Thoughts Influenced by Discussions

at the Re-Imagineering Blog

 

By Frank Rocco

03-13-06

 

Preservationists and Progressives

Many of the comments on the Re-Imagineering Blog make clear that there are two prevailing viewpoints, (although they are not mutually exclusive of each other): Preservationist and Progressive. Being that this is a blog about Disney theme parks it's no surprise that there are posters here that take the time to formulate and post their strongly held views regarding the direction that they think the parks should go.  The interesting thing is the almost religious significance that is given to what the parks represent to the persons in each camp, and the way in which each can summon the revered name and words of "Walt" to support either position.

Regardless of whether you're a Preservationist or Progressive, I think it can be agreed that the Disney theme parks represent, in the collective imagination of the group, a kinder, gentler world of nostalgia; whether it be the very real nostalgia of having visited the parks as a child, and the profound impression left by those visits, or the imaginary nostalgia for an America that may never have really existed except in the mind of Walt Disney.

Another similarity to discussions of religion is how personally many people take events at the parks and comments made regarding those events. To the Preservationists, a change to the parks that they know and love is like ripping a page from their childhood scrapbook and shredding it before their eyes. To the Progressives, not taking advantage of modern technologies is leaving a promise unfulfilled, and not living up to the dream of what the ultimate theme park could be.

It appears that whichever side of the fence you are on, it is agreed that things have changed at the parks, and not for the better.  Some of us look back to the past for solutions; others look to new, untested paths. Personally, I believe that both of these viewpoints are correct, but the reality is that the question of the future direction of the parks requires a more thoughtful approach than either knee-jerk reaction of preservationism or progressivism.  This larger question begs first the answer to smaller questions, and the laying out of some principles.

The Relevance of "Walt"

With regard to the icon of "Walt," and the way in which his name, his dreams, his vision, etc. are co-opted by persons who are not Walt, I'd say… Disneyland has Disney's name on it because he imagined it, and he found a way to have it built. He obviously had some very definite ideas about what the theme park experience was going to be, and much of what made him personally happy went into the park.  The nostalgia represented in the buildings and attractions of Disneyland is the idealized view of a Midwestern man born at the turn of the last century.  When Walt Disney was a youngster, the people of his parents' and grandparents' generations probably experienced the Lincoln assassination much like some of us, and our parents, experienced the Kennedy assassination.

This leads to two questions. The first is the question of relevance.  To Walt Disney the park was full of relevance, because it brought back to him a safe and loving world that he hadn't known since he was a child in Missouri. Through it he also looked forward to his idealized vision of the future.  In one "land" of the park he put forth a plan for a changing world, in others he preserved a version of the past that was never meant to change, and in a land of fantasy he presented a world that never was nor ever will be, except in our imaginations. Does this translate to relevance for an audience in today's society? If he was successful in creating an environment of joyful escapism, and I'd say that's a fair assessment, then it's completely relevant as a concept. Are individual attractions relevant to today's audiences?  Only so far as they still entertain and engage the audience.

This is where the next question comes into play: "What would Walt do?" When one asks this question, we have to be sure exactly what is being asked. One version of that question is answered, "Walt did what Walt would do!" Another version of that question might read, "What should we do to make this experience as entertaining, enjoyable and thoroughly satisfying to visitors and ourselves?"  If the image of "Walt" is a personification of an ideal that strives to create the most inviting and enjoyable entertainment experience on the planet… Great! Go forth in the name of Walt and do just that. But if the name of Walt is being invoked to strike fear into the hearts of heretics that stray from the heaven that is Main Street c.1955, then that might be limiting the vision a bit.  That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a very healthy respect for Walt's dream come true, or for the Disney tradition that has followed in his wake. When I refer to the Disney tradition, I'm not referring to the branding of the Disney name and characters, but to the underlying ideals that American, and now international, families have come to embrace.

The Vision Thing

These parks live in a different world than the one they came into.  This has nothing to do with changes in society, etc.  The world they came into was dominated by one man. He was a man of great vision, and ultimate authority, whose reputation and fortune would be either won or lost by his own actions.  The world they live in today is one that is ruled by committee.  No one who has had any control over the destiny of the parks since Walt left has had to put up their own name or incurred the same risk in the same way. The shift has been from a family name to a brand. When dealing with branding, it's very easy to become cynical and think of the brand as a money machine and the characters, stories and worlds as content with which to fuel it.  But no one ever willingly fed their money into a machine that counted it, then dropped it into someone else's pocket.  This brings us back to the vision thing.

Preservationists and Progressives in this community are both on the creative side, which puts them on the same side; the side of turning dreams into a form of reality, whether in print, on film, or in a park. This is the right side for creating great entertainment.  The fact that individuals in the community have individual interpretations of the Disney Dream can be seen as either a problem, or an opportunity to learn from each other and utilize each other’s strengths while moving forward toward a common goal. 

Change? And How? 

I'm not an expert of Disney history, but I can imagine that when Walt Disney created Disneyland he had a plan for growth, but didn't have to be as concerned with a plan for long-term change. Which brings up another question: What is the justification in making a change in a theme park?

I think again there are two answers that both need to exist together.  The first obvious answer is if the park is suffering economically, and has to reinvigorate interest and hence attendance by creating something new that captures the imagination of the public. The second answer is that the creative integrity has been sufficiently sacrificed in the recent past, and needs to be restored to the level of quality that befits the Disney ideal.  I don't know the economics of the parks, whether they are making an actual profit, or "not meeting earning expectations." I also don't know the allocation of resources for various aspects of operation, upkeep and renovation, so I can only make comments that come from gut instincts.  And those instincts are guided by the principle that the quality of the entertainment experience for the audience will ultimately determine the economic success or failure of the parks.

"Quality of the entertainment" is a wholly subjective matter, though. Is it greater use of interactivity, better stories, more thrilling rides, detail of immersive elements, high tech, low tech, harkening back, looking forward, more or less integration of film properties?  In reality it's all those elements in varying degrees, applied to various aspects of the parks.  In the absence of Walt to tell everyone which way to go, the best plan would be to form a plan!

A Simple Plan 

The Re-Imagineering Blog has thus far been a very fun to watch turkey shoot at current flaws in the parks, and some of the turkeys are more obvious than others, (giant wizard hats and wands, for example), but how do these pot shots fit into an overall plan.  The plan doesn't have to be complex. Actually, it should be a very simple plan. One that everyone involved can understand. Then the discussion can move on from what was done wrong to what can be done right in the right context.

 

Magic Kingdom or Marketing Kingdom?

 

My own cynicism toward Disneyland as it is now has resulted from marketing tactics that smack of hypocrisy. Walt's proclamations about "The Happiest Place on Earth" and "The Magic Kingdom" have been used as smokescreens to keep you from seeing the true nature of the business in its current incarnation, which is to squeeze every cent out of you that they can.  I can only imagine how many people like myself who now use large crowds as an excuse to stay away from the park will come back to join those same crowds with renewed hope and a feeling that they have been satisfactorily entertained by a company that respects them and their dreams, as well as their dollars.

I'm not against a company making money. As a matter of fact I'm all for a company that "earns" a fortune based on their best efforts to produce a product that people really want.  If the Disney company can manage to create greater income by living up to its past reputation of giving the public a great show for its money, that would be fantastic!  Greater income means continued stability and well planned and measured growth means newer and greater wonders to come. But I think the only way to get there is by getting a grip on the "vision thing" and keeping the goals simple and direct.

 

Respect and trust are commodities that Walt Disney earned throughout a career of serving his audience with a quality of entertainment that they came to expect, and hold up as a standard.  He did not earn those accolades by taking the American family for granted, or underestimating their intelligence or taste.  I think that he believed that if he could create something that he himself would enjoy, even after being witness to the gory birthing process, then someone coming into the park for the first time would be thoroughly enchanted.  I look forward to a future where the cynicism is gone from Disney entertainment and is replaced with the trust and respect that Walt Disney worked so hard to earn.

 

 

Some thoughts and questions for further discussion:

 

Preservationism vs. Progressivism

• Are they contradictory ideals?
• Not really.  Preserve the Spirit, Progress the Medium.

 

What would Walt do vs. what Walt did.

• Walt wouldn't have asked what anyone else would do

 

Walt's nostalgia vs. our generation and coming generations

 

• I listen to Vin Sculley, announcer for the Dodgers, because he gives me a feeling of nostalgia for a world that never really existed.  It's the lure of a positive world view and a presentation of optimism that keeps us looking back fondly to "simpler" times.  Times never were and never will be simpler, and that's why places like Disneyland exist.
•  Did Disney really mean to educate about history, or was he just satisfying his own sense of nostalgia?

The use of cutting edge technology

 

• Audio Animatronics was cutting edge technology when it came out.
• Taking something old and making it relevant by the use of cutting edge technology

• Animatronic Lincoln
• Hologramatic Martin Luther King

 

• Don't use interactive technology to dupe the audience into seeing more of the park and spending more money throughout, but draw them in and engage them with wonders that they can only find at Disneyland.  Lure them through the park with true entertainment, not with thinly veiled manipulation.  The public isn't stupid.  They just want to be entertained.

 

Economics is a reality.

 

If expense is restricting live entertainment and service, how, in the real world, would you reallocate assets?

• Remove concessionaires and replace them with entertainers.

 

Is there not enough money for live entertainment because the park is not "meeting expectations" or is the park truly not making a profit? 

• As long as the park is making a profit, regardless of fictional "projected" earning expectations, put the money back into the park, giving the customer a value added experience.  Build on the trust that the Disney name still miraculously has, and stop picking their pockets like common carney hucksters.
• Create long term goals rather than short term gains.
• Promoting films by building attractions based on them is short sighted. Promote the films in a temporary manner with live entertainers, etc. because unless a character or property has proven to be a timeless commodity you'll just end up tearing down whatever structures were built based on that property and replacing it with the next flavor of the week.  If that's not an economic drawback, and fits into a financial projection, then fine, but that brings up the philosophical question:

• Should the park be ever evolving to promote the company's latest releases, or should it be a more permanent fixture with occasional updates as dictated by a changing social and economic environment.

 

 Miscelaneous Ideas:

Tahitian Terrace / Tiki room

• There is a thriving Polynesian community in Southern California. Get them involved.  Get real Tahitian dancers and musicians. Shag is a fun pop artist, but don't redesign with retro martini style.  There's more beauty, depth and mystery in true Polynesian culture.  
• Also, there's nothing wrong with tying in Lilo and Stitch as entertainment, as long as they are not built into the decor.

 

 Main Street Theater

• Produce Oswald shorts that you can only see in the Main Street theater