Rumor Stitch's Great Escape Replacement— Don’t Hold Your Breath

[JohnD]

The Black Hole

Maximillian rocks!

 

[clemmo]

Disney is missing a golden opportunity. Have a hard ticket cupcake party. Tear That Stitch Down Demolition Event. For an extra $50 plus admission, you can help tell Stitch to hit the bricks. Put your stamp of disapproval on this attraction.

#NeverStitch

That may be the first and last cupcake party I would attend. Seriously though they could have Ralph on top I've the building yelling I'm gonna wreck it...imagine the roar of the crowd as that attraction sign goes down

 

[Tony the Tigger]

How is this realistic? Attractions should not be created in isolation and then placed somewhere. Their creation should be based in the story and experience. That is the problem, that attractions today are created to fulfill an external franchise mandate and not to enhance the park experience.


No good experience is built assuming ignorance of its audience. Walt Disney World absolutely should be built for the Imagineers. Strong story and experience do not push people away. The whole reason Disney has the success of Pixar and Marvel is by letting the passionate filmmakers be passionate about their stories. The result is popular success far beyond what would have been accomplished with mandates to better appeal to the "general public." The same approach has also created the current "Golden Age of Television." Why is themed entertainment somehow different that its creatives cannot be allowed to just be creative and must instead wait to see what movies are popular?


Billions of dollars, along with all of the associated hours upon hours of work, have gone into developing lands. This is information well document is a variety of places, including well known books such as Disneyland Paris: From Sketch to Reality or even the two Walt Disney Imagineering books . That is a lot of effort into providing ease of navigation and a veneer of cohesiveness, all of which would have been better spent on the supposedly more important attractions.

It is hard to actually believe that you are interested in and understand theming when you completely dismiss one of the most basic, primary elements of a theme park. Over and over you are downplaying the importance of theme to themed entertainment. You keep telling us about how you never thought about this or that and it does not bother, but then try to assure us you are interested. How is that not a complete contradiction? If it does not matter to you then it does not matter. Have fun! Enjoy the experience. How do other people caring impact your not caring? How does more theme hurt your enjoyment of the rides, shows, parades and food?


How is there any difference except that one is of interest to you? Every reason you give for why theme is of little consequence applies to singular show effects like you mention. Most people do not notice them. Most people who know of them or get upset by them. You've written many words on why theme should not be much of a concern and yet they could all easily be rewritten to talk about these types of elements. They're exactly the same, just at a different scale.

Sometimes, when we are adults (and especially adults in business) we have to compromise what is technically correct and even ideal with what is doable.

This level of expectation you have set for WDW seems to hint more about you than it does about them.

I would never want to experience WDW by nitpicking it to death and criticizing everything to death.

But some people choose to enjoy and be grateful for what comes their way; and others have some need to lord an air of superiority over others, or at least point out obscurities in an attempt to project said air.

It is unrealistic to expect WDW to build "for the imagineers." No. It's ridiculous. The imagineers are not buying the tickets en masse.

Here is, I think, an appropriate analogy: I own a record store. I have had employees try to express their vast knowledge of music by explaining to me that this particular Pat Benatar record belongs in the jazz section because "everyone knows" it is a jazz album.

Guess what? It's not going to sell as well in the jazz section. People who buy jazz are not generally looking for Pat Benatar, and people who are looking for Pat Benatar are not generally looking in the jazz section. (There are always exceptions, and those are a minority.)

So while it may be technically correct or philosophically ideal to file that particular jazz album in the jazz section, I will gently correct my employee and redirect him to please put it back in the 80's section with the other Pat Benatar albums (unless we have two in stock, then go ahead and cross-merchandise if you like.)

The reason for this is not because I think my customers are ignorant, but because I understand my customer base.

All kinds of people come to Walt Disney World and DL. Some will only ever come once; some will come over and over again. Some won't like it at all; others will fall in love with it. One of the most exciting things, I'm guessing, for a lot of people is to (in one way or another) experience their "favorites." Those people will be in some measure disappointed if their favorite is Stitch and Stitch is nowhere to be found outside of a gift shop. Disney understands its customer base and knows Stitch has (had?) a level of popularity that needed to be addressed. So given the choice of omitting it or adding it in, however imperfectly, they decided their need to represent that character/property/cash register ring outweighed 100% perfect placement in the park.

That is, presuming it is a natural fact that an alien is somehow out of place in Tomorrowland. (Hint: it's not. It's only an opinion. It's subjective and debatable to a good degree.) And it was placed in an area of Tomorrowland with other "modern" (vs. 1971) properties/attractions. I suspect "theming" had something to do with that.

But the last time you and I had a discussion over something like this, you were trying to point out all the "flaws" in Pirates. I remember thinking then and again now - I don't want to see Disney the way you see Disney. I want to enjoy it, not critique it. Oh, I've had fun in an imagineering competition and I completely understand what you are saying. I just think you are emphasizing it to the exclusion of all other business considerations, and that is not - realistic.

You go on and on about passion, waiting to see what movies are popular, and the importance of theming - and all these things I have in no way contradicted. I am not advocating "no theming," just a measured and more well-rounded business approach. I'm sure someone was passionate about Stitch!

And no, attractions not functioning properly is not "exactly the same" as slightly imperfect theming. One is operational and the other is creative/merchandising.

Only here is where I take offense:

"It is hard to actually believe that you are interested in and understand theming when you completely dismiss one of the most basic, primary elements of a theme park. Over and over you are downplaying the importance of theme to themed entertainment. You keep telling us about how you never thought about this or that and it does not bother, but then try to assure us you are interested. How is that not a complete contradiction? If it does not matter to you then it does not matter. Have fun! Enjoy the experience. How do other people caring impact your not caring? How does more theme hurt your enjoyment of the rides, shows, parades and food?


How is there any difference except that one is of interest to you? Every reason you give for why theme is of little consequence applies to singular show effects like you mention. Most people do not notice them. Most people who know of them or get upset by them. You've written many words on why theme should not be much of a concern and yet they could all easily be rewritten to talk about these types of elements."

Not only do you continue to misrepresent my statements and positions, and ascribe to me motives you have invented (as you have done throughout your post) there is that undeniable condescension and attempt to discredit that you so enjoy.

I'll enjoy it my way, with a bit of a forgiving eye and a "big picture" philosophy; and you go and critique everything, if it makes you feel special.

 

[Matt_Black]

Very well said.

 

[Princess Leia]

Poor Skippy needs a better agent!

Maybe they can move him to Cosmic Ray's?

 

[Mike S]

I don't want to see Disney the way you see Disney. I want to enjoy it, not critique it.

Just wanted to address this one part and say that it's possible to do both. To bring in a non Disney example I love Nintendo but also feel that they missed the mark completely with the Wii U. Sure there were a few good, even great, games but that doesn't make up for the long droughts between releases. Same goes for Disney and the past decade of stagnation and their love affair with replacements* over new additions.

*Stitch is something that does need to be replaced though.

 

[GeneralZod]

Sometimes, when we are adults (and especially adults in business) we have to compromise what is technically correct and even ideal with what is doable.

This level of expectation you have set for WDW seems to hint more about you than it does about them.

I would never want to experience WDW by nitpicking it to death and criticizing everything to death.

But some people choose to enjoy and be grateful for what comes their way; and others have some need to lord an air of superiority over others, or at least point out obscurities in an attempt to project said air.

It is unrealistic to expect WDW to build "for the imagineers." No. It's ridiculous. The imagineers are not buying the tickets en masse.

Here is, I think, an appropriate analogy: I own a record store. I have had employees try to express their vast knowledge of music by explaining to me that this particular Pat Benatar record belongs in the jazz section because "everyone knows" it is a jazz album.

Guess what? It's not going to sell as well in the jazz section. People who buy jazz are not generally looking for Pat Benatar, and people who are looking for Pat Benatar are not generally looking in the jazz section. (There are always exceptions, and those are a minority.)

So while it may be technically correct or philosophically ideal to file that particular jazz album in the jazz section, I will gently correct my employee and redirect him to please put it back in the 80's section with the other Pat Benatar albums (unless we have two in stock, then go ahead and cross-merchandise if you like.)

The reason for this is not because I think my customers are ignorant, but because I understand my customer base.

All kinds of people come to Walt Disney World and DL. Some will only ever come once; some will come over and over again. Some won't like it at all; others will fall in love with it. One of the most exciting things, I'm guessing, for a lot of people is to (in one way or another) experience their "favorites." Those people will be in some measure disappointed if their favorite is Stitch and Stitch is nowhere to be found outside of a gift shop. Disney understands its customer base and knows Stitch has (had?) a level of popularity that needed to be addressed. So given the choice of omitting it or adding it in, however imperfectly, they decided their need to represent that character/property/cash register ring outweighed 100% perfect placement in the park.

