SourcererMark79
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Or cupcakes
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
deleted
- Thread starter iHeartDisneylandCats
- Start date
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
To clarify, I'm not against change. It's when you close the headliner attraction of a park, and close classics like UoE (Preparing for a flame of people to all at once tell me it wasn't popular at the end of it's life) for attractions that admittedly don't fit where they're going, that's when I have a problem. Another huge problem is closing classics for absolutely no reason. Look at Image Works or Wonders of Life, they've been closed for years on end with no replacement in sight. Both sit abandoned year round, and surprisingly both only use their main room when they are open. Even attractions that sucked like Circle of Life. Nobody cared about it, but it was there and rather than be replaced, it was just abandoned. This isn't exclusive to Epcot either. Look at Stitch. It's closed, dismantled, and abandoned, with no change to it in sight. All of you people blindly accepting change to anything should do a double take and look at this stuff. Why close operating attractions that people enjoy when you have empty buildings EVERYWHERE to put new attractions in first? Change is inevitable, it should just be proper change instead of Intellectual Property drivel plastered everywhere over the course of a park that meant something. End rant.
two questions?
- who gets to decide what is "proper change"
- Why is IP drivel??
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
apologies, the correct sentence is below, so I'm assuming that I'm one of the ones who don't give a "crap". lol must get my insult straight. I've gone back and edited the first post
So hard to answer the first part, so one of the issues that I've always admitted to is again, I don't have this deep attachment to How it use to be, so again I guess I am not an "old school" fan. for me it's more of an acceptance of what disney will do and what they won't do. Now to some such as yourself probably see this as blasphemous but I still very much enjoy Disneyworld. I enjoy Toy story land. I enjoy frozen ever after. I can't compare it to the rides of long ago because I didn't experience them but that doesn't give me the right to insult those that do anymore than you get to flippantly insult those that like "overpriced cupcakes" Yes people enjoy the illuminations dessert party. Yes, the horror people have money and will pay for the illuminations dessert cruise.
the new hip crowd are consumers with money just as the old nostalgia folks are. you feel the new stuff is inferior. I don't and again if I ever do I will simply do what I encourage any consumer of anything to do. I will vote with my wallet.
Bring on GoTG and Star wars, I can't wait. Exactly what "experience" is being "diluted"???? There is no way for me to "experience" the original Epcot. It's gone, it's not coming back. Whatever original intentions Walt had for the parks are lost. Yes they could have done 50 million other things, they could have updated it, they coulda, shoulda, woulda all the live long day but they did not. So no my "experience" is not being diluted.
Last edited:
Shouldigo12
Well-Known Member
To be honest, I don't like it when people on here suggest that there are good/true Disney fans and bad ones. Everybody who likes Disney is a Disney fan, they're not lesser just because they don't share your views on the park. That's a big part of why there's so mich tension between, as you put it, the old timers and the younger crowd. I get annoyed at being told my opinions and views are what are making the park "worse" because I don't agree with them. You are free to not like the direction the parks are going in, but you also need to realize that an opinion that does not agree with yours is still just as valid. I want people to stop acting like me enjoying the parks in their current state is putting some kind of pox on the park and just respect my view.
Oddysey
Well-Known Member
This is a great point. I would consider myself an Epcot purist, and I never thought that I would EVER agree with a completely new vision for FW. Especially a vision revolving around IPs, which is essentially the antithesis of what the original Epcot Center represented. The fact is that Epcot has degraded to such a significant degree that I am willing to accept almost any type of change that would make the park cohesive and whole again.
Combining what you already stated to the fact that Innovations East and West are essentially shuttered, WoL is essentially shuttered, the Imagination interactive areas are a shell, and a laundry list of other issues; I have essentially come to terms with the proposition that Epcot as conceived is dead and will never return. I am in the acceptance phase and have been conditioned or broken down so much by TDO's treatment of Epcot, that I just want a cohesive park that is entertaining to visit. Even if it is means that it will become IPcot, I can deal with that vision much easier than the current Epcot that features so many shuddered buildings, roped off areas, and any cohesive theming/vision.
The original vision of Epcot died a long time ago, and I am ready for the new. Even if it will never measure to the original work of art that was Epcot Center.
Last edited:
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
There is only one business Disney is involved with. Putting people in their parks.
