Before any question is actually considered in this thread, I would urge all to take time to read some posts in MasterGracey's 'The Difference between Escape and Distraction' thread (http://www.micechat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70498) as well as this well thought-out counter-point argument from Mr. Liver regarding 'quality':
"You may think the quality is gone. Merlinjones may think the quality is gone. 100 other people on this message board may think the quality is gone. But the type of quality you describe is completely intangible. It's based entirely on your personal opinion.
There were folks back in the 1970s that cried foul when Nature's Wonderland bit the dust for Big Thunder. There were folks who complained that Disney lost its way when they built the Kid Friendly Toontown. You can go through the whole history of Disneyland and find people who said the park was destroying itself at every turn. You want to go back to the thread on a.d.d. 10 years ago when people said the park was destroying itself because they built that McDonald's Fry Cart?
The park isn't destroying itself anymore now than it was back in the 1970s or 1980s. The park ALWAYS changes. The sky is NOT falling.
At the same time that folks like you are getting fed up with the perceived lack of quality, there's a whole new generation of fans out there experiencing the park for what it has to offer, and enjoying every minute of it. There are new fans being created everyday. You may think that it's not as good, and that the next generation will never understand, but I'm sure there's someone out there who swears up and down that Disneyland will never be as good as Knott's was in the 1940s, or Space Mountain will never be as good as the old woodie at the Pike."
My question(s) for you to consider and answer: what constitutes 'Quality' to you when appraising an attraction at Disneyland?
Could there be a term more vague, more amorphous and ethereal than 'quality'? 'Quality' is on par with 'better' in regards to clarity of definition in my opinion. So let's all define what 'quality' is to us, personally.
When I comment on Disneyland's 'quality', or the decline thereof, I have little criticism with the Park's entertainment value. Most all attractions are well-crafted, and well-executed. My argument regarding 'quality' is centered around these attractions being either ill-fitting, or poorly-conceived within the context of the Lands they inhabit, and the disturbance of the thematic backdrop each individual Land provides. Does the attraction support and enhance the thematic structure of the Land? If the answer is no, to myself personally, this means a departure from 'quality'. Consider this excellent post from 2DieFR, quoting The Nickel Tour on the subject of 'Bear Country':
" What happened? Well, it turns out that Bear Country marked a significant deviation from the other lands that made Disneyland magical - deviations that were philosophical as much as they were physical.
On the physical front, the winding paths and tunnels that had marked the entrance to the old Indian Village were removed for Bear Country. In their place was a broad straight road that cut a broad, straight swath through the countryside, looking like it was carved with a truck-load of dynamite. The roadway was urban renewal at its worst, and it was an unconvincing entrance to the Bears' retreat.
Over on the philosophical front, the question had to be asked: just what was Bear Country? The buildings that made up the land - including the Country Bear Jamboree theater itself - were too new and well maintained to have been abandoned by their human owners. Yet the theater seemed to have been taken over by the bears. Where were the people who started this town? For gosh sakes, shouldn't someone tell them about the bears?
All this may sound unimportant and even kind of silly, but it brings to bear (so to speak) an important concept: Disneyland survives by creating a consistent illusion of fantasy, without contradictions or distractions.
Any good fantasy world can exist only as long as the fantasy in that world is true to its own internal rules. If a story talks of wicked witches and fire-breathing dragons, you know what their magical powers will be, because they're based on centuries of carefully established rules. But the moment those rules are violated - no matter how outrageous they might have been in the first place - the fantasy collapses.
Walt knew it well. It's these internal consistencies that have kept fantasy stories alive for centuries and made Disneyland unique among the amusement parks of the world.
And it's exactly those same internal consistencies that Bear Country lacked.
Over the years, the problem would reveal itself in the most concrete of terms: the guests simply stopped going to Bear Country. By the end of the decade, it was obvious that something would have to be done. "
Is it a nit-picky set of criteria I employ to appraise Disneyland's new attractions/refurbs? Many would say 'yes' I suppose. To some, I imagine, this standard of measurement is stilted, and far too rigid; demanding too much. So what is your definition of 'quality'? What is most important to you when evaluating a DL attraction, and (most importantly ) WHY?