The Muppets Present… Great Moments in American History'

[Tony the Tigger]

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.

I can only assume you didn't read much, because none of that is being proposed.

 

[RSoxNo1]

This screams Tiki Room Under New Management. An attempt to revitalize something that may not be drawing as well as they'd like. These ideas never work.

 

[Little Green Men]

I haven't been able to read every post, but where does it say the muppets are going in HoP? Is there a definitive place where the muppets are proposed to go or is it just muppets somewhere in Liberty Square?

 

[Magenta Panther]

This screams Tiki Room Under New Management. An attempt to revitalize something that may not be drawing as well as they'd like. These ideas never work.

That crossed my mind too. Only this is much worse. The inclusion of Iago (worst-looking Disney-built AA ever) and Zazu at least kept the attraction bird-themed. Nonetheless, the new show was VERY bad, not funny, and not in the least "enchanting". This Muppet idea trumps the Tiki Room mistake - it doesn't fit the venue in the least, whatever TDO might be thinking, and violates and cheapens the attraction's reason for being. I hope to God it doesn't happen, even temporarily.

As for the idea that the Muppets would "help" the attraction's attendance...well, I think that's debatable, since (arguably) they're not much of a draw in their own attraction in DHS. They certainly weren't in Disneyland, which is why they were replaced with a much-better-attended Frozen show.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

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.

First, thank you for responding politely and respectfully. That seems rare around here.

Re: putting attraction where it doesn't "belong." I get it, to a point. People and businesses have to make decisions all the time that might not be 100% exactly the way they would want it if money/time/etc. were no object. Compromise in the real world (and even in Disney World) is sometimes necessary and unavoidable.

And while I do get the idea of continuity, it's also a bit overemphasized here, IMO. What do I care if Dumbo is too close to Aladdin? Are we as guests supposed to overanalyze every decision to determine if its worthy of Walt? What does Mickey's Philharmagic have to do with anything near it? When I'm walking through MK, the last thing I'm worrying about is what attraction matches the attraction next to it.

It's grouped into lands, great. Those lands have some general theme tying things together, brilliant. But let's not lose sight of the fun part in favor of nit-picking that the Haunted Mansion is just steps from Peter Pan. I genuinely don't understand how folks get so upset about what I consider little things. Could Sam The Eagle introduce a historic Disney film on TV? Sure. He can do the same at MK and I won't cry about continuity. MK is a show. All this does is acknowledge that the HoP is a Disney Show, and not PBS.

And I do notice when things are out of place! LOL. There was a soldier in It's A small World with one arm not beating the drum. Next time we went, I looked for it and it was fixed. It was just something I noticed. Not a complaint, not a "Disney is going downhill."

But Sam the Eagle barking from overhead that the next HoP show starts in 10 minutes - no, that won't ruin the illusion for me.

I don't see Epcot getting characters as a "thematic break," perhaps because I never took Epcot seriously as a replica of Europe/the World. Let's go over to Italy and see if anyone dresses like they dress in the Epcot Italy shops.

It's all a well-intentioned historical caricature.

How does adding Disney characters to a Disney show about the countries of the world break the theme? If anything, it makes the theme more accessible. One might have zero interest in France, but might be drawn in by the funny rat from the cartoon movie. And then, you know what? That may be the first step in learning an appreciation for France.

Quote: "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."

I don't think they're incapable at all. I don't think that should necessarily be the goal. I don't think that goal has any greater merit with or without the characters from Frozen. I do think, in a very practical way, The Frozen will attract more people to Norway who otherwise wouldn't bother. And while the story of Frozen may not tell the story of Norway, they certainly CAN use the characters from Frozen to tell the story of Norway. (We still haven't seen it yet, right?!)

Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, as they say.

But Disney has no obligation to educate. Or to be realistic, for that matter. That's a side bonus when it happens. Their purpose is to entertain, and to provide a safe and welcoming place for that entertainment - and to make money.

I still go to the HoP, probably not every trip. I appreciate it for various reasons - the technical aspects, the new additions & changes, the patriotic flair. I don't go to learn about the Presidents. There are better avenues for that. But I'm in no way scared of something that has been specifically described as "above" the HoP that is meant to in some way enhance the experience.

 

[Magenta Panther]

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.

I'll wait to judge this move until I see what they've actually come up with. I'm hoping this is a small supplement, and will not overpower the theme of the land.

Mickey and company belong on Main Street because Main Street is a portrayal and celebration of Walt Disney's small-town Midwestern childhood. And since Walt was behind the creation of Mickey Mouse...how does he not fit in?

 

[NearTheEars]

Mickey and company belong on Main Street because Main Street is a portrayal and celebration of Walt Disney's small-town Midwestern childhood. And since Walt was behind the creation of Mickey Mouse...how does he not fit in?

If Mickey were part of Walt's childhood I'd agree. But in the grand scheme of things, a giant mouse dressed as a magician and talking photos with kids doesn't scream classic American Main Street.

Much like how you have said a Muppets attraction doesn't fit with colonial America.

 

[hopemax]

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.

I would disagree with this statement. While MK's Main Street is heavily influenced by late 19th/early 20th Century America, Main Street USA is a fantasy environment that also has a purpose of welcoming visitors to a "Disney Theme Park." It's not a documentarian style of Main Street, but Disney's Main Street. Here's a picture from Disneyland 1959 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/11/entertainment/la-ca-disney-slides-20100711 . Scary Minnie, not withstanding, the walk-around characters have provided an integral part of the Disney theme park experience. They are the residents, and to use an analogy I will use late, "it is part of the recipe of the environment's success."

Fantasy can be hard to dissect. Sometimes it's really heavy on things that are unfamiliar to us, such as a genetically modified raccoon and a tree being Guardians of the Galaxy. Sometimes Fantasy is a thin veneer, differing from reality in more minor ways. I find that people have a hard time differentiating between reality and fantasy on the low end of the scale (Fantasy dialed in at 1, 2 or 3). As much as Disneyland's Main Street is modeled from Walt Disney's Marceline or Harper Goff's Fort Collins, having been to both, I can say Disney certainly took liberties in regards to the amount of architectural "gingerbread." I once got into an internet war over whether there should be an Omnibus because small towns like those would never have something like that, only the big cities. While the removal of the characters or the Omnibus might make Main Street "more authentic," they are part of the elements that make it "Disney."

Everything "Disney" is a fantastical interpretation on some level. The real difference is understanding when do you use a heavy or light hand to apply it. Much like a chef may use a heavy or a light hand of a particular herb or spice or combined with other ingredients. Take something like coriander. Someone may hate it in an curry, but love it in bread or hot chocolate. The best chefs can take ingredients that people would never think to mix together, and come up with something amazing. They know when to ramp it up or just go for hints of something that most people can't pick out, other than it tastes good. Put those same ingredients in the hands of normal people and we will likely come up with some inedible dish headed for the garbage. And sometimes taking things that are loved individually, become a mess when mixed together. Like some of those Lays potato chip contest winners that come up with a new flavor. Maybe hamburizza ice cream is a good thing. It takes a master of their craft to keep things in the necessary balance, so like what makes a good menu I don't expect too many fans to be able to determine what is or isn't in balance when it comes to theme park environments. But I do think they react and respond when in the middle of it.

In the 80's, the marketplace rejected the idea of a Disney theme park without traditional walk-arounds and so Epcot's non-traditional characters gave way to Mickey & Minnie in thematic costumes. Going with a lighter-hand than that, is practically, unlikely. But does that mean that a heavy handed approach is warranted in every circumstance? In another era, Sam the Eagle being an excited visitor in the MK's Liberty Square might be a fun addition. But I don't trust the motivation behind the inclusion, and result wise, I am learning not to expect too much either. Disney does a lot wrong now too (how's that Star Wars show?). And for a long while I've been worried that by focusing too much on beloved character-driven experiences will mean the end of non or new non-movie/TV character experiences. I think this will ultimately hurt Disney, as it succumbs to the worst stereotypes people have made about Disney (just a kiddie world, with no value). Muppets key demo are adults, not children, despite the stereotypes that accompany them and Disney. So if adults need a Muppet character to decide to hang around HoP, I'm not sure those are adults Disney should be courting. It seems just as likely to me that those types of adults won't be any more interested in a HoP show (still too educational/preachy) while at the same time generating eye rolls from the people who I see at every performance, clapping at its conclusion. The result being that Disney will decide both American History AND Muppets are not avenues worth pursuing in the future.

This comes down to what Disney, "is." I've said before, Walt's Disney was, "the world is interesting, let us put our unique style on it, and maybe you will see it to." Where today's Disney is, "Don't look at the world, only our established brands will keep you safely entertained." From a business perspective, IMO, there is far more mileage and diversity of experiences, and potential profit, available from the former. The latter, results in the continual reuse of a limited amount of source material until people are sick of it.

Some of the non-character driven attractions do need refreshing, updating in terms of tone, style, what constitutes humor, etc. If the current creative staff is having difficulty coming up with something that works, then maybe different creative people are needed. I'm not sure if you surveyed regular people, they would tell you that American History could become more interesting and accessible to people by adding hip hop/rap and a minority cast, but I've learned from this mornings posts, that it is. It just goes to show that there are avenues out there without resorting to lazy character inclusion.

 

[prfctlyximprct]

Is the scrim still up?

 

[RSoxNo1]

That crossed my mind too. Only this is much worse. The inclusion of Iago (worst-looking Disney-built AA ever) and Zazu at least kept the attraction bird-themed. Nonetheless, the new show was VERY bad, not funny, and not in the least "enchanting". This Muppet idea trumps the Tiki Room mistake - it doesn't fit the venue in the least, whatever TDO might be thinking, and violates and cheapens the attraction's reason for being. I hope to God it doesn't happen, even temporarily.

As for the idea that the Muppets would "help" the attraction's attendance...well, I think that's debatable, since (arguably) they're not much of a draw in their own attraction in DHS. They certainly weren't in Disneyland, which is why they were replaced with a much-better-attended Frozen show.

The Sigourney Weaver animatronic is offended that you didn't consider it as the worst AA Disney has built.

 

[Tay]

Not sure why they would put the Muppets there but I'm happy they're utilizing space and building more stuff with record profits.

 

[Sped2424]

I can only assume you didn't read much, because none of that is being proposed.

A show on the roof is just as awful.

 

[RSoxNo1]

First, thank you for responding politely and respectfully. That seems rare around here.

I could have been less polite, I decided not to this time.

Re: putting attraction where it doesn't "belong." I get it, to a point. People and businesses have to make decisions all the time that might not be 100% exactly the way they would want it if money/time/etc. were no object. Compromise in the real world (and even in Disney World) is sometimes necessary and unavoidable.

These decisions haven't proven to be necessary, they've proven to be lazy. This isn't an either or proposition with Frozen, it wasn't Maelstrom at $75 million or Fantasyland at $75 billion. Better options existed.

And while I do get the idea of continuity, it's also a bit overemphasized here, IMO. What do I care if Dumbo is too close to Aladdin? Are we as guests supposed to overanalyze every decision to determine if its worthy of Walt? What does Mickey's Philharmagic have to do with anything near it? When I'm walking through MK, the last thing I'm worrying about is what attraction matches the attraction next to it.

It's grouped into lands, great. Those lands have some general theme tying things together, brilliant. But let's not lose sight of the fun part in favor of nit-picking that the Haunted Mansion is just steps from Peter Pan. I genuinely don't understand how folks get so upset about what I consider little things. Could Sam The Eagle introduce a historic Disney film on TV? Sure. He can do the same at MK and I won't cry about continuity. MK is a show. All this does is acknowledge that the HoP is a Disney Show, and not PBS.

Even transitions are done deliberately at Disney World. You'll see music blend seemlessly and a bridge might transition the pavement. Trees and architectural changes help make that transition easier.

I for one am very much against the tent facades of it's a small world and Peter Pan because it feels cheap relative to other areas of the land. You and I both know that the execution of theming throughout Disney World isn't flawless but it's pretty damn good. I like when it's improved and hate when it's torn away. That's what I feel is happening in Epcot. It's a piecemeal tear down of the cohesive and logical theming of that park.

And I do notice when things are out of place! LOL. There was a soldier in It's A small World with one arm not beating the drum. Next time we went, I looked for it and it was fixed. It was just something I noticed. Not a complaint, not a "Disney is going downhill."

This isn't a debate about maintenance, but things like that happen. As long as their repaired in a timely manner, I think that's a reasonable expectation.

But Sam the Eagle barking from overhead that the next HoP show starts in 10 minutes - no, that won't ruin the illusion for me.

I definitely disagree. Now, what we've come to accept are Disney characters roaming around various lands in different outfits. I would accept the muppets as walk around characters in Liberty Square provided they're in Revolutionary War garb. That has happened at Epcot as early as '84 and it feels far less permanent to me than an actual attraction.

I don't see Epcot getting characters as a "thematic break," perhaps because I never took Epcot seriously as a replica of Europe/the World. Let's go over to Italy and see if anyone dresses like they dress in the Epcot Italy shops.

It's all a well-intentioned historical caricature.

Epcot was always grounded on some semblance of reality with the exception of the Imagination Pavilion for obvious reasons. The countries of World Showcase are intended to be idealized versions of those cultures but still grounded in reality and mythology. It's a delicate balance, but Frozen is Disney's interpretation of a Danish fairytale. While landscapes and architecture have European/Scandinavian/Norwegian influences that is the only tie.

I'm not saying they shouldn't build a Frozen ride. I'm saying they shouldn't build a Frozen ride in Epcot.

How does adding Disney characters to a Disney show about the countries of the world break the theme? If anything, it makes the theme more accessible. One might have zero interest in France, but might be drawn in by the funny rat from the cartoon movie. And then, you know what? That may be the first step in learning an appreciation for France.

If it was supposed to be that way than it would have been built that way in 1982. Pinocchio and Snow White would have had rides in Germany. Sleeping Beauty would have had a ride in France. Alice and Mary Poppins would have rides in the United Kingdom.

Quote: "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."

I don't think they're incapable at all. I don't think that should necessarily be the goal. I don't think that goal has any greater merit with or without the characters from Frozen. I do think, in a very practical way, The Frozen will attract more people to Norway who otherwise wouldn't bother. And while the story of Frozen may not tell the story of Norway, they certainly CAN use the characters from Frozen to tell the story of Norway. (We still haven't seen it yet, right?!)

I think there is still talent left in Imagineering, but I have serious questions about the decision making process. I don't think Imagineering is allowed to build the best attractions they can anymore. There's always caveats now. It's now, build the best Frozen attraction, in this show building for $75 million. Or, find the fastest way to get Guardians of the Galaxy into Hollywood Studios. Or, the Muppets aren't doing well on TV let's give them a presence in another park besides Hollywood Studios.

But Disney has no obligation to educate. Or to be realistic, for that matter. That's a side bonus when it happens. Their purpose is to entertain, and to provide a safe and welcoming place for that entertainment - and to make money.

Epcot has set the precedent for edutainment. If they're going to do away with that, then do it quicker than over a 25 year period. Don't keep Spaceship Earth as a record of human communication in a land shared by a Pixar attraction.

These decisions are lazy. These decisions are void of creativity.

I still go to the HoP, probably not every trip. I appreciate it for various reasons - the technical aspects, the new additions & changes, the patriotic flair. I don't go to learn about the Presidents. There are better avenues for that. But I'm in no way scared of something that has been specifically described as "above" the HoP that is meant to in some way enhance the experience.

American Adventure and Hall of Presidents are not attractions I visit every trip, but I visit them often enough. I would rather they be removed entirely than be cheapened by the Muppets.

I enjoy the Muppets, but they have their place as well. Now if you want to do a new concept for Muppet Movie Ride using the Muppets characters in DHS to spoof other attractions around WDW instead of just The Great Movie Ride I would be on board. In fact, I would expect the majority of the people on these boards would be on board as well.

 

[Magenta Panther]

If Mickey were part of Walt's childhood I'd agree. But in the grand scheme of things, a giant mouse dressed as a magician and talking photos with kids doesn't scream classic American Main Street.

Much like how you have said a Muppets attraction doesn't fit with colonial America.

It's not classic American Main Street. It's WALT'S Main Street. It symbolizes his humble beginnings, just like the Castle at the end symbolizes the realization of his dreams. And the creation of Mickey was the beginning of that realization.

In contrast, none of the U.S. Presidents had anything to do with the creation of the Muppets. Does that help clarify things?

 

[NearTheEars]

It's not classic American Main Street. It's WALT'S Main Street. It symbolizes his humble beginnings, just like the Castle at the end symbolizes the realization of his dreams. And the creation of Mickey was the beginning of that realization.

In contrast, none of the U.S. Presidents had anything to do with the creation of the Muppets. Does that help clarify things?

I hope you understand that I'm agreeing with you on the Muppets in LS. It's not necessary, but as I said earlier, I'll wait for at least an official description of what is planned before making final judgement.

Based on the ongoing discussion, I thought hey, Main Street celebrates Americana as well, and it has M&G characters walking the streets and in the theater. That's all. If it's blasphemy for characters to be placed in LS, why is it so dumb to at least discuss their place on MSUSA?

Yes it's Walt's Main Street, and Main Street USA has USA right in the name. So I think it absolutely does have a lot to do with a classic American Main Street. If not, then that name is quite misleading.

 

[Haymarket2008]

So a Facebook rumor and a couple "hmm maybes" is now fact? Confused by that...

 

[Magenta Panther]

I hope you understand that I'm agreeing with you on the Muppets in LS. .

I'm glad we agree on that.

 

[NearTheEars]

So a Facebook rumor and a couple "hmm maybes" is now fact? Confused by that...

The owner of this site and others with pretty good track records seem to believe there is something to this.
What's not confirmed is what it will be, only that it will not be replacing HoP.

Scrims are currently up over HoP and Heritage House. Could be nothing related, though.

 

[hopemax]

Yes it's Walt's Main Street, and Main Street USA has USA right in the name. So I think it absolutely does have a lot to do with a classic American Main Street. If not, then that name is quite misleading.

Why? Walt produced a movie called Mary Poppins, and its creator thought Walt ruined it with his "liberties." Walt made an entire career from taking "liberties" with other people's source material. Authenticity is not something that is commonly attributed to Walt Disney. The movies were labeled "Walt Disney's" Snow White or Pinocchio or Sleeping Beauty. They are like big flashing signs, "Warning, revisionism ahead because we think we can tell a better story!" Main Street USA was built in a place called Disneyland and then later a place that is part of Walt Disney World. Were they really supposed to call it Walt Disney's Main Street USA (and we think current Disney names can be a mouthful) so people wouldn't get confused with something that is historically accurate? Or shouldn't all the other ventures have been a clue? Why wouldn't anyone assume that Walt's approach to theme parks wouldn't be the same as his movies?

But despite all the liberties Walt didn't use Mickey as a barker to get people to watch Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln. They knew when to demonstrate some restraint, fantasy dialed down to the low numbers, but it was never eliminated. There was a line and other stories were worthy of being told on their own merits; not needing the crutch or gimmick of characters from outside that "world" to sell it. They created new, unseen characters to tell those stories. Obviously, the WED designers recognized that people coming to Disneyland would want to meet Mickey and his friends and they would need to find a way to make it work operationally, but that does not provide evidence that character intrusion everywhere was the key to theme park success.

 

[NearTheEars]

Why? Walt produced a movie called Mary Poppins, and its creator thought Walt ruined it with his "liberties." Walt made an entire career from taking "liberties" with other people's source material. Authenticity is not something that is commonly attributed to Walt Disney. The movies were labeled "Walt Disney's" Snow White or Pinocchio or Sleeping Beauty. They are like big flashing signs, "Warning, revisionism ahead because we think we can tell a better story!" Main Street USA was built in a place called Disneyland and then later a place that is part of Walt Disney World. Were they really supposed to call it Walt Disney's Main Street USA (and we think current Disney names can be a mouthful) so people wouldn't get confused with something that is historically accurate? Or shouldn't all the other ventures have been a clue? Why wouldn't anyone assume that Walt's approach to theme parks wouldn't be the same as his movies?

But despite all the liberties Walt didn't use Mickey as a barker to get people to watch Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln. They knew when to demonstrate some restraint, fantasy dialed down to the low numbers, but it was never eliminated. There was a line and other stories were worthy of being told on their own merits; not needing the crutch or gimmick of characters from outside that "world" to sell it. They created new, unseen characters to tell those stories. Obviously, the WED designers recognized that people coming to Disneyland would want to meet Mickey and his friends and they would need to find a way to make it work operationally, but that does not provide evidence that character intrusion everywhere was the key to theme park success.

Like I said, you have made all good points.
It's just tough to make any judgement on this when we have no idea what we are getting.
If it turns out to be something that is contained to the inside of the second floor, will it really hurt the LS theming more than say Mickey inside the theater? Who's to say restraint won't be used?

Obviously is Sam is hanging out of a window yelling, that's just unnecessary.
And, overall, I think it's a silly addition when the Muppets have their own courtyard in DHS.

Why not just bring back, and move the Fife and Drum Corps to LS if they need a new show in that land.