How to Prevent the End of Disneyland (within reason)

[mickEblu]

Some people may find the original Fantasyland better. You just haven’t met those people.

Nothing is objectively better or worse when it comes to the park and what people like or dislike/find better or worse. People have their opinions.

I think it’s fair to say that there are some things about Fantasyland 1.0 that people may like better or miss such as Skull Rock or an original scene from a dark ride like Alice but if we’re talking about the land overall there is no denying that it is objectively better now then it was. If their opinion is that 1.0 is better then they are wrong.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I think it’s fair to say that there are some things about Fantasyland 1.0 that people may like better or miss such as Skull Rock or an original scene from a dark ride like Alice but if we’re talking about the land overall there is no denying that it is objectively better now then it was. If their opinion is that 1.0 is better then they are wrong.

No, they are not wrong. It’s their opinion. You can have the opinion that their tastes aren’t up to par, but their opinion is not wrong. This is still subjective. There is bias.

Objective: Disneyland has gotten more expensive over time.

Subjective: 1983 Fantasyland is not as good as the original.

 

[mickEblu]

With ll

No, they are not wrong. It’s their opinion. You can have the opinion that their tastes aren’t up to par, but their opinion is not wrong. This is still subjective. There is bias.

Objective: Disneyland has gotten more expensive over time.

Subjective: 1983 Fantasyland is not as good as the original.

So let’s say you walked by two trees in New Orleans Square. One was thriving, healthy and green. Creating oxygen and a nice home for birds etc. The other tree is Dead. Is the first tree not objectively better than the dead tree? Or is it subjective because one weirdo might find the beauty in the dead one? The tree thats alive is better of course. It’s doing what it’s supposed to do. In that same way, lands and attractions can do what they set out to do better than others.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. I’m not here to have a philosophical debate.

 

[Californian Elitist]

With ll


So let’s say you walked by two trees in New Orleans Square. One was thriving, healthy and green. Creating oxygen and a nice home for birds etc. The other tree is Dead. Is the first tree not objectively better than the dead tree? Or is it subjective because one weirdo might find the beauty in the dead one? The tree thats alive is better of course. It’s doing what it’s supposed to do. In that same way, lands and attractions can do what they set out to do better than others.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. I’m not here to have a philosophical debate.

If one tree is dead and the other is alive, then objectively, if we’re considering what is best for life, the one that is alive is obviously better because it’s actually creating oxygen and is a home for birds. If the other tree is dead, how can it create oxygen? Then again, one can look at this subjectively and prefer a dead tree for, let’s say, an art project. It depends on the situation and the context. If we need a tree to create oxygen and be a host for animals, objectively, a living tree is better. If someone needs tree bark for an assignment, then it’s possible that the kind of bark doesn’t matter and, subjectively, someone could prefer to use dead bark.

This isn’t philosophy. This is a basic understanding of the differences between objective and subjective. It’s not a fact that 1983 Fantasyland is better than the original 1955 version. That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. It cannot be proven.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Things about 1983 Fantasyland that can be objectively seen as better:

-quality of show building infrastructure
-safety codes, safety protocols
-technology, in terms of evolution, more advanced (someone could still find the older animatronics better)
-capacity, guest traffic, improved walkways for the purposes of increased guest traffic and flow

 

[Consumer]

If one tree is dead and the other is alive, then objectively, if we’re considering what is best for life, the one that is alive is obviously better because it’s actually creating oxygen and is a home for birds. If the other tree is dead, how can it create oxygen? Then again, one can look at this subjectively and prefer a dead tree for, let’s say, an art project. It depends on the situation and the context. If we need a tree to create oxygen and be a host for animals, objectively, a living tree is better. If someone needs tree bark for an assignment, then it’s possible that the kind of bark doesn’t matter and, subjectively, someone could prefer to use dead bark.

This isn’t philosophy. This is a basic understanding of the differences between objective and subjective. It’s not a fact that 1983 Fantasyland is better than the original 1955 version. That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. It cannot be proven.

Mick is making a claim that can be argued with evidence and facts. Is he correct? Maybe. I agree with him. But he's opening it up to an argument when he says "Fantasyland 1983 is better than Fantasyland 1955." This makes its an objective statement. If, instead, he said "I prefer Fantasyland 1983 to Fantasyland 1955," it would be a subjective statement, and thus not open to arguing.

