Has the phrase "Disneyland will never be completed..." become negative?

[animagusurreal]

^

How do you know what the guests want? And yeah, the guests (all of whom are individuals who may want a myriad of things, and who include many of us on MiceChat) may know what they want now, but do they know what they're going to want next?

When Walt showed Art Linkletter the site for Disneyland, Linkletter recalled thinking "who's going to come all the way out here to throw balls at a target?" That's what people thought Disneyland was going to be, until Walt showed them otherwise.

The problem with using the current success of Disneyland as proof that all the changes are "what the people want" is that the park is made of components of ages old sitting side by side with eath other, that Disneyland has virtually no competition - not that are truly trying to replicate that particular brand of themed entertainment in Calfornia - and that you don't know if "the people" might not like something else just as well, or better.

I don't particularly care for it somebody posts a nine-paragraph detailed critique of exactly why they think a certain change doesn't work as well as what came before, and it's responded to with "You're just nostalgic." "Disneyland is not a museum." "Disneyland will never be complete as long as there is imagination left in the world." "Keep moving forward." "Disneyland wasn't made for MiceChatters, it was made for real people who don't care about theme parks." Etc. (I guess the other side has phrases like "Disney apologist." So I guess I don't like that either, or any repeated phrase used as a you-can't-argue-with-this trump card. On the other hand, "Disney apologist" doesn't try to twist the meaning of a quote from Walt.)

[CAspace]

Along with the "museum" and "nostalgia" labels, the bogus "purist" label is a convenient misrepresentation -- a strawman argument -- applied to Disney critics by Disney management and Disney defenders alike.

Again, read this post.

Changes to attractions and the parks must be greenlit by the purse holders.
If the powerpoint presentation and spreadsheets cannot quantify a attractions existence in dollars and cents the end is near for that said attraction. Most if not all of the MBA Executives hired to Disney Corp. after working as a bank executives have no real connection to Disneyland or any of the parks. They are not "creatives" they do not know or care about Walt Disney other then his
Financial empire which bares his name.

Frankly in the next 10-15 years I would say a large portion of Disneyparks attractions especially the animatronic based (expensive) attractions are on the endangered list. It is in the interest of the MBA mindset to replace it all with meet and greets, shops and movie based rides using 3d projection and no AA.
The whole "next gen" initaitive and multi billion dollar investment the corporation has made to that buisness concept, demands a quantifiable R.O.I (return on investment).

Piece by piece, brick by brick the Disneyland as we know it is being slowly dismantled. If not for a few of the "old guard" and Jon Lasseter this would be happening at a much quicker pace.

[lazyboy97O]

Disney is an old company, almost 100 years old in about a decade or so, are there any successful companies that do things exactly like 'back in the day' that are still around, or still successful? Disney had to evolve with the times, and Walt gave guests of the 60s what they wanted, the company now is giving the guests what they want.

If you want to blame anything, dont blame the company, blame the guests, they're not exactly full of imagination these days themselves, so they want story fed to them, they want tie ins, they want meet-and-greets, they want big new and flashy.

This is part of the change we detest. The change from Disney having guests to Disney having marks. Disney once gave people what they didn't know they wanted. Nothing about "changing times" makes that impossible except that it is not easy for just anybody to accomplish.

[MWH1980]

One thing I find a little different these days, is that if a ride/attraction is considered, it has to be tied into a character/property Disney has.

Back when Disneyland was first in operation, there were plenty of attractions that were their own 'thing.' These days, can you imagine the company approving something like 'Nature's Wonderland,' or even 'Pirates of the Caribbean' unless it had been a successful entertainment property?

[DisneyIPresume]

One thing I find a little different these days, is that if a ride/attraction is considered, it has to be tied into a character/property Disney has.

Back when Disneyland was first in operation, there were plenty of attractions that were their own 'thing.' These days, can you imagine the company approving something like 'Nature's Wonderland,' or even 'Pirates of the Caribbean' unless it had been a successful entertainment property?

Too late there with Pitates of the Caribbean...

[Disneylandfan85]

I don't particularly care for it somebody posts a nine-paragraph detailed critique of exactly why they think a certain change doesn't work as well as what came before, and it's responded to with "You're just nostalgic." "Disneyland is not a museum." "Disneyland will never be complete as long as there is imagination left in the world." "Keep moving forward." "Disneyland wasn't made for MiceChatters, it was made for real people who don't care about theme parks." Etc. (I guess the other side has phrases like "Disney apologist." So I guess I don't like that either, or any repeated phrase used as a you-can't-argue-with-this trump card. On the other hand, "Disney apologist" doesn't try to twist the meaning of a quote from Walt.)

I'm confused by what you're trying to say...

[lazyboy97O]

One thing I find a little different these days, is that if a ride/attraction is considered, it has to be tied into a character/property Disney has.

Back when Disneyland was first in operation, there were plenty of attractions that were their own 'thing.' These days, can you imagine the company approving something like 'Nature's Wonderland,' or even 'Pirates of the Caribbean' unless it had been a successful entertainment property?

The Walt Disney Company of today would not even approve Alice in Wonderland, The Mad Tea Party, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, Peter Pan's Flight or even the later addition of Pinocchio's Daring Journey as their respective films were not box office smashes that could be made into film franchises. Snow White's Scary Adventures would probably even be left out because the film was a one off success, there were no sequels or reboots anticipated.

[dynamite goat]

One thing I find a little different these days, is that if a ride/attraction is considered, it has to be tied into a character/property Disney has.

Back when Disneyland was first in operation, there were plenty of attractions that were their own 'thing.' These days, can you imagine the company approving something like 'Nature's Wonderland,' or even 'Pirates of the Caribbean' unless it had been a successful entertainment property?

Interestingly enough, there was never a Disney movie about the Boardwalk Amusement Parks of California's piers, or a movie about river rafting in the Sierra Nevadas. Or, a movie about Hollywood's Golden Era.

[lazyboy97O]

Interestingly enough, there was never a Disney movie about the Boardwalk Amusement Parks of California's piers, or a movie about river rafting in the Sierra Nevadas. Or, a movie about Hollywood's Golden Era.

The change to near complete safety in exesting franchises occurred with Iger, not Eisner. For all of his misunderstandings Eisner did have some passion for the Disney theme parks and was interested at times in seeing something different. Eisner was there for the entirety of the development of Disneyland Paris, a marvelous park which really pushed thematic authenticity to levels that many Disneyland fans of today would find ridiculous, but he also tried to sell the Oriental Land Company on another Disney-MGM Studios and it was them that pushed back for something different. Eisner was a far more complex character than Boring Bob the Weatherman who can easily be defined in his risk-aversion and obsession with franchises and technology.

[MWH1980]

It does seem that the OLC over in Japan have a more keen grasp on attractions/showplaces/etc that do not have to be Disney-themed. Thinking of Disneyseas, the only thing that comes to mind that even has some resemblance to a Disney-based film is the section emulating the Little Mermaid, or the one area where the Nautilus resides.

The rest of the areas I've see, have little to no Mickey/Goofy/Donald influence.

Still, I can't completely fault Iger. Eisner just overstayed his welcome and ended up growing delusional in his final years of rule.

[lazyboy97O]

Still, I can't completely fault Iger. Eisner just overstayed his welcome and ended up growing delusional in his final years of rule.

Eisner hand picked Iger as his success and has kept around people from Strategic Planning such as Jay Rasulo and Tom Staggs. Iger is nothing different from Eisner's worst. He just doesn't have the personality which draws attention and Disney fans have short attention spans. Iger is loved for not being Eisner. Staggs is loved for not being Rasulo, who himself was even briefly loved. Kalogridis is loved for not being Grier who was hated for not being Ouimet.

[dynamite goat]

Eisner hand picked Iger as his success and has kept around people from Strategic Planning such as Jay Rasulo and Tom Staggs. Iger is nothing different from Eisner's worst. He just doesn't have the personality which draws attention and Disney fans have short attention spans. Iger is loved for not being Eisner. Staggs is loved for not being Rasulo, who himself was even briefly loved. Kalogridis is loved for not being Grier who was hated for not being Ouimet.

So, having the right personality and appealing to the shortest attention span is the best. Got it.

[Disneylandfan85]

I thought the phrase was "Disneyland will never completed as long as there is imagination left in the world," not "...in the company."

Also, I agree with what Leonard Maltin said in his book "The Disney Films" (this is mostly about films, but on a different plane, it could be equally applicable to the parks):

For many years, the answer to any question at the studio was, "What would Walt have done?" Critics of the company cited this as evidence that Disney's successors lacked the guts and imagination to serve as real leaders.

But Walt Disney was no ordinary executive. He and the company were one in the same. He was the brains, the heart, the backbone of the outfit. And he was touched with genius.

What's more, his timing was right. Disney was a child of the twentieth century. He and the movies grew up at the same time. When he'd conquered that medium, there were others awaiting him. He never looked back.

It isn't fair to criticize anyone for not being able to fill Walt Disney's shoes. No one could fill them but Walt.

I think that's where many of the criticisms come from, that people running the company must fill Walt's shoes or they're incapable of running the company.

And just remember, the phrase is "Disneyland will never be completed as long as there's imagination left in the world," NOT "...imagination left in the company."

[lazyboy97O]

I think that's where many of the criticisms come from, that people running the company must fill Walt's shoes or they're incapable of running the company.

Ever heard the term "Waltie?" It can still be quite fashionable inside The Walt Disney Company to openly detest Walt Disney. It has nothing to do with not being able to fill his shoes, as the Company has the resources to acquire talent. They even know the sort of standards they should maintain, as they continue to hold the Oriental Land Company to those very standards. There was a decision to change how the parks and resorts are measured.

[Mom kissed Walt]

I believe that the work of WDI, past AND (occasionally) present, does inspire the young and that while it may hold negative connotations for some, the spirit of the saying engenders a feeling of possibility and excitement that will make better imaginineers of tomorrow.

For this to happen though, I believe as a whole we need better education and competition, but that's a whole other conversation for probably another board.