The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

[fo'c's'le swab]

Absolute Weight is defined (loosely) as: Weight of a body considered apart from all modifying influences such as the atmosphere. To determine its absolute weight, the body must, therefore, be weighed in a vacuum or allowance must be made for buoyancy.

Should an attraction's popularity be the predominate deciding factor regarding its ultimate fate? How much consideration should support of theme be given when making significant changes?

We have all seen perfectly-themed attractions be destroyed or abandoned due to a perceived 'lack of popularity', at the direct expense of the surrounding Land's theme, weakening the Land AS A WHOLE. I often begin to fear for the safety of current attractions like Jungle Cruise or Tiki Room, when I see decisions being made without giving thematic cohesion it's due.

While the examples are numerous (ATIS, PeopleMover, TSI, CBJ [in comparison to its replacement], Nature's Mine Train, Indian Village, etc.), I would like the discussion to center around this idea: Should support of theme outweigh perceived popularity? In essence, should a perfectly-themed, but aging, or less-popular attraction be destroyed to make room for a new, exciting, however thematically-disruptive attraction?

Does each attraction owe its Land thematic servitude? Or are these Lands merely districts; burroughs that happen to house attractions themed unto themselves? Which is more important: Disneyland, or the attractions that make it up?

[CaliforniaAdventurer]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

....Should a perfectly-themed, but aging, or less-popular attraction be destroyed to make room for new, exciting, however thematically-disruptive attraction?...

(in NY/NJ accent) Sure!

[CaliforniaAdventurer]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

fo'c's'le, You tagged this with the term absolute weight? Cause that's one of the most searched terms in MiceChat, you know.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

fo'c's'le, You tagged this with the term absolute weight? Cause that's one of the most searched terms in MiceChat, you know.

I also tagged it with 'theme'. I thought by tagging it with 'Absolute Weight'also, I might appeal to the massive 'scientific' community on MC!

[Datameister]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

Interesting question. I think that there's kind of a symbiotic relationship between lands and the attractions they contain. On the one hand, a big part of a land's perceived identity really is based totally on the rides. The rides are, after all, why most people enter the lands in the first place. But at the same time, there's the obvious fact that rides are (theoretically) created for lands that they thematically meld with.

Replacing older attractions with more "relevant" but inferior ones as quickly as possible is a bad idea. It's better to preserve a well-themed older ride until proper funding and ideation make it possible for its successor to be superior in terms of overall quality and thematically appropriate.

[MollyTrolly]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

While the examples are numerous (ATIS, PeopleMover, TSI, CBJ [in comparison to its replacement], Nature's Mine Train, IndianVillage, etc.), I would like the discussion to center around this idea: Should support of theme outweigh perceived popularity? In essence, should a perfectly-themed, but aging, or less-popular attraction be destroyed to make room for new, exciting, however thematically-disruptive attraction?

Does each attraction owe its Land thematic servitude? Or are these Lands merely districts; burroughs that happen to house attractions themed unto themselves?

Which is more important: Disneyland, or the attractions that make it up?

Neither, Disneyland is the attractions that makes it up.

[CaliforniaAdventurer]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

Mine Train Thru Big Thunder Mountain comes to mind.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

Replacing older attractions with more "relevant" but inferior ones as quickly as possible is a bad idea. It's better to preserve a well-themed older ride until proper funding and ideation make it possible for its successor to be superior in terms of overall quality and thematically appropriate.

This is the ideal, and I whole-heartedly agree, but we haven't seen much of this lately (at all?). I am also in favor of refurbs that may update the attraction, without altering its 'storyline' or thematic identity.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

A perfectly themed, but aging or less popular ride should be either renovated and renewed, or if this is not possible, replaced with a new option.

These 'new options' are what concerns me .

I say most, because the nature of things may mean an out of theme attraction or nothing at all (i.e. subs). This is not to say that the subs couldn’t have been refurbed as a science exploration and been great, but there had to be an offset of merchandise sales and a Pixar character...

Again, this is what concerns me, and I would rather see an empty lagoon (hence the potential for a properly themed attraction), than a 'billboard' attraction which has no relevance to its surroundings.

Honestly I can live with what we got versus the alternative of nothing at all…

You are certainly in the majority in regards to your attitudes towards theme, and I think my position is a continually shrinking minority!

Neither, Disneyland is the attractions that makes it up.

Really? I believe Disneyland to be more than the sum of its parts, and its parts should serve to strengthen it, but not necessarily define it. I can always count on you for thoughtful responses--thanks.

[Junthor]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

Anybody can throw a high--thrill ride into whatever area they want to and have it be HUGELY popular and most people I think wouldn't care.... as long as they had fun.

But Disney is Special... that can take a Ride that isn't thrilling and put it in a themed environment and have it be one of the best rides ever.... Look how many Dark rides that Disney has put in that are themed perfectly... Those are the rides that Make Disneyland special.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

Anybody can throw a high--thrill ride into whatever area they want to and have it be HUGELY popular and most people I think wouldn't care.... as long as they had fun.

But Disney is Special... that can take a Ride that isn't thrilling and put it in a themed environment and have it be one of the best rides ever.... Look how many Dark rides that Disney has put in that are themed perfectly... Those are the rides that Make Disneyland special.

There are many Disney fans who side with the accountaneers and DLR execs on this matter: attractions are to be thrill rides, or anchored by a popular movie. It's disappointing and counter-productive IMO for the PArk itself, though (for the moment--the short term) perceived to be economically gratifying.

[aashee]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

Theme Weight should be somewhere between Rosie O'Donnell and a massive boulder. Actually closer to the boulder.

[Tomorrowland Tourist]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

I believe that Disney should always consider support of theme if they consider removing a well-themed attraction that may not pack in as many park goers. The fact of the matter is that Disney can design amazing rides that fit so well with the land they occupy, and still make it popular. In order to replace an attraction that already has a strong theme, Disney should make sure that whatever they replace it with carries on the theme of its predecessor.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

Theme Weight should be somewhere between Rosie O'Donnell and a massive boulder. Actually closer to the boulder.

Stuck between Rosie and a Hard Place?

Let me ask you, Chad (a confirmed and self-described softie as far as theme goes): does each attraction serve the Land it resides in thematically, or just economically? McDonald's enjoys massive popularity--it really 'packs 'em in', no? So why are many up in arms over its inclusion in DCA or in DL? It's the idea of mass appeal over quality and relevance. These are the problems I have when I see the thematic equivalent of McDonald's being installed as attractions.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

I believe that Disney should always consider support of theme if they consider removing a well-themed attraction that may not pack in as many park goers. The fact of the matter is that Disney can design amazing rides that fit so well with the land they occupy, and make still make it popular. In order to replace an attraction that already has a strong theme, Disney should make sure that whatever they replace it with carries on the theme of its predecessor.

(BOLD mine) Have 'they' forgotten this, or are 'they' not allowed the opportunity. I'm not so sure anymore...

[Rustymuscle]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

Stuck between Rosie and a Hard Place?

Let me ask you, Chad (a confirmed and self-described softie as far as theme goes): does each attraction serve the Land it resides in thematically, or just economically? McDonald's enjoys massive popularity--it really 'packs 'em in', no? So why are many up in arms over its inclusion in DCA or in DL? It's the idea of mass appeal over quality and relevance. These are the problems I have when I see the thematic equivalent of McDonald's being installed as attractions.

It's not so much the inclusion of McDonald's as it is the exclusion of In-N-Out Burger, which is, by the park's identity, a wholly Californian experience despite its presence in Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.

Would a perfectly themed In-N-Out Burger dressed to appear like it's original 1948 drive-thu adjacent to the Carsland section not be awesome? I say nayeth. It would be friggin' awesome.

[Tomorrowland Tourist]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

^^Hard to tell, I probably should have used the past tense there. At the same time, however, Disney Imagineers probably contain the necessary talent and innovation to come up with big ideas (Everest), but I am sure there is so much red tape to deal with now, and plenty of financial barriers to inhibit the creation of stellar E-Ticket attractions.

[Junthor]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

In-N-Out E-ticket ride?

NOW we're talking

[ROBONICS95]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

Really? I believe Disneyland to be more than the sum of its parts, and its parts should serve to strengthen it, but not necessarily define it.

While I agree with this statement, both opinions can really sum up the discussion of this topic.

There are going to be those who only visit the Resort for the attractions it offers. The only emotions associated with their experience are those that each attraction creates. I think it would be a safe guess to say that most, NOT ALL, of these visitors may be those who are very content with the idea that the lands are, as you put it, "merely districts; burroughs that happen to house attractions themed unto themselves."

Then are those who enjoy the most minute of details which scream 'Disney' because thats what they have come to love. There are many more emotions involved with their experience and they don't necessarily rely on 'rides' to create the excitement. I would say that a majority of these visitors are those who feel very passionately that the attraction MUST thematically fit within the 'land' that it is in or should not even be considered.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Re: The Absolute Weight of Theme in DL

It's not so much the inclusion of McDonald's as it is the exclusion of In-N-Out Burger, which is, by the park's identity, a wholly Californian experience despite its presence in Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.

Would a perfectly themed In-N-Out Burger dressed to appear like it's original 1948 drive-thu adjacent to the Carsland section not be awesome? I say nayeth. It would be friggin' awesome.

The 'fry shack' at DL, however, DOES get a lot of business and criticism. It is the principles behind these decisions when it comes to attractions is to what I'm referring--just using poor ol' McD's to represent an ideal here. Sponsorship has always been a huge part of Disneyland, and will continue to be in the future, I'm sure.