birth of a new age!

[BlAcKoUt510]

Re: birth of a new age!

I think many "real Disney fans" understand that the whole park isn't supposed to revolve around Disney characters. Yes the park is called Disneyland, but it's purpose is supposed to be much more than just Disney movies and characters.


I personally enjoy Disneyland for being able to take myself and companions of many ages from the outside world and enter a land where all ages can explore things many won't see outside the park.


I can see most of these tie-in rides outside the park, though not the same experience, I still see them. It makes something special like a boat ride about pirates, but once you see familiar faces like Jack Sparrow, it just isn't the same especially if it's an unnecessary addition. Most of the lands are supposed to represent real world with adventure, and cartoon characters don't fit into the real world.

Of course when done right, I appreciate the tie-ins (Carsland). And starting with Carsland, maybe we can see original stories with Disney/Pixar characters that can take you outside of the real world, instead of just taking us into a movie.

Fantasyland is the only land I can think of that is supposed to represent Disney movies. I would love a park with balance and can stay in theme.

[Mr Wiggins]

Re: birth of a new age!

Then why didn't Walt Disney actually build such a place? Most of the park was built around new content. Even after he started to have more money because Disneyland was a success he built more non-movie attractions.

Exactly right. The majority of Disneyland attractions in the 30 years before Eisner were not based on movies. Especially, the attractions that were the most celebrated by the public and media were not adaptations of movies -- Main Street, the Mark Twain, Autopia, Tiki Room, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Mr. Lincoln, the PeopleMover, Monorail, Submarines, Small World, Carousel of Progress, America Sings, Space Mountain and Big Thunder. Disneyland's worldwide fame was earned because it was a new medium of entertainment in and of itself, with attractions that broke new ground in theme park storytelling -- not just a collection of rides that retold movies.

And when Disneyland did use movies as inspiration for rides, as in Peter Pan, Toad, Snow White, Storybook Land Canal Boats, Alice and Mine Train thru Nature's Wonderland, they made the ride experience unique -- not just a clone of the movie as in FNSV.

[Gwenchanter]

Re: birth of a new age!

It seems like there are so far two main phases of disneyland's development, the first being the Walt phase where he just wanted to make neat stuff. That's all there is to it. He wanted to let people experiance amazing and fun adventures, whether it be riding a pirate ship or a boat through the Amazon jungle or a flying ship over London. It just had to be cool and fun. The characters from the movies and cartoons could be found in the park to interact with and get autographs from, as if you were meeting a real life movie star - but this was a very flexible and transitory presence. The goal for Disneyland was to create neat stuff that Walt thought was fun to experiance and do it in a way that was super family friendly and safe. Walt Disney World = more space to make neat stuff. Creativity drove the projects forward and it was up to the business end to figure out how to make Walt's dreams come true financially. This phase lasted long after Walt's death at the end of 1966, his influence continuing all the way through the end of the 70's with such park originals as Pirates of The Carribean in 67, Haunted Mansion in 69, Space Mountain in 77 and Big Thunder Mountain in 79.

Second phase, after Walt - original ideas seem to run out. It's the 1980s and the new goal is to make money and play up the film side of the business. Parks become second fiddle to films it seems to me! Now what to do is to see what's popular and give the people what they want so to speak. If a movie does good, then play it up and put as much of it into the parks as possible because it's a sure way to sell merchandice. If a movie bombs at the boxoffice, that must mean there are no good stories to tell or adventures to go on based on that movie. Table it and go on to the next thing. While listening to audience responce and trying to be receptive and responsive to popular opinion is not a bad thing, it can be a fickle thing and a shifting thing. It also can lack cohesiveness and the works that arise from it can seem too obvious and lacking a creative seed. Things get dated so much faster and movie related content gets moved in and out quickly.

"Birth of a new age?" - phase three? Now everying is movie related and starts to take on extreemly permanent prescence. Before Walt's time, the only permanent attractions based on Disney feature films were in Fantasyland. Containing movie attractions in Fantasyland ended in the 1990s with Toontown. Toontown itself is to me a classic disney cartoons extension arm of fantasyland which is somewhat of a timeless concept for a land to be based off of. The attractions though are not timeless. Strangely, Gadget is based off of a TV show that was canceled three years before it opened, and Roger Rabbit based on a film that most of today's children have never seen. After that, with the exception of Astro Orbiter and Innoventions, every new attraction at Disneyland and the vast majority at DCA is based on a movie or a specific Disney character up to the most recent development, an entire land based off of a pixar animated movie. It's even perimated into the dining locations such as the Jolly Holiday Bakery based off of Mary Poppins.

I'm not saying I don't like some of the new things since the 1990s becuase I do. I just think it would be great if Disney could make some neat stuff just because it's neat. Not because there is a Disney movie about it or because they can sell lots of merchandice tie ins for a character or because it will appeal to a specific demographic that they're missing or because the cost vs profit is high. They need to make more things based off a cool new technology that just needs to become something, in the spirit of Inner Space or CircleVision (kudos for World of Color) or an adventure that we'd all like to go on! I defy Disney to make one new ride just because it's a fun adventure and isn't centered around an existing disney movie or character. Make up some new characters just for a ride! Please, just once more in my lifetime and I'll be so proud of you!!

(The only thing that comes to mind right now as being a new ride without a movie is is Grizzly River Rapids, which is really beautifully done, fun and one of my favorite parts of DCA, but feel like it's lacking a bit in story and identity. It's not something you could actually base a movie off of like they did with Pirates)

Of course this is all my opinion and the way I see things from my perspective. I don't claim that anything I assert is fact but my interpretation of observation.

[Quentin]

Re: birth of a new age!

ORWEN: I just don't understand people who complain about so many attractions at a Disney theme park being themed after Disney movies. You must not really be Disney fans if you don't like attractions that are based on Disney movies. So it makes a witch wonder why you're even here. For those of us who DO like Disney attractions based on Disney movies, let us celebrate. I think most guests actually do prefer attractions based on Disney movies. That's why the parks are still popular. If some of you had your way, Disney wouldn't be Disney at all. Now where can I find a Disney site with REAL Disney fans to talk with?

Some people like Disneyland but could care less for the Disney Channel or other things like that. The best attractions based off movies are not Disney movies! Indiana Jones, Star Tours, Tower of Terror, etc. Most guests prefer good attractions, like Indiana Jones, Tower of Terror, Space Mountain, Soarin', California screemin', Grizzly River Run, the fact that Splash Mountain is based of a Disney movie has nothing to do with its popularity.

[Uncle Bob]

Re: birth of a new age!

Exactly right. The majority of Disneyland attractions in the 30 years before Eisner were not based on movies. Especially, the attractions that were the most celebrated by the public and media were not adaptations of movies -- Main Street, the Mark Twain, Autopia, Tiki Room, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Mr. Lincoln, the PeopleMover, Monorail, Submarines, Small World, Carousel of Progress, America Sings, Space Mountain and Big Thunder. Disneyland's worldwide fame was earned because it was a new medium of entertainment in and of itself, with attractions that broke new ground in theme park storytelling -- not just a collection of rides that retold movies.

And when Disneyland did use movies as inspiration for rides, as in Peter Pan, Toad, Snow White, Storybook Land Canal Boats, Alice and Mine Train thru Nature's Wonderland, they made the ride experience unique -- not just a clone of the movie as in FNSV.

Mr. Wiggins knows his Disney history and this is very true. You can make a strong argument that Walt only used his films and TV shows because they helped him get DL off the ground. It was not his primary goal or reason for creating DL. DL was always intended to be its own attraction, there's a lot of evidence for this being the case. DL was an expensive and risky investment and MBA's back then were not much different then they are today. They wanted to see the risk be as low as possible, so they wanted to see well known characters in the park. So Walt had to satisfy the investors and included a number of film based attractions at the start. But history clearly shows that once he had the opportunity, he continued to add more original attractions and fewer film based ones.

---------- Post added 07-16-2012 at 01:27 AM ----------

^we want balance...and ALL movie made park would be worst then one that allows both ideas to follow freely

Movie rides...for the most part are more limiting and rides like HM or Pirates the sky's the limit...they can do anything they want (that makes sense) in an Original ride a ride based off Nemo...where of course has to be based in the Ocean

I don't mind if they want to make some Tie in rides like...Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin Avengers and Tron...but its been over ten years since a non movie based ride hit Disneyland and I think its fair that we get an Original ride every ten years, when less then every 6 months something from a movie is added to the parks from a meet in greet, to a show, to an event (Tea Party) to a ride or land,

You know, I'm on your side, but I've never found this balance argument to hold much weight. Balance is a nice sounding argument that appeals to peoples notion of fairness, but it really has very little to do with the success or failure of a theme park. It's basically just like saying, "I like original attractions, so shouldn't Disney build what I want every once in a while?" And the harsh truth is, no, they don't have to make us happy when they have millions of other people who want more movie rides. There may still be an audience for original attractions, but it's no longer one Disney is willing to take a risk on.

There are two things that I think can impact Disney's bottom line by only using films. First, do films lose interest faster then original attractions and end up needing to be replaced sooner? I think it's debatable, generally this has more to do with the quality of the attraction more than the source material. So I think that it could become a problem at some point, but it hasn't seemed to become a problem yet.

The second is how attractions impact the theme of a land and to what extent movie themes distract from the themed environment. This is something that again is debatable and is a fine line, if there a too many contradictions in an atmosphere your mind simply will not accept that you're in a real place. Suddenly, you're no longer in an augmented reality but rather just standing in an amusement park. This might sounds like a far out, crazy idea, except, it's what the designers of DL were focused on creating, and we can see examples of the loss of the suspension of disbelief all around us.

Tomorrowland at DL has suffered from this, and now, in spite of the fact that it's packed with very popular rides, almost everyone thinks it's broken and somehow needs to be fixed. The problem is Tomorrowland had lost its suspension of disbelief for many people, largely due to the way it has integrated new film properties into the land. This is something that business people can understand. But because it's a fuzzy line, so it's easy to try to squeeze things in just because they're popular and assume it will be ok. Many times it is ok, it doesn't really damage the environment too much and everything still works. But once you cross that line of too many distractions and lose that suspension of disbelief, the whole magic of Disney comes crumbling apart.

[JMazz]

Re: birth of a new age!

Grizzly Gulch is nothing more then Big Thunder Mountain in a western environment which Chinese people are more familiar with.

WTH does this mean? BTMRR at DL is in a western theme. It takes place in a western ghost town, a western mine shaft, inspired by western areas of the USA.

Elaborate please.

[Mom kissed Walt]

Re: birth of a new age!

I still say 10 years is not a very long time in terms of development. I'm sure there will be non Disney movie rides made soon enough, especially I would think in Tomorrowland.

And it's not such a huge disparity in the first place. I think people just need to learn patience.

[Witches of Morva]

Re: birth of a new age!

ORDDU: What one person thinks is balanced might be considered unbalanced by another. So what it boils down to is personal preferance. The point your cauldron girls wanted to make, really, is that we don't fit in well with those who complain about so many movie tie-ins, which we prefer. There has been so much complaining against movie tie-in's, lately, that it often seems that the people complaining aren't really Disney fans or, otherwise, they wouldn't be bothered so much.

[lazyboy97O]

Re: birth of a new age!

You know, I'm on your side, but I've never found this balance argument to hold much weight. Balance is a nice sounding argument that appeals to peoples notion of fairness, but it really has very little to do with the success or failure of a theme park. It's basically just like saying, "I like original attractions, so shouldn't Disney build what I want every once in a while?" And the harsh truth is, no, they don't have to make us happy when they have millions of other people who want more movie rides. There may still be an audience for original attractions, but it's no longer one Disney is willing to take a risk on.

There really is not a nice way to say this, but people by and large are not exceptionally creative. That is why it is a limited number of people who have success with creative enterprises. People say they want what they know because they are unable to otherwise express their desires. It is a symbol that can be easily understood by others. People take the risk to pay for new films that they do not know. They will take the time to watch new television shows. Read new books. I see no reason why new attractions need be different than other mediums in people's willingness to experience something new. Yes, admission has a cost, but the individual attraction does not, so people should be more willing to experience the new.

ORDDU: What one person thinks is balanced might be considered unbalanced by another. So what it boils down to is personal preferance. The point your cauldron girls wanted to make, really, is that we don't fit in well with those who complain about so many movie tie-ins, which we prefer. There has been so much complaining against movie tie-in's, lately, that it often seems that the people complaining aren't really Disney fans or, otherwise, they wouldn't be bothered so much.

Disney is an international conglomerate. There are many facets to the company, they do not all bow down to Walt Disney Pictures, now should they.

[Uncle Bob]

Re: birth of a new age!

WTH does this mean? BTMRR at DL is in a western theme. It takes place in a western ghost town, a western mine shaft, inspired by western areas of the USA.

Elaborate please.

They chose to go with a California Gold Rush Sierra Nevada theme rather then the traditional Utah feel of BTMRR. They did this in large part because the Chinese population is more familiar with the history of the California Gold Rush because many Chinese people came to California during this time and would write home and tell their families about it. This is something I've heard Imagineers mention on several occasions.

[cruise]

Re: birth of a new age!

Grizzly Gulch is nothing more then Big Thunder Mountain in a western environment which Chinese people are more familiar with. Mystic Manor is nothing more then a version of Haunted Mansion that won't offend Chinese culture and their beliefs about ancestor's spirits. These are hardly original, they are low risk slightly new takes on attractions that have become a necessary piece of all castle parks and have been proven for decades. Plus, my thread was specifically talking about U.S. parks and mentioned that the one exception to this rule will always be thrill rides because they always have a built-in audience.

I'd have to disagree. Big Grizzly Mountain shares almost nothing with Big Thunder. Different characters, different ride system (traditional lift v. launch/backwards motion), different overall story arch. They share the fact that they are both roller coasters, but they are both "original" in that the Hong Kong attraction is clearly NOT trying to capitalize on the success of Big Thunder in the states.

As far as Mystic Manor goes... we will have to wait and see.

Anyway, I think both will still prove that it doesn't take a film franchise to build a solid attraction.

[DCArocks]

Re: birth of a new age!

do you know what Disney should do is take and idea they have for a movie but then turn it into a ride. i am sure that there are thousands of Disney characters that never came to be with stories that would make great attractions!

[Gwenchanter]

Re: birth of a new age!

do you know what Disney should do is take and idea they have for a movie but then turn it into a ride. i am sure that there are thousands of Disney characters that never came to be with stories that would make great attractions!

That's a great idea! Turn it directly into a ride! Love it!

I just want people to realize that the point of Disneyland was never to serve as a supporting role to the Disney films. If Walt was primarily interested in films he would have just made more films and never made an amusement park. He made an amusement park because he liked amusement parks and thought of it as another, entirely different creative outlet to explore. Disneyland was to stand on it's own as an entertainment medium of amazing experiences that took you convincingly to another time or place. Having too many cartoon worlds or animated feature re-hash experiences runs the risk of being difficult to believe in and immerse yourself in. Why is Harry Potter world so great? Because you really can believe you're there in that world. It's close enough to the real world to make it believable but imaginative enough to make it amazing. THATS where the magic comes from.