Objective is when the object is the focus, subjective is when the subject is the focus. In the former, Fantasyland (object) is the focus, in the latter, Mick (subject) is the focus.

If we're dealing with "basic understanding of the differences between objective and subjective," it'd be good to get the basics right.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Mick is making a claim that can be argued with evidence and facts. Is he correct? Maybe. I agree with him. But he's opening it up to an argument when he says "Fantasyland 1983 is better than Fantasyland 1955." This makes its an objective statement. If, instead, he said "I prefer Fantasyland 1983 to Fantasyland 1955," it would be a subjective statement, and thus not open to arguing.

Objective is when the object is the focus, subjective is when the subject is the focus. In the former, Fantasyland (object) is the focus, in the latter, Mick (subject) is the focus.

If we're dealing with "basic understanding of the differences between objective and subjective," it'd be good to get the basics right.

Objective means without bias, based on facts. I have listed things about 1983 Fantasyland that can actually be proven as being objectively better. Subjective is the opposite. There is bias and personal feelings, tastes, etc. As I stated, it depends on the context. Generally saying that 1983 Fantasyland is better, particularly regarding personal tastes, is an opinion, and therefore subjective. If you want to get into specific things, that’s when objectivity can play a role.

Take your own advice.

 

[Consumer]

Objective means without bias, based on facts. I have listed things about 1983 Fantasyland that can actually be proven as being objectively better. Subjective is the opposite. There is bias and personal feelings, tastes, etc. As I stated, it depends on the context. Generally saying that 1983 Fantasyland is better, particularly regarding personal tastes, is an opinion, and therefore subjective. If you want to get into specific things, that’s when objectivity can play a role.

Take your own advice.

Yes.

One can make a list of things Fantasyland 83 does better than Fantasyland 55. Some of the things you listed, such as infrastructure and technology, would definitely count, but so, too, would the number of dark ride, amount of foliage, honoring the original intent of the artists, classical metrics of beauty and architecture, crowd flow, and so on and so forth.

I know the new Dumbo came in 1990, but to use it as an example, new Dumbo is better than old Dumbo because it is more reliable, has better proportions, more intricate detailing, and seats more guests; for these reasons, it's better than the 1955 model. Somebody may prefer the 55 model, but then if they wanted to challenge my claim they would have to back theirs up with some sort of argument that explains why they believe the 55 model is superior in a way that would convince others.

I could make an argument that Fantasyland 83 is better than Fantasyland 55. If somebody disagreed, they could say so and provide evidence on the contrary. The purpose of a debate or an argument is to convince the other, as well as those watching/reading, that what you believe is true, not just to say "well our opinions are equal and therefore we can go our separate ways."

 

[Californian Elitist]

Yes.

One can make a list of things Fantasyland 83 does better than Fantasyland 55. Some of the things you listed, such as infrastructure and technology, would definitely count, but so, too, would the number of dark ride, amount of foliage, honoring the original intent of the artists, classical metrics of beauty and architecture, crowd flow, and so on and so forth.

I know the new Dumbo came in 1990, but to use it as an example, new Dumbo is better than old Dumbo because it is more reliable, has better proportions, more intricate detailing, and seats more guests; for these reasons, it's better than the 1955 model. Somebody may prefer the 55 model, but then if they wanted to challenge my claim they would have to back theirs up with some sort of argument that explains why they believe the 55 model is superior in a way that would convince others.

I could make an argument that Fantasyland 83 is better than Fantasyland 55. If somebody disagreed, they could say so and provide evidence on the contrary. The purpose of a debate or an argument is to convince the other, as well as those watching/reading, that what you believe is true, not just to say "well our opinions are equal and therefore we can go our separate ways."

The number of dark rides as a measure for what’s better and what isn’t is also subjective, though, unless we’re keeping to the realm of increased capacity. Someone that thinks that having more rides is better is an opinion. That can’t be proven. I guess it could go either way.

Yes, you can prove that newer Dumbo is better, depending on the criteria. If we’re talking increased capacity and better safety, then yes, newer Dumbo is objectively better. Amount of foliage, aesthetics, etc. is subjective and can’t be proven, as someone could prefer it with less foliage and prefer the original aesthetics, and they wouldn’t be wrong.

I have to leave for work, but I’ll read the rest of your post as soon as I get the chance. I had to stop at Dumbo.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I could make an argument that Fantasyland 83 is better than Fantasyland 55. If somebody disagreed, they could say so and provide evidence on the contrary. The purpose of a debate or an argument is to convince the other, as well as those watching/reading, that what you believe is true, not just to say "well our opinions are equal and therefore we can go our separate ways."

Right, and some arguments can be backed up with facts and some can’t and are solely based on personal tastes and opinions. If I said that 1983 Fantasyland is more efficient because it increased guest capacity, wider walkways, better traffic flow, that can be proven, and is therefore objective. If I said 1983 Fantasyland is better because it looks prettier and the Bavarian village aesthetic is better than the circus look, that’s personal taste and is subjective.

This is why I said simply stating that 1983 Fantasyland is better with no context and no specifics is subjective. It’s at least likely subjective. That statement is leaving the person to guess what they mean when they say it’s better. Better how, exactly? We need those specifics to pick out which parts of the argument are objective and which are subjective. It can be both.

 

[Phroobar]

How do you prevent the end of Disneyland?

Don't go there. People ruin everything. The more popular it becomes, the lower the standards become. If Disney were hurting for attendees, they would make great things to draw people back. Now they have hoards of people so they can do absolutely nothing but rake in money. Disney is best when they care about showmanship. No reason to do that now.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I agree. I think it can work both ways. We can see the past with rose colored glasses and have nostalgia for stuff that may not really deserve it sometimes. But we can also use our brain and say Fantasyland 1983 is better than original Fantasyland. I mean it’s funny how you don’t hear many people crying for Fantasyland 1.0 to come back right? Some things are objectively better.

The only thing people mourn the loss of is the Tuna Ship.

 

[Disney Irish]

The more popular it becomes, the lower the standards become. If Disney were hurting for attendees, they would make great things to draw people back.

One could argue the opposite could also be true. If attendance is hurting Disney could end up trying to put in cheap gimmicks to attract guests back, and it could end up working as it does now.

 

[PiratesMansion]

The best example of this, I think, is the new Star Tours. The original is an attraction I have a strong nostalgia for and has had a great impact on Disneyland and Star Wars with its aesthetic being turned into popular apparel even today amongst park fans. Star Tours: The Adventures Continue? Honestly, who cares about the Starspeeder 1000 or about C-3PO as a pilot? The Starspeeder 3000 and Rex are still the iconic elements from that ride. Star Tours 2 has existed for over a decade and has failed to make any lasting impression in park fans. Any goodwill towards Star Tours comes from the original version of the attraction. I admit Star Tours 2 is still a fun ride, but where is the fan following for it?

Well, maybe it's a bit of the truism that you don't know what you had until it's gone.

While I was not in the parks at the time, online I saw nothing but people complaining about how dated and busted they perceived OG Star Tours to be. People were tripping over themselves to wish for a new Star Tours online.

As a non-SW fan, I can't speak from personal experience past 1998 in the states regarding 1.0, but I did get to ride it one last time in Paris in 2015-and to me it felt clunky and dated. It leads me to strongly suspect that if you put the OG version and the current version side by side, most guests would prefer the current version. Perhaps your ridethroughs are different, but when I ride Star Tours it seems like everyone gets off having had a great time and people still get a kick out of the rebel spy bit and laugh at the jokes. The wait was a bit shorter this time around for Star Tours than my previous visits, but I think that's less because people feel ST 2.0 is inferior and more likely attributable to Galaxy's Edge now also existing in the same park, and both rides in that land have moments where they basically also become Star Tours, so the former Tomorrowland stalwart now feels somewhat redundant. YMMV.

@Californian Elitist is 100% correct regarding objectivity and subjectivity, and as others have also alluded to in this thread, every generation will perceive things differently than the generation before it. We love and take for granted Big Thunder, seeing it is as a key part of Disneyland; for others, Big Thunder ruined Disneyland because it took the place of their Mine Train. Sure, some things are universal, but time, changing tastes, and other factors tend to change the way things are seen in unexpected ways. There's likely some truth to the notion that it will be harder for the park to build new lifelong fans due to price increases alone (which is probably the actual deterrent to most people becoming big fans rather than the use of IP), but there are also plenty of people who don't seem to mind the changes that frustrate so many of us. The parks will continue to change in ways that may not resonate with us but will resonate with others, and that's more unavoidable than many of us would like to admit.

