I think 'theatrical dilapidated' (did I coin a term?) is a very effective design technique, used brilliantly by WDI in many places, including the ones you mentioned (PotC Paris, Animal Kingdom) and huge portion of DisneySea. Personally, I think overly-pristine or lack-of-aging can be a design weakness in many places.
I agree as a general matter, but I do think that often an overly pristine or lack-of-aging look is a design weakness where themed structures are concerned precisely because we inherently think of the underlying architecture on which the theming is based as aged and non-pristine. That is, most theme park consumers who live in places like the U.S. (an exceedingly young nation, relatively speaking) know -- or at least think of -- "exotic" and "foreign" places as inherently "old" and bearing at least some of the visual hallmarks of that age. Something that looks too new can therefore give the impression of being "fake," even if the specific building, or general type of architecture, being copied doesn't itself appear on the verge of crumbling into ruin.
In other words, sometimes you have to make something look unlike itself, in order for a viewer to think that it looks precisely like itself.
Additionally, I think the quality of execution can affect how well an "aged" or "pristine" piece of themed architecture comes off. A building that is ineptly aged can immediately read as ersatz, and thus fail at furthering a guest's suspension of disbelief. Correspondingly, an impeccably executed structure, with finishes and materials that come across as genuine and not just plaster and cement, can come across as substantially more convincing within its given setting.
But getting back to a reason I think some criticism is being leveled at Paris' PotC: my experience in Paris is that the weather, light and upkeep (typically much worse than in the U.S.) can have a profound effect on one's experience. On a purely-design level (in great weather, light, upkeep & staffing), DLP is unsurpassed as MK-styles go, but I can see how grey, cold weather, unintentional (non-theatrical) aging and dilapidation, maintenance neglect, etc., can make it feel less appealing to some.
This ties into one of the points I made in my post about DLP's Big Thunder.
A theme park's designers need to take into consideration every aspect of the environment in designing their park; this is equally true with regard to emotional effects as it is for practical considerations. Just as a theme park built somewhere that gets a lot of rain (or a lot of sun) needs to have a correspondingly greater number of covered queues and interior areas, so too does a park situated somewhere that's often grey and cold need to take the general weather "palette" into consideration.
In other words, one should make the extra effort that one's themed environments don't contribute to or exacerbate guests' conscious or subconscious feelings of gloominess/depression due to the fact that it's been overcast and raining the entirety of their week-long vacation and they can't even remember what blue skies looked like.
I'm not saying that your entire park needs to be awash with bright, primary and pastel colors -- even when it's thematically inappropriate -- just that particular care needs to be made when employing things like color choices and theatrical dilapidation, to ensure that the right balance is struck between guests' emotional comfort and the park's integrity of theming.
^Think we typed at the same time and its very interesting we both mentioned weather & light as having a significant effect... you've got me thinking that the cheerier color schemes and Frontierland tone of WDW could be more effective in drearier Paris and vice versa (more realism in WDW). Does the assessment include the now extinct (from both? all?) shaking, falling rock cavern... losing that centerpiece effect room is a major loss for the attraction that should have been replaced with a new effect or kept on.
Yup... and I was composing this second post just as you were typing your second one! (I'm just editing this part into what I originally wrote.) My recollection, from my first visit to DLP, was that DLP's Big Thunder's falling rock cavern was more impressive on the whole than WDW's.
Of course, it's been so long since I've experienced both rides with fully-functioning caverns that it's hard to say. I do think that that scene is integral to the "Big Thunder Mountain" experience, and I hope that some manner of falling/shaking rocks gets added back to all the versions of the ride that don't currently have it.
And I would welcome a more realistic-feeling Big Thunder at the Magic Kingdom... with the intrusion of Splash Mountain (the worst thematic placement for a terrific attraction in any Disney park), it's not like Big Thunder feels that connected to the rest of Frontierland anyway.
