Tom Sawyer Island - Time for a Change

[4th Gen Disney Fan]

The man who designed the island was from Missouri himself; I think he did a prety credible job:




Both photos, the real Missouri.

Perfect? Maybe not; but Disney never said it was actually supposed to be Missouri (I mentioned that as shorthand). Frontierland represents ALL of the American frontier--and the island and surrounding shores on the back side look a whole lot like places on the east coast and mid-west I've seen. And I would definitely not say that the man who designed the Island, Walt Disney, "failed miserably."

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm certainly not being sarcastic. Fantascrap! is anathema to the very ideas of what Frontierland and New Orleans Square once were, for all the reasons previously mentioned in this thread. It's an abomination that should be shelved, so that the once most-romantic and evocative area of the Park could be returned to its previous splendor.

My point was that if the island was in fact a representation of Missouri, then they failed in the design. You compared the island to Missouri and it doesn't even come close. I didn't say the island itself was a failure. Nice job changing the premise of your argument, by the way.

[calsig31]

As far as the island goes ... Disney needs to reimagine the Tom Sawyer theme or do something entirely different. It really doesn't make sense to use the limited real estate they have for such a small percentage of their guests. I haven't even bothered to visit the island for many years. It needs to somehow tell more of a story and offer more of an adventure to tempt me to take time away from other rides and shows.

They did reimagine the Tom Sawyer theme a few years ago when they brought in the pirate crap. What they need to do is take it all out and return the island to its former glory, complete with Tom and Huck walk-around characters, Injun Joe's Cave, and an open and working fort.

[Bruce Bergman]

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 >>--

[Meville]

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.

[sbk1234]

^^^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.

[4Apples4Disney]

Is it possible to have a little bit of both? Some type of ride attraction plus a return to TSI?

[Steve DeGaetano]

My point was that if the island was in fact a representation of Missouri, then they failed in the design. You compared the island to Missouri and it doesn't even come close. I didn't say the island itself was a failure. Nice job changing the premise of your argument, by the way.

I haven't changed anything: the island should be returned to its former state, and Fantascrap! should be sent permanently to Yesterland. Pretty simple, really.

[MonteJ]

I haven't changed anything: the island should be returned to its former state, and Fantascrap! should be sent permanently to Yesterland. Pretty simple, really.

Steve, I don't think it's just about returning Tom Sawyer Island to it's pre-Fantasmic heydey. It's a different world than it was in 1955 - and many people today have never read - or don't have an affinity for Tom Sawyer. That being said, how about letting the Imagineers totally reimagine the island as if Walt were creating it today - for this modern generation. I have no problem with them using a "Tom Sawyer" theme - but you can't assume that people today know or even care about the story. You would have to find some way to tell it through some kind of ride or theater attraction. I understand the purpose of "playgrounds" - but it has to be engaging for the modern family. At least that's MY opinion.

[Chesire]

I haven't changed anything: the island should be returned to its former state, and Fantascrap! should be sent permanently to Yesterland. Pretty simple, really.

You need to understand that for Disney to keep innovating and keeping the park fresh, old attractions/lands need reboots, and keeping everything the same way it was in 1955, is NOT the way to do it. Now I'm not saying that the Lone Ranger and Pirates need to take over the island, all I'm saying is Tom Sawyer Island needs a refresher.

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.

[emwhysee]

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?

[Steve DeGaetano]

It's a different world than it was in 1955 - and many people today have never read - or don't have an affinity for Tom Sawyer...you can't assume that people today know or even care about the story.

And yet--somehow, through some unexplained factor--I was able to have a great time on the island not having read either Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn until my teenage years.

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.

[Meville]

And yet--somehow, through some unexplained factor--I was able to have a great time on the island not having read either Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn until my teenage years.

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.

What story is the Pirate island trying to tell you? It seams to me that they just took thematic elements out and replaced them with Pirates.

[BlAcKoUt510]

And yet--somehow, through some unexplained factor--I was able to have a great time on the island not having read either Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn until my teenage years.

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.

Honestly thinking like that is only going to ruin your experience, because most people are still enjoying Disneyland.

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.

Yea, nobody likes Fantasmic, people just like to sit in the cold for two hours in front of Rivers of America cause they don't like Fantasmic.

lol that's what I was thinking. It's good if you don't prefer the show but don't speak for everyone as it's obvious the show is stil a popular classic for all these years.

[Steve DeGaetano]

What story is the Pirate island trying to tell you?

Well, that's anyone's guess, isn't it? The "theme" was so botched that it's really hard to tell.

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 ----------

It's good if you don't prefer the show but don't speak for everyone as it's obvious the show is stil a popular classic for all these years.

Billions and Billions of people eat at McDonalds.

But that doesn't prove the food is high quaility.

[BlAcKoUt510]

Billions and Billions of people eat at McDonalds.

But that doesn't prove the food is high quaility.

Just because YOU don't like the show doesn't mean the show is low quality either.

I don't know what an example of a high quality show is then. If Fantasmic is a low quality show I wonder what that says for just about every other theme park show out there.