| # | Author | Message |
21
| dshyates
Tue 7/8/2008 1:33p | They are changing the name to Mickey's Fun Wheel and putting a giant fully realised Mickey face in the middle. That's pretty much a characterization of an existing non-character related attraction. |
22
| Nate McDuck
Tue 7/8/2008 1:57p | It sounds like I'm in the minority on this, but I like the idea of bringing a little more characterization into DCA. It's the one thing Disney can offer that absolutely cannot be replicated elsewhere (in general terms, of course).
Although it is a good point that they could go overboard on it in a hurry.
Hmmm... I guess I'm undecided after all. There are some great points for consideration here. |
23
| davewasbaloo
Tue 7/8/2008 2:02p | Well Nate McDuck, I appreciate we can all have different opinions, but animation is not just the reserve of Disney. |
24
| dshyates
Tue 7/8/2008 2:03p | How many park chains don't have characters these days? How many have a ride comparable to Haunted Mansion. What Disney really has to offer is the skills to create wonderment. But when you start with a character as inspiration then cobble a ride around it, instead of starting with an attraction concept you get commercialization. |
25
| gottaluvdavillains
Tue 7/8/2008 2:06p | I like the Characters in the park - I can't wait for Carland - If I just wanted to go to a generic park I can go to Great America. If I didn't like the Characters and just wanted to ride rides I could go to Animal Kingdom -
I go to Disneyland and DCA for the rides, the characters, the shows --- the all of it! |
26
| davewasbaloo
Tue 7/8/2008 2:09p | Standing ovation for dshyates. Absolutely.
I swear, if I hear about another blooming toonfestation, I will scream.
It's really sad when Dubai and Macau are more enticing than what Disney and Vegas have on the boil. After 30+ years of devotion to Disney, it is depressing. |
27
| davewasbaloo
Tue 7/8/2008 2:13p | Ironically I love DAK and Epcot because of the great theming, quality of attractions and minimal characters. But Dl is more intimate.
It's funny, even when I was 5, I always felt Fantasyland and toons were weak. |
28
| Nate McDuck
Tue 7/8/2008 2:13p | Sorry, davewasbaloo. You are right, of course, and I should have been more clear in my comments. What I meant was the characters specific to Disney are the one thing that cannot be replicated elsewhere.
They seem to be playing that as their trump card, in other words. From a marketing point of view they know other parks have roller coasters and water rides and cartoon characters. But nobody else has Mickey, Jack Sparrow, and Wall-E, so they want to remind everyone of that fact. |
29
| davewasbaloo
Tue 7/8/2008 2:17p | Fairpoint. But let's see - we go from expecting multi-million dollar attractions that are state of the art, to rubberheads (ok the costumes are expensive) and a minimum wage performer in them.
Excuse me if that doesn't excite me. I am serious. When did the product dumb down so much? |
30
| Nate McDuck
Tue 7/8/2008 2:17p | But why can't they do both? This may be an unsophisticated opinion, but I think a ride like Buzz Lightyear is both a great attraction concept and fits the theme pretty well. |
