Page 1 of 13 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 194
  1. #1

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    1,240

    Question "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Many people seem to think that when WDI/TDA changes something at Disneyland that Walt "personally" touched or created that it is a crime that could best be described as sacrilege. Why do people have such a hard time letting go of the past? Is it their memories of that attraction? Is it because they feel that the change is less superior to the original?

    What makes a change bad? What makes a change good? Can something be changed without offending the super-diehards? We all know that some changes are done on the cheap (IE Country Bears Vs Winne the Pooh), but wasn't this change based merely on bringing something more recognizable and relevant to the table other than some obscure attraction that no one would recognize if they have never been to the park? That could be a good excuse that could easily be refuted by others. Why didn't they just fix and update the show? Replace it with new AAs, fully digitize everything instead of gutting it out with a subpar plywood inspired attraction with very few very limited AAs? That would be the type of reasoning that a diehard would say...it was a Walt Disney classic!

    Yes, attractions like The Country Bear Jamboree, Tom Sawyer's Island, The Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse and Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and other attractions were Walt Disney Originals (sorry if my list is missing some), but as the road progress to the future, sadly everything could not be the same. Some things sadly must be shut down and replaced with attractions or updated with additions. Sometimes they are going to be much lower than what our expectations were going to be, but sometimes those attractions and updates create a new following of their own, which is pretty sad that people become impressed by these "lower-quality" replacements that they should not have been exposed to in the first place.

    Another point is that the infusion of PIXAR creations should not be so overdone as some feel like it is now. Yes PIXAR is now Disney, but even before it was fully owned by Disney and Disney Consumer Products, there was a sense of "too much" PIXAR being put into the parks. My question is, were these movies/properties not quality movies? Were these lackluster stories? Did they not bring in a lot of revenue for the Mouse House but at the same time capture the hearts of millions of children and adults alike? It's not like Disney put in a Recess ride or a Teacher's Pet show; it's not like they pumped in millions of dollars for far-than-less-superior attractions. Does Buzzy Lightyears Astro Blasters become less than what it could be because it has a lot of limited AAs and plywood cutouts? Does it SUCK as much as Winnie The Pooh does in Critter Country? Two different attractions but they have very similar layouts - yeah, one is a shooter and the other is not, but are they really that different?

    But some of the stuff is a bit confusing - take Star Tours for example - that attraction has not changed since it first captured our hearts, but people complain. They say the ride has been long due for an update, and even George Lucas and the other people at Lucasarts (and WDI too) had said they want to change and it IS going to get a change - are people okay with this change because Walt Disney himself did not have a hands on touch with this ride? Or is it because people really do want this to upgrade? I guess that can't be a fair statement as this is a licensed property that Walt Disney Pictures did not create themselves.

    And I will be honest - should Walt Disney's words be taken as the gospel? Just because what Walt Disney said and did during his day, does it remain relevant to still follow exactly he wanted and said in the 21st century? Now, that's not to say that I don't believe the ideals he had, but we don't know what Walt may have done and what he may not have done. For all we know, he would have torn Disneyland in the 1970s, but again, we do not know.

    I don't like not knowing why some people are so very passionate against change when there isn't a full out explanation on why they hate it so much.

    I hate to go further, but I would like to know from both sides of the fence.

    I want to know why change is a BAD thing. I don't want to hear the safe statements like "Only if it was a well thought out changed, bla bla bla" because every change goes through many different decision making processes. I want to know exactly why change is a bad thing.

    I also wanted to know why change is a GOOD thing. I don't want to hear the safe statements like "Disneyland will always change and Disneyland is not a museum bla bla bla" because we know that Disneyland is not a museum. I want to know exactly why change is a good thing.
    Last edited by TheManator; 06-05-2007 at 10:32 AM.

  2. #2

    • DL Nerd
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,360

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    My only fear is Crappy changes or "faddish" changes.

    I don't mind changes.... as long as they are quality Changes.

    I would hate DLR to change something because of the Popularity of something that is in reality a "short term'" fad.

  3. #3

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    What would you define as a fadish change? Pirates a fad? That's what people said many decades ago. Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

  4. #4

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,645

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Change for the worse = dirty words:
    TL 98; PC'ing of POTC; DCA; Pooh over CBJ; closing subs with no plan to reopen; Rockin' overlay for Space; etc.

    Change for the better = not dirty words:
    Nemo (estimated); new paint job for Castle; New Fantasyland (1983); fixing Tiki Room; replacing broken Space Mountain track;

    Of course, the above only reflect my opinion, but that's kind of the point: not all change is bad, and not all opinions are alike in what constitutes "bad."
    I don't have the absolutist's opinion that either "all change is bad" or that "all change is good." I'll decide what I think, based on what I see.
    I don't really care for those that have these opinions. I recommend you take this stance, instead of trying to call them out. We've more important things to discuss than why people have opinions.
    "Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."

  5. #5

    • DL Nerd
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,360

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheManator View Post
    What would you define as a fadish change? Pirates a fad? That's what people said many decades ago. Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

    I haven't seen a "fadish" change yet.. IMO... allthough the "pirate-ification" is coming close but I kinda like it



    but say a movie came out that initially got good reviews... so DLR decided to revamp.. ummm Small world.. because of it.

    now this is an example of a classic that is being changed because a bunch of people like a movie. That IMO would be a Fadish change.... Not that I'm opposed to small world changing... because nothing will last forever. I just want it to be a QUALITY change, not a change based on a popularity of a movie.


    I hope that makes sense.

    Kinda hard to describe my exact feelings.

  6. #6

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Well I am very glad that you're shining light on this. I never could understand how some people seem to just put off that all change is bad. I agree with you that the PC change on POTC was very bad, and TL98 was, how do you say, less than expected. I didn't mind too much of the Rockin' overlay of Space Mountain, I thought it was kind of re-freshing, but I see what you mean.

  7. #7

    • Knight that says Nee!!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Northern CA
    Posts
    2,647

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Change is natural and in the long run it is good for Disneyland...but only if the change does not ignore/destroy the thematic elements that make DLR what it is.

    It is very possible for changes to be "fun" but still be "bad" for DL. I wont go as far as accusing the new "Pirate Lair" of being an example of that because I have not seen PL yet for myself.

    If the changes are in keeping with the set themes of the areas and are of good quality then change is is not a dirty word.

  8. #8

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Quote Originally Posted by Junthor View Post
    I haven't seen a "fadish" change yet.. IMO... allthough the "pirate-ification" is coming close but I kinda like it



    but say a movie came out that initially got good reviews... so DLR decided to revamp.. ummm Small world.. because of it.

    now this is an example of a classic that is being changed because a bunch of people like a movie. That IMO would be a Fadish change.... Not that I'm opposed to small world changing... because nothing will last forever. I just want it to be a QUALITY change, not a change based on a popularity of a movie.


    I hope that makes sense.

    Kinda hard to describe my exact feelings.
    Oh defiantly agree there. I'd hate to see a Wild Hogs Small World.

    I see that you say a quality change, but what would you say would be a quality change? Hard to describe, huh? That's alright, you don't have to.

  9. #9

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,645

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheManator View Post
    Well I am very glad that you're shining light on this. I never could understand how some people seem to just put off that all change is bad. I agree with you that the PC change on POTC was very bad, and TL98 was, how do you say, less than expected. I didn't mind too much of the Rockin' overlay of Space Mountain, I thought it was kind of re-freshing, but I see what you mean.
    I take it this was for me (Junthor cut in-between us). You're welcome.
    Perhaps this issue wouldn't be so "big" (among us MC'ers) if some people weren't buying a year's worth of admission in advance, on the expectation that it won't change.
    "Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."

  10. #10

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Yeah, no doubt about that. I do have an AP, I just don't get to visit as much as I would like to due to my distance from the resort.

    I feel change is pretty good in most instances. Pooh I would say was not exactly what I wanted. I was hoping for a TDL clone there, but sadly we did not get it. I also liked seeing TCBJ being put to rest, but not in the incarnation that is there now.

  11. #11

    • DL Nerd
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,360

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheManator View Post
    Oh defiantly agree there. I'd hate to see a Wild Hogs Small World.

    I see that you say a quality change, but what would you say would be a quality change? Hard to describe, huh? That's alright, you don't have to.

    I guess A quality change would be something that is enjoyable but yet stands the test of time. Meaning I wouldn't want it changed again because it's not as popular anymore.

  12. #12

    • We set sail for the sky
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    364

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    I do not believe that "change" is a dirty word for Disneyland. That being said, I do think that a few of the changes that the park has seen in recent years are of poor quality and often give the impression of simply cashing in.

    Nemo Subs - Good Change
    PoTC - Bad Change

  13. #13

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Well, I am sure that ride popularity is taken into consideration.
    Country Bears bearly got any attendance. They change it. Pooh gets more attendance, but is a low-quality attraction.

    Tom Sawyer Island barely got any attendance. They change it. Even Pirates Lair is getting more attendance, way better quality in show. (theme? not so much sort of). I'd say it's life will be 10-15 years.

    The Swiss Family Treehouse and Tarzan both pretty much got no real attendance. I say gut it, but they would have to have something else there that would really attract.

    Now look at Tiki Room, POTC, HM - they get GREAT attendance and they haven't really changed. Small World, I doubt will become less popular - I can only see any of those attractions being removed and replaced only if they become less popular. Popularity, sadly seems to be what's driving the attractions that get built. And I am 100% positive that if they had only repaired TSI with the same theme that it would not have been any more popular.

    Adventure Through Inner Space was different because it was replaced with a hugely popular license, just in case anyone mentions that.

  14. #14

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryancr78 View Post
    I do not believe that "change" is a dirty word for Disneyland. That being said, I do think that a few of the changes that the park has seen in recent years are of poor quality and often give the impression of simply cashing in.

    Nemo Subs - Good Change
    PoTC - Bad Change

    Why would you say that the change with Pirates is bad? Yes it may have affected the story line a bit, but is it really any worse than what it was? More impressive AAs, a new show scene - tell me why it was a bad change? Will it affect how many people ride the attraction and love the attraction. I have only seen the die-hards saying adding Capt. Jack was a bad change. Everyone else that I have seen says it was a good change, and I believe it has gotten more people to ride and enjoy it.

  15. #15

    • The one, the only...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    2,851

    Re: "Change" - a dirty word for Disneyland?

    You mention Walt, so I have to bring him into this. Walt Disney promised CHANGE to Disneyland. It was expected and anticipated. Not all of Walt's changes were successful. He once tried to introduce circus elements into Disneyland! But one could always expect that Walt would produce cutting edge attractions that were fun and fitted a fantasy of the area or "land."

    If we fast forward to today, Disney management has screwed up so many times that change is now a word that could be good or bad. So much of change today seems to be motivated by some synergy cult that believes that whatever popular today can make even more money if we do an attraction about it. New attraction selection has must have something to do with what is selling today. With that lack of long term planning, we start seeing the carefully constructed themes Walt made for his Magic Kingdom "lands" dissolve into a patchwork of recent movie themes. We walk past Buzz Lightyear and Star Tours to see Nemo Subs. The world of tomorrow becomes just a set of marquees for major movies. Experiencing New Orleans changes into promoting Pirates the Movies and the Nightmare before Christmas. Too much movie connection just sucks the believability out of the areas.

    So change can be good, just ok, or bad depending on the motives of the designers.
    Jiminy Cricket Fan
    .................................

    Love Disneyland and Walt Disney World!

Page 1 of 13 123411 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Question] "Disneyland will never be completed." - Why the resistance to change?
    By ManaByte in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 03-16-2009, 04:21 PM
  2. The Definitions of Disney's Buzzwords, "Relevant" and "Change"
    By animagusurreal in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 11:01 PM
  3. What "one" word describes Disneyland?
    By Barbaraann in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-01-2005, 07:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •