DEBATE: When does the "Disney Experience" cease to exist?

[DisneyKidds]

Hey, I just realized another Disney standard. For something to be Disney, it must be pleasing to the eye of the good lord Baron . We'll call it the Baron von Taste Police test .

That is why Father is sad. He sees that it is wrong. Now Dick sees that it is wrong, too. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Sorry pal, you can exaggerate all you want, but you are not right. You see Aladdin as an ersatz addition to an indefectible land. Others see it as a whimsical addition to a land that was subfusc and demode.

OK - enough of your word games . Adventureland, in my subjective opinion, was drab, outdated, and needed some sprucing up. Not that it needed a lot, mind you. As such, Aladdin is a good addition. Give me one good reason why Adventureland should be devoid of any ride that would be pleasing to children, especially young children. Sure, kids could go on most of the rides, but there wasn't much to get them excited. After all, in his own words, Walt wanted to create a place that families could enjoy together - and he didn't intend for his parks to be compartmentalized either with adults here, kids there. Each land should have something for everybody to get excited about. Adventureland for us was a land not often visited prior to Aladdin. Sure, it had classic rides, but we are at a point where we need more, something for the young ones to enjoy. Adventureland just didn't have it - now it does.

Now, would that ride be as popular without the color and the camel? No, it wouldn't. You may not like it, but I'd be willing to bet that you are in the minority if you look at the entire WDW going public. You may not be in the minority on this board, but this board is not a typical cross section of WDW visitors.

I could have easily let this go - one subjective opinion vs. another subjective opinion. However, you throw out some mumbo-jumbo about how you can't see how anyone could conclude that your opinion isn't objective . Please!!

Aladdin is but a mere example. I'm sure people could identify things they feel are 'not appropriate' in the same sense that you feel Aladdin is not appropriate. But, I guess if you have been elected commissioner of the taste police we have to live by your standard .

 

[DisneyKidds]

Professor - let me give you a primer for what you will hear from a fuddy-duddy or two (and perhaps steal some of their thunder)..........

There is still enough attention to detail and enough CMs that provide that service level that says Disney to me to be magic.

They will say (and it can be a fair question) 'Why should we have to settle for "enough"? Fact of the matter is that it is LESS than it was. LESS is LESS, and LESS is not what Disney was supposed to be about!!!!'.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this logic that some apply to everything, but in areas it may be a good point. Think about that and you can formulate your answer before they pose the question themselves .

Your response, along with ohana's, simply reinforces that the answer to the initial question is, and always will be, completely subjective. Some try to dissect the parts and look at them "objectively", but the whole always seems to be greater than the sum of the parts when it comes to Disney.

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

Hi DisneyKidds - see you hooked me on this area of the boards so now you're all stuck with me!

Anyway - when I said there is enough I meant there is enough. Personally I have not had a problem and as I search my brain can not recall a personal instance of poor service. And having spent many years in retail and now spending my days (and nights) in the classroom teaching the next generation about what SHOULD be I have VERY high standards of what constitutes quality service.

Yes, I have read reports of instances of poor service. If for some members of the discussion their perception is that the service level has decreased then for THEM it has. Just saying that for ME it hasn't.

You're right this is subjective - I was simply throwing in my 2 cents of subjective interpretation. As are others.

Great debate folks. Anyone have a teleporter out there so I can transport all of you into my classrooms so students see that it is possible to explore questions from many sides? That there doesn't have to be a SINGLE, RIGHT answer?

The Professor

 

[DisneyKidds]

I was simply throwing in my 2 cents of subjective interpretation. As are others.

I'm with you Professor . I also happen to agree with you. Have you visited the 'Carpools Defined' at the top of the board?

Even when subjective opinions are presented, this group demands more. You will be challenged (in a good way). Folks will try to make sure you consider all alternative points of view. That is what makes this board so much fun , and sometimes frustrating , and always . My opinions have evolved since I have been frequenting this board - there are some very educated and persuasive folks. However, I am a long way from falling in with the grumpy ole fuddy-duddies .

there doesn't have to be a SINGLE, RIGHT answer?

I bet this will raise a few hairs - and once someone gets those hairs on the back of their neck raised they will do everything they can to make you see why .

 

[BRERALEX]

I'm changing the "pass the mickey butter" under my tag name to: I have a headache too.

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there doesn't have to be a SINGLE, RIGHT answer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As you said it will raise a few hairs as I would expect. It generally does in class too! Students seem to think there must be only one right answer. What model have we created in our K-12 system? Oh wait, that would be for the debate board!

Bring on the challenge - I love them!

The Professor

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
I'm changing the "pass the mickey butter" under my tag name to: I have a headache too.

Ahhh.......those headaches pass pretty quickly .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK!! I stopped at the top of this page. I will catch up with the others later!!

Captain!! Your attention please!!

Your Christmas tree analogy doesn't work because Agrabah fits the Adventureland tapestry to a "T".

Is this more objective fact? Or could it possibly be your subjective and somewhat rose-colored perspective? Just checking.

They may be guilty of mixing & matching but that's all of Disney (including Adventureland where 'JC' sits next to 'POC'...It just doesn't matter)...

Re-read Dick and Jane go to Disney. I’m not talking about similar concepts situated next to each other, both themed in real textures and colors. I’m talking about plastic, cartoon-like icons (decorations if you will) in a land that has none of that. Remember? That is why father is sad. It is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Adventurland needed the bright colors of the market place but it can hardly be equated as neon lighting next to an exhibition of Rembrandt...

Is this more objective fact? But thank you!! That analogy is PERFECT!! That is exactly what I subjectively think it is!! That’s much better than my Christmas tree!!!

You're just ticked because it's a spinner that actually conveys the feeling it set out to (like Dumbo, not like Tricertops).

Go back though the old posts, my friend! I’m probably the ONLY member of car three that had no problem with an ADDITIONAL spinner put anywhere! I didn’t care! It was an EXTRA!! I loved the idea! With the proviso that it be themed in accordance with the surrounding area. And sadly, it is my considered and very subjective opinion that it is not!! Now, we can keep talking about this, but I really don’t think we’ll get much further. I can’t stand the bright, primary colored, cartoon-like, carnival theme in a land that has subtle, delicate, understated, rich textures and muted themes. And you love it for some reason or another. Sorry Cap! You know I loves ya, but I just don’t see it!!

The NY analogy works...IT WORKS! I don't need to expound on what was perfectly stated...Sorry.

Then tell me how the heart of Manhattan, which I agreed would represent Disney, is analogous with the edge of Harlem? Yes they are both New York. One offers a quality New York stay. The other you need an uzi to protect yourself at night. So how does that equate?

Lastly, I understand the words it's just sad that so often there is no thought process involved in their utterance...

Come on Captain!! You can’t be serious!! Tell me you didn’t smile a little when you read it! It was my best effort at humor in a long time. I’m sorry it was at your expense, but I did expect a little chuckle from you!!

Mr. Kidds,

You know - compromised standards, slippery slopes, etc., etc. - and that dates back into the 80's for some. Heck, for some it has only been downhill since 1972. That is what is crazy

Who says 1972? You certainly can’t mean me!! I have stated often that the downfall started the day Ei$ner took over. Do you really think it’s just been since 1998? That all his ineptitude happened in five short years? That he could really destroy all of Walt’s magic in such a short period of time? Or that he suddenly “changed” and became inept?

No!! The guy has always been inept! In the beginning he had good people to keep him grounded or protect him. And then, let’s face it, you can’t get your arms around a company like Disney instantaneously. A new CEO cannot turn a dismal company into a powerhouse overnight. It takes time to pick a company up, fiddle with certain things and turn it around. Everyone knows that. Guess what? The same is true in reverse. A great company cannot come to ruin overnight either, no matter how inept the CEO is. It takes time for his micro-management to COMPLETELY interfere with the product. It takes time for the complete saturation of the brand to effect the bottom line. It takes time to even understand what WDI does, before he systematically decimates it. It takes time before the exorbitant prices start to be felt on your long term, loyal customer base. In his case about thirteen years. And then we started to see the crop he was reaping from the seeds that he sowed when he first took over. And it ain’t a pretty picture!!

Heck, for some it has only been downhill since 1972. That is what is crazy

Yes that would indeed be crazy!! Just as crazy as someone really believing that one day in the middle of 1997, Ei$ner woke up one morning and went brain dead. In fact I think this is even crazier!!

WEDWAY100:

After careful consideration, I find myself seated in the passenger side in car 3, but close to getting out, slamming the door and going grudgingly to car 4, which is when I will quit lurking.

Nah! We don’t want that to happen!! I feel we have to give Ei$ner’s replacement a short honeymoon period at least (before we hang him ). Maybe we’ll be surprised! I doubt it, but who knows!! (how’s that for a glass half full Captain!!??)

I guess the primary reason I like WDW and DL is because they were innovative, using cutting edge technology combined with a wonderful sense of storytelling, fantasy, incredible detail, and above all, new ideas. A secondary reason I enjoy the resorts is that they exceeded my expectations wherever I turned, and that quality was the main focus of their product.

WOW!!! Can this guy turn a phrase or what!!?? Please go on…

I hate to quote entire paragraphs, but sometimes they are just so well written and sooooo to the heart of the matter that it is worth repeating:

The best single thing that I have found that describes the difference in Disney and reality for me is an old picture that I first saw in a copy of The Nickel Tour. It was taken on Harbor Blvd circa 1959, looking north from the DL entrance. There is a car on the road that is a great big ugly hunk of metal 1959 car. Above the car is the monorail, looking incredibly futuristic when compared with the car. That was the difference. And what a huge difference. So just as the great big ugly hunk of metal 1959 car is to the monorail, a 2002 car is to x (what)? That is the question imagineers should be asking themselves, and developing x transportation system and implementing it. The future of Disney should not be more monorails, but rather x transit system. New dark rides should not primarily feature more animatronics (even if they are improved), because we’ve been there and done that. Disney should be looking for the next great entertainment opportunity and using its parks and resorts as proving grounds. Sounds expensive, huh? But that’s exactly what they were doing in 1959. I didn’t set that lofty standard, Walt did. And at 8 years old, he proved to me that it could be done.

BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!! Very well said!! So well said that I find I have NOTHING to add!! You have accomplished what Mr. Kidds, Scoop and my favorite Pirate have attempted to do for over two years now. You have rendered the LandBaron speechless!!

Thank you!!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

...we came in.

Hey, I just realized another Disney standard. For something to be Disney, it must be pleasing to the eye of the good lord Baron . We'll call it the Baron von Taste Police test

Let’s stop right here and examine just what the hell is going on! It would seem from this little snippet that I had posted a purely subjective opinion of “taste” and tried to pass it off as an objective measure of either the standard or of the philosophy. Which we both know didn’t happen! For one of the first times in months, in a rather whimsical state, I posted a purely subjective opinion. I diligently labeled it subjective and even took the time to BOLD the word every time it appeared. My subjective opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with my position on what is or isn’t Disney. And I think you know that too.

So it will come as no surprise that I do not appreciate the inference that I would allow, under any circumstances, my personal taste to interfere or taint my objective stance on philosophical issues regarding the standard which Disney used, no matter how many smilies are scattered throughout the paragraph.

Now we can discuss the subjective opinion all you like. The Captain and I were doing so. But I will kindly ask you to either keep the conversations separate or withdraw from either one or the other. My ‘take’ on Aladdin has absolutely nothing to do with the Disney Standard!

(Oh! Mr. Head!! I feel your pain!!!!)

OK - enough of your word games . Adventureland, in my subjective opinion, was drab, outdated, and needed some sprucing up.

OK!! So you want to speak subjectively!! Fair enough!!

And in my subjective opinion, you are dead wrong!!!

Give me one good reason why Adventureland should be devoid of any ride that would be pleasing to children, especially young children.

Nothing. In fact I welcomed it! I wish subjectively that it would have been in a more subtle, less intrusive theme. One that fitted Adventureland. Is that really so hard to understand? Is that really so much to ask for?

After all, in his own words, Walt wanted to create a place that families could enjoy together

PLEASE!!! Don’t use this argument!! It is beneath you. Are you seriously telling me that the offerings in Adventureland were kid UN-friendly enough to DEMAND a “kids only” ride? Cause that’s what it is! It isn’t “family”!! It’s for kids!!

Adventureland for us was a land not often visited prior to Aladdin.

Then you sure missed a lot!!

Sure, it had classic rides, but we are at a point where we need more, something for the young ones to enjoy. Adventureland just didn't have it - now it does.

You mean to tell me that they didn’t enjoy the Jungle Cruise? Or Tiki? Or Pirates? Or the climbing through the Tree House? You’re saying that the adults are the only ones that enjoyed those attractions? And so we needed a ‘kids’ ride? Are you serious?

Now, would that ride be as popular without the color and the camel? No, it wouldn't.

Says you!! I totally disagree!!

You may not like it, but I'd be willing to bet that you are in the minority if you look at the entire WDW going public. You may not be in the minority on this board, but this board is not a typical cross section of WDW visitors.

Think you covered all the contingencies here? All the bases covered? You should be in City work. We call it CYA. And this little bit was CYA perfection!!

I could have easily let this go - one subjective opinion vs. another subjective opinion. However, you throw out some mumbo-jumbo about how you can't see how anyone could conclude that your opinion isn't objective

Mr. Kidds. You did it again! I don’t understand this section at all!! Please explain!

Aladdin is but a mere example. I'm sure people could identify things they feel are 'not appropriate' in the same sense that you feel Aladdin is not appropriate. But, I guess if you have been elected commissioner of the taste police we have to live by your standard

Isn’t this where...

 

[ohanafamily]

IMHO
Fine print: the expressions in this post are the subjective opinions of me, OhanaFamily. I do not wish to be blasted like I am stating fact, when in fact it is implied that these are my opinions.

My turn to catch up,

Colleen, When you stay on property at Universal your room key becomes the equivalent of a walk on “FastPass” for most rides. The lines also converge closer than they do at WDW. PM me if you want more of a discussion, if we keep this up, I might get shot by Barron as a deserter.

My Darling Bride and I had a lengthy discussion about the Aladdin Ride. I, initially, took the Baron stance. It just seems out of place. After a several hour discussion, I feel it could have a place in adventureland, but there are elements that make it seem out of place. The story of Aladdin is an adventure based on folklore, just as POC is based on pirate folklore (1 example). What the main problems are with the ride are: Placement, The Line Queue, and Over Garishness for the area of the park.

The placement problem is that they stuck it in the middle of a walkway, and created a pedestrian traffic jam forcing you into the bazaar. If they would have set it back a ways they could have made the bazaar more like a real bazaar and built up the ride so that it was less obtrusive with an entrance that has a more consistent theme with the rest of the area.

By line queuing, I mean that they should not have used the same type of entrance to the ride like you find at Six Flags or a carnival. There should be a little thought to it, and again, not just plopped in the middle of a pedestrian thoroughfare. The Line Queue and the front entrance should be darker, more in line with the cave of treasure he finds the lamp in. There should be more of a theme. Again, Aladdin can fit in adventureland, but the way that they did it makes it seem out of place.

Thirdly, the over garishness. Adventureland is a human place. The rides represent human adventurers. What they have done with the bright motif is to bring an animated project into this human area. I think this is the main problem we all seem to be having with the ride; it doesn’t seem to fit.

Next, about the NY example…are we talking addresses or hotel pricing?

Seriously, I will argue the point that whether you stay in Manhattan or the Bronx, both are uniquely NY experiences. Both are well themed experiences, and neither is an easily forgettable experience. I would not want to stay in the Bronx (or the Pop Century for that matter), but that doesn’t mean that this isn’t something that somebody else would enjoy, or feel like home in. I also think that many of the posters on this forum would not be caught dead in the Bronx. Walt did dream of bringing all people together, and so at a not so far stretch of the imagination, having comfortable surroundings for the seriocomic group that would feel at home at the Pop Century is within reason. Besides, if they start booking rooms up 2 years in advance again, we will have to have some place to stay…

(OK,OKW for DVC members)

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Professor!

It seems as though you may have misinterpreted our conversations or at least an aspect of them. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your point totally (that is entirely possible. Just ask Mr. Kidds )!!

Personally I have not had a problem and as I search my brain can not recall a personal instance of poor service.

I am in total agreement!! Their service, to me, is their saving grace!! If it were not for the wonderful CMs, I would have been last seen tooling toward the setting sun in car #4!

So, the question is, what do you consider ‘service’? Is it just the interaction of Disney with the Guest? If that’s the case, move over and let me drive a while. On this issue at least, we’re in the same car. However, if you also include within the definition of ‘service’ the quality of the attractions, the detail of theme, the richness of the story and all other aspects of the SHOW right down to to the light bulbs or toilet paper, well then we are certainly in for one heck of a discussion!

One other little, fairly insignificant thing that I should probably ignore, but...

Great debate folks. Anyone have a teleporter out there so I can transport all of you into my classrooms so students see that it is possible to explore questions from many sides? That there doesn't have to be a SINGLE, RIGHT answer?

In most cases I’d agree with you. But not when it comes to Disney. I definitely think that there does HAVE to be one definitive, conclusive and ultimate answer. The interpretation may vary slightly, but only because we are human. But as much as is humanly possible the ‘right’ answer, the ‘only’ answer, the SINGLE answer, is what Walt set down in his philosophy. If we deviate from this, we may still be one heck of an amusement park, but we are no longer Disney!



PS: BTW, the little hairs Mr. Kidds referred to are mine. I use the term often (evidently too often ) and the none too subtle Mr. Kidds wanted to single me out! (I think he likes me!! )

 

[montessori]

I agree with Ohanafamily about the Aladdin ride. It does seem that the placement of the ride is the main (but not only) problem with it. We always enjoyed Adventureland, the subtleness and tranquility. It was a favorite spot for a little rest and some people watching. We enjoyed the old Tiki Hut and all the other attractions there too.
I do not agree with Captain Kidds (?) that Adventureland needs a ride like Aladdin, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!
This is off topic a little but...we were so disappointed with Pleasure Island last time we were there. It had been quite a while since we were last there. It's like a totallly different place. It seemed sad and dreary.
I haven't been to CityWalk yet but I'm sure it's much more exciting, and more bang for your buck, than Pleasure Island.

I get depressed thinking about the good ol' days at Disney. Maybe I'll start a thread about it! "Remember when....?"
Remember when Pleasure Island was a bustling, happening scene, alive with lights and music and people dancing everywhere? There were carnival games,food booths, and an outside tiki hut bar down by the water. You could play with the remote control boats or just sit back and watch the crowds bopping by. It seems like everyone danced in the streets! The DJ knew how to get the crowd going, sometimes there would be a hundred people doing the "Electric Slide" in the middle of the street! The New Year's celebration at midnight was a big deal, the countdown, the fireworks, the confetti...everyone hugging and kissing. It really WAS like New Year's Eve every night.
You could have a beer or two at the bar in The Fireworks Factory, or go in and sit down for some delicioius BBQ ribs or a nice big salad! There were numerous shops to browse through, remember the Tabasco Store?
We had some fun at Pleasure Island last month. The band in the Rock 'n Roll Beach Club was really good and we saw a funny skit at the Adventurer's Club. We didn't laugh much at the Comedy Club, maybe it was just an off night.
But, the main impression I have of Pleasure Island is that it is dirty, dark, and desolate. The club at the end of the street, Motions?, seems like an old warehouse in the inner city somewhere. It lacks any theme or decor at all! There is nothing going on down by the water and the couple of carnival games they have left probably won't be there much longer, no one was playing. I think the New Year's celebration must have lasted about 30 seconds! We ran out to see it but it was over. You couldn't even tell it had occured, so I don't know what it was like really.

Maybe we were at Pleasure Island on a particularly dead night, I don't know. I think we'll give it another chance but I don't have high hopes that it'll be much better. Our friends are meeting us at Disney this weekend, they are all going to City Walk.
Well, I didn't expect to rant for THAT long! Maybe I should have started a new thread with this topic.

Any opinions?
(Now, THAT'S funny!)

 

[Sandy Fisher]

Have mostly just been reading, digesting, and trying to keep up with the threads and give them the consideration they deserve. Most of what I believe about this subject -- from the original post in the thread -- I've already stated and really couldn't find another way to rearrange my opinions and feelings to make them "new again".
However, when the subject of Aladdin came up, it hit a nerve!
The first time we saw it I was amazed that it was there at all. Second, almost instantaneous reaction was "carny ride". Grew up going to parking lot and street carnivals in a small town where they were a big deal because it was the only game in town.
It is out of place. My kids had great times in Adventureland before it arrived there. The color, the placement, the entry. All of it feels WRONG, as though it were dropped into place with little or no thought.
Okay, no need for me to get so riled up about one ride, but it wasn't necessary, and especially not there.

 

[ohanafamily]

Hi Montessori, I am sad to hear about PI, I don't know if we will make it to PI when we go in 1 week and a day!, but it sounds depressing.

I waited a little to post this next argument because I wanted my previous argument to have a chance to show its merits.

OK Baron, here is an OBJECTIVE “Slam Dunk” about why Aladdin does not belong where they placed it.

Most of the rides that based on the animated movies are in Fantasyland. Snow White, Peter Pan, Winnie The Pooh… Etc.

Aladdin is definitely from an animated movie.

There is only one ride I can think of which is based on an animated movie not in Fantasyland, and that is Buzz Light Year. Subjectively that can be argued into fitting into Tomorrowland

It might be argued that Splash Mountain is based on animated characters, but if you will recall, Song of the South was a movie with animated sequences.

I await the further discussion, and Baron, this may wind up being a 10 pager…..

 

[ohanafamily]

Originally posted by Sandy Fisher
The first time we saw it I was amazed that it was there at all. Second, almost instantaneous reaction was "carny ride".

I think you are preaching to the choir, but in a way, SUBJECTIVELY, I think that they were trying to carry the Aggribar (however you spell it) Bazaar theme into the walkway. I think what they succeded at was making a bad pedestrian traffic problem. I also think that they were hoping for the tie-in with the new management of the Tiki Room. I could see Iago wanting a draw like the magic carpet ride in front of HIS TIKI ROOM (even though it is more behind it).

No, I think it was a concept as well thought out as the Pop Century (in other words, I agree with Baron on this point) It could have been made to fit, but since they just plopped it down in the middle of a street (without the original Disney thought and imagination as to the apropriate theming) it does not fit. It might have been OK in FantasyLand the way it is, but not where it is at.

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

Ok, this is going to be short and sweet (I hope) - have an accelerated class to finish and other commitmens over the week-end so I'll be back next week.

Landbaron -

The single, right answer comment was a general one, intended to address the observation (I hesitate to ever use the word fact with this gruop! ) that while FOR THE MOST PART there is agreement among the posters in this forum that there is a point where the experience begins to falter, there is not agreement - perhaps what you refer to as interpretation, as to where the SHOW suffers.

For me - while I have been able to sense a decreased lack of attention to detail - richness of detail in particular - in the parks under Mr. Pre$$ler (note I paid attention to the proper spelling ), it has not reached the point where the experience has ceased. To me (and my family) it is still magical. BUT - also speaking for me and mine only - the outstanding service is the KEY ingredient. Hubby and I spend most of our days interacting with people, when we go on vacation the magic is being spoiled in a setting that while not eliminating the rest of the world, interacts with it in a unique way.

I do strongly agree that if this trend continues Disney is going to be just a great amusement park, but not Disney. In my opinion I do not think we have reached that point.

Now - before my students begin knocking on my virtual door that the service they expect in the form of prompt grading is lacking , I must go read papers analyzing a variety of retailers.

