LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI get the sense that when Walt Disney said "Hey guys, we're going to build a replica of the Matterhorn and plop it down RIGHT next to Sleeping Beauty Castle," there were some protests, but Walt convinced them he could make it work.
I get the sense that when Walt Disney said "Hey guys, we're going to build a replica of the Matterhorn and plop it down RIGHT next to Sleeping Beauty Castle," there were some protests, but Walt convinced them he could make it work.
All about perspective...this seems a bit "double standards" You say you can't walk through Sleeping Beauty Castle but you certainly could visit the Bavarian castle that inspired it. And then you say you can go to Route 66 but can you go to the Route 66 town of Radiator Springs that only existed in the alternative universe of Cars with floating tires, dancing tractors, and racing in a character car through the red rocks of Ornament Valley...didn't think so lol. That's down playing the whole thing by saying Cars Land is just like going down Route 66....it's not and if that's the case then going through Sleeping Beauty's Castle is just going through any other European Castle. Perspective. Seems to me many choose to ignore the more fantastical elements of DCA and emphasize them with DL when in all honesty, you could emphasize or de-emphasize pretty equally between the two parks to make it seem more banal or more interesting. You can visit a seaside amusement park but Paradise Pier is setting out to be a seaside amusement park from the turn-of-the-century...not something that is readily down. You can visit a national park yeah but when's the last time you could white-water raft up an old gold mill, through a granite bear shaped mountain, and past active geysers in what is becoming a more idealized mid-century national park...yeah not going to happen. You can go to Hollywood but dropping 13 stories in a freak elevator in an abandoned hotel isn't going to happen while you're there lol. And hang gliding...well same vein as Mark Twain, the Train...sure you could ride all those outside the park but they aren't going to take you on snapshot journey's like they do in the park. DL does a great job and transporting and immersing guest in idealized and envisioned environments but DCA does as well and is working at enhancing this immersion in the park's original lands (turning back the clock in Condor Flats, Grizzly Peak, Paradise Pier, Hollywood Land) and enhancing it with the new lands (an idealized, never can see neighborhood from 1930's Los Angeles in BVS and the town of Radiator Springs (and all that stands for), the Cadillac Range, and Ornament Valley, all places we can NEVER visit in Cars Land).Originally Posted by TylerDurden
Back on topic...backstories are still mainly used as tools of design in creating a cohesive picture and environment and the few of them around that serve as crutches are honestly not a new thing (like the Pirates example). And there is something different between "making a theme work" within a land (think Jolly Holiday Bakery which I personally don't mind as it fits the aesthetics of Main Street but can understand the frustration from some about them making it work in the land with some convoluted backstory, that's an example of backstory crutch) and "making a sponsor/brand" or something similar work within a land (Coke, Starbucks, Kellog's, Dole, Quilted Northern, or whatever). The latter is almost a necessity at times and when done well where they "make it work", they keep thematic integrity and also cater to the modern demands of sponsorships. Like the Kellog's billboard and truck in Hollywoodland...it helps enhance the old time theming while also making the sponsorship recognized and "work". Making a Starbucks or something work with the themes on Main Street or BVS would almost be fun and provide us the guest with better quality coffee while also trying to maintain the theming.
I only judge them against themselves. This is a company that built EPCOT Center ... the Haunted Mansion ... Pirates of the Caribbean ... the Enchanted Tiki Room ... Horizons ... Spaceship Earth; that is the standard I hold them to. When they live up to that standard (Remember Dreams Come True fireworks, Temple of the Forbidden Eye, Splash Mountain The Tower of Terror), I commend them. When they don't, I don't. Sometimes it falls in between (like Soarin' - a terrific concept, the implementation is pretty good, absolutely zero effort made in the theater or queue theming).
Last edited by Krack; 03-24-2012 at 09:43 PM.
Do like all Disney films the same because they are Disney?
I'll forgive Walt's shortcomings because I believe he was truly looking to create something and respected his audience. There are plenty inside The Walt Disney Company who look down on the Disney fans. Decisions are made because they will be able to make money off of the "foamers" and the "Walties." That is not some conspiracy theory. The DisneyParks® are viewed as marketing devices and retail outlets, not storytelling mediums, and that too I believe is an important context to understand. There may be stellar results at times, but it also causes plenty of problems that undermine the legitimacy of themed entertainment.
