Distinction between "theme park enthusiast" and "Disney Adult"

[Tom Morrow]

People of all ages have always loved Disney, but in the last decade the trend of the "Disney Adult" has grown tremendously. A "Disney Adult" isn't just an adult that enjoys Disney, but rather an adult that has made Disney, the brand, their entire lifestyle and personality. We see them everywhere now. They go to the parks "Disney-bounding" and gush over every single shoe-horned character insertion. They vlog about it. They become social media "influencers" entirely around it. They largely don't know and don't care about WDW's history and legacy, and applaud at classic, beloved stuff being removed in place of new, lazy IP insertions. They see the new characters on the Epcot parking lot signs and think "wow, so cute!" because thematic integrity doesn't matter to them, and they can't even comprehend why others would be upset about it. To them, Disney Parks = a celebration of Disney IP and nothing more.

The distinction between the Disney Adult and someone who simply loves quality theme parks and themed entertainment has to be made clear. I would wager that most of us on here are the latter. Enjoying Disney media alone does not make one a "Disney Adult", but even if you fully embrace that, you're likely here on WDWMAGIC because you also loved WDW for the unique, one-of-a-kind quality immersive experience it provided.

For most of WDW's existence, it was possible to have a WDW vacation without being constantly bombarded by Disney, the brand. Sure, the characters and IP were always there, but they weren't everywhere. There was always a balance. You could spend a week at WDW and see very little "Disney" stuff if you wanted. You could love WDW for everything it had to offer without being someone who cares about Disney, the brand, and their IP. This is, unfortunately, no longer the case, and the company is rapidly moving further and further away from that version of WDW.

The irony, is that for most of WDW's existence, WDW adult fans often had to justify their enthusiasm because WDW has never been good at marketing itself as a place with something for everyone in its advertising, always instead opting for shots of characters hugging kids and teacups and Dumbo. "Why do you like Disney World so much? Isn't it just for kids?" "Well no, actually, (massive list of awesome all-ages and even some adult-oriented things to do)." At which point that person could, if they cared enough, do some research into all that WDW actually offers and see that you were right.

But today, the opposite is true, WDW IS that version of itself it has always marketed, where you are bombarded with characters and IP at every step. The current version of WDW caters almost exclusively to kids and the Disney Adults who eat the branding up. Those of us who are simply lovers of theme parks and themed entertainment now have to justify that we like it, largely because of how it used to be, and not because of the Disney-brand fest that it now is.

So yeah. A Disney Adult and a fan of WDW/Disney Parks, while not exclusive, are not the same.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This is such a great topic…I got nothing. So I’ll watch

I’m OUT!!!

 

[Jrb1979]

People of all ages have always loved Disney, but in the last decade the trend of the "Disney Adult" has grown tremendously. A "Disney Adult" isn't just an adult that enjoys Disney, but rather an adult that has made Disney, the brand, their entire lifestyle and personality. We see them everywhere now. They go to the parks "Disney-bounding" and gush over every single shoe-horned character insertion. They vlog about it. They become social media "influencers" entirely around it. They largely don't know and don't care about WDW's history and legacy, and applaud at classic, beloved stuff being removed in place of new, lazy IP insertions. They see the new characters on the Epcot parking lot signs and think "wow, so cute!" because thematic integrity doesn't matter to them, and they can't even comprehend why others would be upset about it. To them, Disney Parks = a celebration of Disney IP and nothing more.

The distinction between the Disney Adult and someone who simply loves quality theme parks and themed entertainment has to be made clear. I would wager that most of us on here are the latter. Enjoying Disney media alone does not make one a "Disney Adult", but even if you fully embrace that, you're likely here on WDWMAGIC because you also loved WDW for the unique, one-of-a-kind quality immersive experience it provided.

For most of WDW's existence, it was possible to have a WDW vacation without being constantly bombarded by Disney, the brand. Sure, the characters and IP were always there, but they weren't everywhere. There was always a balance. You could spend a week at WDW and see very little "Disney" stuff if you wanted. You could love WDW for everything it had to offer without being someone who cares about Disney, the brand, and their IP. This is, unfortunately, no longer the case, and the company is rapidly moving further and further away from that version of WDW.

The irony, is that for most of WDW's existence, WDW adult fans often had to justify their enthusiasm because WDW has never been good at marketing itself as a place with something for everyone in its advertising, always instead opting for shots of characters hugging kids and teacups and Dumbo. "Why do you like Disney World so much? Isn't it just for kids?" "Well no, actually, (massive list of awesome all-ages and even some adult-oriented things to do)."

But today, the opposite is true, WDW IS that version of itself it has always marketed, where you are bombarded with characters and IP at every step. The current version of WDW caters almost exclusively to kids and the Disney Adults who eat the branding up. Those of us who are simply lovers of theme parks and themed entertainment now have to justify that we like it, largely because of how it used to be, and not because of the Disney-brand fest that it now is.

So yeah. A Disney Adult and a fan of Disney Parks, while not exclusive, are not the same.

I agree with most of that. I will say there is also a difference in those who love parks in general and your Disney theme park enthusiast. I find just from this site alone many who only visit Disney but never step foot in any other park out there.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I agree with most of that. I will say there is also a difference in those who love parks in general and your Disney theme park enthusiast. I find just from this site alone many who only visit Disney but never step foot in any other park out there.

That is a good point. WDW represented the best of theme parks and themed entertainment, so it's entirely plausible for someone to enjoy WDW for those reasons but not visit other parks.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

People of all ages have always loved Disney, but in the last decade the trend of the "Disney Adult" has grown tremendously. A "Disney Adult" isn't just an adult that enjoys Disney, but rather an adult that has made Disney, the brand, their entire lifestyle and personality. We see them everywhere now.

Social media has really accelerated this, but I would wager that comparatively few "Disney adults" actually go to the Disney parks more than once a year. That's more of an aspirational thing, which is why vloggers attract so many viewers who want to go to the parks often, but can't for one reason or another.

Over time, platforms like Tumblr, Instagram and TikTok have made it easy for those within a certain age group to share their nostalgic love of Disney animated movies which brands like Funko and Loungefly have exploited to great success. It may not be practical to fly to Florida and stay at Art of Animation, but it is easy to share gifs and memes, create thrift-store character inspired fashions and follow people and order merch online. A lot of this content is fan made and fan curated which makes it more appealing and feel more personal. It's largely harmless, but it does create an audience who is often uninformed about the very thing they dearly love.

The lack of knowledge about the park and company's history is why so many self-described fans think a "themed ride" is like when Paramount built those Top Gun coasters. Put a logo or piece of iconography on something and it's "immersive". When you don't have a strong point of reference or much travel experience, you're not going to be overly critical of such things. Same thing applies to rack rates at Disney hotels or food in the restaurants. The desire for food to be photogenic first and edible second is not a good trend.

The company's mistake is trying to take advantage of these fans by talking down to them, instead of creating something that exceeds expectations (and appeals to a much broader audience than the most enthusiastic brand advocates). They want to cash in on nostalgia and familiarity and in doing so have sacrificed the creativity that originated the things people are nostalgic about today. We see that with what has happened with EPCOT. It remains to be seen if the Disney of today will have the same level of intense nostalgia 30 years from now.

 

[Jrb1979]

Social media has really accelerated this, but I would wager that comparatively few "Disney adults" actually go to the Disney parks more than once a year. That's more of an aspirational thing, which is why vloggers attract so many viewers who want to go to the parks often, but can't for one reason or another.

Over time, platforms like Tumblr, Instagram and TikTok have made it easy for those within a certain age group to share their nostalgic love of Disney animated movies which brands like Funko and Loungefly have exploited to great success. It may not be practical to fly to Florida and stay at Art of Animation, but it is easy to share gifs and memes, create thrift-store character inspired fashions and follow people and order merch online. A lot of this content is fan made and fan curated which makes it more appealing and feel more personal. It's largely harmless, but it does create an audience who is often uninformed about the very thing they dearly love.

The lack of knowledge about the park and company's history is why so many self-described fans think a "themed ride" is like when Paramount built those Top Gun coasters. Put a logo or piece of iconography on something and it's "immersive". When you don't have a strong point of reference or much travel experience, you're not going to be overly critical of such things. Same thing applies to rack rates at Disney hotels or food in the restaurants. The desire for food to be photogenic first and edible second is not a good trend.

The company's mistake is trying to take advantage of these fans by talking down to them, instead of creating something that exceeds expectations (and appeals to a much broader audience than the most enthusiastic brand advocates). They want to cash in on nostalgia and familiarity and in doing so have sacrificed the creativity that originated the things people are nostalgic about today. We see that with what has happened with EPCOT. It remains to be seen if the Disney of today will have the same level of intense nostalgia 30 years from now.

I don't it think it will have that same level of intense nostalgia. It's mainly due to that kids today aren't attached to the IP as much as older generations were.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

This thread seems to suspiciously mirror my Twitter war earlier.

To comment though, I completely agree. Theme parks themselves are expressions of art and are important cultural reflections. Disney parks themselves have arguably been a form of high art since the inception of Disneyland. This of course isn't without exception as even Walt had issues with quality control, but generally, leadership in the company made an effort to set the standard for themed entertainment and often strived to out-do themselves. These values clearly aren't important to Iger, believing that it is easier to appeal to a more general population who only engages with Disney at a superficial level. If people don't dedicate a lot of time to engaging with theme parks at a deeper level then that's fine, but along with this strategy came a rabid, extremely superficial demographic that I think you're referring to as the "Disney adult". While I can say I'm generally interested in Disney's media side of things and their inner workings as a corporation, I have always been primarily interested in theme parks overall, believing until the last few years that Disney would also continue to lead the industry. When rumors of IP heavy projects came around or when they were announced, I dreaded what they would do to the parks, but I was always cautiously optimistic. Now though, it has become clear to me that Disney leadership only views their parks as malls with rides that they reluctantly maintain, concerned only with sales and cross-promotion with their media division. Their new attractions clearly reflect a lack of real investment, hoping that mediocrity can get by using easily identifiable IP as a crutch.

The "Disney adult" which I was accused of being (ironically by actual Disney adults), is the kind of person who spends an abnormal amount of time shilling for the company. The number of people who I've seen attack others for criticizing unpopular, anti-consumer policies is really quite annoying. If anyone expresses that something is thematically inappropriate, they're attacked personally and told that Disney is for kids. Ironic, since most really young children I've seen are primarily interested in chewing on queue chains or doing anything other than engaging with the parks. Even older children of elementary school age know when they're not particularly entertained. Kids aren't stupid, but Disney leadership's constant and surface-level character inclusion, indicates that they certainly think they are.

 

[Tom Morrow]

^ I am unaware of your Twitter war, for the record!

Excellent points though. "Disney Adults" are not only quick to applaud/shill for anything the company does, but attempt to reverse and deflect criticism and complaints with "You care too much about something for kids!" Ironic, when they're the one shilling for the "kids stuff". Literally seeing this stuff on Facebook right now regarding the Epcot signs. Excuse me, but I'm the one arguing against the kid-oriented signs at the park adults go to drink at, you're the one arguing in favor of it under the guise of "not caring".

The weird push by these people and the company lately that proposes that kids don't care about things they don't already know about is literally proven false by the rest of WDW's history. Kids in the 90's fell in love with Tower of Terror, for instance, despite probably never having seen The Twilight Zone. Very young toddlers don't care, and older kids aren't dumb and will enjoy anything that is good quality. They can also definitely tell the difference between characters and IP being included organically vs. being superficially slapped on stuff where it doesn't fit.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Kids in the 90's fell in love with Tower of Terror, for instance, despite probably never having seen The Twilight Zone.

Disney-MGM Studios likely exposed many children to properties and themes they were unaware of before visiting. Along with educating them about how the media they consumed was made.

The assumption today would be to not build a theme park based on 1930s/40s Los Angeles, because there's no obvious point of reference in our media landscape for that, but that setting never had a negative impact on attendance or children's enjoyment of the park for the last 30 some-odd years.

The quality of a given product often transcends generational/cultural familiarity and actually creates curiosity in the subject.

 

[BrerFoxesBayouAdventure]

The weird push by these people and the company lately that proposes that kids don't care about things they don't already know about is literally proven false by the rest of WDW's history. Kids in the 90's fell in love with Tower of Terror, for instance, despite probably never having seen The Twilight Zone. Very young toddlers don't care, and older kids aren't dumb and will enjoy anything that is good quality. They can also definitely tell the difference between characters and IP being included organically vs. being superficially slapped on stuff where it doesn't fit.

One of the arguments for the removal of Splash Mountain was "no one alive today knows what Song of the South is". Personally think thats BS because we've had it around for 3 decades and people love it regardless of them having prior knowledge of who Br'er Rabbit was.

 

[OrlandoRising]

I get a little tired of these holier-than-thou threads on this board where people wax nostalgic about an idealized Disney parks past that, and ignore how prevalent Disney IP has been in the parks for decades.

The reliance on IP is not inherently bad.

I also don't think you're theme park fan if you haven't visited theme parks that aren't run by Disney.

 

[Jrb1979]

I get a little tired of these holier-than-thou threads on this board where people wax nostalgic about an idealized Disney parks past that, and ignore how prevalent Disney IP has been in the parks for decades.

The reliance on IP is not inherently bad.

I also don't think you're theme park fan if you haven't visited theme parks that aren't run by Disney.

We all know IP has been prevalent in the past. The difference is there was a mix of IP based attractions and original attractions like the ones in Epcot. Lately it feels like they have shoe horned IP where they can.

My issue with the direction they are in is that all 4 WDW parks are starting to feel the same. Just extensions of Magic Kingdom. At one point Epcot was a unique park, had little IP and some amazing original attractions. DHS felt different too with it's theme to old Hollywood.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I get a little tired of these holier-than-thou threads on this board where people wax nostalgic about an idealized Disney parks past that, and ignore how prevalent Disney IP has been in the parks for decades.

In addition to the post above, a majority of the most beloved classic Disney attractions are not IP based or only IP-adjacent. Until the last decade there was a balance. There no longer is.

The reliance on IP is not inherently bad.

If done right, no, not really. But they aren't doing it right. They aren't adjusting the IP to fit the parks. They are homogenizing the parks to excuse their lack of effort in IP placement.

Then you have cases like Ratatouille where, if they really wanted, they could have used the IP in a creative way that expands on the park's intent, but instead they just did a generic "escape the bad buy" adventure.

 

[LittleBuford]

People of all ages have always loved Disney, but in the last decade the trend of the "Disney Adult" has grown tremendously. A "Disney Adult" isn't just an adult that enjoys Disney, but rather an adult that has made Disney, the brand, their entire lifestyle and personality. We see them everywhere now. They go to the parks "Disney-bounding" and gush over every single shoe-horned character insertion. They vlog about it. They become social media "influencers" entirely around it. They largely don't know and don't care about WDW's history and legacy, and applaud at classic, beloved stuff being removed in place of new, lazy IP insertions. They see the new characters on the Epcot parking lot signs and think "wow, so cute!" because thematic integrity doesn't matter to them, and they can't even comprehend why others would be upset about it. To them, Disney Parks = a celebration of Disney IP and nothing more.

The distinction between the Disney Adult and someone who simply loves quality theme parks and themed entertainment has to be made clear. I would wager that most of us on here are the latter. Enjoying Disney media alone does not make one a "Disney Adult", but even if you fully embrace that, you're likely here on WDWMAGIC because you also loved WDW for the unique, one-of-a-kind quality immersive experience it provided.

For most of WDW's existence, it was possible to have a WDW vacation without being constantly bombarded by Disney, the brand. Sure, the characters and IP were always there, but they weren't everywhere. There was always a balance. You could spend a week at WDW and see very little "Disney" stuff if you wanted. You could love WDW for everything it had to offer without being someone who cares about Disney, the brand, and their IP. This is, unfortunately, no longer the case, and the company is rapidly moving further and further away from that version of WDW.

The irony, is that for most of WDW's existence, WDW adult fans often had to justify their enthusiasm because WDW has never been good at marketing itself as a place with something for everyone in its advertising, always instead opting for shots of characters hugging kids and teacups and Dumbo. "Why do you like Disney World so much? Isn't it just for kids?" "Well no, actually, (massive list of awesome all-ages and even some adult-oriented things to do)." At which point that person could, if they cared enough, do some research into all that WDW actually offers and see that you were right.

But today, the opposite is true, WDW IS that version of itself it has always marketed, where you are bombarded with characters and IP at every step. The current version of WDW caters almost exclusively to kids and the Disney Adults who eat the branding up. Those of us who are simply lovers of theme parks and themed entertainment now have to justify that we like it, largely because of how it used to be, and not because of the Disney-brand fest that it now is.

