A Lingering Question

[scoobygirl39541]

1. okay, that's a tagline. you know, like "BURGER KING! WHERE YOU CAN HAVE IT YOUR WAY!" please. WDW is for kids, and it was also designed to have some aspects for teens and adults. primarily, it's to entertain kids while also being able to give the adults something to do while their kids were having fun.

have you seen the majority of adults (the average adult) at Disney. they look miserable. they're not doing it for themselves, they're doing it for the kids.

2. It's A Small World is a kid ride. :lookaroun it's so blatantly obvious it's for kids, and kids alone, to enjoy.

and who said that the characters had to talk down to you in order for it to be made for kids? :lookaroun that's not a rule. the dialogue usually is what gives it away. Journey Into Imagination is all over that with its dialogue. even the old version was like that.

3. the rides tell stories. what is your point "with small details included children wouldn't even begin to comprehend." i understand completely what was going on in the Haunted Mansion when i was 2 years old. so your saying just because they're younger than 10, it means they won't understand the details? THAT is ignorant.

4. detail doesn't make it adult-friendly. it just makes it detailed.

ok wow, I have to step in here. So that's why me and my dad, 2 average adults (ages 22 and 58) go every year and have more fun than any kid? You know why, because we're spending time together as a family. Father and daughter running around MK and enjoying every moment. We don't care about "adult rides" or "kids rides" we're too busy having fun with each other and making memories. That's what Disney is for us 2 full grown average adults. I'm sorry you never experienced that as an adult.

 

[lazyboy97o]

OK, so that thread didn't go too well. Sorry about that, but if you'd like to start another one on some optimistic thoughts of upcoming changes, I'd love to chat.

You have just admitted that you too share the very position you initially questioned. If there is no valid point for criticisms then then changes would not need to be framed as "optimistic."

 

[the-reason14]

WDW is for families, not kids. Yes IASW and rides like it are appealing to kids, but it's appealing to families because of their kids. Kiddie land is something like the land of the dragons at Busch Gardens, where only kids can ride the rides while the parents watch. That's something made for kids.

 

[lazyboy97o]

WDW is for families, not kids. Yes IASW and rides like it are appealing to kids, but it's appealing to families because of their kids. Kiddie land is something like the land of the dragons at Busch Gardens, where only kids can ride the rides while the parents watch. That's something made for kids.

You're saying the same thing as far a I can tell. Families do not like Walt Disney World because they too can ride with the kids. That's not much of a step up from not being able to ride nor is it a cross generational appeal, it's vicarious which was the point being made.

 

[devoy1701]

WDW is for families, not kids. Yes IASW and rides like it are appealing to kids, but it's appealing to families because of their kids. Kiddie land is something like the land of the dragons at Busch Gardens, where only kids can ride the rides while the parents watch. That's something made for kids.

we don't have that anymore... it's now Sesame Place...not that that matters or that it's any better. just saying...

This thread was a good read. I do think that MK has tried to regear some attractions to adults though...like how Jungle Cruise was kidcentric until they took out King Louie...with no more Cartoon tie-in it's obviously now focused on entertaining adults.

 

[Hakunamatata]

we don't have that anymore... it's now Sesame Place...not that that matters or that it's any better. just saying...

This thread was a good read. I do think that MK has tried to regear some attractions to adults though...like how Jungle Cruise was kidcentric until they took out King Louie...with no more Cartoon tie-in it's obviously now focused on entertaining adults.

They took out King Louie?

 

[dave&di]

They took out King Louie?

He was there in 2008 and 2010 when I was there! I love that bit! :drevil:

 

[WED Purist]

You have just admitted that you too share the very position you initially questioned. If there is no valid point for criticisms then then changes would not need to be framed as "optimistic."

That's not what I said at all, it was actually the opposite. There are conceptual drawings for expansions of all sorts of areas, just amazing things on the table. If I were to bring them up, quite a few people would start off by saying how they won't ever hapen, because Disney is too cheap or money hungry or whatever. Instead of talking about things that might (and will) be, they jump in with sheer negativity. If people disagree, they pounce and make it personal.

 

[misterID]

1 - More times than not they don't happen. That's called experience, not negativity.

2 - We have some good sources here that pretty much let us know when something is happening, doomed, or budgets are slashed, which helps level out the disappointment.

 

[WED Purist]

1 - More times than not they don't happen. That's called experience, not negativity.

Stop and think about it, there are a lot of ideas that get pitched, of course most of them don't happen. There was a time before the internet, and when confidentiality agreements meant something, that people didn't know about all the stuff that didn't get built. Would it be better to never know anything, and be happy when something new got done, or to know about everything with a concept, only to find out that 95% of things don't make it out of a meeting room? When a new idea comes out, why not dream of what might be, instead of bemoaning what won't?

2 - We have some good sources here that pretty much let us know when something is happening, doomed, or budgets are slashed, which helps level out the disappointment.

I read some threads for a long time before I became a member and posted comments, and some of your sources ain't that great.

I know there's more that Disney can do. I get it. I just don't dwell on it. I do my best to keep moving forward, because it's kind of fun to do the impossible.

 

[misterID]

Stop and think about it, there are a lot of ideas that get pitched, of course most of them don't happen. There was a time before the internet, and when confidentiality agreements meant something, that people didn't know about all the stuff that didn't get built. Would it be better to never know anything, and be happy when something new got done, or to know about everything with a concept, only to find out that 95% of things don't make it out of a meeting room? When a new idea comes out, why not dream of what might be, instead of bemoaning what won't?



I read some threads for a long time before I became a member and posted comments, and some of your sources ain't that great.

I know there's more that Disney can do. I get it. I just don't dwell on it. I do my best to keep moving forward, because it's kind of fun to do the impossible.

That makes no sense. Dream about what might happen... But if that idea that comes out doesn't happen, and you've built it up in your head, you're going to be disappointed. Why dream of something that isn't going to happen? Look at Beastly Kingdom. And unless you can go back in time and stop them from inventing the internet, you're stuck with this. As with other people's opinions, positive or negative.

My sources? Actually the sources here have been pretty spot on.

 

[WED Purist]

Fair Enough

You live in your world, I'll live in mine.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I know there's more that Disney can do. I get it. I just don't dwell on it. I do my best to keep moving forward, because it's kind of fun to do the impossible.

Recognizing and working on your shortcomings is exactly what is meant by "keep moving forwards" and "it's kind of fun to do the impossible." The negativity comes from Disney's attitude of late to just rest on what is there that is good, that too many do not want to keep moving forward, that they are content to just stay put. Stay put and do what is safe is the attitude that comes all the way down from Iger himself with his own professed desire to focus on proven franchises not only within Parks and Resorts, but almost all parts of the Company. Why try to move forward, and try to best Pixar when you can just buy Pixar? Why try to create something that appeals to boys when you can just buy Marvel? Why create new, exciting attractions when neat little ones based on films at least 20+ years old will do just fine?