A question regarding the growth of WDW

[YoHo]

A giant Buzz is like being punched in the face with a set of brass knuckles with the Disney Logo on them.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Sorry YoHo, but it needs to be BIGGER!!!

A giant Buzz is like being punched in the face with a set of brass knuckles with the Disney Logo on them.

Thanks!!

[bom_noite]

Originally Posted by YoHo

Disney does suffer from the story, but perhaps not for the reason you think. Disney suffers from the Story, because modern Disney doesn't actually understand Storytelling, in particular as it applies to Theme Park attractions.

Take an example, Pirates of the Caribbean has a well established fairly highly scripted and storyboarded story. It has a traditional plot and proceeds through it using narrative techniques translated to the stage with Audio Animatronic actors.


Haunted Mansion has not such story. Oh, don't give me Master Gracey. That junk was invented by the fandom and Disney brought it in, it was never ever part of the original development for the attraction. It's all retconned in and it's stupid.

The Original HM is storyboarded, but there is not traditional narrative or plot. It is all about evoking a series of emotions. From trepidation and fear to acceptance and fun with the party.

Modern Disney. Disney from Eisner on no longer understands how to tell stories except through the most basic of narratives. They've forgotten that a crude painting of a buffalo hunt on a cave wall can be as well told a story as War and Peace.

And that is why Disney has a story problem.

Yoho, thanks for the reply, but, am not sure you answered my question - unless I missed it?

Example: I went to Kings Island (Cincinnati) in the early 90's and rode one of the Predecessors to RnR. There was no story - just a fantastic ride! I never walked away saying: That was the greatest ride I ever had been on (thought it was), it would have been classic if Aerosmith was tied in!

Ok, WDW is different and they cannot get buy with what a King's Island provides. But, do they go to far?

I understand, that is part of the WDW Mantra. But, did I need a $50 Million Yeti that does not work - perhaps the Mountain was enough. Have not been to the new Fantasyland, but, am certain there is a Wishing Well that has 97 pages of written back-story - that we are never told!

Case in point: The Goofy WaterFall in Epcot: 3 out of 100 folks that walk in to Epcot could point it out or deliver the very clever Backstory. There are another 400 such Icon's through-out the property.

At what point is the story just getting in the way of fun? Driving up prices and limiting new development?

[YoHo]

See the Ray Bradbury quote in My Signature:

"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury

Why did Walt use real Crystal Chandeliers in Disneyland instead of cheaper fakes? Because this isn't just an amusement park. King's Island and WDW are not or should not be analogous.

Disney does(did) all those things because that is what makes it a Disney park. That's what makes it unique, that is what made the Disney brand the Disney brand.


But again, Even your example shows how Disney's misunderstanding of Storytelling has undermined things.
That Goofy WaterFall doesn't need to have a clever backstory. Clever backstories are the lazy man's themeing no better than slapping some tribal masks on the Wilderness lodge and calling it African. Again, It's taking the Cave Painting and writing a 1000 page epic around it as if that made it better.

So I guess I'm both agreeing and disagreeing with the premise of your question.
No, Disney storytelling can never be overused, but yes cheap storytelling cheats like clever back stories for fountains can be overused and have been extensively overused. If a fountain of all things or any landscaping can't establish it's story on it's own with no need for an elaborate backstory, then it shouldn't be there.

[Peter Pirate 2]

Originally Posted by bom_noite

Yoho, thanks for the reply, but, am not sure you answered my question - unless I missed it?

Example: I went to Kings Island (Cincinnati) in the early 90's and rode one of the Predecessors to RnR. There was no story - just a fantastic ride! I never walked away saying: That was the greatest ride I ever had been on (thought it was), it would have been classic if Aerosmith was tied in!

Ok, WDW is different and they cannot get buy with what a King's Island provides. But, do they go to far?

I understand, that is part of the WDW Mantra. But, did I need a $50 Million Yeti that does not work - perhaps the Mountain was enough. Have not been to the new Fantasyland, but, am certain there is a Wishing Well that has 97 pages of written back-story - that we are never told!

Case in point: The Goofy WaterFall in Epcot: 3 out of 100 folks that walk in to Epcot could point it out or deliver the very clever Backstory. There are another 400 such Icon's through-out the property.

At what point is the story just getting in the way of fun? Driving up prices and limiting new development?

Oh boy. Your new pal Landbaron is about to get very cranky.

[rantnnravin]

Originally Posted by golf4miami

Yes, this! This is what I was trying to get at with my posts and ramblings about the value resorts and such.

Thank you for putting it in a much simpler and eloquent way than I.

Please don't misunderstand...I don't believe that the value resorts come anywhere close to accomplishing that goal - and i'm not really quite sure where the twains might meet on that, anyway... maybe if we looked at like the ipod shuffle...

[YoHo]

I already answered Landbaron's original question, but I'll expand a little bit. And some of this is going to be reposting from 10 year old posts.

I have some very specific problems with the expansion at Walt Disney World since Eisnery took over (and DL).

I cannot personally envision how the original EPCOT would work in reality, so I'm hard pressed to say I'd have preferred that, but in the context of traditional Disney themeparks, I am disappointed in both the Studios and AK.

Now, both concepts are in a real sense simply spin offs of EPCOT CENTER. There were plans for a Hollywood land and a "animal park" as part of EPCOT Center. All the was done was that they were spun off into their own parks. I'm not sure The studios in particular was a good choice for that however my chief complaint is execution.

Similarly, I have no problems with the idea of expanding the number or price points of hotels on property. I have very specific problems with what was built. Disney had some very impressive ideas that got nixed in favor of what was built. The original hotel plans for Animal Kingdom in particular would have upended our understanding of theme park resort hotels. Instead they built a cookie cutter lodge.

And Disney has now just been selling off land and reducing their control in ways that undermine the potential of the property to be more than just a collection of Themeparks.

As hard as it is to imagine Walt's EPCOT, I think the concept of EPCOT Center should have been what drove the property going forward. Alas, it was left to stagnate and become a joke.

[disneyworld1977]

Originally Posted by YoHo

A note on Splash Mountain, because some have questioned why I rank it lower than others despite being so well done.

Imagine that Disney Attractions are Gymnasts at the Olympics. Haunted Mansion and Splash Mountain are competing in the same event. Both execute the event flawlessly.

However, because Haunted Mansion does not use existing movie tie ins and established story points. It's "routine" is harder than Splash Mountain's and therefore it has a higher possible perfect score. So HM wins and SM loses, because both were perfect, but HM did something more impressive.

This is also why, to me, Carsland, as wonderful as it is is simply not as impressive as Mainstreet or Adventureland etc. Carsland has the crutch of being a very literal interpretation of the movie. It is low hanging fruit compared to establishing place and mood using vague cues.

I totally agree with you on this. The Imagineers came up with their own unique ideas, storytelling, theme, whatever you want to call it with HM but with Carsland it already had the tie ins and story points as you said.

But on the flip side of that what about Snow White, Peter Pan, and whatever original rides were at Disneyland. Those where movie tie ins.

Now, having said that. I am with you on what you are saying. But I almost think there can be attractions on both sides of that, purely unique ones and at the same time make some that bring the Disney movies alive. Now catch that? DISNEY movies. Thats why I don't care for the Avatar deal. But of course we had Star Tours for a while without Disney having all that until now.

Got to run for now.....

[YoHo]

You will note that Snow White, Peter Pan and the rest were firmly kept in Fantasyland and were never E-ticket attractions.
Zoro, Davy Crocket and tom Sawyer made appearances in Frontierland too, but again, they didn't comprise the E-ticket experience. That Was Mine train through Nature's wonderland.


There is a place for Tie ins. Walt was very particular about where and when such tie-ins might go, but they existed and they were never in Walt's time the E-ticket experience.



And I agree, I think bringing in outside properties is less compelling than bringing in Disney's own movie properties, but to me, that's a business decision separate from execution. The fact that these Tie ins are now the centerpiece attractions instead of the filler is the real problem to me.

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK! Let’s get at it!!

There is a vast difference between charging different amounts for different 'versions' of rides than charging different amounts for different hotel rooms. The first makes 0 business sense and no park would ever create two rides and call them the same thing.

Of course!! That’s why I chose it as an example. It is a case of carrying a point to absurdity in order to make the point. But at least you understood the premise, so we can continue.

Back in the day, as we young people like to say, when you would pick and choose which rides you paid for you didn't have to go on a certain ride if you didn't want to and if you wanted to go on a ride multiple times? Why you just buy more tickets for that ride! How is buying more tickets for a ride any different than paying more for a 'better' resort?

EXACTLY MY POINT!! If you didn’t want to ride that ride (and maybe it was just too expensive for you) you skipped it. There was no dumbed down version of the ride you could go on for half the price!! The same with Disney resorts! If a Disney resort is out of your reach financially then you stay somewhere else! It’s really that simple. Now remember, the price point that Disney set for their “Disney Resort Experience” was WAY the heck cheaper than the God-awful prices we see today. But that goes hand in hand with making different levels to match different pocketbooks. The sharp-pencils-guys worked overtime at that one!!

And the difference between buying more tickets to ride the ride is NOT the same as different levels of “Disney Experience”. It equates to spending more days in the resort. If you ride the ride once, it is the same experience as riding it ten times. If you stay in the resort for one day, it is the same experience as staying in there for ten days. See the difference? It’s the same SHOW. You’re just staying there longer. Same as the ride. It’s the same SHOW; you’re just riding it more often.

I know I sound callous when I say that not everyone can afford Disney prices. But Disney is NOT a communistic company!! There are people in the good old USA today that cannot even afford the Values? What should Disney do with them? Maybe another level of resort is in order. A new price point set 25 to 30 bucks cheaper than the current Values. One that has block type buildings, painted eggshell white, but you get a Mickey balloon when you check in, the hostess is wearing Mickey ears and there is a rather colorful statue of Mickey in the lobby!!! Does that make it a “Magic” place? Does that give you a “Disney Experience”? After all, it has the Disney© on the top of your receipt?

I keep going back to the fact that there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy the theme of the Value resorts and are glad that they have that option available to them instead of being forced into moderate and deluxe resorts just to stay on property.

And I keep going back to the thousands of people across the country that can’t even afford the Values and ask, “How much dilution of the Disney Experience can happen before it ceases to be “Disney”? Where is the line?"

Just because the theme isn't deep enough, or doesn't connect with you doesn't mean that others don't 'get it'.

Two things here. If the theme isn’t deep enough it is NOT Disney. Plain and simple! Where we might disagree is where to draw that line.

And second, my personal opinion of likes and dislikes have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is Disney. Personally I don’t care for the Contemporary’s theme. But I will admit, it is (was) immersive and up to Disney standards in every regard. On the other hand I LOVE the theme of the Poly! But I couldn’t say it is any better than the Contemporary or Fort Wilderness. All three are Disney. Period.

Not to mention, most of the people who visit the value resorts aren't going to be spending much time there anyway and they know this! Why should I have to pay more for more theme when I know 70-80% of my time will be spent at a park or DTD anyway?

That doesn’t matter one iota!! It is either Disney or it is not. How much time you spend there is totally irrelevant. In fact it makes the case that since you spend so little time at the resort, maybe you should consider and off site location. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Finally, and this will be my last try at making this argument. Financially it makes no sense to build giant resorts with an in depth theme and not be able to charge money for it. You fiscally cannot sink $$$$$$$$$ into a resort without having a way to make that investment back.

Funny. They were making a tidy profit back in the seventies. So much so that because of their profit making abilities and because they were unwilling to build more, it made them very, very ripe for take-over!! Far, far from a money losing proposition!!

Just look at the new AoA resort. Sure it's a 'Value' resort and it's very well themed

You call it themed. I call it decorated. And I really don’t know how you can’t see that point. And further I don’t know how to adequately convince you. Maybe it’s time to agree to disagree.

[YoHo]

Is it time to break out the Excel graph that shows the spike in Original (Deluxe) hotel pricing against inflation over the life of WDW? Because we have that spreadsheet :D


Again, the Imagineers came up with a plan for multitier accommodations without sacrificing on the core concept of Disney themeing. Management decided they're rather build Wilderness Lodge 2: Wrath of the Tribal Masks.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Last one and I think I'm caught up!!


rantnnravin

First- YAY!!! The art of the discussion is back!

Yeah! I always like a good talk.

Secondly, I can't believe I'm about to question Baron...

Ah! Don’t worry!! You are certainly not the first. Just ask the Pirate or Mr. Kidds or the ghost that was Scoop!! Now. Let’s see where we might disagree (so I can tell you where you are wrong!!!)

but, um, weren't the A-E tickets sold individually at different price points because they offered different levels of "experience"?

Ah! A common mistake. And really no problem to clear this up. You see, there is no difference in the “Disney Experience”, from “E” to “A”. What there is a difference is in concept, length, ride vehicle, etc., etc., etc. Let me see if I can illustrate it for you.

You have Pirates. Probably universally considered the zenith of Disney Magic! An “E” Ticket if there ever was one! And on the other side of the coin you have the horse drawn carriage or the omnibus rolling down Main Street. An “A” Ticket if ever there was one.

You cannot possibly charge (and that’s what we’re talking about in ticket differences) the same for riding on that bus as you could charge for the Pirates. Could you? NO!! But the experience, The Disney Experience, is absolutely the same! Same attention to detail, same immersive theme, same everything!! The only difference is the concept (big or little) itself. A resort, on the other hand, is a place to stay while in Disney. There’s no such thing as a smaller concept in spending the night!! You’re either spending the night or you’re not!!

A better example might be Disney restaurants. One can be a fast food joint, and another could be fine dining. Both at vastly different price points (“A” ticket to “E” ticket!). But both should have the same level of theme, ambience and Disney magic! Real crystal chandeliers in both places!! At least, that’s the way Walt thought!!

Does that make sense?

[Peter Pirate 2]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

Last one and I think I'm caught up!!


rantnnravin

Yeah! I always like a good talk.

Ah! Dont worry!! You are certainly not the first. Just ask the Pirate or Mr. Kidds or the ghost that was Scoop!! Now. Lets see where we might disagree (so I can tell you where you are wrong!!!)

Ah! A common mistake. And really no problem to clear this up. You see, there is no difference in the Disney Experience, from E to A. What there is a difference is in concept, length, ride vehicle, etc., etc., etc. Let me see if I can illustrate it for you.

You have Pirates. Probably universally considered the zenith of Disney Magic! An E Ticket if there ever was one! And on the other side of the coin you have the horse drawn carriage or the omnibus rolling down Main Street. An A Ticket if ever there was one.

You cannot possibly charge (and thats what were talking about in ticket differences) the same for riding on that bus as you could charge for the Pirates. Could you? NO!! But the experience, The Disney Experience, is absolutely the same! Same attention to detail, same immersive theme, same everything!! The only difference is the concept (big or little) itself. A resort, on the other hand, is a place to stay while in Disney. Theres no such thing as a smaller concept in spending the night!! Youre either spending the night or youre not!!

A better example might be Disney restaurants. One can be a fast food joint, and another could be fine dining. Both at vastly different price points (A ticket to E ticket!). But both should have the same level of theme, ambience and Disney magic! Real crystal chandeliers in both places!! At least, thats the way Walt thought!!

Does that make sense?

No, no, no. You're not caught up. Go back and check again.

[MassJester]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

A better example might be Disney restaurants. One can be a fast food joint, and another could be fine dining. Both at vastly different price points (“A” ticket to “E” ticket!). But both should have the same level of theme, ambience and Disney magic! Real crystal chandeliers in both places!! At least, that’s the way Walt thought!!

How do we know that? Not being snide, just curious.

[DVC-Landbaron]

rantnnravin

How do we know that? Not being snide, just curious.

Ah!!

Walt and the Chandelier!!

You never heard the story? It goes to What Walt Wanted!! It is a marvelous story. Let me see if I can find it on an old thread. It was told WONDERFULLY!! But it’s going to take some time and it could be that it was lost during the great crash of 2000. If I can’t find it I’ll do my best to re-tell it.

See ya later! I have research to do!!!



(HOPE!!! HELP!!!!)