PDA

View Full Version : The "Characterization" of Disneyland



Pages : [1] 2

smd4
06-05-2003, 07:45 AM
The “Characterization” of Disneyland is ruining the place. By that, I mean the theming of attractions around cartoon characters. The place is becoming one giant “Toontown,” with little left to challenge the adult mind.

At one time, MANY of the attractions were themed to works of great literature and societal archetypes. The Swiss Family Treehouse, based on a movie that was in turn based on a wonderful book, is now Tarzan’s Treehouse. I’m not saying the “Tarzan” books aren’t great, but instead of making the tree REALISTIC, like the Swiss version, it is now a garish cartoon in the middle of relatively-realistic Adventureland.

The submarine ride was based not only on the August 3, 1958 voyage of the first submarine to ever run under the North Pole, but on Verne’s classic work, “20,000 Leagues Under the Seas,” which also included scenes of Atlantis and a voyage under the South Pole. If it ever becomes “Nemo” related, it will be another nail in Disney’s coffin.

Pooh, of course, has defiled “Critter Country,” and while the Pooh stories might one day be considered great literature (like many of the themes from the other rides in Fantasyland), it does not belong here.

Tommorowland used to represent the futurists’ view of the world, and what it one day could be. If “Buzz Lightyear” ever exists in the future, you can count me out.

I guess I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with trying to tie attractions to current entertainment “trends,” like popular movies and cartoons. Disneyland has been doing that since Day One. I guess what I’m saying, is that there is a problem with the source material. I doubt “Finding Nemo” will ever enter the pantheon of the classics, as, say, “Alice in Wonderland” or “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” did. In a year or two, it will be all but forgotten. Same with Buzz Lightyear, and, essentially, ALL the current crop of Disney entertainment.

This is why the park had to look towards outside material in the 1980’s and 90’s, to such works as Indiana Jones or Star Wars, which, while enjoyed by kids, also overflowed with mythological and heroic themes that adults could relish.

The cartoons that Disney is producing today just don’t explore those themes to any great extent. And while they may be fun movies, they just don’t provide enough “meat” to be able to base an attraction on—at least one that is meant to be around for a few years, like Pirates or the Jungle Cruise or HM.

Keep the cartoon character attractions where they belong—either in Fantasyland or Toontown, and bring back the Disneyland I remember—the one that had magic for me when I was a child, but provided me with intellectual challenges as I grew older.

hefferdude
06-05-2003, 11:42 AM
Excellent !! Excellent !! Excellent !! Excellent !! :)

What do they call the current trend? Market name identification!

A large part of the problem with this trend is us!
WD used his cartoon characters to an extent but also designed in so many attractions that were based on more than just a contemporary animated icon, cgi or not! He didn't have the plethora of cartoon plop that floods the market today. What he did have was his talent, his imagination, a unique vision and the guts to give it a whirl.

A simple place to start would be with the refurbishment of SM. Reconfigure it like the SM Paris ala Jules Verne. And maybe kick it up a notch. I know the concerns about that idea not being " tomorrow" land but it does have continuity in earth to moon travel and it is a classic!;)

DL4EVER
06-05-2003, 12:17 PM
Well, I think cartoon rides are more kid friendly, but that doesn't mean I like it. I think Pooh should take a one way trip to Fantasyland, and they should bring back country bears. Tarzan needs to be changed back, Buzz can go ahead and come to Tommorowland, but never ever speak of the unholiest of unholies, Finding Nemo defacing what was once a great attraction....

Sam I am
06-05-2003, 02:56 PM
I think that the characterization of Disneyland is okay to a certain extent. I wish there was more of it in DCA in fact. I think that Fantasyland is wonderful, but I would have to agree that perhaps Pooh belongs in Fantasyland, and Disney should start basing more of their rides in other lands on movies and great stories.

If they were to expand to those horizons, the way Walt did, they would have a lot more ride and attraction options that might be far more interesting than what they are currently pumping out.

blusilva
06-05-2003, 03:15 PM
I think part of the problem is Disney's current lack of quality live action entertainment programming. It bugs me when I see Woody and his dolly girlfriend (whatever her name is) in Frontierland. It totally jars me out of the whole "wow, this is the old West" feeling and right into "oh, yeah, it's just a theme park" mode. But they don't have any more Zorros or Davy Crocketts or Daniel Boones in their programming at all. Which is quite sad, really.

Instead of making live action movies out of their quality theme park attractions, perhaps they should be working the other way around.

