WDW Awakens ...

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Cars Land was great when I saw it. The rest of DCA was, nice, I guess. Some pretty fun rides though. More than any non-MK park in Florida. The other big project of the big redo, Buena Vista Street? The combo of Hollywood and Sunset Blvds. in DHS is much better. We don't have the Trolley though.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
The fact that Iger learned entirely the wrong lesson from Cars Land is well documented.
How did he learn the wrong lesson? Even you just called that whole project a positive. And now another part of the park is getting a similar treatment to very little disdain.

The other big project of the big redo, Buena Vista Street? The combo of Hollywood and Sunset Blvds. in DHS is much better. We don't have the Trolley though.
That Buena Vista Street doesn't have people seething amazes me. The entire land supposes a fictional world in which Walt Disney is a plagiarist.
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
How did he learn the wrong lesson? Even you just called that whole project a positive. And now another part of the park is getting a similar treatment to very little disdain.
The lesson Iger should have taken away is that creating compelling environments that take you to another world would equal success. The lesson he did take away is that he thinks it's only successful because it's a tie-in to a popular BRAND.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
The most blatant would be Oswald. Buena Vista Street is the mid-1920s, which would be before Oswald's debut in 1927. So according to Buena Vista Street the name and character design of Oswald were created by a gas station and not Walt Disney. The land is completely overlaid with such direct references that are supposed to be "inspiration."

The lesson Iger should have taken away is that creating compelling environments that take you to another world would equal success. The lesson he did take away is that he thinks it's only successful because it's a tie-in to a popular BRAND.
Except people gush over all of the branding.
 
Last edited:

HMF

Well-Known Member
Every project that has happened during your "Renaissance" of the last decade has been branded.
There isn't anything necessarily wrong with branding as long as it's not hitting you over the head with it and it's not at the expense of creativity.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
There isn't anything necessarily wrong with branding as long as it's not hitting you over the head with it and it's not at the expense of creativity.
It was at the expense of creativity. There is little in the way of strong placemaking and a lot of contradiction. But people were in love with the shine and expense. Now we are where the road was always heading. It just wasn't noticed because the shiny new thing is always better and a lot of what was recently ripped apart was not much loved (not to say love was deserved). It was all okay because they were Pressler projects, lulling people into the false belief that change was afoot and completely oblivious that Pressler is still a standard to attain.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Disneyland has always been 90%+ branded from its inception.

Have we reached such levels of snobbery that something branded must inherently be awful and rejected?
It's not snobbery. When you shoehorn properties into areas where they don't really belong to meet your synergy quota, then there's a problem.

Iger era Disney has been very consistent on this, franchise trumps all regardless of consequence. The only non-IP attractions to open at the parks have been Mystic Manor and Big Grizzly Mountain at HKDL because they wanted unique rides for their park.
(Roarin' Rapids doesn't count yet because SDL hasn't opened yet.)
 
Last edited:

Filby61

Well-Known Member
Disneyland has always been 90%+ branded from its inception.

That's historically untrue. From Disneyland's opening day through its first 30 years, non-branded attractions were 'way more than 50% of all attractions. (Seriously. Count 'em.) Branded attractions were largely confined to Fantasyland. And even then they stood as their own entities, adapted from Disney movies to the new entertainment form of Disneyland -- not paint-by-number promotions of whatever was currently hot at the box office.

Walt-era Disneyland certainly used brand synergy, but not at the expense of the main show, which was Disneyland itself. Examples abound, from the inclusion of an Alice in Wonderland ride (even though the movie didn't do well) and exclusion of a Cinderella ride (even though the movie was a huge hit), to a Frontierland with very little presence of Davy Crockett (a mega-hit at the time). And all of the most famous, iconic attractions of that era were non-IP (Mark Twain, Jungle Cruise, Rocket to the Moon, Monorail, Submarines, Tiki Room, Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Small World, Space Mountain, the list goes on).

It wasn't until the advent of Eisner and his "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides" business model that the IP saturation bombing began. His successors continue it to this day, with the jamming of Star Wars Land like an oversize suppository into Disneyland's west side.
 
Last edited:

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
(Seriously. Count 'em.)

Alright, I definitely exaggerated. Although my final tally of opening day attractions associated with some sort of brand is 83%. The only opening day rides not attached are Autotopia and the Railroad. Even Jungle Cruise harkens to Disney True Nature Films.

Things definitely got a lot better throughout the years with all the attractions you mentioned and they were definitely more subtle about it. IP is now in-vogue. We can thank Potter and Carsland for that.

My comment really was against the weird rant on Buena Vista Street, which totally lost me. There is such a thing as overthinking it.
 

Filby61

Well-Known Member
I know this isn't the frozenstrom thread but just had to post this pic from twitter (EPCOT Explorer), for me it is a perfect snapshot of what is wrong at WDW.
Cgaxg2bWsAA1n46.jpg


The saddest thing about that pathetic piece of work is what it represents in terms of the values of the corporate hierarchy behind it: from the people who created it, to the people who approved it, to the people who hired them, to the people who hired the people who hired them... and all the way up.
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
Alright, I definitely exaggerated. Although my final tally of opening day attractions associated with some sort of brand is 83%. The only opening day rides not attached are Autotopia and the Railroad. Even Jungle Cruise harkens to Disney True Nature Films.

Things definitely got a lot better throughout the years with all the attractions you mentioned and they were definitely more subtle about it. IP is now in-vogue. We can thank Potter and Carsland for that.

My comment really was against the weird rant on Buena Vista Street, which totally lost me. There is such a thing as overthinking it.

Some nits...

Canal Boats of the World wasn't IP, it was dirt and weeds. The miniature Disney buildings didn't come until 1956. And the original Main Street Cinema showed clips from silent movies, not Mickey cartoons. I guess the movies themselves have brands, so you would never be able to have a non-branded cinema, but they weren't associated with the Disney Studio, which I think was the larger point? According to Davelandblog for the first year they played a 1915 film called "Dealing for Daisy," which also went by the name Mr. "Silent" Hawkins. Mickey didn't bust his way in until the 80s.

Oh, and the Main Street Vehicles.
 
Last edited:

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

Back
Top Bottom