An Untouchable’s Eventual Fate?

[Homemade Imagineering]

Now, it’s been discussed before what makes an attraction sacred, or what makes an attraction retain its longevity. After a few days of doing some thinking, the question has popped into my mind, and that is, if anything is really sacred. Now, I say this because technology and interest is always evolving, and a 15 minute untouchable such as IASW or POTC May eventually lose the general public’s interest (minus us Disney fans) and at that point Disney may feel the need to replace them. So here is my question. Do you think that an attraction’s continued existence
will benefit the attraction as time goes on, since as it becomes older and older it gains a more sacred value to it, or do you think that an attraction’s continued existence will hurt itself and continue to make the attraction look less impressive as technology evolves.

Even if Disney goes back and updates these sacred attractions with the latest tech, I feel like there will be a point someday in the future, where so much is evolved and more advanced technologies become more accessible to us humans, that these sacred attractions just fall out of everyone’s interest? Also, it’s important to note that at a certain point in the future, there will no longer be people on this planet who have the nostalgia from visiting HM or POTC back in the 60s or 70s when they were revolutionary, because eventually every generation passes away, and a new generation fills their spot. Will the next generations continue to hold appreciation for these sacred attractions, or will Walt himself along with these sacred attractions be forgotten completely.


All of this sounds insane, I know, and I think the pandemic just has me constantly thinking of crazy scenarios, but this is something I worry about in the future, and I’d hate so lose any of the sacred attractions. Also, I’m aware that the age level of posting is very much all over the place, and I will let you guys know that I am a younger person writing this, so I am not among those who may never see any of what I’m talking about come to fruition (since you older folks may not care as much since my scenario will most likely take place a long time from now, that is, if it ever does).


One more thing. When I refer to the “sacred attractions”, I am talking about the most untouchable attractions ever. This list is small, and only comprises of four main attractions that immediately came to mind (IASW, POTC, HM, JC). So for those of you comparing the Splash Mountain retheme to this, your comparison is invalid in this case since I’m referring to the core, pure sacred Disney attractions. I hope that makes sense. Anyways, feel free to discuss this, and I want to know what everyone thinks of my crazy scenario.

 

[drizgirl]

First off, paragraphs would be really helpful.

Second? There are no sacred attractions. The past year has shown us that things we never thought possible really are. Quite the Disney message.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

First off, paragraphs would be really helpful.

Second? There are no sacred attractions. The past year has shown us that things we never thought possible really are. Quite the Disney message.

1. I see. I was typing that late last night, so I wasn’t really considering paragraphs at the time.

2. Yea, Splash Mountain is getting rethemed, but when I refer to sacred, I’m referring to something that Disney won’t outright remove or remove the theme from. To me, Splash Mountain dIdn’t fit in this “sacred” category, and although I was somewhat shocked when the change was announced, I would’ve been more surprised if something like POTC or HM was outright removed or rethemed completely. Yes, there is also the argument of changes to attractions like the updated auction scene, but those aren’t nearly as large as a full removal or replacement.

 

[DisneyTransport]

well, attractions need to be updated for various reasons (equipment went through to many cycles, for example, and its safer/cheaper/whatever to redesign certain ride features). In terms of the theme, Its up for debate if the imagineers were limited by the technology of their time and would of wanted to see certain attractions updated (maybe updated animatronics, for example?) if they had known what the technology of the future would be like.

I find no issue with wanting to modify, say, the JC with new animals and scenes and think it would add interest back into the attraction. But in terms of total demolition, I believe Disney defines sacred as a ride that consistently has high crowds with limited drop in attendance. If there is a drop in attendance, or that attraction has to many mechanical issues down the line, then bye-bye attraction and hello imagineers

 

[networkpro]

Careful, you're going to trigger the "Disney as a museum" crowd.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

I find no issue with wanting to modify, say, the JC with new animals and scenes and think it would add interest back into the attraction. But in terms of total demolition, I believe Disney defines sacred as a ride that consistently has high crowds with limited drop in attendance. If there is a drop in attendance, or that attraction has to many mechanical issues down the line, then bye-bye attraction and hello imagineers

This exactly. I also do worry, that if an attraction begins to see limited numbers in attendance, Disney will simply want to build something entirely new in its place, rather than giving the attraction a complete overhaul with the latest technology. We have already seen this happen with GMR, and it is more alarming to think about when it comes down to the core, quintessential sacred Walt Disney attractions. I'm sure that an attraction's "sacredness" is also determined on a basis of whether getting rid of a certain attraction will cause major backlash. Here, some may want to use the Splash argument, but Disney was able to justify the re-theme by tying their motive back to wanting to get rid of the problematic IP attached to Splash. The core, quintessential attractions aren't based off of any IP, (maybe minus POTC, but that's different since the attraction of course influenced the ride, and the IP isn't necessarily problematic) so Disney won't necessarily have that justification to save them.

Tying this back to my original point, I do worry that the future of the parks as a whole is worrisome, because the company is completely different from what it once was, and that difference will only increase as time goes on. I worry, that Walt as a person will be forgotten about, along with his talented team of imagineers who made our favorite classics possible with their incredible artistic styles. If Disney decides to replace POTC with some sort of IP infused attraction, Marc Davis's amazing humorous style will disappear, or if IASW is removed, its important message along with Mary Blair's style will disappear. It's incredibly sad to think about.

 

[networkpro]

First off, paragraphs would be really helpful.

Second? There are no sacred attractions. The past year has shown us that things we never thought possible really are. Quite the Disney message.

Its all about perspective. All the rides in WDW have just been added over time, where you were first exposed to them as your starting reference point. Mine is not yours nor does it match most anyone else who didn't accompany you on that visit. Mine is in 1972 so they are all the same to me.

 

[JIMINYCR]

As much as we would like our favorites to remain forever untouched, we know thats unrealistic. Because weve seen attractions that we have thought of as always being a park of our parks disappear, we know it can happen. Nothing is safe from being changed, altered, removed, replaced. Disney is about doing what will bring in the crowds, increase numbers and profits. Theres no feelings of nostalgia or sentiment when it comes to business. If something is trending high in popularity and it would fit in a space where an old favorite sits... the old moves out, the new is moving in. We have to accept it.
Thats why every time I go to Disney I appreciate everything and enjoy it as if it wont be there when I return. Sadly, I've come back at times to find favorites missing forever.

 

[JIMINYCR]

This exactly. I also do worry, that if an attraction begins to see limited numbers in attendance, Disney will simply want to build something entirely new in its place, rather than giving the attraction a complete overhaul with the latest technology. We have already seen this happen with GMR, and it is more alarming to think about when it comes down to the core, quintessential sacred Walt Disney attractions. I'm sure that an attraction's "sacredness" is also determined on a basis of whether getting rid of a certain attraction will cause major backlash. Here, some may want to use the Splash argument, but Disney was able to justify the re-theme by tying their motive back to wanting to get rid of the problematic IP attached to Splash. The core, quintessential attractions aren't based off of any IP, (maybe minus POTC, but that's different since the attraction of course influenced the ride, and the IP isn't necessarily problematic) so Disney won't necessarily have that justification to save them.

Tying this back to my original point, I do worry that the future of the parks as a whole is worrisome, because the company is completely different from what it once was, and that difference will only increase as time goes on. I worry, that Walt as a person will be forgotten about, along with his talented team of imagineers who made our favorite classics possible with their incredible artistic styles. If Disney decides to replace POTC with some sort of IP infused attraction, Marc Davis's amazing humorous style will disappear, or if IASW is removed, its important message along with Mary Blair's style will disappear. It's incredibly sad to think about.

Yes.... Walt, the Animators, the Imagineers, the Legends, ... all those who worked to make Disney the place we love, the place that remains in our memories, have very little influence on the group that make decisions now. They are looked at as the dusty, irrelevant ghosts that remain behind, that they would rather stay relegated to the past. They have the attitude that they know better because they see themselves as superior to Walt.

 

[Minnie Mum]

Sorry kid, but there is no such thing as sacred in business except profit. And Disney is nothing if not a business. If an attraction can't pull it's weight as far as attendance goes, then say bye bye. Stop worrying about it, since there's nothing you can do to change it. You don't have to like it, but you will have to accept it.

 

[SteveAZee]

Now, it’s been discussed before what makes an attraction sacred, or what makes an attraction retain its longevity. After a few days of doing some thinking, the question has popped into my mind, and that is, if anything is really sacred. Now, I say this because technology and interest is always evolving, and a 15 minute untouchable such as IASW or POTC May eventually lose the general public’s interest (minus us Disney fans) and at that point Disney may feel the need to replace them. So here is my question. Do you think that an attraction’s continued existence
will benefit the attraction as time goes on, since as it becomes older and older it gains a more sacred value to it, or do you think that an attraction’s continued existence will hurt itself and continue to make the attraction look less impressive as technology evolves.

Even if Disney goes back and updates these sacred attractions with the latest tech, I feel like there will be a point someday in the future, where so much is evolved and more advanced technologies become more accessible to us humans, that these sacred attractions just fall out of everyone’s interest? Also, it’s important to note that at a certain point in the future, there will no longer be people on this planet who have the nostalgia from visiting HM or POTC back in the 60s or 70s when they were revolutionary, because eventually every generation passes away, and a new generation fills their spot. Will the next generations continue to hold appreciation for these sacred attractions, or will Walt himself along with these sacred attractions be forgotten completely.


All of this sounds insane, I know, and I think the pandemic just has me constantly thinking of crazy scenarios, but this is something I worry about in the future, and I’d hate so lose any of the sacred attractions. Also, I’m aware that the age level of posting is very much all over the place, and I will let you guys know that I am a younger person writing this, so I am not among those who may never see any of what I’m talking about come to fruition (since you older folks may not care as much since my scenario will most likely take place a long time from now, that is, if it ever does).


One more thing. When I refer to the “sacred attractions”, I am talking about the most untouchable attractions ever. This list is small, and only comprises of four main attractions that immediately came to mind (IASW, POTC, HM, JC). So for those of you comparing the Splash Mountain retheme to this, your comparison is invalid in this case since I’m referring to the core, pure sacred Disney attractions. I hope that makes sense. Anyways, feel free to discuss this, and I want to know what everyone thinks of my crazy scenario.

I think 'sacred' is on a sliding scale.

I've been going since 1973 and have raised my kids (now adults) going there as well... I have lots of fond memories of us together, enjoying various attractions. That said, many of them are gone and some remain. It's good to have the memories and there's some fondness to re-ride attractions with them at various stages of their lives. Perhaps grandkids someday.

All that said, I believe that when attractions start looking too dated to be relevant, it would be really good to re-imagine them... making them tell the story better or update the technology. I think there's always the fear that any change could make something worse rather than better... there's a lot of history to demonstrate that.

I think I'm fairly sentimental, but some of the older attractions I'd enjoy seeing re-imagined and retold. I saw Carousel of Progress at the World's Fair in 1965. Fond memories. I'd love to see it redone with different periods. I would miss some scenes but hopefully enjoy the new ones.

I think Disney would take their cues from attendance. When it seems like the crowds have moved on, it's time.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

They are looked at as the dusty, irrelevant ghosts that remain behind, that they would rather stay relegated to the past. They have the attitude that they know better because they see themselves as superior to Walt.

Which is the saddest part of all this. It's not just about losing an attraction, because with the attraction you're losing its unique style and theme, which so many people worked hard to create all those decades ago. I recently sent a letter to Rolly Crump expressing my thanks towards him for helping to create so many amazing attractions. Rolly himself dislikes the current direction in which the parks are heading, and I certainly don't blame him. He once said "Fall in love with Disneyland, and Disneyland can break your heart", and I feel that's beginning to happen myself. I don't know why, but I guess it just dawned on me that anything can be altered beyond recognition or replaced, because as long as cash flow exists, the Execs feel they can do anything, because it's still a vacation destination, and people, regardless of the product's quality, will still come. Maybe everyone by now has had this realization, so I'm simply having it for the first time. I've tried not to let this realization overcome my belief in sacredness, because I can't even think of losing Potc, or HM, or IASW. It hurts to think about. At the end of the day however, I'm the consumer, and if I don't enjoy the product, I'm not obligated to consume that product.

 

[DisneyTransport]

Which is the saddest part of all this. It's not just about losing an attraction, because with the attraction you're losing its unique style and theme, which so many people worked hard to create all those decades ago. I recently sent a letter to Rolly Crump expressing my thanks towards him for helping to create so many amazing attractions. Rolly himself dislikes the current direction in which the parks are heading, and I certainly don't blame him. He once said "Fall in love with Disneyland, and Disneyland can break your heart", and I feel that's beginning to happen myself. I don't know why, but I guess it just dawned on me that anything can be altered beyond recognition or replaced, because as long as cash flow exists, the Execs feel they can do anything, because it's still a vacation destination, and people, regardless of the product's quality, will still come. Maybe everyone by now has had this realization, so I'm simply having it for the first time. I've tried not to let this realization overcome my belief in sacredness, because I can't even think of losing Potc, or HM, or IASW. It hurts to think about. At the end of the day however, I'm the consumer, and if I don't enjoy the product, I'm not obligated to consume that product.

maybe an analogy could be "the Mona Lisa doesn't fit modern tastes, so let's paint over it!"?

 

[Minnie Mum]

maybe an analogy could be "the Mona Lisa doesn't fit modern tastes, so let's paint over it!"?

Hardly analogous. You can paint any number of paintings, with no need to paint over an original masterpiece. But real estate is limited within the existing parks. If a new attraction needs to go in, then something's got to give way. Logic says the victim will be the least attended.

I have a violent dislike of using the word "sacred" in relation to a theme park attraction. It's just really bad misuse of the word. Some would say blasphemous. Call them iconic. Call them beloved. To that I can relate. But please stop calling them sacred.

 

[DisneyTransport]

Hardly analogous. You can paint any number of paintings, with no need to paint over an original masterpiece. But real estate is limited within the existing parks. If a new attraction needs to go in, then something's got to give way. Logic says the victim will be the least attended.

I have a violent dislike of using the word "sacred" in relation to a theme park attraction. It's just really bad misuse of the word. Some would say blasphemous. Call them iconic. Call them beloved. To that I can relate. But please stop calling them sacred.

I understand your first statement, I was trying to capture the OP's intent that rides can be viewed as works of art created by Imagineers and so many talented people. Imagineers who built these rides really paid attention to the details to create them. Similar to how a painter puts so much effort into a painting.

As per your second statement, we know what the OP's intent was, and "considered too important to be changed" is a definition of the word "sacred." It does, however, have religious meaning when used in different context as well, but that is not the case here so it isn't a misuse of the word, IMO. A bit to strong of a word for a theme park attraction? Perhaps, yes

 

[macefamily]

I don't think they'd do it. It's one of the Disney originals. Oh, and it took me five minutes to figure out IASW....

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Sorry kid, but there is no such thing as sacred in business except profit. And Disney is nothing if not a business. If an attraction can't pull it's weight as far as attendance goes, then say bye bye. Stop worrying about it, since there's nothing you can do to change it. You don't have to like it, but you will have to accept it.

Well this seems a bit harsh.

I have a violent dislike of using the word "sacred" in relation to a theme park attraction. It's just really bad misuse of the word. Some would say blasphemous. Call them iconic. Call them beloved. To that I can relate. But please stop calling them sacred.

Noted, but I typically genuflect in front of the Partners statue. Is that ok?

 

[Mickey5150]

I think the biggest reason why Splash could get completely changed whereas The Haunted Mansion or Pirates will probably live on forever is the drop. Anyone could go on flat dark rides but millions of people will never experience the greatest dark ride of all time simply because of the drop. The more kid, parent, grandparent accessible the ride is the better chance it survives as each new generation experiences it with their family.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Now, it’s been discussed before what makes an attraction sacred, or what makes an attraction retain its longevity. After a few days of doing some thinking, the question has popped into my mind, and that is, if anything is really sacred. Now, I say this because technology and interest is always evolving, and a 15 minute untouchable such as IASW or POTC May eventually lose the general public’s interest (minus us Disney fans) and at that point Disney may feel the need to replace them. So here is my question. Do you think that an attraction’s continued existence
will benefit the attraction as time goes on, since as it becomes older and older it gains a more sacred value to it, or do you think that an attraction’s continued existence will hurt itself and continue to make the attraction look less impressive as technology evolves.

Even if Disney goes back and updates these sacred attractions with the latest tech, I feel like there will be a point someday in the future, where so much is evolved and more advanced technologies become more accessible to us humans, that these sacred attractions just fall out of everyone’s interest? Also, it’s important to note that at a certain point in the future, there will no longer be people on this planet who have the nostalgia from visiting HM or POTC back in the 60s or 70s when they were revolutionary, because eventually every generation passes away, and a new generation fills their spot. Will the next generations continue to hold appreciation for these sacred attractions, or will Walt himself along with these sacred attractions be forgotten completely.


All of this sounds insane, I know, and I think the pandemic just has me constantly thinking of crazy scenarios, but this is something I worry about in the future, and I’d hate so lose any of the sacred attractions. Also, I’m aware that the age level of posting is very much all over the place, and I will let you guys know that I am a younger person writing this, so I am not among those who may never see any of what I’m talking about come to fruition (since you older folks may not care as much since my scenario will most likely take place a long time from now, that is, if it ever does).


One more thing. When I refer to the “sacred attractions”, I am talking about the most untouchable attractions ever. This list is small, and only comprises of four main attractions that immediately came to mind (IASW, POTC, HM, JC). So for those of you comparing the Splash Mountain retheme to this, your comparison is invalid in this case since I’m referring to the core, pure sacred Disney attractions. I hope that makes sense. Anyways, feel free to discuss this, and I want to know what everyone thinks of my crazy scenario.

To the fans there are for sure sacred attractions. To The Walt Disney Company, there are no sacred attractions, and this is and will continue to be the problem.

Disney will make decisions to change/remove/destroy attractions and we the fans will never understand why. See the peoplemover at DLR.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

To The Walt Disney Company,

The Walt Disney Company is made up of many executives. Some of them do have favorite attractions. When those people are in positions of power, we can get some pretty great things.