A Terror-rific Spirited 13th (ToT fans have lots to fear)...

the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
Just saw Moana.

What can I say except I loved it :D

Btw, Disney *nudges*
image-jpg.93908

Take, the, hint...
Click to expand...
#Moana4AnimalKingdom
 
rael ramone

rael ramone

Well-Known Member
I take back about Oliver & Company being 'Sword & the Stone' bad... S&TS is at least watchable, even if my chin hits the floor when I put it on... (the non memorable characters and bad story do nothing to hide the fact that it is made in the Xerox era and clearly looks it - just 4 years after the wonderfully and richly hand inked Sleeping Beauty that took place in similar time periods - at least 101 Dalmatians & Aristocats kinda/sorta get away with it by having it look like an artistic choice).

O&C looks cheap (and this comes from a big fan of the 40's package films). Bakshi cheap. Bad, bad songs. Cop Rock bad. I think Roger Ebert has a better opinion of Rob Schneider films then I do on O&C... I think I lasted a half hour before I changed it. It's been years since I've seen it, but I think Brave Little Toaster was better...
 
DinoInstitute

DinoInstitute

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
Can't say I see that but I do agree with your stance on Moana being better for Tokyo DisneySea than Frozen now.
Click to expand...
I think Adventureland is the best place for it if it were to get an attraction in WDW. While I don't think it would necessarily not fit well in DAK, the problem is just that there's no good land for it to go. The Polynesian theming would go right along with Adventureland very well.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
IDInstitute said:
I think Adventureland is the best place for it if it were to get an attraction in WDW. While I don't think it would necessarily not fit well in DAK, the problem is just that there's no good land for it to go. The Polynesian theming would go right along with Adventureland very well.
Click to expand...
There is a good chunk between Africa and Asia but I wouldn't put Polynesia there. I would go for Australia.
 
Brer Oswald

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
IDInstitute said:
I think Adventureland is the best place for it if it were to get an attraction in WDW. While I don't think it would necessarily not fit well in DAK, the problem is just that there's no good land for it to go. The Polynesian theming would go right along with Adventureland very well.
Click to expand...
Especially since Adventureland needs new attractions. It's had the least expansions out of all the lands!
 
BrianLo

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
DDLand said:
This has nothing to do with good writing. Is anyone saying that Disney couldn't create a Park with a large castle that would fit in cohesively and tell the story that it was intended to? Of course not.

This has everything to do with going back and trying to rewrite what has already been written. This is like a filmmaker capturing footage in the arctic and using CGI to place a palm tree on the landscape after the fact. It's entirely possible to do, but makes little sense and immediately clashes with what was already there.

It's wrong, and any audience would know it.

As an aside, I would also add that the narrative surrounding Disneyland points to Sleeping Beauty Castle being small as a deliberate decision. It was supposed to be something intimate and not intimidating; something that would immediately make guests feel at home.

While some might say that was spin, and it likely was, it succeeded on all accounts. It has remained beloved for over 60 years. I'd also advise looking at New Orleans Square. That land followed in the same mold of intimate environments that invite guests to explore and feel comfortable. This was a land added far later, and yet bolstered and respected the existing creations and lends credence to a deliberate choice on Sleeping Beauty Castle.

I'd also add that with each decision Walt Disney and his team took in the 1950s and 1960s, they complemented what was already there. Especially the Matterhorn. The perfect complement.

This choice in Hong Kong is far from a complement, it is an utter of rejection of all that has come before in that park. It's a shame.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. This is not Walt's park in Anaheim. People need to stop using Disneyland to justify what Hong Kong has. Hong Kong adapted hardly any of the classic Disney elements that make the castle complimentary or fitting. From an MK style fantasyland, a lack of Fantasy Faire/Matterhorn, lifted mega attractions from far beyond Walt's death. There is no NoS, no Tiki room, no charmingly dilapidated Tomorrowland. The castle Walt built was for a much, much smaller charming park. They didn't build that park in Hong Kong. Nor did they bother to bring in any of the more recent elements that help compliment or continue to make it fit. The only thing in the style of the charming castle added after the park was built is autopia, now that's leaving too.

There is no cohesion, they are rejecting what came before because what came before was cheap, not befitting of the setting it was in and purely for cost savings.

Nothing is cohesive about an undersized Bavarian style castle at the end of a properly proportioned Main Street in a Victorian colonial China with a tropical mountainous back drop. It's being rejected because it was never an idea to begin with, it was inappropriate cloning.

So yes it's rewriting history, but the narrative was botched from the start.

Tellingly the only photo that has been used to justify it is taken 50 meters out and cuts out Main Street entirely. It doesn't work in person and fully framing the castle to make it seem like it works isn't justification that the original designers knew what they were doing or were bound by cost savings.

So reject away, shame away, but good riddance to a castle that was inappropriately stolen from Anaheim!

This is not to say the new castle doesn't end up looking awful, but this is in defense that I wanted that castle replaced the moment I first stepped into that park years ago.
 
