Diamond Horshoe to close Feb 1

[Another Voice]

Lion King…Mermaid…Tarzan…Hunchback…Pocahontas…

Well – that’s the point isn’t it?

‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ wasn’t based on a Disney film. The ‘Haunted Mansion’ wasn’t based on a Disney film. ‘Big Thunder Mountain’ wasn’t based on a Disney film. ‘Illuminations’ was based on a Disney film. The original ‘Journey into Imagination’ wasn’t based on a Dinsey film (yet it spawned a highly popular character).

As original conceived, the parks were supposed have shows that stood on their own. The parks were supposed to broaden the number of stories that Disney could present. The parks were supposed to be a new stage on which new types of shows could have been created. Yes, the character were always a big part of the parks - but they weren't the only elements.

I don’t have a problem with character based shows, but I think the balance between “new” and “ancillary marketing” seems to be off. Many of the new shows seem created less because they were good in and of their own right and more and more because they were a bullet point on a synergy PowerPoint presentation.

A “guaranteed crowd pleaser” like a ‘Toy Story’ show feels like taking the easy way out. It’s the same process behind sequels – you’ve got a pre-sold concept and you know people are going to show up. Sit back and collect the money. There’s a natural tendency to work a little less and to rely on the concept rather than the show itself - it happens all throughout show business in the same way. With something new you have to work a lot harder to make sure it pleases that audience.

My chief concern about Disney is it no longer takes any kind of creative risk. And that has caused it to grow stale. Things are mostly good, but the unexpected and amazing are growing infrequent. You can very easily create a good show by having familiar ‘Toy Story’ characters sing familiar ‘Toy Story’ songs. And in fact the ‘Woody’s Round-up’ show they had here at Disneyland was good. But why not try for something great?

If the show’s thirty year’s old and creaky – make it better. They’ve got a huge chunk of American history and mythology to play with; be creative and have fun with it. A stage show involves so little cost compared to a ride that the risks of failure are as small as they'll ever get (which, by the way, was the thinking that finally justified 'Illuminations' way back - sometimes the risks really pay off). Surely Disney is capable of coming up with something new that can both please the adults and children that does not seem like a commercial for plush toys.

Why can’t they be the creative and imaginative company that Disney claims to be? Why can't they add to their group of characters instead of recycling them?

 

[JeffH]

I'm not against NEW shows, just against replacing old shows (that new generations as well as old can appreciate) with new shows that could instead be ADDED elsewhere.
The castle is over 30 years old, too, but should they replace that with a new Cinderella Roller Coaster?
The DHR appeals to all members of the family, it is a true family show.

 

[raidermatt]

Really, what is so disappointing? So far, most seem to be complaining that they are replacing a 30+ year old show that they like - so it must be wrong?

We all agree there is a certain Disney "Standard" that applies to individual attractions, as well as the parks in general. We may disagree on how much of the new stuff meets that Standard, but at least we agree there is one.

Further, I think we all agree that the Standard is made up of different "requirements" if you will, and simply fulfilling one of those requirements does not mean something meets the Standard.

I seem to remember a thread that even tried to layout what those requirements are for individual attractions, and their relative level of importance.

Now, we come to this thread, where you essentially say "you want updates, then you get it, then you whine".

What was the point of all of those discussions? Yes, updating old attractions is one of the things we call for, but do you really think any of us ever meant that alone is the answer?

Honestly, I think you do get that, but perhaps took the easy way out with your initial post?


Now, as for whether it fits, I don't think I'm going to be quite as quick to change my mind as our friend gcurling. Woody's Roundup was parody or a homage (depending on your view) of 50's childrens' shows and the depiction of the Old West at the time. While I think that CAN fit, its not as good a fit as a show that is based on, parodies, or pays homage to the actual Old West.

I know, subtle difference, and its not enough to sink the show, but we are looking for what is BEST, not just what is good enough, right?

All that said, this isn't the kind of decision one can point to and say "SEE, this PROVES that Disney management does not get it!"

Its when you take it into the big picture, and realize it fits in with the scenario AV describes, that it becomes a real problem.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Now, we come to this thread, where you essentially say "you want updates, then you get it, then you whine".

Honestly, I think you do get that, but perhaps took the easy way out with your initial post?

I'm with you Matt. I know all about the Standards, Traditions, etc. On the surface it may appear to you I took the easy way out with my initial post (and I do admit I wanted to find a way to get under some skin ) but that really isn't the case. In fact, I say everyone else has taken the easy way out in condemning the change.

Here is the deal. If the change was complete and you were evaluating the actual new show and assessing the fact that it doesn't meet the standards I might be hard pressed to disagree. But guess what - it hasn't happened yet.

I can see asking for change - proper change, and then continuing to be disappointed (whine ) after a change takes place if, and only if, the new show fell short. That would be fair. However, it is not fair to decry this change before we've seen the new show and had a chance to evaluate it on it's merits in comparison to the Standards. Bottom line is that I don't think those who seem to be against this change would alter their opinions even if the new show met all the Standards. Don't you agree that that would be wrong?

So, as I said before, I'll wait to see the show before I write this change off as a mistake.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Its when you take it into the big picture, and realize it fits in with the scenario AV describes, that it becomes a real problem.

Speaking of AV's scenario...........Tower of Terror wasn’t based on a Disney film. Rock-n-Rollercoaster wasn’t based on a Disney film. Kilimanjaro Safaris wasn’t based on a Disney film. Mission:Space is not based on a Disney film. We can throw down successful old and new attractions on both side of the aisle (granted – the jury hasn’t even been selected for M:S yet). AV is correct in the position that Disney is into grabbing low hanging fruit as of late – but one shouldn't misrepresent the facts to imply that that is all they have been doing. There have been recent times when they have reached a bit higher. Could they do it more? Sure. Should they do it more? Yes. Does that mean they should ignore some long hanging fruit along the way? No.

You guys are right in that Disney does need to take more risks. However, that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t keep a balanced portfolio that includes some low risk ventures as well. A change at Diamond Horseshoe can fit that bill. Freshen things up, provide something new, and do it in a venue that doesn’t have to be rebuilt or heavily invested in - all while you are working on some other bigger things. Those bigger things have been scarce the past few years (ok - non-existent until M:S and Philharmagic open) but that can and will change. Slowly perhaps, but change will come.

I know, I know – where is my proof? I don’t have it – so we will just have to see who is right over time. When that time comes I’m sure Disney will be the creative and imaginative company that Disney claims to be and will add to their group of characters instead of recycling them.

 

[Another Voice]

“When that time comes I’m sure Disney will be the creative and imaginative company that Disney claims…”

Again, the core of the problem. Basically you’re asking us to lower our standards, accept less than their best effort, and gladly receive less value for our money in the hopes that one distant day – out of the goodness of Disney’s heart – they return to the level of excellence they claim to be maintaining all along. I’m sorry, but I missed the memo that said Disney was taking a decade off and I'm really not inclined to give that leeway without a really good excuse.

Sure ‘The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror’ and ‘Rock’n Rollercoaster Featuring Aerosmith’ aren’t based on Disney movies, but I sure sense that Disney is trying to buy some cheap goodwill whenever I look at their full titles. Do you? Even ‘Mission: Space’ was supposed to be ‘Mission to Mars’ before that movie tanked (and it’s not like Disney rushed to put their own money into the project either). Kilimanjaro Safari is based on the station wagon my family drove through Lion Country Safari a couple decades ago. It’s bad enough living off one’s own legacy, but trying to live off someone else’s is very close to pathetic.

All this time that we’ve been patiently waiting for “change to come” and Disney’s been plucking off the low fruit…Where has that left us? The Disney Stores have a selection of product less than the Disney aisle in my local Target. There’s nothing shown on The Disney Channel of interest to anyone this side of puberty. Their first theme park in Southern California since Eisenhower can’t attract a crowd when it’s free (and the last one in Florida is only slightly better). Disney’s traditional animation division produces nothing but Saturday morning cartoon shows and it’s a distant fourth place in computer animation despite a twenty year head start. The first-to-fourth network’s only hope of salvation comes from a show where some ditz picks one of twenty guys to shack up with (an interesting choice for a “family” entertainment company). The Studio releases bomb after bomb after bomb and turns to amusement park rides to inspire its films. And while the company’s been moaning about how it can’t afford to invest in the parks it somehow managed to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in other people’s airplanes.

And this is the path that’s supposed to lead to greatness if we just hang around long enough? Sorry, but lowering our standards and mouthing platitudes isn’t going to make anything better.


P.S. – The “don’t say anything until you’ve tried it” works only when you’re getting a child to eat broccoli. Entertainment has to be appealing to lure an audience. People must want to see something; they will never give you the benefit of the doubt. A sad but very true fact of show business.

 

[curtisl]

In December I remember thinking, "The Diamond Horseshoe, I've heard great things about it. I should make a point about seeing it the next time I'm here." Oh well, so much for that idea.

If they also decide to replace the Adventures Club with a Meet and Greet, I'm throwing in the towel.

-curtis

 

[DisneyKidds]

And this is the path that’s supposed to lead to greatness if we just hang around long enough?

I must say, monsieur AV, you are the master of seeing the negative and assuming the worst. (I know, I know - you think I am the master of seeing the positive and assuming the best - and guess what, we probably both see things that aren't really there ) Now, that isn't always a bad thing. Honest critics are any businesses best friend. However, as a Hollywood insider, you know better than anyone else that there are two (no make that twenty ) sides to every story. Why do I always feel that I only get one side of the Disney story from you .

Furthermore, with your vast experience I'd think you'd see a bit of a bigger picture. After all, the ..................

All this time

............... that you refer to has been a relatively small piece of WDW theme park history, hardly a "decade taken off". The types of success and failure we banter about are measured in increments of 10 years, not two or three, or five (years which involved the tragedy of 9-11 and the decline of the Dow from 11,000 to under 8). Are we better off now than we were 10 years ago? Sadly, no - and for quite a few reasons, not the least of which has been poor management. However, I will judge Disney over the longer haul, and we'll see where they are when I have the years of experience you do. Does that mean that in the interim we have to................

lower our standards, accept less than their best effort, and gladly receive less value for our money?

The answer is both yes and no. We don't have to lower our standards as we should always hold Disney to a high standard and call them out when they don't meet it. However, we do have to consider all the factors and accept what Disney has been doing. What other chooice do we have? I'll tell you what other choice we have - the choice to go elsewhere. Some will, some won't - but I don't because I can assure you that I receive no less value for my money today than I did 12 years ago. Is that a personal assessment? Heck yes - and you are welcome to yours.

(DK steps off soapbox)

curtisl...............regarding Diamond Horseshoe, why is it that you have never seen it? It looks like you have made a few trips to WDW. Perhaps you hadn't had time to see it. Would that mean that it wasn't a compelling enough show for you to want to spend the time on? I know that has always been the case with us. As such, I don't have a problem with the show being replaced. AV can eqaute me to a child eating his vegetables, but I'll pass judgement on the replacement once I have something to judge rather than assume that it won't be appealing and lure an audience .

 

[Another Voice]

“What other choice do we have?”

Demand quality.

Don’t settle for the low hanging fruit.

Give your money to people who work for it – not to the people who expect it as a birthright.

My “vast experience” in Hollywood has taught me is that the entertainment industry is like all the others: no one is going to work harder than they have to. If Studio X can make money by turning out low-effort products sold only on the basis of brand loyalty, that’s exactly what they are going to do. It’s up to the audience to force them to do more.

What was unique about Disney was the audience driving up the quality of the product was inside the company itself. They were their own biggest fans and they wanted to see good work. But now most of those people are gone because they made those with mediocre ability work too hard. Never underestimate the power of a bad CEO to reduce a company to his level.

So if “good enough” is what you want to pay for – enjoy. But don’t be surprised if there are few people around to share the experience with you. The decline has nothing to do with economics or national tragedies. It has to do with the quality of the product and the audience’s expectations.

And my “vast experience” has also taught me that hacks usually find all kinds of excuses but that people with true talent dig in and work harder.

All I hear from Disney these days are excuses.

 

[DisneyKidds]

What was unique about Disney was the audience driving up the quality of the product was inside the company itself. They were their own biggest fans and they wanted to see good work. But now most of those people are gone because they made those with mediocre ability work too hard. Never underestimate the power of a bad CEO to reduce a company to his level.

I agree - and this is a sad state of affairs compared to what Disney used to be in many respects.

So do you fall in line with the Scoop line of thinking that.................

It’s up to the audience to force them to do more.

by.....................

Demanding quality.

Not settling for the low hanging fruit.

Giving your money to people who work for it – not to the people who expect it as a birthright.

which can only be done by taking your vacation dollars to a location other than Disney?

To date I have yet to have a less than quality experience at Disney and everything I have seen or done has been well above the "good enough" level - so yes, I'll continue to go and enjoy.

