WDW's non-MK parks' identities fading?

mharrington

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I have this book called "Realityland", by David Koenig, all about WDW and the things that have happened there over the years. Near the end of the book, it talks about how the least experimental component of the whole place (besides the Walt-dreamt-up Epcot) has become the template of the whole resort in general and the theme parks in particular. That component is, of course, the Magic Kingdom.

Koenig goes on to say that the popularity of the MK has encroached on the other parks' respective distinct identities and basically made them mere extensions of the resort's first park's personality. He explains that that's some of the reasons why the parks have gotten the attractions they have now, like remodeling Epcot's Mexico to include the Three Caballeros, obstructing the view of the Studios' Chinese Theater with a giant Sorcerer's Apprentice hat, or even adding quality attractions to the Animal Kingdom (i.e., Everest, the Nemo show) that, while giving that park some much-needed attention, tend to mess with the boundaries between which kingdom is Magic and which is Animal.

Do you think that the non-MK's parks respective personalities are succumbing to that of the MK?
 
_Scar

_Scar

Active Member
I'll let the Epcot fans touch on Epcot.

DHS had a rumored copyright claim, and an identity crisis when it came to park icons. That mainly explains the hat, and I hope it goes. Cinderella's Castle is a cartoon reality. That really could be a castle. The hat is a giant cartoon structure. I can't compare the two.

DAK also has a link with nature. Everest is quite the natural wonder with a mythical animal inside, the Yeti. I don't see how it even compares to anything in the MK.
 
Wilt Dasney

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
I don't think adding character and allusions to characters (like the Hat) is so much an extension of the MK's indentity as an attempt to brand the parks as corporate Disney® properties. When I think of MK and similar parks like Disneyland, Disney characters aren't the first thing to come to mind. That might be how Disney markets them, but it's not my idea of what the "castle" parks are all about.
 
Figment632

Figment632

New Member
It is called the dumbing down of WDW! It seems like they go out of thier way to not come up with original ideas.

MK: No real problem with all the Characters (maybe a little in TL)

EC: Don't even get be started, EC is dead and never coming back. It is only a matter of time till they add Wall-e or Mike and Sulley to UOE.

MGM: is very much dead but it has evolved into DHS. I don't have a problem with this since they really seemed to abandone the studio theme quite early.

DAK: Is pretty much the best park as far as being closest to the original theme. The last major E was even original in EE.
 
marni1971

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
Not at all. They are all Disney parks despite the theme. That has by definition to include some `magic`. The examples given are very poor; Mexico was updated since the 15 year old attraction was beginning to appear very dated, and didn`t appeal to todays average dumbed down guest since they had to think and learn a little. DHS has its own issues with theme and direction; nothing to do with the MK. DAK has had thrill rides and stage shows planned since day one; Dragon Tower, Tiger River and The Excavator were real E Ticket thrill rides as was the original premise for CTX.
 
Figment632

Figment632

New Member
Lucky said:
AK & Epcot-WC have solid identities.

DHS & Epcot-FW: identities are weak and fading.
Click to expand...

I Agree with you that FW identity is fading fast, actually it is on life support.

DHS, I'm not sure i would say fading though because I don't think the park currently even has an identity, and if it does it doesn' have a direction.
 
kapeman

kapeman

Member
Something that is in keeping with the original theme of DHS and one of my favorites is/are the Citizens of Hollywood.

I hope they don't ever do away with them!
 
marni1971

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
I Agree with you that FW identity is fading fast, actually it is on life support.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree; it won`t ever be as good as 1990 again but 10 years ago Futureworld was in a real mess. Today it is heading back in the right direction, very slowly but surely.
 
EPCOT Explorer

EPCOT Explorer

New Member
marni1971 said:
I have to disagree; it won`t ever be as good as 1990 again but 10 years ago Futureworld was in a real mess. Today it is heading back in the right direction, very slowly but surely.
Click to expand...

I dunno, Martin...The late 1990's were stale, I give them that by all means, but, in 1997, you still had some of EPCOT Center still living. :lol: JII, TLS, WoL, TL....

If there was any time that it lost it's direction, I would have to say 2001 through 2006. So man odd choices made in that time. Now, I think, that yes, we are turning a corner. Innoventions is a bit of proof for this, if they would do work a bit quicker.

Care to elaborate, Martin? :D
 
Lucky

Lucky

Well-Known Member
FW may be better than it was several years ago in terms of individual attractions. But Soarin' however great an attraction does nothing for the FW theme. Same with the Nemo ride & Crush in TLS, whatever you think of them as attractions. I think that's what the OP meant by MK colonizing the other parks.
 
EPCOT Explorer

EPCOT Explorer

New Member
Lucky said:
FW may be better than it was several years ago in terms of individual attractions. But Soarin' however great an attraction does nothing for the FW theme. Same with the Nemo ride & Crush in TLS, whatever you think of them as attractions. I think that's what the OP meant by MK colonizing the other parks.
Click to expand...

