The fort wasn't built all that authentically to begin with, IIRC - though they did make it look like it was. Authentic, the outer walls and inner posts would have been sunk straight into the dirt, and not embedded in concrete, so they wouldn't stay wet and the rot wouldn't be all that fast. But even then, regular maintenance would be needed, they'd be replacing the ground-contact posts and the outer wall logs every ~10-20 years.
And I recall a lot of dowel plugs hiding the countersunk bolt heads, and they had some faked timbers covering up steel beams in certain spots. Some of that could be from repairs and retrofits over the years, but the principle stands. They made it good enough to fool a 10-year-old, but not an adult that has built things.
You could reproduce it authentically today as a Timber Framed Building with no steel reinforcements and only a few bolts - but your Architect would have a real fight on his hands getting the plans signed off by Anaheim Building & Safety. You can prove that it would be safe today... And the City will probably still make them bury steel reinforcements in the joints, and a regular poured concrete foundation. If they add an elevator for ADA Access, that's even harder to explain away - then it's easier to setup a display on how it was done originally, and leave it at that.
--<< Bruce >>--
I'm honestly shocked at all the hate for F! There seams to be a very vocal minority of people who are stuck in the past and do not want to accept that Disneyland (and the world for that matter) has changed over the years (not agreeing with current building codes? REALLY??). I understand to a point as I know in 30 years I will likely be doing the same thing, but to write off every new innovation, every new idea or every new aspect of a constantly changing park is just plane short sighted. As I understand Disneyland, by design, was meant to always be changing; why was that particular part of Walt's vision over looked.
^^^Again, for me, anyway, it's not hate. As I said, it's that the park is just too small to handle that ginormous amount of people that Fantasmic brings to that one area, and how it affects the surrounding area. I'm not looking for nothing to change, but in this case, the park can't handle the crowds effectively.
Is it possible to have a little bit of both? Some type of ride attraction plus a return to TSI?
ABC is actually developing a show based on Tom and Huck right now, and I think it could really bring new life to the island.
Is it possible to have a balanced dialogue about this without all the vitriol? If you don't like Fantasmic! that doesn't mean it is inherently bad/evil/antithetic to the very definition of Disneyland. Same goes if you love it. The weight of your opinion isn't greater because you state it as a fact. The reality is, there's no objective formula, so it has to come down to a balanced assessment of how people who visit the park respond to and value an attraction. So the truth is: there are people on both sides -- both regarding Fantasmic! AND the day use of the island itself.
Isn't it more interesting and engaging to have a reasonable and imaginative dialogue about possible solutions instead of this dead-end battering of an all-or-nothing proposition?
For example...Is there's an alternative to the all-consuming scheduling of Fantasmic! (Only one per night, only certain nights of the week), seating alternatives (reserved or Fastpass seating, with a finite # of spaces so the whole area doesn't become a blanket encampment for hours on end).
Likewise, aren't there more options for the island to consider than either an e-ticket roller coaster (a' la DLP) or returning it to it's previous Tom Sawyer incarnation? Surely there's imagination enough to envision something that's appealing to both grown-ups and kids that honors the natural history ideals of its original life, but also takes advantage of new innovations and new ideas. Could there be room for a cool walk-through attraction (like Cinderella in the castle)? Could there be a more physical attraction (not unlike the canoes that get you there) that also incorporates Disney's gift for richly and vibrantly imagined storytelling (Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Splash)?
Am I crazy, or aren't those possibilities, and the infinite others a more interesting way to explore the OP's original query about change for the island than debating the definition of a generation or nastily disparaging all opinions that don't agree with your own?
The ideas you have for "engaging the modern family" through a ride that "tells the story" or a theater attraction do exactly what the modern Imagineers have been doing--and which have often been deemed failures by many (Tarzan's Treehouse and the Nemo submarines being two of the better examples). These attractions force-feed the story to the passive viewer (notice I wrote "viewer," and not "participant." Back in Disneyland's heyday, you were part of the story, not a spectator of it).
Disneyland needs to get back to its roots as the original form of Virtual Reality; and stop trying to tell me what the story is. Let me use my own imagination for a change. Which is why the original intent of TSI nees to be reclaimed.
TSI is honestly in better shape than it was before, even though I would like them to remove the pirates. Tarzan and Nemo are examples of just a bad concept, as what was there before them was easily just as much story telling as what's there now.
It's new times, get with it or stay in the past but you're just hurting yourself. I'm sure there are many things each person on these boards would like to change or go back too, but there is still a lot to look foward too at the parks today. Disney doesn't NEED to do anything because of someone's personal preference, as the company and the park is still doing great today.
BUT...there was a sign that did make a vain attempt to explain the grasping-at-straws story of the connection between Tom and Huck pretending to be pirates in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer," and the pirates on the island. Like we were stepping into Tom and Huck's wild imaginings come to life. Talk about trying too hard...
My six year old comes up with better explanations for ridiculous ideas.
---------- Post added 09-01-2012 at 09:21 PM ----------
But that doesn't prove the food is high quaility.