deleted

[xdan0920]

When you say:



Because of someone's opinion of a ride you are being a jerk. You owe that poster an apology.

I don’t see it that way. It’s not an insult. WDW fans are changing. That’s not insulting in any way shape or form.

 

[Damon7777]

Do you deny that it has impressive effects and high-quality animatronics? To be clear, that's not the same as asking whether you like the ride or approve of its placement in World Showcase.

I like the attraction.
BUT yes, the AA's do not impress. Impressive are: Potatoe Head, Hopper, Wicked Witch of West and S.I.R in the United States.

Lava monster in Tokyo and the bears in Hong Kong' Grizzly Gulch and Phantom in Paris.

Universal has high quality too: Sorting Hat at Forbidden Journey and witch doctor of Kong
But the most impressive AA's are Gringots Goblins in the the bank.

Sorry but video faces on our 7 dwarfs don't impress nor does on the frozen sisters.

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

Who decides if it fits the mission statement? The park owner.



This is subjective.



This is also subjective.



FEA was IMO far superior to Maelstrom. SGE is IMO one of the worst attractions ever. Notice that I did not present either of those opinions as fact.

Sounds like someone is salty. Just imagine that they wanted to put an Aladdin ride in Tomorrowland. Would that fit the theme? NO. It's not subjective. Yes there are some exceptions, but most at lease loosely tie into the location somehow.

Yes, Disney chooses what the mission statement is, but they don't always follow it. If they don't like the mission statement of a park, then they should change it. You are pulling at straws here.

 

[LittleBuford]

Sorry but video faces on our 7 dwarfs don't impress nor does on the frozen sisters.

The Olaf animatronic has been widely praised, and Elsa’s movements in the “Let It Go” scene are incredibly lifelike, but OK.

 

[Trackmaster]

I was talking in this thread earlier and came back, didn't read it all, but a common thread is that a lot of people think that the newer rides aren't as good as the older rides:

Keep in mind, a special ingredient that Disney uses -- as well as every other park -- is that their target audience is somebody under the age of 18. For some parks it may be Elementary school kids, for other parks it may be high school kids. But if their target audience was somebody in their 30's or 40's, they'd have to put a ton of more money into their rides, and they'd have to be immaculate with working out the plotholes and making the rides as realistic and immersive as possible.

Kind of like the saying, "The best audience is a drunk audience" -- the best audience for theme park rides are young people who are OK with mediocre quality and will think its the best thing ever.

 

[tl77]

I don't think getting mad at a new generation of fans for having different tastes is the "solution", but I agree that steamrolling over attractions that people love and think of as classics is a "problem"

There's always going to be new fans drawn to the parks for new reasons and to see the new characters. When WDW first opened "Robin Hood" was the new Disney animated film in theaters at the time, and thankfully the Robin Hood "walk around characters" have always been in Magic Kingdom for that reason, the movie wasn't their biggest hit, but the Disney company seems to understand that people who come to the Magic Kingdom have a sentimental attachment to the Robin Hood characters. When The Little Mermaid opened 20 years later, she immediately became a character people wanted to see in the parks too, and that's always going to happen and it should continue to happen. That's part of the experience of going there, is seeing these characters you love and seeing attractions based on those characters.

I'm old enough to remember "before there was EPCOT". I remember seeing the monorail beams being hoisted in place along World Drive heading toward this "big ball thing" that people were calling EPCOT, and no one was really sure what "EPCOT" was in those days, but when it finally opened, Journey into Imagination was the most popular thing in the entire park, it was the only Future World attraction you had to wait any significant amount of time to see. It was new and different, there was no "movie tie-in" with, but it still "felt like a Disney attraction", Dreamfinder and Figment appeared to be "Disney characters" just as much as The Pirates of the Caribbean or the Ghosts in the Haunted Mansion. Dreamfinder and Figment sang a song written by the Sherman Brothers... and you don't get much more "Disney" than that...

