I would give anything to give Walt a tour of the DL parks of today. I bet he would find something to appreciate in every single new attraction since his passing.
Printable View
I would give anything to give Walt a tour of the DL parks of today. I bet he would find something to appreciate in every single new attraction since his passing.
Because out of Walt's own mouth he said "Disneyland is your land" and as of late it seems more like Disneyland is sole property of Disney Co. and it's shareholders.
Because if we don't then Disneyland runs the risk of turning into an ordinary run-of-the-mill amusement park no different from Six Flags.
Disneyland used to mean something. It was a world where you left today and entered the world of Yesterday, Tomorrow, and Fantasy. This was Walt's dream in presenting this park to us. To continue that dream we must always use Walt as a litmus test as to whether or not something should be changed. To ignore this is to risk moving away from this and turning it into something ordinary and something that is neither unique nor magical.
That'll be the day.. when you see them building a Slingshot ride in the hub that's when you'll know it's time to cancel your AP's.Quote:
Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume
Actually, Montezooma's Revenge would fit quite nicely right down the middle of Main Street. But that's from Knott's. And even though it is no Disneyland, Knott's theming is leaps and bounds ahead of Six Flags. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by G24T
The above post is quite accurate I find on most fronts (DisneyIPresume.)
Some thinking points, as to using the best and brightest of the Walt-era standard (Blue Bayou's design and concept, say or the Mr. Lincoln AA tech, ambiance of Nature's Wonderland, music of the Tiki Room) to apply to what is unique or not:
Is waiting in a line to greet the same princess character you could also spend time with in a restaurant or see in a stage show unique, compared to touring a haunted house? The princess certainly is part of the experience for some guests, yes - but multiple spots around the DLR offer the same experience of meeting them. Is going on an adventure to the jungles of India and an abandoned temple with Indiana Jones more unique than listening to a bored-sounding Ian McShane say the word 'Blackbeard' repeatedly and talk about himself in the third person? What about being required to watch a pitch for ABC family network TV shows before going into the rest of Innoventions vs. taking a roller coaster ride through outer space? The reason this 'standard' linked to Walt gets brought up is these experiences co-exist cheek and jowl at Disneyland, right now, or are planned to.
Those may be extreme examples, but they do coexist. Walt was always seeking to change the park and often did so in very good, dramatic and creative ways, so change is not always bad. Walt did have duds and 'poor changes' as well in his day, but often, with a film or movie property being adapted for a park, he had a compelling experience in mind to use it for as a vehicle for an experience. That drove the change as often as not. I wouldn't call the new Winnie the Pooh dark ride or Nemo submarines 'compelling' by any definition, compared to say Peter Pan as a dark ride or exploring where the Swiss Family Robinson was shipwrecked and built their treehouse (two media sources he brought to DL.)
People have different levels of what is less optimal, or properties they think are oversaturated/less suitable, but the issue remains one of loving Disneyland, enjoying experiences it offers now and has offered in the past, and wanting the best, ideal, and most ambitious/high quality version of it which could feasibly exist. I don't see anything wrong with that, myself.
For the same reason other people use "Walt Theoreticals" to justify them?
Ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Why do we look to the Declaration of Independence for guiding our country?
Why do we argue the intent of our founding fathers?
Because we know those that started America and Disneyland for that matter designed it out of love and a vision that it will survive and thrive and be a place millions can love for years and years. And as "fanatics", we try and visualize how the people who loved what we love so much would like to see done to their creation.
Passion for something you adore and admire is a very good thing. And using the one person that loved Disneyland more than anyone in the whole world is a fine place to start.
I agree. THe problem is when one starts second-guessing everything based on what a person (or people) no longer living would think, they tend to use it for EVERY perspective. I've heard people on both sides of the fence say that "this is what the founders would want."
They both can't be right in that case. So it really tends to totally invalidate the whole argument.
Not to dismiss the rest of your post, as it does deserve merit. But I wanted to address this specifically in so much as Innoventions is just the kind of thing Walt would have done. I often argue this in fact when people complain about Tomorrowland. It is very much like the Carousel of Progress, in my opinion, the very first attraction in that building and one designed by Walt and team so famously for the New York Worlds fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by VintageMouse
I should add though that I *also* dislike Innoventions very much. But I do use it as an example of a reality check when guests ask for a return of retired attractions like Adventures through Inner Space. We tend to romanticize our older memories, and forget that sometimes these things NEED to be forgotten.
This reminds disussion reminds be of the Fantasy Faire video I posted a few weeks agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nSjiXJxP5M
The line "this is what Walt wanted" in referance that the Fantasy Faire was ment to be outfront of the castle.
Let me stick in my two cense. Walt wanted to take his guests to a world of yesterday, tomorow, and fantasy. I think the case that the Fantasy Faire is a great additon to theme from what I seen the only thing I don't like is the sign to Theatre-to WDW. I think that any/all attractions that are in the parks have to do this simple statment that is at the enterance of the park. It not about attractions but its about how well it follows the mission statment that every guest sees as the enter the park. Disneyland is suposed to be a place that is different from the run of the mill theme parks. Walt created such a place theme is everything because when I go to Knots i feel I everthing in that area has a theme but it does not flow. Now we at this point need to define a regular theme park. Would Knots, or Six Flags, or Sea World, or Lego Land, or anyother parks a regular theme park. This is the time to define what is a regular theme park so Disneyland can be ahead of all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume
I haven't been to MM since I was a kid but I have been to Knotts a few times in the last few years. Knotts doesn't impress in that regard at all. I didn't think MM could be that bad.
Excuse me?:???:Quote:
Originally Posted by brianpinsky
No one knows for sure, but I believe Walt built DL from his passion of wholesome family entertainment. The fact that DL made a ton of money came after the fact.
These days though, at least ever since the Eisner era, DL has been reduced to not much more than a cash cow to feed the ever-increasing attitude of corporate greed that has infected TDC.
Basically it comes down to why things were done a certain way vs. why they're done the way they are now. The basic attitudes of the original Walt park seems to be pretty much the opposite of present management.