wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
You've ridden the Monsters Inc ride?Goofybynature said:
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney Purists vs. Disney Traditionalists
- Thread starter JustinTheClaw
- Start date
Goofybynature
Member
wannab@dis said:You've ridden the Monsters Inc ride?
I havn't ridden it yet but I've seen most of the inside designs and story concepts for it and i'm not that impressed. naturally i can't release my source but its from a friend who is an imagineer
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
of course, naturally.Goofybynature said:
I'll wait and actually ride it before making any decisions.
JustinTheClaw said:
Not to sound argumentative...its not your thread. You neither own the server space that houses the thread that you started nor (to my knowledge)do you have the power to stop the thread. So, please be a little more respective of Steve, the person who actually owns this thread.
And, yes, Steve will probably tell me to shut up and mind my own business, but I felt it needed to be said. :wave:
wedway71
Well-Known Member
Even though deep down I am a traditionalist I totally respect and welcome change.Sometimes people forget Disney is a corporation that has share holders and to be viable in an ever changing media world Disney must be ready at little or no notice to react and change to quench consumer demands.Yes I want old attractions back because of all my fond memories as a kid(was at WDW in 71 when they opened) but realize that Disney has new generations of consumers every year and must change.I think Disney as a whole has done a good job in keeping current with trends and also keeping up with the quality and traditions of the Walt Disney Company.
After Walt died the traditionalists failed to see that in the 1970s the kids of the world had changed from the times when Walt was alive.They went from yes and no maam clean cut kids to more rebellious kids that thought anything to do with Disney was lame and thats why Disney almost shuttered prior to 84 when Roy got Eisner and Wells in to bring Disney back into the game.
After Walt died the traditionalists failed to see that in the 1970s the kids of the world had changed from the times when Walt was alive.They went from yes and no maam clean cut kids to more rebellious kids that thought anything to do with Disney was lame and thats why Disney almost shuttered prior to 84 when Roy got Eisner and Wells in to bring Disney back into the game.
Number_6
Well-Known Member
wedway71 said:
I have to say that I agree with you there. I vaguely remember my first ever trip to WDW, but I do remember going around 1984 or 1985 with my grandmother and loving everything that I rode. I went several more times over the years with my parents and had certain attractions that I really grew attatched to. Then came a stretch where I didn't get to go at all. Now I have a wife and kids and the first time I took them, I found that there were several things that no longer existed(Horizons, WoM). Heck, I didn't even see the garbage version of Imagination. So, I was a little disappointed about my kids not getting to see some of what I had seen when I was younger, we all had so much fun that it didn't really matter. Are there some things that I feel could have been done better? Sure, but I just figure give it time and eventually things will come back around and there will be more upgrades. Maybe next upgrade one something like "Imagination" will be better. Maybe what replaces Timekeeper will be the next classic attraction. And maybe, giving PotC a little TLC and some new effects will improve it enough that 30 years down the line, when they decide to update it again, we'll hear the cries from "traditionalists" about how it's a classic and should not be changed...
Expo_Seeker40
Well-Known Member
:dazzle: Maybe "THE ladder" provided the information for the Monsters Inc attraction...you know "inside" information. :hammer:
speck76
Well-Known Member
DisneyGrl85 said:
In addition....Walt has been dead for 40 years, and the world has changed, and most likely, Walt's vision would have changed too......
The thing I never get from the traditionalists is that they still believe in the vision of 1966 Walt....but 1966 Walt was not the same as 1962 Walt, which was not the same as 1958 Walt, which was not the same as 1954 Walt.....(and so on)....this being the case...why do people think his views in 1966 are still applicable to 2006?....his views would have changed many many many times over....
MickeyTigg
New Member
hakunamatata said:
Partially right....Roy couldn't get any bankers to finance the idea of EPCOT, so it was Roy's idea to bankroll the profits of MK to self-finance the building of EPCOT.
disney.co.nr
New Member
In my opinion people like and want change, most of the time. if you keep everything the same around disney, it would start to suffer. Look at Universal, they havent created a new ride in Islands of Adventure since it opened in 1999!!!!! yikes. and because they havent done anything their attendance is plummeting. People need to understand that change is necessary in order to appeal to the desires of a changing public.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
Just a few thoughts about this debate.
1. I think there is a big debate going that is missing another side: the Disney vs. Walt Disney debate. While Walt was certainly an inspiration, I really don't find myself latching onto the "What would Walt do?" phenomenon that always arises. Instead, what drew me was the approach that the entire Disney creative staff took and understood in designing DL and WDW. Disney has become a mentality. It is an approach that was absolutely inspired by one man but it is not so much the vision of him alone. So, I really agree that the argument that Walt would OR would not want something (i.e. against both sides) is impossible. We have no idea.
2. I think there is an argument at to what change is. I am a traditionalist, and I guess I am averse to change. I am very happy with progress, though. What I mean by that is improvement. I think there have been many attractions that have been very effective in idea and execution has failed. To change means the loss of a great idea and great attraction. That is a big problem to me when it is replaced by something less effective (Tiki Room, IMAG, etc.).
3. The argument about Walt's use of his attractions as major marketing vehicles isn't as strong as some suggest. While he did so, it was not as blatant as modern approaches have been. The attractions were based on childhood fantasies. It was things every person dreamed of at age 6, even if they were 7 or 70 today. Now, of course, that changes with each generation. However, the overarching themes were never lost. Jungle exploration, being a pioneer, a haunted house, the Future, even being a movie star appealed to everyone.
When you start focusing directly on the films, you lose a large group automatically, especially when it is meant to do nothing more than tell that story. For example, I didn't like Toy Story for whatever reason. That kills Buzz for me as an attraction. I also didn't care for the African Queen (and, yes, saw it as a kid), but I love Jungle Cruise anyway. Am I saying that all tie-ins are bad? Of course not. I don't like them myself, but there is definitely a role for them in Disney, but they are replacing what a lot of people really enjoyed as a child.
Bottom line of these: if you can find a way to improve, tweak, and add to the existing attractions, you have a winning strategy. That means replacing attractions that are failing overall. Walt did that, not replacing attractions with long-reaching ideas. If you have a strong attachment to an attraction, you have to be very careful that what takes its place is better. Mission to Mars is a great example. So is Soarin'. While people enjoyed the old versions, there was an objective improvment (even despite AE's "problems). I think there is a new approach to the fully creative attraction that stands on its own or to improve existing attractions in a way that maintains the foundation and blends in new techniques, characters, etc. (as the new POTC seems to do). Those types of attractions satisfy both the purists and traditionalists.
1. I think there is a big debate going that is missing another side: the Disney vs. Walt Disney debate. While Walt was certainly an inspiration, I really don't find myself latching onto the "What would Walt do?" phenomenon that always arises. Instead, what drew me was the approach that the entire Disney creative staff took and understood in designing DL and WDW. Disney has become a mentality. It is an approach that was absolutely inspired by one man but it is not so much the vision of him alone. So, I really agree that the argument that Walt would OR would not want something (i.e. against both sides) is impossible. We have no idea.
2. I think there is an argument at to what change is. I am a traditionalist, and I guess I am averse to change. I am very happy with progress, though. What I mean by that is improvement. I think there have been many attractions that have been very effective in idea and execution has failed. To change means the loss of a great idea and great attraction. That is a big problem to me when it is replaced by something less effective (Tiki Room, IMAG, etc.).
3. The argument about Walt's use of his attractions as major marketing vehicles isn't as strong as some suggest. While he did so, it was not as blatant as modern approaches have been. The attractions were based on childhood fantasies. It was things every person dreamed of at age 6, even if they were 7 or 70 today. Now, of course, that changes with each generation. However, the overarching themes were never lost. Jungle exploration, being a pioneer, a haunted house, the Future, even being a movie star appealed to everyone.
When you start focusing directly on the films, you lose a large group automatically, especially when it is meant to do nothing more than tell that story. For example, I didn't like Toy Story for whatever reason. That kills Buzz for me as an attraction. I also didn't care for the African Queen (and, yes, saw it as a kid), but I love Jungle Cruise anyway. Am I saying that all tie-ins are bad? Of course not. I don't like them myself, but there is definitely a role for them in Disney, but they are replacing what a lot of people really enjoyed as a child.
Bottom line of these: if you can find a way to improve, tweak, and add to the existing attractions, you have a winning strategy. That means replacing attractions that are failing overall. Walt did that, not replacing attractions with long-reaching ideas. If you have a strong attachment to an attraction, you have to be very careful that what takes its place is better. Mission to Mars is a great example. So is Soarin'. While people enjoyed the old versions, there was an objective improvment (even despite AE's "problems). I think there is a new approach to the fully creative attraction that stands on its own or to improve existing attractions in a way that maintains the foundation and blends in new techniques, characters, etc. (as the new POTC seems to do). Those types of attractions satisfy both the purists and traditionalists.
imagineer boy
Well-Known Member
I'm half and half. I'm not a person who goes "What would Walt do?" but his legacy must be upheld. Which is creating good quality family entertainment that launches its self beyond the competition.
Contrary to popular belief, I am all it for change. But as long as the change is GOOD. If the rehab to POTC to tie it into the movies makes it a better attraction, great. I'm all it for it. But, if they make it a crappy, shorter, poor quality shadow of what it once was, then HELL NO! They had the oppertunity to turn the original JII into something better, but instead, they decided to play it cheap, and give us a crap version. The same goes for the Tiki room, Sitch, ect.
Contrary to popular belief, I am all it for change. But as long as the change is GOOD. If the rehab to POTC to tie it into the movies makes it a better attraction, great. I'm all it for it. But, if they make it a crappy, shorter, poor quality shadow of what it once was, then HELL NO! They had the oppertunity to turn the original JII into something better, but instead, they decided to play it cheap, and give us a crap version. The same goes for the Tiki room, Sitch, ect.
LOL...Fair enough, but I'm sure you'll agree that the last thing we want is people being insulted when they ask a question.hakunamatata said:
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
imagineer boy said:
So, do you really think that imagineers sit in an office somewhere and say... "eh, it's not that great, but let's do it just so we can listen to the complaints."
Nah, didn't think so. There were hits and misses all throughout the history of DL & WDW. It's not always possible to create a new attraction (or make a change) that will be well received by all guests. It's not to be expected.
You know... the way I look at it is this. They really do have the best interest of the company at heart. That is to build the best attraction they can at the time. There will of course be constraints, but they will do their best. It makes no sense to do anything else.
So, I'll continue to look at everything with optimism. If something doesn't click for me, then I'll skip it and hope that it changes or that others really like it. For years, I have skipped the kiddie cars in TL. However, that doesn't make it a bad attraction, just not my cup of tea. There's a short list of others, but they all have their place.
GenerationX
Well-Known Member
Purist? Traditionalist? Eh, I just want to be entertained.
PintoColvig
Active Member
It's a matter of semantics, I know, but I prefer the terms Progressive vs. Preservationist. Purists and Traditionalist seem too much alike in my mind. I'm a little bit of both and think it takes both to make the "world" go round. :wave: