The Spirited Back Nine ...

[AEfx]

So, broadway style shows are everywhere in the US?

Absolutely. Even by Disney themselves. Where the heck have you been?

 

[AEfx]

I wouldn't expect any typical guest to be able to articulate that Hollywood Studios is a "thematic mess", but I think we are selling the guests short to suggest they aren't going to at least semi-consciously pick up on the problems. Most of us here can probably tell you what movies we like and which we found disappointing, and most everyone can certainly recognize quality and productions which reflect a superior effort, even though we couldn't begin to describe the failure as one of bad directing, poor lighting choices (whatever that is), and so on. Surely we can expect the average guest, however, to discern a difference between the layout, theme, and organization of any of the other parks compared to the Studios.

Layout, sure - the other parks are either circular or roughly so. They have attempted to correct that initial design flaw of the studios by opening up some of the backside areas, but that one really can't be corrected unless they demolish half the park.

As to the other things, no - a good number of guests can't even remember what ride is in what park when they get home. While folks like us study the parks and think that is an absurd idea, how could someone not know - it ends up being all blurred together for so many folks who don't know the proper names of every attraction, their history, etc.

If "how they are arranged" doesn't matter, then Mystic Manor or Dumbo would work just as well at any roadside (parking lot) carnival. Indeed, they may have a flying elephant spinner, but its not the same experience. Setting and theme both matter and contribute to the whole of the experience regardless of the extent we are consciously aware of either.

How they are arranged...in the same park/resort. Sorry I wasn't ridiculously specific.

So, if Disney built a half dozen off-the-shelf and minimally themed (or decorated) steel coasters of all types - complete with exposed track and all - that would satisfy most guests? That would certainly be a far cheaper, faster option than developing proper attractions to impress a discerning audience.

Never said any such thing, don't know what you are talking about.

That concept originates with Disney itself, with themed lands and parks which attempt to transport guests to varied times and locations. Surely you do not mean to suggest it is all just about rides? Certainly attractions are appropriately the primary focus, but they hardly exist in isolation.

Not what I was talking about at all.

Which is exactly an achievement Disney has long since mastered. McDonald's isn't gourmet dining by any stretch, but it is decent food, and dressing it up in such an elaborate manner creates something more special. If the "thematic mess" at the Studios truly does not register with typical guests, then neither would the Disney parks have become the success they are. Dumbo is of course the classic example (carnivals have flying elephant rides), but even Small World and Pirates are inherently just slow boat rides; Splash Mountain is just a flume ride, Space Mountain in just a bare coaster built indoors with some props. But the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Sorry, no clue what you are trying to argue with me here. Aside from the McDonald's thing - which - what is that saying? You can put lipstick on a pig? How that relates to quality attractions like Pirates or Splash Mountain I have no idea, but those rides are not about the vehicle but the experience inside the attraction. I haven't mentioned the inside of attractions whatsoever.

A demand for the Disney characters to be present in Epcot Center doesn't mean the place was boring or unsuccessful without them, it just means that the guests wanted to see characters in a Disney park.

Indeed, Epcot was never meant to be a second version of the Magic Kingdom, and certainly if you went in expecting more of the same, it wouldn't meet your expectations. Anyone who has ever entered the Magic Kingdom expecting to find a whole 'world' of thrill rides and extreme roller coasters - alongside the 'kiddie' rides - has also had their expectations dashed. That doesn't mean either park is lacking (or boring, etc.); It does mean that The Walt Disney Company had created something different and innovative, and a place which would become something a bit special for millions of people.

I'm sorry, this is the silliest argument because the complaints about Epcot have been so pervasive over the years that folks dismissing it as "internet invention" boggle my mind. I certainly don't and have never agreed with the "boring" part, as it appealed to me, but I certainly have heard it so many times over the past 30 years I could never discount that it was an issue. But I know, Epcot is scared land around here - we aren't allowed to be truth telling about it.

The problem, however, is that today there is a lack of attention to detail and the standards of theme and a cohesive, planned environment which were previously maintained in Epcot Center. It is, to a surprising extent, growing closer to a second version of the Magic Kingdom - and that's a problem. Typical guests may not be able to articulate the difference in those terms, but that doesn't mean it hasn't already undermined and compromised their vacation experience.

That is so loaded with fan-nonsense as to not even be funny. Most guests couldn't care less if it was growing to a "second version of MK" - they just want to go on quality attractions. They are what matter, not this mythical "standards of theme" and "cohesive" issues that are only of import on a fan board like this.

Interesting analogy, because people do eat chocolate fudge; In fact it is quite delicious! I suppose a thin layer of cake on the bottom of the fudge would also be good, if perhaps a bit 'rich' tasting.

Not a clue what fudge has to do with cake frosting.

And a very simple, basic attraction can also be set in a highly themed, creative, and immersive context which richly adds to the experience. That said, I would quickly point out that care must be taken not to put style over substance, with a highly detailed setting but attractions which are lacking (New Fantasyland, arguably).

Don't disagree with that whatsoever.

Not when the theme and detail lack something in appeal and widespread interest of the intended audience. The park was seen as too much like a zoo (despite promotion to the contrary), most guests have those closer to home, and it just isn't the sort of thing for which people have traveled to central Florida; The 'animal' theme just isn't sufficiently compelling to most people. Animal Kingdom's main problem, though, has long been just a lack of compelling things to do, much like the Studios, despite its well executed themed environments (style, but lacking in substance, again).

I don't disagree. AK was plagued with issues from it's inception; in retrospect, the entire project is confounding when you look at the time and place that it happened in. My take is that Disney just didn't care what they got as long as it was a 4th gate to keep folks on property longer, and Saint Rohde was allowed to run hog wild. It's what happens when creative folks don't have someone to reign them in.

 

[AEfx]

If you don't agree that themes are DHS's biggest problem, that's fine. But I never said that they were. I simply said it was one of the problems.

You "just think" I'm wrong, yet in fact, you've actually agreed with me in your prior statements.

If that's what you need to think, so be it. /shrug

The only part where I see a disagreement between us is on the level of importance regarding theme vs. attraction. Other than that, you're basically arguing the same thing I am.

No, I'm not, but again - see above.

To be honest I'm not sure what you're complaining about and I'm not sure why you have gotten so aggressive with your accusations. This topic was dormant since the beginning of November yet for some reason you chose to bring it up again.

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize there was an expiration date on the discussion. If you found me aggressive, that might be about the time you began to talk to me like I was an idiot who didn't know the difference between an amusement park and a theme park, or "Please do your research" or the "you just don't understand" statements.

In any case...this is going no where so think whatever you wish, as I'm certain that it really doesn't matter what either of us think as the chances for Disney to do anything but the least they can get by will likely make both of us disappointed with whatever the result is in the end.

 

[Nemo14]

Absolutely. Even by Disney themselves. Where the heck have you been?

He lives in Mexico, so he isn't familiar with all the offerings we have here.

 

[AEfx]

Simply more attractions don't result in that superior quality because that superior quality is drawn out of a larger experience.

That sounds so noble, but in practice - if they built a high quality Star Wars E-ticket and put it in a nice little themed area - it wouldn't matter if it was put in DHS, Epcot, MK, or even AK - it would attract folks.

The quality comes from the individual attractions being done superbly - in fact, you are making the same mistake Disney has for a long time - thinking that the "quality" of the overall experience made up for the mostly junk attractions they have added over the last decade.

 

[AEfx]

He lives in Mexico, so he isn't familiar with all the offerings we have here.

They are there, too.

http://www.ticketbis.com/en-us/disney-live-mexico-tickets/ev61750

But his statement does make more sense now.

 

[tirian]

DCA wasn't even a good amusement park.

Paradise Pier is still a weak, ugly area of DCA.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That sounds so noble, but in practice - if they built a high quality Star Wars E-ticket and put it in a nice little themed area - it wouldn't matter if it was put in DHS, Epcot, MK, or even AK - it would attract folks.

The quality comes from the individual attractions being done superbly - in fact, you are making the same mistake Disney has for a long time - thinking that the "quality" of the overall experience made up for the mostly junk attractions they have added over the last decade.

They did just that and it was barely noticed.

Also, the "internet myth" about EPCOT Center is that it was unpopular. Attendance was higher when the park was supposedly more boring.

 

[CDavid]

It's a product of the more academic thinking about the parks that we do on message boards like this - because in reality, walking through any of the parks as a guest and not someone that "studies" them and uses outside documentation - the theories fall apart anyway because the parks simply have not developed on those lines and a large percentage of attractions could be picked up and swapped out at different parks and the overall effect would be the same.

Many attractions could be swapped between parks, you are correct, but there are appropriately limitations. Kilimanjaro Safaris might work in Adventureland or the unbuilt Equatorial Africa pavilion in World Showcase, but placing such an attraction in the Studios just doesn't work. Similarly, at the risk of reopening a can of worms, Frozen would fit much better in Fantasyland or in Hollywood Studios than it does among the nations of the world. Indeed, the fact that "the parks simply have not developed on those lines" often reflects poor design choices and a lack of attention to detail, rather than a deliberate design choice we should seek to continue.

I wouldn't argue that DHS could use more theming in individual areas, but it's hardly the worst problem the park has - which is the point. And in truth, it's not really solvable in the way fans want it to be. The park simply needs more attractions, period - and it will draw folks if those attractions are of the superior quality that WDW used to be known for churning out.

Yes, the park has desperately needed more attractions for years, and you are quite correct that is the primary problem (there are serious problems with theming, though, due in no small part to the loss of the 'working studio' concept). Given Disney's penchant for IP based attractions, there are plenty of thematically appropriate choices readily available (Star Wars, Cars, Big hero 6, etc.) which best fill the needs of that park (as opposed to Epcot or Animal Kingdom, for instance). But you can't put just any attraction anywhere; Part of the "superior quality that WDW used to be known for churning out" centers around paying attention to how everything fits together in the whole of the park.

 

[spacemt354]

If that's what you need to think, so be it. /shrug
No, I'm not, but again - see above.

What are you saying then? Seriously.

The only reason why I kept replying in the first place was because you were incorrectly quoting my opinion on DHS in regards to themes. You kept making the assertion that I said themes were the only thing that mattered. That's simply not true.

Apologies if you took offense to me asking you to go back and research the conversation in question in addition to anything else that you took personally. I never called you an "idiot" nor did I respond with that in mind. Let's try to stay relaxed. I know emotions kick in when you're passionate about something, but can you just simply clear the air as to what you're arguing because I don't follow.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Oh for Petes sake, don't we have an armchair imagineering forum?

 

[spacemt354]

Oh for Petes sake, don't we have an armchair imagineering forum?

Is it any more "on topic" than cheesesteaks, tv shows, or parking lots though?

Maybe we should have a cheesesteak forum

 

[lazyboy97o]

Oh for Petes sake, don't we have an armchair imagineering forum?

What Armchair Imagineering?

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

Oy.

Ok, so to recap. Peter Pan queue is cute and just about well done. Let's see how long it lasts before bored guests standing in line for an hour destroy it.

Arguing, ankle biting, the usual Spirited thread nonsense.

Theming is important, mmmmkay?

 

[PhotoDave219]

Is it any more "on topic" than cheesesteaks, tv shows, or parking lots though?

Maybe we should have a cheesesteak forum

I hope they never fix the yeti.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I hope they never fix the yeti.

I truly don't think you will ever have to deal with a fixed yeti, so you can relax.

 

[jdmdisney99]

Oh for Petes sake, don't we have an armchair imagineering forum?

Why yes, yes we do...

 

[AEfx]

Look at Disney Infinity (what every 33-year-old virgin Lifestyler is playing) where you have characters like Donald and Stitch and the Incredibles and MOnsters and the Lone Ranger and Captain Jack and now the Marvel characters all existing in one MAGICal Disney BRANDED UNIverse.

I'm 36, thank you very much. And...well, if you want to know about the virgin part, I'll shoot you the number of the young gentleman who left my house in the early AM hours this morning and you can give him a ring to confirm. Can't remember his name though, but I have the #.

Seriously, though - I think you may be judging Infinity without really "getting it". In fact, you can't mix characters all together in the Disney created games. You can't stick Mickey in the Avengers playset, or Stitch in Toy Story. It's not like it's some stupid game where all the characters live in some town all together in a "universe". Aside from the merchandise aspect, it really has no similarity to Skylanders, etc.

But the entire thing is a smokescreen for a rather deep game creation platform. The point of Infinity is to build and share your own games - and for parks fans, it's pretty neat. Now that folks are learning how to use the tools, the quality is really going up - and people are using the tools to do things like re-create Disney Park rides, and create some really interesting games/adventures.

It's true that the meat of the platform is geared towards a teenage/adult crowd - while a kid can pick up Infinity and play through the Disney created content, and there are enough "kits" and template/wizard-like tools for them to create a basic game, there are an incredible amount of complex tools that folks are only just beginning to exploit to their potential.

It's not a game, but a platform - and one of the strengths is that Disney offers so much IP material that makes a large variety of thematic choices. It wouldn't work if it was stuck to one IP.

Infinity is really a brilliant concept. They have had some execution issues, but it's getting better, and I have no doubt that by 3.0 next year with Star Wars that the real meat of the game will be up to snuff.

 

[englanddg]

I'm 36, thank you very much. And...well, if you want to know about the virgin part, I'll shoot you the number of the young gentleman who left my house in the early AM hours this morning and you can give him a ring to confirm. Can't remember his name though, but I have the #.

Seriously, though - I think you may be judging Infinity without really "getting it". In fact, you can't mix characters all together in the Disney created games. You can't stick Mickey in the Avengers playset, or Stitch in Toy Story. It's not like it's some stupid game where all the characters live in some town all together in a "universe". Aside from the merchandise aspect, it really has no similarity to Skylanders, etc.

But the entire thing is a smokescreen for a rather deep game creation platform. The point of Infinity is to build and share your own games - and for parks fans, it's pretty neat. Now that folks are learning how to use the tools, the quality is really going up - and people are using the tools to do things like re-create Disney Park rides, and create some really interesting games/adventures.

It's true that the meat of the platform is geared towards a teenage/adult crowd - while a kid can pick up Infinity and play through the Disney created content, and there are enough "kits" and template/wizard-like tools for them to create a basic game, there are an incredible amount of complex tools that folks are only just beginning to exploit to their potential.

It's not a game, but a platform - and one of the strengths is that Disney offers so much IP material that makes a large variety of thematic choices. It wouldn't work if it was stuck to one IP.

Infinity is really a brilliant concept. They have had some execution issues, but it's getting better, and I have no doubt that by 3.0 next year with Star Wars that the real meat of the game will be up to snuff.

Should I call 407.WDW.DINE?

(woo woo woo)

 

[AEfx]

They did just that and it was barely noticed.

Also, the "internet myth" about EPCOT Center is that it was unpopular. Attendance was higher when the park was supposedly more boring.

I never said it was unpopular, but yes, the "boring" label was associated with it in many circles long before the Internet was a household word. Lots of families expected and were looking for MK-like experiences.

And that is played out by the fact that it's exactly what another poster just said it has been on it's way to becoming. I know that Epcot nostalgia folks like to think that someone at TDO is rubbing their hands together and thinking up new ways to "ruin" Epcot, but that's not the case - they would not have been spending the last decade or two moving toward a more "MK" experience if it's not what folks wanted.

Now that doesn't mean it was BAD (as I said, I found Epcot fascinating as a kid), or unpopular, or that those folks were justified in their reactions/responses, but to deny that it happened just isn't true.

Personally, I'd much rather have 20 minute dark rides as Epcot used to have, versus the 5-minute experiences they now replace them with.

I'll never get this extreme religious-like reverence that folks have for Epcot above and beyond anything else at WDW - it's like it's some holy thing or some revered dead family member that permeates any discussion about it and quite often the reality vs. the nostalgic, romanticized remembrances of what folks felt it used to be, with WS it's holy land.