The idea that copying Universal's model of building only franchise based rides (in large, boxy warehouses) as a form of cross promotion is the only successful way to do so is total BS. Any executive or fan who believes this is ignorant at best. Even Universal realizes that this strategy is no longer the best approach for their parks.
The company has literally decades worth of experience doing the opposite with great financial reward. People are willing to pay $300+ a night to stay at Yacht Club or Wilderness Lodge. The Little Mermaid rooms at AoA couldn't hope to do that, no matter how many billions worth of Ariel dolls they sell each year. People know quality when they see it. That is a fact.
What the fans who went to WDW before the year 2000 want is a return to a time when the only goal was to build the best experience possible, regardless of what that was (hotel, shop, ride), with budget, not synergy, being the only limit. The desire to build the latest, greatest thing is what put the company on the map and kept it going for years. Many of these creations are still the main driving force of what keeps customers coming back. When people come home from WDW they don't rave about the Aladdin spinner ride or the Finding Nemo aquarium. They talk about the fireworks at Epcot, or the special meal they had at California Grill. Brand association is not a substitute for quality. If it was, Disney Studios Paris would be the world's most popular theme park [it's dead last among Disney's].
And yes, you can refurbish and improve rides in ways that stay true to their spirit and keep them appealing to newer audiences. The Magic Kingdom has nearly all of its original E-tickets intact and people still line up to see them. No reason Epcot, DHS or AK couldn't do the same.
Synergy is not a substitute creativity
Investment and maintenance are not bad for business
People don't know what they want until they see it
But people will always pay for quality
The idea that copying Universal's model of building only franchise based rides (in large, boxy warehouses) as a form of cross promotion is the only successful way to do so is total BS. Any executive or fan who believes this is ignorant at best. Even Universal realizes that this strategy is no longer the best approach for their parks.
The company has literally decades worth of experience doing the opposite with great financial reward. People are willing to pay $300+ a night to stay at Yacht Club or Wilderness Lodge. The Little Mermaid rooms at AoA couldn't hope to do that, no matter how many billions worth of Ariel dolls they sell each year. People know quality when they see it. That is a fact.
What the fans who went to WDW before the year 2000 want is a return to a time when the only goal was to build the best experience possible, regardless of what that was (hotel, shop, ride), with budget, not synergy, being the only limit. The desire to build the latest, greatest thing is what put the company on the map and kept it going for years. Many of these creations are still the main driving force of what keeps customers coming back. When people come home from WDW they don't rave about the Aladdin spinner ride or the Finding Nemo aquarium. They talk about the fireworks at Epcot, or the special meal they had at California Grill. Brand association is not a substitute for quality. If it was, Disney Studios Paris would be the world's most popular theme park [it's dead last among Disney's].
And yes, you can refurbish and improve rides in ways that stay true to their spirit and keep them appealing to newer audiences. The Magic Kingdom has nearly all of its original E-tickets intact and people still line up to see them. No reason Epcot, DHS or AK couldn't do the same.
Synergy is not a substitute creativity
Investment and maintenance are not bad for business
People don't know what they want until they see it
But people will always pay for quality
Last edited:
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
Some fans need to understand that change for the sake of change is not good. Change is only good if the actual change is good. What Walt meant by DL will never be complete is that it will continue to be "plussed." Not changed to match the latest trend.
Shouldigo12
Well-Known Member
And other people need to realize that good is relative, and just because someone considers something good when you don't doesn't mean they're ignorant or not a real fan. Not saying you personally have ever done that, but it's an attitude I see a lot on this forum and it gets frustrating. No opinion is any more right or wrong than the other.
DreamfinderGuy
Well-Known Member
I haven't ever seen anybody saying that Disney shouldn't change anything. Granted I could be wrong, but do they exist? Or is that just the slander that people use against the fans who want thematic integrity instead of four Magic Kingdoms?
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
Then the next few years should be interesting, by this I would assume Disney will be losing popularity.
I agree, it would have been great if the maintenance and updating was done, I don't think anyone would argue that, but again it was not. So the question becomes how do the parks move forward?
If what you say in the first sentence is true, then Disney is batting 100 because they are most definitely putting people in the parks.
RandySavage
Well-Known Member
Tweet of the week:
Oddysey
Well-Known Member
I certainly cannot disagree with your statement. Disney's attendance has been growing year after year despite a decline in quality and maintenance. Disney built their park brands by delivering unapparelled quality, and it is a safe assumption to make that the scope of quality demonstrated in the original Epcot Center would not be green lit in todays board room. It would be viewed as too expensive and to great of a risk.
Typically, even with very large companies, their peak years occur after a significant decline in quality. This is because the consumer remembers the original quality of the brand, and associates said brand with superior quality long after said quality has declined. It takes a while for the consumer to recognize that the product has declined in quality because the brand was built so strongly and that perception is difficult to change. Once the consumer begins to notice after the initial lag, the brand begins to deteriorate.
I do not know if this will happen with Disney as they currently have many projects in place to upgrade or change the parks. I am simply noting a typical cycle with well-established brands. In the end, your current assessment that Disney is batting 100 due to park capacity is correct. It will be interesting to see what occurs moving forward.
Sharon&Susan
Well-Known Member
“Disneyland was never meant to be a museum”
During Walt’s time there were plenty of museum like exhibits sewn throughout the park especially on Main Street and Tomorrowland. And let us not forget that Disneyland used to have a Davy Crocket museum.
During Walt’s time there were plenty of museum like exhibits sewn throughout the park especially on Main Street and Tomorrowland. And let us not forget that Disneyland used to have a Davy Crocket museum.
Oddysey
Well-Known Member
I do not disagree with the premise of your post. I just thought you may find this video interesting. Enjoy.
Edit: I apologize for the still image in the link, I suspect these types of images have been shown to have a positive impact on album sales, downloads, and clicks on You Tube videos for certain demographics.
Last edited:
Oddysey
Well-Known Member
I think you are missunderstanding the museum quote altogether. When saying "Disney is not meant to be a museum", it does not mean that there should literally be no museums in the parks. It is a reference meaning that old attractions/shows should not stay stagnant and unchanged. In other words, it would be okay for DL and DW to still have literal museums, much like One Mans Dream at DHS, but eventually the contents within the museums will need to change with time.
Do you folks need some alone time?
Sharon&Susan
Well-Known Member
The problem with that expression is that it is used as a shield to block all rational critical discourse and assumes that all of Disney's detractors just hate change and automatically assumes all change is good. The "Disneyland was never meant to be a museum " is a tired mantra that deserves to be made fun of.
I believe Walt would approve of the parks being updated to appeal to changing demographics while preserving time-tested classics and favorites. Witness the many changes Disneyland itself saw while Walt was alive.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I suppose if you want to cater to paranoia you can think of it that way. I am not attacking you nor am I attacking the "old" Disney. However, sooner or later everyone has to accept reality and know when things have run their course. If we never changed anything in our lives we would get awfully bored before to long.
You want WDW to continue to be in existence and so do I. I have gotten enjoyment out of it for the past 36 years. I realized a long time ago that every park has it's own integrity that only works if the integrity has a big enough following. Otherwise it withers on the vine. If Disney changes something because it no longer has what the public is asking for that is done as an effort to make the place stronger. People, attitudes and what people perceive as enjoyable evolves over time.
Just starting from the time of my first visit to WDW, I am very close to being four generations away from today's adult and parent. There is me, my children, their children, and the next group that is either just here fresh out of the package or are in production. Over that time things change. We don't have to keep up, but, for our own benefit we really have to try and get enjoyment from it and not expect every thing to just stay the way we want it too. We had our turn in the influence barrel and now it is in the hands of newer generations that are doing things how they would like it just like we did back a few years ago. Part of the circle of life.
When I was born this was how a Chevy looked. It was loved by many, but, progress happened and some people felt was a terrible loss. Aren't we glad that things change? The chrome on that thing probably weighed more then a complete car today.
So no, I miss some of the stuff that is gone, but, it left for a reason. Even the worlds worst businessman will not throw out something that was making money or drawing them in. I loved EPCOT Ctr. but, even with my limited visits, just a little over 1 per year, I could see that it lost it power and that Disney had to do something eventually to make sure that the venue remained. That might have been done by making it more like MK, but, it will never be exactly like MK only that it will entertain more people of a newer generation and desire with a formula that works.
Sharon&Susan
Well-Known Member
When did I say all change was bad?