Everybody loved that ride when it opened, me, my brother and sister as kids, my parents, my grandma... people of all ages loved the experience of the Journey into Imagination ride so much, that when they got off it? They bought merchandise for it! Lots of merch! Baseball caps of Figment's head with horns on top, plush dolls of Figment, t-shirts, beach towels, key chains, whatever they could get... and if that wasn't enough? The Dreamfinder and Figment were the first real "must do Meet and Greet" on property. In those days if you saw Mickey Mouse walking around the parks you considered yourself lucky, it was pretty cool to get a picture with Mickey, but you "hoped" you'd see the guy dressed like Dreamfinder with the Figment puppet, because it was amazing, just for the simple fact that they "talked"! Mickey Mouse was pretty good, but he didn't talk. Dreamfinder talked in Dreamfinder's voice, and then he made the puppet talk in Figment's voice, and it blew little kids minds. You just saw them on the ride but then there they were! right in front of you! they were real! and they were talking "to you"! I can remember being 10 or 12, understanding how the puppet show worked but my little brother and sister were mesmerized by Figment talking to them, and I remember looking at this guy in a fake beard and a purple tuxedo, pouring sweat in the god awful heat and humidity of August in Florida, and thinking "I don't want to say anything out loud and spoil the illusion for my little brother and sister, but I hope you know how much we appreciate this. Clearly you're uncomfortable in this outfit, but I hope you know what you're doing here is really special to us, and everybody who comes through here." If you're in you-late 30's/mid-40's and you still love Figment, the guy with puppet who made you think Figment was real as a little kid, probably has a lot to do with "why you love that particular Disney IP"

The problem isn't "IP", everything in the parks is some type of "Intellectual Property" that they hope they guests will fall in love with and spend money to come see, that's kinda how this whole "theme park" thing works, but the "Original" Journey into Imagination is something that the guests were already in love with, it was always in the EPCOT park, it sold merch, it was something that most people seemed to love from the moment it opened, and it was something that the guests never stopped being in love with. 15 years in it needed updating, but the sponsor, Kodak, didn't want to spend the money to update things... and in case you don't know, Kodak was a company that made picture film for about 100 years, and din't seem to realized in the late 90's that digital cameras were going to make their film obsolete, and they've been teetering on the verge of bankruptcy for about 20 years, so clearly Kodak doesn't make good business decisions or know how to invest in the future so well... but Kodak is the reason the original ride is gone, and for some reason Disney refuses to bring it back

If they knock the building down, or put something else inside it, to me that won't fix the "problem", it'll just mean they're either totally incompetent at running theme parks, or that they really don't care anymore to make their most loyal "guests happy", and I'm not sure which is worse, but I'm getting really sick of seeing that glass pyramid and being heart broken by my memories of what it used to be, and don't know why I should keep coming a place that makes me "un-happy" ...if they don't care, why should I? They sure don't seem to be the guys sweating it out in the purple tuxedo to make the kids happy anymore

 

[Paper straw fan]

People hate upcharges because Disney has removed value from tickets with the upcharge events. The after hours events used to commence after the park closed for the day to regular people. Now they close the park early for the events, taking time away from other people. They’ve extended the party seasons as well, also taking value away from the regular tickets those days. Most people don’t mind upcharges when they don’t effect them, but when they do they get upset. People don’t like when their options shrink.

They’ve cut back on hours to charge for bonus time now.

This I agree with- plus those events used to sell a limited number of tickets, at least adding some real value to the night event- but the last couple of NSSH we went to we’re just as slammed, if not more, than a typical weekend day (and this was on a weekday)

I’d at least understand if it was magic hours, adding value for resort guests, but this is similar to video games where the company keeps making you pay full price for a game, and then locks away content behind a paywall.

 

[Sneezy62]

... Cause trust me, no one in mass was going to Epcot because its fun. You go for food festivals and thats pretty much it.

I think you may have shown the real divide here. How do we define “fun”. If your definition of fun is seeing a 3 minute version of a 90 minute cartoon, or a 7 minute simulator ride from an action movie then the parks are going in the right direction. If your idea of fun is more tied to seeing new ideas or exploring ideas that open your minds to new ways of seeing the world then maybe not.

It’s A Small World is today viewed as a harmless classic ride that is kept around for reasons of nostalgia. The Hall of Presidents is only as controversial as whoever occupies the office in its modern iteration. These attractions opened in 1971, in the deepest South surrounded by militantly segregated communities. There was no love for Mr. Lincoln or his Emancipation Proclamation in West Orange County. These hokey little attractions and their accompanying integrated trolley shows and parades opened a lot of minds in Florida Georgia and Alabama.

For the first 20 years WDW took risks and tried to make the world at large a better place. I truly think that much of the grumbling about IP being forced into places that could be better served by unfettered optimism and “hokey” ideas come from a desire to see Disney rise back up as a risk taker and idea promoter. But what do I know... I’m just an old kid who grew up with a castle on one side and astronauts on the other.

 

[SourcererMark79]

But don't get me started on Scooters!

Beeeep Beeeep beeep Beeeep

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

This thread is almost a dumpster fire. Third only to the Buzzy thread and the mobility thread.

 

[Frank the Tank]

I keep seeing people going back and forth about whether a change is right or wrong, which is indeed subjective. What isn't subjective, however, is general common sense and logic. Here's how attraction idea is "right" or "wrong":

1. What is the mission statement/overall theme of the park you want to place the attraction in? Does it fit this theme? Yes: continue on to number 2. No: Try a different park or start over.

2. Does the attraction fit the theme of the area and not clash with its surroundings? (IE Tomorrowland, Future World, Hollywood Blv. , etc) Yes: It's the right attraction. No: Chose a different area, revise the concept or start over.

3. (For replacement attractions) Is it on par with the previous attraction or better? Does it fix any previous issues if applicable? Does it meet the other two points I made above? If Yes: It's the right replacement. If no: Go back, revise or start over.

Fixed.

I think this looks reasonable on paper.

However, I also believe the practical issue is that a lot of the old school WDW fans look at virtually every proposed IP-based attraction and invariably concludes that the answer to Question 1 is that the Magic Kingdom is the best place thematically (e.g. “Every Disney Princess attraction should be in Fantasyland”) and/or nothing proposed fits the original theme of Epcot. They’re not necessarily wrong... but they’re also not facing the practical reality that (a) every attraction going forward is going to be based on IP and it isn’t even a debate within Disney, (b) MK isn’t where new attractions are needed compared to the rest of WDW and ( c) if people want new attractions at Epcot, they’re going to be IP-based without question. (To be sure, people seem to be generally OK with DHS being a random IP dumping ground.)

The fact of the matter is that the boundaries of fitting into a theme are going to be stretched. Frozen Ever After (which many are debating here yet again) is a great example. Putting aside the quality of the ride, a “strict constructionist” view of theme (AKA the view of the EPCOT theme in 1982) would be that FEA doesn’t fit because (a) Arrendale isn’t a place in Norway and (b) Epcot shouldn’t have IPs in the first place.

A more expansive view of theme (AKA how Disney would look at it today) would be that (a) FEA is from a story based on Scandinavian culture that generally fits into a Scandinavian pavilion and (b) Epcot has to transition to having more IP attractions in order to be relevant going forward.

What we’re seeing is that what constitutes a “theme” is evolving in the eyes of Disney and that they’re going to take a much more expansive view of what’s acceptable when balanced with a clear mandate to use IP in new attractions.

To be sure, I don’t think people are wrong if they take the strict constructionist view of what the theme should be. It’s a perfectly valid subjective opinion. However, I also don’t think Disney is wrong when it wants/needs to leverage its IP and that’s actually more objective from a business standpoint (e.g. there is no reasonable executive in any industry today that wouldn’t use the IP assets of Disney when attractions cost tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars).

 

[RandySavage]

^You touch on the great trap of the Artform. Theme parks are a creative medium (like film, but even more complex) but because they are such a wildly-expensive artform and have so many commercial arms that other artforms do not, a non-creative Business Administrator (for the most part) gets the say on their general direction & on how they are shaped over decades. Of course, the modern theme park as we know it was invented by one visionary artist who became a business titan, not a career administrator beholden to investors.

It would be as if a film Studio Owner/COO was in charge of the story outline/beats of every film his Studio produces, and directors (WDI) were hired simply to execute the businessman's thoughts on what movies should be.

No film director would want to make nothing but sequels and established franchise pics over his career (the equivalent of only creating IP attractions), but a Studio Head would be perfectly happy doing such if it meant the most MONEY (which it does at the moment). The problem with this strategy is, in movies, who's going to create the next original idea that will spawn a new Franchise?
In theme parks, who's going to create the next Pirates or Haunted Mansion or Space Mountain if we're looking only at IP spin-offs for the rest of our lives?

 

[Shouldigo12]

^You touch on the great trap of the Artform. Theme parks are a creative medium (like film, but even more complex) but because they are such a wildly-expensive artform and have so many commercial arms that other artforms do not, a non-creative Business Administrator (for the most part) gets the say on their general direction & on how they are shaped over decades. Of course, the modern theme park as we know it was invented by one visionary artist who became a business titan, not a career administrator beholden to investors.

It would be as if a film Studio Owner/COO was in charge of the story outline/beats of every film his Studio produces, and directors (WDI) were hired simply to execute the businessman's thoughts on what movies should be.

No film director would want to make nothing but sequels and established franchise pics over his career (the equivalent of only creating IP attractions), but a Studio Head would be perfectly happy doing such if it meant the most MONEY (which it does at the moment). The problem with this strategy is, in movies, who's going to create the next original idea that will spawn a new Franchise?
In theme parks, who's going to create the next Pirates or Haunted Mansion or Space Mountain if we're looking only at IP spin-offs for the rest of our lives?

The problem with endless movie sequels though is that its essentially the same formula and characters over and over again though, right? With IP based rides, Imagineers can still switch things up. They can still create imaginative and original rides. The only difference is that those will have familiar characters or settings, as opposed to non-IP based rides.

 

[RandySavage]

The problem with endless movie sequels though is that its essentially the same formula and characters over and over again though, right? With IP based rides, Imagineers can still switch things up. They can still create imaginative and original rides. The only difference is that those will have familiar characters or settings, as opposed to non-IP based rides.

I get that and I dig great IP rides that support a land's and park's theme and take familiar stories/characters to new places (I also enjoy franchise movies/sequels). But how nice would it be to get something unfamiliar, new, unexpected, never-before-seen and experience without expectation on occasion.

 

[Figments Friend]

G

I don't think getting mad at a new generation of fans for having different tastes is the "solution", but I agree that steamrolling over attractions that people love and think of as classics is a "problem"

There's always going to be new fans drawn to the parks for new reasons and to see the new characters. When WDW first opened "Robin Hood" was the new Disney animated film in theaters at the time, and thankfully the Robin Hood "walk around characters" have always been in Magic Kingdom for that reason, the movie wasn't their biggest hit, but the Disney company seems to understand that people who come to the Magic Kingdom have a sentimental attachment to the Robin Hood characters. When The Little Mermaid opened 20 years later, she immediately became a character people wanted to see in the parks too, and that's always going to happen and it should continue to happen. That's part of the experience of going there, is seeing these characters you love and seeing attractions based on those characters.

I'm old enough to remember "before there was EPCOT". I remember seeing the monorail beams being hoisted in place along World Drive heading toward this "big ball thing" that people were calling EPCOT, and no one was really sure what "EPCOT" was in those days, but when it finally opened, Journey into Imagination was the most popular thing in the entire park, it was the only Future World attraction you had to wait any significant amount of time to see. It was new and different, there was no "movie tie-in" with, but it still "felt like a Disney attraction", Dreamfinder and Figment appeared to be "Disney characters" just as much as The Pirates of the Caribbean or the Ghosts in the Haunted Mansion. Dreamfinder and Figment sang a song written by the Sherman Brothers... and you don't get much more "Disney" than that...

Everybody loved that ride when it opened, me, my brother and sister as kids, my parents, my grandma... people of all ages loved the experience of the Journey into Imagination ride so much, that when they got off it? They bought merchandise for it! Lots of merch! Baseball caps of Figment's head with horns on top, plush dolls of Figment, t-shirts, beach towels, key chains, whatever they could get... and if that wasn't enough? The Dreamfinder and Figment were the first real "must do Meet and Greet" on property. In those days if you saw Mickey Mouse walking around the parks you considered yourself lucky, it was pretty cool to get a picture with Mickey, but you "hoped" you'd see the guy dressed like Dreamfinder with the Figment puppet, because it was amazing, just for the simple fact that they "talked"! Mickey Mouse was pretty good, but he didn't talk. Dreamfinder talked in Dreamfinder's voice, and then he made the puppet talk in Figment's voice, and it blew little kids minds. You just saw them on the ride but then there they were! right in front of you! they were real! and they were talking "to you"! I can remember being 10 or 12, understanding how the puppet show worked but my little brother and sister were mesmerized by Figment talking to them, and I remember looking at this guy in a fake beard and a purple tuxedo, pouring sweat in the god awful heat and humidity of August in Florida, and thinking "I don't want to say anything out loud and spoil the illusion for my little brother and sister, but I hope you know how much we appreciate this. Clearly you're uncomfortable in this outfit, but I hope you know what you're doing here is really special to us, and everybody who comes through here." If you're in you-late 30's/mid-40's and you still love Figment, the guy with puppet who made you think Figment was real as a little kid, probably has a lot to do with "why you love that particular Disney IP"

The problem isn't "IP", everything in the parks is some type of "Intellectual Property" that they hope they guests will fall in love with and spend money to come see, that's kinda how this whole "theme park" thing works, but the "Original" Journey into Imagination is something that the guests were already in love with, it was always in the EPCOT park, it sold merch, it was something that most people seemed to love from the moment it opened, and it was something that the guests never stopped being in love with. 15 years in it needed updating, but the sponsor, Kodak, didn't want to spend the money to update things... and in case you don't know, Kodak was a company that made picture film for about 100 years, and din't seem to realized in the late 90's that digital cameras were going to make their film obsolete, and they've been teetering on the verge of bankruptcy for about 20 years, so clearly Kodak doesn't make good business decisions or know how to invest in the future so well... but Kodak is the reason the original ride is gone, and for some reason Disney refuses to bring it back

If they knock the building down, or put something else inside it, to me that won't fix the "problem", it'll just mean they're either totally incompetent at running theme parks, or that they really don't care anymore to make their most loyal "guests happy", and I'm not sure which is worse, but I'm getting really sick of seeing that glass pyramid and being heart broken by my memories of what it used to be, and don't know why I should keep coming a place that makes me "un-happy" ...if they don't care, why should I? They sure don't seem to be the guys sweating it out in the purple tuxedo to make the kids happy anymore

Great post.


May I share your comments about your experiences at Epcot back in the day over in the 'Imagination' thread currently going over in the 'News and Rumors' section?

I would like to share this with other fans of the Oringinal 'Journey Into Imagination' Attraction who can relate to your thoughts.

-

 

[TheDisneyMom]

In the "Inside Out Replacing Imagination" thread, it was recently revealed by @marni1971 that there is a possibility of the entire Imagination Pavilion being demolished, including the removal of Figment altogether. Shortly after this was revealed, I made the following comment in that thread, and @nated1226 suggested that an entire thread be created discussing my post.



Before I dive further into this, I want to clarify that I don't "hate" anyone specifically. I should have worded my first sentence a bit differently, because I was trying to say that I hate the direction that the fanbase is going.

So over the past several years, we have seen constantly rising prices, and many classic attractions have been removed in favor of attractions based on IP. While some IP attractions rightfully belong in the parks, there are many that are placed where they are unwanted by what I will call the "old style" Disney fans. Some examples would include Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout in DCA, UP: A Great Bird Adventure in DAK, and Frozen Ever After in EPCOT. It is also widely known that Walt Disney World has not received a new non-IP attraction since Expedition Everest opened in 2006. The question is why? Why has Disney abandoned what made them the king of themed entertainment in the first place, by bringing us things that we never knew we wanted, like Pirates of the Caribbean, Kilimanjaro Safaris, Horizons, Great Movie Ride, or the Enchanted Tiki Room? Up until recently, most, but not all, IP based attractions were reserved for Fantasyland, and those that weren't were used very carefully, such as Splash Mountain and Twilight Zone Tower of Terror. We are now living in a time where careful placement of IP has gone out the window, and we are seeing an unprecedented amount of IP attractions replacing old favorites.

So what changed? My theory is the fanbase.

With the rise of social media over the past several years, literally anybody, anywhere, can get behind a screen and voice their opinion, no matter how misguided it may be. This has caused lots of tension in society in general, not just among Disney fans. Before the rise of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc, Disney fans would congregate almost exclusively on forums such as this one. We were relatively unnoticed, and Disney had no reason to change their ways of doing business, because what they had been doing for decades worked extremely well. But now, Disney fans use new platforms to discuss the parks, with Twitter becoming the main hub for people to voice their thoughts. Unfortunately, a small group of people that had little understanding of what made the parks great began to grow, and they began to compete with each other for YouTube views, Twitter likes, and Instagram follows. These people often fight to be the first to purchase the newest popcorn buckets, review the newest cupcake flavor, or experience new attractions, without fully enjoying the experience because they are standing behind a smartphone camera and posting their location on the internet in real time for bragging rights.

So what is wrong with this?

The problem with these people is that they are far too often very soft when it comes to criticising Disney, and many of them glorify every single thing with the Disney name attached. Many of them could be compared to sheep, because they blindly go along with anything Disney does. This has caused Disney to become lazy with things that they paid extremely close attention to in the past, such as theming show buildings. For example, the very first "land" ever built in a Disney park, Main Street USA at Disneyland, was designed so that the buildings theme would be visible from every possible guest view, even outside of the park, whereas now, in the exact same theme park, the newest land, Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge (which qualifies as IP being shoehorned where it does not belong) is only themed from inside the park. Go to the top of the parking garage or the road behind Disneyland, and you will see that Galaxy's Edge is nothing but a facade attached to a warehouse.

Another issue with the new fans is that because they will accept whatever Disney throws their way, Disney knows that they can get away with basically anything, such as dramatic price increases or replacing classic attractions with very little fallout, whereas 20 or 25 years ago, they knew that it would be controversial. They now replace whatever doesn't make enough money for them, and the replacement attractions are typically built with the intent to sell merchandise. Its a win-win in Disney's eyes. They appease their "fans" (the ones that love everything Disney does and will drool over a 2 minute ride replacing an iconic 10 minute ride), and they make money from the general public (the once in a lifetime guests), who generally watch a movie at home, go to WDW and ride the corresponding ride, and take home a souvenir. I'm sure this is why Disney is now considering the removal of the Imagination Pavilion, because as sad as it is, a ride based off of a Pixar movie will sell more toys and shirts than Figment ever will, simply because of marketing.

So what can be done?

The "old style" fans have largely been silenced and pushed out by the new "hip" fans, and I fully expect that to continue. I never thought it would happen to this website, but I have even started to see it here. Those of us that care about preserving iconic experiences and attractions need to push back harder than ever before. We need to use the some of the same tactics that the new fans use, such as purchasing merchandise that is based on classic attractions. We should also be writing to Disney executives voicing our concerns with the current direction, and when we see someone defending a terrible Disney rumor or decision, we should push back and explain to them (politely) that what is happening is wrong and bad for the parks. If we continue to be silenced by the new majority, I can see a day where so many old school Disney experiences are lost that it will be too late.

We still have time. Some things have sadly been lost forever, but we need to focus on preserving what we still have, and the hope is that we can even undo some of the worst offenses someday, such as a removal of Pixar Pier and a triumphant return of Dreamfinder to the Imagination Pavilion.

I still have hope.

Disney Pulitzer Prize post. This single piece of explanatory literature (yes, literature) encompasses all that we, as 35 year Disney World veterans, have been commiserating about for years. Disney is losing it's uniqueness, it's quiet dignity, it's superiority, because a generation of hip thrill seekers want the slow dark ride, which, if they weren't careful, might have actually taught them something, to die a quick death. It has become obvious, of late, that imagineering has given way to roller coater construction. That Mickey is diminished by new intellectual property. We just returned from a 2 week WDW vacation. We spent the least amount of time in the parks, as we ever have. For the first time in 35 years, we discussed an alternate vacation destination. Why? Because Disney has become a Six Flags type of resort, with thrill rides replacing attractions, with cartoons dumbing down every attraction. Additionally, costs are soaring, with rules outweighing magical experiences, ghastly pylons appearing everywhere for inefficient overhead transportation ruining the pristine beauty, crowds making many experiences disastrous, and the list goes on.
I'd like to thank this poster for identifying the problem. The fanbase has changed, and by no means for the better. It is sad. And to serve them, Disney will willingly give up what made it unique and great. Disney has lost it's courage, and it's cowardice to try to retain the integrity of Epcot Center and other park attractions, is showing through.

 

[bigrigross]

Meet today’s WDW fan everybody.

Actually you need to restate that. It’s called meet the majority of fans of Disney since the golden age of Disney. It’s so funny the way you act on here. You are clearly so much of a minority that you reply with such disdain towards Disney because it doesn’t subscribe to the smaller fan base of Disney. It’s quite sad and honestly I feel sorry for you. And you know what, it makes me feel quite happy that you are unhappy. If you made the decisions, Walt Disney world would be nothing but a chucky cheeses with those disturbingly broke animatronic figures and a plaque stating what everything means.

 

[bigrigross]

I think you may have shown the real divide here. How do we define “fun”. If your definition of fun is seeing a 3 minute version of a 90 minute cartoon, or a 7 minute simulator ride from an action movie then the parks are going in the right direction. If your idea of fun is more tied to seeing new ideas or exploring ideas that open your minds to new ways of seeing the world then maybe not.

It’s A Small World is today viewed as a harmless classic ride that is kept around for reasons of nostalgia. The Hall of Presidents is only as controversial as whoever occupies the office in its modern iteration. These attractions opened in 1971, in the deepest South surrounded by militantly segregated communities. There was no love for Mr. Lincoln or his Emancipation Proclamation in West Orange County. These hokey little attractions and their accompanying integrated trolley shows and parades opened a lot of minds in Florida Georgia and Alabama.

For the first 20 years WDW took risks and tried to make the world at large a better place. I truly think that much of the grumbling about IP being forced into places that could be better served by unfettered optimism and “hokey” ideas come from a desire to see Disney rise back up as a risk taker and idea promoter. But what do I know... I’m just an old kid who grew up with a castle on one side and astronauts on the other.

I’m sorry to say, there is no divide. Unless you consider the side the money is on the heaviest. Education doesn’t sell well especially with the internet. Epcot’s technology is so far behind the times, no one is learning anything there. Only thing it has going for it is the food and drinks. I don’t say this as someone who goes only for the festival as I LOVE learning and constantly enjoy learning. But as someone who sees where (who) Disney is focusing on. The people who went during the 70’s and 80’ are no longer the target audience. The target audience is now the 90’s and later. And eventually Disney will shift from us and on to the next generation. Expecting otherwise is ignorance to business needs and those of the shareholders.

 

[xdan0920]

Actually you need to restate that. It’s called meet the majority of fans of Disney since the golden age of Disney. It’s so funny the way you act on here. You are clearly so much of a minority that you reply with such disdain towards Disney because it doesn’t subscribe to the smaller fan base of Disney. It’s quite sad and honestly I feel sorry for you. And you know what, it makes me feel quite happy that you are unhappy. If you made the decisions, Walt Disney world would be nothing but a chucky cheeses with those disturbingly broke animatronic figures and a plaque stating what everything means.

Sheesh

 

[SourcererMark79]

Start listing places/experiences that have remain unchanged for 50 years.
Air travel? No more meals, smaller leg room.
Full service gas stations where they fill tires and clean windows?
Supermarkets where cashiers smile and bag your groceries?
Watching television and there wasn't 5 minutes of commercials?
Receiving a hand written letter from a friend or family member?

My point is that society and culture changes, based on technology, economy, business profitability etc. Not all changes are necessarily better, but it's happening. A company can either embrace these shifting "norms" or hold on to they way it's always been.
The parks walk a fine line between both, and there will always be folks who lean toward one side (guest experience vs shareholder, refurb vs build something new)

It's a hot mess, but I still love going