Altering content is not the same as altering the wrapper. The wrapper would be the exterior aesthetic and imagery. It is how what is essentially the same store can exist in every land.Originally Posted by DARTH MAUL
The last point is the difference between a Marc Davis-style attraction and the obsession with overly detailed backstories with guests only experiencing one set narrative. Probably the best example would be the Swiss Family Treehouse versus Tarzan's Treehouse.
Bingo x 3
This is always how I've felt about this quote -- you just put it a lot better than i could have.
I think too many people (usually the "Disneyland is not a museum" crowd) pull this one out to support any kind of change no matter how bad it may really be. The whole point of the quote is actually the second half. Not the first half.
Other good examples are the forced backstories for Pirates and HM that previously didn't exist. These were attractions that didn't "tell a story" so much as exist as broad, general experiences that each guest could make his or her own.
In my opinion, the "imagination" that Walt mentioned referred to both the creative talents of the Imagineers and the imagination of the guests visiting the parks. The experience of the park took place partly in your mind. As a kid, I imagined unseen pirates in the dark tunnels, whose voices I could hear, were about to jump into the boat. Far more effective than simply presenting a pretty special effect. The park was designed to utilize the mindscape of the guests. We imagined Captain Hook chasing us around the caves of Skull Rock (although sometimes a costumed Captain did appear) and imagined living in the Swiss Family Treehouse. We rang the fire house bell and imagined we were old-time firefighters. Tom Sawyer Island was arguably the greatest playground ever built, because it allowed a kid to imagine they were really living in the story. We really were there. The train that encircles the park was a real train, by golly, and we were really going somewhere. Autopia allowed us to imagine we were actually driving on public roads, Adventure thru Inner Space allowed us to imagine we shrunk down to the size of an atom, Rainbow Caverns allowed us to imagine we were deep underground in some ethereal inner-Earth. By contrast most of the newer attractions seem to want to force-feed an image, impression or feeling rather than allowing the guest to forumlate their own impression, feeling or understanding of what is seen or heard or felt. But sadly, I think that is what park guests want these days. A canned, prefabricated and predictable experience rather than something they actively participate in with their own imaginations. So the company is only providing what today's public wants to buy.
no, because disneyland is never complete, it's always changing and evovling
...as long as there is imagination left in the world.
Had to finish the quote for you. It turns it from something negative to something filled with hope and optimism for the future. Typical Walt philosophy.
As we see some of the "Nostalgic" rides disappear over the years we feel like Walts touch on his park disapearing. I could not imagine the reaction if DL Corp announced that Haunted Mansion will be closing to bring an updated Kuka arm themed haunted attraction, or remodeling/expanding the size of the castle, ect. "Change" is not always a fun thing, but 20 yrs from now Disneyland will most likely look dramatically different in attractions and theming than it does today. I think that the fear of many is that change may overwrite, delete some of the original magic in the park. Not that we necessarily want a museum, but would like the core of Disneyland to remain unchanged.
I , and I'm sure many others here, believe that Disneyland should continue to expand and evolve. Whether it be a third gate, new lands, or new attractions. However, when some beloved attractions are replaced with inferior experiences that deminishes the memory of the previous experience(ala Country Bears to Pooh), then that is simply unexceptable. Even though we all wish and dream that many of these attractions would return, it goes against Walts wishes of innovation. If attractions are replaced with something even better(ala ATIS to Star Tours and Star Tours subsequint revamp) it shows that the spirit of innovation is still there.
"Asteroids do not concern me Admiral. I want that ship, not excuses".-Darth Vader from The Empire Strikes Back
I trust you J.J.
This is an interesting discussion, and one that I believe is actually really intriguing to me both as a Disney fan and a business major.
As a Disney fan, the thought of new things being added to the parks and exciting new things makes me happy.
As a business major, you have to be realistic. A company only does things that they believe will be profitable. A lot of the issues that are made about replacement attractions have a lot to do with maintenance. If an attraction is popular, then the company doesn't mind paying the maintenance on it. However, if an attraction is expensive to maintain and it doesn't really attract crowds, then it is an issue.
Here's an example:
Muppet*Vision 3-D is a theater show that has a capacity of 574 people, and can do 4 shows an hour, so it has a capacity of 2296 people an hour. If the attraction averages only 100 guests an hour (which it did when I worked there), it's only operating at 17% of its potential capacity. So you must weigh it with how many people are using the attraction versus how much the operation cost of the attraction is. If it costs more money to operate it than it is getting people to ride it, it needs to be replaced. So it really has nothing to do with them being "unimaginative" and getting rid of "great" attractions: they're getting rid of attractions that people aren't using or that the capacity is too low to be feasible.
So the bottom line is money. It has nothing to do with imagination, sorry to say. In business you must do what's profitable...
Disney's business used to be selling world-class imagination and creativity. Now its business is marketing -- for the cheapest cost and at the highest prices they than charge -- the brands created by the imaginations of others.
"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
What if those replacements were truly superior? I don't know about everyone else, but I feel like nothing would satisfy some people if certain things at the parks were replaced. This is where the nostalgia comes in. I think a lot of bias and judgement comes from nostalgia. When star tours is considered inferior to ATIS by some, I have to wonder how much of that opinion comes from nostalgia. Same for people who say "bring back ____!!" instead of "Replace ____ for something better!!" If you were truly about good change, you'd want the new and improved.
In the quest for quality, I have no problem with the characters footing the bill.
Like many wise words, it's been used to justify an awful lot of shenanigans, and to try to muzzle criticism of same.
Most of the time, calls for "bringing back" a certain attraction are calls for bringing back the concept of that attraction - not so much bringing back an exact duplicate of the attraction as it existed X number of years ago, including its now-antiquated technology. Most of us who want something "brought back" are fully cognizant that it would be necessary, and would most likely be desirable (even by us old-timers) to update the attraction in question, both from a technological standpoint, and also from a design standpoint.
It's kind of like all these movie franchises that are seeing "reboots" going on, whether it's Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, TRON, Planet of the Apes, Star Trek, or what have you. Nobody's really asking for us to go back to the way it was before exactly in the way it was before. We're just saying "let's bring back the idea - the concept - and let today's Imagineers, using their younger imaginations and technical talents, take it from there."
We know that Disneyland will always need to expand and change as time passes, and we'll need new "shows" (as attractions are often called), but, much like a classic Broadway musical, we can revive a beloved show concept and let a new creative team interpret it for a new era and new audience, while still retaining that show's basic essence, and in this way, not only are new generations entertained, and not only can multiple generations share in the joy of experiencing a given attraction, but Walt's legacy is honored.
^ Well said!
"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
This.
I enjoy Star Tours, and think it is great attractioin. I do, however, remember vividly the ATIS ride, and would love to see it updated. Couldn't there be a similarly science-based concept SOMEWHERE in "Tomorrowland?" Is Lucas the only creative left? The only "imagination?"
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks