Would you lock Disneyland in its 1989 state?

[Baloo124]

But you also have to consider it would be such a breath of fresh air from the rest of your life that you would crave that change of pace from modern day Los Angeles or wherever else one might be from.

This, absolutely. If you're talking about life in general, I doubt you'll find a person alive who wouldn't prefer less stressful and less demanding times of yesteryear. No matter if you're young, old, in between, everyone seems more stressed and rushed in the present climate of society.

The big thing with the topic of DL, when DCA opened, despite the negative feedback of its early years, it still added a lot. The absence of it would be apparent and felt easily if we were to go back when its grounds were concrete parking spaces. The opening of Cars Land iced the cake of that park, and delivered what it needed to iron out the rocky start. If I had only one time period to stick to as far as all of DL, it would be just after Cars Land opened, World of Color was new, before the Pixar Pier takeover, etc. DL park would already have Indy, Toontown, Fantasmic. The crowds wouldn't be 80s unfortunately, but at least it wouldn't be like today.

 

[mickEblu]

This, absolutely. If you're talking about life in general, I doubt you'll find a person alive who wouldn't prefer less stressful and less demanding times of yesteryear. No matter if you're young, old, in between, everyone seems more stressed and rushed in the present climate of society.

The big thing with the topic of DL, when DCA opened, despite the negative feedback of it's early years, it still added a lot. The absence of it would be apparent and felt easily if we were to go back when its grounds were concrete parking spaces. The opening of Cars Land iced the cake of that park, and delivered what it needed to iron out the rocky start. If I had only one time period to stick to as far as all of DL, it would be just after Cars Land opened, World of Color was new, before the Pixar Pier takeover, etc. DL park would already have Indy, Toontown, Fantasmic. The crowds wouldn't be 80s unfortunately, but at least it wouldn't be today.

DCA did add a lot. It’s the second best park in California and there’s a pretty sizeable gap between it and USH in third place. Now, I do think that it’s a little lacking without a park hopper but that should be fixed soon if they do everything they said they would at D23. And 2016 was a great time for both parks even if the crowds were insane but the ability to time travel into a super chill 1989 Disneyland and still have most of iconic attractions can’t be beat.

Now I ask myself how far back would I go? I wouldn’t freeze it in the 50’s. But might be tempted to freeze it in the late 60s / early 70s. Or would the desire to meet Walt be so great that I would freeze it in 1965 meaning you’ll never ride POTC or Mansion again.

 

[Rich T]

Compared to what the park is like today, I would absolutely lock it in at 1989.

If the park experience had actually improved since then, I’d say let it keep changing. But it has, IMO, devolved into a far less satisfying experience.

And this is not mere nostalgia. This is eyes-wide-open awareness, a preference for good value and original non-IP creations, plus my genuine disinterest in what the Walt Disney Company has become and what it offers up these days.

There would have to be limitations to make it work, such as a tighter cap on park capacity and an end to annual passes. I’d say the trade off would be worth it.

I still, however, would greenlight the 2nd park (a GREAT park instead of that thing that got built) and Downtown Disney. Let the 2nd Park evolve and experiment all it wants. People would still probably find it inferior to DL, but that would keep the fresh ideas coming to the resort.

Walt didn’t want DL to be a museum, but I think he’d prefer museum mode to what it’s become. Maybe not, but *I* can’t stand what the Disney park experience has become, and this is my poll answer.

 

[mickEblu]

I’m curious for some of the people voting No - if you are old enough to have experienced Disneyland in 1989? Otherwise I can see how the attachment to the current park and its attraction roster would be too great to consider losing some of that stuff for better guest experience and some older attractions you may have neve experienced.

 

[mickEblu]

Compared to what the park is like today, I would absolutely lock it in at 1989.

If the park experience had actually improved since then, I’d say let it keep changing. But it has, IMO, devolved into a far less satisfying experience.

And this is not mere nostalgia. This is eyes-wide-open awareness, a preference for good value and original non-IP creations, plus my genuine disinterest in what the Walt Disney Company has become and what it offers up these days.

There would have to be limitations to make it work, such as a tighter cap on park capacity and an end to annual passes. I’d say the trade off would be worth it.