Neuschwanstein and the Matterhorn are both in the Alps. Even then, being art, there are times when something "just feels right," but this is the exception, not the rule. It is part of what creates the romance. Too much and the experience just breaks down into a cacophony of competing images.
You essentially just stated "this is not a conspiracy theory, because it is a fact." What is your hard evidence that the company does in fact use its fanbase as a tool to get their greedy hands on the park layouts? I am not denying your statement because I have no insider knowledge on the inner workings of Disney whatsoever, I would just like to know where your information is coming from before accepting such a strong and negative standpoint.
I am not sure what you mean by "park layouts." As with so much that is discussed about Disney, hard evidence is typically not going to be available. With time you are just going to have to decide for yourself whom you do and do not believe.
If there's a fancy way of saying "it's okay because Walt did it," then you just found it.
The Matterhorn is the biggest non sequitur in perhaps any Disney park. It's a giant mountain that sorta fits in Fantasyland but dominates the view from Tomorrowland and Main St, USA, neither of which are an appropriate place for such a thing. They shoehorned that thing in there like nothing in Disney history. To make it worse there were tropical submarines built right at the base of the snow-capped Matterhorn, with mermaids sunning themselves in the lagoon. That was as bizarre and odd a juxtaposition as any.
But you know what? It just kinda works. And you know why? Because every Disney park, especially Disneyland, is a fantasy. Holding too strict to these arbitrary "Rules of Theme" will result in things like the Matterhorn never getting built.
We accept the Matterhorn as a fit, because for most of us, we never visited Disneyland without it. But I've said this before - If Disneyland never had a Matterhorn, and tomorrow, they announced that the Matterhorn would be erected in its current location, there would be riots and lynch mobs at how the Disney company was defacing Walt's park.
Excuse my lack of proper terminology, I just meant the power to do whatever they want to the parks, with or without regard to whatever it is that the public wants.
And that's actually what I was getting at. Perhaps I should rephrase. What are your reasons for believing that the corporation has an agenda that involves taking advantage of the fans? As I've stated, I am not shutting out any ideas, I'm just wondering what is is that leads people to think that way, given said lack of evidence.
It has nothing to do with "Walt did it."
The rules help create the fantasy. That is widely known and accepted in literature and film making. They make the fantastic jumps more believable because everything else is so grounded, that it the response is not a loss of fantasy but the suspension of disbelief. That is why so much care has been put into establishing and following rules as the medium has progressed. The rules can even be changed, but as this thread starts off saying, if that is going to be the case, then be honest and do that, do not come up with some convoluted excuse.
The company has always known, from Walt's days on forward, that sometimes you don't adhere to the rules. Sometimes you throw the rules out the window. Sometimes you break away from strict rules of theme. Sometimes you build something just because it's kinda cool and it's a neat idea.
That's my point about the Matterhorn. Even Walt himself knew that the Matterhorn didn't really fit. He didn't care. What you're doing is saying that Disney today should be held to a stricter, more straight-laced set of rules than even Walt Disney held himself.
I don't see Disney trying to "make it fit." I see them taking interesting, highly detailed environments that people enjoy and bringing them to life. It's all about perspective.
Disney has the power to do whatever they because they own the parks.
My own research, study and even a few experiences are why I say that Disney has made decisions which are based around a less than positive view of fans.
I agree. Furthermore, I don't really understand the logic besides the statement that more rules = better fantasy. I don't think I ever once questioned the lack of cohesion between this world intersecting with that world; I just enjoyed the extent to which each ride or attraction stuck to its own theme. Peter Pan is Peter Pan. The Submarines are submarines.
Sometimes. That is the key. It is not the rule, it is the exception that is believed because of the rules. The dedication to authentic details shows that even Walt understood the importance of the rules as a proper foundation to guide the creation of the experience.
"Attention to detail" is not equatable to "adherence to rules." Very different concepts.
Would Adam West's portrayal of Batman have worked in Christopher Nolan's Batman films?
---------- Post added 03-25-2012 at 02:37 AM ----------
Yes it is, because those details are placed to create the structure of the environment. Detail is the level at which the rules operate the most.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks