Distinction between "theme park enthusiast" and "Disney Adult"

[Animaniac93-98]

Because the ignorance of the fandom actively makes the experience worse for other people. If you're a fan of what Disney once did creatively in its parks, it's clear that a lot of that has been destroyed under Iger/Chapek and what has been destroyed has been replaced with a lesser product. The level of detail and creativity from the older eras of Imagineering are no longer there, because the goal is no longer themed environments and storytelling, but rather advertising Disney brands.

As an example, why is Animal Kingdom getting Tropical Americas? On the surface, it seems like it fits the theme of the park, but it's really a Disney Brand Land, including a Disney animal character carousel, Encanto and Indiana Jones. They have what to do with the park exactly? It's very clearly an approach of creative bankruptcy, seeking out a very specific demographic of people who don't enjoy themed spaces but instead go to the parks to view the iconography of Disney owned characters. Disney does almost nothing but this type of project any longer and the issue is that you'll see rabid fans at D23 clapping and screaming for every new mediocre thing that the company produces.

I think if you're the kind of person who does that, then you clearly qualify as a Disney Adult, as in, someone who engages with the Disney brand so superficially that you'll endorse everything it does. It's harmful because it's a huge form of positive feedback to the executives, who will continue to make more poor decisions that actively harm the parks. How many times have I seen people make excuses for this company when people point out its other issues too?

"Well don't go then, just shorter lines for me"

"No one ever did that attraction anyways, Disney is a business after all"

"Yeah, the garbage cans were overflowing and all the rides were down, but the magic still isn't gone"

The irony is this same demographic would like anything Disney does, so what's the point in setting their ambitions so low? If Disney can do whatever because it's their land and business, than why not truly do whatever comes to mind instead of more coasters in boxes, lounges and DVC towers? Why only preach to the converted?

Might as well try for something with more ambition that reaches a wider audience.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

how the heck do these “influencers” and disney adults spend hundreds on food/merch in every daily video they make?

If you make daily content on a popular topic it’s very easy to make some money.

 

[Chi84]

seeking out a very specific demographic of people who don't enjoy themed spaces but instead go to the parks to view the iconography of Disney owned characters.

I think if you're the kind of person who does that, then you clearly qualify as a Disney Adult, as in, someone who engages with the Disney brand so superficially that you'll endorse everything it does.

This is an example of the problems of speaking in terms of Disney adults.

1) The video defined Disney adult very narrowly as someone who has no personality apart from Disney.

2) You're defining a Disney adult as someone who does not appreciate the unique, beautifully-themed parks initially created by Disney and engages with the brand superficially.

The second demographic is much, much larger than the first. When the group gets that large it's hard to distinguish it from the general market of people who go to Disney parks.

The generations that grew up alongside Disney when it started and initially expanded are coming to an end now. You can blame people for this and call them Disney Adults or whatever but it's not going to change that fact. Disney is going after a new market - wrong or right this is on Disney management.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Translation….whhaaaaaaannn I don’t like something that other people like, or I don’t like the way other people enjoy the park, so I am going to complain about it.

I means seriously the wholier than though BS about a disposable income entertainment offering is just insufferable. No one, well except maybe the people who run Disney, gets to decide how people should or do look at WDW, or any other entertainment offering. People decide for themselves what they like, and what they don’t like. What they are willing to pay for, and what they aren’t. You can have your personal opinion. You can even talk about your personal opinion, if you have nothing better to do. But it’s just absolutely silly to sit there and try to say a market of people like X, or don’t value what I value, and they are somehow wrong. Or even worse, that a business shouldn’t cater to marker because their values/views are different than mine, especially where it could be argued that the different viewpoint is either in the majority as far as customer base, or profitability’s.

I mean seriously calling something harmful because it gives positive feedback? Again why because you don’t? So 10 people like something, are willing to spend money on it or defend it, but because you don’t like it that’s harmful? Get over yourself.

If kind of goes to the whole silly debate over what should be Disney Adult vs not. I mean you realize to a good size of the not Disney obsessed population, would argue that anyone willing to waste time on an internet fan board, debating nonsense about parks and a vacation destination when they are not there are all obsessed “Disney Adults”

People shouldn't applaud and cheer for the product being made worse, lazier, and dumber (while charging more and more money for it), for no other reason than the brand that they've aligned their identity with told them to cheer for it. That is what is happening. Disney is taking their parks that actually had artistic merit and cultural relevance and turning them into lazy, cynical plots of synergy tie-ins.

And before someone points out that the parks always had marketing synergy tie-ins, yes - and they used to make it work and fit organically and did more interesting things with it.

People are free to cheer for all of this, and we're free to be critical of it and call out people who eat it up. And I also believe that it is worth being vocal about it online because maybe, just maybe, enough conversations can get enough people to agree or snap out of their fandom to get Disney to notice and shift course. Maybe.

 

[Agent H]

People shouldn't applaud and cheer for the product being made worse, lazier, and dumber (while charging more and more money for it), for no other reason than the brand that they've aligned their identity with told them to cheer for it. That is what is happening. Disney is taking their parks that actually had artistic merit and cultural relevance and turning them into lazy, cynical plots of synergy tie-ins.

And before someone points out that the parks always had marketing synergy tie-ins, yes - and they used to make it work and fit organically and did more interesting things with it.

People are free to cheer for all of this, and we're free to be critical of it and call out people who eat it up. And I also believe that it is worth being vocal about it online because maybe, just maybe, enough conversations can get enough people to agree or snap out of their fandom to get Disney to notice and shift course. Maybe.

But what if you do enjoy Disney's current output (believe it or not there are good reasons for that beyond “ooh thing I like!) or what if someone doesn’t care for Disneys current output but still goes because of older attractions and entertainment? Should they stop going because other people don’t like going anymore? ( a totally valid opinion)

 

[DisneyHead123]

Because the ignorance of the fandom actively makes the experience worse for other people. If you're a fan of what Disney once did creatively in its parks, it's clear that a lot of that has been destroyed under Iger/Chapek and what has been destroyed has been replaced with a lesser product. The level of detail and creativity from the older eras of Imagineering are no longer there, because the goal is no longer themed environments and storytelling, but rather advertising Disney brands.

As an example, why is Animal Kingdom getting Tropical Americas? On the surface, it seems like it fits the theme of the park, but it's really a Disney Brand Land, including a Disney animal character carousel, Encanto and Indiana Jones. They have what to do with the park exactly? It's very clearly an approach of creative bankruptcy, seeking out a very specific demographic of people who don't enjoy themed spaces but instead go to the parks to view the iconography of Disney owned characters. Disney does almost nothing but this type of project any longer and the issue is that you'll see rabid fans at D23 clapping and screaming for every new mediocre thing that the company produces.

I think if you're the kind of person who does that, then you clearly qualify as a Disney Adult, as in, someone who engages with the Disney brand so superficially that you'll endorse everything it does. It's harmful because it's a huge form of positive feedback to the executives, who will continue to make more poor decisions that actively harm the parks. How many times have I seen people make excuses for this company when people point out its other issues too?

"Well don't go then, just shorter lines for me"

"No one ever did that attraction anyways, Disney is a business after all"

"Yeah, the garbage cans were overflowing and all the rides were down, but the magic still isn't gone"

1. First and foremost, it’s still wrong to belittle and make fun of people, even if you disagree with them.

2. Beyond that, I’m fairly certain most people just go after Disney Adults because they think they’re nerds. I don’t think people making “They’re so cringe!!!” videos have high minded ideals about the parks.

3. We have no idea why Disney makes the marketing decisions it does. “It’s clearly because Disney Adults exist” is a big stretch based on what evidence? Maybe it’s because parents buy more merch for their kids when IP is involved. Maybe IP is huge in South America, where many visitors hail from. Maybe the average American visitor prefers IP. Jumping to “because Disney Adults” is unfounded.

 

[Tom Morrow]

But what if you do enjoy Disney's current output (believe it or not there are good reasons for that beyond “ooh thing I like!) or what if someone doesn’t care for Disneys current output but still goes because of older attractions and entertainment? Should they stop going because other people don’t like going anymore? ( a totally valid opinion)

I mean, I guess it depends? For me, I enjoy some of Disney's current output and I still like the classic stuff, so I still go. But they are relentlessly going full steam ahead in the direction I don't like (and I am far from alone), to the point where in another 10 years there actually might not be enough left of the WDW that I liked for me to want to keep going.

Obviously the people that like that direction (the Disney-Adult aligned) are going to keep going. But Disney is failing to recognize that a significant amount of their visitors enjoyed their parks in spite of the Disney name, not because of it. This ignoring of their own past success and legacy is harming their parks' reputation and will continue to do so if they don't course-correct.

 

[Chi84]

I mean, I guess it depends? For me, I enjoy some of Disney's current output and I still like the classic stuff, so I still go. But they are relentlessly going full steam ahead in the direction I don't like (and I am far from alone), to the point where in another 10 years there actually might not be enough left of the WDW that I liked for me to want to keep going.

Obviously the people that like that direction (the Disney-Adult aligned) are going to keep going. But Disney is failing to recognize that a significant amount of their visitors enjoyed their parks in spite of the Disney name, not because of it. This ignoring of their own past success and legacy is harming their parks' reputation and will continue to do so if they don't course-correct.

All of this is going to happen as the result of the march of time. Nothing stays the same forever, even Disney.

 

[Tom Morrow]

2. Beyond that, I’m fairly certain most people just go after Disney Adults because they think they’re nerds. I don’t think people making “They’re so cringe!!!” videos have high minded ideals about the parks.

I don’t think it’s because they’re nerds. Nerd culture and fandom has been in and considered cool for well over a decade now.

I think it’s because it’s low hanging fruit for content that people cynically watch to feel better about themselves. They frame it as people who refuse to grow up, incorrectly assessing that anything Disney is only for children (it’s always been for everyone). But what it actually is is just another form of extreme fandom. Swap out their love of Disney for their love of Marvel and now they’re no longer infantilized, just regular nerds.

3. We have no idea why Disney makes the marketing decisions it does. “It’s clearly because Disney Adults exist” is a big stretch based on what evidence? Maybe it’s because parents buy more merch for their kids when IP is involved. Maybe IP is huge in South America, where many visitors hail from. Maybe the average American visitor prefers IP. Jumping to “because Disney Adults” is unfounded.

Again I think it’s because fandom culture is huge right now and has been. The parks have leaned into this with the explosion of single IP lands, which really kicked off with Hogsmeade. A big difference of course being that Disney was always about a cohesive themed experience, whereas Universal’s brand was always being a grab bag of IP. Having said that, Universal has been able to avoid their IP efforts feeling cynical in the way many of Disney’s changes have.

Anyway, combine the fandom culture with corporate America’s push toward short term gains, numbers-go-up at all costs approach over long term stability, and we get Disney leadership just lazily plopping fandom stuff anywhere and everywhere.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I don’t think it’s because they’re nerds. Nerd culture and fandom has been in and considered cool for well over a decade now.

I think it’s because it’s low hanging fruit for content that people cynically watch to feel better about themselves. They frame it as people who refuse to grow up, incorrectly assessing that anything Disney is only for children (it’s always been for everyone). But what it actually is is just another form of extreme fandom. Swap out their love of Disney for their love of Marvel and now they’re no longer infantilized, just regular nerds.

I halfway agree. I feel like you have to be the “right kind” of nerd to escape some level of mistreatment. (Some level - nerds of any stripe rarely fare well in middle school, but maybe it’s considered not ok to mock them online.) I think Disney Adults are just the “nerds even among nerds”. To the extent that “nerdy” is associated with “intelligent”, I think there’s some hard won respect there. But Disney Adults aren’t associated with intelligence one way or the other, so they’re more perceived as weak and / or flying in the face of traditional American values - grit, coolness / fashionableness (we may get grief for running around in athletic wear but we do sell fashion to much of the world), a focus on hustle culture and work… Displays of raw emotionality whilst engaged in something that doesn’t involve some manner of “hustle” (trying to be more fit, beautiful, athletic, and so on are given a pass) is frowned upon. Internet culture values competence over most things, and Disney Adults aren’t trying to highlight their wisdom or skill in any way.

Again I think it’s because fandom culture is huge right now and has been. The parks have leaned into this with the explosion of single IP lands, which really kicked off with Hogsmeade. A big difference of course being that Disney was always about a cohesive themed experience, whereas Universal’s brand was always being a grab bag of IP. Having said that, Universal has been able to avoid their IP efforts feeling cynical in the way many of Disney’s changes have.

Anyway, combine the fandom culture with corporate America’s push toward short term gains, numbers-go-up at all costs approach over long term stability, and we get Disney leadership just lazily plopping fandom stuff anywhere and everywhere.

It could be any number of things, but my guess is that IP is what sells, and it’s like fans complaining that simplistic pop songs top the charts while there’s a lot of music they think is much better. People admire artistry and it has a niche, but McDonald’s is still the number one restaurant in the US for a reason.

 

[Agent H]

I mean, I guess it depends? For me, I enjoy some of Disney's current output and I still like the classic stuff, so I still go. But they are relentlessly going full steam ahead in the direction I don't like (and I am far from alone), to the point where in another 10 years there actually might not be enough left of the WDW that I liked for me to want to keep going.

Obviously the people that like that direction (the Disney-Adult aligned) are going to keep going. But Disney is failing to recognize that a significant amount of their visitors enjoyed their parks in spite of the Disney name, not because of it. This ignoring of their own past success and legacy is harming their parks' reputation and will continue to do so if they don't course-correct.

I really don’t think so. As much I hate to say it I think things like lighting lane and excessive price increases probably harm their reputation more than replacing the rivers of America and muppetvision.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I really don’t think so. As much I hate to say it I think things like lighting lane and excessive price increases probably harm their reputation more than replacing the rivers of America and muppetvision.

Agreed. Even if I’m 100% against the change - something like rivers is a major investment. LL, cutting magic express, and price hikes are only a negative.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I really don’t think so. As much I hate to say it I think things like lighting lane and excessive price increases probably harm their reputation more than replacing the rivers of America and muppetvision.

