The Muppets Present… Great Moments in American History'

[Animaniac93-98]

Putting The Muppets in Liberty Square is a terrible idea. Period.

As conceieved and executed, Liberty Square, like Main Street and Frontierland, is meant to showcase a time in history and offer experiences that tie into the modern conceptions of what themes and locations resonate with that time period. Liberty Square is about early American history, and originally all buildings, shops and restaurants offered samples of life in those days, within the framework of a clean, family friendly enviroment. A silversmith, a tavern, shipyard, colonial mansion, Liberty Tree, tricorn hat shop, fife and drum corps and a government structure based on Independence Hall with the date of the constitution on it. It's no accident that The Hall of Presidents is located in the centre of the land. Though it features moments in history beyond the 1790s, the underlining themes (The Consitution, democarcy etc) are rooted in the values planted in the same time as those Liberty Trees. [If you're wondering how The Haunted Mansion fits into all of this, I suggest this article written on the subject].

A character like Sam the Eagle (let alone the rest of The Muppets), has nothing to do with any of these themes. His "patriotism" is largely played for laughs, and his existance has nothing to do with the values or time period of Liberty Square, even from a modern interpretation like Johnny Tremain. If built, the attraction/show may be cute in its own right, but it would represent another failure on the part of Disney's current corporate and creative culture to respect the groundwork that was laid for them but their predecessors. I'm not saying nothing in Liberty Square should ever change, but there are better options for the land than the work of Jim Henson.

This is the kind of "creative" thinking that gets put out on twitter by fans who have no background in design or knowledge of the company's history. Now people are paid an annual salary and are actively encouraged by upper management to think up these concepts because the underlining goal of Walt Synergy World is pushing brands, and not creating quality themed experiences that can stand on their own merit or support established design principles. Once again, Disney is imitating its competitor by beliving that theme parks are where people go to "ride the movies".

If you love this idea and think its cool, it's because you are a Disney movie fan or Muppet fan first and of theme parks second or third. It's a shame that The Magic Kingdom, a park so carefully mapped out from both a physical and conceptual standpoint continues to be chipped away by a lack of originality rooted in shameless self promotion.

[/rant]

 

[mouse_luv]

Putting The Muppets in Liberty Square is a terrible idea. Period.

As conceieved and executed, Liberty Square, like Main Street and Frontierland, is meant to showcase a time in history and offer experiences that tie into the modern conceptions of what themes and locations resonate with that time period. Liberty Square is about early American history, and originally all buildings, shops and restaurants offered samples of life in those days, within the framework of a clean, family friendly enviroment. A silversmith, a tavern, shipyard, colonial mansion, Liberty Tree, tricorn hat shop, fife and drum corps and a government structure based on Independence Hall with the date of the constitution on it. It's no accident that The Hall of Presidents is located in the centre of the land. Though it features moments in history beyond the 1790s, the underlining themes (The Consitution, democarcy etc) are rooted in the values planted in the same time as those Liberty Trees. [If you're wondering how The Haunted Mansion fits into all of this, I suggest this article written on the subject].

A character like Sam the Eagle (let alone the rest of The Muppets), has nothing to do with any of these themes. His "patriotism" is largely played for laughs, and his existance has nothing to do with the values or time period of Liberty Square, even from a modern interpretation like Johnny Tremain. If built, the attraction/show may be cute in its own right, but it would represent another failure on the part of Disney's current corporate and creative culture to respect the groundwork that was laid for them but their predecessors. I'm not saying nothing in Liberty Square should ever change, but there are better options for the land than the work of Jim Henson.

This is the kind of "creative" thinking that gets put out on twitter by fans who have no background in design or knowledge of the company's history. Now people are paid an annual salary and are actively encouraged by upper management to think up these concepts because the underlining goal of Walt Synergy World is pushing brands, and not creating quality themed experiences that can stand on their own merit or support established design principles. Once again, Disney is imitating its competitor by beliving that theme parks are where people go to "ride the movies".

If you love this idea and think its cool, it's because you are a Disney movie fan or Muppet fan first and of theme parks second or third. It's a shame that The Magic Kingdom, a park so carefully mapped out from both a physical and conceptual standpoint continues to be chipped away by a lack of originality rooted in shameless self promotion.

[/rant]

 

[hopemax]

Putting The Muppets in Liberty Square is a terrible idea. Period.

As conceieved and executed, Liberty Square, like Main Street and Frontierland, is meant to showcase a time in history and offer experiences that tie into the modern conceptions of what themes and locations resonate with that time period. Liberty Square is about early American history, and originally all buildings, shops and restaurants offered samples of life in those days, within the framework of a clean, family friendly enviroment. A silversmith, a tavern, shipyard, colonial mansion, Liberty Tree, tricorn hat shop, fife and drum corps and a government structure based on Independence Hall with the date of the constitution on it. It's no accident that The Hall of Presidents is located in the centre of the land. Though it features moments in history beyond the 1790s, the underlining themes (The Consitution, democarcy etc) are rooted in the values planted in the same time as those Liberty Trees. [If you're wondering how The Haunted Mansion fits into all of this, I suggest this article written on the subject].

A character like Sam the Eagle (let alone the rest of The Muppets), has nothing to do with any of these themes. His "patriotism" is largely played for laughs, and his existance has nothing to do with the values or time period of Liberty Square, even from a modern interpretation like Johnny Tremain. If built, the attraction/show may be cute in its own right, but it would represent another failure on the part of Disney's current corporate and creative culture to respect the groundwork that was laid for them but their predecessors. I'm not saying nothing in Liberty Square should ever change, but there are better options for the land than the work of Jim Henson.

This is the kind of "creative" thinking that gets put out on twitter by fans who have no background in design or knowledge of the company's history. Now people are paid an annual salary and are actively encouraged by upper management to think up these concepts because the underlining goal of Walt Synergy World is pushing brands, and not creating quality themed experiences that can stand on their own merit or support established design principles. Once again, Disney is imitating its competitor by beliving that theme parks are where people go to "ride the movies".

If you love this idea and think its cool, it's because you are a Disney movie fan or Muppet fan first and of theme parks second or third. It's a shame that The Magic Kingdom, a park so carefully mapped out from both a physical and conceptual standpoint continues to be chipped away by a lack of originality rooted in shameless self promotion.

[/rant]

I wanted to rant but after doing this for so long, I don't have the energy to put together a good rant anymore, so thank you. When it comes to some forms of storytelling people inherently understand why simply dropping one thing from one story into another story is wrong, unless it's intentional (like using all Toons including non-Disney Toons in Roger Rabbit). No one would ever suggest dropping a Muppet into 1776 or a live-action Revolutionary War era movie, but in an atypical storytelling device such as a theme park environment like a land, and people lose their minds because they like a specific character. You mention Disney's competitor, but they aren't even doing things like dropping the Minions into Jurassic Park because in the Minion movie one of their masters was a T-Rex. Or lamenting that Ms Rowling is too strict by not allowing Minions to roam around London/Diagon Alley, because after all, in the Minions movie they were in London, and wouldn't Minions looks super cute all dressed up like Hogwarts students.

Regular people are really bad at articulating some stuff, but I do believe people subconsciously respond to certain things. And one of them is themed environments. If you ask people if Harambe in Animal Kingdom needs more Lion King to make it better, and I think even non-Internet Disney fans, would scream "NO!" Yes, there is Rafiki at Conservation Station, and the show is now in the land, but I don't think people need or want Simba or Rafiki in place of the musical entertainment or plastered on buildings in a major way (yes, I know there is a Mickey drawing now) or anything else. Same thing with World Showcase. If all the beer and food was set up in Future World and not World Showcase, I don't think it would be as popular. People may not be able to articulate it, but I think they'd say drinking around the World would be more pleasurable than drinking around the future, and the architecture, landscaping, entertainment, etc are playing a role.

If the "storyteller" in this case Disney, doesn't believe in the world they have built, and need to resort to "gimmicks," neither will anyone else. Dropping IP everywhere is a gimmick. Both the IP and the environment they are being dropped into, deserve better.

 

[FoozieBear]

The only time we ever stop in Hall of Presidents is if we're in dire need of air conditioning. Looks like Disney just figured out a way to make this a priority attraction for me.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Putting The Muppets in Liberty Square is a terrible idea. Period.

As conceieved and executed, Liberty Square, like Main Street and Frontierland, is meant to showcase a time in history and offer experiences that tie into the modern conceptions of what themes and locations resonate with that time period. Liberty Square is about early American history, and originally all buildings, shops and restaurants offered samples of life in those days, within the framework of a clean, family friendly enviroment. A silversmith, a tavern, shipyard, colonial mansion, Liberty Tree, tricorn hat shop, fife and drum corps and a government structure based on Independence Hall with the date of the constitution on it. It's no accident that The Hall of Presidents is located in the centre of the land. Though it features moments in history beyond the 1790s, the underlining themes (The Consitution, democarcy etc) are rooted in the values planted in the same time as those Liberty Trees. [If you're wondering how The Haunted Mansion fits into all of this, I suggest this article written on the subject].

A character like Sam the Eagle (let alone the rest of The Muppets), has nothing to do with any of these themes. His "patriotism" is largely played for laughs, and his existance has nothing to do with the values or time period of Liberty Square, even from a modern interpretation like Johnny Tremain. If built, the attraction/show may be cute in its own right, but it would represent another failure on the part of Disney's current corporate and creative culture to respect the groundwork that was laid for them but their predecessors. I'm not saying nothing in Liberty Square should ever change, but there are better options for the land than the work of Jim Henson.

This is the kind of "creative" thinking that gets put out on twitter by fans who have no background in design or knowledge of the company's history. Now people are paid an annual salary and are actively encouraged by upper management to think up these concepts because the underlining goal of Walt Synergy World is pushing brands, and not creating quality themed experiences that can stand on their own merit or support established design principles. Once again, Disney is imitating its competitor by beliving that theme parks are where people go to "ride the movies".

If you love this idea and think its cool, it's because you are a Disney movie fan or Muppet fan first and of theme parks second or third. It's a shame that The Magic Kingdom, a park so carefully mapped out from both a physical and conceptual standpoint continues to be chipped away by a lack of originality rooted in shameless self promotion.

[/rant]

Bravo, well said. The real issue here is how appropriate the inclusion of any given IP would be in various areas of the parks, and what it might do to that area's theme and character. Sadly, this issue never occurred to whoever in the depths of Disney park-planning suggested this terrible idea. Said person has a very shallow understanding and appreciation of the parks, in my opinion. He/she apparently just sees the various themed areas as showcases for IPs, rather than expressions of ideas and experiences in their own right. And that's what distresses me most of all - that there are people in the Disney company who are so oblivious and so petty and so just plain lacking in taste. I really hope this latest abomination doesn't happen, but god, who knows. After Frozenstrom and the suggestion of the Tower being destroyed, I wouldn't put anything past the marketing fiends in what used to be Walt's company.

 

[hopemax]

And another thing...I've fallen into this trap too, for short hand convenience, but just because something wasn't made into a movie doesn't mean it's not "Disney IP." Walt borrowed a lot from the world around him. Sometimes it was a story in the public domain that he turned into an animated / live action movie. Sometimes he just turned it into a theme park attraction or experience. The choice of movie or not movie doesn't make the thing NOT Disney IP. It's just as much Disney IP as the movie, just a different application. Hall of Presidents is not some real world thing, it's a Disney show just like Festival of the Lion King is a Disney show. And Tower of Terror may take elements from Twilight Zone just as Pinocchio takes elements from Collodi's story or Frozen takes elements from Snow Queen, but it's Disney's interpretation to make something new. They just aren't starting from a movie. And if you get into a point were the only theme park things that happen, are if there is a successful movie, it will be a handcuff to the parks (and likely already has, considering the lack of attractions over the last 20 years vs. what we've heard plans exist for, but the movie failed). Instead of them succeeding or failing independently of each other, the theme park's fortunes will become reliant on the success of the Studio. Not a bad thing right now, but the Studio has been an anchor before and will be again (business cycles). Bad studio output = stagnant park development = bad for the company and its fans.

So I guess I've ranted after all.

 

[RSoxNo1]

The only time we ever stop in Hall of Presidents is if we're in dire need of air conditioning. Looks like Disney just figured out a way to make this a priority attraction for me.

This is the same logic that has people approving a Frozen ride in Norway. You are allowed to like the intellectual property and think that the execution doesn't fit. The Muppets literally have a designated land in Hollywood Studios and a show that could be replaced. But no, you're right destroying the theme in Liberty Square is ok because you like the Muppets.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I wanted to rant but after doing this for so long, I don't have the energy to put together a good rant anymore, so thank you. When it comes to some forms of storytelling people inherently understand why simply dropping one thing from one story into another story is wrong, unless it's intentional (like using all Toons including non-Disney Toons in Roger Rabbit). No one would ever suggest dropping a Muppet into 1776 or a live-action Revolutionary War era movie, but in an atypical storytelling device such as a theme park environment like a land, and people lose their minds because they like a specific character. You mention Disney's competitor, but they aren't even doing things like dropping the Minions into Jurassic Park because in the Minion movie one of their masters was a T-Rex. Or lamenting that Ms Rowling is too strict by not allowing Minions to roam around London/Diagon Alley, because after all, in the Minions movie they were in London, and wouldn't Minions looks super cute all dressed up like Hogwarts students.

Regular people are really bad at articulating some stuff, but I do believe people subconsciously respond to certain things. And one of them is themed environments. If you ask people if Harambe in Animal Kingdom needs more Lion King to make it better, and I think even non-Internet Disney fans, would scream "NO!" Yes, there is Rafiki at Conservation Station, and the show is now in the land, but I don't think people need or want Simba or Rafiki in place of the musical entertainment or plastered on buildings in a major way (yes, I know there is a Mickey drawing now) or anything else. Same thing with World Showcase. If all the beer and food was set up in Future World and not World Showcase, I don't think it would be as popular. People may not be able to articulate it, but I think they'd say drinking around the World would be more pleasurable than drinking around the future, and the architecture, landscaping, entertainment, etc are playing a role.

If the "storyteller" in this case Disney, doesn't believe in the world they have built, and need to resort to "gimmicks," neither will anyone else. Dropping IP everywhere is a gimmick. Both the IP and the environment they are being dropped into, deserve better.

Mmmm...drinking around the future...

Big difference between mixing IP's (putting Minions in Potterville) vs. using an IP to enhance or introduce something historical IMO.

I have no problem with more Simba in AK. That would appear to be the smart way to go for a theme park. Or take out the character meet & greets and just go to a zoo. I could go to a zoo for a lot less money. What makes AK "Disney" is the "Disney." It's not the first or only animal-housing entity to put the animals in their own habitat. The Bronx Zoo did it forever. Six Flags had us driving through a "Wild Safari" with ostriches pecking at your car window and what not. Yes, AK is better than those because...Disney.

Guess what happens when animals are in their natural habitats? They disappear into their natural habitats. I don't think I've ever seen a tiger stand upright at AK, let alone move. So, you have Simba as a backup to entertain the guests, and there you go.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

This is the same logic that has people approving a Frozen ride in Norway. You are allowed to like the intellectual property and think that the execution doesn't fit. The Muppets literally have a designated land in Hollywood Studios and a show that could be replaced. But no, you're right destroying the theme in Liberty Square is ok because you like the Muppets.

Attractions are supposed to attract people - a lot of people - most people, not just a small subset of people who enjoy watching PBS 24/7.

It makes perfect sense from a business perspective to put The Three Caballeros in Mexico, Nemo in The Seas, Mary Poppins and Alice in the UK, Ratatouille in France, and Frozen in Norway.

My first impression of Epcot 17 years ago was, why wasn't there more of that? Why isn't there a ride in each country? What are these boring movies that are really just commercials? (Cop out.) What's Disney about Germany?

Yes, I know people have gotten attached to these things via repetition, nostalgia, whatever. But that doesn't make them great, or impressive, or have more mass appeal. I'm not going to WDW to watch PBS. I DVR The McLachlan Group every Friday and I watch that at home.

 

[FigmentForver96]

Attractions are supposed to attract people - a lot of people - most people, not just a small subset of people who enjoy watching PBS 24/7.

It makes perfect sense from a business perspective to put The Three Caballeros in Mexico, Nemo in The Seas, Mary Poppins and Alice in the UK, Ratatouille in France, and Frozen in Norway.

My first impression of Epcot 17 years ago was, why wasn't there more of that? Why isn't there a ride in each country? What are these boring movies that are really just commercials? (Cop out.) What's Disney about Germany?

Yes, I know people have gotten attached to these things via repetition, nostalgia, whatever. But that doesn't make them great, or impressive, or have more mass appeal. I'm not going to WDW to watch PBS. I DVR The McLachlan Group every Friday and I watch that at home.

There is so much wrong with the last two posts I do not have the energy nor the time to cover them. I simply want to hit this "business" angle everybody likes to throw around. It doesn't work....peroid end of story. That's simply the lazy excuse people like to use to dismiss the tacky and lazy decisions made by the company.

I'm sorry you did not enjoy Epcot many years ago, but the orginal purpose and goals of the original rides and shows were part of what Epcot Center was all about. Nothing today helps push the ideals and goals of Epcot Center. Maybe from a business standpoint putting Frozen into Norway saved money....ok well.....from a business perspective I guess closing the Wonders of Life pavilion saved money. Was that a good idea as well? Can you defend that because they are a business? They've always been a business, they were when Epcot Center opened and it was a HUGE success. So I'm sorry but putting Muppets in Liberty Square does not work. I know originally said I did not mind but thinking it over it does not make it srnse. Oh and a smart business would just put a muppet show in the land they are already have.

 

[biggy H]

As conceieved and executed, Liberty Square, like Main Street and Frontierland, is meant to showcase a time in history and offer experiences that tie into the modern conceptions of what themes and locations resonate with that time period. Liberty Square is about early American history, and originally all buildings, shops and restaurants offered samples of life in those days, within the framework of a clean, family friendly enviroment. A silversmith, a tavern, shipyard, colonial mansion, Liberty Tree, tricorn hat shop, fife and drum corps and a government structure based on Independence Hall with the date of the constitution on it. It's no accident that The Hall of Presidents is located in the centre of the land. Though it features moments in history beyond the 1790s, the underlining themes (The Consitution, democarcy etc) are rooted in the values planted in the same time as those Liberty Trees. [If you're wondering how The Haunted Mansion fits into all of this, I suggest this article written on the subject].

A character like Sam the Eagle (let alone the rest of The Muppets), has nothing to do with any of these themes. His "patriotism" is largely played for laughs, and his existance has nothing to do with the values or time period of Liberty Square, even from a modern interpretation like Johnny Tremain. If built, the attraction/show may be cute in its own right, but it would represent another failure on the part of Disney's current corporate and creative culture to respect the groundwork that was laid for them but their predecessors. I'm not saying nothing in Liberty Square should ever change, but there are better options for the land than the work of Jim Henson.

Then again why add all the Presidents and not just the ones from the era Liberty Square is portraying??
I for one have only been to seen HOP once in 20 years and it seems like its something you only see once every 4 or 8 years when the next President is added, and I know a fair few who think the same way. To me its a complete waste of space and the HOP would be better in the American Pavilion at Epcot imho, (I know, I know I'm in the minority on here.... but then again I ain't American...)

Not saying if Muppets would be right or wrong from this area but would have to see it to say so, but then it could be too late to change it..

 

[seabreezept813]

We are the odd family that goes to HoP because we enjoy it. Sure my husband sleeps, but I am a sucker for older Disney attractions. The reason that Disney is different is because it has these type of offerings, not everything has to be a thrill. I can't decide if I don't like this decision more because it's thematically inappropriate, or because there are so many better options (Sleepy Hollow), or because this part of the park is not mobbed and I'm ok with there still being some quiet areas to escape to in the heat of the day. I love the Muppets, but I think they just aren't needed at MK.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

There is so much wrong with the last two posts I do not have the energy nor the time to cover them. I simply want to hit this "business" angle everybody likes to throw around. It doesn't work....peroid end of story. That's simply the lazy excuse people like to use to dismiss the tacky and lazy decisions made by the company.

