wannab@dis said:
Listen... let me figure out a way that you may be able to understand. There's a HUGE difference between a fan who goes to enjoy the parks, loves Disney, and wants to see it continue to succeed and a fanatic that only wants things to be created for them to enjoy and could care less whether or not it's a success.
I'm not sure I know any of those people, but the internet is a big place I guess.
Anyway, the way I see it is that Disney became the de facto rulers of the theme park world not through luck or focus groups, but because of one single fact - quality. It was a strict ethic of innovation and quality that got them to #1, and it was a retreat from those standards that got people like me a little concerned in the late 1990's.
It doesn't take much to make a little money in the amusement park game, really. Look at all the places that Walt abhored; the cheap Coney Island-type parks were huge successes back in the day. But Walt saw them as inadequate and did his own thing. Everyone thought he was crazy but he did it anyway, and it was an earthshaking success. If you had asked someone in 1954 what they would like to do on their vacation, chances are they wouldn't have described a destination like Disneyland. But Walt gave the people what they themselves didn't even know they wanted and he changed the world.
Critical Disney watchers like myself don't want Disney to spend a huge chunk of change on something that no one is interested in. We want them to take chances creatively and really put their best effort into their rides, because that's what will lead to success. We tend to believe that these rides *will* be a success, and why shouldn't we want that? Not only does it allow Disney to continue to build even greater attractions, but it proves a validation of our own beliefs.
Your conclusions and interpretations of our arguments are completely arbitrary. Where has anyone said we want to spend a lot of money on JII for something no one else wants? If you look at the pavilion now, sitting there abandoned, doesn't that somewhat indicate that the strategy the ride was under is now a failure? No one wants the ride as it stands now, so why not give our ideas a chance and really snazz it up? Give quality and excellence a shot and see if people take to it?
Why insult people who only want Disney to hold themselves to a high standard, and believe that through that they'll achieve even greater success?
If you want to measure success merely through financial means, look at the 'new Disney' of the late 90's. DCA, DSP, and the early DAK were massive failures and financial drains on the company. Where's the success there? Rides like JIYI not only threw away guest goodwill but led to rides sitting nearly empty.
Then they threw some money at DAK, added some real old-fashioned Disney magic in Everest, and voila - creative and financial success.
If you can get past your talking points and constant droning, circular logic you'll see that quality is the best way to go. And mocking people who believe that really makes no sense when you yourself have stated a desire to see an innovative new ride. Which begs the question, what is this discussion about? Why do you persist in endlessly making snide comments and belittling people who are pleased to see the return of a character they're fond of and believe it might indicate a hopeful return to old-school Disney creativity? Is this some form of trolling?
If you choose to respond to this (who am I kidding, of course you will) I ask that if you try to continue this debate you
please try and respond with some sort of cogent rebuttal of my points than some completely dismissive, ad hominem and snotty retort than takes into account nothing I have said. If you do resort to this, I'll just assume that you have taken to trolling and won't feel the imperative to reply.
wannab@dis said:
And for the record... simpleton refers to someone that doesn't use common sense or good judgement. It's not an attack other than to point out a lack of common sense.
:brick: Bollocks.
On to more pleasant pastures:
Legacy said:
Honestly, I don't think Tony Baxter has to work on it in order for Dreamfinder to be a success. I think all it takes is somebody within Imagineering who grasps the idea of Dreamfinder and they can make an idea effectively work.
I quite agree. I have faith in WDI to do this right, if the right people are put in charge and they're given the appropriate resources. I'm sure there are plenty of people at WDI who'd be stoked to be able to take a turkey like JIYI and really bring it up to spec. The concept of the ride really gives you endless possibilities, and there are already a great set of characters to work with.
Legacy said:
All it ever takes is the right story. Stitch's Great Escape had an awesome amount of potential, but lack of story killed it.
You're right, and it's misfires like this that still give me pause when new attractions are announced. Perhaps Stitch was hindered by the necessity of sticking with the Alien Encounter show infrastructure? Anyway, it was something I thought was a cool idea and was really looking forward to but it let me down bigtime. And it took away my beloved S.I.R.! I do think this is where Lasseter and Co. will help out... by keeping the focus on story at all costs (hopefully!).
Legacy said:
Just because a great name is involved or just because a character is there doesn't mean a project will be successful by any means. That's not me being a nay-sayer. That's not me trying to rain on your parade. That's just me being a realist.
This is, of course, true. I just tend to think that the fact that WDI is tapped in to the Disney zeitgeist enough to know that bringing back Dreamfinder would be a good step is in itself a sign of hope. Things like that, and bringing back Figment, show that they're at least listening even if they falter in execution (a la Figment). Still, I'd rather see a crappy ride with Dreamfinder and Figment than a crappy ride without. It at least keeps them alive as characters until they can hopefully be revived in a better format.
Of course, the rumor that sparked all this is that they'll be brought back in a ride that actually aspires to quality, so I'm in a pretty good mood about the whole idea right now.
