Poll: Disneyland has outgrown Sleeping Beauty Castle

Disneyland has outgrown Sleeping Beauty Castle

  • Yes

    Votes: 48 30.0%
  • No

    Votes: 112 70.0%

  • Total voters
    160

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Tower of Terror in Orlando is in ruins as well, though. Also Mission Breakout still has the ruins of Tower of Terror plus a bunch of ugly pipes. Tower of Terror's exterior, even if you didn't like it, told a story far more so than Mission Breakout's does.
I don't disagree. Yes, to a slightly less degree Orlando's tower also suffers from ruins = kool design. From Sunset you look upon a fifty foot wide scar, with broken lights. Then you walk past the broken fountain in the patio. Oh delightful irony, now indistinguishable form all the other broken fountains in WDW, so guests have no idea this oen is intentional. Once inside, the bulk of the waiting is done in the ugly boiler room while you speed past the gorgeous lobby in six seconds.

Deliberate ugliness and Disney parks remain an unhappy marriage to me.

If you want to portray foreboding dereliction, the Mansion, the ToT lobbies, or the intact parts of the ToT facade and garden are how to go about it.


The story that ToT tells is of lingering glamour. Nostalgia and melancholy made tangible. The people frozen in time in the hallway, waving at you. is almost symbolic for the Golden Era of Hollywood that lingers on in all of DHS. A perfect unison of park theme and ride content. The story the facade tells by contrast is of an event.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I will defend seeing the Matterhorn, the Castle, and MSUSA next to each other as I defend Cinderella Castle being visible from all over the Magic Kingdom. It just works on a subconscious, hedonic level. I resent how literal we’ve become about theme park design.
The whole “thematic clash” that these arguments rests on reduces theme to setting. Main Street, USA is not Marceline. The Castles work within the design construct of Main Street, USA and play a role in its message, it’s theme, which is not some specific Midwest town at a specific time. These visual “intrusions” are limited and do not offer up a glaring contradiction of the lands’ message upon which they “intrude.”

Tower of Terror in Orlando is in ruins as well, though. Also Mission Breakout still has the ruins of Tower of Terror plus a bunch of ugly pipes. Tower of Terror's exterior, even if you didn't like it, told a story far more so than Mission Breakout's does.
The ruinous state of the Hollywood Tower Hotel is not immediate and constant, instead it is revealed over time as part of the procession towards the hotel grounds. This is a defining characteristic of how the tower interacts with other lands, namely World Showcase. The ominous tone of the tower does not project into the celebration of world cultures and presents a face that is neutral to that experience.
 

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
Repeating what I've said multiple times... but I think Walt would've handed Disneyland off as some low priority project had he lived another 10 years. He was moving on to creating cities -- Disneyland was starting to become just a test run in urban planning to him by the time he died. He spent the last years of his life secretly buying up a massive chunk of a state, I seriously doubt the theme park business was going to be on his mind much longer.

My personal belief is that, the longer Walt lived, the more drastically different Disneyland would be today as he would've given others more power to tinker with the park and change things around. No one would still be muttering "What would Walt do?" for every little change had he passed in 1976 instead of 1966. NOS and Tomorrowland 67 were his theme park swan song, he was ready to do far bigger things in life.

I agree that he no longer would have felt the desire to be so personally involved with Disneyland. I don’t, however, think that means he would have let them completely go either. I think he would have relinquished control to others, so long as they were willing to carry forward his general vision for the parks and he would retain veto power in case someone strayed from his wishes.

I don’t believe for a second he would have allowed them to become the walking billboards they are becoming today.
 

Model3 McQueen

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
industrialRemains.jpg
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
I agree that he no longer would have felt the desire to be so personally involved with Disneyland. I don’t, however, think that means he would have let them completely go either. I think he would have relinquished control to others, so long as they were willing to carry forward his general vision for the parks and he would retain veto power in case someone strayed from his wishes.

I don’t believe for a second he would have allowed them to become the walking billboards they are becoming today.

Yeah...that's another story. But I believe Disneyland would be a very different place than it is today, considered less sacred, with fewer original/older attractions still standing. The park would've undergone much more change since Walt's death and, as a result, there would not be the uproar there is today whenever any little piece of Disneyland history is sacrificed to make way for something else.
 

SalD

New Member
Just trying to raise everybody's blood pressure. Happy friday!

But in all seriousness, the castle is not visible, even from areas of the hub. Trees and other foreground obstructions like ODVs and Rocks block a vast majority of it from view in many viewing locations.

The argument that Disneyland's castle has to be small to fit the scale of disneyland doesn't make sense. I have heard it for a decade and I finally will explain why this is ridiculous. The castle in Paris is twice the height of Disneyland's. Orlando's is more than double. Their buildings, however, are not twice as tall as those on our main street. Their Main Street is not twice as wide as ours. The castle takes up roughly the same surface area on the ground at the end of the street, it just reaches higher into the sky so it is visible over people's heads and other obstructions like trees. Disneyland's castle is so small that if you stand in town square and draw lines down the building facades and the street toward the center to create one point perspective, it doesn't even push above the height of the street wall on main street. In the recent halloweentime commercial playing on cable tv right now, the castle has the same architecture, but has been CGI'd to make it more prominent in the shot. When standing at the back of fantasyland and looking toward the castle, Peter Pan's flight and Snow White's scary adventures facades dwarf it in the foreground. Some argue that it is to scale with matterhorn; are the other mountains in Disneyland and Castle parks around the globe subject to this same requirement? Space mountain, big thunder, splash mountain... none of these structures are expected to be taller than their respective castles, and many a space mountain are visible at the same time as their park's castles. It seems like an odd design decision that has been defended but actually doesn't do anything to benefit either participating structure. At the time of Disneyland's opening, the trees had not grown in and the castle functioned as an icon that oriented guests within the park. You could look at it and know how to get around the place. Every castle park has followed the hub spoke and wheel tradition, and the castles still function in this way, except for Disneyland's, which is no longer visible from within most of the park. So in this way, the castle is no longer performing its basic functions as it set out to on opening day. Finally, the original concept artist/designer for Disneyland's castle went on to make dramatic changes to its design, more dramatic than any other subtle changes made to the magic kingdom park, when they opened their second castle park in Orlando.

I know, it is a really charming design. It is walt's original and many of us who grew up with the park would hate to see it go and don't trust the current imagineering teams to give it a superior replacement. However, I often feel like we are preserving the past in exchange for inferior show quality and guest experience. I live in hollywood, where spanish style and french chateau apartment buildings, hotels, and single family homes dot the landscape. Jim Henson's office on la brea blvd looks like fantasyland. The castle is of the same design style and scale as many homes around mid-city/wilshire, west LA, hollywood, Silver Lake, Los Feliz. I don't think anybody looking at the paris castle would equate it with single-family homes; there, it operates on the scale of iconic institutional architecture. The castle was considered to be replaced in 1984 with Tony Baxter's new fantasyland, and ultimately they decided against it, but how different would the park be now had they gone through with it and the public embraced the new castle? Arguments against changing it because it is the original and too sacred are silly to me, when I consider that St. Peter's Basilica, the home of the Catholic Church, was relocated and rebuilt once, and then the current Vatican City location was added on to and modified by several architects for centuries. Sleeping Beauty Castle is more sacred than the capital of the Catholic Church now?

Disneyland has become extremely crowded in recent years. Widening of midways is going on all over the park as well as the reconfiguring of queues for guest comfort. With a taller castle, we could create viewing areas for nighttime spectaculars in several lands, and do projections on the side and back for viewing from tomorrowland and fantasyland to better distribute crowds and ease congestion.

Okay, I said my bit. Let's argue! Happy friday and don't forget to vote.
 

Rascal!

New Member
View attachment 310895
Is this so triggering? I don't care about the tallest; but as I have laid out above, it is neither sacred nor fulfilling its functions. And in its current state, it isn't quality either. The roof and the facade walls are dented and cracked.
Guy
View attachment 310895
Is this so triggering? I don't care about the tallest; but as I have laid out above, it is neither sacred nor fulfilling its functions. And in its current state, it isn't quality either. The roof and the facade walls are dented and cracked.
I think that the castle is just fine as is, but if there were going to be any changes I have to say that the middle design might work.
 

Delgado

Active Member
Just trying to raise everybody's blood pressure. Happy friday!

But in all seriousness, the castle is not visible, even from areas of the hub. Trees and other foreground obstructions like ODVs and Rocks block a vast majority of it from view in many viewing locations.

The argument that Disneyland's castle has to be small to fit the scale of disneyland doesn't make sense. I have heard it for a decade and I finally will explain why this is ridiculous. The castle in Paris is twice the height of Disneyland's. Orlando's is more than double. Their buildings, however, are not twice as tall as those on our main street. Their Main Street is not twice as wide as ours. The castle takes up roughly the same surface area on the ground at the end of the street, it just reaches higher into the sky so it is visible over people's heads and other obstructions like trees. Disneyland's castle is so small that if you stand in town square and draw lines down the building facades and the street toward the center to create one point perspective, it doesn't even push above the height of the street wall on main street. In the recent halloweentime commercial playing on cable tv right now, the castle has the same architecture, but has been CGI'd to make it more prominent in the shot. When standing at the back of fantasyland and looking toward the castle, Peter Pan's flight and Snow White's scary adventures facades dwarf it in the foreground. Some argue that it is to scale with matterhorn; are the other mountains in Disneyland and Castle parks around the globe subject to this same requirement? Space mountain, big thunder, splash mountain... none of these structures are expected to be taller than their respective castles, and many a space mountain are visible at the same time as their park's castles. It seems like an odd design decision that has been defended but actually doesn't do anything to benefit either participating structure. At the time of Disneyland's opening, the trees had not grown in and the castle functioned as an icon that oriented guests within the park. You could look at it and know how to get around the place. Every castle park has followed the hub spoke and wheel tradition, and the castles still function in this way, except for Disneyland's, which is no longer visible from within most of the park. So in this way, the castle is no longer performing its basic functions as it set out to on opening day. Finally, the original concept artist/designer for Disneyland's castle went on to make dramatic changes to its design, more dramatic than any other subtle changes made to the magic kingdom park, when they opened their second castle park in Orlando.

I know, it is a really charming design. It is walt's original and many of us who grew up with the park would hate to see it go and don't trust the current imagineering teams to give it a superior replacement. However, I often feel like we are preserving the past in exchange for inferior show quality and guest experience. I live in hollywood, where spanish style and french chateau apartment buildings, hotels, and single family homes dot the landscape. Jim Henson's office on la brea blvd looks like fantasyland. The castle is of the same design style and scale as many homes around mid-city/wilshire, west LA, hollywood, Silver Lake, Los Feliz. I don't think anybody looking at the paris castle would equate it with single-family homes; there, it operates on the scale of iconic institutional architecture. The castle was considered to be replaced in 1984 with Tony Baxter's new fantasyland, and ultimately they decided against it, but how different would the park be now had they gone through with it and the public embraced the new castle? Arguments against changing it because it is the original and too sacred are silly to me, when I consider that St. Peter's Basilica, the home of the Catholic Church, was relocated and rebuilt once, and then the current Vatican City location was added on to and modified by several architects for centuries. Sleeping Beauty Castle is more sacred than the capital of the Catholic Church now?

Disneyland has become extremely crowded in recent years. Widening of midways is going on all over the park as well as the reconfiguring of queues for guest comfort. With a taller castle, we could create viewing areas for nighttime spectaculars in several lands, and do projections on the side and back for viewing from tomorrowland and fantasyland to better distribute crowds and ease congestion.

Okay, I said my bit. Let's argue! Happy friday and don't forget to vote.
I visited Disneyland pretty recently after my many many trips to Disney world. They both are unique and I hated it’s a small world until the Disneyland version. I will say the night time shows were a freaking nightmare. It was stressful and not enough room to see what is supposed to be a great show on the castle. I bet the nostalgia people have with the castle but definitely need to build another one, upgrade the one you have or figure something out cause the congestion at Disneyland...the struggle is REAL. And this has nothing to do with it but the disappointing food at Disneyland. The Pixar cake was nice but the food and the what could have been night show will always be memorably unmemorable lol
 

colliera

Member
I used to think the trees in the hub at MK couldn't be touched. The truth was they were constantly being prunned back so as not to obstruct Fantasy in the Sky fireworks show. When Wishes fireworks show debuted the trees were thinned out more to accommodate viewing of the low nearby building launched shots. During Wishes testing they even tried fireworks launched from the castle itself. Now with projection mapping on the castle itself all the hub trees have been cleared to allow a wider angle of viewing and a clear shot all the way back from the other end of Main St. Could the solution be not to build up the castle but to cut back the forrest. At the time I thought loosing the trees and twinkle lights in the trees was a bad idea but what was received in return more than made up for the loss.
 

Stevek

Well-Known Member
I visited Disneyland pretty recently after my many many trips to Disney world. They both are unique and I hated it’s a small world until the Disneyland version. I will say the night time shows were a freaking nightmare. It was stressful and not enough room to see what is supposed to be a great show on the castle. I bet the nostalgia people have with the castle but definitely need to build another one, upgrade the one you have or figure something out cause the congestion at Disneyland...the struggle is REAL. And this has nothing to do with it but the disappointing food at Disneyland. The Pixar cake was nice but the food and the what could have been night show will always be memorably unmemorable lol
I have found plenty of great food at Disneyland...really have zero issues getting a nice meal. That being said, plenty of garbage as well but the same could be said of WDW.
 

Delgado

Active Member
I have found plenty of great food at Disneyland...really have zero issues getting a nice meal. That being said, plenty of garbage as well but the same could be said of WDW.
Where’d you eat? I’m curious for next time I go. It felt like a real struggle I’d be nice to have a different experience next time.
 

nevol

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I just wanted to share this image from the Mice Chat update yesterday, Sep 11th. This is highlighting queue changes over at Matterhorn, but in the background, you can barely see... something. Typically when we see photos of the two structures together, Sleeping Beauty Castle is in the foreground and benefitting from parallax/scale. In this instance, the matterhorn dwarfs it more than I could have ever imagined, in a 6:1 scale it seems. So the scale relationship between these structures becomes irellevant when guest perspective is considered. More simply, this castle is barely visible even from within Fantasyland. Having a more prominent castle would actually create additional show and theming and atmosphere in this corner of the park simply by being visible, in an area otherwise dominated by landscaping and a cottage cheese mountain. And, again, if the castle peak stretched halfway across the sky in this photograph, matching those pine trees on the matterhorn, tomorrowland and fantasyland (when expanded/modified in the coming decade) could incorporate nighttime spectacular viewing locations. Projections could stretch from the south facade on main street to the east and the north as well.

Photo_1029-Disneyland-2-2.jpg
 

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

Back
Top Bottom