So yeah. A Disney Adult and a fan of WDW/Disney Parks, while not exclusive, are not the same.

I don’t fall into either of these categories. I’m definitely not a theme-park person—only Disney parks interest me—but nor do I fit your description of a Disney Adult. For me, the parks bring to life the wonder, magic, and happiness I’ve associated with Disney since childhood. IP is a big part of that for me, but I also value the stuff that’s original to the parks.

I suppose I identify as a Pixie Duster. How that relates to your two categories I’m not sure.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I don’t fall into either of these categories. I’m definitely not a theme-park person—only Disney parks interest me—but nor do I fit your description of a Disney Adult. For me, the parks bring to life the wonder, magic, and happiness I’ve associated with Disney since childhood. IP is a big part of that for me, but I also value the stuff that’s original to the parks.

I suppose I identify as a Pixie Duster. How that relates to your two categories I’m not sure.

It's separate I guess. "Pixie dusters" is a negative term for those who love the park experience so much that they refuse to see the faults. Disney Adults aren't about the park experience but rather the brand experience.

 

[LittleBuford]

It's separate I guess. "Pixie dusters" is a negative term for those who love the park experience so much that they refuse to see the faults.

I know it’s usually meant negatively, but I’m OK with it. For me, it’s not about refusing to see the faults—I certainly do—but rather enjoying the experience so much that those faults mostly pale into insignificance. I realise others feel differently and don’t expect them to share my perspective.

 

[marni1971]

The reliance on IP is not inherently bad.

There used to be a balance. There no longer is. That is bad.

Epcot in particular - even lowercase Epcot - used to be better than this.

 

[Jrb1979]

There used to be a balance. There no longer is. That is bad.

Epcot in particular - even lowercase Epcot - used to be better than this.

I'm still of the belief that IP doesn't belong in Epcot. I have always wanted to see World Showcase finished like originally planned.

Poseidon had a good video out awhile ago on Europa Park. They are one of the best theme parks in the world.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

Disney-MGM Studios likely exposed many children to properties and themes they were unaware of before visiting. Along with educating them about how the media they consumed was made.

The assumption today would be to not build a theme park based on 1930s/40s Los Angeles, because there's no obvious point of reference in our media landscape for that, but that setting never had a negative impact on attendance or children's enjoyment of the park for the last 30 some-odd years.

The quality of a given product often transcends generational/cultural familiarity and actually creates curiosity in the subject.

It's always annoying when I see someone say that The Great Movie Ride was "boring" because they didn't know what any of the movies were. The purpose of the ride was not to point and shout "Look I know that thing!", which is what Disney seems to believe makes up their core audience. To miss that the thesis of the ride was to celebrate cinema and to exemplify genre defining films is a large part of what I hate about the community currently. I suppose it's easy to write me off as elitist, but engaging and thoughtful artistry matters.

I get a little tired of these holier-than-thou threads on this board where people wax nostalgic about an idealized Disney parks past that, and ignore how prevalent Disney IP has been in the parks for decades.

The reliance on IP is not inherently bad.

No it's not bad, but see the example above for how it's different. IP used to illustrate larger concepts such a celebrating cinema as an art form, or using a marketable figure like Bill Nye to educate an audience in an entertaining way on a ride are appropriate. Even the films represented in Fantasyland are fundamentally different than what you'll see today. Disney and his animators saw their films as expressions of art through the tedious medium of animation and wanted to bring that to audiences in Disneyland. Those films have a lot more artistic merit than committee produced, obligatory vessels of merchandise like Frozen and Moana. Not those these are inherently bad films or properties, but they aren't much more than pop art. To shove in a Danish story in the Norway pavilion, or try to justify that the Guardians belong in Epcot because there's a contrived, empty pavilion showcasing a fictional sci-fi planet is not equivalent. It is intellectually cheap and short-sighted. If that's the audience that Disney leadership wants, then they need to learn that their competition does this particular genre of ride better. Creating disinterest of their product among parks fans could lead to serious attendance issues if their more fickle audience decides that they prefer Universal's new multi-day resort instead.

 

[dreday3]

Hate to break it to some of you, but to non-Disney people like most of my friends and family, everyone posting on these boards would a "weird" Disney Adult in their eyes.