I still, however, would greenlight the 2nd park (a GREAT park instead of that thing that got built) and Downtown Disney. Let the 2nd Park evolve and experiment all it wants. People would still probably find it inferior to DL, but that would keep the fresh ideas coming to the resort.

Walt didn’t want DL to be a museum, but I think he’d prefer museum mode to what it’s become. Maybe not, but *I* can’t stand what the Disney park experience has become, and this is my poll answer.

Agree. This is way more than nostalgia. No limitations would be necessary though as it would forever be time locked in 1989. Not just the park but the year too. The Dodgers always won the World Series last year when you step inside. The Last Crusade is always a brand new movie.

 

[Rich T]

Agree. This is way more than nostalgia. No limitations would be necessary though as it would forever be time locked in 1989. Not just the park but the year too. The Dodgers always won the World Series last year when you step inside. The Last Crusade is always a brand new movie.

No cell phones? No instagram? No vloggers? Count me in!

Oh wait… that means the park burgers would taste like they used to… (shrugs) … worth the trade off.

 

[Baloo124]

The Dodgers always won the World Series last year when you step inside.

The way things are going... you may be prophesying about now into the next decade.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Compared to what the park is like today, I would absolutely lock it in at 1989.

If the park experience had actually improved since then, I’d say let it keep changing. But it has, IMO, devolved into a far less satisfying experience.

And this is not mere nostalgia. This is eyes-wide-open awareness, a preference for good value and original non-IP creations, plus my genuine disinterest in what the Walt Disney Company has become and what it offers up these days.

There would have to be limitations to make it work, such as a tighter cap on park capacity and an end to annual passes. I’d say the trade off would be worth it.

I still, however, would greenlight the 2nd park (a GREAT park instead of that thing that got built) and Downtown Disney. Let the 2nd Park evolve and experiment all it wants. People would still probably find it inferior to DL, but that would keep the fresh ideas coming to the resort.

Walt didn’t want DL to be a museum, but I think he’d prefer museum mode to what it’s become. Maybe not, but *I* can’t stand what the Disney park experience has become, and this is my poll answer.

Right. I was gonna say- if it was Disneyland as it stood in like 2012 I'd say no way.

But Disneyland now? I'd take '89 in a heartbeat.

Losing Indy would suck but we'd get the OG Star Tours, Eo, Pirates before the changes, CBJ, Mansion year round and pre Constance. Small World without the Disney characters. Peoplemover.

We'd also have the higher grooming standards, service standards, and maintenance standards.

 

[shambolicdefending]

I notably remember my parents complaining about how different Disney was in the late 80s and 90s compared to before. They didn't like "all the changes."

Somewhere on whatever social media is predominant in the year 2060, there will be a yet another thread started by a middle-aged keyboard jockey, debating whether Disneyland is better then, or if everyone would prefer it back in its "golden age" of the 2020s. "Before all the changes..."

 

[Consumer]

I like Indiana Jones Adventure too much. I'd happily lock Disneyland in 1995. Honestly, what has been added since then that's worth the sacrifices made? As much as I love the Hungry Bear signage and the waterfalls along the Rivers of America, they're hardly justification to allow for the existence of Star Wars land or Tiana's. Give me the Country Bear Jamboree and the original Star Tours.

 

[Touchdown]

No, I also very much enjoy the upgrades to the parade route and firework projections. I also prefer the newer shows.

 

[Rich T]

I notably remember my parents complaining about how different Disney was in the late 80s and 90s compared to before. They didn't like "all the changes."

Somewhere on whatever social media is predominant in the year 2060, there will be a yet another thread started by a middle-aged keyboard jockey, debating whether Disneyland is better then, or if everyone would prefer it back in its "golden age" of the 2020s. "Before all the changes..."

I’m sure the Disney parks, if they still exist in 2060 and keep following the same path, do indeed stand a chance of being an even worse value and a more upcharge-packed, dumbed-down, no-original-ideas experience than they are today. Wheeee!

I also can imagine a possible rewording for the entry plaques:

“Here you Leave the World of Originality, History and Variety and Enter The Worlds of Cartoons, More Cartoons, Reservations and Upcharges. Loan Applications Available.”

Seriously, if you never experienced what DL and WDW used to be like, all I can do is say there is a monumental difference in the interests and goals of the current leadership compared to the people who created DL, MK and original Epcot. I know whose approach gave me the most value and the most originality.

 

[mickEblu]

In reality, who would really have the will power to turn down the opportunity to time travel? I think most people would do it for that reason alone even if they had to “sacrifice” Disneyland being locked in 1989 forever. Also, remember you re not time traveling to 1989. Only 1989 Disneyland when you step inside the gates. You still live in 2025. This is very different. If you were going back to 1989 in general you wouldn’t appreciate the better customer service, lower crowds and overall better guest experience because it would be normal and you’d have no idea how bad it can get.

 

[Centauri Space Station]

I think 1995 would be the ideal year with both indy and peoplemover still around. Add in 2012 DCA and it would be unbeatable.

 

[Disney Irish]

It’s interesting, the people voting yes are typically the ones that mostly want to turn DL into a museum while the people voting no are typically the ones who are against that.

I for myself voted no, as I was there and while the “newness” of things like Splash, CaptainEo, and ST would be there it would feel very stale and boring after awhile with nothing new ever coming again.

Posters deride some of the new offerings coming out of Disney today,, but yet hope for something to blow their socks off. If you want to just stick with the past, then don’t look at anything even rumored for the future ever again.

 

[mickEblu]

Posters deride some of the new offerings coming out of Disney today,, but yet hope for something to blow their socks off. If you want to just stick with the past, then don’t look at anything even rumored for the future ever again.

This is one of the most logical things you have ever said. So if I understand correctly, essentially you are saying “if you don’t like what Disney has been doing lately and prefer what they have done in the past don’t ever hope for something better in the future.” I like it. Makes sense.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is one of the most logical things you have ever said. So if I understand correctly, essentially you are saying “if you don’t like what Disney has been doing lately and prefer what they have done in the past don’t ever hope for something better in the future.” I like it. Makes sense.

Lol, I've said many logical things here, you just haven't agreed with them.

But yeah basically if you rather live in the past, be my guest, many people around the world are happy just looking to and living in the past. But then don't come here talking about future projects as if you're excited by them. Personally I rather look to the future with hope while living in the present and honoring the past but learning from it.

 

[mickEblu]

Lol, I've said many logical things here, you just haven't agreed with them.

But yeah basically if you rather live in the past, be my guest, many people around the world are happy just looking to and living in the past. But then don't come here talking about future projects as if you're excited by them. Personally I rather look to the future with hope while living in the present and honoring the past but learning from it.

Lol I was being facetious. That comment or logic don’t make any sense.

 

[Disney Irish]

Lol I was being facetious. That comment or logic don’t make any sense.

Yes I'm aware you were being sarcastic which is why I said LOL. But commented on the rest to expand upon my position.

You like Disneyland a certain way from a certain time period, hence this thread. Nothing wrong with that, that is your comfortable "version". But as some of us have commented on, its not all sunshine and roses as its stuck, not moving forward, stale, no future. This is why this idea of turning Disneyland into a museum that is never changing is often not realistic as it means never getting anything new. And while some might be ok with that, based on their disgust for recent Disneyland changes, that means you never get the possibility of anything great ever again. Always stuck in the past and never looking toward the future, that is the exact opposite of Walt's vision for the Parks.

 

[mickEblu]

Yes I'm aware you were being sarcastic which is why I said LOL. But commented on the rest to expand upon my position.

You like Disneyland a certain way from a certain time period, hence this thread. Nothing wrong with that, that is your comfortable "version". But as some of us have commented on, its not all sunshine and roses as its stuck, not moving forward, stale, no future. This is why this idea of turning Disneyland into a museum that is never changing is often not realistic as it means never getting anything new. And while some might be ok with that, based on their disgust for recent Disneyland changes, that means you never get the possibility of any great ever again. Always stuck in the past and never looking toward the future, that is the exact opposite of Walt's vision for the Parks.

This is ignoring the specifics about the scenario I presented.

I truly believe that at least 3/4th of the people that voted “no” would not be able to resist the opportunity to time travel. No matter what ride(s) it cost them. For most who voted “no” I think is more of an ideological vote based on what they value when it comes to Disneyland and not what they would actually do if this offer was presented to them in real life. This is a good example of how surveys and polls can be garbage.