It’s so funny that you chose that example, because the other morning I was thinking about this topic and thought of the Golden Oak as an example of something that felt “right”. And you’re so correct about the Arabic additions to Adventureland – that’s a great example of the plasticine vibe. I think the problem is much worse on the resort side – look at any of the new DVC construction vs. something like the Poly.

I think you’re right about WDI, and we’ve all seen what they can do without too much corporate interference (TDS). I also agree about DCA, and after visiting I’m increasingly unsure if it could be fixed with anything but a total demolition. I, too, fear you’re right about Carsland – the models and everything looked amazing but I just think it’s such a huge conceptual mistake. I’ve been reluctant to write about it, because it’s such an odd situation. They’re spending big, on a project that looks to be superb. But it’s such a bad idea thematically.

@android

I totally agree with you about Nemo, but I do think that that ride was a failure of conception and not budget. Heck, they could have kept the projections – just have them talking about the oceans, not – as you say – screaming NEMO!! at us for 5 minutes.

Also, I like where you’re going with the theme park idea…

Regarding Iger, I hope you’re right. But he’s a media guy, like Eisner was. I’ve yet to see any evidence of Iger getting excited about the parks to the degree that even Eisner did, and I’m afraid that Another Voice is right about management viewing the parks as another pipeline for promoting “content”. I definitely believe Iger’s comments when it comes to filmed entertainment and online distribution, but I don’t think that the importance of the parks has clicked for him yet. Maybe it will someday, and trust me – no one is more happier than I am when I get something like this wrong.

@Eric

Welcome! Stick around!

He might have ‘possibly’ meant it?

This is some of the most interesting dialog on Disney parks, design culture and business, that I’ve ever seen. I’m glad I read the comments.

Someone here really nailed it on the head by pointing out that Disney parks (stateside) are no longer run to be successful on their own (I’m paraphrasing). It’s really sad actually as we see Jack Sparrow shoehorned into Pirates, etc, etc.

I remember when they shut down “America Sings” (a great attraction) and the signs went up – “We’re Imagineering another, blah, blah, blah”. In my youth, I just knew that something amazing, mind blowing and truly incredible was on it’s way. Sadly, I have been let down ever since then — big time. The cut corners are endless – seeing the theming/thoughtfulness of Tokyo’s Crush show was a recent exclamation point.

It’s sad for me – taking my young daughter to the parks just doesn’t seem like the same experience as it used to be when I was a boy. Don’t get me wrong … there are still great things … I saw the flag retreat for the first time on my last visit … the Disneyland Band playing … definitely some spirit of Walt still there … just not enough.

But look at where and why WDI “bucks the trend”.

Both the Tokyo Disney Resort and Disneyland Hong Kong are run solely on the basis of being theme parks. The Oriental Land Company knows where its business is and it’s not in promoting DVD sales. So their focus goes to making the visit to the park the best possible because that is what will drive people back. And that attitude shows up in the stunning gulf in quality between Tokyo and WDW. Yes, Tokyo has characters, but they treated far differently – they are the actors in shows, your hosts for the day. But they are not the be-al and end-all of your visit in the way the Fantasyland suburbs want them to be.

Even the government in Hong Kong knows better. The whole ‘Pirate expansion’ was proposed not because it was a great attraction, but because Disney was trying to use ‘Pirates 3’ as a way to crack open the Chinese threatrical market (that was why the entire Singpore storyline and Yun-Fat Chow were crammed into the film – but that’s another long story). Hong Kong understood that, that’s why they rejected the concept; they know that their park needs something original and fresh to attract guests.

Everest is the exception to the overall trend in that Disney did do something specifically to help park attendance, but it’s even somewhat complicated here too. There is a myth within the Disney suits that “Space Mountain saved Euro Disney”. It’s not hard to see why they want to believe it – it’s a quick fix that fits neatly on a PowerPoint slide.

Sadly, it doesn’t work.

Disney tried it with jamming ‘Tower of Terror’ DCA (didn’t work). The original goal at Animal Kingdom (a park that only gets guests through the graces of park hopping) was to clone Tokyo Disney Sea’s “Journey to the Center of the Earth” as the savior weenie. But that proved far, far too costly for a non-franchise attraction. And rather than risk building something new, it was decided to clone Disneyland’s Matterhorn instead. Just like the movies, Disney wants to go with an idea that’s “proven”.

Just compare ‘Journey’ to ‘Everest’ and once again you’ll see the stunning difference in respect for the guests. ‘Journey’ is a fully realized adventure from start to finish, all with massive amounts of storytelling and immersive environments leading to a ride system that presents both show and thrills. ‘Everest’ is a pre-canned coaster in a concrete box where half the coaster is complete blackness (to save money) and the “pre-show” was bought at the Pier One outlet store.

Disney was successful becasue it created things that seemed impossible. People will heave out good money to be amazed. Fewer people will pay to see the average, the “okay” or the “you have to understand we’re a busy”. The fans frequently lower their expectations, but the general public does not.

And we’re claiming that everything is okay because a restaurant and a snack stand were designed effectively, then we’re all in much more trouble than we can imagine.

Did some more research. I was wrong when I said it was designed entirely 3rd party.

The reason I thought it was is Schussler Creative’s website claims credit:
http://www.schusslercreative.com/yak_yeti.html

But I believe you may be wrong saying it was entirely WDI.

“It’s pretty freaking cool,” said Schussler. “We worked directly alongside Disney’s ‘imagineering’ division in putting this restaurant together.”

http://www.nrn.com/breakingNews.aspx?id=350412#ixzz0UxTqpVXd

With the Nemo ride, they could have easily replaced the projection lights and screens with real fish tanks. It could have been a really calming experience, instead of “NEMO! NEMO?! NEMO?” yelling in my ear. The fish tanks are more expensive. But if we treat the attractions as being the center stage in bringing in customers, and not the promotion, than the extra cost brings in greater value. And maximizing value for the price is something an executive can understand.

While the Yak and Yeti is run by an Operating Participant (3rd Party), the design of the building was handled completely by WDI. Just as the WS restaurants in EPCOT are OPs as well, the restaurants were all WED designs.

But when you think all hope is lost with construction quality, they restore a little faith:
see http://www.disneyorama.com/2009/01/golden-oak-outpost-re-opens-at-the-magic-kingdom/

Another Voice makes a compelling argument, as usual, but sometimes WDI/WDC bucks the trend (ie, 2/3 of HKDL expansion, Everest). Maybe they know in the back of their minds that 3 of their 5 most successful films were born of an original theme park concept.

And while the new Fantasyland is clearly designed to supplement the Princesses Franchise – it doesn’t seem that out of line with Walt’s Fantasyland (even including new zones for 3 of Walt’s films).

Fixing DCA is such a poisoned chalice that I would be hard-pressed to satisfactorily re-make that park without leveling it and starting from scratch. Although I believe dedicating a land to a single film breaks the first rule of Designing Themeparks 101, I hope to be proven wrong.

Randy:

First, it’s good to see you back!

Perhaps DAK wasn’t the best choice to make my point, as overall I think there’s an incredible amount of artistry in the Africa and Asia sections. It’s a different kind of design as the olden days, but it is spectacular. Where’s Foxx? This is one of her specialties.

Still, I feel that a lot of the construction methods today don’t convey the “right” feeling – I’m not saying there’s less artistry, and the reasons they use these materials is usually valid (like they hold up better in the Orlando climate). Still, there’s something about Disneyland and the MK that feels somehow wonderfully more organic than later parks. I’m too tired right now to be smart and figure out why. A prime example for me is, say, Main Street USA. Somehow that new addition they made to the Emporium on Center Street, as well as the new barber shop, feel… wrong. Like I said, I can’t be smart about it right now, but it just has a difference vibe.

I did find Yak and Yeti visually very impressive, but it is just a restaurant. I’ve no doubt that there are many firms out there who can do amazing work with theming and design – after all, all those wonderful Imagineers who left in the late 1990s all have their own studios now. But there’s no substitute for having your own creative staff, R&D, etc., if you really want to keep ahead of everyone else. Because what is Yak & Yeti without DAK to surround it? And to do something as nuts as DAK, you need your own people blue-skying the day away.

AV:

Everything you say is true and it makes me sad.