. He seems to have that envious (to execs, that is) "Magic Touch." Yeti is broken, though. That's how the execs's exact their revenge on creative types: no funds for maintenance and repair. (Again, all IMO.)
"Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."
I think movie based rides and original concepts can co-exist peacefully, but when one is featured a lot more than the other is when problems can arise. I forgive reliance on movie rides when they have a quality idea, thats the difference between Mr. Toad, where you aren't just reliving the movie, and Monsters Inc., where you are. Hell, even empty thrill rides at the expense of art rides (I'm looking at you Mission Space) can be blamed for lacking quality in Disney Parks.
Do I blame WDI? Absolutely not. We already know that less than 1 percent of what they come up with is actually executed and I have total faith that the other 99 percent is full of actual 'Disney' ideas.
The biggest problem I have is interactive queues. If I wanted games I would have bought my ipod, ipad, psp, ds, etc. And for those who do want games, they can bring those items. I never had a problem waiting in line for mansion (at WDW at least) even though all there is to keep me busy is a graveyard and a large menacing building. Thats the fun. I have a few minutes to talk to friends and family and soak in the location, and then I'm in. Video games will just intrude on that. There is probably more I can say about this, its just hard to articulate how much the little things mean, but if I ever get to go on my April trip (fingers heavily crossed) I'm going to have a few choice words for the manager to ignore.
I would disagree with this completely.
That is true about TDS, I often forget it is not owned by Disney. But Animal Kingdom is still a good example that Disney is still willing to put money toward attractions without movie tie-ins, or characters.
Or not.
More longtime Disneyland fans than you may think have decided to say NO to Disney's decades of declining innovation and increasing prices.
"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
Exactly!
I am reminded of the Lloyd Braun firing.
And they have been replaced by record crowds of discounted day trippers. But I guess as long as they buy a meal here or there, and maybe a trinket or two Disney is happy.
I too get the point of movie attractions. They are quite fun. Star Tours although I never liked it within the confines of Disneyland was always a great experience. Same goes with Indiana Jones. Great ride. I understand the appeal that audiences have for these movies and the associated attractions. And for some part, they at least told a different adventure than what you could see in the movie. I even think Astro Blasters and the Nemo ride are pretty cool by themselves. It's much better to use the subs for nemo than it is to have the lagoon vacant in my opinion. However, what they did to Pirates was an absolute crime and the lack of attention to theming threatens to kill the whole Disney experience.
There are many adventures to be had at Disneyland, some have you step into a movie, others have you step into the past, some have you step into the world of the future. I think most people claim that the atmosphere of Disneyland is what really makes it special. The atmosphere of the different lands allows an escape. When you destroy too much of that atmosphere, I think you will kill the Goose that laid the Golden Egg. Disneyland is based on themes, and cannot support too many exception such as Nemo Subs or even Astro Blasters. I for one still like going to Disneyland because it brings back good memories. I believe the winning philosophy is to preserve some of that old Disneyland just the way it is, and create a mix of movie and unique attraction ideas that matches the theming with anything you do as new. If there are too many exceptions, if you destory too much of the old, then you will lose the magic. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
SMA94
Very few have had the privilege of operating Space Mountain. Fewer still have pushed the A-lift stop. I am one of those few.
Nothing wrong with basing an attraction or even a land on a movie. Look at the success of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. And I still hope Disney will someday do something permanent with Mary Poppins. But I don't like non-Disney films such as Star Wars or Indiana Jones being dragged in as the basis for attractions in Disney parks. The main issue, though, is the experience you get from the attraction: do you just ride through a synopsis of the movie (i.e. Winnie the Pooh)? Or do you get an experience above and beyond what you would get by simply watching the movie on DVD (i.e. Toy Story Midway Mania)? The attraction must provide a different experience than simply watching the movie, for example, if they moved Autopia over to Carsland and you actually drive one of the characters from the movie and it talks to you. Also, simply copying rides from other theme parks and giving them a coat of Disney paint is not very innovative or original. You can get the same type of experience you get on Grizzly River Run at similar rides at Sea World, Knott's and Magic Mountain. What they need is more completely original experiences, that you cannot get by watching DVDs or visiting other theme parks. Otherwise, why choose to visit a Disney park over the competing parks?
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks