Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

Collapse

Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [Chat] Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

    Just food for thought, because would you still call it cloning if the attraction does exist anymore? An example: the Mickey Mouse Revue. It was originally an opening day attraction for both the Magic Kingdom Park & Tokyo Disneyland Park, but it first closed on September 14th 1980 to move to TDL, then it opened with the park three years later on April 15th 1983; but many years later, it closed on May 25th 2009 to make way for Mickey's PhilharMagic. Would you still call it "cloning" even though it does not exist anymore (as in not found in any disney park at all?)


    Timekeeper
    sigpicNow the Tower of Sauron has fallen
    Also, this picture and my Avatar was taken with a Nintendo DSi System and Nyko Magnification Lens & Case for DSi.

  • #2
    Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

    I prefer the term "bringing back from the dead." Not sure though.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

      Yeah, I would call that "restoring". Which, generally, I find much preferable to cloning.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

        Taking two steps back

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

          Originally posted by MarkTwain View Post
          Yeah, I would call that "restoring". Which, generally, I find much preferable to cloning.
          Thanks, it's just that I thought the Mickey Mouse Revue would be fine as an Attraction for DCA, with an explanation about the history of the attraction (though, I wasn't so sure if fellow micechaters would denounce and cry that as "cloning.")

          So, what other old attractions you categorize as "restoring"?


          Timekeeper
          sigpicNow the Tower of Sauron has fallen
          Also, this picture and my Avatar was taken with a Nintendo DSi System and Nyko Magnification Lens & Case for DSi.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

            Originally posted by MarkTwain View Post
            Yeah, I would call that "restoring". Which, generally, I find much preferable to cloning.
            I agree with Mark Twain that anytime an a torn down attraction is rebuilt, it is a restoration. It must also be recognized pure clones are rare. Often is the case that "cloned" and restored attractions are upgraded, and sometimes there are variences in scenes, vehicle design, track configuration. etc.
            To Boldly Go Where No MiceChatter Has Gone Before!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

              Yes it's "cloning" because your basing it on pre-exiting blueprints/designs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

                Originally posted by Timekeeper View Post
                Thanks, it's just that I thought the Mickey Mouse Revue would be fine as an Attraction for DCA, with an explanation about the history of the attraction (though, I wasn't so sure if fellow micechaters would denounce and cry that as "cloning.")

                So, what other old attractions you categorize as "restoring"?


                Timekeeper
                I don't like pulling the "not a museum" quote too much because it tends to be misused more often than not, but I think having an attraction purely as a historic piece (about in-park history) borders into turning Disneyland/Disney parks in something they shouldn't be. The highest priorities in any true theme park are, of course, theme, but guest experience is also very important. That means any additions to a theme park need to be both in-theme and also entertaining and enjoyable, and having a historic piece implies neither by default. That said, if you can revive an attraction in a way that is both in-theme and entertaining to modern audiences, then I say go for it!

                I would also say jeopardizing an attraction's entertainment value purely for historic authenticity is also something that should be avoided. I never saw the Mickey Mouse Revue, but considering it was an all-AA revue show from the 1970s, it's pretty likely that it couldn't simply be replicated exactly and expected to hold its own among modern audiences. You might consider doing something like replacing all the AAs with newer technology, featuring more familiar (but still in-theme) songs from the characters depicted, featuring new special effects, etc. That would help create a modern attraction that wouldn't rely on having to presented as a historic piece, while also remaining true to the original 1971 attraction.

                You asked about attractions I would consider successfully restored - I think the new Mr. Lincoln and Sleeping Beauty Castle are perfect examples of this. Both were redesigned artistically, and fitted with the newest technology Imagineering has to offer - but both are, for all intensive purposes, reincarnations of the original attractions. Captain EO was also revived from its original self, but wasn't changed much from the 1980s version - so it has to be presented as a historic attraction in the queue. That leads to questions about whether it fits in theme with land themed to the future, and many people that haven't seen it before don't get it. So I think that makes Sleeping Beauty Castle and Mr. Lincoln more successful restorations than Captain EO (even though all are fine attractions).

                In any case - I think you can only clone an attraction that's existing, regardless of how many changes (or lack thereof) you make when you restore an attraction.

                Just my opinion.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

                  Originally posted by MarkTwain View Post
                  I don't like pulling the "not a museum" quote too much because it tends to be misused more often than not, but I think having an attraction purely as a historic piece (about in-park history) borders into turning Disneyland/Disney parks in something they shouldn't be. The highest priorities in any true theme park are, of course, theme, but guest experience is also very important. That means any additions to a theme park need to be both in-theme and also entertaining and enjoyable, and having a historic piece implies neither by default. That said, if you can revive an attraction in a way that is both in-theme and entertaining to modern audiences, then I say go for it!

                  I would also say jeopardizing an attraction's entertainment value purely for historic authenticity is also something that should be avoided. I never saw the Mickey Mouse Revue, but considering it was an all-AA revue show from the 1970s, it's pretty likely that it couldn't simply be replicated exactly and expected to hold its own among modern audiences. You might consider doing something like replacing all the AAs with newer technology, featuring more familiar (but still in-theme) songs from the characters depicted, featuring new special effects, etc. That would help create a modern attraction that wouldn't rely on having to presented as a historic piece, while also remaining true to the original 1971 attraction.

                  You asked about attractions I would consider successfully restored - I think the new Mr. Lincoln and Sleeping Beauty Castle are perfect examples of this. Both were redesigned artistically, and fitted with the newest technology Imagineering has to offer - but both are, for all intensive purposes, reincarnations of the original attractions. Captain EO was also revived from its original self, but wasn't changed much from the 1980s version - so it has to be presented as a historic attraction in the queue. That leads to questions about whether it fits in theme with land themed to the future, and many people that haven't seen it before don't get it. So I think that makes Sleeping Beauty Castle and Mr. Lincoln more successful restorations than Captain EO (even though all are fine attractions).

                  In any case - I think you can only clone an attraction that's existing, regardless of how many changes (or lack thereof) you make when you restore an attraction.

                  Just my opinion.
                  Thanks. Well, I have an Idea of ether to put The Mickey Mouse Revue where Goofy's Sky School is going to be or a Hybrid of MMM meets M'sP meets WD's CoP (I will post this really soon.)


                  Timekeeper
                  sigpicNow the Tower of Sauron has fallen
                  Also, this picture and my Avatar was taken with a Nintendo DSi System and Nyko Magnification Lens & Case for DSi.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

                    The MMR that was in TDL was the exact same show from WDW. They didn't rebuild it, they packed it up and sent it to Japan. Therefore, it is possible that Japan packed it up to send to China, although that's not something I know for sure. That's also what happened with the CoP, there has only ever been one; it was in New York, then Anaheim and now Orlando.

                    A clone to me is an exact reproduction, and few actual Disney clones exist, as pointed out earlier. But if you built an exact reproduction of ATIS this year, that would be a clone. Going by dictionary.com, though, no ride is a clone because, as a noun, clone refers to something biological. As a verb, a ride can be cloned (to produce a copy or imitation of). The only attractions that are truly cloned are film based ones. And if you inlude designs of exteriors and queues, there probably isn't an actual cloned attraction anywhere, except maybe Dumbo in DL and DLP.

                    Look at it this way. When they cloned that sheep in Scotland, the result was a clone. That fact would not change even if the original sheep was dead.

                    A bientot.
                    Last edited by ralfrick; 03-15-2011, 08:36 AM.
                    Remember
                    What the dormouse said
                    Feed your head!

                    sigpic

                    You've read it; you can't unread it!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Would you call it "cloning" if the attraction does not exist anymore?

                      Yes

                      Even if it was dead, a recycled concept is still banking off the popularity of the original idea. Said idea had to have been popular prior to death. You don't hear calls to bring back the Superstar Limo now do you?
                      "Happiness is a Low Water Level"

                      sigpic

                      "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"

                      Comment

                      Ad Widget

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X