Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sad Truth of Disneyland

Collapse

Ad Widget

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

  • The Sad Truth of Disneyland

    So, I’m a fan of the Land of Disney…well, obviously, or I wouldn’t be posting here. Upon my visit there in 2006, I began following new developments and rides of the park so I wouldn’t be behind when I visit again. What I have learned over these 2 years might surprise you: Disneyland is getting worse.

    Alright, before you freak out, let me explain myself. I bet that FNSV is fun and that TSM will be fun, but what happened to the creativity and imagination the park used to be known for in Walt’s day. I’m not saying I don’t like newer rides like Soarin’ or Buzz Lightyear, but they lack originality.

    Soarin’ was a creation that Florida had, so they brought a copy of it here for DCA because it fit the theme. As for Buzz Lightyear’s Astro Blasters, this ride was based on the TV series based of off Toy Story. To top that off, the ride had limited 3D targets. Most were painted on walls or were 2D cutouts.

    Now, I’m going to begin by going into detail about Disneyland. If you’ve ever read anything about the history of Disneyland, you’d know he took risks. If the idea didn’t work, then it would be back to the drawing board. Today, if something doesn’t work, the Disney Corporation MAKES it work, even if that means wasting money that could go towards a great ride. Also, Walt used to build rides that were based on nothing but imagination. Today, Disney will not create anymore rides that aren’t based off of a feature film. This kills originality, point blank.

    Recently, IASW went into rehab. While I agree it needed a lot of work done, it doesn’t need what is rumored. Why add Disney characters? I mean, I saw the characters in the Hong Kong version of the ride, and they looked good, but why spend unnecessary money on a small addition that won’t bring new money in? Same goes for the America scene. Why replace a scene and make new stuff for it. We’re in America. We know what it’s like…

    Going to DCA, TSM will be opening soon. I saw the video of the ride from WDW, and I’m not as impressed as I thought I would be. I mean, it’ll be fun, but it’s not original. 3D screens is all they could do? Why not add scenery, or disguise the screens so they blended in more. I’m unimpressed, and the DCA version is worse since it’s theme clashes with the idea of a Victorian Pier.

    When did the Imagineers turn into Imaginenots? It’s all about what’s cheapest and not what’s best for the guest. Disney plays it too safe these days, and Walt is probably turning in his grave as we speak!

    EDIT: Sorry for the Soarin' comments. I was wrong. I really should've checked and made sure on that one.
    Last edited by Walt's Ghost; 05-04-2008, 12:24 PM.

  • #2
    Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

    Originally posted by Disney Bacon View Post
    Soarin’ was a creation that Florida had, so they brought a copy of it here for DCA because it fit the theme.
    Wrong. Soarin' Over California is an original opening day (February 8, 2001) attraction at Disney's California Adventure. It was cloned at Epcot for the "Happiest Celebration on Earth" and opened officially on May 5, 2005.

    Photos, news, and commentary every week from Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

      Actually Soarin' was an original for DCA. Disney World ripped if from us. You do make a few good points though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

        Originally posted by Disney Bacon View Post
        Soarin’ was a creation that Florida had, so they brought a copy of it here for DCA because it fit the theme.
        !
        Soarin' actually opened in DCA in 2001, and then it went to Florida in 2005.

        Edit: Beaten to the punch, guess that's what happens when it takes me forever to look up dates.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

          I think it all boils down to one thing: money.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

            This whole issue is much more complex than it seems. Once upon a time, you had a benevolent dictator running the show and decision-making did not require a complex labyrinth of committees. That's one thing. Another is the relative cost of construction. It continually amazes me how quickly stuff could be put up or torn down back in the '60's (or even the 80's, for that matter). The proportion of any given project that is taken up by construction costs (both for the red tape to get approval and for the labor and materials) has more-than-skyrocketed since the days of Walt. That makes a difference in the green-lighting process. The sad truth is that we will never see the break-neck pace of the '60's extravaganzas again, and the fault does not lie entirely with the creative abilities at WDI. The original HM cost $7 million. The Nemo subs cost, what is it, something like $200 million?
            "My mental facilities are twice what yours are, pea brain!"

            The conversation continues at Long-Forgotten, the blog.



            ......... .....May April March!.....................

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

              Originally posted by Alex E View Post
              I think it all boils down to one thing: money.
              Exactly. And we all know that Disney is almost bankrupt! :razz:

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

                you lament what all MCers pretty much post already, but you have good points, there is still good in the company though, Indy was an imagineering masterpiece, as was Splash Mountian and Expedition Everest. I do agree with you except I think that great rides can be created with movie tie ins, The key to success is that it just can't seem like a commercial for the movie.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

                  ORDDU: While my sisters and I might agree with your bottom line conclusion, Disney Bacon, duckling, the road you used to prove your point was a bit--shall we say--bumpy? Walt Disney certainly DID have attractions in his park based on his motion pictures and this didn't mean he wasn't being original--which is what you say current Imagineering is guilty of whenever THEY decide to create an attraction based on a Disney film. There really isn't anything wrong in basing an attraction on a motion picture--as long as the attraction has high quality and repeatability. However, your original point is still well taken and we agree with you--overall--in what you're trying to say. It's actually rather difficult to put into words why the current Management is failing with more originality and creativity.

                  ORGOCH: No it ain't! Didn't ya read what Alex E had ta say? MONEY!!

                  ORDDU: Indeed!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

                    All nice points. Money is the real issue and I can't blame them for that, except that they have a lot of it.

                    "I'm not funny. What I am is brave." - Lucille Ball

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland


                      I'm just not sure how you can make a blanket statement like this, having not been to the park in 2 years.
                      A signature should go here.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

                        Is Disneyland getting worse? I haven't noticed that trend in the last few years. I've noticed the quality of WDI's output to be frequently inadequate in recent times, but that output has, in most cases, merely failed to improve Disneyland, not actually worsened it. Replacing CBJ with Pooh was arguably an exception to that, but most of the other recent changes have just been "not bad"--which, as I'm sure someone will point out if I don't, isn't the quality level that Disneyland has historically aspired to and achieved. FNSV didn't worsen the park; better that than nothing in the lagoon at all. TSM can't be worse than the area of DCA it's replacing; I remember that spot the way it used to be a lot more clearly than a lot of MCers claim to remember it. The IASW changes...well, they won't worsen the park for me personally, but I totally understand where some of y'all are coming from on that.

                        I'm not trying to justify the "not bad" approach at all. It's not what Disney is supposed to be about. I'm merely saying that it's not Disneyland that's gotten worse. In fact, it's in significantly better shape right now than it was during the Dark Ages (aka the Pressler era). And even then, lest we forget, it stood head and shoulders above the type of parks Walt was trying to escape from. Again, "good enough" typically isn't, but I want to make sure we're still appreciating the enormously cool place that Disneyland still is.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

                          Originally posted by Disney Bacon View Post
                          So, I’m a fan of the Land of Disney…well, obviously, or I wouldn’t be posting here. Upon my visit there in 2006, I began following new developments and rides of the park so I wouldn’t be behind when I visit again. What I have learned over these 2 years might surprise you: Disneyland is getting worse.

                          Alright, before you freak out, let me explain myself. I bet that FNSV is fun and that TSM will be fun, but what happened to the creativity and imagination the park used to be known for in Walt’s day. I’m not saying I don’t like newer rides like Soarin’ or Buzz Lightyear, but they lack originality.

                          Soarin’ was a creation that Florida had, so they brought a copy of it here for DCA because it fit the theme. As for Buzz Lightyear’s Astro Blasters, this ride was based on the TV series based of off Toy Story. To top that off, the ride had limited 3D targets. Most were painted on walls or were 2D cutouts.

                          Now, I’m going to begin by going into detail about Disneyland. If you’ve ever read anything about the history of Disneyland, you’d know he took risks. If the idea didn’t work, then it would be back to the drawing board. Today, if something doesn’t work, the Disney Corporation MAKES it work, even if that means wasting money that could go towards a great ride. Also, Walt used to build rides that were based on nothing but imagination. Today, Disney will not create anymore rides that aren’t based off of a feature film. This kills originality, point blank.

                          Recently, IASW went into rehab. While I agree it needed a lot of work done, it doesn’t need what is rumored. Why add Disney characters? I mean, I saw the characters in the Hong Kong version of the ride, and they looked good, but why spend unnecessary money on a small addition that won’t bring new money in? Same goes for the America scene. Why replace a scene and make new stuff for it. We’re in America. We know what it’s like…

                          Going to DCA, TSM will be opening soon. I saw the video of the ride from WDW, and I’m not as impressed as I thought I would be. I mean, it’ll be fun, but it’s not original. 3D screens is all they could do? Why not add scenery, or disguise the screens so they blended in more. I’m unimpressed, and the DCA version is worse since it’s theme clashes with the idea of a Victorian Pier.

                          When did the Imagineers turn into Imaginenots? It’s all about what’s cheapest and not what’s best for the guest. Disney plays it too safe these days, and Walt is probably turning in his grave as we speak!

                          EDIT: Sorry for the Soarin' comments. I was wrong. I really should've checked and made sure on that one.
                          That's because before Ouimet became Disneyland President, the resort was being managed by retail snobs Paul Pressler and Cynthia Harriss. DL began to develope a poor safety record with those two in office. More attention was focused on retail instead of the parks attractions including delayed maintenance for months. In late 2003 Matt Ouimet became Disneyland Resort President and managed to fix most of Pressler's/Harriss' screw ups including shutting down attractions for refurbishment such as Space Mountain's rehab. You best be thanking Ouimet as he was trying to fix Disneyland just in time for the 50th Anniversary. His job is still not done since Ouimet left between 2005-2006. He is being succeeded by current Disneyland President Ed Grier. So don't be saying that Disneyland is sad. It suffered abuse during the Pressler/Harriss eras. Ouimet began to fix Disneyland. Grier will finish fixing it. Take a look at Tomorrowland. You'll see what I'm talking about.
                          Last edited by RocketRodRider88; 05-04-2008, 01:25 PM. Reason: rephrasing
                          sigpicRocket Rods 1998-2001 May you rest in peace.

                          "From the imagination of Walt Disney and NASCAR presents a second generation in Tomorrowland Rapid Transit. Rocket Rods V2!"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

                            We have reached a point in society where technology has trumped imagination. It used to be that technology was definitely around, but it wasn't robust or powerful enough to actually supercede imagination all together. Now that computers and things have become so powerful, people focus more on technology now than on imagination...ie, movies and rides become more technologically advanced, but not more imaginative.

                            One look at the movies will reveal this trend. It's all a lot of special-effects blockbusters and exceptional-looking 3D films without much content. It's also apparent in our culture since not much of it has changed in 15 years...other than technology. Take a look at a photo or film from 15 years ago and you'd be hard-pressed to tell it was that long ago if there's no technology involved in the shot. What people wore 15 years ago is almost identical to today, but introduce an iPod to the picture and it's clear when something happened.

                            It's not a "bad" thing per se, it's just the price we had to pay for getting our technology to the extraordinarily high levels it's at today. It's basically a trade-off if you want to look at it that way. Imagination is dead. And unless there's some generation out there that brings it back, which is highly unlikely given that their imaginations are squashed even earlier in life, we'll just have to reminisce about how great things used to be.

                            It could be possible that after the digital revolution is over, imagination will finally catch back up to technology. But personally I think technology's pace will increase, if anything, and if there were such a period of increased imagination, I seriously doubt it would happen during any of our lifetimes. It's a bleak and dark prognosis, but if nothing changes than that's just how it's going to have to be.

                            One hope we all have is the international markets opening up. There are a lot of countries out there who have never experienced the things we have taken for granted for decades. If these people are finally able to tap into the global picture, we could have a huge surge of originality and creativity, the likes of which has never been seen before. It's kind of wishful thinking, but it's better than nothing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Sad Truth of Disneyland

                              I agree that that's been a general trend, Athlonacon, but I also think that trends, as a rule, reverse over time. This one will, too. There'll be a huge rush to return back to creativity, art for art's sake, lack of technological extravagance, and so forth. Electronic innovation will slow to a crawl, but the progress will return to the actual art itself. It'll happen once enough people get sick of the current trend and it starts to become "cool" to eschew it. And it'll probably reverse again some time later. It happens. ::shrug::

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X