That is, presuming it is a natural fact that an alien is somehow out of place in Tomorrowland. (Hint: it's not. It's only an opinion. It's subjective and debatable to a good degree.) And it was placed in an area of Tomorrowland with other "modern" (vs. 1971) properties/attractions. I suspect "theming" had something to do with that.

But the last time you and I had a discussion over something like this, you were trying to point out all the "flaws" in Pirates. I remember thinking then and again now - I don't want to see Disney the way you see Disney. I want to enjoy it, not critique it. Oh, I've had fun in an imagineering competition and I completely understand what you are saying. I just think you are emphasizing it to the exclusion of all other business considerations, and that is not - realistic.

You go on and on about passion, waiting to see what movies are popular, and the importance of theming - and all these things I have in no way contradicted. I am not advocating "no theming," just a measured and more well-rounded business approach. I'm sure someone was passionate about Stitch!

And no, attractions not functioning properly is not "exactly the same" as slightly imperfect theming. One is operational and the other is creative/merchandising.

Only here is where I take offense:

"It is hard to actually believe that you are interested in and understand theming when you completely dismiss one of the most basic, primary elements of a theme park. Over and over you are downplaying the importance of theme to themed entertainment. You keep telling us about how you never thought about this or that and it does not bother, but then try to assure us you are interested. How is that not a complete contradiction? If it does not matter to you then it does not matter. Have fun! Enjoy the experience. How do other people caring impact your not caring? How does more theme hurt your enjoyment of the rides, shows, parades and food?


How is there any difference except that one is of interest to you? Every reason you give for why theme is of little consequence applies to singular show effects like you mention. Most people do not notice them. Most people who know of them or get upset by them. You've written many words on why theme should not be much of a concern and yet they could all easily be rewritten to talk about these types of elements."

Not only do you continue to misrepresent my statements and positions, and ascribe to me motives you have invented (as you have done throughout your post) there is that undeniable condescension and attempt to discredit that you so enjoy.

I'll enjoy it my way, with a bit of a forgiving eye and a "big picture" philosophy; and you go and critique everything, if it makes you feel special.

These two conversations are a great juxtaposition of past vs. present.

 

[JohnD]

Just wanted to address this one part and say that it's possible to do both. To bring in a non Disney example I love Nintendo but also feel that they missed the mark completely with the Wii U. Sure there were a few good, even great, games but that doesn't make up for the long droughts between releases. Same goes for Disney and the past decade of stagnation and their love affair with replacements* over new additions.

*Stitch is something that does need to be replaced though.

I'll add to that. I think @Tony the Tigger is way on point. However, I can also enjoy WDW while critiquing it at the same time. For example, I love going to Epcot but Imagination and Energy are too stale and need work. Frozen probably would be a better fit somewhere else but that Arendellian ship has sailed. I'll just enjoy the attraction. I see no point in dwelling in misery over it. When I planned my first trip to WDW in more than 20 years in 2013, I came upon "WDWMagic" to learn all about the best ways of getting the "magic" out of planning my trip. Over time, I found the news and rumors section. To say that this section lends a more critical and less "magical" feel than the rest of the forum is an understatement. I'm not a pixie duster. I'm still interested in the news and will critique where I think it's warranted. But when I plan a trip, I'll focus on enjoying it instead of wallowing in misery.

 

[Matt_Black]

I'll add to that. I think @Tony the Tigger is way on point. However, I can also enjoy WDW while critiquing it at the same time. For example, I love going to Epcot but Imagination and Energy are too stale and need work.

That's not what Tony is talking about, though. He's talking about the people who criticize something for being only generally related to the theme instead of fitting in to a strict, narrow adherence to the theme. Like, for instance, Splash Mountain in Frontierland.

 

[JohnD]

That's not what Tony is talking about, though. He's talking about the people who criticize something for being only generally related to the theme instead of fitting in to a strict, narrow adherence to the theme. Like, for instance, Splash Mountain in Frontierland.

I agree with Tony on that. To me, that's more about "wallowing in misery." I would rather enjoy Splash Mountain than get myself worked up over the theming. What are they going to do? Not build it because Frontierland is supposed to be the old west? Or draw a line around and say, "This is the Old South."?

 

[Matt_Black]

I agree with Tony on that. To me, that's more about "wallowing in misery." I would rather enjoy Splash Mountain than get myself worked up over the theming. What are they going to do? Not build it because Frontierland is supposed to be the old west? Or draw a line around and say, "This is the Old South."?

And when the argument is laid out, how Frontierland represents both the chronological and geographical progression, the critics tend to ignore when I point out other inconsistencies in that theme that have been around a lot longer than Splash.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Just wanted to address this one part and say that it's possible to do both. To bring in a non Disney example I love Nintendo but also feel that they missed the mark completely with the Wii U. Sure there were a few good, even great, games but that doesn't make up for the long droughts between releases. Same goes for Disney and the past decade of stagnation and their love affair with replacements* over new additions.

*Stitch is something that does need to be replaced though.

Of course! I completely agree with all of this (including Stitch LOL.) I guess I was less than clear in that sentence. What I meant was, I'm not walking around Disney World trying to find every flaw. I presume, in all honesty, the other person isn't, either, 100% of the time, but I was trying to make a point.

I love certain singers/groups, but I can say when they were "a little off" in a concert or a TV performance, etc. It doesn't "ruin" them for me. It's understandable. It happens. We're all occasionally disappointed by our favorites. I don't agree with everything Disney does, but I can appreciate certain things from a business standpoint - not just a "making money" standpoint, but I know how easy it is for 6 or 12 people to be in a room and talk themselves into something that seems like a great idea at the time - and then gets rolled out to groans and eyerolls LOL.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I'll add to that. I think @Tony the Tigger is way on point. However, I can also enjoy WDW while critiquing it at the same time. For example, I love going to Epcot but Imagination and Energy are too stale and need work. Frozen probably would be a better fit somewhere else but that Arendellian ship has sailed. I'll just enjoy the attraction. I see no point in dwelling in misery over it. When I planned my first trip to WDW in more than 20 years in 2013, I came upon "WDWMagic" to learn all about the best ways of getting the "magic" out of planning my trip. Over time, I found the news and rumors section. To say that this section lends a more critical and less "magical" feel than the rest of the forum is an understatement. I'm not a pixie duster. I'm still interested in the news and will critique where I think it's warranted. But when I plan a trip, I'll focus on enjoying it instead of wallowing in misery.

Agreed!

 

[Tony the Tigger]

That's not what Tony is talking about, though. He's talking about the people who criticize something for being only generally related to the theme instead of fitting in to a strict, narrow adherence to the theme. Like, for instance, Splash Mountain in Frontierland.

Yes, sir.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I agree with Tony on that. To me, that's more about "wallowing in misery." I would rather enjoy Splash Mountain than get myself worked up over the theming. What are they going to do? Not build it because Frontierland is supposed to be the old west? Or draw a line around and say, "This is the Old South."?

I couldn't help notice the sign someone posted (was it Captain America?) slipped in a mention of "riverboat" which would seem to be an allusion to the Mississippi, i.e. the South, thereby explaining the inclusion of non-Western themes in Frontierland as best they could.

 

[rawisericho]

Sometimes, when we are adults (and especially adults in business) we have to compromise what is technically correct and even ideal with what is doable.

This level of expectation you have set for WDW seems to hint more about you than it does about them.

I would never want to experience WDW by nitpicking it to death and criticizing everything to death.

But some people choose to enjoy and be grateful for what comes their way; and others have some need to lord an air of superiority over others, or at least point out obscurities in an attempt to project said air.

It is unrealistic to expect WDW to build "for the imagineers." No. It's ridiculous. The imagineers are not buying the tickets en masse.

Here is, I think, an appropriate analogy: I own a record store. I have had employees try to express their vast knowledge of music by explaining to me that this particular Pat Benatar record belongs in the jazz section because "everyone knows" it is a jazz album.

Guess what? It's not going to sell as well in the jazz section. People who buy jazz are not generally looking for Pat Benatar, and people who are looking for Pat Benatar are not generally looking in the jazz section. (There are always exceptions, and those are a minority.)

So while it may be technically correct or philosophically ideal to file that particular jazz album in the jazz section, I will gently correct my employee and redirect him to please put it back in the 80's section with the other Pat Benatar albums (unless we have two in stock, then go ahead and cross-merchandise if you like.)

