Certainly, but with a caveat. This is subjective, so what I see as "degradation" you may see as healthy adaption. We could probably converse a fair deal about the finer points surrounding this topic, and in fairness to all the people that want information on "Mission: BREAKOUT!," let's try to keep it to this one post.
We both like to discuss!
Tokyo Disney Sea's understanding in the fan community is fascinating. The Japanese park is almost universally praised, but is profoundly misunderstood all at the same time. Most people never dive deep (how's that for a pun?) and think about why this park makes sense. People get that the Sea is there, but rarely go a step further.
Like someone touring World Showcase and describing at as bunch of little countries or someone going to Animal Kingdom and describing it as a Zoo with rides, many stop at the superficial level of Tokyo Disney Sea. We Disney/Theme Park fans know World Showcase is a celebration of man's cultural achievements and dedicated to the idea that through communication and fellowship a brighter world can be created. Disney's Animal Kingdom teaches about the intrinsic value of nature, the power of Adventure to change individuals, and creates a call to action.
So what is Tokyo Disney Sea? What are its values? Is Disney's Ocean park really more than a collection of random port towns to explore?
Man's fascination with the Sea has been something that has followed the human experience since the beginning. The Sea mocked our early ancestors, beckoning us to explore. Oceans acted as doorway to new and exciting worlds. It brought the world closer together. Sometimes the Sea was the source of destruction, both human and environmental. Man's fears and fascination with oceans created myths and legends that exist to this day.
As long as there has been man, there has been ocean right alongside him.
Tokyo Disney Sea encapsulates man's journey with the Sea, and creates a physical celebration of all that relationship has created. Tokyo Disney Sea also is a distinctly modern park. It celebrates early explorers, but also shares with its audience the damage that exploration can bring. It shows nature lashing out at man's attempts to control and unlock its secrets. It also demonstrates the inter connectivity between areas being exploited and ruined (Lost River Delta) and the areas doing the exploiting (New York's port with boxes carry this metaphor to astonishing heights).
I could say so much about the story they chose to tell. The thinking is mind blowing, and perhaps only matched currently at Disney's Animal Kingdom. Sadly, Tokyo Disney Sea's message has no articulate spokesperson to share its thinking like Rohde does for DAK, so most are left in the dark. Even many of its most ardent fans could hardly articulate why they love it so much. Scale and architectural beauty are one thing, but the story its carefully telling its guests is nearly unrivaled. It makes most other Disney and Universal parks look like child's play.
Now to answer your question. Where do I see "degradation?" The key to understanding my usage is simply "do new additions help the story?" Many people mistake Tokyo Disney Sea's greatness with execution, which is in fact only a byproduct of great storytelling. Storytelling is why it works so well. That care is what makes it so compelling.
A good analogy for this would be you designing a modern looking room for your house. All the styling in the room is presenting a carefully chosen set of appearances and giving off a certain ambiance. You realize you need something on the wall. You go to the store and see a beautiful medieval tapestry and a stylish modern picture frame. Which do you choose? Of course the tapestry is lovely, but it would immediately clash with the space and your design. You decide to go with the picture frame because it fits into the goals of the room.
The same is true with theme parks, but instead of mere visual cohesion additions are being guided by a narrative chosen at the park's inception.
So with that clearly established, onto some of the cases of a weakening of the narrative:
1) Toy Story Midway Mania. While somewhat controversial among the Walt Disney World and Disneyland faithful, no one can deny its popularity. This project was the first attraction to completely eschew the value system put into place. TSMM was a complete rejection of the governing constitution of the park. Compare it to its neighbor Tower of Terror. The fantastic Tower shows a greedy man going out into the world and enjoying its spoils. He made himself rich off his exploration and exploitation. He has harnessed the Sea to make himself wealthy (he brings the idol back on a ship no less) and he brings a little bit of that chaos to a place of "civilization." Right here we see how the Ocean shaped culture, economy, and lore. We see the detrimental effects of exploration. Now TSMM. Hmm, based somewhat off of Coney Island as far as I could tell. I guess there is Water at Coney Island. Oh and remember to board a car from Andy's bedroom and play midway games with a bunch of talking toys...
They were not thinking.
2) Finding Nemo Attraction. Stormrider was not perfect. There is a common misconception that every ride is going to be perfect, when in reality much like movies, even big budget projects may fumble. While it was far from perfect, it offered a compelling original narrative that advanced Sea's message. One of the core beliefs of Sea is the idea that while man may try to conquer and manipulate nature, nature will lash out in return. You see that in a certain Journey to the Center of the Earth, where the beast is in fact metaphorical for Earth's powerful natural forces and man trying to make sense of them. On Stormrider, the guest was left with the equivalent of a slight reproach. Trying to control and outsmart nature is futile. The connective tie between Mysterious Island and Port Discovery show man's fascination and desire to discover and control through science. That was occurring both during the 19th century and will continue into the future. Now Nemo... No one has been on this ride yet, but I have a very bad feeling about this.
3) Frozenland. What?!?! You might ask. How can you mention this one when a whole land is dedicated to The Little Mermaid? Simple. Early on in Tokyo Disney Sea's development, there was a realization that some IP was going to be put in the park. In a perfect world there would be completely IP free parks, but even in Tokyo they had to face partners eager to cash in on a hot IP. Instead of bringing the IP to Tokyo Disney Sea, they brought Tokyo Disney Sea to an IP. The narrative for Tokyo Disney Sea centers around man's relationship with oceans, both real and perceived. Man has always dreamed of venturing into the deep and finding strange and exotic worlds to discover. Legends of sea people abound, there is even a whole attraction relating to this over in Mysterious Island. They made the IP play by the rules with beautiful execution and created a remarkable experience. It was far from perfect, but it was a compromise everyone could be proud of. Frozen. We are still in the earliest stages of development and are only hearing whispers, but all signs point to danger. The E-Ticket is likely to be a best of hits from the film, and almost undoubtably will fail to follow the value system. Where are warnings of exploration? Where is a profound fascination with the Sea? Where is man's journey?
Dark clouds are brewing, especially if it shares its design with Disneyland. Disneyland has no need for Sea's rigid rule structure (it has its own, also being scrubbed too) and so the attraction likely will fail to reinforce either park's story.
4) Rampant character penetration. Shops, spectaculars, parades, food, etc. all being dumbed down to include characters. It makes Walt Disney World look downright conservative with character usage. The unique and adult park is trying to remake itself as Tokyo Disneyland.
5) The future. If the wind is blowing where I think it is, expect more of this. If I were betting, the Subs should be next for IP replacement. Followed by Sinbad. Sinbad is blessed with merchandise sales from its beloved tiger sidekick. The subs were not blessed with a cute stuffed animal to sell, and should be up for replacement. That would be my guess. I have not seen this rumored anywhere, but based of its accelerated case of "EPCOT Center syndrome," that would be enemy number 1.
So in a nutshell, I see a meaningful Park losing meaning in a way that is unprecedented since EPCOT Center. Everything they touch seems to degrade. They have shown a total disrespect for intent. All what, 15 years into its lifecycle? Epcot at 15 was already losing focus fast. Their Nemo is Epcot's Energy (both involving Ellen no less).
Disney's Animal Kingdom is a little better off. I personally suspect it dodges a bullet because Executives can feel like they're helping the environment and being "cultured." Though even there cracks are starting to appear.
Now of course you can come back with business reasons for all the things they are doing, believe me I have thought through them myself. You can remind me of the quality of the new add ons, and I assure I have thought about it. You can say that non IP attractions are dead, and maybe they are.
Still, it's a depressing that nothing was learned from Epcot. Things are slowly, but surely, falling into entropy.
I understand much of the logic, but I still will lament it.
