Aesthetic Analysis of Themed Design

[EPCOT Explorer]

While freedom to do and create is certainly represented in MS, don't forget that optimism and success and integral parts of it's themes. Anybody could in theory start up a business then, but MS says that you're guaranteed to succeed if you try. Which contradicts reality, but ads to the appeal of the street.

Right. Perhaps it's a message of that too, not just a representation.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Let's talk about Animal Kingdom, that's a park that's more dripping with thought-provoking Theme and in my opinion the best park in terms of moving through three dimensional story.

Maybe a Servo Pop Quiz!


Q: A bench in Harambe Village has a date inscribed on it, and the Swahili word for "Freedom".

What does this allude too?

Though at this moment I'd flunk your pop quiz on AK Servo, I'd love to see you type up as much as you know about that park as possible. It's generally less discussed than the other WDW parks.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Right. Perhaps it's a message of that too, not just a representation.

Which is why I wouldn't try to classify MS as having exactly 1 theme because it's a combination of many that makes it what it is and separates it from other places that may share common design/principle elements.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Which is why I wouldn't try to classify MS as having exactly 1 theme because it's a combination of many that makes it what it is and separates it from other places that may share common design/principle elements.

Honestly, it's a synthesis of all Disney Values set in the 1900's.:shrug::lol:

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

Wow....ya'll are WAY overthinking this stuff.:lol:

Hey now, I kind of hope that this is the kind of discussion that goes on at WDI when they are developing their various projects.

 

[EpcotServo]

Though at this moment I'd flunk your pop quiz on AK Servo, I'd love to see you type up as much as you know about that park as possible. It's generally less discussed than the other WDW parks.

There is not enough internet in the world.
:lol:

Anyways, the answer is that "Freedom" and the bench itself alludes to a long story they never tell, involving a bloody political struggle that gave the power of the land into the hands of the people, allowing them to preserve and protect the lands and wildlife, so they had the power to create the Harambe Wildlife Preserve.

It's a great bit of detail.
:sohappy:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Hey now, I kind of hope that this is the kind of discussion that goes on at WDI when they are developing their various projects.

Hope is right....:lookaroun

*stares down Nemo, JIYI, MILF*:lookaroun

There is not enough internet in the world.
:lol:

Anyways, the answer is that "Freedom" and the bench itself alludes to a long story they never tell, involving a bloody political struggle that gave the power of the land into the hands of the people, allowing them to preserve and protect the lands and wildlife, so they had the power to create the Harambe Wildlife Preserve.

It's a great bit of detail.
:sohappy:

I think I sat on it in 2006.:lookaroun:lol:

 

[lazyboy97o]

However the idealization of Main Street owes as much to freedom as it does to Law and Order. For example, the businesses do not have complete economic freedom because if someone wanted to open an "Adult" shop on Main Street, it would be shut down.

While not Adult in the sense of ographic, there was the Wizard of Bras.

And yes I believe the underlying philosophy on Main Street and much of WDW is that people are basically good and this ideal (MS or WDW) can be achieved with hard work and ingenuity. (Technically, the ideal has already been achieved but it is as a work of art in a theme park and not in reality)

According to John Hench, in Designing Disney, this was one of Walt's ideas.

Yea, you guys are going way too in depth.

Main Street is just supposed to evoke an old-time, small town America feeling.

Just as Adventureland is supposed to drum up those feelings of discovering a new, exotic world.

But and how and why does that work?

Firstly, I have to recommend the wonderful Main Street Revisited by Richard V. Francaviglia.

Honestly, I do not think Main Street, USA at the Magic Kingdom works as well as Main Street, USA at Disneyland. As was mentioned, there is that much larger and grander scale that takes Main Street, USA further away from the small midwestern and western towns that were the source of inspiration. At Disneyland Main Street, USA was keeping with a smaller town feel, that place we all collectively seem to consider much more ideal compared to the big city.

I think what essentially makes Main Street, USA so appealing, and the source of inspiration for revitalized Main Streets, is that it works. We see in front of us familiar sights that are lacking in the drudgery, decay and vice that really do plague small urban nodes. There is no Walmart threatening to out do the local shops and we do know the merchants by name, thanks in part to those ubiquitous name tags. There are no communist agitators and the mayor is not afraid of being shot by an anarchist. It is romantic, what everybody was trying to build. We are still captivated by the optimism that we see as so present in both the 1900s and the 1950s, especially as we look cynically at the reality of our world.

Main Street, USA is in many ways the EPCOT of yesteryear. It is the plans and ideas of how to build a town, assembled in a way that works. I this it ultimately what makes it so American. The entire history of the republic has been about making things work better, "more perfect".

 

[SirGoofy]

But and how and why does that work?

Because, IMO, these parks are supposed to be the guests' adventure. They are supposed to be anything ridiculously in depth, because they are supposed to be what the guests want them to be. They're there to make people use their imaginations, to dream up the stories throughout the park.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

While not Adult in the sense of ographic, there was the Wizard of Bras.


According to John Hench, in Designing Disney, this was one of Walt's ideas.


But and how and why does that work?

Firstly, I have to recommend the wonderful Main Street Revisited by Richard V. Francaviglia.

Honestly, I do not think Main Street, USA at the Magic Kingdom works as well as Main Street, USA at Disneyland. As was mentioned, there is that much larger and grander scale that takes Main Street, USA further away from the small midwestern and western towns that were the source of inspiration. At Disneyland Main Street, USA was keeping with a smaller town feel, that place we all collectively seem to consider much more ideal compared to the big city.

I think what essentially makes Main Street, USA so appealing, and the source of inspiration for revitalized Main Streets, is that it works. We see in front of us familiar sights that are lacking in the drudgery, decay and vice that really do plague small urban nodes. There is no Walmart threatening to out do the local shops and we do know the merchants by name, thanks in part to those ubiquitous name tags. There are no communist agitators and the mayor is not afraid of being shot by an anarchist. It is romantic, what everybody was trying to build. We are still captivated by the optimism that we see as so present in both the 1900s and the 1950s, especially as we look cynically at the reality of our world.

Main Street, USA is in many ways the EPCOT of yesteryear. It is the plans and ideas of how to build a town, assembled in a way that works. I this it ultimately what makes it so American. The entire history of the republic has been about making things work better, "more perfect".

Right. That's why I mentioned a "Synthesis of Disney Values and Ideals."

Well put.


What I LOVE about your post, however, is the EPCOT of yesteryear analogy... While certainly not futuristic, even for those in a more distant past, you are right. This is the optimism and hope that USED to be showcased in EPCOT's Future World. More specifically, Horizons and Spaceship Earth.

Because, IMO, these parks are supposed to be the guests' adventure. They are supposed to be anything ridiculously in depth, because they are supposed to be what the guests want them to be. They're there to make people use their imaginations, to dream up the stories throughout the park.

Just like WS or the new FL.

*runs*:lookaroun

 

[lazyboy97o]

What I LOVE about your post, however, is the EPCOT of yesteryear analogy... While certainly not futuristic, even for those in a more distant past, you are right. This is the optimism and hope that USED to be showcased in EPCOT's Future World. More specifically, Horizons and Spaceship Earth.

I was actually comparing Main Street, USA to EPCOT, the city. It is the ideal town of the past and EPCOT is the utopia of tomorrow.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I was actually comparing Main Street, USA to EPCOT, the city. It is the ideal town of the past and EPCOT is the utopia of tomorrow.

Ahhhh....It works even better now. :lol:


It still works with EPCOT Park, too....Like I enumerated on.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Yay, theming.

Since the OP has basically said we can talk about anything we want...here's my post related to absolutely nothing that's been said so far. :lol:

Basically, my thought is that the size of the WDW resort works against some of its theming in subtle ways.

Because there are so many theme parks, there's a natural inclination toward breaking each park down into one easily defined concept.

Magic Kingdom becomes the park of "magic" (heck, it's right there in the name) or "fantasy"; Epcot becomes the "discovery" park; Studios is the "entertainment" park; Animal Kingdom is the "nature" park.

For the most part, these descriptions work, because Disney has trended toward parks with more easily defined central concepts.

But I think it's a problem with Magic Kingdom. The Disneyland style parks are not easily defined by fantasy and magic. These are only part of a pastiche of themes, such as American history, exploration of far-flung (but very "real") locations, and optimism for the future.

Summarizing these parks with a castle and Tinker Bell shortchanges the wealth of disparate themes that Walt Disney planted within his first park and its descendants. There's nothing particularly magical (in the literal sense, anyway) about marauding pirates, jungle river cruises, flights to outer space, ragtime piano players, or haunted houses...but all of these themes are hidden behind one theme that has come to define Magic Kingdom in most people's minds.

It gives visitors the impression that Magic Kingdom is the "kiddy" park, while the others are for more mature visitors.

Disney is somewhat to blame here, since their marketing has put castles and pixie dust at the center of what they claim to be, but like I said, I think the size of WDW is a factor too.

When you have four theme parks, you need one quick hit to define each for prospective visitors, and if one of your parks doesn't easily fit into a box, you make a box for it.

I remember a thread a while back that pointed out the dedication plaque in Magic Kingdom actually reads as a dedication of Walt Disney World. The park and the larger concept of a place to honor Walt Disney and his legacy were synonymous.

But as more parks were opened, it was determined that the park had to be made distinct from Walt Disney World, so it was officially named the Magic Kingdom. I think the name is unfortunate. While you can say that every theme in the park ties into a form of magic, that more nuanced understanding has been demolished by the idea that literal, fairy tale and pixie dust-style magic is the entirety of the park's definition.

This is one reason I'm glad that Disneyland has kept its original name and not been re-named something like "Magic Kingdom at Disneyland" even as the Disneyland name has also come to be applied to the larger resort it inhabits. The concepts behind the park are too big for a name like "Magic Kingdom."

In a sense, the concepts that underpin the other parks at WDW already existed in Disneyland and Magic Kingdom long before those parks were built. Future World got its germ in Tomorrowland; Animal Kingdom is an evolution of the themes in Adventureland; the whole idea behind Studios (putting you "in the movies") was the premise behind Disneyland from the start, with Walt's idea that entering the park should be designed to mirror walking into a 3-dimensional film.

Despite being marketed as distinct concepts that move beyond the Magic Kingdom and its childish fantasy, every one of the post-MK WDW parks has spun out of concepts embodied in the original Disney park design.

I think a big part of this is the simple fact that Walt Disney's park design was something that could never be matched. He was so visionary that he packed almost every idea you can imagine for a theme park somewhere into his little park in Anaheim. Disneyland (and by extension, Magic Kingdom) are deceptively simple, with so much variation just below the surface.

By contrast, the other WDW parks (possibly excepting Epcot) have been built on the exploration of genuinely simple themes. I except Epcot because it's really the marriage of two simple themes, which I think are best united under the idea of discovery. These parks are not necessarily less satisfying, but they are less complex in their conception.

The germ of this idea really came to me when I visited Disneyland this summer. Several times I remember thinking "If I were at WDW, there's no way I'd visit Magic Kingdom every day. I'd get sick of it." I know it's the truth, because it's my experience of WDW. There are so many other options that it's easy to overlook the depth of theming at Magic Kingdom, decide it's too crowded and saccharine, and head over to one of the more "adult" parks.

And yet I never got that feeling at Disneyland. When the castle park isn't just one of a buffet of park options, it's easier to really dig down and explore all the interlocking ideas that make the concept so grand...and to recognize how distinct so many of them are from the shorthand conceit often used for Magic Kingdom.

So I guess my bottom line is this: Despite the temptation to label it as such, Magic Kingdom shouldn't be seen as just one of four parks, each with their own special thematic niche. The concepts that Magic Kingdom was built on are properly understood as the concepts that have birthed every park on WDW property.

Whatever Disney tries to tell you (such as with its "Four parks, one world" merchandise), the castle-and-hub park is not simply a first among equals; it's the father of everything that exists around it.

 

[ChrisFL]

Animal Kingdom- Themes of a realistic vs. idealized Disney vision

I'm going to be quite honest...I've never been a big fan of Animal Kingdom. For ages, though, I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

Yes, there's the obvious things like the lack of classic Disney dark rides, the lack of nearly any big attractions when it opened, very hot and trees everywhere.

But there was something else, something that never gave me the same good feeling of the other Disney parks, or even to that extent a similar park in the next city (Busch Gardens Tampa)

Why was it that it just didn't feel right? It didn't give me the same good feeling as visiting those other parks.

It was then I observed something. Look around at Animal Kingdom...it's realistic beyond any other Disney park. Its areas have age, they have rust, they have extremely complex views and an overwhelming amount of....stuff to them, especially in Asia and Africa.

Look at the World Showcase, every country represented is the idealized version of that country and each monument, each building look as if they were brand new. Look at Fantasyland, at Hollywood Blvd. at most any other area in a Disney park, except for those attractions that NEED to look rustic and aged (Tower of Terror, Haunted Mansion, etc.) there aren't any like this.

This is a departure that I just didn't enjoy as much. That is not a dig at the park, clearly it is highly regarded by many as one of the best themed parks ever, but to me it doesn't give me the good feeling I do at the others.

Even Busch Gardens has similar African themes, but they too are designed look new and not aged.

 

[wishesjake]

Wow the response on this has been amazing. I'm sure this has been a welcome respite for some disney fans (it has been for me).

I think we have discussed MS quite a bit, so I propose a new topic: Adventureland in relation to Animal Kingdom.

Adventureland, in it's essence, is a land of adventerous places. However AL seems to be reeking with colonialism. The Crystal Palace has long been lauded for the way it makes a transition into AL by converting itself from a Main Street bistro into a colonial jungle outpost. We can say that in adventureland the natives do not rule the roost but the western (often British) powers that occupy them. (This is why the Arabian/Aladdin theme doesn't work because Colonialism never really took root in most Arab countries). The jungle treehouse is occupied by a Swiss family. The jungle cruise boats are not ran by natives, but run from them. And even POTC doesn't have any natives of the caribbean just white pirates and their white would-be captors. So, in AL colonialism rules the day.

Now, let's contrast that with AK. In AK the natives rule the park. The Western influence in Asia and Africa is just influence from pop culture (disco!!) through television and radio and such. But, we are never in doubt about who controls Asia and Africa. The bench that was mentioned earlier with the allusion to a struggle for freedom indicates that the citizens of Harambe may have fought for their freedom against the british colonial inhabitants of Adventureland. Essentially the natives control the architecture in all of AK (especially Discovery Island) and therefore man is more in tune with nature as a result.

This shows the difference between the worldview of 1955 and 1998. Now western cultures have come to appreciate developing countries and not seen them in a bigoted light as nose-bone wearing natives.

Also, it can be argued that the average tourist (not fanboy) does not appreciate AK for what it is and labels it as a half day park because they do not understand the deep meaning behind the design. Also, it may have something to do with the fact that in AK, Western powers are not in control. In fact, often humans are not even in control. Therefore the feeling of the park is more wild and dangerous than the safe yet somewhat adventurous AL.

Opinions?

 

[yankspy]

The first difference that jumps out at me is that AL is a more playful land. Everything from talking birds to cruises through the jungle with corny jokes. Heck, they even made pirates funny. If you think about it, these were not nice people. However, we are not threatened by them at all.

AK has a more serious tone. There is a message. It is one of conservation and living in harmony with nature. It is subtle, as it should be. (No one wants to be lectured at a theme park). Rides like Kali have that scene where we are reminded about the dangers of deforestation. Kilimanjaro warns us about the dangers of poaching.

Dinoland is the one area that does not seem to fit that theme too well. Perhaps it is there as a reminder that these creatures were the most successful species the world has ever known. (In terms of longevity). However, they are no longer with us. If we are not careful, we may suffer their fate. I am not necessarily stating my opinion, just throwing out some food for thought.

In the long run, I believe AK is a celebration of life, whether it be human or animal.

AL seems to be a place where you can have a laugh at exotic locales.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

It was then I observed something. Look around at Animal Kingdom...it's realistic beyond any other Disney park. Its areas have age, they have rust, they have extremely complex views and an overwhelming amount of....stuff to them, especially in Asia and Africa.

Also, it can be argued that the average tourist (not fanboy) does not appreciate AK for what it is and labels it as a half day park because they do not understand the deep meaning behind the design. Also, it may have something to do with the fact that in AK, Western powers are not in control. In fact, often humans are not even in control. Therefore the feeling of the park is more wild and dangerous than the safe yet somewhat adventurous AL.

I think you're both tapping into the same current, even though you reach different conclusions. Animal Kingdom has a gritty undertone that adds a sense of menace to the place.

Harambe is unique in that it is a fully Imagineered location that would likely not be very pleasant if we were to actually go there. The "real" Harambe would likely be a violent and dangerous place, with crippling poverty and endemic political corruption. There is no explicit reference to any of this, of course, but the fact that Disney sought to create an authentic African village, instead of a whitewashed version of a real location, makes for a very different tone than the other places you encounter in Disney parks.

Another possible connection is comparing Harambe to Dinorama. They have very little in common on the surface, but if you think about it, they both seem to violate traditional Disney theming rules by bringing unsavory elements of the outside world into the "show."

As stated above, one is an authentic recreation of an impoverished village, complete with exposed wiring and crumbling architecture. The other genuinely recreates a tacky roadside carnival, with gaudy signs and midway games. These are both concepts that seem like odd fits for the escapism Disney seeks to provide. Yet one is universally admired, while the other is generally reviled.

 

[wishesjake]

It's true AK is more realism than fantasy. Instead of making you forget about the real world, it makes you think about real world issues. Sometimes, for some people, that makes it less pleasurable. However one can't argue that AK uses the tools of themed desgin for greater purposes than just escapism fantasy. It's goal is to teach a lesson. While that may have been a goal of the original 1982 EPCOT Center, it has been muddled since. I wonder if AK will eventually have a similar fate, and become less thoughtful and educational. Arguably it already has with EE. Although it is a great ride, it doesn't add to the parks message at all.

 

[yankspy]

It's true AK is more realism than fantasy. Instead of making you forget about the real world, it makes you think about real world issues. Sometimes, for some people, that makes it less pleasurable. However one can't argue that AK uses the tools of themed desgin for greater purposes than just escapism fantasy. It's goal is to teach a lesson. While that may have been a goal of the original 1982 EPCOT Center, it has been muddled since. I wonder if AK will eventually have a similar fate, and become less thoughtful and educational. Arguably it already has with EE. Although it is a great ride, it doesn't add to the parks message at all.

I have to disagree here. The Yeti is protecting the mountain from man. I think the message is that nature must be protected from man destroying it. Again, not necessarily my belief, just a thought.

As far as Epcot, the message there was different. AK shows us the possible negative consequences of our actions. It tends to show us the bad side of man.

Epcot was all about the bright future that lay ahead. I mean that phrase literally in some ways. Some of the original pavilions were wide and open and bright. (Communicore, Imagination). These layouts screamed "There's a great big beautiful tomorrow, shining at the end of every day". It was optimistic in that it showed us what Main Street might look like in 100 years.

 

[wishesjake]

I have to disagree here. The Yeti is protecting the mountain from man. I think the message is that nature must be protected from man destroying it. Again, not necessarily my belief, just a thought.

As far as Epcot, the message there was different. AK shows us the possible negative consequences of our actions. It tends to show us the bad side of man.

Epcot was all about the bright future that lay ahead. I mean that phrase literally in some ways. Some of the original pavilions were wide and open and bright. (Communicore, Imagination). These layouts screamed "There's a great big beautiful tomorrow, shining at the end of every day". It was optimistic in that it showed us what Main Street might look like in 100 years.

You are absolutely right about EE. I never really thought about it that way. I always thought of EE as a thrill ride added to increase attendance. The idea that the Yeti attack on the ride symbolizes the consequences that might follow if we do not obey the message of the park is intriguing.

I realize that Epcot's original message was different, but it is similar to AK in that it has a message unlike MK or DHS.