Jim Hill and Grizz's Call to Arms

[PurpleDragon]

Again we go back to the childhood memories. I grew up with KK, and I actually liked that "Veggie, veggie, fruit, fruit" song. Since I grew up with the KK show, the fact that they changed it was painful for me because my childhood memories were being taken away. I know many of you didn't like KK, but I am a musician so I appreciated the fact that KK had a wide range of song styles based around a central theme. Where as food rocks is pretty much....well rock.

 

[speck76]

Again we go back to the childhood memories. I grew up with KK, and I actually liked that "Veggie, veggie, fruit, fruit" song. Since I grew up with the KK show, the fact that they changed it was painful for me because my childhood memories were being taken away. I know many of you didn't like KK, but I am a musician so I appreciated the fact that KK had a wide range of song styles based around a central theme. Where as food rocks is pretty much....well rock.

But your memories were not taken away......

 

[PurpleDragon]

But your memories were not taken away......

Sorry, not the correct choice of words. :hammer:

But you understand what I mean.

 

[speck76]

Sorry, not the correct choice of words. :hammer:

But you understand what I mean.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree that the parks should hang on to attractions just because people are emotionally attached to them.

I would be disappointed if they removed the American Adventure, I really like the attraction, but if it ever is removed, I would still have the memories of the show, and for me........that is good enough.

 

[PurpleDragon]

I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree that the parks should hang on to attractions just because people are emotionally attached to them.

I would be disappointed if they removed the American Adventure, I really like the attraction, but if it ever is removed, I would still have the memories of the show, and for me........that is good enough.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have removed KK, because like everyone said, it didn't pull in the crowds. But what I'm saying is that if you replace an attraction with something that mimics the orginal, that you should improve the quality, move forward, not backward. Does that makes sense?

I still have fond memories of KK but I think FR is sad in comparison. As Jim put it in his article, FR is a "dumbed down version" of KK. They could have put more effort in the new show, its like they just threw something together so they could call it new.

 

[speck76]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have removed KK, because like everyone said, it didn't pull in the crowds. But what I'm saying is that if you replace an attraction with something that mimics the orginal, that you should improve the quality, move forward, not backward. Does that makes sense?

Yes.....if something is supposed to be an updated version of the original, it should, for all intents and purposes, be better.

This is one reason why I prefer things to be replaced with something that is nothing like the original, as anytime an "upgrade" is done, it is always going to tick off the original's fans.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Speck,

First off, always enjoy a thread you get involved in...I know it will never be dull! :animwink:

Back to the topic at hand...which actually is the emotional and literary utterances of Gen. Grizz, particularly in regard to Epcot.

I don't think what you've said:

I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree that the parks should hang on to attractions just because people are emotionally attached to them.

I would be disappointed if they removed the American Adventure, I really like the attraction, but if it ever is removed, I would still have the memories of the show, and for me........that is good enough.

is in any way contradictary to what Grizz has consistently stated. There is nothing wrong with upgrade or replacement...IF it with something that advances the entertainment and theme. I think the imagination series previously presented here is a good example. I think the worst show is having WoL as an empty lawn attraction...or Odessy, half of the Imagination building, Innoventions and thinks like 20K in MK.

Change for change sake is not appropriate. You need a plan and objective, then know your operating parameters. These seem to be what has been lost with the decision making and creativity being moved from the imagineers to the bean counters.

 

[KevinPage]

My statement, of course, refers to Epcot pavilion attractions. If you close something, you sure as heck better have a replacement that furthers the purpose of the pavilion. (JIYIWF anyone?)

Again, that is limiting what WDI can do. Why does a pavillon HAVE to remain with the same theme/idea from its inception? If they can come up with a better idea & go a different direction, why not?

Are we saying that Wonders of Life CAN never be about anything else, but the human body Would you be adverse to them redoing the entire pavillon and making it about weather or any other idea unrelated to the human body?

In all of these posts, not 1 single person has ever answered the question I keep repeating over and over and over:

What is so special about The Land that is changing? The theme is incoherent, it had 3 dull attractions, 2 which they are keeping for the rehab. They are ADDING another MAJOR attraction and looking for a way to tie everything together, to GET THE MESSAGE OF THE LAND to make some sense and/or people to care about it.

Why does this point escape all the naysayers? You say it's not about the balloons, food court or fountain, yet IT IS. That is what they are removing. They are NOT removing any special ambience, cause The Land doesn't have any. If anything, the new food area will be more peaceful than what is the current mess they have.