Daveeeeed

Daveeeeed

Well-Known Member
BrianLo said:
No, it's not. This is not Walt's park in Anaheim. People need to stop using Disneyland to justify what Hong Kong has. Hong Kong adapted hardly any of the classic Disney elements that make the castle complimentary or fitting. From an MK style fantasyland, a lack of Fantasy Faire/Matterhorn, lifted mega attractions from far beyond Walt's death. There is no NoS, no Tiki room, no charmingly dilapidated Tomorrowland. The castle Walt built was for a much, much smaller charming park. They didn't build that park in Hong Kong. Nor did they bother to bring in any of the more recent elements that help compliment or continue to make it fit. The only thing in the style of the charming castle added after the park was built is autopia, now that's leaving too.

There is no cohesion, they are rejecting what came before because what came before was cheap, not befitting of the setting it was in and purely for cost savings.

Nothing is cohesive about an undersized Bavarian style castle at the end of a properly proportioned Main Street in a Victorian colonial China with a tropical mountainous back drop. It's being rejected because it was never an idea to begin with, it was inappropriate cloning.

So yes it's rewriting history, but the narrative was botched from the start.

Tellingly the only photo that has been used to justify it is taken 50 meters out and cuts out Main Street entirely. It doesn't work in person and fully framing the castle to make it seem like it works isn't justification that the original designers knew what they were doing or were bound by cost savings.

So reject away, shame away, but good riddance to a castle that was inappropriately stolen from Anaheim!

This is not to say the new castle doesn't end up looking awful, but this is in defense that I wanted that castle replaced the moment I first stepped into that park years ago.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. It cannot be defended no matter how much anyone dislikes it. It was done on the cheap PERIOD. It has nothing to do with being cohesively themed, that's utter nonsense. The castle was a cheap way they could make a castle for a cheap park.
 
Sir_Cliff

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
There is a good chunk between Africa and Asia but I wouldn't put Polynesia there. I would go for Australia.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm biased due to being born there, but I don't know why the Australia idea doesn't seem to have any momentum within Disney. It would seem a natural fit for a park based around animals, but I guess it is hard to tie it to any big franchise beyond Finding Nemo.

My impression going back a decade or more is that fans keep talking about this, but no-one within Disney has been seriously considering it.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Sir_Cliff said:
Maybe I'm biased due to being born there, but I don't know why the Australia idea doesn't seem to have any momentum within Disney. It would seem a natural fit for a park based around animals, but I guess it is hard to tie it to any big franchise beyond Finding Nemo.

My impression going back a decade or more is that fans keep talking about this, but no-one within Disney has been seriously considering it.
Click to expand...
And there's the problem. It doesn't need no stinkin' franchise.
uluru.jpg
 
Jones14

Jones14

Well-Known Member
IDInstitute said:
I agree. Honestly when it comes to Moana in DAK I would actually probably place my bets on Moana: The Musical replacing Finding Nemo.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be opposed to this. Nemo is showing its age, and a Polynesian area could mercy kill Dinorama in favor of a family dark ride to go with the show. It'd certainly be a good counterbalance to draw crowds back to that side of the park post-Avatar. Not to mention yet another opportunity for a beautiful environment to be created in their prettiest stateside park.

That said, based on everything I've seen of the movie so far, they could put Moana just about anywhere and I'd eat it up. If I had my way, I think I'd go with Hollywood, though. That place needs the water more than anything.
 
Phil12

Phil12

Well-Known Member
DDLand said:
This has nothing to do with good writing. Is anyone saying that Disney couldn't create a Park with a large castle that would fit in cohesively and tell the story that it was intended to? Of course not.

This has everything to do with going back and trying to rewrite what has already been written. This is like a filmmaker capturing footage in the arctic and using CGI to place a palm tree on the landscape after the fact. It's entirely possible to do, but makes little sense and immediately clashes with what was already there.

It's wrong, and any audience would know it.

As an aside, I would also add that the narrative surrounding Disneyland points to Sleeping Beauty Castle being small as a deliberate decision. It was supposed to be something intimate and not intimidating; something that would immediately make guests feel at home.

While some might say that was spin, and it likely was, it succeeded on all accounts. It has remained beloved for over 60 years. I'd also advise looking at New Orleans Square. That land followed in the same mold of intimate environments that invite guests to explore and feel comfortable. This was a land added far later, and yet bolstered and respected the existing creations and lends credence to a deliberate choice on Sleeping Beauty Castle.

I'd also add that with each decision Walt Disney and his team took in the 1950s and 1960s, they complemented what was already there. Especially the Matterhorn. The perfect complement.

This choice in Hong Kong is far from a complement, it is an utter of rejection of all that has come before in that park. It's a shame.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with improving upon a castle that was clearly less than adequate when it was built. It's far from a shame. You seem to like to keep inferior stuff just because of its cheap quality. Of perhaps you enjoy celebrating inferiority?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom