Positive WDW remarks?

[Wick]

It's also something they should have had when AK opened, not 7+ years later.

Well look, you can complain about the timeliness (or lack thereof) all you want. But in doing so you dilute Walt's original notion that WDW was to be in a constant state of change: always growing, expanding, taking out old attractions, putting in new better ones, etc. It just sounds like a silly complaint, thats all.

I think it's a shame that the Imagineers found the value of spending so much time in Nepal, and the research expedition that found several new species of plants and animals, and yet they didn't bother to translate the feelings of awe and wonder that THEY felt into something that guests could appreciate. There are snippets of the research in the queue, but, really, how do you take the time to appreciate that while you know 100 people are backing up behind you? How do you make it accessible to someone who might not have a pre-existing interest in the material, not by a ride queue you might blow through.

If they wanted to build a roller coaster with a Yeti attack, I don't see how they couldn't have accomplished that with lots of trips to the library, and all the tools the internet provides (more research opportunities, video conferencing, etc.) Would the difference in design, really have been that different?

I know that when people ride Kilamanjaro Safaris, the experience of being close to those animals, stimulates them. You can hear the excitement in their voices as they point out the animals, and I think the experience sticks in their mind. A Bongo is no longer just a set of drums. I wonder what sticks with people when they get off E:E about the culture of the people of Nepal? If the ride was one part of a larger experience, if they could manage it, some of the animals and plants that they discovered.

The coaster is fun, no doubt, aside from the back, it looks great. But it's a big helping of empty calories. The Imagineers were changed by their visits to Nepal, and I think the guests deserve a little bit of that experience too. I don't think people are that turned off by learning new things (just as long as it doesn't remind them of school, and if you think Disney is wonderful, do you really think they are going to make it like school?). And if guests don't want to have more of an exposure to the world around them, maybe Busch Gardens would be a better fit. I would rather Disney fail, by being commited to more loftier aspirations, than succeed by appealing to people's love of roller coasters. And no, Disney doesn't have to be super serious, and super educational, all the time. But I think they should say, "life and the world is interesting, don't shut yourself off from it, just because you like our characters. And we won't shut you off from it, just because we want to sell our characters."

I believe you may be reading into things a bit too deeply. Not everything needs to be chock full of history and culture.

And even if it was- How could you give an accurate and complete understanding of ANY culture to people standing on line for X minutes? That's like saying, Wow I totally understand Mexican culture now because I went on rio del tiempo.

 

[Another Voice]

Not everything needs to be chock full of history and culture.

But isn't that the whole point of Animal Kingdom? To educate and inform.

I'm sorry if you're a U.S. American citizen without a map. Please excuse the rest of us for wanting a something a little more than motion induced nauesa.

 

[hopemax]

I believe you may be reading into things a bit too deeply. Not everything needs to be chock full of history and culture.

And even if it was- How could you give an accurate and complete understanding of ANY culture to people standing on line for X minutes? That's like saying, Wow I totally understand Mexican culture now because I went on rio del tiempo.

That's not the point. The point is to get people to think, "The people and country of Nepal ( or Mexico) are interesting. Maybe, I'll go read more about them when I get home. Or maybe when I see an article about them in the newspaper I won't skip over it. Or maybe I will at least be able to recognize where that place is or say that I've heard of it."

Something more than, "I went on an amusement ride that was fun and looked cool."

 

[Wick]

But isn't that the whole point of Animal Kingdom? To educate and inform.

If you think education and the spread of information is "the whole point" of AK, then I guess you've missed the boat entirely. Sure, educating the public may be a subset within the general mission of AK, but to say that it's the whole point is way off the mark in my view. You want to learn about animals on a higher level, you go to a zoo (remember the whole NahTaZu campaign?).

While Disney clearly holds the reputation of paying special interest to animals (as far back as Seal Island being the benchmark and seminal work in the wildlife documentary genre), I would argue that the driving force behind AK is not to educate and inform but, like everything else in WDW, primarily to entertain. Everything else falls in to place afterwards. You may disagree with what should be the "whole point" of AK, but let's call a spade a spade. It's a theme park first and foremost.

The point is to get people to think, "The people and country of Nepal ( or Mexico) are interesting. Maybe, I'll go read more about them when I get home.

And how do you know that EE hasn't had that effect? Just because the queue wasn't as historically detailed as you would have liked it to be doesn't mean that the theming itself wasn't enough to spark interest or insight for some guests.

To answer the original question, I believe EE has succeeded in offering a quality attraction that is largely free of tie-ins, and in that respect it parallels POTC or HM. The fact that it wasn't there from day1 or that the theming doesn't provide enough history or culture doesn't detract from the notion that this is a top-notch Disney original. Let's give credit where credit is due.

 

[hopemax]

It's a theme park first and foremost.

Ah, so lets talk about what theme parks are. Disneyland was the first theme park and the blueprint for the theme parks to follow. Imagineer Legend John Hench starts his book:

"The Art of the Show"

The spark of inspiration for this book came from Walt Disney, who wanted Disneyland to be a place where adults and children could experience together some of the wonders of life and adventure, and feel better because of it. I heard Walt say this many times, and each time, I was fascinated and intrigued by the way Disneyland would make adults and children feel better for having used their imaginations while vising the Park, so that they would leave feeling more self-assured, stronger, alert and much more alive.

Later on, there is a passage from the Ub Iwerks biography, "The Hand Behind the Mouse," explaining the creation of Disneyland.

"Disney explained that it would be 'something of a fair, an exhibition, a playground, a community center, a museum of living facts, and a showplace of beauty and magic."

So that's what you're talking about when you say, first and foremost it is a theme park, right?

I would argue that the driving force behind AK is not to educate and inform

Take a look at the dedication plaque. It welcomes you to the park, describes what is there, and the last line...

A kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama... and learn.

The very last thing, the thing that is supposed to linger with you..."and LEARN."

Problem is, Disney has strayed so far from its roots, that we now have a situation where AV or I or someone can talk about this type of stuff and the reaction is a snort, and, "but its a theme park." While we're sitting here thinking, "yes, it is a theme park, live up to it!" Six Flags and others saw how successful putting the words "theme park" on their signage could be, but they didn't become theme parks in spirit. And now even the people in charge of Disney's park don't recognize the difference, let alone the guests. And those that ask for a return to the guiding principles, are admonished and chastised for thinking they had anything to do with a "theme park."

 

[raidermatt]

Well look, you can complain about the timeliness (or lack thereof) all you want. But in doing so you dilute Walt's original notion that WDW was to be in a constant state of change: always growing, expanding, taking out old attractions, putting in new better ones, etc. It just sounds like a silly complaint, thats all.

Silly that a company with Disney's resources opened a park with fewer attractions than Disneyland had on it's opening day, when Walt (since you mentioned him) leveraged himself, not just his company, to the core to put as much as he could put into it?

Do you honestly believe Walt would endorse the kind of strategy today's Disney employs when building parks? Open parks with a dozen attractions and see how it goes, then add here and there until your marketing goals are finally met?

Look at MGM and where it stands 18 years after opening, and compare that to what happened at Disneyland in its first 18 years. Then look at the relative resources the company had at its disposal during both of those periods, and then try to tell me that the type of "growth and expansion" today's parks see are anything close to what Walt was actually talking about.

If you want to argue Walt was off his nut fine. But his strategy and current Disney's strategy when it comes to park growth and expansion bear very little resemblance to each other.


As for Everest, it's ok. It's a fun, well decorated roller coaster.

 

[dwaters]

Thanks for sharing your opinions on EE.

The fun vs. learning debate is interesting. Can you have both? Is the role of a theme park that of teacher? Should it be?

Many of Epcot's critics have said "I don't go on vacation to learn. I'd go to school if I wanted that".

How important is it to get knowledge of the culture of Nepal in order the find the Expedition Everest experience entertaining?

Does anybody actually ride Kali River Rapids in hopes of learning more about our environment and the plight of our rainforests? I suspect it is more about getting wet and going down the drops.

I think entertainment should come before education, with some hope that both can happen. I do appreciate the lengths Disney goes to to make things authentic looking in their theming. It is what sets them apart from the Six Flags of the world.
I do wonder if the family down from New Jersey for the week truly appreciates the fact that the thatched rooftops in Harambe village were actually built by workers shipped in from an African village as they are hustling past to catch the parade or get a fastpass, but it does make for good reading in the guidebooks.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

error. sorry.

 

[Another Voice]

The point of Animal Kingdom was to show that the real world could be just as exciting, just as amazing, just as interesting as the fantasy worlds of the Magic Kingdom.

And the real world is. And people know it. Look at the ratings for Animal Planet, the Discovery Channel and all the "educational" channels on your cable. Disney invented the whole concept of the "nature film" more than fifty years ago. Look at the most popular ride that Disney has installed in a decade - 'Soaring'. Isn't that entire show nothing but a movie of nothing? You're flying over a river and an orange grove. How studid and boring is that!!!!! Yet, give those elements the showmanship that Disney is known for and you've got two hour lines. So much for ignorant people wanting nothing but roller coasters.

But at Animal Kingdom, Disney has refused to even try to live up to their own goals. Making a thrilling rollercoaster is easy and cheap. Making the world of Amazon rainforest come alive with all it's dangers is a little harder. Disney has chosen the cheap and easy way - and that's something that goes against one hundred years of what the company has stood for.

Sure, there are people on this post that are going to be amused by nothing more than watching an elephant relieve himself - but the vast majority of the public has shown time and time again that they are better than that. The "no education on vacation" is a made-up myth created by people who don't know anything about the travel business. The Smithsonian outdraws Walt Disney World; the biggest tourist attraction in Hawai'i is the Polynesian Cultural Center; stupid boring Epcot has always outdrawn thrill-pack Disney/MGM Studios.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Ah, so lets talk about what theme parks are. Disneyland was the first theme park and the blueprint for the theme parks to follow. Imagineer Legend John Hench starts his book:

"The Art of the Show"

The spark of inspiration for this book came from Walt Disney, who wanted Disneyland to be a place where adults and children could experience together some of the wonders of life and adventure, and feel better because of it. I heard Walt say this many times, and each time, I was fascinated and intrigued by the way Disneyland would make adults and children feel better for having used their imaginations while vising the Park, so that they would leave feeling more self-assured, stronger, alert and much more alive.

Later on, there is a passage from the Ub Iwerks biography, "The Hand Behind the Mouse," explaining the creation of Disneyland.

"Disney explained that it would be 'something of a fair, an exhibition, a playground, a community center, a museum of living facts, and a showplace of beauty and magic."

So that's what you're talking about when you say, first and foremost it is a theme park, right?



Take a look at the dedication plaque. It welcomes you to the park, describes what is there, and the last line...

A kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama... and learn.

The very last thing, the thing that is supposed to linger with you..."and LEARN."

Problem is, Disney has strayed so far from its roots, that we now have a situation where AV or I or someone can talk about this type of stuff and the reaction is a snort, and, "but its a theme park." While we're sitting here thinking, "yes, it is a theme park, live up to it!" Six Flags and others saw how successful putting the words "theme park" on their signage could be, but they didn't become theme parks in spirit. And now even the people in charge of Disney's park don't recognize the difference, let alone the guests. And those that ask for a return to the guiding principles, are admonished and chastised for thinking they had anything to do with a "theme park."

This is most certainly true BUT WDW wasn't following this path from early on. It was not a groundbreaker and did not have the commitment for the 'right' reasons. WDW was to be a money maker to finance Walt's venture into urban planning (the original E.P.C.O.T.), no? (If I've misread this part of history please let me know).

As for E:E, I think folks are too quick to love it or hate it. I think the theming is great and the ride fun, should there have been more? Well, there probably could have been, but given today's Disney I'd say getting a ride as good as E:E is quite a victory.

 

[dwaters]

The Smithsonian outdraws Walt Disney World;

Seriously????

I had no idea.

 

[ChrisFL]

As for E:E, I think folks are too quick to love it or hate it. I think the theming is great and the ride fun, should there have been more? Well, there probably could have been, but given today's Disney I'd say getting a ride as good as E:E is quite a victory.

I consider it a step in the right direction at least...however anything better than DinoRama is a step in the right direction.

I also hate when people said they didn't like Epcot because it was educational....I dont know if it's just an American thing, but it seems like we're somehow allergic to learning. This is especially tragic when something comes along that educates people in a new way but people don't want it, afraid they might actually get something more out of it than a typical ride

 

[raidermatt]

Well, for all the people who say they don't want "education", Epcot's attendance has never been surpassed by MGM or AK. Now much of the education has been removed or toned down, yet Epcot isn't really doing any better than it did in the past.

There's people that say the MK is there least favorite park. Does that mean it needs to change its direction?

Of course education can be built into entertainment. The entertainment needs to come first and foremost (for Disney at least), but education can be there. The problem I think comes from how it's stated. When somebody says this ride will educate you, a lot of people do balk.

But when the statement talks about "invoking a sense of wonder through experiencing our natural world", or "creating a sense of inspiration through the celebration of past acheivements", it sounds a lot more interesting, and that's what Disney did more in the past. It's easier, though, to just create or buy a really cool ride mechanism and decorate it really well. Of course, as we have seen with Mission:Space, that's not a guarantee of success either.

 

[raidermatt]

This is most certainly true BUT WDW wasn't following this path from early on. It was not a groundbreaker and did not have the commitment for the 'right' reasons. WDW was to be a money maker to finance Walt's venture into urban planning (the original E.P.C.O.T.), no? (If I've misread this part of history please let me know).

Those statements were about Disneyland, and that's what the MK was based on, so I'm not sure that flies.

If we say this is different because MK was essentially a clone, ok, but WDW as a whole was most certainly still going to follow that path. The park was really a small part of the plan.

Even with the way things were done, certainly E.P.C.O.T. the park was a solid step down that path. And if Epcot is giving that up, as well as AK, then I'd say that's a huge change not only from the concepts Walt originally planned, but even the original charters of those parks.

 

[Wick]

Ah, so lets talk about what theme parks are. Disneyland was the first theme park and the blueprint for the theme parks to follow. Imagineer Legend John Hench starts his book:

"The Art of the Show"

The spark of inspiration for this book came from Walt Disney, who wanted Disneyland to be a place where adults and children could experience together some of the wonders of life and adventure, and feel better because of it. I heard Walt say this many times, and each time, I was fascinated and intrigued by the way Disneyland would make adults and children feel better for having used their imaginations while vising the Park, so that they would leave feeling more self-assured, stronger, alert and much more alive.

Later on, there is a passage from the Ub Iwerks biography, "The Hand Behind the Mouse," explaining the creation of Disneyland.

"Disney explained that it would be 'something of a fair, an exhibition, a playground, a community center, a museum of living facts, and a showplace of beauty and magic."

So that's what you're talking about when you say, first and foremost it is a theme park, right?



Take a look at the dedication plaque. It welcomes you to the park, describes what is there, and the last line...

A kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama... and learn.

The very last thing, the thing that is supposed to linger with you..."and LEARN."

Problem is, Disney has strayed so far from its roots, that we now have a situation where AV or I or someone can talk about this type of stuff and the reaction is a snort, and, "but its a theme park." While we're sitting here thinking, "yes, it is a theme park, live up to it!" Six Flags and others saw how successful putting the words "theme park" on their signage could be, but they didn't become theme parks in spirit. And now even the people in charge of Disney's park don't recognize the difference, let alone the guests. And those that ask for a return to the guiding principles, are admonished and chastised for thinking they had anything to do with a "theme park."

Neither of the quotes you provided from The Art of Show and The Hand Behind the Mouse convey the notion that education is the number one priority for theme parks.

In fact, there is nothing even synonymous with education, except for the last phrase on the dedication plaque which promotes learning (as a part of the whole, mind you, not the "whole point" of the park itself).

Of course education can be built into entertainment. The entertainment needs to come first and foremost (for Disney at least), but education can be there

Exactly. I just feel people like to nitpick a little too much, especially when the basis for disapproval of EE is rooted in the fact that the queue doesn't provide enough educational enrichment.

 

[Barbers2005]

I think entertainment should come before education, with some hope that both can happen. I do appreciate the lengths Disney goes to to make things authentic looking in their theming. It is what sets them apart from the Six Flags of the world.

I agree about entertainment before education. When I want a vacation that's primarily entertainment, I go to WDW. When I want an educational vacation, I go to D.C., Gettysburg, Baltimore- someplace in the real world with first rate museums or historical/cultural significance. Both are great vacations...they're just not the same kind of vacation. Besides, Disney is good at education when they try, but it's not what they do best. Where Disney really shines is making you feel like you've been transported. That is what really sets WDW apart from other vacation destinations as far as I'm concerned. It's all the effort and attention to detail that make you believe, on some visceral level, that you really are on an african safari, or in a German town square, or exploring a haunted house. I'm much more disappointed when Disney cuts corners and fails to uphold the illusion than when they decide not to make an attraction as educational as it could have been.

 

[hopemax]

Neither of the quotes you provided from The Art of Show and The Hand Behind the Mouse convey the notion that education is the number one priority for theme parks.

I never said it was. That's your conversation with another poster, and I'm not even sure he is saying it is. *I* posted those quotes so we could talk about what a theme park is, as defined by Disney by building the first one.

And you see nothing about education in the words "wonders of life, "an exhibition, a museum of living facts?"

Walt Disney even said himself, "I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained." He knew what his talents were. But I think it very clear from his works that his intention was to do both.. But like ChrisFL said, people hear the word and act as if they are allergic. It's like trying to get a kid to try something he doesn't want to. The parent can sit their and KNOW they would like it, but yet they are watching a tantrum instead, and what happens when the kid tries?

If instead of Nemo, obviously not learning his lesson, and getting lost AGAIN (how stupid must that fish be, I thought they established in the movie he was pretty resourceful), would your day be ruined if Nemo welcomed you to his undersea world and introduced you to his school friends and showed you the world he lives in and showed you the benefits you get from the ocean? If you remember the old Animaniacs cartoons and Wakko's "Countries of the World" and State Capitals songs, or the old School House Rock stuff. Brief and catchy but yet contains digestible nuggets of real knowledge.

It's not like there is a giant chasm and there is BIG FUN! on one side, and Charlie Brown's unintelligible school teacher, holding a book and a tapping a pointer on the other side, and you have to pick which side to visit (DUH!). There is a whole range of possibilities in between the two extremes, and I think Disney would be better served by sliding a little more to the "let's try to learn stuff too" side.

Education really isn't the right word anyway. Like I tried to get across in my other posts, and AV and Matt are repeating. "The world is interesting, life is interesting. Let us show you how and in our own special way. Maybe you'll be exposed to something that will stir you to do something different when you leave us."

especially when the basis for disapproval of EE is rooted in the fact that the queue doesn't provide enough educational enrichment.

No, the basis, is that Disney saw the value of sending their team halfway around the world several times. And the experience had a long lasting, and life changing effect on the people who went. They funded a special research expedition! And then they built a roller coaster and put some of the trinkets they found in the queue where people don't have the time to really process them, understand their context or importance. You don't see the disconnect there?

This is most certainly true BUT WDW wasn't following this path from early on.

Peter! Just because they did not go headlong, and completely into Walt's ideas about what to do in Florida, did not mean that they were completely abandoning the principles behind the creation of Disneyland, or led Walt to Florida in the first place. What is this, we don't want to build the wall as high as he would have, so that is license to not build it at all? Here's the Magic Kingdom plaque , but it is for all of WDW, since that is what it says. (and people wonder why others don't understand what to call it).

WALT DISNEY WORLD

is a tribute to the philosophy and life of Walter Elias Disney...
and to the talents, the dedication, and the loyalty of the entire Disney organization that made Walt Disney's dream come true.

May Walt Disney World bring Joy and Inspiration and New Knowledge to all who come to this happy place...
a Magic Kingdom where the young at heart of all ages
can laugh and play and learn -- together.

 

[raidermatt]

Exactly. I just feel people like to nitpick a little too much, especially when the basis for disapproval of EE is rooted in the fact that the queue doesn't provide enough educational enrichment.

I think you've misunderstood several things (not blaming... communication is always a two-way street), one of which is that the criticism is the queue doesn't educate enough. That's too narrow. The queue was used as an example of where they placed a few snippets of what they experienced on their visit. An educational aspect could have been included anywhere. But again, that sounds boring even to me.

If you have heard/seen any of the stuff from the imagineers who described their trip, you know that they spoke of wonders and amazing discoveries, cultures, etc. Part of what defined Disney was their ability to translate those wonderous experiences (from their own personal experiences or their imagination) into a three dimensional experience that conveyed those wonders to the guests. However they chose to do it.

With Everest, they took those experiences and made a nice looking mountain with a roller coaster, a shadow puppet show, and a great animatronic that you barely see.

Now before you start pointing to attractions like Dumbo and saying it didn't go to such lengths, remember that we are talking about a top of the line E-ticket here. This isn't a minor attraction, this is the big E-ticket we only get once every few years in one of the parks, if we are lucky.

They could have done more.

Nitpicking? Well, how many times have you heard that the Disney difference is in the details? It's in the things that nobody else is willing to do.

We can't have this both ways. If Disney really is special, then it's not nitpicking to expect a little more than a well-decorated roller coaster given their resources and what they put into their research.

Believing that doesn't mean I can't ride EE and have a good time. That's a completely separate issue from talking about what Disney really is, or was, or should be. Just like I can go to a Six Flags park and have fun while still recognizing it for what it is.


On the quotes not having anything to do with education, I'm not sure what to say. "A place where adults and children could experience together some of the wonders of life and adventure, and feel better because of it." Isn't that education? When you think of "a wonder of life and adventure", do you think only of a fun ride, or does it conjure up images or thoughts of perhaps something more grand and wonderous? Is that not how we learn?

"A museum of living facts".... that can't be anymore clear, can it? A museum showcases art and history, i.e. it educates, but this museum is not static and sterile, it's a living thing that you experience.

Again, it's all in how you look at it. Think "education" and picture classrooms and textbooks and no, you probably won't come up with exciting Disney theme park attractions.

But think of learning and experiencing as something more wonderful and amazing, and you can easily come to a very different conclusion.

 

[hopemax]

It's all the effort and attention to detail that make you believe, on some visceral level, that you really are on an african safari, or in a German town square, or exploring a haunted house. I'm much more disappointed when Disney cuts corners and fails to uphold the illusion than when they decide not to make an attraction as educational as it could have been.

And I think that what I'm sort of trying to get at. The details that make you believe you are on an African safari or in a German town are in their way, educational, although I just said, it's not really the right word. Education is not just listening to someone telling you things about the topic, which is what I think people are afraid of. Exhibits with signs under them that need reading, stuff like that, although they have their place. When you are on Kilamanjaro Safaris and the driver tells you something about one of the animals. Do you freak out and think, "I didn't come to Disney for this!" Or do you just look at the animal and think, "he's interesting."

Sometimes the best education is the one that you don't realize your receiving. But later on you realize that something stuck with you. I'm still not sure what really sticks with people after E:E than "it's a really cool ride," because that's what I see get mentioned on boards like these.

 

[G8RFAN]

DS and I must have ridden EE at least 20 times. The only time I had to really engage the details in the queue was on the soft opening day for AP/DVC members. I think I was in that line for over 2 1/2 hours as it had extended itself well beyond the jitney snack shack. When given the "opporutnity" to really look, the details are extraodinary. I doubt you can even capture a tenth of what truly is there unless they open all the areas of the queue. So if you used FP's or went on a slow time/day you can not make the proper asessment of the overall presentation. Those that think it is just a glorified Matterhorn is way off base.

When I took my family to Italy earlier this year, we loved the Uffizi in Florence, the Vatican in Rome, and St. Marks Square in Venice. Out of everything that we did emersing ourselves in the regional culture and education, my son enjoyed the train rides and feeding the pigeons at St. Marks the most. We even went to the famous Museo Explora in Rome for DS. It was ok, but Wannado City in South Florida blows it out of the water and it still struggles to get visitors. I think the average demographics of families visiting WDW is the telling reason why MK and EPCOT draws the most. AK has attempted to cover all the age groups and I think after 7 years, they have figured it out rather sucessfully. If it hasn't already, IMHO it should eclipse Studios.