PDA

View Full Version : Disneyland is Not a Museum (?)



merlinjones
06-06-2006, 10:15 PM
How many times have you heard it?

Walt Disney’s famous quote: "Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world."

…Or the oft-repeated WDI slogan: “Disneyland is not a museum.”

In any serious discussion of Disneyland’s preservation or restoration, it’s likely that one or both of these statements will crop-up as a conversation-stopper. These not-so-magic words are invoked to shutdown debate, often by those with a personal stake in the outcome...

...Much more in the newest Re-Imagineering blog entry at:

http://imagineerebirth.blogspot.com/

sleepyjeff
06-07-2006, 12:19 AM
I love the "Museum"/"Not a Museum" pics:cool:

Micki0624
06-07-2006, 01:01 PM
This brings up an interesting topic. Change the things we have fallen in love with or not?

I was first upset when I heard about Pirates but I now just hope it is an addition instead of a complete change. Although I don't mind the Haunted Mansion changes talked about (but I thought it was still funny they wanted to change the story line after the movie and comic explained more of Gracey).

I still miss the peoplemovers and the skyway. I really miss Carousel of Progress and the Country Bears but does this mean those attractions should come back?

I can't imagine a DL without Small World or the Mark Twain.

When should an attraction be changed/removed?

Benihodge
06-07-2006, 01:39 PM
I loved the pics thanks for sharing.

olegc
06-07-2006, 01:45 PM
i have waffled back and forth in the past on keeping or renewing - and I have thoughts.

1) if some of these new items replacing old were actually very popular - would anyone really rally around the notion of keeping things as they were? Hard to tell right now since many of the changes to tommorrowland did not pan out - so it's easy to hit that. But - would you rather have mine train to nature's wonderland - as it was - or Big Thunder mountain? While I love to watch video of MTTNW and get all happy - it happens because I have to imagine it - not because it's there every day for me to ride on...

2) since there is a limit to the land development of the park - unless they build a second story - how do you go about adding? - and no, don't count DCA... what IF there were no DCA - but continued parking? Remember again the frame of reference from the blog - that the tomorrowland redo (as the concrete example) was bad but that tiki room maintenance was good.

3) so is it correct in assuming that we want to create Main -Tomorrowland, or Tomorrow Street - or something that shows nostalgia? why is it that Discoveryland "works" in DLP and not here? obviously some of it is attractions offered - but much of it is cultural as well.

4) the blog shows the great impact Walt has had on America and it's cultural philosophy - that many people feel that Disneyland belongs to all of us... but that can only logically be true to a point.

bottom line - we long for that nostalgic stuff sometimes simply because it;s not there. If it were there all the time - the good feelings may not persist as much..

I totally agree with the last line - Disneyland is sometimes a museum...

potzbie
06-07-2006, 10:05 PM
To make an analogy, using local theme parks and local museums.
*****
The Buena Park MOVIELAND WAX MUSEUM failed, in my opinion, because it was keeping exhibits which had no business being kept, in the 1990s and 2000s.

For example, they still had, in 2006, Tyrone Power, dressed as a matador, from "Blood and Sand."

Who cares, from 1970 onward, about (a.) Tyrone Power; (b.) "Blood and Sand" [1941]?

End of analogy.
*****
Back to DL.

The blog (where its theme is, "not a museum") says that HONEY I SHRUNK THE AUDIENCE is prime for ripping out.

This, despite one MousePlanet poster I saw today whose signature claims he/she loves HISTA (and the Dodgers).

Certainly, in my opinion, any reference to SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON [1960] is incredibly too old to be of any meaning since the 1980s.

Certainly, while a review of the walk-thru exhibit of 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA [1954] would be a curiosity, it ought not have been kept beyond its demise.
It would have been laughable to have a 52 year old movie take up so much real estate, in a static environment, in 2006.

So, bottom line, I am of the opinion that we ought NOT "lay down flowers" because, for example:
(a.) the HAUNTED MANSION has altered the attic scene.
(b.) the treehouse on TOM SAWYER'S ISLAND has been altered.
(c.) Slue Foot Sue, et al., no longer tell the same 1955 jokes in the Golden Horseshoe Revue.

I like the attic in HM.
I like the new treehouse on TSI.
I like BILLY HILL AND THE HILLBILLIES in GH.

Thus, if PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN has Capt. Jack Sparrow appear twice in the whole ride, I will NOT "lay down flowers" for the loss of a classic ride's atmosphere.

I do want all new Disney movies to trigger new rides.
(What to do about CHICKEN LITTLE, I cannot say.)
But YES, I do want new rides, and upgraded rides.
*****
I don't want what KNOTT'S BERRY FARM has done, to keep some rides (e.g., CALICO MINE) so un-changing that its appearance becomes hokey and cheap.
(See the mannequins, posed in inhuman positions, with unreal faces. And note that they are MANNEQUINS, i.e., they do NOT move.)
*****
No museum for me.
I want FLYING SAUCERS, even if only for a few years.
I want ROCKET TO THE MOON (MISSION TO MARS) even if only for a few years.

I don't need the LIVING DESERT.
I don't need HOUSE OF TOMORROW.

Some things should be sacrificed after 20 or 30 years.
*****
In my opinion.

EmmasMom
06-08-2006, 02:42 AM
Who cares, from 1970 onward, about (a.) Tyrone Power; (b.) "Blood and Sand" [1941]?



I care.
Tyrone Power...ummmmmm...yummy
Blood and Sand...I prefer his lighter movies like The Mark of Zorro and Black Swan.

Some things are timeless.

merlinjones
06-08-2006, 06:44 AM
>>It would have been laughable to have a 52 year old movie take up so much real estate, in a static environment, in 2006.<<

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (69 year old movie)
Pinocchio (66 year old movie)
Dumbo (65 year old movie)
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (56 year old movie)
Cinderella (54 year old movie)
Alice in Wonderland (55 year old movie)
Peter Pan (53 year old movie)
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (52 year old movie)
Sleeping Beauty (48 year old movie)
Third Man on the Mountain (48 year old movie)
Swiss Family Robinson (47 year old movie)

laughable?

olegc
06-08-2006, 07:07 AM
>>It would have been laughable to have a 52 year old movie take up so much real estate, in a static environment, in 2006.<<

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (69 year old movie)
Pinocchio (66 year old movie)
Dumbo (65 year old movie)
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (56 year old movie)
Cinderella (54 year old movie)
Alice in Wonderland (55 year old movie)
Peter Pan (53 year old movie)
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (52 year old movie)
Sleeping Beauty (48 year old movie)
Third Man on the Mountain (48 year old movie)
Swiss Family Robinson (47 year old movie)

laughable?
c'mon now - you're taking the post too literally. The things you mentioned above have staying power because they are reintroduced to successive generations by dvd releases, merchandise, etc. Except, of course, Mr. Toads - of which I would say mostly adults ride that anyway until they convince their kids it's a good story.

Sleeping beauty? you can't walk through that "attraction" any more and from my eavesdropping on families in the parks they only call it "the castle" - with no identification to it's origins. (they also call things The Haunted House, the log ride, and the train coaster)... and how many times have I heard it referred to as Cinderella's castle..

Cinderella's only contribution to wDW is a restaurant inside and a new unpopular princess show. the architecture is fantastic and the image is important to the park's show - but it's because of all of the marketing away from the parks that make it relevant...

Third man? I challenge you to interview the common Disneyland guest and ask them where the Matterhorn came from. I am a Disney nut and none of my kids even know this answer... the statistics will show that only the geekiest of us all will know that one (like those of us here in this thread or on the pad).

I played the 20k dvd in my home and watched with excitement - by myself. no one else in my family was interested...

Believe me when I tell you that I am for keeping some of the classics - as long as they are relevant to the culture and the "world" of Disney. Rides and attractions based on characters have a lot more staying power than Swiss Family Robinson. Even now my kids don't care if they see Tarzan's treehouse - but they all have said it's better than what was there (from the videos i showed them of SWR treehouse).

some people love history, some don't. you have to please both to stay in business.

tod
06-08-2006, 07:11 AM
(c.) Slue Foot Sue, et al., no longer tell the same 1955 jokes in the Golden Horseshoe Revue.

The Golden Horseshoe Revue was old-timey from the very beginning, a throwback to vaudeville, or to the dance-hall revues of the old west.

It's not like Wally Boag and Fulton Burley were still telling Eisenhower jokes in the '70s.

All of Frontierland was anachronistic and old-fashioned from the moment they opened the gates. Horses. A steamboat. Stagecoach rides.

Many points in that post are valid, but that one's a clinker.

--t

merlinjones
06-08-2006, 07:13 AM
>>Third man? I challenge you to interview the common Disneyland guest and ask them where the Matterhorn came from. I am a Disney nut and none of my kids even know this answer... the statistics will show that only the geekiest of us all will know that one (like those of us here in this thread or on the pad).<<

Exactly. Who really needs to know? The Matterhorn is cool as a stand alone - - no prior knowledge required. Same for Swiss Family Treehouse.

The foolishness is in marketing thinking that familiarity and relevance is everything - - it isn't, there is simply "cool" and timeless.

And if Swiss Family Robinson is so irrelevant, why are they investing in a big-budget remake?

olegc
06-08-2006, 07:15 AM
The Golden Horseshoe Revue was old-timey from the very beginning, a throwback to vaudeville, or to the dance-hall revues of the old west.

It's not like Wally Boag and Fulton Burley were still telling Eisenhower jokes in the '70s.

All of Frontierland was anachronistic and old-fashioned from the moment they opened the gates. Horses. A steamboat. Stagecoach rides.

Many points in that post are valid, but that one's a clinker.

--t

good point - so in my last post I did not cover that but it is important to note that Disneyland is supposed to imerse you in these experiences.. and Frontierland is supposed to be the old west. The only big issue with that is today how many of the public can identify with the Real old west versus the perception of the west (modern cowboyism)? if rumors are true of the planned kiddie area north of BTMRR then this is where it's going - more cowboy theme than frontier...

olegc
06-08-2006, 07:21 AM
>>Third man? I challenge you to interview the common Disneyland guest and ask them where the Matterhorn came from. I am a Disney nut and none of my kids even know this answer... the statistics will show that only the geekiest of us all will know that one (like those of us here in this thread or on the pad).<<

Exactly. Who really needs to know? The Matterhorn is cool as a stand alone - - no prior knowledge required. Same for Swiss Family Treehouse.

The foolishness is in marketing thinking that familiarity and relevance is everything - - it isn't, there is simply "cool" and timeless.

And if Swiss Family Robinson is so irrelevant, why are they investing in a big-budget remake?

ah, see - but you have just confirmed my point. if it's not in the culture of th public (which matterhorn the ride, not the movie, is) then it does not help the guest experience. IF the remake does well and IF they get good preliminary buzz then MAYBE they could do something in the parks.

The blog actually makes this point without saying it - if something is unpopular then maybe change it.. if it was popular, why change it. If you don't try - you will never know... sometimes things are hits and sometimes misses - and it's already been covered ad nasuem that the pre-ouimet regime did not get the theme park industry. so they made a crucial error - but they were trying sometime (albeit the wrong direction)...

besides - there's never a new idea in hollywood anyway. Remakes with digital effects are easy to do - expensive, but easy to do... but my guess is if the movie tanks - you and I both will stand up and say it was a mistake to remake it - but that's the easy thing to do... the hard thing is understanding that a company must try different things in order to stay on top. Sometimes it works and sometimes not - times change, cultures and preferences change, and most destinations must change to keep people coming..

Bolivar
06-08-2006, 09:03 AM
To me this is all a lot more art than it is science. All this analysis about what works and what doesn't work based on themes and relevance to popular culture or talk of what Walt would have done or reverence to nostalgia vs. change remind me of how studio executives see a new movie capture the public imagination and start saying, "X is popular now, we need to make movies about X." The truth is that it was just a well written, well made movie and your cheap knock-offs are just that, cheap knock offs. Tying attractions to the theme helps at Disneyland, being tied to something relevant in popular culture may help, connecting it to nostalgia might help, but the bottom line is that it needs to be an imaginative, "cool" attraction. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said when asked to define pornography, "I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it." Well it is the same with changes at Disneyland. Taking out a good attraction to replace it with something worse or nothing at all is bad, replacing it with something better is good. That something better needs to capture the magic of Disney, it needs to be lasting and not a tie-in to a passing fad and the more iconic the attraction it is replacing, the more iconic it needs to be. Ask me to define all that and my answer is, "I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it."

