Swiss Family Treehouse Delete

Too Many Hats

Too Many Hats

Well-Known Member
TrainsOfDisney said:
I feel like I’m confused on what makes a Disney theme park? If you tear down, retheme, and rebuild the entire magic kingdom is it still the magic kingdom?
Click to expand...

Disney theme parks are where you go to see surface-level Disney iconography that matches the content your preschooler watches/streams. Magic Kingdom exists as a vessel for promoting Disney IP.
 
ppete1975

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
Cheap to operate, no upkeep and such a small footprint not really worth replacing.... how much of a retheme can you do? I am sure if something better would fit in that space it would be gone..
 
Walt Disney1955

Walt Disney1955

Well-Known Member
Does anyone on these boards actually enjoy atmosphere or beauty anymore just for the sake of it? Some of us aren't Gen Z and actually have the attention span of longer than a toddler. Some of us appreciate the architecture of things and even the simplicity of some attractions at the same time. Mr. Toad's Wild ride has long been gone from WDW (still at Disneyland) but what was special about the ride? Sometimes it is just the simple things that made an attraction memorable. Swiss is also that type of attraction where you can reach towering heights, it gives you a chance for good pictures to be taken of the castle and other parts of the park and maybe you might start to be interested in the movie/book if you go through it. And it fits with Adventureland perfectly.
 
bwr827

bwr827

Well-Known Member
TrainsOfDisney said:
Agreed - that was the smartest move. The classic space race retro could work too, but it’s not overly interesting. Pulling from Jules Verne gives so much to work off of.
Click to expand...
Oh I get it. They can change things as long as it’s themed to stuff you like. Then it’s still Magic Kingdom.
 
John park hopper

John park hopper

Well-Known Member
bwr827 said:
Nonsense. Kids still read a lot. They just tend to read newer stuff. My kids devour books all year long.
Click to expand...
your kids if they read are in the minority
"46% among 12–17-year-olds). Nearly half of 6–8-year-olds (46%) say they are frequent readers (reading books five or more days a week), this level declines to 32% of 9–11-year-olds, 21% of 12–14-year-olds, and 15% of 15–17-year-olds.Sep 11, 2023"
 
Prince-1

Prince-1

Well-Known Member
John park hopper said:
your kids if they read are in the minority
"46% among 12–17-year-olds). Nearly half of 6–8-year-olds (46%) say they are frequent readers (reading books five or more days a week), this level declines to 32% of 9–11-year-olds, 21% of 12–14-year-olds, and 15% of 15–17-year-olds.Sep 11, 2023"
Click to expand...

Usually one puts the source they using if they are quoting facts from somewhere.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Trueblood said:
My father grew up on the Swiss Family Robinson novel, and absolutely loved the treehouse. As his generation stops coming to the parks, it will be less and less relevant.

I thought the Tarzan theme they put on it in Disneyland was fun, but Tarzan's a little older now, too.
Click to expand...
The first SFR movie was in 1960 and the first Tarzan movie was filmed in 1917. The first SFR novel was written in 1812 whereas the first Tarzan novel was written in 1914. So my guess is that both could be considered older depending on what basis ones references are to age. SFR is a much older story, but Tarzan has been around longer as a movie in one form or the other. Both have what we of a certain age call the smell of geriatric.
 
bwr827

bwr827

Well-Known Member
John park hopper said:
your kids if they read are in the minority
"46% among 12–17-year-olds). Nearly half of 6–8-year-olds (46%) say they are frequent readers (reading books five or more days a week), this level declines to 32% of 9–11-year-olds, 21% of 12–14-year-olds, and 15% of 15–17-year-olds.Sep 11, 2023"
Click to expand...
Beyond the simplicity of “heads in smartphones”, there are many issues at play.

One significant aspect is socioeconomic, and that’s very relevant to WDW. As you’ve pointed out countless times, Disney theme park vacations are very expensive.

My kids and 97.2% of their friends and classmates love to read. They trade favorite books and talk about books and draw pictures of book characters. And, yes, watch endless YouTube videos about book characters and universes.

My kids also enjoy the socioeconomic privileges that provided both a foundation to love reading and to access WDW vacations.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
TrainsOfDisney said:
If that were the case I would have never wanted to go back. Haha
Click to expand...
Magic Kingdom was planned as a semi-clone of Disneyland. Disneyland was almost nothing but promotion of Disney IP's but was a mix of two things. It was a vessel to promote Disney IP's and advertising for outside business that were willing to spend money to promote their products. That was what allowed Disneyland to be built to begin with. The park was fun and creative but don't ever lose sight of the fact that is was a product that needed to pay for itself via corporate support and whatever success The Disney Company was able to glean from it on their own. In fact it depended on outside support far more than WDW did. The only change was the Main Street USA didn't sell bras and pianos. (not in the same store btw) How many things can you think of that didn't have the words "Sponsored By" someplace in the title.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom