From the far reaches of Universal and beyond

[albino_pygmy]

As I said before, the Disney magic to me is intangible. Not sure what it is. Maybe it is because I have so many fond memories from all of our family trips over the years. Maybe it's because my dad is such a huge fan and has always turned into a big kid when we are there-and my DH is now the same way! Maybe it's Walt's spirit that still seems to be around even all these years after his death. Maybe it's the fact that Mickey always gives me a hug and a kiss even though I'm an adult now. There's just something about the place

I think that may be a big part of "the magic" since you get to relive those memories over, and over, and over.

So does this mean trying something new isn't as magical since you don't have a memory of it, like taking a cruise for the first time? For the most part, everyone loves cruising that's been, and those that haven't, won't because they don't want to try it because it's new and expensive. Sounds familiar? It reminds me of why some people won't try other places to go on vacation when compared to Disney.

Anyways, I think it would be really interesting if we really figured out where does this Disney 'magic' come from, and how other places could benefit from it so that everyone could enjoy visiting other places as well as they do Disney

[stitchaholic]

Anyways, I think it would be really interesting if we really figured out where does this Disney 'magic' come from, and how other places could benefit from it so that everyone could enjoy visiting other places as well as they do Disney

magic just happens,yes i am an adult,and last year was my first trip as an adult,hadn't been back since 1980 ,there is no feeling like walking on to main street, and getting the first sight of the castle. the main street parade evoked such emotion that it brought tears to my eyes. i am not an emotional female,i work in trucking,surrounded by men,i raise 2 kids entirely on my own and support them without whining,no pity parties here,but disney broke down through all that in a way that no other theme parc can,i may not have been to universal,but i have been to alot of other parcs and theme parcs like santa's village,six flags,canada's wonder land,laronde,you cannot bottle what disney has built,it was created and built by a man with a vision and passion for his ideas,it is a philosiphy,proffessionalism,constant research and money spent to keep it magical,some old,some new.
so you want thrills and chills,go to the other parcs,you want magic,go to disney

[Cinderelley]

I'm sure there are many reasons for the magic, but the one that comes immediately to my mind is the tie in to the movies that I loved as a kid and the movies my kids love.

Yes, I've been to Universal (in California) and had a good time, but seeing their rides evokes totally different memories than Disney's rides do. Back to the Future was a good movie, but it doesn't give me the warm fuzzies that Sleeping Beauty does. ET scared my younger sister and then my kids witless. Stitch, on the other hand, is adorable, and my daughter loves imitating him.
When I go to Disney, I can feel swept off my feet by Prince Charming or like I'll never grow up with Peter Pan. I can be a basically good swashbuckling pirate like Captain Jack or getting into just a little bit of mischief with Brer Rabbit. I think Universal's movies are oriented towards an older audience who knows that it's all fake special effects and actors. The "magic" loses its effect.


That's just a theory of mine. I'll guess I'll be able to test it a little when we go see Harry Potter stuff in 2010.

[albino_pygmy]

I'm sure there are many reasons for the magic, but the one that comes immediately to my mind is the tie in to the movies that I loved as a kid and the movies my kids love.

Yes, I've been to Universal (in California) and had a good time, but seeing their rides evokes totally different memories than Disney's rides do. Back to the Future was a good movie, but it doesn't give me the warm fuzzies that Sleeping Beauty does. ET scared my younger sister and then my kids witless. Stitch, on the other hand, is adorable, and my daughter loves imitating him.
When I go to Disney, I can feel swept off my feet by Prince Charming or like I'll never grow up with Peter Pan. I can be a basically good swashbuckling pirate like Captain Jack or getting into just a little bit of mischief with Brer Rabbit. I think Universal's movies are oriented towards an older audience who knows that it's all fake special effects and actors. The "magic" loses its effect.


That's just a theory of mine. I'll guess I'll be able to test it a little when we go see Harry Potter stuff in 2010.

Ah, so it's the "warm fuzzies" Disney's known to give everyone watching their animated movies, and then going to the parks and seeing the shows or riding the rides with the same characters. Yup, Universal and the rest definately don't bring "warm fuzzies" to the experience, but I do think they have their own 'magic' of their own that make a trip to their parks special.

I remember my first ride on ET, yeah I do remember it was kinda scary for a "kids ride" at Universal, but I have seen the movie before and was able to follow along with it and understand why I see these car headlights facing directly at me, and the payoff was at the end when you actually visited ET's home planet. You only saw parts of it in the movie, and I think those were scenes from his spaceship. You know, this has been bothering me, how are these aliens able to create a spaceship like that, when they live in a brightly colored garden of talking mushrooms and flowers and other little ET creatures? Oh well, guess we'll never know. Anyways, I did think ET was a 'magical' experience for me because at the ride, he says goodbye to everyone on their bikes. Today he still says goodbye to everyone, but I feel it's kinda ruined the experience now that they've added 3 extra bikes to each vehicle and poor ET trying to race through all those names in that short time, you could barely hear your own name

There was a time where there was 'movie magic' at Universal when it was all about "riding the movies" and that's also gone now when they've been trying to compete with Disney by adding new exciting rides and shows, some of which I do feel aren't what Universal claims to be better than what they replaced. Oh well, there's nothing you can do about it, and just go on with your trip and enjoy the rest of the park, similar to what most of you do at Disney. I'm sure most of you miss classics such as Mr. Toad's, Horizons, Dreamfinder, etc, but you still have a good time and don't let that bother you, or think that the magic has decreased because of their loss.

I would love to see what you think of Harry Potter. I think it would definately be a great addition to IOA and will appeal to all crowds, families and thrill riders. The families will get a unique interactive experience and a couple shows and shops, while the thrill riders get a ride that is the first of it's kind anywhere, and people are saying it's going to be like a souped up Spiderman attraction, which means this ride is going to be really amazing. For those that haven't been on Spiderman, it's been by far the BEST dark ride ever for many years in a row due to it's fantastic blend of 3D projections from a moving vehicle and special effects, and a fun story that really draws you in. There is one ride that does come close to this, and it's not at Disney, but at Busch Gardens in Williamsburg called DarKastle. So to say that this is going to be 10x better than Spiderman is really exciting

[albino_pygmy]

I saw this article online and thought it was interesting.

Last week, 3 guests were sent to the hospital after a collision on the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad ride at Disneyland in Anaheim, California. This is the third such accident in a year. The first of this trifecta cost a man his life.

These days, if you go to Walt Disney World in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, or the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, you get an eyeful of branding...an ABC Week here, a Soap Opea fest there, ESPN being touted at restaurants, live-action movies being shilled on construction walls.

Disney's Animal Kingdom is like an socioenvironmental radical's propaganda dream come true...the river ride shows a rainforest aflame, putting lives in danger. Conservation Station speaks of diminishing habitats and species on the brink of extinction. The Kilimanjaro Safari would be nothing more than a clone of Wild Adventures' or Busch Gardens' own safari excursions, were it not for the semi-thrilling race against a team of eeeevil poachers.

Two of Disney's recent theatrical flops, "The Alamo" and "King Arthur," serve to demystify a duo of Disney's most beloved mythological characters: Davy Crockett and Arthur, King of England, who was first introduced to many a child through the animated classic "The Sword in the Stone."

As a former cast member, I often think back to the times I had during my time working at Magic Kingdom park in Florida. Especially my first few days of training, which were really more of an excuse to explore the park and learn the stories of what went on behind the scenes when the park complex was still on the drawing board. I didn't have more fun at any time during my "tour of duty, as it were.

But one thing stood out for me, it was something our guide during our park orientation tour said to us: "The aim of this park is FANTASY. People come here to get away from reality. It's our job to make sure that once people walk through those gates, that they enter another world, where what goes on outside does not intrude."

Given the above examples, is Disney corporate following its own mandate?

There was a time when the parks and the animation studio were the core of the Disney empire. Everything else the company did was considered advertising for those two aspects, starting with Walt's own TV show, "Disneyland", invented as a way to introduce audiences to the four main sectors of the original park. "The Wonderful World of Disney" featured openings and anniversary celebrations at the parks, concerts, and fun travels with celebrities touring the parks (never thought I'd see Kurt "Snake Plissken" Russell and Donny "This Smile is Surgically Fixed" Osmond in the same TV special). Walt even used his show as a way to get the word out about new attractions and events coming to the parks, long before the advent of the World Wide Web and Disney Magazine.

Something happened after Eisner took over. It seems the parks and the films became a platform for advertising both other aspects of the company and its own agenda (some would say a political one).

The Pirates of the Caribbean stopped chasing the wenches. The Jungle Cruise lost its guns. Buena Vista started releasing R-rated films. "Synergy" became a key word as new Disney acquisitions such as ABC and ESPN started getting their names and images slapped up around the parks. And suddenly, people started thinking, "This isn't the way things were when I was a kid."

Even the thing that started it all...finely-crafted, unique, epic animated filmmaking...became a thing of the past. This started out with the introduction of the so-called "cheapquel," low-cost direct-to-video sequels to the studio's animated classics produced by the company's television animation division. Then, fans' worst fears came to pass last year with the closure of the animation studio in Florida, who had produced "Mulan" and "Lilo & Stitch," two of the company's better animated films of the modern era.

The company has decided to shift its focus to 3D rendered computer animation, after viewing the shocking success it has brought to Steve Jobs' Pixar Studios. Now, Walt was certainly no Luddite, and embraced new technologies with the fervor of a schoolboy, one of the eccentric charms that led to the infatuation the public has with him, even today. In fact, the 1982 film "Tron," though not the cult success it would prove to be today, was greenlit on the basis of "What would Walt do?" But Walt also was a scholar of history and heritage, one of the reasons why today every park contains a section dedicated to the history and culture of the United States. Walt would likely have embraced CG Animation as well, but not on the condition of abandoning hand-drawn art.

In the post-"Lion King" Disney, the sale is the thing. That film showed the Board of Directors what synergy done RIGHT could properly produce. The problem was, the company didn't know when to stop. Suddenly, every time there was a new release, we had to endure toys at McDonalds, signage in the parks, ads in the literature, ridiculously-themed parades and shows, and ride re-themings. Not to mention the myriad of stuffed animals, T-shirts, toys, and souvenirs that were crammed onto gift shops in the parks.

Then, suddenly, there was a movie starring Goofy released, prominently featuring the ESPN and X-Games logos. Things had gone too far.

The parks had stopped selling the movie, they had started selling the merchandise INSPIRED by the movie. Rather than creating interest from the fans, it instead crammed it down everyone's throats.

The movies had stopped entertaining, and started shilling the product.

Synergy...it was all about the money. Greed is how fantasies start getting ruined.

Then the Board got another bright idea. A lot of the money they were taking in was being reinvested in the parks. So, said they, "Cut ye your budgets." And Paul Pressler and croniette Cynthia Harriss gladly obliged by cutting back spending on training, maintenance and staffing (Al Weiss, on the other hand, simply held off on any expansion projects at the WDW resorts).

At Disneyland, Tomorrowland was nearly completely shuttered. Maintenance was stretched thin. Training sessions, in many cases, were reduced to a third of the time that they normally took. Materials were replaced with cheaper alternatives. Costumes were changed across the board. Older, higher-paid employees were laid off.

At the Florida Property, new rides were canceled or severely cut back. Animal Kingdom's BEASTLY KINGDOM expansion, which would have made it possibly THE thrill park of Central Florida, was unceremoniously vaulted.

Then people on the West Coast started dying.

It started when a cleat was torn from the hull of the Sailing Ship Columbia and thrown into the crowd...a Microsoft software engineer was killed and two others injured. Others were injured when Space Mountain derailed. A worker died after falling from the catwalk of the Hyperion Theater. And in the past year, one man has died and thirteen have been injured in three separate accidents (one riderless) on Big Thunder Mountain. The first two accidents were traced to inadequate maintenance on the ride and inadequate operations training, respectively. The most recent is still under investigation.

Death and injury are the most inexcusable of intrusions into the fantasy of the sacred "Guest Experience".

Why did people stop going to see Disney's animated films? Because they stopped being unique and epic.
Why did people stop going to the parks? Because there wasn't anything new to discover there anymore.
Why did people stop watching ABC? Because it stopped being a source for quality programming and started becoming an advertisement for itself and its sister subsidiaries.

To butcher a phrase from Dr. Broom in the movie "Hellboy" :

"In the absence of magic, reality prevails."

Disney has lost its magic, both through its own actions and lack thereof. This company will always hold a special place in my heart because it was where I spent one of the best summers of my life. But I like to believe that what I saw was WALT's spirit shining thorough a veil of stagnation that it is going to take a huge effort to clear.

THAT is the company I went to work for. What it is now is nothing but a shadow of its former self.

As a former CM, I totally agree with what is said here, and I ask you, after reading it all, do you still think the Disney parks are still magic? Is this the 'magic' that you love now, or the 'magic' that you yearn for that you fondly remember back in the day?

[stitchaholic]

i guess to some being a CM has jaded you,i still felt the magic last year and thought to myself,how wonderful it must be to work here!
oh well,i think i am done with reading these posts,it is like the jaded ones are trying to stick it to disney and the people who love it,good luck with your boycott!

[albino_pygmy]

I don't feel jaded at all, just happened to really see Disney for what they really are after working for them. I do remember taking Traditions, and the tour around MK, and pointing out that Walt didn't want any bits of the "real world" inside his parks, this is why when you look across the way to the lagoon, you don't see any parking lot, you just see the resorts, and you've left the real world behind. After pointing out all the little things in trying to make you feel like you've stepped into another world, we continued the tour and within 5 minutes, we passed by a McDonalds fry cart, and half of us new CMs in the group just shook our heads. I'm not trying to boycott anything, I'd like to discuss what the rest of you think about all of this, and to see the whole picture, and not just what only Disney wants you to see.

[Cinderelley]

I saw this article online and thought it was interesting.



As a former CM, I totally agree with what is said here, and I ask you, after reading it all, do you still think the Disney parks are still magic? Is this the 'magic' that you love now, or the 'magic' that you yearn for that you fondly remember back in the day?

I agree, and I'm not a jaded CM or ex-CM. For me, Disney's movies are divided into older and newer. I love all the older ones. I loved Lion King, Little Mermaid & Lilo & Stitch. Hunchback of Notre Dame and Aladdin were okay. The others I could take or leave.
I relatively recently bought the rerelease of Sleeping Beauty, and when I watched it, I was surrounded by my DH, my teenage daughter and my teenage boys with their girlfriends. As I started watching it, everyone gravitated in and sat down. My DH rented Wall-E this weekend and the exact opposite happened. As the movie progressed, individuals got up and left. Even though my kids are teenagers, their friends call up and ask them if they can borrow Lion King or Cinderella, etc., etc. They never call up and ask for Toy Story or Cars. I can't tell you why. I just know it happens.

I do think Disney tried to pull reality out of the equation, but it is slowly creeping back in. I remember the big stink to make Pirates politically correct. I was young and still thought it was ridiculous. Who was politically correct back in that time frame? Why does everyone want to change history to keep from offending someone? It won't change what really happened, and we might lose the lessons learned.

I can understand change at Disney due to newer movies being blended into the parks, but I don't understand it for purely financial reasons or political correctness.

I think any company could do it if they had the right philosphy. In fact, my kids and I use to fantasize about making a Pokemon theme park.

[stitchaholic]

ok,i lied,i'm back! they say ignorance is bliss,i guess there are things about disney i don't want to know because i do go there to completely and utterly escape reality,and rather hear all the bells and whistles before my trip and not any of the negative,the last post with the article was harsh for me,i even did a snopes check on disney last year just to read that the only accidental death at disney world was when a nutjob tried to jump the monorail,i like to keep some things sacred,and since disney is my upcoming choice for our getaway,i want to keep things positive.
by the way,my son would love a pokeman theme parc,but it is something that wouldn't appeal to everyone,disney has so many different parts to it,everyone can find something to relate to and a character that they love.

[Cinderelley]

[QUOTE=stitchaholic;1800503]by the way,my son would love a pokeman theme parc,but it is something that wouldn't appeal to everyone,/QUOTE]

We don't have to share our pokemon park. You could bring your son over and we wouldn't have to stand in line at all.

[stitchaholic]

sounds good to me,what time do i drop him off???????? lol!

[Yvette]

We have literally lived all over the country (Thank you USMC), and have visited most of the major theme parks:

Universal (Hollywood and Orlando)
Sea World (San Diego, Cleveland and Orlando)
Knott's Berry Farm (CA)
Hershey Park (PA)
Six Flags (Chicago)
Disneyland
And of course WDW.

I personally prefer the Hollywood Universal to Orlando. I also prefer the San Diego Sea World over Orlando. But I honestly don't remember why.

While I always enjoy the other trips, I am going to cop out and say it is missing the "magic" of WDW and Disneyland. The first time I went to Disneyland was with a large group of fellow Marines. We had a ball! Not the same as Six Flags at all. Over the years we revisited every time we were in California.

Flash forward to our Honeymoon at WDW. It was awesome (just two parks) and we even stayed off-site and had a wonderful time. Returned numerous times after that with either the hubby or daughter.

We love it so much that I'm giving my DD and her new husband a trip to the Poly for their birthdays.

While I enjoy Universal and go every other trip to the World, it's just a side trip from the main one with the mouse.

As a matter of fact in our family when we are feeling down and need a "fix" we say we need some Mickey Love and start planning the next trip.

[PetefromRI]

When I first read the Opening Post,I decided to read all of the replies and then make an educated post of my own but I'm kind of sitting here with my jaw hanging open.I do agree that there are other places besides Disney World to have fun and to continuosly compare everything to Disney gets old.We liked US for a day visit and the resorts look nice.We may do a 3 nighter ourselves one of these days,but the bottom line is that my wife and I really enjoy our Disney trips more than anything else we've ever done.I know people who hate Disney World and they say that they won't ever go back.Some people would rather go camping or go to Europe or maybe just go to sports events.I say thats cool,whatever works for you.We just know that Disney works for us and that it makes us happy and I don't really feel that I need someone who doesn't like it or someone who has seen the "dark side" of Disney to try and spoil that for the rest of us.It's obvious that the OP has issues with the company,so I say,don't go back.There's dark sides to all companies including Disney but I don't go there to invest in the company but to get away from reality for awhile.This thread reminds me of getting a talking to by some religious zealot who doesn't respect others opinions.I'm still trying to figure out your point and I could sense your dissapointment when no one was arguing with you at first.Now I'll get off my soap box.

[albino_pygmy]

When I first read the Opening Post,I decided to read all of the replies and then make an educated post of my own but I'm kind of sitting here with my jaw hanging open.I do agree that there are other places besides Disney World to have fun and to continuosly compare everything to Disney gets old.We liked US for a day visit and the resorts look nice.We may do a 3 nighter ourselves one of these days,but the bottom line is that my wife and I really enjoy our Disney trips more than anything else we've ever done.I know people who hate Disney World and they say that they won't ever go back.Some people would rather go camping or go to Europe or maybe just go to sports events.I say thats cool,whatever works for you.We just know that Disney works for us and that it makes us happy and I don't really feel that I need someone who doesn't like it or someone who has seen the "dark side" of Disney to try and spoil that for the rest of us.It's obvious that the OP has issues with the company,so I say,don't go back.There's dark sides to all companies including Disney but I don't go there to invest in the company but to get away from reality for awhile.This thread reminds me of getting a talking to by some religious zealot who doesn't respect others opinions.I'm still trying to figure out your point and I could sense your dissapointment when no one was arguing with you at first.Now I'll get off my soap box.

I respect everyone's opinions whether I agree with them or not, but for some reason when you started to mention what I have bolded here, that really bothered me and felt more like an insult than just your opinion. If you did read through everything so you can come up with an educated post, you would realize that I'd just like to have a nice discussion that discusses about the other parks, what makes Disney different from them, how the other parks can benefit from them, and how you can benefit by taking a break from Disney and how that in turn might actually help Disney out. Disney knows you'll be back over and over, and they feel that they don't have to put that much effort into newer attractions because they know you'll be back, and don't need to wow more people to come visit their parks. However, if Disney does notice some other parks such as Universal or Sea World offer new shows or attractions that are of higher quality than Disney IMO, Disney would then step up their game and come up with something to top that off. Right now, Universal is working on Harry Potter and Rip Ride Rockit, Sea World has Manta, and what is Disney planning on doing? They opened up a new fairy meet 'n greet and going to refurbing Space Mountain, finally. There are other rumors going around as to what Disney's going to do such as finally getting Beastly Kingdom into AK or another coaster for MGM. Here's the point I'm trying to come across, what took them so long? The last things they came out with were Stitch, Monsters Inc, Everest, Toy Story Mania, and to be honest with you, I don't think they even tried. Sure they got the authentic look down on Everest and the area around it, but overall, the coaster was lame, you barely see the yeti (if he's working) and they didn't theme the whole mountain. I'm sorry, but I thought Disney quality ment they'd theme anything you can see from "on stage" and last I checked, their parkinglot is considered to be "on stage" and you can see the backside of the structure. As for TSM, I thought that the technology used to creating the attraction is awesome, but felt that they already did it well in the post show area of SSE and did NOT need it's own ride, especially another Toy Story shooter. It was also a big let down when I've heard many people compare it to Spiderman at IOA. Here, I'm thinking this is Disney's answer to Spiderman, they have an awesomely themed environment, and it's interactive. I was really looking forward to this, but was saddened to see that it was noting but screens, and not all tied together with 3D and effects like Spiderman. Anyways, to get back to my point: Disney will continue to find ways to come up with cheaply made attractions or shows, charge you MORE for that and call it quality because it's "Disney" and I feel this is wrong for them to do this to you, the loyal fans. Now don't get me wrong now, Universal has done their fair share of things that have upset me as well, but since most of you haven't visited Universal as often, I'll save my breath and just mention that even though the changes they made upset many of their fans, they did at least recognize us and had us in mind for newer attractions, rather than what they wanted to make us buy by adding an attraction based off their popular character or franchise, ie: Pooh, HSM, Pixar, etc. So why doesn't Disney recognize when they've messed up and fix it so that way they are up to their own standards of quality? And the other thing that also bothers me is how Disney dances around the real issues of why they change things around. Anyone heard why they didn't have the tree lighting at Epcot? "It's because it's too crowded and not safe for the guests" when the real reason is they just couldn't afford to. How hard is it to say "sorry, but due to recent events, we've made several cutbacks" which I'm sure others would be more understanding, than to be told a lame excuse of a lie "it's just too much of a crowd hazard and not safe." For those of you who still love Disney, that's perfectly fine. I'm not trying to convert anyone or change anyone's opinions, just would like to see what you guys feel about what Disney's doing to their parks, and also wondering what your opinions are about the other parks and what they have to offer.

[Georgesgirl1]

I think that may be a big part of "the magic" since you get to relive those memories over, and over, and over.

So does this mean trying something new isn't as magical since you don't have a memory of it, like taking a cruise for the first time? For the most part, everyone loves cruising that's been, and those that haven't, won't because they don't want to try it because it's new and expensive. Sounds familiar? It reminds me of why some people won't try other places to go on vacation when compared to Disney.

My love of Disney may be somewhat linked to the fact that I have visited so many times, but my husband fell in love with Disney on his first trip right after we got engaged. He has been to several theme parks before and after his first trip to Disney, but feels that Disney is just different. For him, he loves the detail that Disney puts into everything. The theming in the lines, the customer service we receive while there, etc. He likes trying new experiences, but no other trip we have made together has caused an obsession like our 1st trip to WDW!

I would also have to respectfully disagree with you about Everest and Toy Story Mania. I think both of these rides are awesome. As far as the theming of Everest, it couldn't be more authentic. My brother has traveled to Mt. Everest, Nepal, and Tibet, and he said it looked exatly like the places he visited. I also loved the ride (although I am not one to really enjoy extreme rollercoasters). TSM was really fun, and we made the point to go on it several times in a row. I like it a lot better that Space Ranger Spin.

[albino_pygmy]

I know a lot of people are going to love Everest and TSM like yourself, but I do have to ask, do you think they could have gone above and beyond what they've done to really wow you? I think it's hard to answer that with 2 of the better newer additions, so we'll ask this question with Monster's Inc. Once again, based off a pixar movie, and using existing technology found elsewhere in the parks (Turtle Talk with Crush) so do you think they could have done better with Monsters Inc, or actually think they could have come up with another original attraction for that space? If you're able to do 3D or have 'live' talking monsters on a screen due to recent technology, I think it's neat that they can do it, but doesn't mean it's ok to only rely on those newer technologies to wow the guests. Turtle Talk with Crush worked well because it really worked with the aquarium theming, as opposed to what used to be a circlevision theatre watching 1 screen of monsters telling jokes. They used to have the Timekeeper in there, which was a great fit for the space and theme, and wasn't just your typical circlevision 360 film. They've added a couple AA's in the mix and had a great storyline to it. This is what I think Disney does different than the others, and that's tell a story with their attractions, but it feels like the story element is lacking when it comes to recent attractions and have to heavily rely on existing movies. They've had existing attractions before that weren't based on anything but just themed to the area and worked beautifully, but were pulled because they weren't tied into a movie. What I'd like to know is where or when did Disney go wrong and change their ways that made them successful back in the day? and also, how it seems like most of you guys are ok with all of this? I'm sure you would all love to see Disney do the amazing like they did back when Walt was calling the shots, and it seemed like ever since he left, they've been doing it their way, not his, and therefore lost the true "Disney" feel IMO. Disney needs another big dreamer to call the shots, and not some suits trying to find a way to push more movie merchandise. If we could find a way to restore the real magic to Disney, would you? Until then, Disney feels more like the other parks with the exception they're trying to sell you overpriced movie merchandise as souvenirs.

[stitchaholic]

i am not too sure,maybe i am easy to impress,but i was pretty wowed with most of the rides,especially everest,maybe it loses a certain somethin,somethin after being there 1 too many times,but the one thing i kept telling everyone after we returned home is how awesome the rides are,and how i have never seen anything like it anywhere else. every ride is theatrical,maybe you are right about the merchandising factor,but i don't mind,i love most of those movies and want to be surrounded by it,that's why i choose to go there.

[joonyer]

DW and I took our boys and their friends (age 15, 13 & 12) to Universal/IOA for the first time last fall and we all had a great time. Some of the Attractions (Jaws, were not up to Disney quality, but others (Mummy, Spiderman) were just as good if not better than some at WDW, especially Mummy. The kids and I (not so much DW) really loved the big coasters at IOA (Hulk & Dueling Dragons). WE rode the Hulk more than a dozen times and the only real negative thing about it was this; On our last day of the trip we went to MNSSHP at MK (which was great, as usual), but when we rode BTMRR that night after having experienced the Hulk just the day before, Big Thunder seemed so tame, it felt just like a kiddie coaster to us. I was saddened a little bit that it was no longer as much of a thrill as it used to be.
We will go back to WDW often as we have in the past, but we will also visit Universal/IOA again. Nothing will ever replace the immersive magic of a WDW vacation for us, but that doesn't mean we didn't have a great time at Universal/IOA also.

[PetefromRI]

I think that Disney should open a thrill ride theme park next.If they could match IOA I think that they'd have world domination in the theme park business,but a little competition never hurts.

[Rhetoric2000]

Love it. A good old ding-dong along Disney/Universal lines.

I've been working up to this and can't help but think that I can't give a single reply. Mostly because albino_pygmy's basic premise is interesting and contains a lot of issues which can be addressed, and many with which I agree. In the middle of it, however, is inserted an article which doesn't support ap's point - most of it as it is being nonsense.

So firstly I'm going to off the article before going with a second post about albino_pymy's points and general Disney Vs Other discussion. It may seem here that I'm very pro-Disney, you will see later that I am not - it is just that this article is so stupid that refuting it will come across that way.

Disney's Animal Kingdom is like an socioenvironmental radical's propaganda dream come true...the river ride shows a rainforest aflame, putting lives in danger. Conservation Station speaks of diminishing habitats and species on the brink of extinction. The Kilimanjaro Safari would be nothing more than a clone of Wild Adventures' or Busch Gardens' own safari excursions, were it not for the semi-thrilling race against a team of eeeevil poachers.

Codswallop. I don't know what his notion of what a "socioenvironmental radical" is but he sounds like the kind of idiot who things that any conservational issue can be dismissed with the line "I don't have to do anything for the environment because I don't believe in global warming". Virtually any animal-centred park in the world has a -shock horror - pro-conservation message and terrifically at AK they have the opinion that animals are better off in the wild than in captivity (at BG you will frequently ask an attendent about the animals and they will answer by referring to how they keep it and how it should be kept in captivity, rather than educating about the wild animal itself).
The poaching theme on KS (which is preposterously compared to far, far inferior versions of the "safari" ride) serves to progress the story of the ride - it allows the safari to be the short length it is, and creates a narrative beyond looking at the animals for those who aren't necessarily interested in them. Likewise the logging company on KRR serves to create the "rapids" rather than have the pleasant river voyage the story says you are going on.
Many of the animals featured are at risk from diminishing habitats. Why is it, to paraphrase the author, eeeeevil propaganda to point this out and suggest you may want to help stop this? Or is it being a socioenvironmental radical?

Two of Disney's recent theatrical flops, "The Alamo" and "King Arthur," serve to demystify a duo of Disney's most beloved mythological characters: Davy Crockett and Arthur, King of England, who was first introduced to many a child through the animated classic "The Sword in the Stone."

Codswallop. For a start neither King Arthur nor Davy Crockett are Disney characters in the first place and both of them have been the subject of FAR worse material than The Alamo or King Arthur. I don't even know what "Demystify" is supposed to mean, although in this context with Van Helsing Universal "Demystified" a heck of a lot more great characters in one movie than Disney managed in the last ten years. Finally, well, I'm not even sure what this point is meant to be anyway, other than "Disney sometimes makes unsuccessful movies". I'm not sure this is a revelation.

The Pirates of the Caribbean stopped chasing the wenches. The Jungle Cruise lost its guns. Buena Vista started releasing R-rated films.

Ah yes, the old "politically correct" strawman. Because Disney realised that implying that the protagonists in the ride were sexually assaulting women was not a great idea on a child's ride they are making a policially motivated change to the ride. If the notion of "political correctness" and the fact that everyone likes to have a go at it didn't exist nobody would even have noticed.
I rode the Jungle Cruise two weeks ago. The attendant had a gun. Has something since happened that I'm unaware of.
So Disney can't make R-rated movies? Why not? WDW is family oriented, their animated movies are either family or child oriented so why can't they release adult-oriented movies (and under a different name for goodness sake)?

...finely-crafted, unique, epic animated filmmaking...became a thing of the past

Within the last 20 years - The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Aladdin, Mulan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Emoperor's New Groove are all incontravertably good to excellent. Pocahontas, Tarzan Dinosaur, Hercules, Lilo&Stich, Brother Bear, Bolt and Robinsons were all enjoyed by millions and none could be described as poor. This is without Pixar.

low-cost direct-to-video sequels

Unlike Shrek 3 which was a high-cost sequel inflicted on the entire unsuspecting cinemagoing public.

The company has decided to shift its focus to 3D rendered computer animation,

And back again. The no-more 2-D announcement has since been rescinded with the closest thing to an apology a large studio could muster.

- I will deign to agree with the next three paragraphs. We do get back to the nonsense again with-

Then people on the West Coast started dying.

Hyperbole much? The events described have taken place over a decade, not a few months as the article implies. Riding a theme park ride, anywhere in Orlando (indeed pretty much in the world) remains a remarkably safe activity. Far safer than dricing a car.

Why did people stop going to see Disney's animated films?

They haven't.

Why did people stop going to the parks?

They haven't

That's the sum total of the points made there.

I'll repost for a discussion of Disney V Other/Universal and some of the good points albino_pygmy has ben making that I don't think should be ignored.