Soarin' only fits EPCOT because it's part of a greater "The Land" experience. Standing alone, yeah, it's pointless.
 
Lucky

Lucky

Well-Known Member
EPCOT Explorer said:
Soarin' only fits EPCOT because it's part of a greater "The Land" experience. Standing alone, yeah, it's pointless.
Click to expand...
That's true, you can make a pavilion more interesting and internally coherent, even if the changes weaken its connections to other parts of FW.
 
F

fosse76

Well-Known Member
I think what Realityland is really saying is that, when you come right down to it, is that all 4 parks are theme parks in a way that the Magic Kingdom is a theme park. The difference being they have a different theme and there is really nothing that individualized about them other than their themes. EPCOT comes closest to being completely different, but at the end of the day it has recently added attractions that could easily have gone into any of the parks (Soarin' and Mission:Space could easily fit in at Magic Kingdom or maybe even the Studios).
 
montyz81

montyz81

Well-Known Member
Figment632 said:
I Agree with you that FW identity is fading fast, actually it is on life support.

DHS, I'm not sure i would say fading though because I don't think the park currently even has an identity, and if it does it doesn' have a direction.
Click to expand...
Future Worlds Identity died when they began to knock down Horizons. Horizons was the Atracshification (used like personification, yes I made up the word) of Walt's original EPCOT dream. If you consider the content in all of the Future World attractions you see that they mostly mapped to the idea of improving the future. That is no longer the case. Here is a list of them broken down past and present...

SpaceShip Earth : Original intent was to provide a overall look at the past and how it is shaping our future. Mostly in tact but much more muted over the original.
UOE: Original intent was to talk about better ways of using energy in more efficient manaer. Mostly in tact but doesn't really cover the future of Energy with at any length with Alt fuel. Just covers it during the ending film.
Wonders of Life: The issue here is obvious here.
Horizons/MS: Horizons was a sequel to CoP. It was meant to talk about our future and how we improve our lives all around. It really did a good job of introducing the public to Walt's dream of the future. Mission space does nothing like that. It is a thrill ride to mars that barely touches on what that can do for the human race in the future. IMO it has nothing to do with the future.
WoM/TT : Covered the future of transportation and better ways of moving people around. Test track is a thrill ride talking about ways to test a car. No future here.
Imagination Pavilion: Really tried to pull out our imagination to expand our ability to think of new ways of doing things in the future. Now it is just a long Seeing/Hearing/smelling/tasting test. No Future here.
Listen to the Land: Originally talked about Hydroponics and how that can benefit us in the future. Largely this is the same as it was opening day.
The Living Seas: More educational about our oceans not as much about the future. Now it is a Pixar ride.

I just don't see how you can really call this Future World anymore when it is now really only 20% about the future. In 1982 it was probably 90% about the future. So in my opinion Future World is already dead.
 
EPCOT Explorer

EPCOT Explorer

New Member
montyz81 said:
Future Worlds Identity died when they began to knock down Horizons. Horizons was the Atracshification (used like personification, yes I made up the word) of Walt's original EPCOT dream. If you consider the content in all of the Future World attractions you see that they mostly mapped to the idea of improving the future. That is no longer the case. Here is a list of them broken down past and present...

SpaceShip Earth : Original intent was to provide a overall look at the past and how it is shaping our future. Mostly in tact but much more muted over the original.
UOE: Original intent was to talk about better ways of using energy in more efficient manaer. Mostly in tact but doesn't really cover the future of Energy with at any length with Alt fuel. Just covers it during the ending film.
Wonders of Life: The issue here is obvious here.
Horizons/MS: Horizons was a sequel to CoP. It was meant to talk about our future and how we improve our lives all around. It really did a good job of introducing the public to Walt's dream of the future. Mission space does nothing like that. It is a thrill ride to mars that barely touches on what that can do for the human race in the future. IMO it has nothing to do with the future.
WoM/TT : Covered the future of transportation and better ways of moving people around. Test track is a thrill ride talking about ways to test a car. No future here.
Imagination Pavilion: Really tried to pull out our imagination to expand our ability to think of new ways of doing things in the future. Now it is just a long Seeing/Hearing/smelling/tasting test. No Future here.
Listen to the Land: Originally talked about Hydroponics and how that can benefit us in the future. Largely this is the same as it was opening day.
The Living Seas: More educational about our oceans not as much about the future. Now it is a Pixar ride.

I just don't see how you can really call this Future World anymore when it is now really only 20% about the future. In 1982 it was probably 90% about the future. So in my opinion Future World is already dead.
Click to expand...

I agree with most, here.

However...

M:S is relevant to our future if you look at what is being presented. A independent Space Agency that gets us to Mars. It's showing that it's a common thing, in the future. It's showing that with the right technology and training (One thing YOU have...;) ) you can get into space, a new frontier. It works in a subtle sense, and that's OK with me.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom