deleted

[networkpro]

Obviously I don't think a theme park is as important as a war that killed countless people, and I apologize if that is how my comment came across. My point is that many people sadly don't give a crap about WWII, but that doesn't make it something that should be forgotten. The same can be said about WDW and it's history. Just because some people don't care about what made WDW what it is today doesn't mean we should forget about the great accomplishments made by Disney and the men and women that created countless wonderful experiences that have now been removed.

It's a pointless comparison, entertainment vs warfare. Incremental improvements in free time amusements indeed have progressed from freely tossing rocks at things to truly interactive paid immersive experiences. Disneys' Nine old men did wonders combining their talents and technology to produce innovative animations which set us in the stories they were telling. The same can be said about the Imagineers who originally built the parks and the attractions as well as those who have followed in their footsteps to refurbish, fix, build, and replace buildings, attractions and entire lands as needed.

Your argument has a very good analogy in the Latin Language, its good in historical context as it describes an entire culture and is useful for historical reference, but has little utility in current day to day society. You describe more of a Dapper Day-isque nostalgia cherry picking items out of context.

 

[bpadair32]

Lots of people don't see the "history" behind WWII either, but that doesn't make it unimportant...

I have read some crazy things on this thread, but this takes the cake. There is nothing in Disney (or any other entertainment venue) history or otherwise that is comparable to WW2. The thought that it Disney history is anywhere near close enough in importance to even make that comparison shows a serious lack of perspective.

 

[xdan0920]

Did I notice the names on the windows when I first went, sure? did it make me want to see if those names meant something? absolutely not. it was a charming ambiance and that's it.

Quoted for posterity.

 

[LittleBuford]

Quoted for posterity.

What’s wrong with what she said? Must everyone be interested in the stories behind the names? Do you think even the imagineers imagined (!) this would be the case?

 

[bpadair32]

What’s wrong with what she said? Must everyone be interested in the stories behind the names? Do you think even the imagineers imagined (!) this would be the case?

There is nothing wrong with it. I am just going to come out and say it, some of the people on this thread are snobs that think if you do not know or care about Disney history as much as them, then your opinion on the parks is wrong or shouldn't count. That is a sad way to live your life, but ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Damon7777]

but you also need to realize that an opinion that does not agree with yours is still just as valid

Not so fast with that. Some opinions weigh more than others. Not all opinions are equal.

 

[bigrigross]

This whole thread is about the changing demographics of disney fans. Im going to put this as bluntly as possible. 90%(even this might be too low) of the people going to disney have ZERO interest in the history of Disney World or Walt himself. Even back in the day. You have a select group of people who do. So who is disney going to cater to?

I bet you if you start asking people randomly in Animal Kingdom who Joe Rhode is, you will get blank looks. I am sorry, but you are clearly a minority when it comes to who disney is looking at to make happy.....

Edit: Oops replied to wrong person. Point still stands though so not deleting.

 

[xdan0920]

What’s wrong with what she said? Must everyone be interested in the stories behind the names? Do you think even the imagineers imagined (!) this would be the case?

Nothing. Enjoy the parks however you want. But don't say the target audience hasn't shifted.

 

[Kingtut]

Exactly when was that? If you are talking pre-Eisner then the company was on the verge of going out of business.

If you are talking Eisner era onward, then "last quarter's numbers" has absolutely been the focus - as it is at every publicly-traded company that wants to stay in business.

I see no meaningful change in their focus on the "guest experience." They still get by-and-large amazing reviews from the vast majority of their guests, they still survey like crazy and base decisions on surveys, they are investing MORE in new DOMESTIC attractions that any point in their history, and they are still (and always have been) expensive for a lot of people - especially the ones flying in.

This is what I mean by the "Make Disney Great Again" argument.... just like with America, the past wasn't as rosy as you think...

They are investing in their domestic attractions now because they basically ignored the parks for an extended period of time, ran them until they were falling apart ( to make the quarterly numbers and bonuses), then were finally faced with a peer competitor who had the ability to potentially surpass them in the theme park experience. Disney parks have been riding on their reputation for a long time. Please note even with all the new development the actual capacity of the parks are not increasing very much - for every new attraction an existing one has been removed.

IMHO they get amazing reviews from their guests customers because the guests customers don't know what was the typical guest customer experience was in the past. I strongly suspect that most of those who have been lucky enough to go many times since WDW opened would not give an amazing review of the current state of the parks since we did receive a much better experience long ago. Unfortunately most people in America have become accustomed to a much lower level of customer service than used to be reasonably expected.

 

[bpadair32]

But this whole thread is about the changing demographics of disney fans. Im going to put this as bluntly as possible. 90%(even this might be too low) of the people going to disney have ZERO interest in the history of Disney World or Walt himself. Even back in the day. You have a select group of people who do. So who is disney going to cater to? Calling people snobs for not caring as much as you is asinine at best and honestly makes you more of a snob because of it.

I bet you if you start asking people randomly in Animal Kingdom who Joe Rhode is, you will get blank looks. I am sorry, but you are clearly a minority when it comes to who disney is looking at to make happy.....

Umm, I am one of the ones that agree most people don't care nor should they have to about Disney history.

 

[bpadair32]

Nothing. Enjoy the parks however you want. But don't say the target audience hasn't shifted.

The target audience hasn't changed. What the target audience wants has (maybe, I am still not convinced that the "old-timers" in this thread were ever a majority).

 

[bigrigross]

Umm, I am one of the ones that agree most people don't care nor should they have to about Disney history.

Yeah sorry about that, I noticed I hit the wrong person to reply to. Sorry on phone and mobile isnt the best. I edited my comment to let people know my foolishness.

 

[LittleBuford]

There is nothing wrong with it. I am just going to come out and say it, some of the people on this thread are snobs that think if you do not know or care about Disney history as much as them, then your opinion on the parks is wrong or shouldn't count. That is a sad way to live your life, but ¯\(ツ)/¯

The best art (and I believe Disney is art at its best) is designed to speak on many levels. Yes, the people in this forum are better equipped than most to squeeze every bit of meaning out of the imagineers’ creativity, but it’s silly to expect everyone to be as interested or engaged.

To give an example: I can read Arabic and derive considerable enjoyment from deciphering the inscriptions in the Morocco pavilion. Others just see beautiful forms without caring what they say or mean. Both approaches are equally valid and indeed presupposed by the design of the pavilion itself.

 

[xdan0920]

The target audience hasn't changed. What the target audience wants has.

Don't be pedantic. It's unbecoming.

The target audience will technically never change. People with money to spend on vacations is the very general target audience. What has changed is that they are now aiming for people who view Walt Disney World as a very nice amusement park. So inside the larger target audience, they have shifted their aim. Why is this insulting?

 

[LittleBuford]

Nothing. Enjoy the parks however you want. But don't say the target audience hasn't shifted.

There was never a time when most guests knew or cared what the names referred to. It’s always been an added bonus for the more observant and interested among us.

 

[xdan0920]

To give an example: I can read Arabic and derive considerable enjoyment from deciphering the inscriptions in the Morocco pavilion. Others just see beautiful forms without caring what they say or mean. Both approaches are equally valid and indeed presupposed by the design of the pavilion itself.

This is you arguing with yourself. Most guests don't notice or care about such things. Forget if they can read it, they don't even notice the writing at all. The target audience has changed, and with it, those little details will disappear.

 

[Shouldigo12]

Not so fast with that. Some opinions weigh more than others. Not all opinions are equal.

I'm really not looking to get into another day long argument about how just because an opinion isn't yours doesn't mean it isn't valid. I think I've been pretty civil about it so far, but seriously guys. It's a little absurd it even has to be said.

 

[LittleBuford]

Most guests don't notice or care about such things.

Indeed. They care about the overall effect, the ambience. The details are an essential part of that ambience, even if, on an individual level, they escape most people’s notice. This has always been the way.

 

[bpadair32]

Don't be pedantic. It's unbecoming.

The target audience will technically never change. People with money to spend on vacations is the very general target audience. What has changed is that they are now aiming for people who view Walt Disney World as a very nice amusement park. So inside the larger target audience, they have shifted their aim. Why is this insulting?

I am not being pedantic, their audience has always been middle class people with money to spend who like Disney and its associated properties. That continues to be the audience. But there is now more of that audience that wants fun attractions and less looking for tiny details and names on windows.

There was never a time when most guests knew or cared what the names referred to. It’s always been an added bonus for the more observant and interested among us.

I think this is true.

I'm really not looking to get into another day long argument about how just because an opinion isn't yours doesn't mean it isn't valid. I think I've been pretty civil about it so far, but seriously guys. It's a little absurd it even has to be said.

Opinions are just that, they are opinions and therefore cannot be wrong or invalid.

 

[Frank the Tank]

On paper, I'm right in the sweet spot for nostalgia-based views of WDW (particularly EPCOT) since my family went every year from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s spanning my grade school and teen years. I then didn't visit WDW again until I brought my kids nearly two decades later, so I can see the differences (good and bad) pretty clearly. The IP "debate" also always fascinates me considering that Disney is the very definition of an IP company (and that was the case long before today). A few thoughts:

• A great ride is a great ride (whether IP-based or not) - Ultimately, the argument about whether "too much IP" is being used in the park is irrelevant. A great ride is ultimately a great ride. Big Thunder Mountain Railroad and Space Mountain aren't based on any IP, Splash Mountain is based on IP that Disney itself wants to erase from its history, Flight of Passage and Tower of Terror are based on non-Disney IP. There are also examples of poor/mediocre rides that use great IP (e.g. The Seas with Nemo & Friends). This isn't an argument for or against the use of IP in attractions. Ultimately, IP in and of itself isn't good or bad. That being said...
  
