A Boys Letter to the Disney Cruise Line

J

JT3000

Well-Known Member
ArielLover said:
The OP said "invested in" not built. Test Track went through a refurb.
Click to expand...

No...

The Empress Lilly said:
WDW invested in two attractions last year. Mermaid the princess one, and Test Track the cars one. One for the girls, one for the boys. And yet the internets didn't stop crying and whining about WDW only building something for girls.
Click to expand...

But this is beside the point. I don't consider Test Track 2.0 a new addition, regardless of how that premise is worded. I knew some would debate this, hence the wry smiley. ;)
 
216bruce

216bruce

Well-Known Member
Attractions have a gender? It's a shame that some folks feel the need to divide the world into male and female for everything. Their and their kids' loss. When my kids were little in the 90's and we took them to the park they were pretty much equally excited to meet princesses, villians, princes, mice, ducks, etc and get their autographs.
Heaven forbid a boy wants to meet a princess (give him a few years and he'll be all over them).
 
DfromATX

DfromATX

Well-Known Member
ddbowdoin said:
does the average boy care? lol... nope

this is like a boy complaining he can't do bipiddy bobiddy boo (or whatever the hell its called)
Click to expand...

LOL Yep! My son would probably run away if Little Mermaid came towards him. I think there's plenty for girls AND boys to do. So there's not many characters for boys... I can't see my sons waiting in line to get autographs for characters anyway. There's a lot of other things for them to do and see.
 
DfromATX

DfromATX

Well-Known Member
As far as the comlaint letter goes, I don't see an 8 year old coming up with those ideas without some prompting from his parents. If he was truly "sad" then his parents should have done some exploring and encouraged some other activities for him to do. I've never been on a Disney ship, but I'm sure there's LOTS to do.
 
HM Spectre

HM Spectre

Well-Known Member
The thing is that a lot of the stuff at WDW that's for "boys" can be enjoyed by everyone of all ages. Pirates, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Test Track etc. are all fun because adventure/excitement has universal appeal, not because it's directed at boys. On the other hand, some of the stuff for girls is really only targeted at them. There aren't many boys who are going to want to go to the Bippity Boppity Boutique ;)
 
MarkTwain

MarkTwain

Well-Known Member
HM Spectre said:
The thing is that a lot of the stuff at WDW that's for "boys" can be enjoyed by everyone of all ages. Pirates, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Test Track etc. are all fun because adventure/excitement has universal appeal, not because it's directed at boys. On the other hand, some of the stuff for girls is really only targeted at them. There aren't many boys who are going to want to go to the Bippity Boppity Boutique ;)
Click to expand...

I once heard a quote along the lines of "You can sell a man's car to a woman but you can't sell a woman's car to a man." I think that (sadly) rings true to American culture in general and how we view gender roles. I think that reflects WDW and Disneyland as well - both were created reflecting the relatively robust interests of an American man, but apparently end up coming off as gender-neutral. The reality is that there may not be much Disney can do (much less should) to specifically target a male audience.

I personally am of the mind that all attractions should try to appeal to everybody.
 
MarkTwain

MarkTwain

Well-Known Member
JT3000 said:
The early "princess" films made by Disney were sprung from the imaginations of those who wrote the original fairy tales they were based on. Granted, the fairy tales were often much darker than Disney's versions, they were still gender neutral stories for the most part. That's not what is being marketed in the parks these days.

What is being marketed is the "pinky, glittery Disney" headlined by the princesses, always presented in the most girly ways possible. Make no mistake, they're pushed specifically with the little girl demographic in mind. It isn't meant to appeal to both genders. It's relatively rare to see the princesses' male counterparts in the parks anymore, nor do they get slapped on a bunch of merchandise or receive any sort of billing in the attractions, even when they played a major role in their respective stories.The story that the character sprang from is irrelevant at that point. All you're left with is a marketing tool.

And isn't it convenient how the princesses that show less girly tendencies in their characterizations are comparatively underutilized, being treated like 2nd class members of the stable? I wonder why. Oh, and when they are used, let us not forget the obligatory makeover so that they fit in with the others. We can't have any individuality here. You want Pocahontas in a sparkly evening gown? Done!
Click to expand...

And as I posted in another thread, this is something that bothers me about the princess franchise in general. All of the "princesses" were created as part of a larger animated film with independent stories, personalities, and views on romance and gender roles. Presenting them side-by-side like products in a Barbie line does a disservice to the animated masterpieces they sprung from, or as you said, the male characters which may well be very important parts of the story (Aladdin, the Beast, John Smith, Prince Philip).
 
The Empress Lilly

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
JT3000 said:
No...



But this is beside the point. I don't consider Test Track 2.0 a new addition, regardless of how that premise is worded. I knew some would debate this, hence the wry smiley. ;)
Click to expand...
TT 2.0 may not be new, but it does represent a very substantial investment in a very new ride experience.

Also, it is to no small degree owing precisely to demographic reasons that WDW greenlit TT, so as to be able to present it as the 'boy' component of the December 'what's new' marketing push. It is quite deliberate that BatB + Mermaid were opened together with TT.

A bit unecessary to me, and to the many others here for whom classic Disney is equally appealing to men and women alike. But to the parents of this eight year old boy, and many with them, the world is divided into 'male' and 'female' products.
 
The Empress Lilly

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
DfromATX said:
LOL Yep! My son would probably run away if Little Mermaid came towards him. I think there's plenty for girls AND boys to do. So there's not many characters for boys... I can't see my sons waiting in line to get autographs for characters anyway. There's a lot of other things for them to do and see.
Click to expand...
But boys like characters (and pictures, and dressing up) much less than girls do.

Equal attention to boys and girls does not mean that for every Ariel, Belle and Cinderella, there must also be available Eric, the Beast and what's-that-prince's-name. No, the girls enjoy getting tarted up in the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique and then having their picture taken (a thousand times) with a princess. Whereas the boys enjoy getting dirty while playing cowboys and Indians with the guns in the fort on Tom Sawyer Island.

That's equality too: to give each his own.

Trying to cater to the boys by having as many male characters out as princesses is as pointless as trying to cater to girls by building a fort with pink guns.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom