In order to stay "new" and "fresh" and "exciting," theme parks have to change: old rides have to be updated, outdated film references have to be re-imagined (RIP Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea ride....and Maelstrom), and new technology has to be utilized.
I get it.
The theme park industry, after all, is highly competitive. Launching a shiny new roller coaster is a big deal, and why would anyone want to keep going to a theme park if it's exactly the same as it was the last time? (...she said (somewhat) sarcastically; I think there's something comforting in the familiar.)
And Walt Disney himself would seem to agree:
And anyone who's ever been to a Disney Park and seen the "Pardon Our Pixie Dust" signs with the inspirational Walt Disney quotes knows that Disney parks are never completed: they're constantly changing.
(c) SRisonS @ Flickr
And, for the most part, the Disney pixie dust gives us magical, wonderful things. We may have gotten rid of the cable cars from Fantasyland to Tomorrowland (a staple of my childhood!), but we got the most beautiful Tangled-inspired bathrooms (eventually). We may have gotten rid of Snow White's Scary Adventures in the Magic Kingdom, but we got New Fantasyland. My favorite ride in all of Orlando -- Tower of Terror -- was not an original part of MGM/Hollywood Studios/whatever the new name is. (However, I'm still intensely skeptical of the new Frozen ride that's replacing Maelstrom.)
But I have to draw the line somewhere. And that line, for me, is changing the infrastructure of Walt's original park to make way for something un-Disney. (And, yes, I know we can debate the fact that Star Wars is "un-Disney. Because, yes, Disney bought LucasFilm and the new Star Wars films will be Disney films. But the original trilogy was George Lucas's creation and not Disney Studios'. Star Wars isn't Disney the same way Marvel isn't Disney -- someone else came up with those stories. And, yes, you can make the argument that all of Disney's stories are someone else's -- Pixar excepted, of course -- but that's a digression for another day. Disney retold those stories, and the parks celebrate the Disney version. It's complicated.)
So Disney bought Marvel and LucasFilm--fine. However controversial it may be, they wanted to appeal to boys and create an empire that rivaled (and maybe even surpasses) the girl-dominated Disney Princess market.
I get it.
But changing Disneyland -- Walt's original park -- to make room for Star Wars Land? I'm just not okay with that.
Maybe it's because I've been to Disneyland recently and, for someone who is as fascinated by the man and the company as I am, it's kind of amazing to walk through the park and know that 50 years ago, Walt did the same thing. I love walking into the park and and seeing the light in the apartment above the fire station. I love walking through New Orleans Square and knowing that it was his favorite spot. And, yes, I know that some things have changed over the years -- after all, Fantasmic wasn't a show you could watch in 1966 and there wasn't a Pixie Hollow where you could meet Tinker Bell and the fairies -- but those changes reflect Disney stories.
And Star Wars just isn't a Disney story to me. I know that's a minority opinion, but there it is. I wonder if I'd be as bothered by the renovations if they were putting Star Wars Land across the street in California Adventure? Probably not. In fact, it makes more thematic sense there. After all, Skywalker Ranch is in California and George Lucas was born in California--so why not put it there, Disney?!
But then, I tend to be a Disney purist about some things.
No comments:
Post a Comment