Does Disney have an identity crisis with their parks?

[HansGruber]

I don't understand the direction some of these parks are going in.

I fully understand it's ALWAYS about the money...but I feel like Disney is slowly migrating from identity-driven parks to more generic-themed parks.


HS was supposed to be about the movies and entertainment. But lately, they seem to be removing anything related to the "Hollywood" experience and now inserting a bunch of Disney intellectual property promotion. Mickey and Minnie are more "Hollywood" than the GMR?


AK was supposed to be a "glorified" zoo of sorts, built into a theme park. While some liberties have been taken since the park's opening, the overall focus has been on non-fictitious animals and conservation efforts. How does the completely fictitious world of Pandora fit into the overall "zoo" experience? Why wasn't this fictitious land, based completely on a movie, built in HS instead?


Epcot...it's been somewhat ignored over the past few decades and is due for an upgrade, but you can certainly question the "futuristic" or "educational" theme of the park. Guardians of the Galaxy has what to do with the future? Shouldn't "The Seas" be closed down and instead re-opened in AK?


MK, a somewhat "catch-all" or generally theme less park, so it's hard to critique. But, wouldn't Tron be better suited for Epcot (which lacks a roller coaster) or HS?

 

[CaptainJackNO]

I don't understand the direction some of these parks are going in.

I fully understand it's ALWAYS about the money...but I feel like Disney is slowly migrating from identity-driven parks to more generic-themed parks.


HS was supposed to be about the movies and entertainment. But lately, they seem to be removing anything related to the "Hollywood" experience and now inserting a bunch of Disney intellectual property promotion. Mickey and Minnie are more "Hollywood" than the GMR?


AK was supposed to be a "glorified" zoo of sorts, built into a theme park. While some liberties have been taken since the park's opening, the overall focus has been on non-fictitious animals and conservation efforts. How does the completely fictitious world of Pandora fit into the overall "zoo" experience? Why wasn't this fictitious land, based completely on a movie, built in HS instead?


Epcot...it's been somewhat ignored over the past few decades and is due for an upgrade, but you can certainly question the "futuristic" or "educational" theme of the park. Guardians of the Galaxy has what to do with the future? Shouldn't "The Seas" be closed down and instead re-opened in AK?


MK, a somewhat "catch-all" or generally theme less park, so it's hard to critique. But, wouldn't Tron be better suited for Epcot (which lacks a roller coaster) or HS?

In relation to the parks losing their identity, I would certainly agree with DHS, simply because the current (and recent past) management have gone very heavy onto providing attractions driven by Disney movie brands. With that said, DHS began to falter when all actual filming was removed form the park, followed by a functioning backlot tour. To me, the closing of TGMR seals the deal and the park really needs a relaunch and rename. I would go as far as say that WDW should really close the park until complete given the number of available attractions and the high cost of attendance.

As far as AK, I don't know that Pandora is too far a reach when one considers the "Beastly Kingdom" ideas that were scrapped. I believe that components of this attraction somewhat fall into that Beastly Kingdom mode, plus the technology needed to create this world really allows Disney to show they can still be cutting edge.

EPCOT, I absolutely agree with. With some of the emerging technologies that Imagineers are coming up with would have fit nicely into EPCOT without resorting to more IPs. Also, with the emphasis on conservation, wind power, solar power, and all of the other current blue sky technologies, EPCOT could easily have remained true to it's 1982 vision. Furthermore, in the realm of medicine, Wonders of Life would be, and should be, very relevant with all of the cutting edge technologies available and soon to be available. Commercial space flight could have been an amazing attraction, which could fit into Mission:Space, but not sure a thrill ride would have been necessary. Universe of Energy could easily have been updated,especially with Oil Shale technology, albeit controversial, as well as deepwater drilling. I hate the idea of Guardians of the Galaxy. I am not happy at all with the intrusion of Disney IPs in World Showcase....Absurd!

Magic Kingdom? It rocks! I love it, always have. I, actually, think Tron fits in Tomorrowland very well.

I agree with much of what you say, and overall, I believe you are correct in saying that, at least, EPCOT and DHS have an identity crisis, with DHS suffering from full blown Multiple Personality Disorder.

 

[BasiltheBatLord]

Disney's thinking is that the ability to incorporate IP (in effect to cross-promote different brands of the company) trumps thematic cohesiveness at every opportunity. The unfortunate truth is that this forum is made up of the 1% of park attendees that care.

That doesn't mean that every single move made by the company is to throw cohesive theme overboard to incorporate IP, but it's the general attitude that TWDC carries towards the parks as a whole.

 

[HansGruber]

As far as AK, I don't know that Pandora is too far a reach when one considers the "Beastly Kingdom" ideas that were scrapped. I believe that components of this attraction somewhat fall into that Beastly Kingdom mode, plus the technology needed to create this world really allows Disney to show they can still be cutting edge.

I can understand the similar theme to Beastly Kingdom, but at least Beastly Kingdom would have been based on animals. Pandora seems to be based more on the land. Having just visited, I can't recall the name of a single animal from Pandora. Beautiful land, but not much to do with animals. And I'm not sure I want a zoo-themed park to be "cutting edge". Just show me some animals and give me some rides.

 

[Chef Mickey]

EPCOT for sure lost its identity 15 years ago. That's gone.

Maybe the new EPCOT will start a new beginning and it might not all be bad.

DHS is a shambles and the closing of the GMR is just a travesty. An EPIC Star Wars land will help, but it still won't right all the wrongs.

 

[rkleinlein]

Agree completely.

Epcot has the biggest identity crisis. It's absurd to keep calling Future World Future World. Almost as absurd as calling Epcot Epcot.

I also agree that given the transformation of Epcot, Tron would have been better placed there. Since they are abandoning the vision of Epcot and turning it in to a traditional theme park, it needs more rides and is lacking a coaster. I also think Tron is too similar to Space Mountain to be right next to it. Even the look is going to compete with Space Mountain's iconic exterior.

 

[rkleinlein]

And the same thing happened at California Adventure. Lacking the imagination to come up with enough California themed attractions, they seem to be just filling it in with Disney brand attractions.

 

[networkpro]

I don't understand the direction some of these parks are going in.

I fully understand it's ALWAYS about the money...but I feel like Disney is slowly migrating from identity-driven parks to more generic-themed parks.

What you failed to take into account is the changing tastes of the customer base. If Disney were building for the interests of the average family that could afford a visit to the World in the 70's, then your point would be valid. What they are faced with is retooling the existing venues to something that interests a modern audience. Some things have staying power across generations, some things do not.

 

[DisneyPrincess5]

@HansGruber thanks for your thoughts!

I can totally relate. There are so many times where we will be in the parks, walking around or I will be researching Disney stuff online or reading news and I'll turn to DH and say, "why is this here, what is going on?"

The whole Epcot and DHS situation is just sad, I almost cannot even comment on it. I am kind of grieving the whole loss/change? of vision for both of them and how much they've changed. Oddly I'm excited for some new things, still grieving other things.

I totally understand what you mean when you say that MK is a "catch all". I kind of feel like Disney could put almost anything there and somehow it all melted together because, well, it's the Magic Kingdom after all!

I really never understood why Pandora was coming to AK, or Disney at all. When they announced it I remember DH saying to me, "Pandora is not a Disney movie right…?" To another posters point, if they were going to make Beastly Kingdom, I guess Pandora fits just fine because it's all about creatures and nature. Otherwise..whaaa?

 

[BoarderPhreak]

...AK was supposed to be a "glorified" zoo of sorts, built into a theme park. While some liberties have been taken since the park's opening, the overall focus has been on non-fictitious animals and conservation efforts. How does the completely fictitious world of Pandora fit into the overall "zoo" experience? Why wasn't this fictitious land, based completely on a movie, built in HS instead?

FWIW, Pandora lies under a thin veneer of a conservation message; the "Pandora Conservation Initiative" as it were. Granted, that's made up too, but there it is.

 

[jimbojones]

I think AK is now the best park partly for this reason. For me the magic of Disney is being transported to another place and time and AK does this best, MK second best. I like Epcot but once you have traveled the world a bit the world showcase becomes a bit too fake. IP issues aside I do think that for the most part things are going in the right direction but I completely understand where you are coming from

 

[jimbojones]

@HansGruber thanks for your thoughts!

I can totally relate. There are so many times where we will be in the parks, walking around or I will be researching Disney stuff online or reading news and I'll turn to DH and say, "why is this here, what is going on?"

The whole Epcot and DHS situation is just sad, I almost cannot even comment on it. I am kind of grieving the whole loss/change? of vision for both of them and how much they've changed. Oddly I'm excited for some new things, still grieving other things.

I totally understand what you mean when you say that MK is a "catch all". I kind of feel like Disney could put almost anything there and somehow it all melted together because, well, it's the Magic Kingdom after all!

I really never understood why Pandora was coming to AK, or Disney at all. When they announced it I remember DH saying to me, "Pandora is not a Disney movie right…?" To another posters point, if they were going to make Beastly Kingdom, I guess Pandora fits just fine because it's all about creatures and nature. Otherwise..whaaa?

Yeah I think Pandora was a mistake, I look forward to visiting and it seems like a fantastic implementation but the movie has no staying power. I saw it in the theater, though "oh neat" and never care to watch it again nor do I care about the sequels, and I am a hippy environmentalist movie buff. One of the risks with using IP rather than original concepts or timeless classics, such as European fairy-tales, is that you risk something becoming dated really quickly.

 

[BoarderPhreak]

Yeah I think Pandora was a mistake, I look forward to visiting and it seems like a fantastic implementation but the movie has no staying power. I saw it in the theater, though "oh neat" and never care to watch it again nor do I care about the sequels, and I am a hippy environmentalist movie buff. One of the risks with using IP rather than original concepts or timeless classics, such as European fairy-tales, is that you risk something becoming dated really quickly.

But there are a ton of sequels coming!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I can understand the similar theme to Beastly Kingdom, but at least Beastly Kingdom would have been based on animals. Pandora seems to be based more on the land. Having just visited, I can't recall the name of a single animal from Pandora. Beautiful land, but not much to do with animals. And I'm not sure I want a zoo-themed park to be "cutting edge". Just show me some animals and give me some rides.

You're factually wrong. Animal Kingdom was never supposed to be a "zoo themed" park. The original plan was for three types of creatures: real / living, extinct, and fictional. That was always the plan.

Yeah I think Pandora was a mistake, I look forward to visiting and it seems like a fantastic implementation but the movie has no staying power. I saw it in the theater, though "oh neat" and never care to watch it again nor do I care about the sequels, and I am a hippy environmentalist movie buff. One of the risks with using IP rather than original concepts or timeless classics, such as European fairy-tales, is that you risk something becoming dated really quickly.

Counter-point: Splash Mountain.

The success of the underlying films is largely irrelevant with how successful the themed land will be.

 

[Raineman]

You're factually wrong. Animal Kingdom was never supposed to be a "zoo themed" park. The original plan was for three types of creatures: real / living, extinct, and fictional. That was always the plan.


Counter-point: Splash Mountain.

The success of the underlying films is largely irrelevant with how successful the themed land will be.

I couldn't count how many times, since Pandora opened, that I've read someone on here stating that Pandora is a bad idea because not everyone knows or likes the movie, and you hit the nail on the head. You don't have to necessarily like the IP to enjoy a land or attraction based on said IP. There are quite a few Disney IPs out there that I have no connection to-haven't seen the movie/show or didn't like the movie/show-but I would still experience any attractions/lands based on those IPs, and in most cases, probably enjoy them.

 

[HansGruber]

What you failed to take into account is the changing tastes of the customer base. If Disney were building for the interests of the average family that could afford a visit to the World in the 70's, then your point would be valid. What they are faced with is retooling the existing venues to something that interests a modern audience. Some things have staying power across generations, some things do not.

Why are Rocking Roller Coaster and Tower of Terror so popular then?
I wouldn't consider "Aerosmith" and "The Twilight Zone" to be very modern entertainment entities.
It's about the rides! It's always about the rides!
But that doesn't mean Disney can't have some semblance of cohesion for each park.

 

[HansGruber]

You're factually wrong. Animal Kingdom was never supposed to be a "zoo themed" park. The original plan was for three types of creatures: real / living, extinct, and fictional. That was always the plan.

How is that not "zoo themed"? The fictitious land didn't originate previous to Pandora, so the park was based on real, living and extinct animals....sounds like a "zoo themed" park to me.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

How is that not "zoo themed"? The fictitious land didn't originate previous to Pandora, so the park was based on real, living and extinct animals....sounds like a "zoo themed" park to me.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Beastly Kingdom was going to have attractions based on dragons and unicorns. There has been a dragon in the Animal Kingdom logo since the day it opened. There's been a YETI ride for over a decade. The entire marketing campaign when the park opened was about how it's not a zoo. Complain about Avatar all you want but there is absolutely nothing new or novel about the idea of fictional creatures at DAK.

But that doesn't mean Disney can't have some semblance of cohesion for each park.

Disney's Animal Kingdom is widely believed to be the most cohesive Disney park in the United States and probably the second most cohesive in the world after Tokyo DisneySea.

 

[TheGuyThatMakesSwords]

Based on the original question..... having been asked our opinion?

Yes.

 

[JusticeDisney]

Personally, I couldn't care less about the "identity" of the parks. They are either a fun place to be or they aren't. If a park has a bunch of fun attractions, that's all I need. It makes no difference to me if they are somehow related or not.