News New Haunted Mansion Grounds Expansion, Retail Shop Coming to Disneyland Resort in 2024

[Too Many Hats]

If you think about it, it's kinda stupid that people can't recognize that Clark Kent is Superman because he wears glasses, but we accept it because it's always been that way. Mr. Toad wouldn't go to hell in a brand new ride that opens today, nor would the Stretching Room end in the way it does, but they are iconic parts of the experience that would lessen their attractions if they were removed. Sometimes things get to stay just because they're old. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrandfatherClause

But I find this talk about "the needs of families" somewhat insidious. Yes, the parks are for and on some level should cater to families, but much like everything else Disney, the parks started as a place for everyone and over time the demographics of who the park serves (or purports to serve) have narrowed. So somewhere along the line the masses decided, culturally, that because Disney films are basically used as glorified babysitters by big chunks of the population, that it must also be true that everything at Disney parks must be acceptable for the world's most sensitive three year old. You see this born out everywhere: Rides used to be designed for everyone to experience, and if they were scary, well, being scared is part of life, and facing fears is part of growing up: now rides are designed for people who either want no thrills/intensity of any kind or maximum thrills with little in between. Adults used to write speeches about how Disneyland was a spectacular example of urban design and planning; now adults who like Disney parks are something of a societal joke to a certain subset of people, because WHY would ANYONE that's OLD like something that's OBVIOUSLY meant for kids?!?!?!!!111

Something that Disney has helped perpetuate, because nobody in the company now has any conviction for the parks or sense of what they are or why they work, so the idiot masses have won out.

In the old days, the Imagineers trusted the rider to be able to role play as specific characters, even if that resulted in peril (see: Snow White's Adventures, Mr. Toad, etc). Now, on newer rides, we passively wave at Anna and Elsa, with the idea that just seeing these characters, even for a moment, is thrill enough, with no other effort or merit to the experience required. If it's good enough for the three year old, it's great for everyone, right? The masses have decided that that's what they wanted, and so that's what they've received.

Now I can't blame Disney for providing that sort of experience given that demand for it clearly exists, but there should be balance, and acceptance of the fact that different demographics have different needs and want different things. I think it's also clear that what is or is not family friendly is a bit dubious to begin with, but it has certainly narrowed over time. It just gets annoying to see it happen again and again, especially because there is demonstrably a huge market for the parks among adults, and there always has been. The parks should be able to cater to adults beyond just building bars or Star Wars Fanboi Wish Fulfillment: The Land, and they used to be better at it than they currently are. We need not encourage them to dumb down the parks more in service of some imagined overly sensitive audience member, given that they are already inclined to do so without us giving them more ideas.

Just want to say, this is an excellent post.

 

[Phroobar]

People don't know what they want. They will always ask for something they already see. No one ever asked for a fifteen minute AA pirate ride but Walt just went ahead a did one anyway.

 

[duncedoof]

That corpse is not gonna be hanging from that ceiling when this ride re-opens its doors.

I was just thinking about that possibility when I was going through the thread, and then discussion happened to shift to that. It must be some sort of evil, sad omen. We had a good run.

 

[duncedoof]

Just to provide context, imagineers attached to the Mansion have already confirmed they've "discussed" the scene in the past. (a.k.a. its days are numbered). This here closure would be the most appropriate excuse for them to do this.

It's a tough day for the classics.

 

[mickEblu]

If they do end up altering the scene watch them alter the end of the recording too instead of “of course there’s always my way” just referring to whatever new thing is happening.

 

[zipadee999]

Just to provide context, imagineers attached to the Mansion have already confirmed they've "discussed" the scene in the past. (a.k.a. its days are numbered). This here closure would be the most appropriate excuse for them to do this.

It's a tough day for the classics.

When will they finally let the classics be? All unnecessary alterations they’ve made in recent years have been overall negative. They feel the need to cleanse them of anything corporate execs find ‘outdated,’ but that charm is what makes them classics and gives them the ‘spark.’ I feel that modern attractions don’t hold a candle to the classics (with the exception of a select few) because imagineers are afraid to take risks anymore. They refuse to think outside of the box and do anything unique or charming that they are afraid anyone could possibly deem ‘offensive’ and now we end up with sterile, bland, and uninspired attractions that all feel the same. They lack the charm because they are trying so hard to be as bland and inoffensive as possible. With these pointless alterations made to the classics, they are slowly chipping away the original artistic vision and peeling away everything that made them unique or special so that they too start to feel like the bland and monotonous modern WDI.

I highly doubt that the guests themselves are so horrifically appalled by the skeleton in the stretching room that’s been there since 1969. It has become an iconic part of the attraction that is still spoken of as a highlight or a ‘wow’ moment. I would bet a large sum of cash that if every guest coming back up the moving walkway was surveyed that the vast majority would find absolutely no problems with any part of the attraction and would have especially enjoyed it because of its yesteryear charm when imagineers were willing to take risks. Even the idea of altering the stretching room to me sounds like it came directly out of some corporate board room from executives with miles and miles of disconnect from the average paying park-goer. It just pains me to see these once unique and special classics slowly stripped of everything unique

 

[LittleBuford]

If they do end up altering the scene watch them alter the end of the recording too instead of “of course there’s always my way” just referring to whatever new thing is happening.

Even now, it’s very easy to misinterpret what that line refers to. The doors open very soon after he says it, so for those guests who don’t notice the hanging figure—and they are perhaps in the majority—the words may well be understood as referring to the tour the Ghost Host is about to take us on. I agree they would probably change the dialogue if they were to remove the figure, but I don’t think they need to.

 

[mickEblu]

Even now, it’s very easy to misinterpret what that line refers to. The doors open very soon after he says it, so for those guests who don’t notice the hanging figure—and they are perhaps in the majority—the words may well be understood as referring to the tour the Ghost Host is about to take us on. I agree they would probably change the dialogue if they were to remove the figure, but I don’t think they need to.

They don’t need to… so they will. No I don’t know, I want to believe that cooler heads prevailed and the scene won’t be touched.

 

[LittleBuford]

They don’t need to… so they will. No I don’t know, I want to believe that cooler heads prevailed and the scene won’t be touched.

I meant they wouldn’t need to change the dialogue even if they removed the figure.

 

[mickEblu]

I meant they wouldn’t need to change the dialogue even if they removed the figure.

I know. That’s what I was referring to then went onto say that I hope they don’t touch the scene at all.

 

[_caleb]

When will they finally let the classics be?

Maybe when society suddenly stops changing, or it becomes 1969 again.

All unnecessary alterations they’ve made in recent years have been overall negative.

In your opinion.

They feel the need to cleanse them of anything corporate execs find ‘outdated,’ but that charm is what makes them classics and gives them the ‘spark.’

Some mild racism and/or suicidal thought triggers (during an alarming nationwide rise in suicides) aren’t what make these attractions special.

I feel that modern attractions don’t hold a candle to the classics (with the exception of a select few) because imagineers are afraid to take risks anymore.

If so, maybe it’s because a certain segment of the fandom scrutinize and dump all over everything they do.

They refuse to think outside of the box and do anything unique or charming that they are afraid anyone could possibly deem ‘offensive’

I don’t understand the mentality that fun requires offending someone (someone other than you, obviously).

and now we end up with sterile, bland, and uninspired attractions that all feel the same.

Adventureland Treehouse is oozing with charm, as is the new Snow White’s Wish. They uglified ToT to make it GotG, which seems neither sterile nor bland.

They lack the charm because they are trying so hard to be as bland and inoffensive as possible. With these pointless alterations made to the classics, they are slowly chipping away the original artistic vision and peeling away everything that made them unique or special so that they too start to feel like the bland and monotonous modern WDI.

Maybe you just don’t like modern WDW. Or maybe (and ironically) you’re the one being offended by what they’re doing now.

I highly doubt that the guests themselves are so horrifically appalled by the skeleton in the stretching room that’s been there since 1969.

You can doubt it, but suicide rates—including literally AT Disneyland—are up.

It has become an iconic part of the attraction that is still spoken of as a highlight or a ‘wow’ moment. I would bet a large sum of cash that if every guest coming back up the moving walkway was surveyed that the vast majority would find absolutely no problems with any part of the attraction and would have especially enjoyed it because of its yesteryear charm when imagineers were willing to take risks.

The vast majority probably never had a problem with the curbs and uneven surfaces Disney got rid of to help make the parks more accessible to guests with mobility challenges.

 

[zipadee999]

Maybe when society suddenly stops changing, or it becomes 1969 again.

In your opinion.

Some mild racism and/or suicidal thought triggers (during an alarming nationwide rise in suicides) aren’t what make these attractions special.

If so, maybe it’s because a certain segment of the fandom scrutinize and dump all over everything they do.

I don’t understand the mentality that fun requires offending someone (someone other than you, obviously).

Adventureland Treehouse is oozing with charm, as is the new Snow White’s Wish. They uglified ToT to make it GotG, which seems neither sterile nor bland.

Maybe you just don’t like modern WDW. Or maybe (and ironically) you’re the one being offended by what they’re doing now.

You can doubt it, but suicide rates—including literally AT Disneyland—are up.

The vast majority probably never had a problem with the curbs and uneven surfaces Disney got rid of to help make the parks more accessible to guests with mobility challenges.

In your opinion. I obviously see things differently. Changes in the park are a different story. Adjusting paths to improve accessibility for strollers, wheelchairs, and scooters is a welcome change, yet it has nothing to do with cleansing and sacrificing the original artistic vision and integrity of attractions. The attractions are from a time where imagineers were more willing to take risks and build intricate stories and environments simply for the purpose of story and experience rather than the ‘play it safe and don’t offend a simple house fly approach.’

I respect your opinion and acknowledge that I will not be able to change your mind nor you mine, but say this was the Louvre in Paris. There is a beautiful piece of art from the 1600s. The board of directors at the museum suddenly decides that the artistic vision in the 1600s is ‘outdated’ or ‘irrelevant’ in 2024, and instead of allowing the public to appreciate and learn about the charm of a different time, they update and modernize the painting, destroying the vision of the original artist.

Art is not supposed to be cleansed. Nor is life. That is why older attractions felt alive in ways new ones cannot. They put their artistic vision above the ‘squeaky clean don’t offend a single soul’ approach and simply felt more alive because of it. That is because they shared more similarity with life and culture in that they were not ‘squeaky clean.’ They were thought provoking and challenged the viewer, just like a good TV show.

 

[LittleBuford]

In your opinion. I obviously see things differently. Changes in the park are a different story. Adjusting paths to improve accessibility for strollers, wheelchairs, and scooters is a welcome change, yet it has nothing to do with cleansing and sacrificing the original artistic vision and integrity of attractions. The attractions are from a time where imagineers were more willing to take risks and build intricate stories and environments simply for the purpose of story and experience rather than the ‘play it safe and don’t offend a simple house fly approach.’

I respect your opinion and acknowledge that I will not be able to change your mind nor you mine, but say this was the Louvre in Paris. There is a beautiful piece of art from the 1600s. The board of directors at the museum suddenly decides that the artistic vision in the 1600s is ‘outdated’ or ‘irrelevant’ in 2024, and instead of allowing the public to appreciate and learn about the charm of a different time, they update and modernize the painting, destroying the vision of the original artist.

Art is not supposed to be cleansed. Nor is life. That is why older attractions felt alive in ways new ones cannot. They put their artistic vision above the ‘squeaky clean don’t offend a single soul’ approach and simply felt more alive because of it. That is because they shared more similarity with life and culture in that they were not ‘squeaky clean.’ They were thought provoking and challenged the viewer, just like a good TV show.

Since you brought up the Old Masters, the fate of Michelangelo’s Last Judgement may interest you:

Michelangelo's Last Judgment and Marcello Venusti's Copy — Tiffany Parks

As if you didn't need another excuse to visit the just-about-to-end Renaissance in Rome exhibit at Palazzo Venezia, here is one more! Marcello Venusti created a copy of Michelangelo's epic Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel before the latter was brutally censored under Pope Pius IV in 1565.

www.tiffany-parks.com

I think it would help make these debates less charged if people moved away from the misconception that everything in and from the past was just accepted until newfangled political correctness came along.

 

[PSM]

...allowing the public to appreciate and learn about the charm of a different time...

I wasn't aware that someone hanging themselves is part of "the charm of a different time...". Disney parks are also not a museum and serve a very different purpose.

I'm as big a fan of the Disney parks as anyone, have been visiting since the mid 80s, and am still visiting FL and CA parks typically twice per year or more these days, but when I brought my young kids to MK and we went on HM, I have to say that suicide scene hit differently and made me surprised it hadn't already been revamped.

 

[zipadee999]

I wasn't aware that someone hanging themselves is part of "the charm of a different time...". Disney parks are also not a museum and serve a very different purpose.

I'm as big a fan of the Disney parks as anyone, have been visiting since the mid 80s, and am still visiting FL and CA parks typically twice per year or more these days, but when I brought my young kids to MK and we went on HM, I have to say that suicide scene hit differently and made me surprised it hadn't already been revamped.

Well at the end of the day it IS a haunted house, lol. The charm I’m referring to is less like the charm of old fantasyland and more of a thrill. A haunted house is not a haunted house without the implied horror or danger, which in the haunted mansion’s case makes the payoff in the graveyard far more rewarding. It is SUPPOSED to be unsettling and unnerving, which like I said, makes the Marc Davis half of the attraction feel far more impactful. Similar to the changes to pirates. The original town scenes were all supposed to be mildly unsettling as we saw the pirates pillaging and doing very ‘naughty’ things. The burning town scene where all the pirates start to sing seemed more impactful after we saw the pirates acting differently before. The haunted mansion applies to this. The charm of these attractions is not the charm of something like Peter Pan’s Flight, but the charm of implied danger to lead to a grand payoff. The nerfing of this implied danger takes the character and ‘livelihood’ out of these attractions and in turn makes scenes like the burning town and graveyard less impactful as there is less payoff. This is the style of modern WDI and is why we end up with attractions like Frozen Ever After. An even, happy tone all the way through with no danger or excitement. Think of it like this, a lake looks very special to someone from the middle of the desert. To someone from Minnesota with lakes all over, another lake seems like no big deal. The contrast is what makes the payoff so much more impactful. If the first 3/4s of an attraction have a different, slightly darker tone than the finale, then the payoff of the finale will feel much grander.

 

[_caleb]

In your opinion. I obviously see things differently. Changes in the park are a different story. Adjusting paths to improve accessibility for strollers, wheelchairs, and scooters is a welcome change, yet it has nothing to do with cleansing and sacrificing the original artistic vision and integrity of attractions.

You’re framing it as “cleansing and sacrificing” artistic vision. I’m framing it as, changing to accommodate those of us who are vulnerable or have specific needs.

The attractions are from a time where imagineers were more willing to take risks and build intricate stories and environments simply for the purpose of story and experience rather than the ‘play it safe and don’t offend a simple house fly approach.’

You’re dismissing people as “house flies.” Why are the offensive elements so important to your enjoyment of attractions?

I respect your opinion and acknowledge that I will not be able to change your mind nor you mine, but say this was the Louvre in Paris. There is a beautiful piece of art from the 1600s. The board of directors at the museum suddenly decides that the artistic vision in the 1600s is ‘outdated’ or ‘irrelevant’ in 2024, and instead of allowing the public to appreciate and learn about the charm of a different time, they update and modernize the painting, destroying the vision of the original artist.

I get your analogy here, and I do appreciate themed attractions as art, but Walt specifically said that Disneyland would not be a museum, that it should continue to evolve and change with the times.

Art is not supposed to be cleansed. Nor is life. That is why older attractions felt alive in ways new ones cannot.

I believe this is true for you, but not for everyone. I’d invite you to try to put yourself in other peoples’ shoes.

They put their artistic vision above the ‘squeaky clean don’t offend a single soul’ approach and simply felt more alive because of it. That is because they shared more similarity with life and culture in that they were not ‘squeaky clean.’ They were thought provoking and challenged the viewer, just like a good TV show.

This is certainly one way to view things. But it’s a way that would keep a theme park stuck in the past, losing relevance with each generation.

We can appreciate what was without holding it as the universal standard for all people in all times.

 

[PSM]

Well at the end of the day it IS a haunted house, lol. The charm I’m referring to is less like the charm of old fantasyland and more of a thrill. A haunted house is not a haunted house without the implied horror or danger, which in the haunted mansion’s case makes the payoff in the graveyard far more rewarding. It is SUPPOSED to be unsettling and unnerving, which like I said, makes the Marc Davis half of the attraction feel far more impactful. Similar to the changes to pirates. The original town scenes were all supposed to be mildly unsettling as we saw the pirates pillaging and doing very ‘naughty’ things. The burning town scene where all the pirates start to sing seemed more impactful after we saw the pirates acting differently before. The haunted mansion applies to this. The charm of these attractions is not the charm of something like Peter Pan’s Flight, but the charm of implied danger to lead to a grand payoff. The nerfing of this implied danger takes the character and ‘livelihood’ out of these attractions and in turn makes scenes like the burning town and graveyard less impactful as there is less payoff. This is the style of modern WDI and is why we end up with attractions like Frozen Ever After. An even, happy tone all the way through with no danger or excitement. Think of it like this, a lake looks very special to someone from the middle of the desert. To someone from Minnesota with lakes all over, another lake seems like no big deal. The contrast is what makes the payoff so much more impactful. If the first 3/4s of an attraction have a different, slightly darker tone than the finale, then the payoff of the finale will feel much grander.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I don't want to get into a heated debate (I respect your opinion and am just stating mine). Personally, I'm ok with removing a direct image of suicide by hanging from a Disney parks ride, particularly in the one park that is strongly geared towards families with younger children. Again, just my opinion and I fully understand not liking change to classic rides.

 

[zipadee999]

You’re framing it as “cleansing and sacrificing” artistic vision. I’m framing it as, changing to accommodate those of us who are vulnerable or have specific needs.

You’re dismissing people as “house flies.” Why are the offensive elements so important to your enjoyment of attractions?

I get your analogy here, and I do appreciate themed attractions as art, but Walt specifically said that Disneyland would not be a museum, that it should continue to evolve and change with the times.

I believe this is true for you, but not for everyone. I’d invite you to try to put yourself in other peoples’ shoes.

This is certainly one way to view things. But it’s a way that would keep a theme park stuck in the past, losing relevance with each generation.

We can appreciate what was without holding it as the universal standard for all people in all times.

Thank you for the thoughtful response, and I can see where you’re coming from on most of these. That being said I would just like to know who it is deeming all of these attractions offensive. Outside of these forums and at the parks with the general public, I have yet to see any of these ‘problems.’ I also believe that you can never make EVERYBODY happy, you just need to make the majority happy enough to turn a profit (in Disney’s case).

Once you eventually bend the knee and agree to alter an artistic vision and change something, especially for the few rather than the many, you enter a dangerous territory where you will never stop having to change and alter the attraction. Because you can’t make everyone happy, you will never stop changing and altering the attraction because if you look hard enough, you will soon find someone who has a problem with every single square foot of an attraction.

I do agree with you on the Disney will never be complete statement, I just differ in how it should be gone about. I believe in addition by addition, rather than addition by subtraction. If people speak up and want an attraction that does “___,” then an attraction that does “___” should be built. Disney should not simply work to sacrifice the original message of a preexisting attraction just to make it absolutely everybody’s favorite. One, that will never work because you cannot make everybody happy, and two, it’s ok if someone doesn’t like an attraction.

When a movie is released, the studio does not expect every human being on earth to automatically love it. They don’t ‘unrelease’ the movie and completely rework it (unless we’re talking about the Snyder cut lol) just to make it everybody’s favorite movie. They acknowledge that not everybody will like it, and as long as enough people do to earn a profit, the studio is happy. It is up to the viewer to instead choose a different movie that they enjoy more rather than expect the studio to completely reshoot the movie so that they can now like it.

It is not up to Disney to endlessly change and toil with their attractions just to make them everybody’s favorite. Like the film studio, they can acknowledge that everyone will have a favorite and everyone will have an attraction that they simply don’t like, and it’s up to the public to choose what they ride.

If Disney is receiving high numbers of complaints from certain groups about a failure to support certain needs, then Disney should build a new attraction with a broader audience in mind, and do the same when eventually another group with a different need comes into play. Altering existing attractions is a lose-lose situation. They risk the artistic integrity and enter an endless battle, as you can never make everybody happy!

Sorry for the ramble, there’s a blizzard where I am so I’m bored and inside lol. Again everybody’s entitled to their own opinion, this is just my hot take!

 

[LittleBuford]

and it’s up to the public to choose what they ride.

But how would an unsuspecting guest ever know to expect a depiction of suicide in the first place?

 

[zipadee999]

But how would an unsuspecting guest ever know to expect a depiction of suicide in the first place?

I know at universal every attraction has a safety bulletin outside of the entrance. It also has strobe warnings, motion sickness warnings, and describes the nature of the attraction. I wouldn’t be opposed to Disney doing this, and for mansion they could say “Expect horror related imagery that some guests may find disturbing.”