DVDizzy Forum

I have this book called "Realityland", by David Koenig, all about WDW and the things that have happened there over the years. Near the end of the book, it talks about how the least experimental component of the whole place (besides Epcot, as Walt thought of it, which, of course, never really came to be as he envisioned) has become the template of the whole resort in general and the theme parks in particular. That component is, of course, the Magic Kingdom.

Koenig goes on to say that the popularity of the MK has encroached on the other parks' respective distinct identities and basically made them mere extensions of the resort's first park's personality. He explains that that's some of the reasons why the parks have gotten the attractions they have now, like remodeling Epcot's Mexico to include the Three Caballeros, obstructing the view of the Studios' Chinese Theater with a giant Sorcerer's Apprentice hat, or even adding quality attractions to the Animal Kingdom (i.e., Everest, the Nemo show) that, while giving that park some much-needed attention, tend to mess with the boundaries between which kingdom is Magic and which is Animal.

Do you think that the non-MK's parks respective personalities are succumbing to that of the MK?

I've been complaining about this for years, but didn't know someone wrote a book about it

Someone beat me too it! Really, they've been loosing their identities for a while now and I'd blame the marketing team if anyone. It seems everything needs characters to tie in and its killing original creations imagineers may've otherwise come up with to fit the parks theme (identity) and instead injects the Fantasyland characters that will sell better regardless if they fit the theme. Magic Kingdom itself is having an identity crisis and the lands it has are slowly loosing their themes and all becoming a Fantasyland.

The other problem the parks are having is the budget cutting and screen attractions that come with it (most people sit infront of screens all day at work and don't pay to go to a park to do the same thing).

I have not read that book, but I wanted to respond to your question anyway.

I do not see the other parks blurring their respective identities into that of the Magic Kingdom. Each one still does have its own unique theme, with the Disney brand sprinkled throughout it. The Disney brand is of course the animation and live action movies developed over its long history. This is what transforms the four parks into "The World".

From your brief excerpt, I think the author has mistakenly thought that the "brand" is only applicable to the Magic Kingdom, but it is really the overriding theme of the resort.

What are your thoughts Big Disney Fan?

My thoughts are that the parks seem to always be getting an emphasis on fantasy.

There was a time when Epcot was being that it was intended for it to have almost no characters at all. They felt that Disney characters as we know them belonged only in the Magic Kingdom and nowhere else. They did not fit within the scientific theme of the park. It was the reason why Epcot got characters like Figment and Dreamfinder. But when Epcot opened, people were disappointed by the absence of Mickey and the gang. It was not until Eisner and Wells came aboard that they included the characters into the proceedings.

They sure learned their lesson about not including Disney characters in the parks, didn't they?

I can see where he is coming from. I haven't been to WDW since 2000 but from the numerous news I've been hearing here and there, I can see what's he referring to.

Make sense.

Prince Charming 12 wrote:I have not read that book, but I wanted to respond to your question anyway.

I do not see the other parks blurring their respective identities into that of the Magic Kingdom. Each one still does have its own unique theme, with the Disney brand sprinkled throughout it. The Disney brand is of course the animation and live action movies developed over its long history. This is what transforms the four parks into "The World".

From your brief excerpt, I think the author has mistakenly thought that the "brand" is only applicable to the Magic Kingdom, but it is really the overriding theme of the resort.

Well said, and I completely agree! I may be in the minority of the online WDW fans, but I don't feel that having the characters in the other parks takes away their identity!

Animal Kingdom is my second favorite park (behind MK) and I LOVE the core attractions that deal with live animals, such as the Safari, Rafiki's Planet Watch, Flights Of Wonder Bird Show, and the walking trails themed to Asia, Africa, Oasis, and Discovery Island. These attractions are unique to AK and give it an entirely different feel than the other three parks.

The characters are used sparingly, mainly in three attractions - It's Tough To Be A Bug, Finding Nemo:The Musical, and Festival Of the Lion King.

All three of these attractions bring a dose of fantasy, whimsy, and "Disney Magic" to the AK mix, but don't dominate the feel of the park or take away from its message. Also, the Disney characters upon which these attractions are based, and the ones in the awesome Jammin' Jungle Parade, are all animals! So IMO, they fit. AK is a celebration of animals "real, extinct, and imaginary", so the fantasy anthropomorphized animals present in the park could fit the last category.

As Alex Wright says in his Imagineering Field Guide To Animal Kingdom, "Within the structure and feel of Animal Kingdom, Camp Minnie-Mickey represents fictional creatures and our tendency to anthropomorphize animals..... For many children... these Disney friends are their first introduction to animals. They represent a softer, more approachable image of the animals than would be portrayed in a nature documentary."

So I think the Disney animal characters DEFINITELY have a place in the park, and don't dilute its identity, theme, or educational mission. It still feels like Disney's take on a zoological park, with just the right dose of Disney magic!

Epcot often flip flops with AK for my second fave, but is currently 3rd. Other than meet and greets, there are only 3 attractions in the entire park that use Disney characters. (the horror!)

As an animal fan, The Living Seas was always one of my favorite pavillions - and I like it even more now that it's The Seas With Nemo and Friends!

The core of the pavillion - viewing and learning about sealife while observing them in the big tank and other exhibits such as the manatees - is all still there. You can still see the dolphin presentation and watch the fish feedings.

But now you can also have a fun, whimsical, fantasy adventure with Nemo and the gang that culminates in a catchy theme song ("Big Blue World") in the grand tradition of classic Disney attractions. I don't feel that exploring the world of The Seas with the Nemo characters acting as guides takes away from the experience - for me it enhances it! Nearly every big city in the US has an aquarium, but how many have one that you can explore with Nemo and friends? A healthy dose of Disney whimsy is what makes the whole resort special; why confine it just to the MK - or worse, just Fantasyland? I bet the characters also make the pavillion feel more accessible to younger guests.

In The Land, the Symbiosis film is now Circle Of Life, with Simba, Timon, and Pumbaa acting as hosts. The current version still hits home the same educational message about the importance of the environment, but the characters balance out the rather serious and at times somber subject matter with a healthy dose of humor. Again, I prefer the current version. No education is lost, and whimsy/Disney magic is gained!

Lastly, El Rio Del Tiempo was always one of my favorites, and IMO the Gran Fiesta Tour version is even more fun and festive! The scenic travelogue feel of Mexico is still there, with plenty of beautiful scenery in the projections and sets. Some may find the characters distract from viewing the scenery and culture of Mexico, and that's a fair argument. Then again, the old version didn't exactly explain what or where all the locations you were passing were, anyway.

With Kitchen Kaberet/Food Rocks now closed, the only major attraction that had any of the "cute Disney whimsy" left at Epcot was Figment. Now, with the Seas and Grand Fiesta overlays, there are three. And it is no coincedence that my 3 favorite rides in the park are....

Figment, Nemo, and Gran Fiesta Tour!

Epcot still feels like Epcot to me, for the most part. It generally still feels like Disney's take on a classic World's Fair, especially World Showcase. Future World doesn't feel quite the same... but IMO that's due to the loss of classic dark rides Horizons and World of Motion, NOT due to character overlays that give the park much needed charm!

Lastly, the Hollywood Studios. The park is not just about old Hollywood, but also the film industry in general, and other disciplines of entertainment such as television, theatre, and music.

To ignore the contributions of Animation to film (and ALL of these) at this park would therefore be as bad as the way the Oscars continue to give the Animation medium the shaft!

And when talking about Animation, who has made more contributions to the art form and it's rich legacy of characters than Walt Disney? IMO, the characters CLEARLY belong here.

The vast majority of the attractions at the Studios do NOT deal with Disney animation or Disney animated characters. The only ones that do are the Magic of Disney Animation, Voyage of the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Fantasmic!, Playhouse Disney:Live On Stage, Toy Story Midway Mania, and, by virtue of animation being a major part of Walt's achievements, Walt Disney: One Man's Dream.

All of these attractions are among my favorites in the park, give the park its biggest doses of whimsy, fit the theme and purpose of the park, and don't take away from the broader themes of the attractions celebrating other aspects of the entertainment industry found throughout the rest of the park.

So, there's my case that the identities of the other three parks are NOT going to Hades in a handbasket because the beloved Disney characters haven't been banished from them, and because the characters help give the parks charming fantasy elements.

I had fun thinking about and writing this, and is not meant as an argument with anyone with a different opinion!

I do think that SOME (NOT all) of the adults who don't like having the characters in the other parks are possibly jaded, consider the characters "kiddie", and consider themselves too "sophisticated" to let their inner-child free to enjoy the whimsy, cuteness, warmth, charm, fantasy, and yes, "Disney essense" that these characters bring to the table!

Big Disney Fan wrote:My thoughts are that the parks seem to always be getting an emphasis on fantasy.

There was a time when Epcot was being that it was intended for it to have almost no characters at all. They felt that Disney characters as we know them belonged only in the Magic Kingdom and nowhere else. They did not fit within the scientific theme of the park. It was the reason why Epcot got characters like Figment and Dreamfinder. But when Epcot opened, people were disappointed by the absence of Mickey and the gang. It was not until Eisner and Wells came aboard that they included the characters into the proceedings.

They sure learned their lesson about not including Disney characters in the parks, didn't they?

Oh, and I forgot to mention something, during its first few years, there weren't even Disney characters at Disneyland!

According to Tony Baxter on the commentary of "Disneyland USA", when Disneyland first opened, Disney characters were disallowed. A few characters did appear on opening day, and they were loaned from the Ice Capades, but after that day, Mickey and the gang didn't appear until around either 1959 or 1960.

The people at Disneyland at the time, like the street sweepers on Main Street, became important in the sense of people living at Disneyland, since there were no characters. There were boat captains, saloon girls, Native American dancers, etc., that made the place come to life.

The same thing also went with merchandise. In the early days, merchandise was devoted to elements amplifying the castle and trains and whatnot. They did allow the park to use characters like Dumbo and Tinker Bell in the early years because it was really tough to market them.

One way Walt got around the character issue was to wheel out their big stars there, like Fess Parker as Davy Crockett. So characters and merchandise operated under that handicap for a few years, so just imagine the relief when they finally got Mickey and the gang.

I reiterate, Disney certainly learned their lessons about not including characters as we know them in the parks, any parks.

Wow, I had never heard that before about Disneyland, Big Disney Fan. Thanks for telling me!

Thanks David S.!

It was an interesting discussion topic and I am glad to see that it was bumped up again.