 

[Phroobar]

One could argue the opposite could also be true. If attendance is hurting Disney could end up trying to put in cheap gimmicks to attract guests back, and it could end up working as it does now.

They tried that for DCA and no one came until they spent really money.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Well, maybe it's a bit of the truism that you don't know what you had until it's gone.

While I was not in the parks at the time, online I saw nothing but people complaining about how dated and busted they perceived OG Star Tours to be. People were tripping over themselves to wish for a new Star Tours online.

As a non-SW fan, I can't speak from personal experience past 1998 in the states regarding 1.0, but I did get to ride it one last time in Paris in 2015-and to me it felt clunky and dated. It leads me to strongly suspect that if you put the OG version and the current version side by side, most guests would prefer the current version. Perhaps your ridethroughs are different, but when I ride Star Tours it seems like everyone gets off having had a great time and people still get a kick out of the rebel spy bit and laugh at the jokes. The wait was a bit shorter this time around for Star Tours than my previous visits, but I think that's less because people feel ST 2.0 is inferior and more likely attributable to Galaxy's Edge now also existing in the same park, and both rides in that land have moments where they basically also become Star Tours, so the former Tomorrowland stalwart now feels somewhat redundant. YMMV.

@Californian Elitist is 100% correct regarding objectivity and subjectivity, and as others have also alluded to in this thread, every generation will perceive things differently than the generation before it. We love and take for granted Big Thunder, seeing it is as a key part of Disneyland; for others, Big Thunder ruined Disneyland because it took the place of their Mine Train. Sure, some things are universal, but time, changing tastes, and other factors tend to change the way things are seen in unexpected ways. There's likely some truth to the notion that it will be harder for the park to build new lifelong fans due to price increases alone (which is probably the actual deterrent to most people becoming big fans rather than the use of IP), but there are also plenty of people who don't seem to mind the changes that frustrate so many of us. The parks will continue to change in ways that may not resonate with us but will resonate with others, and that's more unavoidable than many of us would like to admit.

Yes, exactly. We all have our opinions and we think they’re “right,” but the reality is not everyone will hold the same opinions sometimes. Therefore, it’s neither fair, nor correct to say that a particular factor regarding Disneyland is better now or better in the past, solely based on our opinions and personal tastes.

Also, no one knows if the nostalgia in the future will be the same as the one collected from Disneyland’s first 30 years of operation, whatever that actually means. The amount of time an attraction is there doesn’t necessarily matter in terms of it will be nostalgic for someone or not. Rocket Rods has a very short time at the park, but I’m always nostalgic for it and want to see it return.

 

[Disney Irish]

They tried that for DCA and no one came until they spent really money.

There's a difference in building a whole Park on the cheap vs a cheap gimmick like bringing back MSEP for the 100th time. I'm talking about the latter, not the former, as we've seen it work.

 

[FigmentForever96]

Yes, exactly. We all have our opinions and we think they’re “right,” but the reality is not everyone will hold the same opinions sometimes. Therefore, it’s neither fair, nor correct to say that a particular factor regarding Disneyland is better now or better in the past, solely based on our opinions and personal tastes.

Also, no one knows if the nostalgia in the future will be the same as the one collected from Disneyland’s first 30 years of operation, whatever that actually means. The amount of time an attraction is there doesn’t necessarily matter in terms of it will be nostalgic for someone or not. Rocket Rods has a very short time at the park, but I’m always nostalgic for it and want to see it return.

It’s like Guardians at Epcot. A vast majority of guests are going to say that it’s a huge improvement over what was there before versus some Epcot purist still wanting a non-up attraction. Some will see it as a plussing of a dated park, others will see it as another slap to EPCOT Center. Milage will vary

 

[Consumer]

Having no nostalgia for Epcot, I can comfortably say Universe of Energy sucked and so does Guardians.

 

[Phroobar]

There's a difference in building a whole Park on the cheap vs a cheap gimmick like bringing back MSEP for the 100th time. I'm talking about the latter, not the former, as we've seen it work.

Cheapness can be scaled up or down. Disney has become the equivalent of McDonalds. Their animation and their ride designs used to be gourmet meals. Now they are no better than badly run fast food joints but at the gourmet price.