You can disguise the resistence to change as wanting a better rehab, but Disney is giving us a better rehab, yet still the complaints. If they added Soarin and themed the queue to the current "ambience" of The Land, it would be a total disaster, not to mention incredibley dull.

If it wasn't a Travel Agency theme, I can guarantee that you would hear the same exact complaints for WHATEVER new theme they wanted to implement.

(hope that didn't sound too callous )

 

[LewZealand]

Is anyone else here suprised that Jim Hill hasn't responded to our criticism yet?

 

[marni1971]

Each person has their own opinion, KevinPage has his, many others think differently. Your question has been answered many times - read between the lines.

BTW, the only thing limiting WDI is TWDC upper managment!

 

[PurpleDragon]

BTW, the only thing limiting WDI is TWDC upper managment!

Here, here!!! WELL SAID!!!!:sohappy:

The sooner they get Michael Eisner out of there, the faster they can reorganize upper management and give creative freedom back to WDI!!

 

[KevinPage]

Each person has their own opinion, KevinPage has his, many others think differently. Your question has been answered many times - read between the lines.

I'm not reading between any lines, if people are going to whine and complain they need to explain exactly why, not in generalities and KEYWORDS.

BTW, the only thing limiting WDI is TWDC upper managment!

You'll get nothing but agreement from me on this one

 

[SirNim]

Kevin, yes, I am adverse to the idea of an attraction based on weather replacing Wonders of Life. There is enormous possibility to create new and innovative attractions based on the extraordinarily important theme of life. LIFE! The single most important process EVER in the history of the Universe. Imagine if Disney was to back down and say, "Oh, we don't want to commit the money to creating a new and exciting attraction that furthers the purpose of this pavilion. Let's just change the purpose of this pavilion - let's put in a fast ride that will get people through the turnstiles. What? "Future World?" Oh, yes! We'll lightly theme it to some sort of science. Huh? Of course it fits in Future World! It's scientific! It's educational - slightly! I-... but... yes, but the important thing is to get people through the turnstiles, not to adhere to the principles laid out in the creation of Epcot! No. My word is final. We are abandoning the theme of life because, frankly, we just can't handle it. We can't start what we finished. We had no foresight back in the 80s to realize that there was NO WAY WHATSOEVER for us to update and further the purpose of the pavilion! People don't care about life anymore."

 

[Scooter]

Kevin, yes, I am adverse to the idea of an attraction based on weather replacing Wonders of Life. There is enormous possibility to create new and innovative attractions based on the extraordinarily important theme of life. LIFE! The single most important process EVER in the history of the Universe. Imagine if Disney was to back down and say, "Oh, we don't want to commit the money to creating a new and exciting attraction that furthers the purpose of this pavilion. Let's just change the purpose of this pavilion - let's put in a fast ride that will get people through the turnstiles. What? "Future World?" Oh, yes! We'll lightly theme it to some sort of science. Huh? Of course it fits in Future World! It's scientific! It's educational - slightly! I-... but... yes, but the important thing is to get people through the turnstiles, not to adhere to the principles laid out in the creation of Epcot! No. My word is final. We are abandoning the theme of life because, frankly, we just can't handle it. We can't start what we finished. We had no foresight back in the 80s to realize that there was NO WAY WHATSOEVER for us to update and further the purpose of the pavilion! People don't care about life anymore."

No more Caffeine for YOU buddy :lookaroun :lookaroun :lookaroun

 

[General Grizz]

Kevin, yes, I am adverse to the idea of an attraction based on weather replacing Wonders of Life. There is enormous possibility to create new and innovative attractions based on the extraordinarily important theme of life. LIFE! The single most important process EVER in the history of the Universe. Imagine if Disney was to back down and say, "Oh, we don't want to commit the money to creating a new and exciting attraction that furthers the purpose of this pavilion. Let's just change the purpose of this pavilion - let's put in a fast ride that will get people through the turnstiles. What? "Future World?" Oh, yes! We'll lightly theme it to some sort of science. Huh? Of course it fits in Future World! It's scientific! It's educational - slightly! I-... but... yes, but the important thing is to get people through the turnstiles, not to adhere to the principles laid out in the creation of Epcot! No. My word is final. We are abandoning the theme of life because, frankly, we just can't handle it. We can't start what we finished. We had no foresight back in the 80s to realize that there was NO WAY WHATSOEVER for us to update and further the purpose of the pavilion! People don't care about life anymore."

On fire!

 

[PurpleDragon]

No more Caffeine for YOU buddy :lookaroun :lookaroun :lookaroun

HAhahaha!! :lol:

Besides its that type of "Get people thru the turn styles" thinking that is cheapening the Disney experience. They no longer believe Walt's original idea that quality is more important than cost effectiveness, that quality will always win out in the eyes of the public. Disney management only wants quick money makers, when it comes to new attractions.

 

[SirNim]

No more Caffeine for YOU buddy :lookaroun :lookaroun :lookaroun

*makes mental note to abstain from Diet Coke this week*

 

[KevinPage]

Kevin, yes, I am adverse to the idea of an attraction based on weather replacing Wonders of Life.

This was an hypothetical example of one of many possibilities.

There is enormous possibility to create new and innovative attractions based on the extraordinarily important theme of life. LIFE! The single most important process EVER in the history of the Universe.

Again, you are using pyscho babble to make your point. Because the original idea for the pavillon was about LIFE, it can NEVER EVER be changed? Where is the logic in that? That's called being an ideologue, not concerned with making something better, it just HAS TO BE A CERTAIN WAY.

If Epcot had a pavillon based on horse manure in 1982, and they wanted to change it tomorrow, by your logic, they shouldn't because that would change the original message of the pavillon.

Imagine if Disney was to back down and say, "Oh, we don't want to commit the money to creating a new and exciting attraction that furthers the purpose of this pavilion.

Why do they HAVE TO further the purpose of the pavillon if they can get a beter idea/concept for it? Are you adverse to them coming up with a BETTER concept if it is different? If they keep the same theme, are they not allowed to attempt to alter the way in which the message is told?

Face facts, the way the so called "message" of The Land is being told now, STINKS. So they are using a new way in which to convey this message.

It's scientific! It's educational - slightly! I-... but... yes, but the important thing is to get people through the turnstiles, not to adhere to the principles laid out in the creation of Epcot!

By that logic EVERY single principal of EPCOT was pure genius and should never be altered. If everything was that brilliant it would have held the test of time, people would have flocked to every single original idea they had. But that wasn't the case. Do you think Disney wants to spend $100 million on a new ride if they can keep what they have and not spend the $$$ ?

You fail to realize that EPCOT was a business in 1982 and still is today. Because something worked 20 years ago doesn't mean it automatically does today and doesn't need to be "tweaked".

No. My word is final. We are abandoning the theme of life because, frankly, we just can't handle it. We can't start what we finished. We had no foresight back in the 80s to realize that there was NO WAY WHATSOEVER for us to update and further the purpose of the pavilion! People don't care about life anymore."

Again, you seem to think a pavillon about LIFE is the greatest thing since sliced bread and should never be changed or removed.

If the majority of guests these days feel that ENERGY or LIFE is too mundane for them or not interesting enough, should Disney just thumb their noses at them and say "nope we ain't changing it, this was how the pavillon was originally concieved and it's staying that way" ?

 

[dxwwf3]

I must say that I don't think that a new pavilion HAS to follow the same theme. I think it would be a good idea to keep the same theme in a new Wonders of Life, but I don't think they should HAVE to.

I also must say that I'm not a big fan of what I've heard so far of the "Travel Agency" theme. Maybe I'll like it when more details emerge. At least new reports make the Sunshine Seasons Food Fair replacement sound better than I thought (Even though I'll still miss the way it was).

 

[DisneyMemories]

Well this is one heated topic on these threads, But I can't help but wonder what if any final act that Micheal Eiser will do to the disney we all love and charish so much when his contracts up. That be a real evil deed and forgive me for saying it but he would close COP,because so many love it so. ABC television already lost alot of big name sponcers and money because people feel Disneys/ABC #1 show "Desperate Housewives", has no morals and their is a big stir over that. Which in a way l don't blame them,most can agree that decent clean family shows are getting rare on tv anymore,not just ABC, but the rest of the networks too. Whats really sad is shows like "wonderful world of disney" ,Vault Disney (even on the disney channel for example) and others are not on anymore. Heck your lucky if you can find any on cable either oh well guess thats a topic for another thread. Since Eisner took over disney values have gone down and make me wonder what he has up his sleave.