Disney Purists vs. Disney Traditionalists

[imagineer boy]

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.

I'm not saying its the Imagineers' fault. That's basically upper management's fault for not putting much into the project, giving the Imagineers little to work with.

 

[wannab@dis]

I'm not saying its the Imagineers' fault. That's basically upper management's fault for not putting much into the project, giving the Imagineers little to work with.

But isn't it a sign of a very good imagineer to take a project and make it the best possible within the given constraints? I'm not busting on you, but I think more people need to realize how tough it can be to create a budget, work within the confines of that budget and then turn the final product into something that the masses love.

It's not an easy task for any involved. No matter what we would like to see, it takes the managers to keep constraints valid and the imagineers to work well within the constraints.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

But isn't it a sign of a very good imagineer to take a project and make it the best possible within the given constraints? I'm not busting on you, but I think more people need to realize how tough it can be to create a budget, work within the confines of that budget and then turn the final product into something that the masses love.

It's not an easy task for any involved. No matter what we would like to see, it takes the managers to keep constraints valid and the imagineers to work well within the constraints.

Part of the problem in that respect is that the Imagineers are have not been getting the money they need to do the best job possible. Take Expedition Everest, for example. Joe Rhode really made this project his baby. He put a lot of thought and research and planning into it. The problem was he was only alotted $100 million for R&D, pre-planning, and execution.

That may seem like a lot, but it really isn't. The Tower of Terror in Florida cost $140 million (and that was in 1994 dollars). The Tokyo version is running close to $200 million (and looks amazing). Considering the technologies involved in Expedition Everest: the switch tracks, the Yeti AA, the silent lift; not to mention the trips to the Himilayas for research, they needed a lot more money to complete the project.

Before some of you start telling me it is completed, take a trip to Animal Kingdom and pay attention to the Forbidden Mountain as you come across on Osceola Parkway, or even from the parking lot. Because of budget restraints, the Imagineers and construction crews were forced to leave half of the mountain unbuilt. (In fact, while working behind Rafiki's Planet Watch yesterday I saw some of the unused pieces of the mountain strewn about in a field backstage.)

This seems to be the case all over Animal Kingdom. The River Cruise had to be tossed because the river wasn't wide enough for the boats...because they didn't have enough money. Dinosaur (CTX) is filled with pitch dark areas because the Imagineers didn't have the money to put in what they had planned, and now half of the dinosaurs are broken because they didn't have enough money to build AAs that would last. Chester & Hester's Dino-Rama was a response to the complaints that there weren't enough rides in Animal Kingdom, but instead of building something new and excting, the Imagineers were forced to purchase cheap carnival rides and games and redress them to "fit in" with their surroundings (which they don't).

We're not going to see quality work from the Imagineers until the number crunchers realize what Walt and Roy learned decades ago: you have to spend money in order to make money. I blame Eisner for this. Hopefully with John Lasseter as head of animation and Imagineering and Steve Jobs as prime shareholder we will see some great things come out of the Imagineers, because they'll finally have the cooperation they need from upper management.

 

[wannab@dis]

Part of the problem in that respect is that the Imagineers are have not been getting the money they need to do the best job possible. Take Expedition Everest, for example. Joe Rhode really made this project his baby. He put a lot of thought and research and planning into it. The problem was he was only alotted $100 million for R&D, pre-planning, and execution.

That may seem like a lot, but it really isn't. The Tower of Terror in Florida cost $140 million (and that was in 1994 dollars). The Tokyo version is running close to $200 million (and looks amazing). Considering the technologies involved in Expedition Everest: the switch tracks, the Yeti AA, the silent lift; not to mention the trips to the Himilayas for research, they needed a lot more money to complete the project.

Before some of you start telling me it is completed, take a trip to Animal Kingdom and pay attention to the Forbidden Mountain as you come across on Osceola Parkway, or even from the parking lot. Because of budget restraints, the Imagineers and construction crews were forced to leave half of the mountain unbuilt. (In fact, while working behind Rafiki's Planet Watch yesterday I saw some of the unused pieced of the mountain strewn about in a field backstage.)

This seems to be the case all over Animal Kingdom. The River Cruise had to be tossed because the river wasn't wide enough for the boats...because they didn't have enough money. Dinosaur (CTX) is filled with pitch dark areas because the Imagineers didn't have the money to put in what they had planned, and now half of the dinosaurs are broken because they didn't have enough money to build AAs that would last. Chester & Hester's Dino-Rama was a response to the complaints that there weren't enough rides in Animal Kingdom, but instead of building something new and excting, the Imagineers were forced to purchase cheap carnival rides and games and redress them to "fit in" with their surroundings (which they don't).

We're not going to see quality work from the Imagineers until the number crunchers realize what Walt and Roy learned decades ago: you have to spend money in order to make money. I blame Eisner for this. Hopefully with John Lasseter as head of animation and Imagineering and Steve Jobs as prime shareholder we will see some great things come out of the Imagineers, because they'll finally have the cooperation they need from upper management.

So Joe Rohde is not a good imagineer since he cannot stay in the confines of a budget? Or are you saying that the managers are bad because they created a budget in the first place? You HAVE to pick one of those choices.

Splash Mountain isn't completed all the way around either. Give me a break.

Dinosaur seems fine to me and most people that ride loves it. River boats ran for a while.... so it must have been wide enough. Dinoland was planned the way it is from the beginning and a LOT of money was spent on theming and it's probably one of the BEST themed areas of the park.

Blaming Eisney / "number crunchers" only shows ignorance of a simple fact. There must be a budget. When most parks add headline attractions for less than $20M, then Disney should be able to add a headliner for $100M. From most reports that I've read and seen, they did a great job with EE. If you claim otherwise, back it up with some facts.

 

[Hakunamatata]

One thing that most people do not realize is that Disney does not completely finish out all sides of attractions. Think of it as a movie set. Only the fronts of the buildings and attractions are finished out. If you have ever been on a behind the scenes tour of either MK or Epcot, you will see this first hand.

 

[dxwwf3]

Me? Disney Purist... and traditionalists scare the pants off of me. Change is good folks.

And hardcore people to the OTHER side scare the pants off of me as well :lol:

I think it's best to be right in the middle, IMO. I think it is important to have some nostalgia about the parks and its attractions. Otherwise why be a fan? And it is important to see that not ALL change IS good or HAS BEEN good in the past. Nobody bats 1000% and I think some need to realize that. Unnecessary change is worse than letting something overstay its time, IMO. And sure most of that can be based on opinion as well.

However, there is also no need for being against every change that comes along. Especially those that seem to have a great deal of money and thought invested in them. I probably learned that lesson the most with The Land rehab. Yes it was different and yes I still like the way it was when it opened and during the 94 rehab, but I also really like what is there now. I was very skeptical about that change and I'm very glad that I was completely wrong.

I think now we have reasons to be optimistic about upcoming changes. It seems Disney has been doing better as of late and I'm personally looking forward to some of the changes that will be taking place at the MK and at MGM in the near future. I don't really know what they are yet :lol:, but I'm for any change at the MK that doesn't involve bumper cars and meet & greets .

It's all about moderation, as some old friends once told me.

 

[wannab@dis]

And hardcore people to the OTHER side scare the pants off of me as well :lol:

I think it's best to be right in the middle, IMO. I think it is important to have some nostalgia about the parks and its attractions. Otherwise why be a fan? And it is important to see that not ALL change IS good or HAS BEEN good in the past. Nobody bats 1000% and I think some need to realize that. Unnecessary change is worse than letting something overstay its time, IMO. And sure most of that can be based on opinion as well.

However, there is also no need for being against every change that comes along. Especially those that seem to have a great deal of money and thought invested in them. I probably learned that lesson the most with The Land rehab. Yes it was different and yes I still like the way it was when it opened and during the 94 rehab, but I also really like what is there now. I was very skeptical about that change and I'm very glad that I was completely wrong.

I think now we have reasons to be optimistic about upcoming changes. It seems Disney has been doing better as of late and I'm personally looking forward to some of the changes that will be taking place at the MK and at MGM in the near future. I don't really know what they are yet :lol:, but I'm for any change at the MK that doesn't involve bumper cars and meet & greets .

It's all about moderation, as some old friends once told me.

I'm fine with everything in your post except your signature. :hurl: :lookaroun

My problem is that most purists/traditionalists/whatever you want to call them... have a major problem with ANY change and will scream before anything is finished. As you said, there's no way it can be perfect every time. But, it's not possible for it to be. If WDW didn't try for change and take chances, then the parks would be a real mess.

As Speck76 pointed out earlier, Walt was all about change and did so very often. The purists have a hard time accepting that point and will usually ignore it.

 

[dxwwf3]

I'm fine with everything in your post except your signature. :hurl: :lookaroun

:lol: :lol: :lol:

My problem is that most purists/traditionalists/whatever you want to call them... have a major problem with ANY change and will scream before anything is finished.

I don't know about "most". I would have to be considered a purist/traditionalist because I have a fondness for former attractions and ones like CBJ and CoP that I feel shouldn't be replaced, right? But I also am in favor of the PotC rehab and I hope the HM and Space Mountain recieve well needed updates as well. And I honestly feel that there are more "traditionalists" that share this POV than the ones that are like your description.

 

[ScrapIron]

I hate the new wave of movie copied rides being installed in disney, it lacks imagination. I like to hear new stories on attractions, not ones that we all have seen and heard on movies. These attractions are an ambarresment to the word 'imagineering'

Yeah, the new wave [sic] that started in 1955! There's currently an exhibit at the Oakland museum about DL. One of the absolute very first things seen in big letters on the wall is a quote from Walt about how DL is a place for the same stories from the films that they've been doing at the studios. Didn't have a pen and paper, and no photos allowed, so unfortunately I can't quote it exactly. But attractions have always always always been based on movies. Sleeping Beauty's Castle was built BEFORE the movie was released. Get rid of movie based attractions and Fantasyland will have nothing in it except for Small World. Adventureland will have nothing but the Tiki Room (JC was inspired by the True Life Adventure films). All, or at least most, of the early imaginneers were animators straight from the film studio. I've really, really tried to push past this, but the voices against film based attractions are so utterly absurd that it just drives me bonkers.

Cheers.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

So Joe Rohde is not a good imagineer since he cannot stay in the confines of a budget? Or are you saying that the managers are bad because they created a budget in the first place? You HAVE to pick one of those choices.

Splash Mountain isn't completed all the way around either. Give me a break.

Dinosaur seems fine to me and most people that ride loves it. River boats ran for a while.... so it must have been wide enough. Dinoland was planned the way it is from the beginning and a LOT of money was spent on theming and it's probably one of the BEST themed areas of the park.

Blaming Eisney / "number crunchers" only shows ignorance of a simple fact. There must be a budget. When most parks add headline attractions for less than $20M, then Disney should be able to add a headliner for $100M. From most reports that I've read and seen, they did a great job with EE. If you claim otherwise, back it up with some facts.

Splash Mountain cannot be seen by guest from any angle where you may see the show building. Expedition Everest's show building is very visable from anywhere outside of the park. You can even see it from inside the park as you're walking by Theater in the Wild. I've had friends who work at Blizzard Beach who say from Summet Plummet all you can see is a big ugly building with a mountain sticking out of the top (though I admit I have not seen it for myself). This is bad show and ruins the illusions that it might be a real mountain.

Joe Rhode is an excellent Imagineer, everything he has his hands in is magic. I'm just saying he built this amazing ride, but was not allowed to finish making it presentable. Say what you want about how Walt Disney changed over the years, but he never would have allowed Guests to see something that ruined the fantasy, nor would he have let an Attraction open unfinished regardless of money. A Pirates of the Caribbean grew, so did the budget. In the end, this ride ended up costing half as much as it had cost to build all of Disneyland 10 years earlier. Why did Disney let one Attraction soak up so much capital? Because he knew that if he speant enough money to make it perfect, people would see. I've heard Guests comment on how you can see the building behind the Forbidden Mountain, I've never heard anyone say anything about Splash Mountain not looking real.

I work with people who've opened Animal Kingdom. They seen the changes as they happened. Dino-Rama was never in the plans. It was a filler. Originally Dinoland was supposed to be a big dinosaur dig site where people could actually see how paleontologists and paleontology students worked, but people lost interest. (Some of the problems that have arisen in the newer WDW parks will be the topic of another thread which I'll begin later.) Originally, Animal Kingdom only had three rides: Countdown to Extinction (now known as DINOSAUR), the Discovery River Boats and Kilimanjaro Safaris. They closed the river boats and opened Asia and Kali River Rapids, which still left only three rides. When people go to a theme park they expect to find rides. (Heaven forbid a Guest should go to Animal Kingdom to see animals.) So after receiving enough complaints they threw together Dino-Rama. Primeval Whirl is actually a carnival roller-coaster kit, bought from an outside company, which the Imagineers redecorated, repainted, and added to it a spinning vehicle.

To finish answering your question: no, I do not have to choose one of the options you gave me, because I don't agree with either of them. I don't believe Rhode is a bad Imagineer and I understand there has to be a budget, but lately the attitude towards the Imagineers (which was mostly fueled by Eisner's love for large profits) has been "make the best attraction possible without spending a lot of our money." This is simply impractical. If you want dinosaurs that look and move like real dinosaurs would, and that have a lifespan of more than a few years, you have to be willing to pony up major cash, not to mention giving them a believable envoronment to move in, building and theming the area in which you introduce them to the Guests (namely, the building and queue area), and installing the ride system (which didn't really need money for R&D because it is the same ride system Indiana Jones Adventure uses).

And finally, don't make me out to be an Eisner hater. The company might not be alive today had it not been for Eisner's imagination and Wells' financial knowhow. But Eisner had an ego which stepped on the toes of many board members (i.e. Roy E. Disney), producers (i.e. Steven Spielberg), Imagineers and animators. He made a lot of enemies in his later years, and it's obvious it affected the performance of many people in the company.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

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?

Well, you've politely summarized what many a flame war has erupted over here!

I think there is a lot of gray in between what you have described, but you do capture a major philosophical divide. If I were to choose one, it would be with the Traditionalists, but with Purist tendencies. I dislike what was done to Imagination, with Stitch and removing/closing Toad, 20K, WoL with no replacement. While I miss WoM, Horizons and the like, I also enjoy Test Track and MS. From the Traditionalist side, I would like more dark rides and audioanamatronics, but any quality entertainement would be appreciated. So you can classify me...

 

[wannab@dis]

You agree there has to be a budget, yet you claim they shouldn't be constrained by said budget. You can't have it both ways. I agree that Eisner had problems in later years, but there were forces at play beyond simple budgetary issues. If he had not made some hard decisions, there's a good chance we wouldn't see Disney surviving, much less performing so well, today.

Give the landscaping a chance at EE and I'm sure it will be fine. Even if you can see the back of the mountain from a road, what's the harm in that? It's not part of the "stage" in the first place. Head over to Epcot or MGM...

There's has to be a trade off at some point and I believe they did very well with the planning, design and execution of AK. In fact, it's very close to being my favorite park. After I experience EE and the new Nemo musical, it may very well take that place.

You can't expect the park to be 100% when it's first built. Otherwise, the initial outlay of capital would be a huge waste and possible cause of financial failure. Epcot was not a big success when it first opened and had they not updated and worked with it, it would have failed.

 

[wannab@dis]

I think there is a lot of gray in between what you have described

....

I would like more dark rides and audioanamatronics, but any quality entertainement would be appreciated. So you can classify me...

Couldn't agree more! :wave:

But, let's take a look at a simple (and not really out of the question) hypothesis...

WDI puts together a major new dark ride with lots of AAs and everyone that sees it or reads about thinks it will be the best attraction EVER built at WDW. The best place for this new attraction... replacing CoP and SpaceMtn. This will show us how purists/traditionalist really feel. :lol:

 

[brisem]

I believe in the you have to know where you've been to get to where you want to be. You have to preserve the "classics" as a way to showpeople how Disney started. They show you the work put into the theming of a ride and also the technology available at that time too.
But you also to move on to continue to show the advancements that are being made.
An idea would be create another land in the MK and name it Yesterland. This would be a place where some of the "older" rides could go to preserve the history of Disney.

 

[dxwwf3]

WDI puts together a major new dark ride with lots of AAs and everyone that sees it or reads about thinks it will be the best attraction EVER built at WDW. The best place for this new attraction... replacing CoP and SpaceMtn. This will show us how purists/traditionalist really feel. :lol:

I would say:

In case you guys hadn't noticed, there's a large chunk of land near Cosmic Ray's that they call the Tomorrowland Indy Speedway. How about looking there instead


I know what you are saying and that above statement is purely hypothetical, but usually Disney has a pretty good sense for attraction placement. Replacing Space Mtn. and CoP for a new dark ride (no matter how good) would not be good placement. Now if it were the Skyway building, CoP, and the Galaxy Palace Theater, we've got a different argument :lol:

I love the CoP and it's my favorite attraction (left) from Tomorrowland and I would be sad to see it go. But EVEN WITH THAT SAID, if there were plans for a high dollar, E-ticket attraction to be put in that spot, I could watch it go much easier. I think what ticks some of us off is this "replace CoP with bumper cars" stuff that used to fill the rumor mill. Know what I'm saying?

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Couldn't agree more! :wave:

But, let's take a look at a simple (and not really out of the question) hypothesis...

WDI puts together a major new dark ride with lots of AAs and everyone that sees it or reads about thinks it will be the best attraction EVER built at WDW. The best place for this new attraction... replacing CoP and SpaceMtn. This will show us how purists/traditionalist really feel. :lol:

As much as I don't want it, I see replacement of CoP as inevitable. SM still draws the crowds, so wouldn't see it as being replaced...maybe updated like DL.

Then again, while reading your "hypothesis" I couldn't help but think of those around here that would balk at an AA heavy ride. There simply is no way to win (totally) moving forward.

 

[dxwwf3]

Then again, while reading your "hypothesis" I couldn't help but think of those around here that would balk at an AA heavy ride. There simply is no way to win (totally) moving forward.

Yep :lol:

 

[wannab@dis]

As much as I don't want it, I see replacement of CoP as inevitable. SM still draws the crowds, so wouldn't see it as being replaced...maybe updated like DL.

Then again, while reading your "hypothesis" I couldn't help but think of those around here that would balk at an AA heavy ride. There simply is no way to win (totally) moving forward.

Exactly... that's my point.

And proven to be a perfect hypothesis by...

I would say:

In case you guys hadn't noticed, there's a large chunk of land near Cosmic Ray's that they call the Tomorrowland Indy Speedway. How about looking there instead


I know what you are saying and that above statement is purely hypothetical, but usually Disney has a pretty good sense for attraction placement. Replacing Space Mtn. and CoP for a new dark ride (no matter how good) would not be good placement. Now if it were the Skyway building, CoP, and the Galaxy Palace Theater, we've got a different argument

I love the CoP and it's my favorite attraction (left) from Tomorrowland and I would be sad to see it go. But EVEN WITH THAT SAID, if there were plans for a high dollar, E-ticket attraction to be put in that spot, I could watch it go much easier. I think what ticks some of us off is this "replace CoP with bumper cars" stuff that used to fill the rumor mill. Know what I'm saying?

 

[Dragonrider1227]

I TOTALLY agree. I don't think Walt would sit around and let a ride become outdated. While at the same time, he proboly wouldn't want it to lose what it was originally intended to be.

 

[EchoOfOphelia]

That's a really tough question, because it depends on the ride we're talking about. I'm off the opinion that my very favorite attractions, Toad, 20K, Horizons should have stayed FOREVER, exactly as they are. But attractions that I don't like, Hall of Presidents, Alien Encounter, UOE, can pretty much be gutted and turned into whatever, for all I care.

I believe that change is good when its obvious that something isn't working, but just for the sake of tearing out something loved is just a shame. For example, I understand why they closed 20K, I just don't like it And I certainly don't like what they turned it into. I'm sure that when I bring children of my own to the parks, I will LOVE it, but right now its a waste of space to me, and it doesn't feel like a true Disney attraction.

Another example, I LOVE Carousel of Progress. I'm glad that when the end scene was getting WAY too out of date, that they simply updated it instead of tearing out the ride.