The Professor

 

[WEDWAY100]

Wow the Baron copied a whole paragraph from me! That means I have to keep posting on this…

Since this thread has focused somewhat on Aladdin, I’d like to add some thoughts. First, I think that for me, a successful Disney park includes a good mix of all levels of attractions, A – E tickets. I don’t have any general dislike for spinner rides. In fact, I think they make a good B – C level addition, and they add a certain kinetic energy to an area (I must confess that the 1967 version of DL’s TL was my favorite, because of all the motion). I think that Aladdin added that energy to a very static area of the park. However, I feel that its’ theming is misplaced. I might go for a spinner there, if it were themed more on the exotic jungle of Adventureland (how about a Tarzan theme with muted colors?). The “parents and children doing things together” argument doesn’t hold for me, because most if not all of the other attractions in the area are ones that both groups can enjoy together. In fact, Aladdin may be the only attraction in that area that separates parents from children, as parents may not want to ride.

My second, and more distressing thought is that in general, the idea of what the MK is supposed to be is de-evolving. Within the last few years, it is my understanding that internally, Disney has assigned a descriptive catch word that describes each park. This is so that marketing, Imagineering, merchandising, etc can view the park through a consistent perspective. The word that has been tagged to the MK is – “Fantasy”. (Epcot’s is “Discovery” and the Studio’s is “Action” and I forget DAK’s). My problem with this is that Fantasy doesn’t necessarily describe all of the original intent of the park. It does describe Fantasyland. But I think that the park’s original focus was to give guests the feeling of being in the wild west, or in Africa, or in the future – a somewhat reality based future. But if you apply “Fantasy” to each of these areas, you get Buzz in TL and Aladdin in Adventureland. I just hope that we don’t see a Cowboy and Indians Carousel anytime soon…

 

[raidermatt]

Professor- I think you'll find that your comments are pretty much in agreement with everyone here. If we look at the car definitions, we'll find that your statements could be uttered by someone in cars 1, 2 or 3. Only 4 is really eliminated, but just about any 4 would likely have ditched this site long ago...

So, the questions center around things like direction and philosophy.

There are some who see nothing wrong with the current direction or philosophy. Many who subscribe to this belief use the "I still have a Magical time" argument. Unfortunately, that's missing the big picture.

At other times, the discussion will center around a particular aspect, and whether it is an example of poor philosophy/direction. Examples include Aladdin and the moderate resorts. These discussions can be at one of two levels. In the case of Aladdin, its whether the its even a negative in any way. In the case of the moderates, its acknowledged that they are lacking in some areas, but the arguement centers around whether the lacking areas are really relevant to the Disney experience.

The important thing to remember in all of this is to separate what we like as individuals from what is the overall philosophy and impact. This is not to say you are not separating the two, only to help emphasize the point, since some of us have been slower to catch on than others. (Myself included... )

 

[DisneyKidds]

and the none too subtle Mr. Kidds wanted to single me out!

Who, moi?

To me most of the world (including Disney) is NOT black and white, but varying shades of gray. So, I feel that this particular item is subjective, but shaded so dark that it is very hard to argue that it isn’t objective!!

Monsieur Baon, perhaps if one didn't talk oneself in circles we could communicate better (enough smilies so that you don't use the H E Double Hockeysticks word again? Are you losing your sense of humor? ). Looks like you are thinly veiling what you want to say is objective behind the word subjective. It doesn't matter how many times you bold it or say the word subjective, you obvioulsy feel otherwise.

Then tell me how the heart of Manhattan, which I agreed would represent Disney, is analogous with the edge of Harlem? Yes they are both New York. One offers a quality New York stay. The other you need an uzi to protect yourself at night. So how does that equate?

Wow, just think how many people Mr. Baron could have offended with this one. You are obviously prejudiced against (the revitalized) Harlem, among other things (ie. any Disney resort that is not the Poly or CR .) Let's try this. Replace Park Ave in the 130's with the intersection of Fordham Rd. and Arthur Ave. Does that work better for you? Probably not, because you seem to feel only the ritzy Park Ave, with the shiny big buildings and fancy boutiques can represent the true NYC. Guess what, just like with Disney resorts, you couldn't be more wrong.

Who says 1972? You certainly can’t mean me!!

I didn't mean you, per se. Perhaps I exaggerated a bit (you aren't the only one who can be guilty of that ). However, tell me, honestly, what you approve of as 'Disney' (in general) since 1982. Apparently no hotels, no parks - not much. Sure, maybe you will accept one or two rides, but the World seems to have been downhill for you since the last great addition in your eyes - Epcot. So change that 1972 to 1982 . Would it surprise you to know that I .................. disagree, and think that is a bit . Now I don't think Ei$ner got out of bed one morning and snapped. Somewhere along the line he lost focus - you have me agreeing on that much, but that doesn't impeach everything he did before he stepped over the line. Walt knew when to push the boundry, when to compromise to move things forward, make a buck, whatever you want to call it, but he knew when to stop. Ei$ner, sadly, didn't - but that doesn't mean he has been all bad, IMHO.

My ‘take’ on Aladdin has absolutely nothing to do with the Disney Standard!

Anyone want to reconsider this statement? I really believe that your 'take' on Aladdin typifies your stance on the Standards. Think about that long and hard, because if you disagree I lose all respect for many of your well made arguments (yes, you do make some good arguments - not that I should be admitting that )
Correct me if I am wrong, but to you Aladdin represents a departure from attention to proper detail, lack of imagination, lowering of quality, depreciation of Show - I could go on. You subjectively dislike this 'practically objective' gray area for reasons that are intricately tied to the Standards you have been so passionate about. How can you possibly say that your 'take' isn't based on the Standards? Wouldn't saying that be the equivalent of admitting that Aladdin meets the standards, but you just don't like the colors? I don't think that is what you believe at all.

PLEASE!!! Don’t use this argument!! It is beneath you. Are you seriously telling me that the offerings in Adventureland were kid UN-friendly enough to DEMAND a “kids only” ride? Cause that’s what it is! It isn’t “family”!! It’s for kids!!

Absolutely. Sure, Aladdin is for kids. Guess what, families often include KIDS!!!. I can very much say that POC, JC, the treehouse, are not very enjoyable for a 2 year old. Some three year olds might enjoy them, but not too many. As my kids get older I'll keep you informed about how they like these rides, but I'll guarantee it will be a few more years before they get more excited for those than they do for Aladdin. So yes, Adventureland very much could use a 'kids' ride. Do you not think a 2 year old should have a good time - or should they just not do it in Adventureland. To further reinforce the design of Aladdin - kids respond to bright, vibrant colors and spitting camels. The ride was intended for kids - the ride hits the target. As for fitting, I'm sure more thought went into selecting the color schemes than you think. So, it may not work for you, but that doesn't make it wrong, commish .

 

[raidermatt]

DK, you seem to acknowledge that Aladdin is a departure from the previous direction of Adventureland (bright colors, appeals mainly to kids but not adults), but argue that is a good thing.

Rest assured that little kids do enjoy the Jungle Cruise (a boat ride) and Tiki Room. And they don't have to be much older to enjoy Pirates (another boat ride, though slightly more intense).

If you believe Adventureland needed to move in a different direction, so be it. I can only disagree and say that an addition that was more in line with the prior direction would have been more appropriate.

Remember, there is a difference between a family attraction and an attraction that appeals only to kids (for the most part). That difference is one of the main catalysts for Disneyland in the first place.


Few other quick points...

Any place in NY would, by defintion offer an authentic NY experience. NY is what it is, and if you're in Harlem, by definition you are experiencing the real NY. That doesn't make it the same type or quality of experience, however.



The reason I no longer buy the "Eisner lost focus" theory is the rifts that developed rather quickly between him and the other management talent within Disney. Yes, I will give him some credit for things like The Little Mermaid and Lion King, but only because the guy in charge ALWAYS has some responsibility for the end results.

Its pretty clear now that he fought against many of the things that turned out to be Disney successes. Its just that he had not yet consolidated his power to the point where he could win all of those battles.

Gradually, he got rid of everyone who would dare challenge him, and that resulted in his influence showing through more and more over time.

Yes, he did make better use of Disney's assets, like the film vault and land in WDW. I'll give him credit for that, as I see it as a necessary step for the company. But that's only a piece of the big picture, and eventually those assets lose their value. So new creations must emerge, and continue to emerge. The impact of the lack of these new creations is becoming more and more apparent.