Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
unlike real life, you can anytime block someone who insults you or as a problem with you.
There are also moderators to deal with that kind of problems.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Spirited Back Nine ...
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
There are also moderators to deal with that kind of problems.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, by the time that happens the damage has already been done.
PrincessNelly_NJ
Well-Known Member
So... Um... In other Disney related news, did anyone see the new addition to the Peter Pan queue opened?
You now travel through the Darling's house.
It looks really good, IMO.
You now travel through the Darling's house.
It looks really good, IMO.
stevehousse
Well-Known Member
Where r there pictures at?
truecoat
Well-Known Member
My guess is that if it was in Epcot, people would be raving.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
As long as you recognize that's for you, as you said - and not how the average guest or the general public sees it.
No "normal" person goes to DHS and says that "oh that was a thematic mess!" or even really cares about things on such a macro level like that. Sure, it can be argued that they benefit from it without even knowing, but it's simply not a priority or even registers to most guests.
They want fun, interesting, innovative attractions. They could care less how they are arranged, that's all icing. Those are fan concerns, not guest concerns. If DHS had a half-dozen new remarkable and impressive attractions, that would satisfy guests and they wouldn't care if they fit in with some esoteric theme.
The whole "this belongs in X-park" thing and the "theme issues are most important" is an enthusiast notion, not a practical one that reflects most guests. It's like someone who goes to great lengths to set a magnificent holiday dinner table, spares no expense or effort in having the best dishes and utensils, centerpiece, everything grandly themed - and then serving McDonalds on it. (Welcome to AK...) It's putting the cart before the horse. Sure, is it nice to have things all following some central theme? Yes, but in reality - Disney parks have never really developed that way, in spite of the push in the 80's and 90's (when most of us became fans) of the notion when WDI were seen as God-like that never really was the reality.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Sorry, still really disagree with that notion.
I never found it boring, but all one has to do is look back at the Unofficial Guide's of the time which pointed out that it was best to go to Epcot before MK so kids didn't expect the same kind of entertainment at Epcot and weren't disappointed.
While I loved the long, extensive dark rides - and while some say it's reputation is an "internet myth" - I think saying it wasn't considered such for folks with younger children is revisionist history.
Disney didn't start things like the WS Character Bus just a few years in to Epcot because there was no demand.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
And that's a huge part of the problem. The types of shows you see at Disney are now everywhere in life. They aren't special anymore for the most part. I mean, how impressive is a 7-minute 3-D movie when someone can go and see a full-length 3-D movie any old day at home. Bring a water spritzer with you and there you go.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
And that's a huge part of the problem. The types of shows you see at Disney are now everywhere in life. They aren't special anymore for the most part. I mean, how impressive is a 7-minute 3-D movie when someone can go and see a full-length 3-D movie any old day at home. Bring a water spritzer with you and there you go.
That's one of my beefs with the new Hitchhiking Ghosts in HM. They LOOK like what they are - a mere projection on a screen. Lamer even than the scrims in that Nemo ride. The original Hitchhiking Ghosts effect was simple but very convincing. I wish to heck TDO would bring it back.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
People may talk bout attractions and be their immediate focus, but if it truly was the only concern then many other parks would be doing far better in attracting people.
spacemt354
Chili's
I disagree. Theme is of importance in "theme" parks, such as WDW, Uni, DL, etc. What you are referring to are amusement parks such as Six Flags. Two completely different things.
At Six Flags, a cohesive theme is not as important as the rides themselves. At amusement parks, it is icing on the cake that some attractions are themed to fit the surrounding areas. That's because detail and themes are not as important as thrill and fun in those amusement parks.
Why do you think Cars Land, WWoHP, and Diagon Alley have been so popular? Sure, a factor will be the innovative attractions, but another factor most definitely is the detailed surrounding landscape. The average "theme" park guest is not simply looking to go from ride to ride, not caring what is in between. They will care about the theme. In fact just last trip we took family members who had not been down to Florida in some time. The last time they were at DHS was in the 90s (when it was called MGM) I would call them average theme park guests because they don't go down very often and aren't up to date on every new thing in the parks. Even they were commenting on the lack of cohesiveness in DHS. Other than Sunset, they felt the rest of the park was simply a mess and needed to be broken up into lands.
When we took them to Diagon Alley though....completely different story.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
You've said this before and it doesn't make sense to me.
If that were the case, then AK would have driven attendance at WDW through the roof. It's by far the most intricately themed park in the nation.
Presentation definitely has some impact, but it's no good if it doesn't serve as a backdrop/enhancement to the meat of the experience - it's like making a cake with 1" of cake and 10" of frosting on top of it.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
No, I'm not talking about amusement parks. Thanks, but I've known the difference since you were in diapers.
I'm disagreeing with the notion that you put forth that the overall theme of THE PARK ITSELF is the most paramount concern. It's not.
Sure, I too know folks who have gone to the Potter-LANDS and been impressed with them without being able to ride the attractions. I didn't say every ride should be thrown up bare-bones and that's it.
But the notion that the overall park itself has to have a greater, specific theme that all those individual lands ties into is what I am discussing. Most people don't go to WDW with that even on their radar, much less a priority. I've never met one that wasn't on a board like this.
It's really an absurd notion to think that folks don't pay thousands of bucks to go to WDW primarily to experience attractions. That's why they are called "attractions". If theme and cohesiveness at the macro park level was of the most importance to anyone but theme park enthusiasts on message boards, AK would be the most visited park in the country.
spacemt354
Chili's
No, I'm not talking about amusement parks. Thanks, but I've known the difference since you were in diapers.
I'm disagreeing with the notion that you put forth that the overall theme of THE PARK ITSELF is the most paramount concern. It's not.
Sure, I too know folks who have gone to the Potter-LANDS and been impressed with them without being able to ride the attractions. I didn't say every ride should be thrown up bare-bones and that's it.
But the notion that the overall park itself has to have a greater, specific theme that all those individual lands ties into is what I am discussing. Most people don't go to WDW with that even on their radar, much less a priority. I've never met one that wasn't on a board like this.
It's really an absurd notion to think that folks don't pay thousands of bucks to go to WDW primarily to experience attractions. That's why they are called "attractions". If theme and cohesiveness at the macro park level was of the most importance to anyone but theme park enthusiasts on message boards, AK would be the most visited park in the country.
You're not understanding. Let me try again.
First off, my initial statement about DHS addresses the need for both thematic re-representation of the park (ie cohesive lands, a better overall message) AND the addition of new, innovative attractions within those lands.
You seem to have forgotten the last part of my statement and (incorrectly) have been claiming that I think the only thing that matters is theme. No, nobody has said that. However, what people have said is theme is not some secondary thought. It is close to if not as important in "theme parks" as the attractions themselves.
That's why your analogy of Animal Kingdom doesn't work because, as I had said earlier, Animal Kingdom needs more attractions to flesh out its spectacular theme.
It's not simply attractions or theme. It's both.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Intricate theme is not the same as interesting theme. A lot of Disney's Animal Kingdom is dense vegetation and is therefore lacking in notable place, the same problem with the intricate theming present at Chester and Hester's Dino-Rama or even the original Paradise Pier. The park also opened up in a rather saturated market where, until very recent, a lot of growth was a zero-sum game. The meat of the Disney's Animal Kingdom experience is also built around spontaneous exploration, a concept that Walt Disney World has actively, and ever more aggressively, sought to suppress. Even with all of that going against, it still does far better than a lot more parks with more attractions.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I understand you perfectly. I simply disagree.
Your exact statement was, "That's why, for me, if any park needs improvement it's DHS because of the thematic mess it's in."
That statement makes it sound like it is the most important thing. That being a "thematic mess" is what the problem is.
It's not.
But I know, no amount of discussing this on a message board of enthusiasts is going to convince you otherwise. You either live inside the theme park enthusiast bubble, or you visit the bubble but understand the world outside of it. When you do look outside of it, you realize that if DHS did nothing at all but add a couple of E-tickets and built out some smaller rides, more folks would come. Folks aren't going to say, "Oh, I'm not going because that ride doesn't fit into the theme of the park." But they are saying "I'm not going because there aren't enough attractions to experience".
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Yes, because it's in the middle of WDW and most folks already have tickets that include it.
If it were a lone park in the middle of the country, like the "lot more parks" you keep referencing, it would have closed within a few years or been re-purposed.
We also know now that the "saturated market" thing was a complete fallacy - particularly since, at the worst economic time since the Great Depression, Universal was able to prove it false. Had WDW built another park, or filled AK with exciting attractions, that falsehood would have never happened and especially during the cushy economic time in which it opened it would have expanded the audience. It didn't, because of the focus on theme vs. attractions.
spacemt354
Chili's
No, you don't understand perfectly. The actual statement that you quoted from me was:
Please refer to the bolded part of the quote. The final line that you keep addressing was regarding the conversation at that time, as to which park (DHS or DAK) needed more help. Since they are both in need of attractions, I suggested that DHS needed more help (compared to DAK) because not only did it need more attractions, but it also needs help with its themes.
Please do your research before quoting somebody.
tirian
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying the original EPCOT Center on opening day as perfect (it wasn't!); I'm saying that many kids enjoyed it when they visited. It might have been 1982, 1991, or 1995.Sorry, still really disagree with that notion.
I never found it boring, but all one has to do is look back at the Unofficial Guide's of the time which pointed out that it was best to go to Epcot before MK so kids didn't expect the same kind of entertainment at Epcot and weren't disappointed.
While I loved the long, extensive dark rides - and while some say it's reputation is an "internet myth" - I think saying it wasn't considered such for folks with younger children is revisionist history.