Sure, there are many reasons why in reality it wouldn't be a practical plan. But it did start with the assumption that somehow I'm in charge of Disneyland so it isn't like it started out reality based and then went off track.

But my larger view is that there should be no permanent attractions at Disneyland. Change should be the norm and if they won't actually rip out and replace attractions then constantly modifying the ones that are there, even if much of the time the changes don't work is, to me, preferable to stasis for even the most cherished of attractions.

Nostalgia is boring when the thing one is nostalgic for never went away (and likely never will).

I don't enjoy Space Mountain for the nostalgia. It's 36 years old, and fondness for my childhood never enters into it for me. There have been many changes over the years, almost all for the better. Seems like a good process to me.

I don't enjoy the Haunted Mansion for nostalgia either, though I admit that seeps into the equation a tiny bit more than it does for the likes of Space Mountain. They've done a few changes in recent years, too. 50% success rate, in my opinion - but I appreciate the effort to keep things fresh(ish).



I appreciate Alex's concept. But in a world where Idiocracy is coming to be more like truth than satire, do we want out-with-the-old and in-with-the-new? In that vein, how many of Disneyland's post-Walt ideas have been successful through time compared to the quantity of successful "originals" either executed or conceived during that brief 11-year span at the start?

The part of me that resists change in theme park attractions seems to reason thusly: A really good attraction is a bit like a favorite film or piece of music. I revisit my favorite tunes for the emotional resonance, and relish my favorite parts over and over. Much of the pleasure is in anticipating my favorite bits, and reveling when they invariably arrive. If someone were able to come in and change all the tracks in my Beatles collection with slight (or overt) modifications and "improvements," without leaving me recourse to hear the originals, I would be entirely resentful. (Much like the teeming millions who didn't want their Star Wars trilogy mucked with, I gather.)

On the other hand, I seek out new music and new films all the time. And I want them to be innovative, surprising and unfamiliar.

Parks are a very expensive business to be in. Attractions have to keep attracting, and parks have to be dynamic. To whatever extent the folks in charge have a long term view, I hope they aim to keep a balance between the emotional gratification of the familiar and the lure of the novel, the delight of unexpected surprise. (Qualities that made those old attractions so much loved in the first place.)

The rest of this post is just disconnected thoughts.

It would have been more merciful to have demolished IASW than to have brought about the cynical "spot the DisneyPals" version now in place.

The current regime seems to have given in to a perception that all people want is characters. New attractions without a tie to a feature or character? Very much an endangered species. Yes, good attractions can be made from other properties, but there is something to be said for the theme park "originals." (If all future attractions have to be based on features, then how will anyone make feature franchises out of attractions anymore?)

I don't know why the company hasn't embraced virtual versions of closed attractions. If people could buy really good, complete virtual versions of the old stuff, it would remove a lot of the sting. And, it would be pretty lucrative for the company, I imagine. (Indeed, it could become part of the expected life cycle of an attraction - brand new ride to old favorite to Virtual YesterLand, but look at all the great new stuff we've built in its place!)

I have enough of an inside track to know that designers get a LOT more excited by projects that are not tied to existing franchises.

Back on topic, the prospect of a Jungle Cruise movie seems like a dim one. In fact, as much as I love it, I think the Cruise is a pretty good candidate for Fond-Memory-Land.

Count me there!

Requiring character tie-ins to everything makes me think they've run out of imagination. It's nice once in a while, but all the time? Really?

That's fine, I don't mean to say that anything applies to every one. There'll be plenty of individual variation, but collectively hardly a change happens where the average response, to my perception, isn't some form of "it was better before, the way it has always been is fine, put it back the way it was." Watch any discussion of what should be done with Tomorrowland and 90% of the suggestions will be putting back some attraction that used to be there. Witness the collective internet orgasm that resulted just from repaining the iasw and Space Mountain exteriors to be the same colors they used to be.

I'm completely opposite in this regard. No matter how much I enjoyed something the first time I tend to get very little pleasure out of repeating the same experience again. I very rarely watch movies a second time (and people who report having watched the same movie dozens of times are completely confusing to me). To the extent I watch TV shows again it isn't for their stimulating effect but for the soporific effect (I don't get pleasure out of Law & Order episodes I've seen before I get mental numbness and sometimes that is what I want).

I reread books a bit more often but I've still probably never read any one book more than five times. Again, when I hear someone say they read a book and then immediately started reading it again the unkind part of me wonders what it is like to live as a mentally retarded person (because the thought of doing that seems so alien to me).

I've ridden Pirates of the Caribbean. After I had ridden it once I didn't really need to ever ride it again even though I think it is a brilliant thing. If left to my own devices I never would and when I do it isn't for the ride but for the company I keep while on it.

So, the more DL is in a constant state of change the more I'm interested in it as a place to be. Riding the incredibly crappy Winnie the Pooh ride for the first time is a more interesting and rewarding experience than riding Pirates of the Caribbean for the second time.

Do you re-listen to music? (I used to rewatch films a lot, but as I get older, I find myself doing almost none of that. Life's too short. But my favorite music? That I gotta keep going back to.)

I don't listen to music the first time.

Well, I listen to it in the sense that it is played within my hearing; but I don't listen to music in the sense of seeking it out and listening to it; the only time I'm intentionally listening to music is to use it as white noise downing out other noise, I'm not actually paying any attention to it. This is why I for four years had an iPod nano with the same 100 songs on it and despite "listening" to it for several hours a day at work I still couldn't tell you what was on it.

But my quest for the new (I do it with road trips too, a boring drive on a road I've never been on before is better than an exciting drive on a road I've traveled many times) is probably why gambling is my only real vice. I don't care about winning or losing (since I don't gamble in amounts that would cause me any great pain to lose or any great wealth to win) it is simply that I don't know what is going to happen.

A recent study demonstrated the physiological benefits to hearing a familiar piece of music and the anticipation people feel for certain passages, as flippy referred to personally above. This can't happen with new music.

I'm not sure if these benefits accrue to moldy old theme park attractions, but in some cases (such as music), it seems old is better for you than new. :p

Just adds more evidence to support my theory that Alex is an alien.