Search results

I agree, they sort of have. But they will definitely want to de-emphasize any particular connection to historical fact or real-life locale.

So again.... to what end does it matter the quality of their past projects as it relates to the ROA?

As it is, they owe me nothing and I expect nothing. If I think the product they offer is worth the cost of admission I will go, but it's not like I'm owed something ahead of time.

Why? For what end? To suggest that no new projects should ever be undertaken because the budgets will be cut? Even the opening of Disneyland had it's budget cut. It's not a valid reason to downplay potential new product.

Why is it still appropriate? How do you have an honest conversation about european expansion into the indigenous lands in north america, and still make it fun and lighthearted enough for the kind of entertainment people want in a theme park? Why draw the connection and risk the controversy...

But especially true for a wooden boat designed to float. Why go to the trouble for a structure that doesn't need to serve the intended purpose? If you wanted a boat shaped souvenir store, why not build one from scratch meant to stay static and last longer, than keep putting effort into keeping a...

Eventually it would rot away and need to be repaired, which would be pretty expensive if it's just a bench at that point.

Wait... so does that mean time period is irrelevant to theme? 🤔

Maybe. Someday. But it's been 70 years without really any indication yet ...

I don't see a future where Cars taking over Frontierland is going to have a negative impact on attendance or satisfaction. So, given that Cars land will be a success for the park, that either means: It fits within the "rules" for the Frontierland theme. The "rules" don't really mean much. And...

Not really. I provided lots of evidence in this thread where theme was basically abandoned for a cool new idea. Something they have been doing rather successfully for some 70 years now. If you want to believe that there are some "rules" to theme park design as a way of validating a fear of...

Oh I read it. The statement that bad ride placement can erode the thematic coherence of the parks is nothing but spin. It's not real at all. That's why there are no real examples of it ever happening.

If someone says something is real, what's wrong in asking for proof?

Real in what measurable way? Do fewer people come? Do they spend less money? Can you cite an example where thematic inconsistency actually resulted in a measurable and recorded decline for any metric at the parks?

Maybe not the theme but definitely the place making. I'm hoping that, by building up mountains and water features along what is now the boardwalk, they can give the area a sort of wilderness feeling not unlike Ketchikan up in Alaska.

This is... moving the goal posts. Now the idea is that thematic consistency is important, unless something better came along or it's not replacing something else? Basically just sets up a scenario where a) anything you don't like doesn't fit the "rules" and b) only old stuff that isn't...

Yes they have... which is why it's so weird to keep suggesting they need to stay the same.

Adding the Matterhorn maybe? They didn't even know what land it was in when it first opened. Or maybe Small World being in its own 'land' when it opened? Lincoln on Main Street? Caribbean pirates in New Orleans? Or what about carving New Orleans out of Frontierland to begin with? There's lots...

They're not really doing anything with theme that Walt and company didn't do 70 years ago. They will be fine.

Is there an example of a good ride that failed because it was put in the wrong area?