Has WDI lost its edge?

[Sir_Cliff]

A lot of the discussions about things like the It's A Small World changes are drifting into discussions that deal more generally with the creative direction of the parks so I figured it might be worth starting a new thread about that so these other threads stop wandering so completely off-topic!

The general question of whether WDI has lost its edge isn't a bad one to pose as people can respond to it however they want and it pretty much encompasses all upcoming developments at the parks like IASW and the DCA changes. It also seems to be the undercurrent to a lot of these debates about things like the "characterization" of the parks.

Anyway, I'll take up this point from the IASW thread to begin with...

Park's overall theme.... BAH... What is the "overall theme" of Disneyland? Oh, I don't know.... Maybe a collection of cool places to go and cool things to do!

Coheasive creative vision is a straight jacket. It is a theme park not a religion. The theme of each area should enhance the attractions of the area, but I see NO reason that the lands need to fit into a larger park-level theme. In fact, I think in parks with "coheasive vision" you end up with crud that is there to push the vision, but no guest actually wants to see or do (Golden Dreams).

In my opinion, Disneyland has the PERFECT creative vision... cool things to do that I can't easily do, and cool things to see that I can't easily see.

The problem I have with this is that it condemns DCA to forever be an inferior Disneyland. The value in going in radically different creative directions as they have with the other parks (particularly Epcot and AK) is that it allows parks to establish their own unique identity and appeal different from those of the Magic Kingdom parks. I think they were going for this initially with DCA but just so poorly handled the execution that they didn't end up satisfying anyone. But that doesn't mean it was a bad idea.

Another thing is that DL does have at least an underlying theme of American mythology. Every land speaks to some part of the American psyche, whether it relates the exoticism of the "topical" third world, the frontier spirit, European cultural heritage or assertiveness and optimism about the country's place in the world (Tomorrowland)... though this last one is apparently no longer true! I think that is why it speaks to people so strongly and perhaps why in somewhere like Hong Kong people don't necessarily fall head over heals in love with it. So I don't think DL and WDW became such cultural institutions simply because they were cool and fun places to go. The extent and longevity of the Disneyland phenomenon suggests it was more than that by itself.

I'm not sure the WDI of today quite gets why these parks connected so strongly with their audience. DCA after this will certainly have a collection of cool and fun lands but that will be all it is: a random collection of fun rides and themed buildings. I find that an extremely odd new direction for Imagineering that goes against everything they've done so successfully in the past. They seem to be repeating a lot of mistakes they made the first time around, just this time spending a lot more money in the process.

[WrongWay]

Another thing is that DL does have at least an underlying theme of American mythology. Every land speaks to some part of the American psyche,

Blah, blah, blah..... More psyco-babble BS. Trying to find meaning where none exists.


One need do NOTHING more than look at what was popular on TV and in movies at the time Disneyland was built. Disney only had a dozen features, and only 7-8 of those hits. Youcan't build a full theme park around that, so he sutck them into one land behind the castle.

Westerns were HUGE, and Walt himself loved trains. The original concept was a big train park, so the train and Frontierland were no brainers.

Tarzan, African Queen, Etc. Danger, adventure. Another top topic for movies and tv.

Future: We were in first decade of the nuclear age. Plastics were new. Space age. Tomorrowland was about the nieve optimism of that time.


It was a snapshot of the pop-culture of the time it was built, nothing more. As pop-culture has moved, so has Disneyland.



Have the imagineers lost their edge? Heck no. They are working in a differnt pop culture, with different business constraints.


BTW: The fundamental flaw of DCA's original design was the mundane nature of the themes. Real world stuff that exists near by, that I could easily do if it wasn't so fraking boaring? Airport, farm, industrial area, generic amusement park.

The themes were mundane and the majoriy of the attrations were quite Generic. Why? Becuase imagineers have lost their edge? NO! Because the park was designed to attract yuppies and dinks, thinking they would aiy hunderds of dollars a day to sip wine, shop, and eat overpriced meals. It was designed by MBAs to be the park the company wanted to build and operate. It was not designed with the promary focus on entertaining the guests.

The #1 question was "how can we get people to spend?". The #1 question SHOULD have been, "How do we build a park people will want to attend?".

This primary error was not made by the imagineers. It was made by Eisner, Pressler, and other business managers. It was a loss of focus that Disney theme parks are entertainment venues, NOT upscale shopping malls. It was an executive failure, NOT an imagineering failure.

[Sir_Cliff]

Blah, blah, blah..... More psyco-babble BS. Trying to find meaning where none exists.

Ok, I guess things are just popular because they're popular, fun because they're fun, etc.

Although it's an odd analogy, I'll just say that a great novel like 1984 still connects with people now just as powerfully as it did when first written even though the context in which it was originally written and read has radically changed because it taps into some deeper part of the human psyche. Or maybe not I guess.

I do find it slightly ironic I must say that on one hand you argue in terms of revenue and target demographics and disregard more abstract concerns of variety and theming that other mention, then blast DCA in its original form for being a park designed by MBAs. If not designed by MBAs, the new DCA plans at least seem strategically plotted by them based on ideas of synergy and marketing surveys in the same way WDFA seemed to be run in this way during the dying days of the Eisner era.

[WrongWay]

Ok, I guess things are just popular because they're popular, fun because they're fun, etc.

No. I an saying that it doesn't matter WHY they are popular. We need not understand HOW matter warps space-time to understand gravity. We just need to know that it does.

We don't need to know WHY something is popular to know that it IS popular.

I do find it slightly ironic I must say that on one hand you argue in terms of revenue and target demographics and disregard more abstract concerns of variety and theming that other mention, then blast DCA in its original form for being a park designed by MBAs. If not designed by MBAs, the new DCA plans at least seem strategically plotted by them based on ideas of synergy and marketing surveys in the same way WDFA seemed to be run in this way during the dying days of the Eisner era.

One and only over riding question. Is this entertaining? Will guests pay huge sums of money to come see this?

I see that as the essence of Walt's strategy. Make really cool things that people really want to see and do, and the profits will take care of themselves.

I think the focus of DCA was wrong. They didn't make decisions based on "will guests want to see this... do this"? They built the park based on business rules that didn't put guest satisfaction as #1 priority.

And, if you are worried about distorting a a message of an attraction or worried about undermining a celebration of cultural diversity, than you too are focusedon the wrong thing.

The priority MUST be, profits through guest satisfaction. Entertain the guests and the profits will follow.

[Sir_Cliff]

No. I an saying that it doesn't matter WHY they are popular. We need not understand HOW matter warps space-time to understand gravity. We just need to know that it does.

We don't need to know WHY something is popular to know that it IS popular.

If you're trying to create something popular then you most certainly do need to know why things are popular. That is basically the crux of my argument right there!

I see that as the essence of Walt's strategy. Make really cool things that people really want to see and do, and the profits will take care of themselves.

I suspect neither of us are "what would Walt do?" people, but I see his genius as being a fairly natural understanding of what people liked as his sensibilities were pretty much those of most Americans but he had the unique talent of being able to translate that onto film or, in this case, a theme park. He was a one-off, though, and if you or I were to sit down and try to do the same thing we might be able to come up with something cool but probably not another Disneyland. So I think the people who are building upon that base need to figure out why exactly the parks have been so successful beyond them just being cool. Otherwise you just get the kind of superficial approach we're seeing at the moment.

I think the focus of DCA was wrong. They didn't make decisions based on "will guests want to see this... do this"? They built the park based on business rules that didn't put guest satisfaction as #1 priority.

And, if you are worried about distorting a a message of an attraction or worried about undermining a celebration of cultural diversity, than you too are focusedon the wrong thing.

The priority MUST be, profits through guest satisfaction. Entertain the guests and the profits will follow.

I think your original premise is incorrect here, though. I would be amazingly surprised if they didn't think about what guests would want to see and do when designing the park, I just think they underestimated the importance of theming and traditional Imagineering techniques for the sake of saving some money. I'm sure they ran all kinds of surveys and the results were fairly positive about the mix of attractions. The problem is that it's difficult to run a business like theme parks like because people don't necessarily know what they'll respond to before they encounter it. Disney's great strength was that it was able to anticipate what its guests wanted before they necessarily knew it. Now the creative process seems to be that a film like Cars becomes a big hit, they have the Test Track technology already developed and a big amount of money to develop a new land at DCA so they decide "Lets build a land and ride based on Cars. We shall call it 'Carsland'." Meh.

[WrongWay]

So I think the people who are building upon that base need to figure out why exactly the parks have been so successful beyond them just being cool. Otherwise you just get the kind of superficial approach we're seeing at the moment.

Well done, coolness. Walt used people that knew how to make a great show, then instructed them to make cool things that guests would want to see and do.

There is nothing deeper to it than that.

Disneyland was a orange grove. There was ample room to grow.

Anything done now has the advantage of a built in audience, but the disadvantage of having to go on top of what is already there.

Would the Pooh ride have been better had half the budget not had to go to removing Bears and retrofitting the building? Oh yeah.

Starting from scratch, could the Imagineers come up with something better than Small World with a few characters slapped on? Of course. BUT..... imagine the screams if Small World was being taken out.

I think your original premise is incorrect here, though. I would be amazingly surprised if they didn't think about what guests would want to see and do when designing the park, I just think they underestimated the importance of theming and traditional Imagineering techniques for the sake of saving some money.

The likes of Eisner and Pressler designed the park based on business rules, to be the park they wanted to operate. Reuse designs from other parks that didn't get built, make room for lots of shops, restaurants, and product placemnts, distract from what was seen as "the alternatives to Disneyland", don't canabalize the Disneyland attendance.

Oh, and as an afterthought..... maybe we should consider if guests would actually want to come to the park.

I can't imagine that they sat down and said, "Let's design a park that everyone will want to attend".

Disney's great strength was that it was able to anticipate what its guests wanted before they necessarily knew it.

I think you are putting him on a pedistal too much. He looked at pop culture, what he liked, and what he thought others would like, and created a park that was a collection of really cool things to do, and really cool things to see.

And he certainly wasn't too conserned with "overall theme". Castle at the end of main street. Steam train with a station in tomorrowland. Old west next to Mississippi Riverboat. Autopia in tomorrowland. Matterhorm in fantasyland with the cartoons... or is it tomorrowland? Sky buckets? Motorboat cruise?

And, while we're at it.... Reality based "Small World" in Fantasyland with the cartoon fairytales.

Now the creative process seems to be that a film like Cars becomes a big hit, they have the Test Track technology already developed and a big amount of money to develop a new land at DCA so they decide "Lets build a land and ride based on Cars. We shall call it 'Carsland'." Meh.

Awesome!!!! I can't wait to see it... to ride it....

IMO, WAY better of a concept for a theme park attraction than People Mover, CircleVision, mule ride, house of the future, aluminum hall of fame, etc. CERTAINLY better than coaster-themed-coaster, raft-ride-themed-raft-ride, generic amusement park land, farm, airport, food court wharf, shopping mall hub-cab-land...

[Sir_Cliff]

Well done, coolness. Walt used people that knew how to make a great show, then instructed them to make cool things that guests would want to see and do.

There is nothing deeper to it than that.
...

I think you are putting him on a pedistal too much. He looked at pop culture, what he liked, and what he thought others would like, and created a park that was a collection of really cool things to do, and really cool things to see.

I think this is the fundamental difference between our points of view right there.

If Walt just borrowed from pop culture and built cool things based on what he liked then it's very hard to fathom why people have such an emotional attachment to the entertainment that came out of that process and why it has survived so long. What exactly is so great about Disney parks then? That they generally spend more money on rides and theming? This approach seems to be reflected in a lot of what WDI churns out these days, but I think there's more to it. Certainly Imagineers like John Hench thought there was.

In WDI's defense, I do think that Animal Kingdom is an amazing park and Expedition Everest looks like Imagineering at its best. But examples like that are few and far between. Based on the plans so far, I think I'd return to Animal Kingdom over the new DCA if given the choice because it gives you an experience above that of a clean and nicely-decorated amusement park.

[Spokker]

I think there are extremely talented people at WDI right now but the management style of the organization limits their possibilities for creativity.

As for space within Disneyland, the park always had to scrounge for room to build attractions. Even in the 60s they went outside the berm to build Haunted Mansion. Space has always been an issue and that is no different today.

But there is more space in Disneyland than you think. The back half of the Rivers of America is bigger than most people realize. The unused venues such as the Starcade, Festival of Fools Arena (move the corporate parties to the hotel and build us a ride), the Motor Boat Lagoon, the People Mover track, the Skyway station (at least the Fantasyland one), and the castle walkthrough (I've heard good things about the walkthrough coming back though).

There are also areas that could easily be modified. I would tone down Autopia by about half and build a huge E-Ticket there. I'd get rid of Red Rocket's and build a ride there. There are a few attractions due for dismissal, including Honey I Shrunk the Audience, which could be turned into something else.

The facilities behind Space Mountain could be moved to another site or it could be moved underground, with an attraction on top. They would only need to reserve a spot for the parade for park.

Space is an issue, but it's doable.

[WrongWay]

If Walt just borrowed from pop culture and built cool things based on what he liked then it's very hard to fathom why people have such an emotional attachment to the entertainment that came out of that process and why it has survived so long. What exactly is so great about Disney parks then?

They take you places you can't easily go, and let you do things you can't easily do. Exotic and "cool" themes, done well, with lots of fun things to do that appeal to children of all ages.

As Club33AZ quoted Walt in another thread... Keep it clean, keep it fun.

Bigger budget, well done themes and attractions that appeal to a wide age rage of the classic "core" family. Where parents and kids can have fun together.. add in grandparents and great-grandparents.

In WDI's defense, I do think that Animal Kingdom is an amazing park and Expedition Everest looks like Imagineering at its best. But examples like that are few and far between. Based on the plans so far, I think I'd return to Animal Kingdom over the new DCA if given the choice because it gives you an experience above that of a clean and nicely-decorated amusement park.

DAK had nice theming, but NOT NEARLY enough attractions.

Nicely-decorated? No, that isn't enough. DCA at opening was "nicely decorated".... But it didn't transport you to somewhere you really want to go. It didn't let you do things you really want to do, but can't easily do outside of a Disney park (well, maybe Soarin', Animation, Bugs, Muppets).

It has to be MORE than just nicely decorated. It has to be imaginative, exotic, fun, exciting..... and popular.

That is the KEY.

A collection of REALLY cool places to go, and REALLY cool things to do, that can't easily be seen or done in real life, that appeals to a wide audince, AND is done well.

Poof.... Disney Magic.

[WrongWay]

Space is an issue, but it's doable.

You left out the swamp between BTMRR and RoA, the largest chunk of land.

But, the problem isn't space for new attractions. The problem is getting people in and out the front gates. The problem is room to watch fireworks and Fantasmic! The probelm is getting people around the parade route. The problem is capacity of the existing ride set.

There are 10 E-Tickets in Disneyland.
Jungle Cruise,
Indy,
Pirates,
Mansion,
Splash,
Big Thunder
Matterhorn,
Subs,
Space Mt,
Star Tours.

Matterhorn could be counted as two due to the substantially differnt tracks. Perhaps add Autopia due to scale.

THAT is a lot of bang for your one-day admission ticket.

I know we all WANT that roster to continually grow, but it just doesn't make economic sense. Truely, it has become unreasonable to expect something new and big to come without something going.

This is the purpose of DCA. Another gate. A second day added to the typical out-of-state tourists visit. Another night in the hotel and another day worth of meals. In my opinion, substantial growth HAS to come from DCA, NOT adding to Disneyland's already astronimically awesome array of attractions.