SSE and IASW...travesty's

[jakeman]

My perception of quality is from the high bar set by the original imagineers and Walt himself who wasn't afraid to spend a bit extra because it made the overall experience more special.

Yes I have been to DCA, I've been to DinoRama and I know enough about the sheer lack of attractions at both HKDL and Disney Studios Paris to form an opinion.

Disney appears to have this idea these days that they can build anything, slap some mickey ears on it and people will flood the gates willing to put down $70 a ticket...well it isn't working...just look at the attendance numbers if you don't believe me.

It isn't that I don't "get" that Dinorama fits with Dinoland or Animal Kingdom, it doesn't fit with Disney. You can put a back-story and some neon paint on a pet rock, but at the end of the day it's still just a pet rock.

Just because it doesn't make it more special for you doesn't mean the investment is not there and it is not special for someone else.

I don't think that you can form an opinion of something like a theme park, also relatively young theme parks, by not going to them. How many attraction did AK have when it open? MGM? Heck, the orginal Disneyland?

The back story for Dinorama was there long before Dinorama was built. This is a perfect example of "if I don't like it, it is not what Disney intended". The story and the land complement each other perfectly, you just refuse to see it because you can't look past the fact it doesn't fit your interpretation of what a Disney park should be.

This is your opinion, nothing more. While that is perfectly acceptable, it does not make it fact.

The arguments about “If you don’t like it don’t go” amuse me as well, or “If you hate an artists work then you would not buy the artists work”. I don’t know if you've noticed but the “parks” have been an ongoing work in progress since 1955, there-fore a large part of them will have been built when Disney was actully aiming over the bar. So, because I dislike a lot of the stuff that has been going on recently, that means I’m then not allowed to enjoy the work created before Disney started going down hill? All I want too see is the same level of quality that once existed, that is within reach. It seems how-ever that Disney has done a sufficiently good enough job of lowering the bar, so that people are just happy with “What they get”.

Yes you should stop going, because the parks are run by a corporation, and the only thing that a corporation will understand is a drop in revenue.

 

[DisneyAnole]

It looks like someone wants to "fire us up" before we even see what WDI does.:shrug:

I don't know what the rest of the scenes look like in DLP's version, but this picture doesn't even look like Mary Blair's style. The horse certainly looks different from the stylized animals seen in the States' versions. And the windmill, flowers, the Statue of Liberty, and the skyscrapers look equally out of place compared to Blair's style.

 

[DisneyAnole]

So these same capable people can't get people to visit HKDL or DCA, can't make a decent JII replacement and are constantly alienating their most loyal fans, yet they're the experts....

Don't bother arguing with wannab, because s/he knows everything about everything. You lost before you began.

For everyone, if you don't like WDW, don't go. Or make friends with a CM who can get you in for free. Most Central Floridians have figured out the way to go is to go for free.

If you're paying thousands of dollars to go to WDW and you wistfully think the parks are not what they used to be, there's something fundamentally wrong with your idea of vacationing. If you feel that way, don't pony up the money for Disney. Leave it to the simpletons and the rubes who think touch-screens validate a thousand-dollar vacation. Go someplace else that can capture your imagination. Believe it or not, but imagination and magic weren't born with Disney, nor does Disney have a monopoly on those terms. You can *gasp* make your own magic in many places other than theme parks.

Just my two cents.

 

[ChrisFL]

Just because it doesn't make it more special for you doesn't mean the investment is not there and it is not special for someone else.

The investment is clearly not there when the parks Disney builds are either A.) very short of budget, so they decide to build a bunch of off-the-shelf carnival rides or B.) they create half a park or less of attractions yet still charge full price. I'm sure some people find HKDL charming or even DCA a bit fun, but they are not what we've come to expect from Disney. They keep setting the bar so low that this is what we have come to expect from them, meanwhile other parks are catching up, like Universal.

I don't think that you can form an opinion of something like a theme park, also relatively young theme parks, by not going to them. How many attraction did AK have when it open? MGM? Heck, the orginal Disneyland?

AK and MGM both had nearly no attractions when they opened, you're correct, and instead of learning from those mistakes, Disney continues to milk as much as they can off of those guests who make the mistake of visiting before there's really anything to do there.

The back story for Dinorama was there long before Dinorama was built. This is a perfect example of "if I don't like it, it is not what Disney intended". The story and the land complement each other perfectly, you just refuse to see it because you can't look past the fact it doesn't fit your interpretation of what a Disney park should be.

Er, please explain the story to me, because as I recall, the original plan was to have a very nice and elaborate themed land called "Beastly Kingdom" with a very well done Dragon themed ride. Even the Animal Kingdom logo shows a very large DRAGON in the middle of it....but instead, the imagineers on a shoestring (or less) budget had to make do with rides you can find at Cypress Gardens, and I don't mean highly themed versions at DinoRama but nearly the exact same rides!

Yes you should stop going, because the parks are run by a corporation, and the only thing that a corporation will understand is a drop in revenue.

Attendance and income figures are quite clear. Disney isn't spending $1 Billion to overhaul DCA because they have a kind heart, they do it because they are have no other choice.

It's like a quote I saw, but modified...."If you can't invest the money to make it right, how are you going to invest to do it over?"

If you want an example of how a Disney park should be created in the modern era, you need only look across the Pacific at Tokyo DisneySea.

 

[nibblesandbits]

Are you sure it's what the artist want's to make or what the client says the artist should make even though the client has no proof what their target audience wants other than saying "Nah, do it...they'll love it"

I'm sorry, but Disney must have some proof of what their target audience wants. They do market research surveys all the time. I've been asked twice in the past two years I've been to Disney to participate in two different types of surveys. And I don't go very often.

As others have said, Disney builds things that appeal to the general public...and it appears that this is the direction the general public wants things to go in. (Now sure, I'm sure they don't want every attraction to feature a Disney character or to have video screens at EVERY attraction...but they do like that whole character initative thing that's been going on--which is done primarily through said video screens.) I'm sorry if Disney isn't building things that appeal to you...but Disney is not always going to be building things that appeal to absolutely everyone. There is going to be some one who doesn't like something.

Heck, I'm sure there are people who don't love one of Disney's most popular ride, Soarin...the majority of people love it...that's for certain, but there's bound to be someone out there who just goes...eh...not for me.

But, Disney definitely does their research to find attractions that they believe the GENERAL PUBLIC will enjoy, this I am most certain of.

 

[MuRkErY]

I've been reading LP and found a nicley worded post on the subject by Arcuanbird.

Disney in the Walt years was a pretty daring company. Consider this: whenever the company met success the audience and the moneymen were clamoring for more of the same. More MICKEY! More PIGS! More DWARFS! More DISNEYLANDS! More MARY POPPINS!

This is why Disney was daring: time and again, Walt didn't answer success with some formula (e.g. sequels) but with something you've never seen. Some of those things weren't well received, things like Fantasia, but others were. They went on to become intellectual cornerstones of the company.

In the early 1960's, no one was asking Walt to take the dark ride to new heights, to push on the boundaries of scale and narrative. No one said: more MARY BLAIR! No one said: create an attraction that resonates emotionally in ways that no previous attraction ever attempted.

But that is what It's a Small World did.

This proposed change--adding characters--is vapid and monocular. It is the answer that comes out of a sausage-making computer.

Doing this to It's a Small World is bad, but what is worse is that Disney rarely has the ambition to rise above the clamoring moneymen and the audience (if there really is an audience clamoring here) to create attractions that redefine the nature of the theme park experience. Walt's legacy of innovation has been all but dismissed in the parks.

Also to those people who said Disney has NEVER cared about their attractions, and it was all just marketing to make money. Here is an exert from an interview with Alice Davy, about how things were in Walts day when she was working on IASW.

"I remember asking him how much I was allowed to spend on the Small World costumes, and he said, "Alice," he said, "I have a building over there with people that work out what we spend on things. I don't want you to worry about that. I just want you to make the most beautiful clothes for these dolls that any child from the age of one up to a hundred would love to have for themselves and be able to play with." And he said, "I just want very beautiful costumes. Whatever it costs, the men over there will figure out how to pay for it -- it's not our worry. We want to give people more than what they expect and if we do, they will always come back and they will enjoy coming to see what we're doing." But, he said, "if you cheat them, they'll never come back." So he said, "we give them the best," and that was the most marvelous answer I ever got from anybody."

 

[CaptainMichael]

Which brings me to another installment of our 3,231 part series-BETTER KNOW AN IMAGINEER! Today, Prop Design. THE FIGHTIN' PROP DESIGN!

:lol:

:ROFLOL:

Did you see "Nailed 'em" with the little girl on Tuesday night? Comedy gold.

 

[ChrisFL]

I'm sorry, but Disney must have some proof of what their target audience wants. They do market research surveys all the time. I've been asked twice in the past two years I've been to Disney to participate in two different types of surveys. And I don't go very often.

I'm not a big fan of market research surveys, and that's because people are in the middle of their vacation, not thinking hard about whatever questions are being asked (and yes, I've taken them and known people who did the surveys).

As an example, purely hypothetical here but I'm willing to bet that if the survey question was asked "would you like to see a rollercoaster built down main st. usa"...25-30% of guests will hear the first part of the question and say "Sure!"

 

[MuRkErY]

Pandering to extensive Market research and “test-groups” is a sure-fire way to hit the road to mediocrity, when it comes to a creative project.

 

[nibblesandbits]

I'm not a big fan of market research surveys, and that's because people are in the middle of their vacation, not thinking hard about whatever questions are being asked (and yes, I've taken them and known people who did the surveys).

As an example, purely hypothetical here but I'm willing to bet that if the survey question was asked "would you like to see a rollercoaster built down main st. usa"...25-30% of guests will hear the first part of the question and say "Sure!"

Well...
1. I know I thought hard about my answers...which I may be in the minority of...and I'm well aware of that.

and

2. for one of the surveys, I was asked if they could call me at home and they did. I was able to give very thought out answers for that one.

And while market research may be flawed at some times (and I'm well aware of that too...the way things are worded make a big difference.) in what other way would you be able to gauge guest reactions so well. From what I understand, guest reactions helped change SSE a little at the end. So they aren't all happy go lucky answers given.

 

[jakeman]

The investment is clearly not there when the parks Disney builds are either A.) very short of budget, so they decide to build a bunch of off-the-shelf carnival rides or B.) they create half a park or less of attractions yet still charge full price. I'm sure some people find HKDL charming or even DCA a bit fun, but they are not what we've come to expect from Disney. They keep setting the bar so low that this is what we have come to expect from them, meanwhile other parks are catching up, like Universal.

AK and MGM both had nearly no attractions when they opened, you're correct, and instead of learning from those mistakes, Disney continues to milk as much as they can off of those guests who make the mistake of visiting before there's really anything to do there.

You didn't answer my question about Disneyland. At what point did the bar start to decline? Because by your estimation it was low in 1988 (89?) when MGM opened.

Er, please explain the story to me, because as I recall, the original plan was to have a very nice and elaborate themed land called "Beastly Kingdom" with a very well done Dragon themed ride. Even the Animal Kingdom logo shows a very large DRAGON in the middle of it....but instead, the imagineers on a shoestring (or less) budget had to make do with rides you can find at Cypress Gardens, and I don't mean highly themed versions at DinoRama but nearly the exact same rides!

First off it was a completely seperate story from Beastly Kingdom and if you are referring to that portion of the park you should look to Camp Minnie Mickey not Dinoland.

I cannot remember all the specifics, but it basically is a feud between Chester N Hester and the Dino Institute, with CnH wanting to tourist the area up and make a quick and tacky buck by leeching off the sucess of the Institute. I should poke around for it. Its a great story.

Attendance and income figures are quite clear. Disney isn't spending $1 Billion to overhaul DCA because they have a kind heart, they do it because they are have no other choice.

Where are these figures (not the DCA ones)? Are they linked directly to the quality of the attractions and not the overall economy? Is there a statement from Disney or a financial analyst that backs the above?

It's like a quote I saw, but modified...."If you can't invest the money to make it right, how are you going to invest to do it over?"

If you want an example of how a Disney park should be created in the modern era, you need only look across the Pacific at Tokyo DisneySea.

Have you been to DisneySea? I would dare say you shouldn't praise something either if you have not been there.

 

[jakeman]

Found a link that gives a pretty good overview of Dinoland:

http://www.2719hyperion.com/2006/11/defending-dinoland-usa.html

And here is another one for the other part of Dinoland:

http://www.2719hyperion.com/2007/10/diggin-in-dinoland-hip-joint.html

 

[JSMilw]

Give Disney a chance? Good Grief I've been giving them chances with Stitch, Monsters, Nemo, SSE, and now IASW?!

If enough people did complain like they did with Figment I wouldn't be suprised if certain things didn't happen to IASW.

As for Jack in pirates, yeah he's a funny character and some great AA's made for him, but evertime I ride pirates most people in the boat just gawk and point to him and try to find him, and 3 of my friends who went to MK last year for their first time said they thought pirates was created after the movie and when asked what else they enjoyed from the ride, they all agreed they spent the rest of the ride looking for jack sparrow and only remember him and the davy jones waterfall.

Wow...

But yes remember the magic is still there...give it 10 years and cinderella will be walking through fronteirland with a brown dress and cowgirl hat and that's ok because it's magical.

Sounds to me like the people on Pirates were having fun...what difference does it make that their frame of reference to the ride was the films?

I haven't posted on these boards in a long time...so long I forgot my old board name but these recent threads drive me crazy.

Those of us that read these boards account for a tiny fraction of the people that attend these parks worldwide each year. The vast majority of people leave very satisfied. People like seeing Disney characters in their experiences. Children will (probably) get more excited to be on It's a Small World if they see Lilo or Peter Pan on the ride...I fail to see this as a bad thing.

Stich's Great Escape is another example for me...I did not care for the change to Alien Encounter, I usually just pass the ride by now. I still see lines for it though which means a lot of people are enjoying it. So I would hardly call it a "travesty".

I haven't see Spaceship Earth yet since the changes went it. The one thing I hoped they fixed they didn't (the track itself). I am all for the updates. I don't remember anything stunning about the descent before besides a bunch of fiber optic pin points and some squiggly neon so I can't imagine how a video screen is much worse.

Anyway now I am rambling...just remember folks...your perceptions aren't wrong...same as the people who may enjoy the changes you don't/won't.

:sohappy:

 

[djkidkaz]

Not so much an increased awareness of other cultures (Go to World Showcase for that, or I’d suggest travelling the world as that is obviously the best way) but an increased awareness that there are other cultures out there, and that we all must co-exist and live on this planet together. I got it, I’m sure many others did. IASW has obviously seeped it’s way into the consciousness of the general public so it’s underlying message has been more than a success. Like I’ve said before, the problem with Disney at the moment is that They aim to low and succeed instead of aiming to high but with the risk of failure. Walt Aimed high, the risk of failure was all ways there, the whole Disney company is built on aiming high, these core values seem to be disappearing more and more as the marketing department, with it’s perverse short term gain system, based on lowering the standards for maximum profit takes a ever more vice like grip on the WDC.

IASW's success is because of the song, not the "message".

 

[ChrisFL]

You didn't answer my question about Disneyland. At what point did the bar start to decline? Because by your estimation it was low in 1988 (89?) when MGM opened.

Ok, sorry, Yes, Disneyland DID have more actual attractions in 1955 than HKDL does now and Walt also had to do a lot more to raise funds than the current Disney company does. Disney CAN afford it but they choose not to...instead spending money to give us movies like Underdog.

First off it was a completely seperate story from Beastly Kingdom and if you are referring to that portion of the park you should look to Camp Minnie Mickey not Dinoland.

You're missing the point. How many people walk through DinoRama thinking "wow, this land is so well themed, there must be an elaborate back story to go with it"...please. It's a few carnival rides and games with neon paint and gawdy lighting and effects. Like I said before, you can give the pet rock an amazing back story and a paint job but you can't disguise the fact that it is still a pet rock.

Where are these figures (not the DCA ones)? Are they linked directly to the quality of the attractions and not the overall economy? Is there a statement from Disney or a financial analyst that backs the above?

I don't have the exact numbers, but in HK, the not-so-well themed nearby Ocean Park is having record attendance and is beating HKDL, and according to Disney's own estimates HKDL is not performing as anticipated. Much of that info is also at the reimagineering blog posted.

Have you been to DisneySea? I would dare say you shouldn't praise something either if you have not been there.

I have not been there, but I've seen the attendance numbers, seen more pictures and videos than I can count and read numerous trip reports from the harshest of Disney critics all praising it for its incredible level of detail, cleanliness and overall quality. I have not heard any one with a single complaint yet!

Yes, it DID cost more than DCA, but look at what Disney has to do now. They are spending MORE to overhaul DCA than they did to build it!

It is sad that DisneySea and DCA were built aruond the same time period as they're not even in the same league of parks...not by a longshot.

 

[Figments Friend]

There is a fantastic post partway down the Spaceship Earth entry that just rips into Disney for the overuse of video technologies in their refurbishments and new rides. I could not agree more. The line about riding your (Nemo) submarine through the widescreen television section of your local Circuit City had me rolling - because it's so very true.

Totally agree with you...

Nothing ticks me off more then seeing video screens used in a dark ride attractions. You can watch tv at home...when i pay big bucks to visit "Disney" i want "DISNEY"!

:fork:


Nice article by the way on the WDI blog.....a lot of truths being said there. Poor SSE......

 

[jakeman]

You're missing the point. How many people walk through DinoRama thinking "wow, this land is so well themed, there must be an elaborate back story to go with it"...please. It's a few carnival rides and games with neon paint and gawdy lighting and effects. Like I said before, you can give the pet rock an amazing back story and a paint job but you can't disguise the fact that it is still a pet rock.

I don't believe I am missing the point. Folks around here all the time blast Disney for dumbing things down and when I present an example of an unliked area of the park that is on the surface dumbed down but is actually themed but requires effort to get, it's completely glossed over.

This is an example of something not being done to your standards and therefore it is subpar. The theming and story in this area of the park is incredible and you refuse to see it.

You can't have the arguement both ways either. You can't use the defense of "the masses don't get it, so it is good" and then when something you disagree with comes up say "the masses don't get it, so it is bad".

 

[ChrisFL]

You can't have the arguement both ways either. You can't use the defense of "the masses don't get it, so it is good" and then when something you disagree with comes up say "the masses don't get it, so it is bad".

:lookaroun

ok...anyway, here are some pictures of this well themed Dinorama land:

I guess we'll agree to disagree, and you can enjoy this pinnacle of Disney imagineering

 

[TheBeatles]

"I remember asking him how much I was allowed to spend on the Small World costumes, and he said, "Alice," he said, "I have a building over there with people that work out what we spend on things. I don't want you to worry about that. I just want you to make the most beautiful clothes for these dolls that any child from the age of one up to a hundred would love to have for themselves and be able to play with." And he said, "I just want very beautiful costumes. Whatever it costs, the men over there will figure out how to pay for it -- it's not our worry. We want to give people more than what they expect and if we do, they will always come back and they will enjoy coming to see what we're doing." But, he said, "if you cheat them, they'll never come back." So he said, "we give them the best," and that was the most marvelous answer I ever got from anybody."

Argue with that.

 

[jakeman]

"I remember asking him how much I was allowed to spend on the Small World costumes, and he said, "Alice," he said, "I have a building over there with people that work out what we spend on things. I don't want you to worry about that. I just want you to make the most beautiful clothes for these dolls that any child from the age of one up to a hundred would love to have for themselves and be able to play with." And he said, "I just want very beautiful costumes. Whatever it costs, the men over there will figure out how to pay for it -- it's not our worry. We want to give people more than what they expect and if we do, they will always come back and they will enjoy coming to see what we're doing." But, he said, "if you cheat them, they'll never come back." So he said, "we give them the best," and that was the most marvelous answer I ever got from anybody."

Argue with that.

I can if you would like.

From what I have read of Walt Disney, he was insulated from most of the financial aspects of his own business, to the point of overspending quite a bit at some points.

Therefore this quote can be interpretted as a defense of that assumption. I'm not saying that it is. I'm just demonstrating how that quote can be also seen.