  
• Great IP can elevate an experience to another level - The advantage of the use of great IP in an immersive fashion is that the visitor does bring in pre-existing emotions that can elevate the experience to another level as long as the ride itself is still great (e.g. a bad ride is just being papered over with great IP). A perfect example is comparing Test Track in EPCOT with Radiator Springs Racers in DCA. Those attractions are the same ride from a technical perspective, but the visceral experience of being transported to the world of Cars completely blows away Test Track. To be sure, part of that is the immersive theming in Cars Land, but the point is that tying it to "Cars" the IP as opposed to "cars" in the generic sense really does transform the experience. It's also the reason why Star Tours still survives today while Body Wars was closed down years ago. There's something specific about the images on the screen transporting the rider to the Star Wars universe that create a visceral reaction based on that rider's pre-existing emotions regarding that IP that traveling through a body with the exact same ride system simply can't match. (Universal has shown us that with Harry Potter, too. Generic wizards and fantasy, which have long been theme park staples, couldn't ever create the immediate bond with the visitor that Harry Potter specifically brings to the table.) Further to that point...
  
  
• Expecting Disney to not use IP is like expecting McDonald's to not sell burgers - Think about the amount of new iconic IP that Disney has either created or acquired since EPCOT opened in 1982. The Little Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast/Aladdin/Lion King stretch of films were still years away from being made, Pixar didn't exist, Star Wars wasn't under Disney control and hadn't even completed its first trilogy, Marvel wasn't under Disney control and was largely just seen as Spider-Man and the Hulk at the time, etc. Reasonably putting myself into the shoes of a Disney executive whose livelihood is dependent on my decisions, why on Earth would I go out of my way to NOT use pre-existing IP in a new attraction, which is what I see a lot of nostalgic Disney fans advocating? One could argue that the only reason why Disney didn't have all IP-based attractions from the very beginning is that they simply didn't own it at the time in the way that they do now today. If anything, it's amazing how much IP that Disney is just letting sit on the shelf that could fit perfectly into the theme of a place like EPCOT (much less any other park), such as the science and technology behind Big Hero 6, community behind Zootopia, conservation behind Wall-E, etc. To that point regarding EPCOT...
  
  
• EPCOT always had IP-based attractions in the form of corporate sponsorships - This is where the 20/20 hindsight of age allows me to see things that I didn't notice when I was a kid. For instance, I loved the old Kitchen Cabaret show and I'm sure that many people here would consider that to be an example of a non-IP attraction. However, Kitchen Cabaret only existed because it was essentially a 20-minute ad for Kraft brands and products... which are all forms of IP. It was the same thing with the Universe of Energy with respect to Exxon and other corporate-sponsored attractions. Those attractions needed to be underwritten by corporate sponsors in order to exist in the first place and they used corporate synergy in the exact same way that today's rides integrate entertainment-based IP. Essentially, the "underwriting" of new attractions today is tied to the integration of IP from other parts of Disney. This isn't a right or wrong statement, but rather the business model has changed drastically from the 1980s and we need to look at it through that lens if we want to be reasonable.

To be sure, there are perfectly valid reasons to be critical of Disney. The center of Future World has been allowed to turn into a ghost town and old pavilions and buildings throughout WDW are sitting unused. I largely agree with the argument that existing attractions shouldn't be replaced when there is conceivably room to add new attractions without subtracting any others (e.g. The Great Movie Ride in DHS). Upcharge events are being increasingly relied upon by Disney to wring out extra revenue from events that used to just be included in the standard ticket price.

I would just push back on the reflexive anti-IP stance that is often seen in forums like this one. EPCOT wasn't really the IP-free land that we want to remember it (as it relied upon corporate sponsor dollars). At the same time, while IP shouldn't be used as a crutch to paper over poor or mediocre attractions, we also have to understand that IP can elevate attractions to another level and if we're expecting Disney to spend billions of dollars in improvements in theme parks, they justifiably would want to leverage their valuable IP library when spending those dollars. Note that laws regarding the length of copyright protection in the United States were extended in the past because Disney specifically lobbied heavily that it wanted/needed to extend the protection of the original Mickey Mouse renderings in Steamboat Willie. In essence, Disney is the very definition of intellectual property in the United States and that has been the case for a very long time. Trying to argue that Disney shouldn't act as such is a pointless exercise.