Disney Purists vs. Disney Traditionalists

[Enderikari]

3rd... You can not compare WDW with Tokyo Disney, Glendale is under budget, Tokyo isn't..
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Tokyo DisneySea exceeded first-year attendance goals. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]With DisneySea, the Imagineers were told to spare no expense, since the park's construction was being paid for by a partner, the Oriental Land Company. and still is...[/FONT]
Tokyo DisneySea, is lavishly funded entirely by the Japanese partner, has blown past all projections.

Futhermore, just about every single attraction, show, or adventure at Tokyo Disneyland is not only owned by OLC, but a majority of them are very, very heavily sponsored by other companys. I love some of the hypocrites on the boards who moan about Disney accepting corporate sponsorship out of one end of their mouth and wishing WDW was more like TDL through the other end of their mouth. OLC has the corporate sponsors, but they pay the price. Their parade has a whole float dedicated to their sponsor, which has an enormous amount of creative control. Same with most of their attractions

 

[dxwwf3]

I love some of the hypocrites on the boards who moan about Disney accepting corporate sponsorship out of one end of their mouth and wishing WDW was more like TDL through the other end of their mouth. OLC has the corporate sponsors, but they pay the price. Their parade has a whole float dedicated to their sponsor, which has an enormous amount of creative control. Same with most of their attractions

I love corporate sponsorships at the parks. Most of the original Epcot attractions had them and it actually sorta added to the experience IMO. If adding a line of advertisement at the end of an attraction helps build a better attraction, I'm all for it. I don't know why anyone would be THAT annoyed with sponsorships if it brings us a better park experience.

 

[Etenpenny]

Is it true that an american based company can not own land it japan, is that part of the reason that the OLC was brought in on the TDS project? (along with supplying the 2.5 billion or whatever it was)

it still amazes me Animal Kingdom - 800 million, Epcot 1.2 Million, TDS - almost 3 billion, but from what ive heard disny hong kong cost more then any of the above, but with much coming from public funds

 

[JustinTheClaw]

I think Rhoda (sic) is TOO MUCH Imagineer for number crunchers to handle. Hmm, kinda like Walt. Does this make Walt a bad imagineer considering the number of times he practiclly nearly bankrupted his own company for his "babies?"

Very good observation

 

[JustinTheClaw]

...I'm one of the people who weeped with the end of cel animation and who thinks that there should be more AA rides.

Though I do love cel-animation and don't want to see it go, I have no problem with CG-animation when it is done right (i.e. Pixar) and isn't just an excuse to make a CG movie (i.e. most Dreamworks or Fox).

And yes, I would love to see more Audio-Animatronics, particularly human. I've noticed in the past 10 years any Attraction disney has built (with the exception of DINOSAUR and, to a lesser extent, Alien Encounter) has had either had no Audio-Animatronics, or it has only one. I think we need to see a return to the A-A showcases that still manage to impress people. (To wit, I was walking through Epcot one day and heard a woman comment on how lifelike the "people" looked on Spaceship Earth. I suggested The American Adventure if she wants to see something really lifelike.)

 

[jsknebel]

My 2 Disney Dollars

Walt Disney always strove for innovation. He incorporated the latest and greatest in his attractions. Take a look at the 1964 World's Fair Carousel of Progress, featuring all of GE's latest gadgets in the final scene. But he also believed in what he did 100000000%, with all his heart, and never cared about the money or revenue generated. He cared about the show.

We will have to wait and see if the PotC rehab is a good thing. I mean, look what they did to the Tiki Room and Journey into Imagination. If the Disney execs and the Imagineers (do they still exist, or is it just guys in business suits sitting in a room trying to be creative?) do the right thing with the spirit of Walt in mind, then it will turn out to be a good thing. Apparently someone at the company "gets it", because they churned out two very Walt like updates to the MK... Mickey's Philharmagic and Wishes. Let's hope these same Imagineers are working on the PotC update....

Now how do I feel about the changes and the updates and the future of WDW and Disney in general? I guess that is a hard nut to swallow, since I know (as do we all) that there will never be another Walt Disney. He was the glue that held the company together, and it was because of him that any of this exists today. Yeah, yeah, I know, the Disney Company has done some good stuff post Uncle Walt. But it is all because it is based on the foundation of the genius dreamer that left us way too early.

So should they change anything ever? Of course they should. I just saw Captain EO on a DVD from www.extinct-attractions-club.com, and let's just say it is not as cool as it was many years ago. But, when they do change stuff, they have to remember to stick to the principles and guidelines set forth by the Man himself. We Disneyites know the rules because we take the time to learn about the Man who built the places we love so much. When the Disney Company starts to change stuff, they have to take a look at how and why He did it and go forth with that knowledge as their guiding force.

Well, at least that is my opinion.

Oh, and one last thing before I end this preaching...

Please tell the powers that be of WDW to never, EVER paint the Castle any more ugly colors ever again. That big pink castle cake monstrosity STILL gives me nightmares.

 

[LaughingGravy]

Purist, perhaps...

The Disney parks have a reputation for being innovative.
WedWay People Mover (TTA)
OmniMover system (HM, IYHW, etc.)
Carousel of Progress- amazing.
Circlevision 360
AudioAnimatronics
Matterhorn rollercoaster (steel tube system)
Utilidors
Submarine rides (sigh)
Heavy use of a monorail system. Even though they were not the first, most here have probably had their first exposure to monorails at a Disney park.
Obviously, the list could go on.

Dumbo/Flying Carpets and a couple of other 'dark rides' are the only ones that seem to pale in comparison as far as innovation. Even at that, I much prefer the Disney versions of the dark rides (Snow White, Pooh).

I'm a purist in the sense that there is a lot of land and the innovative things that have been developed should be kept. Examples of innovation in attractions should remain as part of the historical and educational part of WDW of what things can be.
Call it encouraging people to "think out of the box" about other things in life when they see what can be done with just an amusement park attraction.
EPCOT as it was envisioned by Walt is the best example of thinking out of the box.
Even if EPCOT wasn't built, (which it wasn't) there is certainly enough land there to contain anything else they want to dream up. That was the idea.

In the purist sense, being able to take your family to a clean amusement park that all can enjoy is what Mr. Disney had in mind when he built DL and then WDW when it was started. That has been maintained without exception. They've even added Pleasure Island to cater to the adult set.

The fact that movies/films are out there to encourage people to visit the parks is also what Walt did with DL. Just watch the DisneyTreasures Disneyland Opening Day with the many references to Disney cartoons and films.
The fact that that's also been reversed is just a bonus to all.
I don't think I would have seen the HM or Pirates movies without having gone on the attractions first.

Change is good so long as it is moving forward, not backward.
Magic Carpets are an example of going backward.
Extending all the resorts to the number and size they are and maintaining a bus system to the extent that WDW does with nothing in the foreseeable future changing in that regard is also going backward.

 

[MissK]

Though I do love cel-animation and don't want to see it go, I have no problem with CG-animation when it is done right (i.e. Pixar) and isn't just an excuse to make a CG movie (i.e. most Dreamworks or Fox).

And yes, I would love to see more Audio-Animatronics, particularly human. I've noticed in the past 10 years any Attraction disney has built (with the exception of DINOSAUR and, to a lesser extent, Alien Encounter) has had either had no Audio-Animatronics, or it has only one. I think we need to see a return to the A-A showcases that still manage to impress people. (To wit, I was walking through Epcot one day and heard a woman comment on how lifelike the "people" looked on Spaceship Earth. I suggested The American Adventure if she wants to see something really lifelike.)

Yeah I have no issues with CG, I mean I love Finding Nemo. LURVE. I'm just said that Disney apparently told basic cel animation to go rot in a cave. But I'd also like Disney to sort of go back and do more fairytale pictures, I've been wanting to see how disney would do something like the Firebird folktale. It'd never happen though

I think more AA = good. I also think that I can "think" till I'm blue in the face hahaha. I guess I'm turning into a Disney Dweeb or something oh noes

 

[Ashitaka]

OMG, that IS worse! That specific brand of punishment is reserved for the guy/gal who added Iago to Tiki Room and the guy/gal who took the Puffed French Toast out of the Crystal Palace

WHAT!?? ARRRRGGGHHHH!!
No more Puffed French Toast?? When did that happen?!
I know this is a bit off topic, but...
ARRRRRGGGHHH!!

 

[Tim G]

Though I do love cel-animation and don't want to see it go, I have no problem with CG-animation when it is done right (i.e. Pixar) and isn't just an excuse to make a CG movie (i.e. most Dreamworks or Fox).

Don't change the subject!!! You started this nonsense... so finish it...

 

[JustinTheClaw]

Don't change the subject!!! You started this nonsense... so finish it...

I am not changing the subject. This is very much related. People have been criticizing Disney for trading cel-animation for CG-animation. Some have said in discussions I've had (and I'm sure it's been mentioned in some fashion on this thread) that cel-animation is "classic," "the original," or that "Disney shouldn't be doing CG because they should stay with cel-animation."

I've heard many versions, but my point is that's what I would call a Traditionalist point of view. I, who leans more towards Purist, believe strongly that Walt would have wanted to use CG-animation. Walt was always trying to make animation more life-like and 3-dimentional. The multiplane camera, Disneyland's dark rides, Audio-Animatronics; all of these are methods Walt used to create 3D animation. So why wouldn't have Walt embraced CG? Especially the methods used in Chicken Little of making 3D animation fully 3D.

My only point of comparison is while Pixar Animation uses CG-animation to tell a good story, other companies seem to prefer using good animation to tell a CG story. In other words, CG sells, so who cares about the story? Which is another reason why I feel Disney needs to embrace CG. Their cel-animated features are failing, even the good ones. I remember a time when all of Disney's animated features were smash hits, even the not-so-good ones. Meanwhile, mediocre CG features like Shark's Tale, Madgascar and Ice Age are making movie and taking audiences away from Disney's "old-fashioned" animation.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

You started this nonsense...

And furthermore, if you feel that this is nonsense, find a different thread to read.

I, and I'm sure many of the others who have been participating, have been enjoying this intellectual and friendly discuss-and-debate session. This is the most intelligent online forum I have had the priviledge to take part in, and I am interested in seeing and accepting the different areas into which it goes.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

My only point of comparison is while Pixar Animation uses CG-animation to tell a good story, other companies seem to prefer using good animation to tell a CG story. In other words, CG sells, so who cares about the story? Which is another reason why I feel Disney needs to embrace CG. Their cel-animated features are failing, even the good ones. I remember a time when all of Disney's animated features were smash hits, even the not-so-good ones. Meanwhile, mediocre CG features like Shark's Tale, Madgascar and Ice Age are making movie and taking audiences away from Disney's "old-fashioned" animation.

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.

 

[Dragonrider1227]

OMG, that IS worse! That specific brand of punishment is reserved for the guy/gal who added Iago to Tiki Room and the guy/gal who took the Puffed French Toast out of the Crystal Palace

I don't mind Iago in the Tiki Room. What I DO mind and think they should recieve that punishment for is letting Iago sing... AGAIN! ><

 

[Dragonrider1227]

Purist? Traditionalist? Eh, I just want to be entertained.

THANK YOU! SOMEONE FINALLY SAID IT!!

 

[JustinTheClaw]

PC, hip, cool, etc. are words that should NOT be appearing in WDI, the studios, etc. 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...

 

[JustinTheClaw]

I guess in that respect, I'm still part Traditionalist.

 

[justducky78]

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...

I agree 100%

 

[Firewolfe51]

Originally Posted by JustinTheClaw
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...


AMEN and thank you

 

[JustinTheClaw]

Two of Walt's favorite mantras were "You can't put a price tag on creativity" and "If we lose our customers, it'll cost us twice as much to get them back.

Purist or Traditionalist, you can't argue with the man, supporting my point that the Imagineers could do more with more money.

A placid boat ride past sets of harmonizing, doe-eyed dolls just doesn't cut it for kids raised on Quake and MTV.

That may be true (though arguable), but a placid boat ride past sets of wench auctions and harmonizing, mischivous pirates still draws big crowds of kids of all ages.

With DisneySea, the Imagineers were told to spare no expense...Tokyo DisneySea, is lavishly funded entirely by the Japanese partner, has blown past all projections (grammar sic).

This only enforces my point that the Imagineers could do better things with more money.

Joe Laseter (sic), again, only is head of feature Animation, and certainly not of Walt Disney Imagineering...

Read this: http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/200601/25/
I also read the same information on Disney's Cast Portal.

Expedition Everest IS completed, the building visible from the "parking lot" was meant to stay that way...

On the Discovery Networks special they showed the final model for the mountain and it was a complete mountain. Why would the Imagineers intentionally build a mountain that didn't look real from all Guest accessible areas? Even the Tower of Terror is decorated on all sides, including the side that is not visible from anywhere within the park, and it is almost as tall as Expedition Everest's Forbidden Mountain (ToT is shorter by 6 inches).

...Mr Iger and Mr Laseter (sic) could have finished it as Michael Eisner was long gone when Everest opened...

Eisner is still on the Board, and many have concluded that Iger is little more than Eisner's puppet, hand picked by the ousted CEO himself. Furthermore, Eisner had only resigned in fall of 2005, I believe in October, which hardly leaves much time for a major turnover.

So if they are the saviours of the parks they had time (4 months) to do so...

Even I don't honestly think that two men can drastically change the course of a project that had already been in motion for almost five years in only four months. Besides, dispite my complaints about the asthetics of the building, I would think in their first four months in their respective offices that they would have more pressing issues to deal with. I'm sure Iger is still busy introducing himself to partners, shareholders, presidents and even competitors in order to establish his business relationships for his term. Lasseter is probably hard at work pitching and hearing ideas from his new teams of animators and Imagineers to bother with an Attraction which is, as you've concluded, already completed.

I can see where some of your points challenge mine, but many fall far short from outright disproving them.