Was the submarine ride tired and in need of changing? Yes. But just closing it wasn't the answer. We haven't seen it yet, but my gut reaction is that what they are now doing is a great replacement.

Was the tree house tired and in need of changing? Yes, but Tarzan just doesn't cut it.

Does POTC need updating? I don't think so, but I'm willing to keep an open mind what I'm hearing doesn't alarm me and I think it might be an improvement or at least equal.

Should they tear down the castle because it has lost its connection to Sleeping Beauty and its relevance? Of course not and no one would say that, but who knows maybe be some miracle some artist comes up with something even better, more "Disney", more iconic.

Does HISTA need to be replaced? Yes, but replaced, not just closed. Same with Inoventions.

Change is good. Nostalgia and enjoying the old rides are good. There needs to be a balance and I can't define that other than to say, "I'll know it when I see it."

olegc
06-08-2006, 09:28 AM
great post - and I agree with your point. It is a fine art - one that Walt pretty much started (high quality entertainment experiences for entire family) and it's true - people will know it when they see it.

Viva La Disney
06-09-2006, 02:27 AM
This is something that I've been thinking about alot, and I believe that change is good, but that the nostalgia should still be there. For me, I think some change is good, and some isn't so good.

Mark Mywords
06-09-2006, 09:09 AM
This is something that I've been thinking about alot, and I believe that change is good, but that the nostalgia should still be there. For me, I think some change is good, and some isn't so good.

Well said. I think that the most unfortunate legacy of the decade of neglect that Disneyland has just recently emerged from is the sense that ALL change is bound to be bad.

Opus1guy
06-09-2006, 11:02 AM
Here are my opinions on this from a post I made back in February:


I feel certain that if Walt were alive he would have [and probably did already while he was alive] long-recognized the cultural and iconic nature that many of these attractions became, and would recognize the generational appeal and desire of growing up Guests to share those attractions with newer generations. As a fan of Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen (which provided him with much of his inspiration for how he designed Disneyland), he was certainly aware of the appeal of "handing down" and sharing rides and experiences from generation to generation.

Some attractions...you just know it's time for the wrecking ball. But for many (like Mr. Toad)...those are literally timelessly fun attractions whose very existence has become part of the fabric and lexicon of our culture. And which also provokes strong emotional desires to "share" with future generations. They deserve preservation, IMHO. And remain "profitable" and productive to the whole, for these very emotional attachments! Find some new real estate for the new attractions if needed. At Disney, if there's a will, there's a way.

Disney parks are not museums. But they are also much more than your average amusement park. And decisions about changing out existing attractions should not be made by the bean counters or marketing "gurus" or green execs alone. Disney attractions are bigger than them. They deserve tougher and more rigorous considerations and guidelines before removal, in order to minimize the potential damage any future clueless or short-sighted management teams might cause. With such damage often caused just for the sake of "change."

I don't think my opinion has changed since then. ;)

potzbie
06-09-2006, 11:32 AM
Examples:
Main Street U.S.A. no longer has a tobacco stop nor a penny arcade.

Q. Does anyone wish to rip out what is presently occupying those spaces and put in the old business?

My point being, just because there is change does not imply that it is bad.

Granted, not all things new are good. (See CHICKEN LITTLE and its giant advertising head for a recent bad example.)

While we are at it, compare Critter Country real estate. "COUNTRY BEAR JAMBOREE" vs. "WINNIE-THE-POOH AND THE BLUSTERY DAY". -- Of the two attractions which occupied that space, which attraction do you prefer?
I prefer OLD, not NEW.
So I am not blinding advocating "change for change sake".

tod
06-09-2006, 12:26 PM
Examples:
Main Street U.S.A. no longer has a tobacco stop nor a penny arcade.

Q. Does anyone wish to rip out what is presently occupying those spaces and put in the old business?

My point being, just because there is change does not imply that it is bad.


The tobacco shop is a loser, now, but I would be happy to see the Penny Arcade back instead of more candy.

--t

disneyperson
06-09-2006, 01:22 PM
The tobacco shop is a loser, now, but I would be happy to see the Penny Arcade back instead of more candy.

--t
Me too. I think the return of the old fashioned Penny Arcade would be popular too.