Darren
06-05-2003, 04:26 PM
Blusilva,

I totally agree, as much as i love Woody, It ruins the theming in Frontierland.

Although, i didn't mind when they had Woody's Roundup inside. That seemed appropriate

As far as the treehouse goes, My kids love the Tarzan theme, but for me the Swiss Family robinson Theme brought back so many memories of the TV program it was wonderfully nostalgic.

California Aggie
06-05-2003, 04:41 PM
I think there is some truth to the fact that cartoon characters leaving Fantasyland to inhabit other lands affect the "reality" of said lands. All of Disneyland is escapist, but clearly Walt wanted some of his lands to take you to actual places and not cartoony versions of said places. Even so, I think sometimes cartoons fit in when presented as sort of a tall tale, mythical, or cultural element. For example, Splash Mountain is the embodiment of the theme of Critter Country and fits in nicely compared to the rural Frontier of Tom Sawyer island and the nearby New Orleans Sqaure. But it is also based on cartoony elements. Since it has that southern backcountry feel it fits in. Of course, pooh doesn't really fit into this scheme at all.

cemeinke
06-05-2003, 07:29 PM
I don't really see it as a problem.

Afterall before the days of Toontown, Mickey and his pals might be found in any land (although in appropriatly themed costuming).

Also compared to the thousands of inappropriately themed guests, the characters are hardly ruining the theme.

California Aggie
06-05-2003, 10:47 PM
that's a good point. and you know I was thinking... even Fantasyland isn't meant to be cartoony... its supposed to be a Bavarian/English Village. The cartoon rides work, for the most part, because they are European in setting.

The only land that is completly cartoony is Mickey's Toontown. Part of me thinks this land would have been just as fun if it were straight 1930s, 1940s architecture.

smd4
06-06-2003, 07:42 AM
Afterall before the days of Toontown, Mickey and his pals might be found in any land (although in appropriatly themed costuming).
It's not the characters walking around; it's the "characterization" of attractions and themed areas, and the gradual reliance on cartoons in a weak attempt to add "theming" to areas, instead of relying on classical/mythological/archetypical themes.

Even such attractions as HM or Pirates, with their almost-cartoony inhabitants, have themes that harken back to great litterature--Treasure Island or any of the great gothic horror stories by Shelley or Stoker. And, inside and out are presented in as realisit a manner as possible. The humorous elements inside do not detract from this, and allow the attraction to be enjoyed by EVERYONE in the family.

Contrast this with Tarzan Treehouse. A catoon-shaped treehouse inhabitted by cartoonish figures. When I go up there (which is almost never, now) I am confronted with silly plaster sculptures of cartoon characters, that to me (as an adult) are completely UNBELIEVEABLE. There is no reason to go up there, except to accompany my young niece (kinda like the way Walt accompanied his daughters to the merry-go-round in the park).

The treehouse in it's ealier Swiss incarnation was fascinating to me as a kid, who wished with all his heart he could live there. As an adult, I loved going up there and I was STILL fascinated with trying to follow and comprehend the running-water system. That was ingenious!

It's too bad that cartoon-themed attractions seem to be becoming the norm--especially if Stitch and Nemo and Buzz get their schemeing hands on Tomorrowland. Where's the Dip when you need it?

Boy, I think I hit on it above. Going to Disneyland is becoming more and more a place for me to accompany kids, while I sit on the bench eating peanuts. It's sad to think that Walt in spirit is sitting on the bench next to me...

Germboy
06-06-2003, 10:10 AM
SMD4, you are right on.

I wrote about this on another thread and my thoughts were ignored. And the sad part is, is that there are a good many people (including senior members of these boards) who would not understand what you're talking about. I would say that a large portion of DISNEY doesn't understand what you are talking about.

Like I've said before about a Buzz Lightyear ride in TL, KEEP CHARACTER-BASED IN FANTASYLAND WHERE THEY BELONG. I, too, was stunned when they closed down the old treehouse and opened this Tarzan monstrosity--and almost gagged when I actually walked through it. It is ruined, IMHO. Pooh, if built at all, should have been placed in Fantasyland (and not at the expense of one of the rides there). Indeed, Splash Mountain pushes that same boundary (and ironically too, because it is based on a movie that the company has pretty much banned and forgotten). Although I'm probably alone in this belief, basing attractions on Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Michael Jackson (nothing to do with Disney) is also sad. Now there's talk about Stitch and Nemo and the Muppets for goodness sake.

There is a creative vacuum at the company that only gets worse as years go by. And no one seems to notice.

DivaPrincess
06-06-2003, 10:28 AM
Ok, I'm not even anywhere near a senior member, and I was offended by that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and just becuase they don't agree with you, doesn't mean that they don't understand. It just means they have a different opinion.

I personally think that we can have the best of both worlds. I love the classic attractions and rides, as well as the addition of more modern "characterizations." I think there is and can be a good mix. I think Disneyland should grow and progress. I'm not saying that the best things always happen at Disneyland and that there haven't been really poor decisions made by past and present management, but some people, possibly a majority, enjoy new additions, such as the highly popular Woody and Jesse, Buzz, Stitch or Nemo. I am annoyed that most companies, Disney included, have come down to nothing but money. I understand that turning a profit is obviously important, but I also think pride in a job well done and a little less lining in the pocket is much more noble and appreciated, but that's another subject.

I would just like to suggest that if you would like other people to be open to and appreciative of your opinions, whether they agree or not, you should be just as open to and appreciative of thier opinions.

smd4
06-06-2003, 10:47 AM
This may offend some (maybe most) of you, but some opinions are BETTER than others. Anyone want to argue that Walt Disney's opinions about what Disneyland should be were inferior to today's Disney management opinions on the same subject? I would argue that Disney's opinions about Disneyland were, indeed, better.

Sam I am
06-06-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by DivaPrincess
I think there is and can be a good mix. I think Disneyland should grow and progress. I'm not saying that the best things always happen at Disneyland and that there haven't been really poor decisions made by past and present management, but some people, possibly a majority, enjoy new additions, such as the highly popular Woody and Jesse, Buzz, Stitch or Nemo. I am annoyed that most companies, Disney included, have come down to nothing but money.

That was very well said.

smd4
06-06-2003, 11:15 AM
but some people, possibly a majority, enjoy new additions, such as the highly popular Woody and Jesse, Buzz, Stitch or Nemo.
I find it a shame that in today's society, the attention span of folks is getting shorter and shorter. Doesn't anyone read the classics that Walt read any more? Do people know who Tom Sawyer was? Do people know who Blackbeard was?

Do people ever read the classic stories of Sleeping Beauty or Cinderella, so that when they look at the castle, they see not a tie-in to a cartoon, but a realistic depiction of a medievel fortress that actually brings to life some of the classic fairy tales? If so many folks like the "characerization" (or should I say "cartoonization?") of the park, then perhaps we should raze the Disney castle, and rebuild it as one of the cartoony versions from one of the Disney stories?

My guess is, that will not happen. We shouldn't have let it happen to the Treehouse, and we shouldn't let it happen to any more attractions. Who knows, the castle may be next.

Woody and Buzz and Nemo are cartoon characters. It remains to be seen whether or not their movies take their place in the pantheon of classic literature the way Peter Pan, Alice, or any of the Grimm fairy tales did. You see, those stories, which Walt then animated, are some of the backbones of our culture. You may think Alice in Wonderland is a great cartoon and dark ride, but the reason it has staying power is because Lewis Carroll created an outstanding work of art.

Nemo and Buzz and Woody are cartoon characters whose stories have yet, and my guess is never will, become classics or pillars of our culture.

To base attractions on them seems short-sighted to me in the extreme, and merely an attempt to grab hold of society's short attention span before we move on to the next Pixar flik, thereby taking advantage of their temporary flash in the pan success.

DivaPrincess
06-06-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by smd4
This may offend some (maybe most) of you, but some opinions are BETTER than others. Anyone want to argue that Walt Disney's opinions about what Disneyland should be were inferior to today's Disney management opinions on the same subject? I would argue that Disney's opinions about Disneyland were, indeed, better.

First of all, no one can tell what Walt "would" think. He lived in a very different time. I have no doubt that things would be better if Walt were still here, but to posthumously make predictions about what he "would" think is disrespectful. Again, I agree that current management is not faithful to Walt's dream of 50 years ago- as they should be. But Walt was more concerned with being high quality, innovative and highly entertaining than the money society of today. Wealth was not as abundant nor coveted in the 40's/50's as it is today.

And although I freely admit some opinions are more educated than others, they are never "BETTER"

I am not offended by that comment because I find it ignorant and cannot be offended by someone who deems some opinions "BETTER" than others.