The reason for this is not because I think my customers are ignorant, but because I understand my customer base.

All kinds of people come to Walt Disney World and DL. Some will only ever come once; some will come over and over again. Some won't like it at all; others will fall in love with it. One of the most exciting things, I'm guessing, for a lot of people is to (in one way or another) experience their "favorites." Those people will be in some measure disappointed if their favorite is Stitch and Stitch is nowhere to be found outside of a gift shop. Disney understands its customer base and knows Stitch has (had?) a level of popularity that needed to be addressed. So given the choice of omitting it or adding it in, however imperfectly, they decided their need to represent that character/property/cash register ring outweighed 100% perfect placement in the park.

That is, presuming it is a natural fact that an alien is somehow out of place in Tomorrowland. (Hint: it's not. It's only an opinion. It's subjective and debatable to a good degree.) And it was placed in an area of Tomorrowland with other "modern" (vs. 1971) properties/attractions. I suspect "theming" had something to do with that.

But the last time you and I had a discussion over something like this, you were trying to point out all the "flaws" in Pirates. I remember thinking then and again now - I don't want to see Disney the way you see Disney. I want to enjoy it, not critique it. Oh, I've had fun in an imagineering competition and I completely understand what you are saying. I just think you are emphasizing it to the exclusion of all other business considerations, and that is not - realistic.

You go on and on about passion, waiting to see what movies are popular, and the importance of theming - and all these things I have in no way contradicted. I am not advocating "no theming," just a measured and more well-rounded business approach. I'm sure someone was passionate about Stitch!

And no, attractions not functioning properly is not "exactly the same" as slightly imperfect theming. One is operational and the other is creative/merchandising.

Only here is where I take offense:

"It is hard to actually believe that you are interested in and understand theming when you completely dismiss one of the most basic, primary elements of a theme park. Over and over you are downplaying the importance of theme to themed entertainment. You keep telling us about how you never thought about this or that and it does not bother, but then try to assure us you are interested. How is that not a complete contradiction? If it does not matter to you then it does not matter. Have fun! Enjoy the experience. How do other people caring impact your not caring? How does more theme hurt your enjoyment of the rides, shows, parades and food?


How is there any difference except that one is of interest to you? Every reason you give for why theme is of little consequence applies to singular show effects like you mention. Most people do not notice them. Most people who know of them or get upset by them. You've written many words on why theme should not be much of a concern and yet they could all easily be rewritten to talk about these types of elements."

Not only do you continue to misrepresent my statements and positions, and ascribe to me motives you have invented (as you have done throughout your post) there is that undeniable condescension and attempt to discredit that you so enjoy.

I'll enjoy it my way, with a bit of a forgiving eye and a "big picture" philosophy; and you go and critique everything, if it makes you feel special.

+1 to an awesome reply.

Btw, is the debate whether or not Stitch belongs in Tomorrowland? I thought it was whether Monsters does.

While I think the Stitch ride is terrible, the theming isn't out of place.

 

[Matt_Black]

I couldn't help notice the sign someone posted (was it Captain America?) slipped in a mention of "riverboat" which would seem to be an allusion to the Mississippi, i.e. the South, thereby explaining the inclusion of non-Western themes in Frontierland as best they could.

The way it's generally explained, Frontierland starts at Diamond Horseshoe. This is to represent both the early 1800s and the fact that Missouri was a "gateway to the West". At the other end, you have Big Thunder Mountain, which is both the far southwest and the late 1800s. Everything in between follows that progression, like how Pecos Bill's Tall Tale Inn is in the middle, representing Texas's central position and that it's further along the timeline.

Now, there are exceptions, the biggest being Tom Sawyer Island, which is right across from BTM, but it's clearly representative of 1840's Missouri. The Country Bears, being a show in the style of the medicine show tradition, which went from the late 1800s to the early 1900s, is also a bit anachronistic.

 

[marni1971]

So is this new WIR "ride" going to actually be a ride, or just a re-imagined use of the existing space?

The second. Though far more radical than done so far.

 

[clemmo]

The second. Though far more radical than done so far.

I'm assuming this will probably have motion based seating like many Despicable Me and many other Uni 3D attractions

 

[RobbinsDad]

Stitch's Great Escape is the only tab left on my 2007 Dream Fastpass. I hate it that much. WIR - I don't know, maybe. My vote would have been Tron Cycle simulator.