The Muppets Present… Great Moments in American History'

Sped2424

Sped2424

Well-Known Member
FoozieBear said:
I doubt it'll be as bad as Frozen in Norway. It doesn't sound like a total takeover, but it sounds like it's an additional experience to attract young visitors to want to visit the attraction, which by my assumption doesn't get a lot of visitors. If Sam the Eagle is the one that introduces kids to American history and draws attention back to The Hall of Presidents, isn't that something we should be celebrating? It's an attraction that needs attention, and maybe the Muppets can help it with that.
Click to expand...
It's just as offensive if not even more so due to it being our own history we are mucking up this time. I am sorry there is no condoning this and giving Frostorm a pass.
 
Sped2424

Sped2424

Well-Known Member
DerpDisneyDerp said:
And there's a ghost horse around the corner and a sternwheeler from the future parked down on the river... there's obviously some license to be taken.

I understand your qualms about thematic purity. I suppose I'll reserve judgment until we see the final product. But if it draws kids in to learn a little history, it can't be all that bad. I'm just starving for ANYTHING actually NEW in the stagnant state of affairs in Florida.
Click to expand...
What history? How Kermit fought off the british with Gonzo only to be interrupted by miss piggy who is singing a funny solo song in order to get attention that has nothing to do with the history at hand? There is not postive to this.
 
FigmentForver96

FigmentForver96

Well-Known Member
Sped2424 said:
I still cannot believe there is credibility to this rumor. It speaks volumes about our current state of affairs in the company when an attraction devoted to our very own serious and compelling history is being considered to be redone with muppets. Do I love the muppets? Yes. Would I love to see Sam the eagle being campy and talking about american history with reenactments and other muppets being presidents? Of course. Would I enjoy this attraction over HoP? Probably. Does that justify this idea enough to kill HoP and further tie in an IP to a land that did not need one? Hell NO. The minute we bastardize our own history in a land that sought to teach us about it is the minute things get scary. I mean the idea of replacing the HoP with muppets just sounds offensive to me.
Click to expand...
Aww yes but Disney is a business you know and they need to think about what will draw them in. ;)
 
Sped2424

Sped2424

Well-Known Member
FigmentForver96 said:
Aww yes but Disney is a business you know and they need to think about what will draw them in. ;)
Click to expand...
How about updates that fit thematically and new attractions that add capacity?
tumblr_o5gcf1lvx21rb3d4bo1_540.png
 
CrescentLake

CrescentLake

Well-Known Member
Tony the Tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know what? Thank you for this. Epcot is not just my favorite park, but it's my favorite place in the world. When I say that, people look at me like I have 6 heads and usually say: "why? There's nothing to do there. Just Test Track and Soarin." I am one hundred percent all for staying true to the vision and thematic integrity of a park, but thay vision can change (appropriately).

I'm currently at WDW for another two days, but I have some serious observations that I feel like I'm noticing for the first time (despite going 11 times). The guests are changing, but that's an entirely different conversation.

Anyways, I'm not a fan of the idea if it's thematically intrusive...but let's give it a shot and see what they have planned. It may work. It may not.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
CrescentLake said:
You know what? Thank you for this. Epcot is not just my favorite park, but it's my favorite place in the world. When I say that, people look at me like I have 6 heads and usually say: "why? There's nothing to do there. Just Test Track and Soarin." I am one hundred percent all for staying true to the vision and thematic integrity of a park, but thay vision can change (appropriately).

I'm currently at WDW for another two days, but I have some serious observations that I feel like I'm noticing for the first time (despite going 11 times). The guests are changing, but that's an entirely different conversation.

Anyways, I'm not a fan of the idea if it's thematically intrusive...but let's give it a shot and see what they have planned. It may work. It may not.
Click to expand...

IF it's thematically intrusive? Seriously? How could it be anything BUT?
 
wdwgreek

wdwgreek

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
clemmo said:
Sorry if i missed this but is there timeline for this as to when it will be finished?
Click to expand...
The rumor was that something Muppets related in going either above HoP or in or above Heritage house next door, there is no known timeline, we just know its a thing that is being considered/ potentially being installed. The other day scrims went up on the roof of HoP and several members on here confirmed it may be coming.
 
Seabasealpha1

Seabasealpha1

Well-Known Member
Well, for a split second I was going to say that I'm not surprised...they are dumping Star Wars right in Frontierland's back yard...when some kind of tie-in with Tomorrowland would've done...

But no. Just no.

Unless it's 45 mins of Sam the Eagle...Narrating HoP... in which I would find enjoyment...at least for the first couple of shows...

Though, no one can say "Teddy" like Morgan Freeman...
 
Blairnicol

Blairnicol

Well-Known Member
Tony the Tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...
I like this guy
 
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
NearTheEars said:
You make some good points.

Curious if you think Mickey should be removed from town square theatre, as well as the other characters that meet in the center as they have no connection to the theme of Main Street. Your post brought that to mind.
Click to expand...

I understand from a logistics standpoint why Mickey & friends meet on Main Street. It's close to the park exit and entrance, near a RR station and makes it easy for guests to see the most popular photo opp. I'd prefer no cartoon characters on MS, but I'm willing to turn a blind eye for the Fab 5. Tinker Bell and Princesses? They belong in Fantasyland. At this point MS's theme is also very superficial and the place is really a World of Disney mall (complete with Starbucks), so it's also harder to get upset vs Liberty Square which has been more well preserved over the decades.

I feel differently about M&G vs other park offerings. They're usually off to the side, not all day and don't call too much attention to themselves. Some like Aladdin, work because they fit the broader cultural themes of their respective lands, while others like the Toy Story gang, are reaching at best. I judge them on a case by case basis, though in general think Fantasyland is the best place for them. I also, however, appreciate that realistically not all of them can be crammed into one land.
 
W

willtravel

Well-Known Member
wdwgreek said:
John Adams does have a musical 1776! I saw it at City Center last week. I hasn't been revived in a bit but it doesn't mean it won't be. The film is very good too.

Click to expand...

Yes, that movie I absolutely love. Have tape. The movie also revolves around Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and many other. But, a statement was made about Hamilton on Liberty Sq. (I would assume because of the play) and I would rather like to see John Adams on Liberty Sq. Not a lover of Hamilton. Bowing out now....
 
wdwgreek

wdwgreek

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
willtravel said:
Yes, that movie I absolutely love. Have tape. The movie also revolves around Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and many other. But, a statement was made about Hamilton on Liberty Sq. (I would assume because of the play) and I would rather like to see John Adams on Liberty Sq. Not a lover of Hamilton. Bowing out now....
Click to expand...
Oh ok! I think the comment was a joke about replacing Hall of Presidents with the musical Hamilton.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom