![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
![]() |
#11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,852
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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. |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|