Disneyland, nostalgia, change, relevance and New Coke

[aashee]

The public forgave Coca-Cola, when they went back to the original Coke recipie

Disneyland had its 'New Coke' phase, but now its getting back to its "Original Formula" in general, but its still being blamed for "New Coke".

Will the forgiveness ever come?

That's a good question. Coke had to do a lot of sucking up to the long time customers with coupons and low prices. Kind of like the $99 annual passport a few years ago and "get a free admission to DCA with a day pass to Disneyland". Looking at how those days are gone and prices are up, Disney feels like all is already forgiven.

[DLFan1995]

This isn't an argument about New Coke. This is an argument about generational perception.
Steve, you and I are aging (and fast). We remember a time when Walt was alive and active. His creative drive was galloping along unabated and this was reflected in a growing playground he devised for himself called Disneyland, which was only slowed by his own death.
Walt's been dead for over 46 years now. The folks who frequent the various Parks around the world have grown up in Parks (plural) that are nothing at all like the one (singular) we grew up in. They are used to thrill rides, massive commercialization, lack of upkeep and now the Disney corporation has them adjusted to massive overcrowding.
This is not our Disneyland, and it never will be again.
The Park has passed us by and to the current crop of younger folks (especially the under 30 crowds), you and I are relic old timers similar to the fogie rocking away his old age on the POTC while some unseen person inside never gets the melody to Camptown Races correct on his eternally out of tune banjo.
The New Coke lesson about slowly adding and changing the formula isn't abstract when it comes to Disneyland. It's been done and all our moaning doesn't alter the fact that it won't be coming back.
I don't like that I've had to adjust to the idea that the Disneyland (that is to say WALT's Disneyland) has forever changed, but adjust is what we must, or as so many of us old timers have done, simply walk away.
All my best fellow dinosaur...

Your attitude towards the parks isn't limited to "old fogy's". There ARE younger generations who understand and appreciate the level of quality, uniqueness and detail that was inherent in the earlier park designs. As has been noted, slow changes (not always for the best) often go unnoticed by those who don't pay attention or aren't that concerned.

Those younger generations who have had no experience of the quality, uniqueness and detail of the early days can't miss it. So they find that those who make a big noise about what is missing or changed for the worse, are just complainers.

As it stands, those of us who ARE in tune with the parks past will probably have to suffer the ongoing (unwanted negative) changes until someone within the Disney company determines that "improvement" and "better" is more preferential than "adequate" and "will do".

[lazyboy97O]

Would you happen to mean Mr. Tom Staggs??

Yep. Disneyland is cleaner and better maintained, and more flash is put into current products, but the spirit and depth is still lacking in large part because the "change" from the old ways never actually occurred.

[Steveman]

A beautifully-written and stated post, Mr Wiggins.

Also concur. I was going to say that from I have read, the "nostalgic old-timers" side of the argument was never that there should not be change, but Wiggins already wrote that far better than I could have.

I will say though, that I don't think the statement "On the other hand, we have a vocal majority who vociferously support every decision..." is correct. That group certainly exists and are certainly vocal, but I don't think they are the majority by any means.

[DLFan1995]

You kidding? That happens all the time on these forums, even without Pressler/Eisner, your favorite scapegoats running the show. Even if its something good, or something try to at least alleviate a problem that was made by these two. Theres always a kneejerk thread in response to anything these days.

Turning the Fantasyland theater back into a theater, putting the princesses in a 'ghost area'; multiple pages of threads attacking it, not even giving it thought on how it could work, or how it revitalize an area. Most of the arguments were clinging on 'how it used to be' instead of 'what it could be'

Again all I see are opinions of attractions you liked back in the day turned into attractions that you personally don't like, but others might. That's not a 'downgrade' except in your mind, Submarines became dead attraction for years, then was brought back as Nemo. The Skyway? You overlook that most theme parks dont even have those anymore due to safety concerns.

Yes, there were a lot of bad things that happened in the early ninteys, bad things that apparently haven't gotten over no matter what the management tries to do now with their rededication to quality that seems to be going on, turning DCA from a failure into something thats pretty good, Star Tours being plussed, you forgot about the addition of Indiana Jones entirely, Splash Mountain is a quality ride.

You say Disneyland 'must never be touched' but whenever I come on here, there is a firestorm if they even 'poke' something about Disneyland, even without the Management Who Must Not Be Named in charge anymore.

The 90s are over, they're doing better (at least in the case of Disneyland, WDW is a different story entirely) at least by those standards set.

So pardon me if I don't buy that line entirely.

There IS a MIDDLE GROUND. While there are knee jerk reactions ON BOTH EXTREMES, rational people recognize when something is ACTUALLY a negative or when something is TRUELY worthwhile. And if they have OPINIONS on the middle ground that lean one way or another, they can discuss them without getting belligerent. After all, this IS a discussion board. Differing opinions make for more interesting discussions. If everyone just agreed with other, this would be a boring and empty place.

As for the bolded above, I don't believe that Mr. Wiggins ever made that assertion.

[Steve DeGaetano]

Submarines became dead attraction for years, then was brought back as Nemo.

You've very much bought into the myth Disney wanted you to believe about the subs, so they could make them, um, "relevant." That they were "dead." As someone who was a regular with an AP in the 1990s, this was NOT TRUE, from personal experience. Don't believe a first-person account? Fine, here's "objective" evidence. See paragraph 4 below (article from 1995).

[Mr Wiggins]

You've very much bought into the myth Disney wanted you to believe about the subs, so they could make them, um, "relevant." That they were "dead." As someone who was a regular with an AP in the 1990s, this was NOT TRUE, from personal experience. Don't believe a first-person account? Fine, here's "objective" evidence. See paragraph 4 below (article from 1995).

Exactly right. While Disneyland's profits soared under the Eisner regime's business model of closing rides, shuttering restaurants, slashing maintenance and stocking stores with cheap generic merchandise, Disney let the Submarines -- as popular as they still were -- rot for lack of upgrades. Early on it was targeted as "too expensive to operate" at the double-digit profits demanded by Eisner. The PR spin of closing it due to "lack of popularity" was typical of the corporate bs that Disney shoveled to justify its policy of offering less while charging more.

[dynamite goat]

You've very much bought into the myth Disney wanted you to believe about the subs, so they could make them, um, "relevant." That they were "dead." As someone who was a regular with an AP in the 1990s, this was NOT TRUE, from personal experience. Don't believe a first-person account? Fine, here's "objective" evidence. See paragraph 4 below (article from 1995).

The fact that the submarines were popular, and always have been, has nothing to do with its cost. It isn't pushing through as many guests as other rides that cost less to maintain. There needs to be a bigger reason for people to go to Tomorrowland than what's currently there. If you look at how much space the Submarine and Autopia (hell, Autopia's Q is a massive eyesore), you'll see that something needs to change.

There used to be four attractions where there is two now. Autopia, Whateverboats, Fantasyland Autopia, and Subs. If you count Skyway, it's five to two. I love the old subs, and I'd like to see an attraction that shows our future in the ocean (yes... "tomorrow" land, even).

Autopia needs to reflect the future of road travel. It's as simple and as complicated as electrically powered vehicles. It will actually be more fun because of the torquey feel of epvs. And getting rid of the obscene monstrosity that is the Q.

The lagoon needs to be repurposed to future oceanic exploration. If I had a good idea for this, I'd be an imagineer, and not an accountant. I just know it needs fixing.

There is so much wasted space in Tomorrowland, I'm not sure that those in charge can grasp exactly what to do without ruining the good things that are there. Not to mention destroying the ability to get from Downtown Disney to the park.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just expanding or whatnot.

[lazyboy97O]

You've very much bought into the myth Disney wanted you to believe about the subs, so they could make them, um, "relevant." That they were "dead." As someone who was a regular with an AP in the 1990s, this was NOT TRUE, from personal experience. Don't believe a first-person account? Fine, here's "objective" evidence. See paragraph 4 below (article from 1995).

Exactly right. While Disneyland's profits soared under the Eisner regime's business model of closing rides, shuttering restaurants, slashing maintenance and stocking stores with cheap generic merchandise, Disney let the Submarines -- as popular as they still were -- rot for lack of upgrades. Early on it was targeted as "too expensive to operate" at the double-digit profits demanded by Eisner. The PR spin of closing it due to "lack of popularity" was typical of the corporate bs that Disney shoveled to justify its policy of offering less while charging more.

Let us us also not forget what had happened four years prior when Magic Kingdom management, in order to improve their numbers, intentionally sabotaged 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to get the go ahead to shutter that attraction, a decision not formally acknowledged for some time after the actual closure.

[bfdf55]

What I got most from Steve's opening post was the last paragraph. Coke was a quality and trusted product for decades and they tried to make themselves better by switching immediately to account for the new consumers' changing tastes. What's amazing is that if they slowly changed the flavor in a slight manner, the public " would never know" and accept the New Coke with open arms.

It often feels like Disney is using this recipe and slowly adding more sugar or removing a spice or upping the carbonation of it's product. Putting Jack in POTC or fairy tale characters in IASW or Starbucks on mainstreet aren't going to cause picketing or a widespread boycott, but a general different feeling in the product. Coke's reasoning for doing this was to genuinely try and appease the changing tastebuds of new clients and compete with Pepsi. The feeling I get from Disney's changes is to squeeze its patrons of every last buck they have and pad their coffers with sponsors at any cost.

Maybe it's because my eyes no longer feeling I'm shrinking in a microsope. Maybe it's because my mind won't allow me to think I'm actually in a rocket to Mars. Perhaps it's because now I have to tell the kids they can't have a souvenier in every single shop we're forced to exit into. Either way I feel like I'm getting pinched at not only the cost of losing nostalgia, but for the sake of getting every nickel they can from me.

I agree with everything except "What's amazing is that if they slowly changed the flavor in a slight manner, the public " would never know" and accept the New Coke with open arms.".

While there are probably many who would accept negative changes if they were introduced in small doses, I know that there have been MANY who have challenged some of those "small doses" as they have been noticed over the years.

We have eagerly accepted improved changes - Space Mountain, Indiana Jones, Splash Mountain, Big thunder, repaving Main Street, improved fireworks, etc. But there has been outcry when things have faltered - closed attractions, reduced operating hours, poor merchandise, maintenance failures, etc., even if they seemed to be happening slowly. While it may be hard to discern over several years, it's still not good.

[thedude76]

Is Tomorrowland still relevant? It's seems like if there is one section of the park that needs to continue to evolve, it's Tomorrowland. It shouldn't turn into nostalgicland.

But if you want to talk about profiteering, then look no further than the new restaurant that opened as part of the Fantasyland expansion in Orlando. If you want an attraction that makes you money, open a restaurant. Lots of guests are walking straight through the gift shops at the end of many rides, but everyone has to eat.