 

[EvMc]

My daughter (8 y/o) loves the show. Its been a tradition every year since she was 3, sometimes more than once a day! We have missed it a time or two because of timing of the shows and bad timing or standing in a ride line for too long! She cried when I told her it was changing. She likes the live action shows, always has. I think the magic show has special appeal for all ages, it was my 78 y/o father's favorite thing at the park.

Like I told her, maybe she will like what replaces it but she doesn't think so! It won't stop us from driving 14 hours to get there each year but we will just have to find another tradition!

 

[d-r]

I was pretty surprised when I first heard the diamond horseshoe was closing, and I didn't really believe it; and I was right, it wasn't closing, it is getting a new show. I am starting to get excited about it. Don't get me wrong, I love disney nostalgia, more than most. I'm happy watching the old 50's - 60's disneyland shows that tour the park as it was then, and I wish I had been born early enough to see such a simple time. But most people aren't into that nostalgia like that. What do you think Joe Sixpack's preschoolers will be more excited about; the 1 gazillionth showing of a tired act from the 1950's, or a brand new fun show with Woody? Personally, I've long wished that Woody would have a presence in frontierland to mirror Buzz's attraction in tomorrowland. And the concept of Woody's roundup show is a perfect match for a stage show. I'm really quite excited about it, and I'm not one who likes the "preschoolerization" phenomenon. I think this might be a winner. I only hope that they have the foresight to bring it back to a reservations type of system like the diamond horeshoe was back when it was popular enough to warrant it; without it, it will be impossible to get into this show when it opens. Hear me now and believe me later, people are going to be very excited about this and it will be very popular. People will eat it up. They can do a lot with the premise, I expect it will be very entertaining. In with the new, I say.

Here is the temporary show that they had in Disneyland for a while before it went back to being diamond horeshoe:

http://www.yesterland.com/roundup.html

DR

edited to add another link:
http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID10000690.asp

http://www.laughingplace.com/News-PID500510-500510.ASP

 

[DisneyKidds]

"preschoolerization"

I'll have to add that to my dictionary .

Hear me now and believe me later

hehehehehe Hans, or was that Franz? I read what was left of your post with a Hans and Franz accent .

 

[curtisl]

DK - No, it was not a priority to see the Diamond Horseshoe the two times I was at WDW. However, with WDW and DL, I still have the, probably now unreasonable, expectation that rides and shows that have been around for ages will still be there the next time I show up. Note also, that I'm coming off a 7 year period when I didn't go to any Disney parks. The decline in quality is all the more jaring because it feels sudden instead of gradual.

 

[JeffH]

If they are trying to ADD live shows, why didn't they simply remove the bears from the Country Bear Jamboree and use that stage and large seating capacity for the new show.
(not that I'd really want either to be replaced).

 

[KNWVIKING]

Why can't they offer both shows ? The existing show isn't very complicated prop was,basically just three guys,a piano & a deck of cards. They wouldn't neccasarily have to run the current show every day, or maybe just on weekends. Just a thought.

 

[JeffH]

I agree, I don't see why they can't run BOTH shows, alternating, so there's a show active there all day.

 

[d-r]

Well, you'd have to find performers willing to work a few days a week, pay for salary for both casts, and you'd probably confuse the daylights out of the guests.

When I was an undergrad my part time job was changing sets at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival; I don't know if the horeshoe saloon could handle changing over sets and props for two shows, but I doubt it.

 

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

I was just saying how we absolutely must do this this trip. We have been to disney three times and never saw it. Now it seems I never will. How could it be. I must be a jynx for this place.

Uh.
Make that 2 times (once with family, once alone) and I could say the same thing. I purposely didn't see it this last solo trip (was unable to on our spur of the moment -going during the busiest week of the year- trip before that) because I wanted to leave SOMETHING for us to do as a family that I hadn't done by myself. It is one of the very very few things I didn't do. At the moment I can't think of anything else I didn't do (in both trips combined) except maybe Aladdin's magic carpet ride.

*cry*
My kids will probably LOVE the new show (if it's up and running by the time we go on our next trip) but I'm seriously bummed that I didn't see this atleast once.

I'm also bummed about missing out on 20,000 leagues under the sea (or whatever that was called) and COP (because it was closed both times and I guess closed forever?) and Mr Toad's Wild ride (although the kids enjoyed Winnie The Pooh).

Such is life when you have to wait till you are 33yrs old for your first ever trip to WDW.

*sigh*

 

[JeffH]

Considering that the original Slue Foot Sue and the Can-Can dancers have been gone for awhile already, you've missed more like 2 shows now.