I'm sorry you did not enjoy Epcot many years ago, but the orginal purpose and goals of the original rides and shows were part of what Epcot Center was all about. Nothing today helps push the ideals and goals of Epcot Center. Maybe from a business standpoint putting Frozen into Norway saved money....ok well.....from a business perspective I guess closing the Wonders of Life pavilion saved money. Was that a good idea as well? Can you defend that because they are a business? They've always been a business, they were when Epcot Center opened and it was a HUGE success. So I'm sorry but putting Muppets in Liberty Square does not work. I know originally said I did not mind but thinking it over it does not make it srnse. Oh and a smart business would just put a muppet show in the land they are already have.

So many assumptions...

What bugs me is when people qualify others' opinions as "wrong," and they are serious about it. One person's opinion is no more or less valid than another.

So "there is so much wrong with the last two posts" is borderline offensive, off-putting, and not likely to spark a sincere reply.

There is so much wrong with the way people interact on this board. This version of authoritarianism seems to be a common issue.

I'll attempt a sincere reply, anyway.

Re: "this business angle everybody likes to throw around." I rarely throw that around. I generally find it odd when people throw that around in defending seemingly unjustifiable price increases and reduction in services. As a business owner, I understand that impulse, but I also understand it can decrease business to some degree. So I agree with you when I see people using that argument to support corporations, while presumably relating to billionaires, when we all know they will almost certainly never be one. (This is almost as annoying to me as, "Well then don't go!")

But that's not what I was talking about. Yes, I am generally against "change for the sake of change," while at the same time understanding that stagnation for a theme park is not a good thing. Yes, I understand someone in an office somewhere wants to impress someone with a "big idea" and that ends up affecting our park experience. And I especially understand many of those "office people" don't have the perspective of an avid fan, and therefore don't always understand what the fans want. (I'm talking about businesses in general here, not just Disney.)

The flip side of that is the average park goer (if there is an average park goer, maybe it's more accurate to say segments of park goers - the once in a lifetimers, the world travelers, the locals, etc.) also may not have the perspective of an avid fan. Someone who goes for one week and never again is going to be so overwhelmed with the experience, they won't have time to notice if something seems out of place unless it's blatant. Do you remember the first time you went? Not knowing what was around the next corner? Even with those fun paper maps.

So, I can hold my opinion, my wishes, on the one hand and I can understand other peoples' perspectives and business logistics on the other. I am not always right. Neither are you. Sometimes we don't know for certain until years later.

But that's the thing - for a little more perspective - nothing is permanent in life. (Side note: and so much is out of our hands.) Sometimes we put so much energy into decisions like where to live, what color to paint the bedroom, where to work, what car to buy, etc. - but most of these decisions end up being for a time, not for your lifetime, even if you intend for them to be for your lifetime. So it's OK if some of those decisions are not mind-blowingly perfect. It'll change again in a few years. It keeps life interesting. Rolling with things can be good sometimes.

"It doesn't work - end of story." That's another borderline offensive tactic to use in a fair-minded discussion. It's a conversation ender (literally) and not starter. It also has zero substance or explanation to back it up, just opinions of "laziness" or "tackiness."

Is there laziness at work in some of the recent plans we've seen? Probably. But this seems more like "creative differences." Laziness involves apathy, not action. This looks to me like a proactive move. I presume there was a discussion of "where can make more use of these IP's we own?" Who wouldn't at least think that? This is a conglomerate. The parks help the IP's and vice versa, which helps the TV shows and the movies which then help the parks. Miss Piggy is a guest on ABC's The View. Everything is pretty much a commercial for its "family." Expect that. Yes, "synergy" is a thing.

I never said I "did not enjoy Epcot many years ago." I never said that or implied it. It was actually my favorite park. (Watch Illuminations soon after 9/11 - "We Go On" - and try not to cry.) It was just not what I expected on my first trip (none of Disney was - in a good way!) Naturally, we went to Magic Kingdom first, which kind of set a tone, and then we went to Epcot, and...the character side of things just kind of fell off. I did not expect that. Then, going around the world, Norway had a ride, Mexico had a ride...and then that was it. Shops and restaurants. (I can't do the movies, I just can't. I did them all that first time because we were doing everything the first time.) I was surprised every country didn't have a ride/attraction. I think it would be a major plus that would make sense if every country did. You want to make me watch a movie? Break it up into pieces and put me in a boat with some immersive theming LOL.

And I don't care if that's cheesy. If I enjoy something, I enjoy it, whether I'm "supposed to" or not. I'm secure enough in my intelligence that I can tell the difference between what's brilliant vs. what's just dumb fun, but sometimes just dumb fun is on the menu - i.e. most action movies or Britney Spears songs. I don't need to exhibit snobbery about it to demonstrate what I know or make myself feel superior to those people who just don't realize Muppets don't belong in Liberty Square - the dumb masses or whatever. Different things move me for different reasons. Some may reach me on an intellectual level, some may be emotionally moving, some may just pass the time in a fun way. There is a place for all of those things. And hello - it's a theme park. Emphasis on the fun. I really don't want to think too hard about Splash Mountain. But that's the thing - you can approach SM however you like - whether you have no idea of the storyline, whether you're seeing if it's faithful to the movie, whether you're noticing little details or just looking forward to the splash - whatever - everyone's purpose and perspective are just as valid.

I agree, the original purpose and goals of Epcot are getting lost - but obviously not completely lost. But guess what - original ideas are not always the best. (ooh, more blasphemy.) I have great affection for Walt Disney. But I also learned something very early in my career: no matter how well trained and educated you are, someone with a different perspective and no such training can walk by and improve upon what you've just created with one little tweak, and you have to be open to that.

There will always be a tension between those who appreciate change, and those who resist it. There will always be a tension between productive change and reductive change, and the people behind each (in the company.)

But unless you are going to go back and make Epcot a city, don't cry "original plans!" because they were already not happening from day one of park opening.

Of course there is value in keeping Walt's original intent in mind. But Walt is gone, and few minds are like his.

And then there's that pesky "business" stuff: which attractions attract more people, which are lagging behind and not doing part of their duty which is people-eating and crowd-dispersing, as well as drawing people to particular parks, etc. Those things must be weighed into the decision-making, like it or not.

Putting Frozen into Norway may have saved some money vs. building a new attraction from scratch, but I'm sure it wasn't cheap. Again, I understand the attachment to Maelstrom - I don't think we ever skipped it - but Frozen makes so much sense there unless you are claiming the countries are pure replicas of real countries. They aren't. Norway will still be Norway (from what I understand) but Norway's attraction will have a Frozen theme. This makes their gift shop sell more, this draws more kids to Epcot. And again, maybe they'll learn something about Norway in the process. Maybe Frozen will inspire young kids today to visit Norway when they are adults, even though Arendelle isn't a real city. Maybe you'll be able to have a reasonable wait time for Peter Pan in MK because more kids are waiting to see Frozen in Epcot (for a few years.)

Disney made a valid criticism of itself in that it waited too long to put their successful new movie ideas into the theme parks. Here is the first exception, and they are getting treated like it's some kind of transgression. It's smart.

Epcot is not realistic. It is a Disney version of reality. Might as well go all the way. (Cue purist heads exploding.)

Yes, I can defend closing Wonders of Life if it wasn't attracting enough people. I barely remember anything about it, so it couldn't have been that impressive (to me.) My only quibble would be don't close an attraction until you have something at the ready to replace it.

I don't know how old you are, but I was around when Epcot opened. I was 14, I hadn't been to WDW yet, but I seem to remember hearing that its numbers didn't hold up so great in the early years. (I could be misremembering, I'm not going to google it, and I've lived long enough to know that living through "history" is not the same as reading about it.) I also remember kids in class who "had money" who went and came back and said it was boring. Maybe that always stuck in my head.

Respectfully, none of your arguments supported your opening and closing statements that "Muppets in Liberty Square just don't work."

There is no rule that characters need to stay in their own land or can't be in two parks.

I get the point of view of "if it ain't broke" and of messing with classics. I will take that as your valid point of view without dismissing it out of hand. My opinion is it really can't hurt to try. Nothing is permanent, and if it doesn't work, it can always be undone.

 

[Wikkler]

Perhaps Disney is just as concerned as everyone else about the prospects of our next potential President.

Perhaps even Disney is against Donald Trump becoming president that they're using the Muppets as a way to avoid inserting his likeness into the attraction.

Just imagine a AA figure of Trump on stage bickering with the other presidents... "Scuse me... SCUSE ME!"

However, I wouldn't by suprised if Disney was in favor of his presidency due to how they monopolize their money around. Sorry for going there but Iger and Trump = best friends.

If Trump wins the presidency, I wouldn't be shocked at all if Disney puts Muppets into the Hall of Presidents just so they don't have to deal with backlash building a Trump AA.

Who the [expletive] are these yokels??? Rutherford B. Hayes... no brand recognition.

There is actually something to this.

https://twitter.com/blog_mickey/status/718242673124106244

Good Pizza in DC!!!! That cannot be true

Well in Florida they have round circles of cooked dough almost but not entirely unlike pizza, And Northern VA is NOT DC so the 'Dont eat the PIZZA rule in DC still holds true'

I know you're probably too elite to visit the tourist-y parts of DC, but there's this great place across from the National Portrait Gallery and within walking distance of the entrance to the International Spy Museum.

(I know, I know I'm in the minority on here.... but then again I ain't American...

I seem to be having a hard time believing this.

 

[Sage of Time]

Liberty Square is about American Culture.

The Muppets are about American POP Culture.

No. Just no.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Attractions are supposed to attract people - a lot of people - most people, not just a small subset of people who enjoy watching PBS 24/7.

It makes perfect sense from a business perspective to put The Three Caballeros in Mexico, Nemo in The Seas, Mary Poppins and Alice in the UK, Ratatouille in France, and Frozen in Norway.

My first impression of Epcot 17 years ago was, why wasn't there more of that? Why isn't there a ride in each country? What are these boring movies that are really just commercials? (Cop out.) What's Disney about Germany?

Yes, I know people have gotten attached to these things via repetition, nostalgia, whatever. But that doesn't make them great, or impressive, or have more mass appeal. I'm not going to WDW to watch PBS. I DVR The McLachlan Group every Friday and I watch that at home.

Except it doesn't make sense to put an attraction where it doesn't belong. Think of how much attention to detail has historically been paid to theming at the Disney Parks. You walk into a land and the architecture, the music, the pavement all blend together and make sense together. You don't notice it consciously but from a subconscious level you notice it and appreciate it. It "feels" right. It's also why it's jarring when you see a show building, or a broken animatronic or something else out of place.

Thematic breaks like those found throughout Epcot hurt the park. It contributes to the staleness and it takes away from the the park "feeling" right.

To your point about the educational feel, I do agree. But Disney is essentially crapping on a culture by putting in their version of that culture adapted from their intellectual property. If you honestly believe that Imagineering is incapable of making an entertaining attraction at every World Showcase pavilion without using characters than we might as well fire everyone in Imagineering. No one is saying we need to be lectured about a culture, hell I complained about the Spirit of Norway film as much as the next person. What I am saying is that Frozen does not tell the story of Norway and creatively it is lazy.

Bringing this back to the Muppets, you may find Hall of Presidents boring and you are entitled to that opinion. I wouldn't argue if you wanted to have it removed for something else historically relevant. But Kermit and the gang teaching you a history lesson would be jarring thematically in Liberty Square. It is not a good idea.

Whoever signs off on ideas like this should not be allowed to have sharp objects like pens. The ideas are that bad.

 

[MotherOfBirds]

I could get behind watching Statler and Waldorf heckling the presidents and Sam Eagle while he attempts to explain the U.S. presidency, a la Muppet Christmas Carol. I'd prefer to leave it as it is, but if they must alter it...


......please don't hurt me

 

[Magenta Panther]

I could get behind watching Statler and Waldorf heckling the presidents and Sam Eagle while he attempts to explain the U.S. presidency, a la Muppet Christmas Carol. I'd prefer to leave it as it is, but if they must alter it...


......please don't hurt me

Must...not...hit...ignore...button....

 

[wdwgreek]

So many assumptions...

What bugs me is when people qualify others' opinions as "wrong," and they are serious about it. One person's opinion is no more or less valid than another.

So "there is so much wrong with the last two posts" is borderline offensive, off-putting, and not likely to spark a sincere reply.

There is so much wrong with the way people interact on this board. This version of authoritarianism seems to be a common issue.

I'll attempt a sincere reply, anyway.

Re: "this business angle everybody likes to throw around." I rarely throw that around. I generally find it odd when people throw that around in defending seemingly unjustifiable price increases and reduction in services. As a business owner, I understand that impulse, but I also understand it can decrease business to some degree. So I agree with you when I see people using that argument to support corporations, while presumably relating to billionaires, when we all know they will almost certainly never be one. (This is almost as annoying to me as, "Well then don't go!")

But that's not what I was talking about. Yes, I am generally against "change for the sake of change," while at the same time understanding that stagnation for a theme park is not a good thing. Yes, I understand someone in an office somewhere wants to impress someone with a "big idea" and that ends up affecting our park experience. And I especially understand many of those "office people" don't have the perspective of an avid fan, and therefore don't always understand what the fans want. (I'm talking about businesses in general here, not just Disney.)

The flip side of that is the average park goer (if there is an average park goer, maybe it's more accurate to say segments of park goers - the once in a lifetimers, the world travelers, the locals, etc.) also may not have the perspective of an avid fan. Someone who goes for one week and never again is going to be so overwhelmed with the experience, they won't have time to notice if something seems out of place unless it's blatant. Do you remember the first time you went? Not knowing what was around the next corner? Even with those fun paper maps.

So, I can hold my opinion, my wishes, on the one hand and I can understand other peoples' perspectives and business logistics on the other. I am not always right. Neither are you. Sometimes we don't know for certain until years later.

But that's the thing - for a little more perspective - nothing is permanent in life. (Side note: and so much is out of our hands.) Sometimes we put so much energy into decisions like where to live, what color to paint the bedroom, where to work, what car to buy, etc. - but most of these decisions end up being for a time, not for your lifetime, even if you intend for them to be for your lifetime. So it's OK if some of those decisions are not mind-blowingly perfect. It'll change again in a few years. It keeps life interesting. Rolling with things can be good sometimes.

"It doesn't work - end of story." That's another borderline offensive tactic to use in a fair-minded discussion. It's a conversation ender (literally) and not starter. It also has zero substance or explanation to back it up, just opinions of "laziness" or "tackiness."

Is there laziness at work in some of the recent plans we've seen? Probably. But this seems more like "creative differences." Laziness involves apathy, not action. This looks to me like a proactive move. I presume there was a discussion of "where can make more use of these IP's we own?" Who wouldn't at least think that? This is a conglomerate. The parks help the IP's and vice versa, which helps the TV shows and the movies which then help the parks. Miss Piggy is a guest on ABC's The View. Everything is pretty much a commercial for its "family." Expect that. Yes, "synergy" is a thing.

I never said I "did not enjoy Epcot many years ago." I never said that or implied it. It was actually my favorite park. (Watch Illuminations soon after 9/11 - "We Go On" - and try not to cry.) It was just not what I expected on my first trip (none of Disney was - in a good way!) Naturally, we went to Magic Kingdom first, which kind of set a tone, and then we went to Epcot, and...the character side of things just kind of fell off. I did not expect that. Then, going around the world, Norway had a ride, Mexico had a ride...and then that was it. Shops and restaurants. (I can't do the movies, I just can't. I did them all that first time because we were doing everything the first time.) I was surprised every country didn't have a ride/attraction. I think it would be a major plus that would make sense if every country did. You want to make me watch a movie? Break it up into pieces and put me in a boat with some immersive theming LOL.

And I don't care if that's cheesy. If I enjoy something, I enjoy it, whether I'm "supposed to" or not. I'm secure enough in my intelligence that I can tell the difference between what's brilliant vs. what's just dumb fun, but sometimes just dumb fun is on the menu - i.e. most action movies or Britney Spears songs. I don't need to exhibit snobbery about it to demonstrate what I know or make myself feel superior to those people who just don't realize Muppets don't belong in Liberty Square - the dumb masses or whatever. Different things move me for different reasons. Some may reach me on an intellectual level, some may be emotionally moving, some may just pass the time in a fun way. There is a place for all of those things. And hello - it's a theme park. Emphasis on the fun. I really don't want to think too hard about Splash Mountain. But that's the thing - you can approach SM however you like - whether you have no idea of the storyline, whether you're seeing if it's faithful to the movie, whether you're noticing little details or just looking forward to the splash - whatever - everyone's purpose and perspective are just as valid.

I agree, the original purpose and goals of Epcot are getting lost - but obviously not completely lost. But guess what - original ideas are not always the best. (ooh, more blasphemy.) I have great affection for Walt Disney. But I also learned something very early in my career: no matter how well trained and educated you are, someone with a different perspective and no such training can walk by and improve upon what you've just created with one little tweak, and you have to be open to that.

There will always be a tension between those who appreciate change, and those who resist it. There will always be a tension between productive change and reductive change, and the people behind each (in the company.)

But unless you are going to go back and make Epcot a city, don't cry "original plans!" because they were already not happening from day one of park opening.

Of course there is value in keeping Walt's original intent in mind. But Walt is gone, and few minds are like his.

And then there's that pesky "business" stuff: which attractions attract more people, which are lagging behind and not doing part of their duty which is people-eating and crowd-dispersing, as well as drawing people to particular parks, etc. Those things must be weighed into the decision-making, like it or not.

Putting Frozen into Norway may have saved some money vs. building a new attraction from scratch, but I'm sure it wasn't cheap. Again, I understand the attachment to Maelstrom - I don't think we ever skipped it - but Frozen makes so much sense there unless you are claiming the countries are pure replicas of real countries. They aren't. Norway will still be Norway (from what I understand) but Norway's attraction will have a Frozen theme. This makes their gift shop sell more, this draws more kids to Epcot. And again, maybe they'll learn something about Norway in the process. Maybe Frozen will inspire young kids today to visit Norway when they are adults, even though Arendelle isn't a real city. Maybe you'll be able to have a reasonable wait time for Peter Pan in MK because more kids are waiting to see Frozen in Epcot (for a few years.)

Disney made a valid criticism of itself in that it waited too long to put their successful new movie ideas into the theme parks. Here is the first exception, and they are getting treated like it's some kind of transgression. It's smart.

Epcot is not realistic. It is a Disney version of reality. Might as well go all the way. (Cue purist heads exploding.)

Yes, I can defend closing Wonders of Life if it wasn't attracting enough people. I barely remember anything about it, so it couldn't have been that impressive (to me.) My only quibble would be don't close an attraction until you have something at the ready to replace it.

I don't know how old you are, but I was around when Epcot opened. I was 14, I hadn't been to WDW yet, but I seem to remember hearing that its numbers didn't hold up so great in the early years. (I could be misremembering, I'm not going to google it, and I've lived long enough to know that living through "history" is not the same as reading about it.) I also remember kids in class who "had money" who went and came back and said it was boring. Maybe that always stuck in my head.

Respectfully, none of your arguments supported your opening and closing statements that "Muppets in Liberty Square just don't work."

There is no rule that characters need to stay in their own land or can't be in two parks.

I get the point of view of "if it ain't broke" and of messing with classics. I will take that as your valid point of view without dismissing it out of hand. My opinion is it really can't hurt to try. Nothing is permanent, and if it doesn't work, it can always be undone.

Note to self insert here a response to this when the law school semester is over and I have time to be a coherent human being again. That said i strongly disagree with your perspective.

 

[Sped2424]

They should put a Hamilton show in Liberty square lol