Jungle Cruise Update

_caleb

Well-Known Member
No offense but you ve been a member here for almost 5 years. If you don’t know the difference after spending that amount of time here, where these things are discussed ad nauseam, I’m not sure what to tell you. Maybe Google?
None taken! But since neither my formal education nor professional experience have helped me learn the difference that you seem to see so clearly, I'm pretty sure a Google search might not be much help.

Guess I'm just doomed to ignorance and disagreement on a Disney fan site...
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
I agree there's room for everyone! It just seemed like they were not enjoying themselves (the comment was about constantly rolling their eyes at everything Disney does). I'm not trying to push anyone out, just saying that if they're not having fun, I recommend doing something else!
We enjoy ourselves here, despite some of us not being happy with the direction Disneyland is going here. I don’t see you often here in the DL forum but the vibe is different here. We can be negative and miserable but have good and interesting discussions.
 

1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

Well-Known Member
This just reinforces my belief that modern WDI takes all of the wrong things seriously. I mean they just botched the biggest expansion Disneyland's had since it opened. They couldn't built a land based on Star Wars, perhaps the most beloved IP of all time properly. But they're trusted to start re imagining tried and true classics?

There's been a reliance on meta humor to add 'depth' to these attractions. Incredicoaster is plagued with it, the queue film that plays basically says how ridiculous the concept is. Mission Breakout has similar issues. Placing Rosita in Tropical Hideaway is another example.

And now the Jungle Cruise- one of the most simple and delightfully pure experiences WDI has every created is going to be dragged down by the skippers being in the ride (groan) and the 'Albert Falls' joke now has an Alberta who has a newspaper.
So well said.
 

1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

Well-Known Member
Creative bankruptcy is right. Let’s also not forget about the chicken centric dialogue of the new action scene in POTC. I’m 1000% certain that at least 20 people here could have written a better script.
A monkey with a typewriter could have written a better script than that.
1616272433642.png
 

George Lucas on a Bench

Well-Known Member
Creative bankruptcy is right. Let’s also not forget about the chicken centric dialogue of the new action scene in POTC. I’m 1000% certain that at least 20 people here could have written a better script.

Wait until you see how Immersive they make it when Alberta Falls is actually Red's sister. One became a River Boat Captain, the other a Pirate. But both were...Empowered Women! And they'll meet in The Haunted Mansion where Constance Hatchaway, their grandmother, once resided!
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Wait until you see how Immersive they make it when Alberta Falls is actually Red's sister. One became a River Boat Captain, the other a Pirate. But both were...Empowered Women! And they'll meet in The Haunted Mansion where Constance Hatchaway, their grandmother, once resided!

Genius. Then the whole West Side of the park can be connected by a back story. Then you have Tiana (their cousin, twice removed) going into Splash Mountain. It’s perfect.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
So on the flip side that would mean you are fine with every decision Disney makes? And yet seem to be content with the it staying closed forever. Curioser and curioser

And you want it open but seem to hate everything they are putting into it? Weird.


So if I say “Space Mountain doesn’t belong in Adventureland” that’s at odds with thinking back stories are annoying and pointless? I don’t get it.

Space Mountain has a backstory. Every Disney attraction does. If I put a bunch of broken space ship parts around the Jungle Cruise is it space themed?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
No offense but you ve been a member here for almost 5 years. If you don’t know the difference after spending that amount of time here, where these things are discussed ad nauseam, I’m not sure what to tell you. Maybe Google?
They may be discussed but often in some ridiculous ways. Theme is often reduced to setting while backstory often only means linear narrative when both have a far broader and intertwined relationship. Like the sudden disdain for immersion the negative view of backstory seems to be more about its use in marketing.
 

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
I'd love to learn! Maybe you can provide some insight? Or point me to some good resources?
I'll take a stab at it.

A theme is a loose guiding principle. Things are selected that blend together and fit appropriately, but there's not necessarily a concern that the details inform one another or are of any specific importance other than to set a mood, establish an ambiance, or be consistent with the parameters of the area or scene.

A backstory, by contrast, attempts to specifically tie together and quantify each of these items and give them individual importance and a history. It tries to answer why, specifically, each prop is chosen, where it came from, what greater signficance it has, what the history of the building the prop is in has been up to this point, how that building fits in with what's around it and why, etc.

You might consider two Frontierlands as a contrast of these two approaches.

Frontierland, Disneyland, themed: It's the wild west! Therefore, anything that might fit your idea of the wild west is appropriate.

Frontierland, Disneyland Paris, backstoried: It's an old western town called Thunder Mesa, established in year _____ by the Ravenswoods, who set up a gold mine in Big Thunder Mountain, and it's now year ____. Oh, by the way, their house is over there on the hill, but you'll want to stay away as strange things have happened there, and...

When done well, a theme is freeing because you have more options available to you, and many visitors don't care about the backstories anyway. But it may not necessarily be as focused. Undoubtedly there are people at WDI now who seem to feel they NEED that focus to go forward.

Backstories CAN be done well-pretty much all of Disneyland Paris is a shining example of that-but can become convoluted and samey very easily or become fanservice-y in a detrimental way; see, IMO, the continued expansion of SEAS. After a certain point it often becomes more information than the average person needs to appreciate the thing, and then it might seem like too much exposition. It might also put unnecessary or arbitrary limitations on something in a way that a theme would not-the 1930's setting of Jungle Cruise, as an example, or become more important than the actual guest experience. It's my view that modern Imagineers too often forget the power of simplicity with their focus on backstories, and part of the reason the old classics work is that they are presented in a way that is straightforward and instantly readable.

Hopefully that makes sense.
 
Last edited:

MoonRakerSCM

Well-Known Member
To an extent, I think it's safe to say everything at Disneyland has a "backstory". The difference is, instead of letting the guests figure things out for themselves, modern WDI likes to blatanty shove them in our faces before we board, lest anyone get "confused".

If the design and execution are top-notch (HM, POTC, JC) then you don't really need a backstory. It shouldn't be confusing except for where it's obvious things really don't "fit" like GOTG.
Yup.

I think it runs deeper with the newer generation of imagineers and them beliecving they are holier than thou and can do no wrong. They grew up with backstories and a lush history of the park that naturally developed over many decades... and they want to recreate that in their projects and force it upon the guests. As seen with Star Wars land, they created such a rich backstory for every single aspect of the land that they left nothing to the imagination. No wonder or creativity from the guest is allowed nor wanted.

But hey, the jungle cruise is now a female owned small business. LA county will let me subcontract with them for our projects.
 
Last edited:

el_super

Well-Known Member
Backstories CAN be done well-pretty much all of Disneyland Paris is a shining example of that-but can become convoluted and samey very easily or become fanservice-y in a detrimental way; see, IMO, the continued expansion of SEAS. After a certain point it often becomes more information than the average person needs to appreciate the thing, and then it might seem like too much exposition. It might also put unnecessary or arbitrary limitations on something in a way that a theme would not-the 1930's setting of Jungle Cruise, as an example, or become more important than the actual guest experience.

I think the backstory for the new Jungle Cruise is too much, but I see it more as a result of having to fill in the blanks that left too much open to interpretation. We've discussed here about the "problems" with the Jungle Cruise in the form of colonialism and racism and other outdated views, and in implicitly stating what the backstory of the attraction is, Disney can correct a lot of issues with the interpretations of the attraction.

So in a sense, at least this once, I think it was necessary.
 

MoonRakerSCM

Well-Known Member
I think the backstory for the new Jungle Cruise is too much, but I see it more as a result of having to fill in the blanks that left too much open to interpretation. We've discussed here about the "problems" with the Jungle Cruise in the form of colonialism and racism and other outdated views, and in implicitly stating what the backstory of the attraction is, Disney can correct a lot of issues with the interpretations of the attraction.
Nice to see you finally admit that the rides are not racist but people's interpretations of them are.

Racist people's incorrect interpretations are ruining Disneyland forcing Disney to change things to stop them from forming incorrect thoughts.
 

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
I think the backstory for the new Jungle Cruise is too much, but I see it more as a result of having to fill in the blanks that left too much open to interpretation. We've discussed here about the "problems" with the Jungle Cruise in the form of colonialism and racism and other outdated views, and in implicitly stating what the backstory of the attraction is, Disney can correct a lot of issues with the interpretations of the attraction.

So in a sense, at least this once, I think it was necessary.
Perhaps. I'm still not convinced that a backstory solves all of their problems though. I think too much backstory runs the risk of pinning down an attraction that's always been, to a point, open-ended.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom