tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post2126209931943276150..comments2024-02-08T07:33:49.907-08:00Comments on Re-Imagineering: When Gods SpeakMr Bankshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952506736745891323noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-48745202950425588802009-04-17T12:55:00.000-07:002009-04-17T12:55:00.000-07:00"You Re-Imagineering bloggers make me so sick to m..."You Re-Imagineering bloggers make me so sick to my stomach!"<br /><br />Dude, chill out. Medicate if neccessary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-59402924107880618022009-04-17T12:27:00.000-07:002009-04-17T12:27:00.000-07:00Excuse me?!
The rain falling on that day was only...Excuse me?!<br /><br />The rain falling on that day was only a coincidence and NOT a sign from God!!!<br /><br />You Re-Imagineering bloggers make me so sick to my stomach! You all need to get lives and quit saying bad things about Disney!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1482657604289040772009-03-23T19:56:00.000-07:002009-03-23T19:56:00.000-07:00Ironically, the Small World figures are ALSO Disne...<I>Ironically, the Small World figures are ALSO Disney Characters!!! <BR/><BR/>If they wanted to make IASW more relevant, maybe they could have just MARKETED it!??!?? They market the hell out of everything else.</I><BR/><BR/>THANK YOU! IASW has always been my favorite attraction and I have always wanted to take home my own It's A Small World doll. Disney store had limited plush once for a very brief time about 10 years ago and there is limited merchandise with the IASW "characters." Why couldn't they have turned the store outside the attraction into an IASW store rather than more of the generic theme park merchandise that's sold at DLR AND WDW (and might I add, mostly designed and developed at WDW)? <BR/><BR/>The problem stems from the very nature of the Disney company's lack of communication skills. Ever notice the yeti merchandise at Everest is not the right color? The marketing and merchandise people have no idea what's in the parks, nor do they care. They see that Tink is popular, so that's the only thing they sell, leaving one to wonder: Does Tink sell the most because she's popular or is she popular because Disney sells the most of her? What would happen if Disney pushed something else? People buy what you sell them.<BR/><BR/>I only take solace in the fact that Miley Cyrus is not in this attraction... yet. Though I wouldn't be surprised if she was the next narrator for Spaceship Earth...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-42122848948500923792009-03-04T09:02:00.000-08:002009-03-04T09:02:00.000-08:00"But EVERY SINGLE ONE of the movie based rides, NO..."But EVERY SINGLE ONE of the movie based rides, NONE of were WRITTEN by Disney. That is why Peter Pan/SnowWhite/Cinderella/Mr.Toad will all outlast the POTC makeover, the Nemo subs, Indiana Jones...etc, etc, and so long as no Disney characters replace any original characters within those attractions..."<BR/><BR/>Origin has little to do with it. NOTHING is immune to bad taste and bankrupt remakes, Tinker Bell now talks and has her own "hollow". Graphic novels are being commissioned to reinvent many of your favorite Disney live action properties, like 20k. Jules Verne was obviously not good enough at his job. <BR/><BR/>Even Storybookland had it's own "housing boom" of new franchises where Toad Hall was demo'ed for the McMansion of Agabah. <BR/><BR/>I think Depp will be there for quite a while, as through the globally successful trilogy has indelibly become the sole identity of the franchise. the ride has been thrown under the bus. Bogart is forever Casablanca and so now Depp is Pirates. Parker faded in a time when DVD did not exist and there was no way to keep him revived. <BR/><BR/>Imagineers first creative priority right now is to look busy and hang on to their job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-47088913359665896112009-03-04T06:27:00.000-08:002009-03-04T06:27:00.000-08:00Anonymous somebody or other (Come on guys, can't y...Anonymous somebody or other (Come on guys, can't you just make up a name or something to make it easier to reply to?) made the point that Depp will be out of date and so on... and I think that is the whole point we are trying to make, NO ONE is arguing that this is a silly idea and a bad trend.<BR/><BR/>the point was that anyone who truly knows the history of Disneyland knows that it is full of silly movie and TV tie ins, absolutely from day one. And while I think one may argue that Star Wars for example or Nemo will live every bit as long as say Peter Pan (and certainly longer than something liek Mr. Toad) in the minds of the public there is no doubt that a Depp figure will lose relevance in a matter of time. No arguments. We are simply making a point that much of what people are complaining about has ALWAYS gone on.<BR/><BR/>Who really cares if Snow White (for example) was not written by Disney? In fact of the examples cited NONE were in fact written Disney but that is a technicality. A good story and a classic tale will live on. This is not about where the source material comes from, it is about EXECUTING a great attraction properly... period.<BR/><BR/>Indy is a great attraction... even if no one remembers who Harrison Ford is in 20 years it will STILL be a great attraction because it is executed very well. Very few people who today ride SPlash Mountain have ever seen Song of the South... that really does not matter because the ride is executed very well. <BR/><BR/>People are focusing on the wrong things.Teevteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009538411830575506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-12954670034568531982009-03-03T01:17:00.000-08:002009-03-03T01:17:00.000-08:00Although some of the commentators are only half ri...Although some of the commentators are only half right...Grand Opening Disneyland did create most of the rides based on the movies they did. But EVERY SINGLE ONE of the movie based rides, NONE of were WRITTEN by Disney. That is why Peter Pan/SnowWhite/Cinderella/Mr.Toad will all outlast the POTC makeover, the Nemo subs, Indiana Jones...etc, etc, and so long as no Disney characters replace any original characters within those attractions...<BR/><BR/>Lastly, Just as Fess Parker is no longer anywhere in the Park representing Davy Crockett... in 15 years or less, Depp will be gone, due to his automatic expiration date. Ask any kid today who Fess Parker is and see what happens.<BR/><BR/>I can assure you the same will happen to Depp in the near future. Then ask yourself, "what will be added to further butcher the once timeless attraction storyline?" <BR/><BR/>Maybe Pirate Robots from Space? Oh wait, they are half way there with the AA's stripped down... How about renaming it to "Pirates of Treasure Planet"? I should be a current Imagineer...I seem to, as of current, think just like them!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-79443125572860587602009-03-02T19:29:00.000-08:002009-03-02T19:29:00.000-08:00BTW Way back when before AA figures, Fess Parker a...BTW Way back when before AA figures, Fess Parker and Buddy Ebsen were mannequins on display as part of the theme and story of Fort Wilderness on Tom Sawyer's Island. So the TV tie-ins have been going on since day one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1028634262109792652009-03-02T09:19:00.000-08:002009-03-02T09:19:00.000-08:00Jedi:I get it, and I agree with your points withou...Jedi:<BR/><BR/>I get it, and I agree with your points without exception. It is just that I think people lose focus and tend to complain about everything Disney does... even if what they are doing are things they have ALWAYS done... things Walt himself did.<BR/><BR/>All I am saying is know what you are complaining about (this is a general statement, not directed at you) and what needs to be corrected before you complain. Obviously I don't want figures of Eddie Murphy in Mansion... and the thought of it truly is not that far fetched, not at all. But to be honest Disney in the 50's and 60's did all sorts of similar tie ins and promotions... perhaps we don't have Fess Parker figures simply because the technology did not exist at the time. Had Disney lived 20 years longer I am not so sure that we would not be looking at Hayley Mills animatronics and the like.<BR/><BR/>It brings me to my point that I think is the same as yours... that is that it is not so much the concept of what DIsney is doing that sucks but rather the execution.Teevteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009538411830575506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-22803851427763201372009-03-02T09:07:00.000-08:002009-03-02T09:07:00.000-08:00TeeVTee is right on. If you read the original 1953...TeeVTee is right on. <BR/><BR/>If you read the original 1953 WED treatment of what Disneyland was intended to be, it had a live TV Studio described in practically every land intended to broadcast as part of the Disneyland television program. The Opera House being the central stage. Disneyland was not the "tie-in" so much as it was the SET!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-82950060703568195792009-03-01T23:13:00.000-08:002009-03-01T23:13:00.000-08:00Teevtee, no one has been suggesting that Disney no...Teevtee, no one has been suggesting that Disney not do tie-ins. It's <B>where</B> they do the tie-ins and the motivations behind them that are the problems.<BR/><BR/>Think about what you just said. Davy Crockett was a <I><B>template</B></I> for Frontierland, but were likenesses of Fess and Buddy anywhere to be seen? Jungle Cruise was <B><I>based</I></B> on true life adventure stories, not specifically about one. Even the Swiss Family Tree House put YOU in the circumstances of the movie, but it didn't specifically remind you who the actors were, thereby reminding your subconscious that you're not in the movie.<BR/><BR/>If you think about the Disney attractions that were based on specific Disney films, where specific characters were part of the attraction, the stories chosen were the timeless ones. The ones that would leave little to no revision, because you were dealing with character likenesses, not actors who's persona would inexorably be tied to a modern day era. Attractions weren't built to cross pollinate characters, promote a single generation's favorite actor or be attractive <I>for a time</I>. They were built with an eye towards how it could be as good as it could be. Indirectly or directly, they were built to be timeless.<BR/><BR/>We all remember the corporate sponsors on the pavilions in EPCOT Center, the giant GE logo at the end of Horizons or the Monsanto logo at the end of Adventure Thru Inner Space. We know what they were for and we know how necessary they were. THAT's not the problem, and no one ever said Disney shouldn't do that. The problem is when they do it badly, plain and simple. Don't just dismiss the critiques as blind childhood nostalgia, because I can name a few people who feel the same we do about these things who weren't children when the parks where built, who weren't former Imagineers or Cast Members. Who were just Disney lovers like I am. Some who never even visited Disney until they where adults. <BR/><BR/>Assume good faith. We both agree that Disney needs to do better. But there's a reason that nostalgia is there. The reason that the end results are cheap, is because the motivations are to sell shirts, porcelain, plush and pins. The businessmen who run Disney now are no different from any other. Spend less, so they can make more. Our argument, or want, is for Disney to go back to the philosophy that accumulating money and putting in a big pile somewhere (or in this case, a bunch of peoples' piles) shouldn't be the end goal. That the money should be going back into the company, making everything from the films, to the parks, to even the Disney channel to be the best that they can possibly be. They did it before when the establishment told them that it wasn't possible and that Walt would loose his shirt. Other then corporate greed, there's no reason that they can't do it again.Digital Jedihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02374739586203788564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-36469623683365023112009-03-01T18:25:00.000-08:002009-03-01T18:25:00.000-08:00They were inspired by, not copies of. That's the b...They were <I>inspired by</I>, not copies of. That's the big difference. Yes, they shared a common genre. They capitalized on that fad. They did not try to replicate the story line. <BR/><BR/>That's the big difference. Now they have a story line. They just try to replicate that specific story, those specific characters. Quick overlays and decorations sell the product, there is no feel to it. Adventureland may have been inspired by True Life Adventures, but it didn't seek to recreate those exact films, instead it created depth - an environment. You could sell related merchandise, but you could also branch out anew. <BR/><BR/>It's not the fact that there are tie-ins, its that all there is is tie-ins, and there is no meat to anything anymore.StrangeVoiceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06461535206083562899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-7423169046405511122009-03-01T17:10:00.000-08:002009-03-01T17:10:00.000-08:00As much as I agree with his frustration and even a...As much as I agree with his frustration and even anger at the "new" (ie: last 20 plus years) Disney attitude towards the parks I still could not help but to chuckle at his comments.<BR/><BR/>"Disneyland was not meant to be synonymous with Disney movies/television, and I don't think many people realize this."<BR/><BR/>Disneyland was in fact built joined at the hip with Disney movies and television shows of the day. The animated films made up Fantasyland... no different than using the Pixar films of today. Davey Crocket was the template used for Frontierland and they sold a whole hell of a lot of branded and overpriced coonskin caps out there. Adventureland and the Jungle Cruise in particular were ripped right from the True Life Adventure films and so on. What we tend to look back on today as quaint was in fact the birth of "synergy" and commercialism and many other words we use today to decry everything that is wrong with Disney.<BR/><BR/>The more things change the more they stay the same.<BR/><BR/>In fact Disneyland has ALWAYS been about exactly the same thing it is today... sell that corporate sponsorship to Monsanto... hell, we will put in a ride and a few exhibits touting industrial chemistry as some sort of edutainment offering... if that were done today we would all freak out. <BR/><BR/>Lets sell Fritos out of an oversized vending machine... any different from the McDonald's fry carts? Nope, exactly the same, yet the fries are evil and the Fritos are warm, nostalgic memories... why?<BR/><BR/>You can truly go piece by piece, ride by ride, step by step through the history (assuming one knows the true history) of Disneyland and find pretty much exact parallels to what we get today... NOTHING has changed.<BR/><BR/>Nothing that is except the loss of childhood memories we may hold dear and in most cases much poorer execution.<BR/><BR/>The REAL problem is not that they make the choices they tend to make but that the end results are condensed, cheapened versions of what they once did. Perhaps the blatantness of what Disney does now eclipses what was done in the past. Perhaps the world around Disney has caught up to them and now we live in a themed environment... making what Disney does less unique and thus leaving us craving for more... all of this is true. But to pretend that DIsneyland was not about tie ins to movies and TV shows and commercial products and sponsors and selling T-shirts from the very get go is ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>Disney CAN and SHOULD do much better, but you need to understand the problems before they can even be attempted to be fixed.Teevteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009538411830575506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-45188550966212758022009-03-01T04:44:00.000-08:002009-03-01T04:44:00.000-08:00Disneyland was not meant to be synonymous with Dis...Disneyland was not meant to be synonymous with Disney movies/television, and I don't think many people realize this.<BR/><BR/>For those that see nothing wrong with what has happened, would it be alright if we photoshopped old family photos with the new Pepsi logo and convinced your grandparents to wear skinny jeans?<BR/><BR/>Disney is dieing, and dragging my childhood memories into the grave with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-38446783457735699782009-02-28T13:56:00.000-08:002009-02-28T13:56:00.000-08:00Re-Imagineering is alive and well in the sense tha...Re-Imagineering is alive and well in the sense that they are buying out the old guard with "take this or else" packages. What they are left with and what the future execution ability may be is a good thread to write, no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-52329259106688739052009-02-25T12:40:00.000-08:002009-02-25T12:40:00.000-08:00"I predict these scenes will be riddled with spit ..."I predict these scenes will be riddled with spit wads and chewing gum in protest until removed."<BR/><BR/>Are you talking about the same American public that thinks Miley Cyrus is talented? Nothing will happen. That's the problem. The public is so dumbed down they don't have the eye to discern crap from shinola. It's the same reason we got George W for 2 terms.<BR/><BR/>As long as Disney lets its decision making process be public polling, this will never get better.Flerghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04101463542972261369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-74352076730269786562009-02-22T22:22:00.000-08:002009-02-22T22:22:00.000-08:00I can't wait until the Hanna Montana ride that is ...I can't wait until the Hanna Montana ride that is to replace Big Thunder Mountain in 2012...Well, at least it will still be Country related, right? Oh wait, that is supposed to be the end of the World, huh? How fitting.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-90169932121004915362009-02-22T17:44:00.000-08:002009-02-22T17:44:00.000-08:00"Spokker, you really need to get a life."Don't eve..."Spokker, you really need to get a life."<BR/><BR/>Don't even try and distract us from the real issues. Spokker being a loser has nothing to do with the fact that Dolls and Characters do not mix. He is not what is at stake here. You are "Swift Boating" this thread!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-30882141031445167642009-02-22T17:40:00.000-08:002009-02-22T17:40:00.000-08:00"while it is relatively easy to identify those who..."while it is relatively easy to identify those who aren’t Disney shills, it makes it difficult to separate those who ARE."<BR/><BR/>That's the whole idea!!! DING!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-41153807268377047762009-02-21T23:21:00.000-08:002009-02-21T23:21:00.000-08:00The trouble with being anonymous is that, while it...The trouble with being anonymous is that, while it is relatively easy to identify those who aren’t Disney shills, it makes it difficult to separate those who ARE.<BR/><BR/>I’ve seen so many that claim to be Disney fans, who love everything Disney does, and apologists who just seem to be out there to diffuse ANY challenges that come up, that it becomes obvious that at least SOME of them are Disney. But those who are over the top in praise for the changes pretty much admit it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-43046823096314646282009-02-21T08:04:00.000-08:002009-02-21T08:04:00.000-08:00You all need to get over it already...Ive seen the...You all need to get over it already...Ive seen the new version of IASW and it is still beautiful and the Disney characters fit in perfectly. They do not detract from the show in any way, on the contrary, make it even more magical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-8227184158054111552009-02-20T22:29:00.000-08:002009-02-20T22:29:00.000-08:00Ironically, the Small World figures are ALSO Disne...Ironically, the Small World figures are ALSO Disney Characters!!! <BR/><BR/>Disney's artists developed them specifically for this attraction (just as Disney artists developed their version of Peter Pan for that film, Alice for that film, Cinderella for that film, etc.). For them to decide that their characters can just be interchangeable just flies in the face of common sense.<BR/><BR/>If they wanted to make IASW more relevant, maybe they could have just MARKETED it!??!?? They market the hell out of everything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-10266752154896893982009-02-20T19:07:00.000-08:002009-02-20T19:07:00.000-08:00The Disney gods have been angered by all the celeb...The Disney gods have been angered by all the celebrating. <BR/><BR/>I guess this year I'll be celebrating a lack of respect to my favorite artist and inspiration.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand why Disney has this unrelenting need to infiltrate its attractions with characters. Characters are fine on Peter Pan's Flight or Snow White's Scary Adventures. But the most well known and popular attractions in Disney history have probably been Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, and Pirates of the Caribbean, none of which housed a Disney character, until the latter, of course, got Jack. These attractions were great as their own immersive worlds. Why do they need to have Copyright Disney branded into them? Brands are for horses...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-60851612314136357852009-02-20T08:44:00.000-08:002009-02-20T08:44:00.000-08:00Dear Previous Anonymous:Thanks for the observation...Dear Previous Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the observations - especially about the new boats.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, it's a case of picking your fights. In the "Heirarchy of Errors" made at IASW, the tacky Tupperware boats go way down on the pecking order. <BR/><BR/>Not because they are the least offensive, but because you have to limit what you want to complain about in order to be taken seriously.Katella Gatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03365847952380109157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-89546031899839833212009-02-19T21:17:00.000-08:002009-02-19T21:17:00.000-08:00I rode IASW today to see what all the fuss is abou...I rode IASW today to see what all the fuss is about. People were taking pictures of Stitch and others with their flashes, etc. Whatever.<BR/><BR/>I think that happening upon the characters takes you out of the "moment" the ride is trying to immerse you in and distracted me mentally in that I left that world for another. I felt that. Especially the Disney music did this as it was competing, not complimenting the build the show was out to accomplish. The Dolls were well executed for the most part and the show sounded and looked great, so overall i enjoyed it.<BR/><BR/>THE BOATS! No one is talking about the rotary molded 100% plastic boats that essentially give you the tactile experience of being in a "little tikes" plastic playset. I'm wondering if the colors fade to chalk in the sun like so many plastic mushroom houses piled in backyards.<BR/><BR/>The America scene looked like they ran out of money. Life imitates art! How timely!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-65466998500296047562009-02-19T11:29:00.000-08:002009-02-19T11:29:00.000-08:00I'm flattered, of course!I'm flattered, of course!Mr Bankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952506736745891323noreply@blogger.com