As opposed to an "open-minded" opinion in which anything goes? Maybe Disney should buy the Smurfs and the Chipmunks and put them into the parks too. After all, they're family oriented, cute, and brightly colored, which to some people would probably mean that they'd fit right in. And the characters are already formed and have made money, so hey, they're perfect, right?
I don't agree that the Muppets are in tune with Walt's aesthetic. At all. To me, they're a mean bunch of creatures that blow each other up, eat each other, hit each other and then pause every now and then to sing a song about tolerance and/or world peace and stuff. Yes, that's right, I've never been a big fan of them, except for the Sesame Street bunch (when I was very young). But I'm not a big fan of the Marvel heroes or the Power Rangers either. So whatever. Now I understand that others here don't agree with me, and I think that's fine. I don't want this to escalate into an argument, so I'm signing off here. Peace out.
A Smurf dark ride would be awesome - the one that existed has long closed (or the overlay replaced, I can't recall which). The Chipmunks would be neat in a little stage show with puppets/animatronics.
I kind of get what you are saying, but I see a few issues. First, arguing about "Walt's aesthetic" - plays into the whole "Walt was God" myth. The man has been dead nearly fifty years, and if he hadn't died then he would still be pretty assuredly dead now at 111ish years old. If one deflects to the Walt that lived in the 1940's, 50's, and 60's, they are also talking about a period in time that he is conceptually associated with because
he lived in that time. Walt is evocative of a more family-friendly feel-good time because that was the time in which he lived.
Thinking that Walt Disney's 2012 "aesthetic" would be the same were he living and working now is a pretty silly concept. We already saw development to other areas - Walt was intricately involved in both Haunted Mansion and Pirates. Both of which weren't all singing mice and puppy dogs kissing kitties, particularly the latter. Although I loathe to discuss what a dead man would think, I have to say if Walt had made it to the 1970's, we may very well have been introduced to the Muppets by Walt himself on an episode of "Wide World of Disney". They very much are of the
core of his aesthetic - family, togetherness, brotherhood, songs that can not only be catchy and fun and "just because" but also ones that tug at the heart and can even be termed as bitter-sweet and reflective.
All that said,
it doesn't matter a tinkers darn, and here is why.
Is it a bit odd to be walking through Adventureland and see an Indiana Jones ride? Yes. Do most people care? No. Why? Because even in it's slightly ragged state, it's an amazing ride that I am so grateful we have. We wouldn't have it otherwise. Or Star Tours. Or the original Pixar pictures (which Disney distributed, but had nothing to do with the making of). (Wait a minute, now that I am thinking, as much as I am sick of Toy Story in every park, maybe you are on to something...)
So, yes, as a Disney fan I like the theming and consistency but I'm willing to make compromises if it gets us stellar attractions. And the truth is, the Muppets were MADE to be theme park attractions. They already exist in the real world as 3-D objects (none of the "Ariel's hair looks like an ice cream cone!" issues, they don't need to be translated, they are already physical puppets that could have animatronics as we have already seen), and if Jim Henson had lived they would be older members of the Disney family than even the Pixar characters because the rides/shows that were designed to be based on them would have been completed two decades ago. MuppetVision was just the first step - we would have had at least one Muppet dark ride and a restaurant as well. I can imagine an insane demand for a true replication of the Muppet theater with a real live Muppet show, mix it with a "dinner theater" sort of thing and it would be booked out six months in advance.
California gets this. They have been dealing with it since the 80's and realize that Disneyland is first and foremost a theme park. And as much as we like to romanticize the origins (like those of us that are young enough to not be able to imagine a world where we had to give individual tickets to get on rides like both Disneyland and Magic Kingdom used to long ago), Walt also had the Carnation Cafe and other promotional, real-world things in the parks. They were not this pristine "Disney Only" place - Tom Sawyer Island (was there even a Disney adaptation? I can't recall, but it certainly didn't "recreate" the way that Snow White, etc. was if they did), all that Frontieerland stuff (I mean, people used to ride mules at Disneyland - Disneyland!)
The point is, the idea of it all is very romantic, but it's nothing to get disgruntled about; it's akin to people who bash "clones" of rides, just something that Disney fans on the Internet who think too much and forget that we live in a bubble and forget that to the real world, very few people walk into Adventureland at Disneyland and say, "What? I don't like this - why is Indiana Jones here?" They mostly say, "WOW that is an amazing ride!" And as long as, in general, the Disney "spirit" and "magic" is kept up all around, aberrations like the Muppets, Star Wars, even Marvel can't hurt that, as long as they are amazing attractions.
Now, does Disney even make amazing attractions period these days - that's a
whole other bottle of wax...