Those are the big ones that are hurting Disney's reputation for sure, but I do feel that there are many that are losing their enthusiasm for Disney's parks because of all the changes, even if they might not engage with the parks closely enough to be able to articulate why.

 

[Agent H]

Those are the big ones that are hurting Disney's reputation for sure, but I do feel that there are many that are losing their enthusiasm for Disney's parks because of all the changes, even if they might not engage with the parks closely enough to be able to articulate why.

People will notice something’s missing for sure but I don’t think it will disrupt Disney’s business that much at the end of the day.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Because the ignorance of the fandom actively makes the experience worse for other people. If you're a fan of what Disney once did creatively in its parks, it's clear that a lot of that has been destroyed under Iger/Chapek has been replaced with a lesser product. The level of detail and creativity from the older eras of Imagineering are no longer there, because the goal is no longer themed environments and storytelling, but rather advertising Disney brands.

As an example, why is Animal Kingdom getting Tropical Americas? On the surface, it seems like it fits the theme of the park, but it's really a Disney Brand Land, including a Disney animal character carousel, Encanto and Indiana Jones. They have what to do with the park exactly? It's very clearly an approach of creative bankruptcy, seeking out a very specific demographic of people who don't enjoy themed spaces but instead go to the parks to view the iconography of Disney owned characters. Disney does almost nothing but this type of project any longer and the issue is that you'll see rabid fans at D23 clapping and screaming for every new mediocre thing that the company produces.

I think if you're the kind of person who does that, then you clearly qualify as a Disney Adult, as in, someone who engages with the Disney brand so superficially that you'll endorse everything it does. It's harmful because it's a huge form of positive feedback to the executives, who will continue to make more poor decisions that actively harm the parks. How many times have I seen people make excuses for this company when people point out its other issues too?

"Well don't go then, just shorter lines for me"

"No one ever did that attraction anyways, Disney is a business after all"

"Yeah, the garbage cans were overflowing and all the rides were down, but the magic still isn't gone"

Blud’s saying all of this and STILL defends TBA. LOL.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Because the ignorance of the fandom actively makes the experience worse for other people. If you're a fan of what Disney once did creatively in its parks, it's clear that a lot of that has been destroyed under Iger/Chapek has been replaced with a lesser product. The level of detail and creativity from the older eras of Imagineering are no longer there, because the goal is no longer themed environments and storytelling, but rather advertising Disney brands.

As an example, why is Animal Kingdom getting Tropical Americas? On the surface, it seems like it fits the theme of the park, but it's really a Disney Brand Land, including a Disney animal character carousel, Encanto and Indiana Jones. They have what to do with the park exactly? It's very clearly an approach of creative bankruptcy, seeking out a very specific demographic of people who don't enjoy themed spaces but instead go to the parks to view the iconography of Disney owned characters. Disney does almost nothing but this type of project any longer and the issue is that you'll see rabid fans at D23 clapping and screaming for every new mediocre thing that the company produces.

I think if you're the kind of person who does that, then you clearly qualify as a Disney Adult, as in, someone who engages with the Disney brand so superficially that you'll endorse everything it does. It's harmful because it's a huge form of positive feedback to the executives, who will continue to make more poor decisions that actively harm the parks. How many times have I seen people make excuses for this company when people point out its other issues too?

"Well don't go then, just shorter lines for me"

"No one ever did that attraction anyways, Disney is a business after all"

"Yeah, the garbage cans were overflowing and all the rides were down, but the magic still isn't gone"

So a Disney Adult is the opposite of a Disney Snob?

I’m in.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Well I will say that Tiana’s Bayou Adventure’s shortcomings have little to do with it being a shoehorned-in IP (Splash was too) and much more to do with Disney making a lot of weird decisions narratively and cheapening out on the show scenes, reducing them to one or two animatronics surrounded by just trees.

I do think Poseidon makes a good point though that a “Disney Adult” type’s main takeaway from the ride is: “why isn’t she wearing the dress I recognize??” (Actually a common complaint) and that is an example of adults engaging with the parks on the most superficial way.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Well I will say that Tiana’s Bayou Adventure’s shortcomings have little to do with it being a shoehorned-in IP (Splash was too) and much more to do with Disney making a lot of weird decisions narratively and cheapening out on the show scenes, reducing them to one or two animatronics surrounded by just trees.

I do think Poseidon makes a good point though that a “Disney Adult” type’s main takeaway from the ride is: “why isn’t she wearing the dress I recognize??” (Actually a common complaint) and that is an example of adults engaging with the parks on the most superficial way.

You’re joking…right?

 

[Chi84]

Blud’s saying all of this and STILL defends TBA. LOL.

Took you long enough

 

[Tom Morrow]

You’re joking…right?

About what?