InexorableTash said:
Heh, yes. Disney parks have had a lot of high-concept build-outs that never really clicked with the audience. And a long history of reworking them to be more appealing to the (low-minded?) park goers. Epcot always struggled; turning the Maelstrom into Frozen is the latest highlight. Much of California Adventure has been redone, with my precious Tower of Terror (just the lobby, really; could have stayed there all day - never cared for the ride) being the latest "victim". We almost lost the sub ride until it was Nemo'd up. Heck, even DL's Tomorrowland was flailing for decades until Star Wars overlays appeared.
Theme parks definitely cater to the lowest common denominator. They sort of have to by definition; otherwise, it's doubtful they could support that kind of overhead required and last as long as they have in the case of Disney.
On the narrow point of the various parks being reworked, I agree. California Adventure, however, was a terrible idea from jump. Especially by putting it in California and not laying heavily into the state's... well, mythology. Instead, they put up the postcard version of the state. Again, in California. This might have worked in, say, Shanghai, but I could have driven to the real Golden Gate Bridge and Muir Woods.
Where's the Zorro Stunt Spectacular? The Rocketeer Roller coaster? Red Car Diner and an improved Roger Rabbit's Cartoon Spin? Radiator Springs Racers could have been themed around the Central Coast and the Pacific Coast Highway and so on and so forth.
No, California Adventure 1.0 is what happens when you allow the Sharp Pencil Boys to dictate policy.
Pale Horse said:
A deeper more SixSigma way to look at this would be what best defines the guest most significant experience that brings them back? I think what Disney has forgotten is how to create a memory. You can overlay till the cows come home, you can theme and re-theme, reinvent rides, streamline consumption, but in all of that, if you forget that the guest come to remember something deeper, you'll never get out of the park what they're trying to put into it.
I would argue that this is independent of theme. Important, yes, but if theme is the umbrella or
raison d'etre, then that guest experience is a supporting character. Once that's established you can drill down into specifics. Without Adventureland's rubric does the Enchanted Tiki Room exist? Probably not. Creating predictability and stifling the creativity that comes from, say, chaos is quite possibly one of the reasons Disney is in this current state of flux as they move away from the 1 Disney philosophy.
What guests value in Tokyo do not always replicate in Orlando. The Japanese don't engage with the parks in the same manner as we do.
Attila the Professor said:
Indiana Jones could treat a parallel theme about repatriation of artifacts (and Animal Kingdom, to be fair, shows some interest in post-colonialism generally), say, but it wouldn't be about animals.
Are you sure that's not an affectation or aesthetic of Animal Kingdom? As opposed to an actual sub-theme? With the Oppression Olympiad commingling with the stench of moral absolutism in the air, I think even this is too politically charged a topic for Disney to want to tackle.