Disney Purists vs. Disney Traditionalists

[Rayray]

Have you ever met any real Imagineers? Really met them, not just gone to see them speak at a DLC event? Ever sat them down and talked with them about what their job really is? You have a very fanciful way of looking at both the world and the World, but, it is just that, fantasy... And not that fun, Disney Fantasy that I go to the parks for, or preserve the magical guest experience for, but the kind of fantasy that is defined by having no basis in reality.

If there is going to be one complaint about the current group of Imagineers (and I have voiced this to one of them, over drinks), is that a majority of them get so caught up in the details, they can't see the forest for the trees, or even the trees for the leaves. They aren't dreaming big, they are putting stickers on Everest's queue. They are painting with the tiniest brushes to make the fantasy seem real, they forget that the Magic Kingdom (the most visited theme park in the world) was painted with a much wider brush... making the fantasy seem.... more fanciful. They don't learn about budgets as they go along, they adhere to them throughout their career, a project does not get started without a proposed budget... But that budget is going to tiny things, bike trails in cement, predator/prey relationships in quick service resteraunts.

explain what you believe should be done in place of certain details... I'm not disagreeing at all; I am only curious to see what exactly is on your mind.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

But I digress the situation, I can see now you are too set in your ways (re: stubborn).

Clearly you did not actually read my last post completely. I shall repeat myself (as I tend to do so often on this board):

As far as debating is concerned, I never reject another person's views, but I need to feel as though my views are likewise not being rejected.

I have not ignored you. Far from it. You have presented some of the most compelling arguments I have read, challenging even those who agree with your opinion.

I have met an Imagineer or two, but not the ones you speak of. Unfortuantely, you are right. Imagineering is filled with too many "yes-men." And as much as I love Joe Rohde, I must agree he likes to paint a mural with single-bristle brush. However, the one hole in your agrument is that the Magic Kingdom is a place of fantasy, much of it meant to resemble cartoons, whereas Animal Kingdom, or at least the continents of, are meant to be based on reality, a reality that has been there a long time; and to make people feel like they're in a thousand year old village, you need that level of detail. Look at Discovery Island and you'll see what I mean. It is meant to be a fantasy place and you can see the same bright, solid colors there as you would see in Fantasyland. Well, sort of...The design is different, but the execution is the same.

Going back to the Everest topic (because apparently I'm masochistic), I agree with you on that. The queue is amazing, but bike tracks on the road? If we want to talk about where the money goes, let's discuss that design concept. It's a great touch, but what sacrifices had to be made for it? Some argued how few Guests were bothered by the backside of the mountain. Likewise, how many Guests do you think actually care about the theming of Expedition Everest and its surrounding area? I can tell you from experience, not many. Most people don't even want to wait in the queue, they'd rather FastPass it (though I try to discourage them, suggesting they FastPass Kilimanjaro Safaris instead). Many others don't even bother learning the name of the Attraction (somehow, even though they must have read it dozens of times on their way to and through the park), ignorantly referring to it as "Mount Everest," "that mountain ride," or simply, "that new roller-coaster."

"I may have invented these bifocals I'm wearing, but I assure you they're not rose colored." - Benjamin Franklin A-A, The American Adventure

 

[wannab@dis]

Going back to the Everest topic (because apparently I'm masochistic), I agree with you on that. The queue is amazing, but bike tracks on the road? If we want to talk about where the money goes, let's discuss that design concept. It's a great touch, but what sacrifices had to be made for it? Some argued how few Guests were bothered by the backside of the mountain. Likewise, how many Guests do you think actually care about the theming of Expedition Everest and its surrounding area? I can tell you from experience, not many. Most people don't even want to wait in the queue, they'd rather FastPass it (though I try to discourage them, suggesting they FastPass Kilimanjaro Safaris instead). Many others don't even bother learning the name of the Attraction (somehow, even though they must have read it dozens of times on their way to and through the park), ignorantly referring to it as "Mount Everest," "that mountain ride," or simply, "that new roller-coaster."

:brick::brick::brick:

You're making absolutely no sense! Don't waffle on your stance especially in YOUR thread... that doesn't bode well for people taking you serious.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Wow, I cant believe this thread still has this much punch....

 

[JustinTheClaw]

:brick::brick::brick:

You're making absolutely no sense! Don't waffle on your stance especially in YOUR thread... that doesn't bode well for people taking you serious.

I happen to like waffles! :slurp:

But seriously, how does this not make sense? Some notice the amazingly themed queue and area, some notice the unfinished mountain, most only want the ride and couldn't really care less about any storyline. We are different because we care. We care enough to discuss and debate topics relating to Disney World, the Imagineers, the Attractions and the Cast Members. We are, unfortunately, the minority. Most people these days only care about the rides.

Honestly, if someone hadn't pointed out and explained to me the bike tracks in the pavement, I probably would have never noticed them (aside from the fact that I sweep them on an almost daily basis). Now that I notice them, and most importantly understand them, I appreciate them; but I'm one of the few who do, and I occasionally feel that the money to rebuild the sidewalk could have been spent on something else more noticable to the average Guest.

As I stated before, it is all or nothing with you. You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that some people can like something, but still not like certain aspects of it, or vice versa. I love Expedition Everest. I think it's the best thing the Imagineers have done since Tower of Terror, in some ways I feel they did better. But it's not perfect. It could never be perfect, even if they had had $300 million dollars and an additional five years. It's close enough to perfect that one has to nit-pick (like myself) in order to find its faults.

I am allowed to change my mind, you know, or at least expand it. Especially when faced with compelling arguments from people who do more than just tell me how wrong I am.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

I'm going to get some waffles now! :slurp:

 

[wannab@dis]

Honestly, if someone hadn't pointed out and explained to me the bike tracks in the pavement, I probably would have never noticed them (aside from the fact that I sweep them on an almost daily basis). Now that I notice them, and most importantly understand them, I appreciate them; but I'm one of the few who do, and I occasionally feel that the money to rebuild the sidewalk could have been spent on something else more noticable to the average Guest.

You need to go back and read the thread again. Several have tried to tell you that theming something that most guests wouldn't see or care about is a waste of money. You have argued for days about theming the backside of a mountain that won't be noticed by most. Now, it appears you're saying that WDW should NOT spend money on theming that people see from inside the park, but they should spend money on something that can only be seen from the outside of the park. Like I said... doesn't make sense.

Give me the outstanding queue, immense detail and awesome ride any day of the week and I could care less about the backside of the mountain that's not seen from the park. I believe that 99% would agree with me on that one.

As I stated before, it is all or nothing with you. You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that some people can like something, but still not like certain aspects of it, or vice versa. I love Expedition Everest. I think it's the best thing the Imagineers have done since Tower of Terror, in some ways I feel they did better. But it's not perfect. It could never be perfect, even if they had had $300 million dollars and an additional five years. It's close enough to perfect that one has to nit-pick (like myself) in order to find its faults.

I am allowed to change my mind, you know, or at least expand it. Especially when faced with compelling arguments from people who do more than just tell me how wrong I am.

I don't have any problems grasping facts... in fact, I'm not the one changing their story. The highlighed sentence above is why I'm out of this conversation. The compelling arguments have been made over and over many times in this thread... it's just that you have ignored them. Now you're trying to save face and turn it into "everyone attacks me" whining.

 

[cdunbar]

In reading the "Jungle Cruise: What's The Point" thread, I was reminded of a conclusion I came to a few months ago.

There are Disney Fanatics all over the place. They may be fans of the parks, the movies, the animation, what have you, but they all share an appreciation for the legacy left to us by the late, great dreamer. But they share it in different ways.

I got into a debate with a friend of mine about the refurbishment of Pirates of the Caribbean. His stance was Pirates the Attraction was there first and people needed to learn that the movie came years after the ride. He believed that changing the ride was an insult to the legacy. Though I saw his point, I am of the persuasion that the Pirates update is a good thing and will enhance Guests' enjoyment of the Attraction; that most people nowadays have come to know of Pirates of the Caribbean primarily through the movie(s) and will expect the same experience from the ride of the same name.

The conclusion I came to was that there are two major divisions of Disney Fanatics: the Disney Purists and the Disney Traditionalists. The Disney Purists see Disney's world as a place of constant change and reimagining; that Walt would not have let his creations or ideas get old and neither should we. We should constantly keep his world fresh and new and up-to-date. On the other side are the Disney Traditionalists, who believe that Walt was the ultimate Imagineer and that the way he left his world is the way it should remain, free of change, to maintain his legacy. Dispite the changing world around it, Walt's world should stay the same, safe, magical haven it always has been.

I am in the former category. I believe that Walt would not have set still and, for example, let a movie come out based on a Disneyland Attraction and not have any plans to, as he called it, "plus" his Attraction. I also believe that Walt would have set aside cel animation long ago and beaten Pixar to the draw (if you'll pardon the pun) at CG-Animation.

I am interested in what others think about these and other similar debates. What side are you on? Are you a Purist or a Traditionalist?

It's really hard to decide what side to be on b/c I live 30 min from WDW and have spent my entire life riding these rides I mean changing things up a bit does allow them not to get stale but it is also sad to see things like the pirates get changed from what it was b/c that was the way Walt wanted it but in this particular instance i tend to agree with u on this one the pirates should be left alone...

 

[cdunbar]

First of all this is a great thread.
I think I'm def. a bit of both and I'm sure many people feel like this. Ofcourse they need to keep changing and inventing to keep people interested. Especially when people go multiple times, they need something new to experience. But there are def. some classics out there that should just be left alone for us to enjoy time and time again. And for our kids to enjoy them too!

I am only a recently crazed Disney fan ever since my first time at Disneyworld in Jan 2006. I went to Disneyland about 10 times but mostly when I was a kid but Disneyworld is truly beyond anything anyone can imagine. After that, I started watching all those Disney classics over again.
Which brings up the fact that you're so right, there have been no really good Disney classics for a long time, Lion King, Aladdin, Pinocchio, etc. and some of those were the early 90's!

But back to the theme park, when I went in Januray, and I saw a ride called Pirates of the Caribbean I was really excited but when I went on, i realized its the same ride I love at disneyland and that it had nothing to do with the movie. this i have a problem with! They only renamed it to get more ppl to ride it b/c they think its part of the movie, but its not, its an old ride with a new name. Now,however, i hear they are adding a new feature to it that is from the movie, and i think this makes more sense. Now this i totally agree with but lets say for example the Haunted Mansion ride was called something else, and they renamed it "Haunted Mansion" just cuz of the movie, I dont think thats great at all cuz it really has nothing to do with it.
What do you think?

Yeah uhh Pirates of the Carribean has always been called that they used the ride name for the movie not vesa versa...

 

[PintoColvig]

Yeah uhh Pirates of the Carribean has always been called that they used the ride name for the movie not vesa versa...

Yeah uhh that person was corrected way back on Post #14 :hammer:

 

[ClemsonTigger]

explain what you believe should be done in place of certain details... I'm not disagreeing at all; I am only curious to see what exactly is on your mind.

I don't profess to be able to speak for Enderikari, but my take is not that there is anything wrong with the details, except that for all the time making sure the labels of the cans and the book collections and the correct flag colors (for Everest) are correct, the larger function of the entire Asia area or the overall integration of AK is sometimes overlooked. It's a matter of having a Master Project Plan from which all specific projects are developed to having independent Projects that while true to themselves are not necessarily integrated into the bigger picture.

Edit: To use animation as an example, the look and detail of individual charaters may be great, backdrops or scenes may be outstanding, but if they are not consistent with the overall story line, the "islands" of greatness and detail will be diminished.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

You need to go back and read the thread again. Several have tried to tell you that theming something that most guests wouldn't see or care about is a waste of money. You have argued for days about theming the backside of a mountain that won't be noticed by most. Now, it appears you're saying that WDW should NOT spend money on theming that people see from inside the park, but they should spend money on something that can only be seen from the outside of the park. Like I said... doesn't make sense.

Give me the outstanding queue, immense detail and awesome ride any day of the week and I could care less about the backside of the mountain that's not seen from the park. I believe that 99% would agree with me on that one.



I don't have any problems grasping facts... in fact, I'm not the one changing their story. The highlighed sentence above is why I'm out of this conversation. The compelling arguments have been made over and over many times in this thread... it's just that you have ignored them. Now you're trying to save face and turn it into "everyone attacks me" whining.

I don't recall anyone previously mentioning the fact that few people notice the outstanding details. I mostly remember those details being your argument about how the money was spent better that way. But perhaps I didn't notice it because I finally decided that you had nothing new to offer with your information. You simply repeated yourself and told me I was wrong, which started this circular logic which was finally broken when someone new joined in with new information presented in a productive, well-thought out manner.

I am seriously getting sick of your harping on the "stop attacking me" post (which, by the way, was not even directed at you in the first place). Every time you do that, it's just another unnecessary dig at me and wastes space that could be used for conversation related to the topic. It's to the point you have me retaliating to it, which is something I have been trying not to do. You clearly have little respect for people with differing opinions, or at least not mine. You chose to turn a friendly debate into an argument, and tried made me look like the bad guy for trying to challenge the group to present different points of view. It's a little thing debaters like to call moderating.

This is why I started this discussion, to bring up different points of view. I have my stance and I probably won't waver on it, but I'm not out to say I'm right and you're wrong. I'm out to encourage everyone to provide well-thought-out explanations for their points. (Speaking of which, you still have not provided that picture of the unthemed area of Tower of Terror, though I'm pretty sure I know to what you are referring.) Most (though admittedly not all) of your arguments have consisted of "everybody else feels this or that," irrelevant or inaccurate information, or restating what you or someone else has said again and again, which tells me nothing of why you feel a certain way.

Enderikari has done this. He has presented hard and accurate facts (some of which I didn't even know) and brought up points that had not been even remotely touched on before. Once he joined in, I started discussing different points of view again, rather than just my own. I'm to the point where I'm all but ignoring you, acknowledging you mostly out of respect for your time and effort in contributing, and your passion in the discussion. I only wish your passion was still used to enlighten rather than to run down. You were at one point contributing to the topic and made some good points until you decided Justin-bashing was a more productive use of your time, but I suppose I cannot change your habits any more than you can change mine.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

You need to go back and read the thread again. Several have tried to tell you that theming something that most guests wouldn't see or care about is a waste of money. You have argued for days about theming the backside of a mountain that won't be noticed by most. Now, it appears you're saying that WDW should NOT spend money on theming that people see from inside the park, but they should spend money on something that can only be seen from the outside of the park. Like I said... doesn't make sense.

Give me the outstanding queue, immense detail and awesome ride any day of the week and I could care less about the backside of the mountain that's not seen from the park. I believe that 99% would agree with me on that one.



I don't have any problems grasping facts... in fact, I'm not the one changing their story. The highlighed sentence above is why I'm out of this conversation. The compelling arguments have been made over and over many times in this thread... it's just that you have ignored them. Now you're trying to save face and turn it into "everyone attacks me" whining.

To directly respond to your point, tire tracks in the sidewalk are not what I would consider a useful piece of theming. It's something that needs to be explained to most Guests. Most (and I mean most, not all) of the other elements of theming are fine. As long as someone is paying attention to them, they can understand them. But how many people are going to put bike tracks and a mountain with a Yeti together, especially if the person never even notices them? I think it's too minor of a detail.

The prayer flags are cheap and effective at creating a real environment. The Yeti artwork and shrines are obvious and contribute a lot to the story. The travel reception office sets the Guests up to unerstand they're taking a trip. (Though it's a little overused. There are now three queues in Animal Kingdom with reception offices. It's become a motif of the park. We get it, we're taking a trip! ) And the Yeti Museum can help lead easily influenced Guest into believing there really is a Yeti (and I'm not saying there really isn't).

The key thing in these elements is none of them required tearing up solid pavement and rebuilding it. I wonder how much money was spent on that part of the design.

 

[wannab@dis]

I don't recall anyone previously mentioning the fact that few people notice the outstanding details. I mostly remember those details being your argument about how the money was spent better that way. But perhaps I didn't notice it because I finally decided that you had nothing new to offer with your information. You simply repeated yourself and told me I was wrong, which started this circular logic which was finally broken when someone new joined in with new information presented in a productive, well-thought out manner.

I am seriously getting sick of your harping on the "stop attacking me" post (which, by the way, was not even directed at you in the first place). Every time you do that, it's just another unnecessary dig at me and wastes space that could be used for conversation related to the topic. It's to the point you have me retaliating to it, which is something I have been trying not to do. You clearly have little respect for people with differing opinions, or at least not mine. You chose to turn a friendly debate into an argument, and tried made me look like the bad guy for trying to challenge the group to present different points of view. It's a little thing debaters like to call moderating.

This is why I started this discussion, to bring up different points of view. I have my stance and I probably won't waver on it, but I'm not out to say I'm right and you're wrong. I'm out to encourage everyone to provide well-thought-out explanations for their points. (Speaking of which, you still have not provided that picture of the unthemed area of Tower of Terror, though I'm pretty sure I know to what you are referring.) Most (though admittedly not all) of your arguments have consisted of "everybody else feels this or that," irrelevant or inaccurate information, or restating what you or someone else has said again and again, which tells me nothing of why you feel a certain way.

Enderikari has done this. He has presented hard and accurate facts (some of which I didn't even know) and brought up points that had not been even remotely touched on before. Once he joined in, I started discussing different points of view again, rather than just my own. I'm to the point where I'm all but ignoring you, acknowledging you mostly out of respect for your time and effort in contributing, and your passion in the discussion. I only wish your passion was still used to enlighten rather than to run down. You were at one point contributing to the topic and made some good points until you decided Justin-bashing was a more productive use of your time, but I suppose I cannot change your habits any more than you can change mine.

Like I said... you can't get past the idea of people attacking you and keep going in circles. Try reading the posts for something other than a personal attack and you may learn something or be able to discuss it in more detail. I don't know you and honestly could care less if I ever meet you. I have nothing to gain by 'attacking' you and haven't done so. However, you're getting close to being added to my 'ignore list' due to the fact that you continue attempting to cause trouble.

I have pointed out (as have others) the flaws in your point of view. In fact, you basically have agreed that we are correct by your statement... It's close enough to perfect that one has to nit-pick (like myself) in order to find its faults. Why do you want to nitpick the attraction? If it's as close to perfect as you say, why look for problems? That absolutely makes zero sense and it negates the entire reason for the debate. There's just no reason to continue.

I will give you this... you're passionate about nitpicking. Only problem is that most consider that annoying.

 

[wannab@dis]

To directly respond to your point, tire tracks in the sidewalk are not what I would consider a useful piece of theming. It's something that needs to be explained to most Guests. Most (and I mean most, not all) of the other elements of theming are fine. As long as someone is paying attention to them, they can understand them. But how many people are going to put bike tracks and a mountain with a Yeti together, especially if the person never even notices them? I think it's too minor of a detail.

The prayer flags are cheap and effective at creating a real environment. The Yeti artwork and shrines are obvious and contribute a lot to the story. The travel reception office sets the Guests up to unerstand they're taking a trip. (Though it's a little overused. There are now three queues in Animal Kingdom with reception offices. It's become a motif of the park. We get it, we're taking a trip! ) And the Yeti Museum can help lead easily influenced Guest into believing there really is a Yeti (and I'm not saying there really isn't).

The key thing in these elements is none of them required tearing up solid pavement and rebuilding it. I wonder how much money was spent on that part of the design.

:lol: You're beating yourself on this topic. You claim that the bike tracks were expensive and most don't notice it is reason for it not being done. Ok... The back of the mountain would be expensive to theme and most don't notice it. End of story? Probably not... so I'll add one more thing. The costs of the bike tracks and the queue details were probably insignificant when compared to completing the theming of the mountain AND the tracks and queue are onstage. Point, Game, Match.

By the way... no attacks in this post either.

 

[JimboJones123]

New Pirates Is Now Cannon Also!

 

[JustinTheClaw]

:lol: You're beating yourself on this topic. You claim that the bike tracks were expensive and most don't notice it is reason for it not being done. Ok... The back of the mountain would be expensive to theme and most don't notice it. End of story? Probably not... so I'll add one more thing. The costs of the bike tracks and the queue details were probably insignificant when compared to completing the theming of the mountain AND the tracks and queue are onstage. Point, Game, Match.

By the way... no attacks in this post either.

I disclaim the next paragraph by pointing out that I used the backside of Everest as an example in a post and never meant for it to become the main topic of conversation. However, as long as people are still willing to bring their opinions on the matter to the table, I am willing to acknowledge and discuss them.

There are a lot of people who notice the back of the mountain. The Guests face it as they enter the parking lot and a 200 ft. mountain tends to draw attention to iteslf in Florida. Many people I've spoken to in person are in agreement with me. Had this been the backside of, say, Dinosaur we were talking about it wouldn't bother me because that is supposed to represent a building, but the backside of what is supposed to be a mountain looking like a building? That doesn't look right. The difference between the tire tracks and the backside of the mountain is simply scale. Also, to clear up the issue, I feel the tire tracks are a waste of money because that money would have been better spent building the rest of the mountain; or at least planting some more vegetation to hide the building.

I'm hoping that the nature of your last post was to restore some civility in our exchange, so I will take a cue and settle this "attack" thing once and for all. It really never had anything to do with you and I am still confused as to how you became invovled with it because until you brought it up, I had no beef with your posts. Corrus made a post a while back full of some good points, but mostly factual errors which I felt the need to correct for the sake of the debate. He apparently took offense from this and made a comment inferring that my intention must be to nag everyone because I am unhappy with myself. He then questioned the fact that I was even a Cast Member and took it upon himself to attempt to prove that I am lying about my position. (I'm not sure why I would have done that, but it wasn't my logic.) This made it undeniably personal. Needless to say I was a little insulted by this and retorted, questioning why he felt the need to resort to personal attacks, and moved on to other things, including our debate which at that point was still civil (I like to think that at this point, it still retains some of its civility.)

A few posts later, speck76, who I have noticed has had a habit of expressing his views in what I consider a rather inflammatory and tactless manner, made a comparison between me and some guy who was apparently complaining earlier about chipped paint. (Again, a difference in scale.) You went with it, referring to me as an extremist and that's when our discussion fell apart.

As you can hopefully see, I never meant for our conversations, or this thread, to come to this. The more I tried to explain myself the more you took exception to it, which in turn made me more frustrated. What didn't help was that whenever I took offense from something, rather than apologizing and/or explaining that you never meant it that way (assuming that is true), you chose to tell me that I had no right to be offended and to more-or-less get over it.

I think we can all act like adults here. I should have settled this a long time ago but I kept hoping you'd figure it out for yourself, not realizing that implying at my point and not explicitly expressing it was only fanning the fires that started from one little spark of insultation. (That was a really bad pun and I apologize! :zipit

I hope we can come to a truce and continue to discuss and debate amicably.

P.S. I will acknowledge you brought up a good point in the last post which forced me to really think of a defense.

 

[wannab@dis]

Corrus made a post a while back full of some good points, but mostly factual errors

You may want to do a little research prior to making such claims... those claims could be considered a major problem by many long-standing members of this forum. :wave:

As for the rest of your essay, if you post it where I can read it, then it becomes fodder for my replies. Claiming attacks by any of the posters that didn't exist is reason enough to let you know that nobody is attacking you. They may attack your position, but I've not seen many, if any, directed at you.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

You may want to do a little research prior to making such claims... those claims could be considered a major problem by many long-standing members of this forum. :wave:

As for the rest of your essay, if you post it where I can read it, then it becomes fodder for my replies. Claiming attacks by any of the posters that didn't exist is reason enough to let you know that nobody is attacking you. They may attack your position, but I've not seen many, if any, directed at you.

If you wish, you may go back to the following pages to see the posts to which I am referring (also to correct any factual errors I may have presented, which thus far have not been challenged to my knowledge):

#99 on page 7
#120 on page 8
#149 and #150 on page 10
#167 on page 12
#184, #185 and #188 on page 13

Which pretty much brings us to the beginning of our argument. Again, if I did insult someone along the way I am sorry, but I've mostly been on the defensive in this.

I also apologize to speck76 on the fact that it was not he but Enderikari who made the first General Grizz comparison.

As far as I am concerned, WannaB@Dis, you and I are square now.

Now, with that out of the way, and hopefully all discontent settled, I am prepared to bring this thread back on track by referring to a topic that was brought up a long time ago...

 

[JustinTheClaw]

Just a recap, here are the posts to which I am going to refer:

I do agree that the animation is a good example of the approach, but I would argue most find the current DISNEY films to be lackluster. I am not a huge fan of CGI just because I like traditional animation. But, CG has its place as an artform. What I don't like are poor films. Unfortunately, with a few notable exceptions, Disney has been failing at making good animated films. So, I don't know that attacking the other CG film studios only is appropriate. I would argue Pixar is the only truly successful CGI studio, but the others (and, yes, I am including DreamWorks despite my own personal loathing for the company) have also had their successes.

Where the biggest flaw is, ironically, in relevance. Disney and many others have been trying to desperately to be "relevant to today's society." Unfortunately, when you are trying to get in the head of a group you are fully removed from, it rarely works. THAT is a great example of what I find in the parks, too. PC, hip, cool, etc. are words that should NOT be appearing in WDI, the studios, etc. IMHO. Instead, go wtih appealing stories that overarch time and spark with every viewer. Then your creativity will shine through because every person in the audience can latch onto the baseline of the story. The relevance will come if it needs to.

I guess in a world of constant change, evolution, improvement, etc., the strongest successes for this company and its affiliates are those that draw on these principles. Pirates, Monsters in the Closet, Super Heroes, Being Separated from your Parents, Flying through Space, Wandering the World, Fairy Tales. We all can relate to these in some easy way. Also, they are positive without being cheesy or preachy (again, no PC). The message evolves as you get older. Finding Nemo says very different things to a 7 year old child than a 25 year old or to a 40 year old parent. BUT, it's one film. If you can appreciate something as you grow with it, that is the true benchmark of success, IMHO.

Exactly. I mean, one of my pet peeves recently is Disney's sudden shift towards glamourizing negativity. Stitch is a perfect example of this new "edgier" Disney; as are the Villians, and the new, sexier Tinker Bell. I'm not sure how long it's been since you've been to the parks, but they now sell T-shirts with Disney quotes like "I'm surrounded by idiots" (with a picture of Scar barely discernable on the back).

These are things that I would think Disney would shy away from. I mean, if Disney's trying to compete with more adult entertainment, they should be making more quality family-friendly entertainment to counter it, not trying to take part in it themselves.

I think we're seeing the same thing in the Attractions. Most of what Disney has been building lately have been big thrill rides. As much as I love thrill rides, that divides and alienates their audience. Older people don't want to ride them. Very young children are afraid of them. Some children are too small to ride them even if they wanted to. We all want a new E-Ticket Attraction. That's all great, but what we need to remember is that Pirates of the Caribbean was an E-Ticket Attraction. It's A Small World was an E-Ticket Attraction. The Enchanted Tiki Room was an E-Ticket Attraction. All of these Attractions are accessible to all of the Guests, not just the ones who meet the height, health and bravery requirements. Not all E-Ticket Attractions need to be thrill rides. Disney could still be building big, elaborate $100 million Attractions that won't scare the pants off of half of their Guests.

I guess I got slightly off topic there, but the bottom line is Disney needs to go back to what they've always excelled at: clean, wholesome, quality entertainment. Forget the teenagers, they're just along for ride anyway...

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/21/six_flags_embarks_on_a_new_adventure/?

This article, as refered to in another thread, indicates that Six Flags apparently has learned the hard way that a thrill park is not the most profitable theme park. After a decade of building thrill after thrill while driving down profits, SF is embracing a brand new philosophy that's as old as Disneyland: a park with rides for ALL people. Thrill rides? I like them. But they're not all that thrill me. Here's to more money spent on broadly appealing attractions (but no more stunt shows, 3-D movies, or 360 movies!)

Any thoughts...?

For reference, the orginal posts are respectively:
#113 and #116 on page 8
#121 on page 9
...in case you want to reply directly to them.