Oh, and I have read the classics you listed previously. I can appreciate them, as well as their modern counterparts and retellings. There's plenty of room in this world, and in Disneyland for that matter, for both. In fact, I think Disneyland is a great teacher if it gets a kid interested in Tom Sawyer or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or The Grimms Fairytales, and although I don't hate Tarzan's tree house, I think a lot of value was lost with the disappearance of the Swiss Family Robinson theme. But, I don't have a problem adding newer elements, especially to attractions that are already closed. If we all just open our mind, maybe we can learn from each other.

DL4EVER
06-06-2003, 12:08 PM
Okay, here I go......

Just because a ride is based on something doesn't mean it won't be good. Indy is the next generation in thrill rides besides rollercoasters. Now as I said earlier, I too no longer enjoy the Treehouse, but I think Splash is fine the way it is because nothing is apparent that disrupts the theme. It looks cartoony in absolutely no way from the outside. Now I agree that Pooh should be in Fantasyland, but at least the exterior, from what I have seen, doesn't disrupt the theme either.

I think that buzz is fine, because the ride is fun and interactive and at least puts something in Tomorrowland. Since it appears that they do not have room for anything overly ellaborate in DL's Tomorrowland, I think that it is a nice alternative to place Buzz there. I agree that Star Tours is outdated, it is a fun attraction to do.

I have not heard of Muppets ever coming to DL which is what this topic is about. DCA, on the other hand, has the muppets, but I think it's fine.

Now, to speak of what would be an insult to DL if this ever happened.

1) Finding Nemo: Loved the movie, it was good, but if they ever put a Finding Nemo ride in DL, especially in the place of the currently defunct sub ride, not only would I be extremely angry, I would never again visit DL.

2) Stitch: Same thing as above, loved the movie, it was good, but if they ever put a Stitch ride into DL, I would be mad and never go again.

Now I agree that Disneyland is being overrun by the characters, but I think that a Buzz ride is needed and wouldn't really hurt anything. Basically, I also believe that DL would get something bigger and better, another true E-ticket ride, but frankly, DL is pretty much out of room expansion wise.

EDIT: Also, I think DL needs the rides like Buzz and Pooh, but not neccessarily in the places they are now, because DL is supposed to be family friendly, meaning things that both adults and children find interest in.....

smd4
06-06-2003, 12:58 PM
First of all, no one can tell what Walt "would" think. He lived in a very different time. I have no doubt that things would be better if Walt were still here, but to posthumously make predictions about what he "would" think is disrespectful.
Of course we can tell what Walt would think. He left us Disneyland, his autobiography and mindset writ large. All we need to do is look at it. And I have no problems at all speaking of what Walt would want. You can think it's disrespectful. What I find disrespectful is others who would presume to do things THEY want, instead of what Walt would want, to his park. I.e., curent Disney mangement. If more of us would stop feeling that trying to do things the way Walt would have wanted is some sort of sacrilige, and actually attempted to do things his way, the park would be a better place.
I am not offended by that comment because I find it ignorant and cannot be offended by someone who deems some opinions "BETTER" than others. I'm glad you're not offended. But the fact remains, that some opinions are brilliant, and some stink.
I can appreciate them, as well as their modern counterparts and retellings. There's plenty of room in this world, and in Disneyland for that matter, for both. In fact, I think Disneyland is a great teacher if it gets a kid interested in Tom Sawyer or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea There ISN'T plenty of room. That's why the Toons are overrunning the place.

If we all just open our mind, maybe we can learn from each other. My mind was open to the newer Disneyland changes. Then I realized that was a mistake. Now I look to what Walt created in the past, and realize it was BETTER.

3894
06-06-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by smd4
This may offend some (maybe most) of you, but some opinions are BETTER than others.

This is a discussion board with room for all opinions, as long as they're respectful of others.


Originally posted by smd4 Anyone want to argue that Walt Disney's opinions about what Disneyland should be were inferior to today's Disney management opinions on the same subject? I would argue that Disney's opinions about Disneyland were, indeed, better.

Again, the operative word is discussion on MousePad. Let's discuss, not argue.

-Helen
Moderator

cstephens
06-06-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by smd4
This may offend some (maybe most) of you, but some opinions are BETTER than others.

Wait, let me guess - your opinions, of course, fall in the better category, right?

Priceless.

Germboy
06-06-2003, 01:34 PM
SMD4, we think a lot alike. I particularly like the way you mentioned replacing the classics with the latest straight-to-dvd, mass marketing mentality fluff.

And Diva, I apologize if you took offense to anything I said. That was not my intent. You commented that you aren't "even anywhere near a senior member", and I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying that many people would not understand the argument that SMD4 is making--including many junior members, senior members, moderators, cast members, and even Eisner himself! I feel sorry for younger generations that will never know what set Disneyland apart from Knotts, Sea World, Six Flags, or the Orange County Fair.

DivaPrincess
06-06-2003, 04:13 PM
Thanks, Germboy. I appreciate your willingness to explain the situation and I have no hard feelings. However I do think that you underestimate us.

And SMD4, you are obviously very set in your opinions. Just remember, they are just that, opinions. They are not better nor more important than others opinions no matter how much you want them to be. By portraying such a condescending attitude, you alienate those you wish to influence. I think that you do have some good points and have actually considered, for example, that it might be better if the submarine ride would open without changes, as opposed to adding newer themes to it, because of your post and others. Unfortunately, if you rate "your" opinions as "BETTER" than "my" opinions (I'm assuming only if they differ), conversation is impossible and it all becomes argument.

cstephens
06-06-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Germboy
I was saying that many people would not understand the argument that SMD4 is making--including many junior members, senior members, moderators, cast members, and even Eisner himself!

Honestly, I don't think it's that hard to understand the argument, so I think it's being a little condescending to say that many wouldn't understand. But understanding and agreement are two separate things, so just because someone doesn't agree doesn't mean they don't understand.

cemeinke
06-06-2003, 05:23 PM
Okay I think I'm kind of with you SMD4, but you loose me when your posts get all snotty and arrogant.

I certainly prefer it when an attraction springs from the theme of a given land rather than being shoe horned in from the latest Pixar blockbuster? But I don't think "characters" or "cartoons" are the problem. Certainly a character can be appropriate or inappropriate depending on its application (i.e. Stitch, a contemporary character living in Hawaii is not really appropriate to "tomorrow" land, nor would be a 19th Century Captain Nemo).

Some of the best themed attractions have cartoony elements ? Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, and even the Submarine Voyage (e.g. Atlantis/Mermaids/Sea Serpent) all of which where developed under Walt's supervision and presumed approval. Take for example Walt bringing in Marc Davis to add some more humor and site gags to the Jungle Cruise.

Just as an aside I'm annoyed with folks equating cartoons with children. That's really a contemporary take (probably the result of those of us who grew up on "Saturday Morning Cartoons"). Check out the early works of Ub Iwerks exploring worlds no longer bound by the rules of physics? Collaboration between Disney and Salvador Dali is really not that strange when you consider how complementary their art was. I think you mis-characterize Walt if you think he wouldn't allow Cartoon elements into other lands.

As for certain opinions being better than others ? it all depends how you measure them. Unfortunately, if you choose financial measures (like shareholders would) it would seems that Disneyland now generating more revenue and attracting greater attendance, than it ever did under Walt. The opinions that generate the most bucks are the one's that win for a publicly traded for-profit company like Disney. (Not that I necessarily agree with that, but at least the comparative metric is pretty explicit)

As for New versus Old/Classic characters ? I don't care if something springs from the imagination of John Lasseter, Jules Vern, or Homer, if it's a good story, it will endure. And if a Nemo/Stich/Buzz attraction doesn't play well in 10 years they can always bulldoze it and try again with something else - the park will never be complete...yada yada yada...as
long as there is imagination in the world.

Still Mission Space is opening in EPCOT, DCA opened with Grizzly River Run and Soarin' over California so it's not like everything is "Character" driven" (special exception for Tinkerbell's Cameo in Soarin'). I think we may be jumping the gun a bit to be reacting to "character based" attractions that have not even been formally proposed yet.

stevemo
06-06-2003, 05:48 PM
I enjoyed how this thread has deteriorated into an discussion on post-modern/classical thought. None the less, I have to agree with smd4. Disneyland was built on universally (to be read as occidental) understood themes; Far off lands, The western frontier, the future, our shared mythology. This paradigm generated concepts like EPCOT, even Future World and the World Showcase, and Disney's America. Now it would seem that the film stories are driving the paradigm. There was a time when everyone could resonate with Davey Crockette, Huck Finn, Swashbuckling pirates. How universal is the theme of an alien who ends up in Hawaii? Don't get me wrong, I really liked the movie.

I guess what I am trying to say is: Old Disney was broad enough to hold all of our ideas. New Disney is too narrow, some things I don't get.