View source for Disney Theme Parks/Headscratchers

{{work}}
* To fully embrace the magic of the Disney Theme Parks (especially the ones in style of the Magic Kingdom), you should belive that everything is real. Big Thunder Mountain is a real gold mine, you really save the universe with Buzz Lightyear, The Haunted Mansion is really cursed and so on... But even if you get past all the [[Time Travel]] involved, you still have to suspend your disbelief and ignore the crowds and all the safety spiels. And even then the illusion crumbles as soon as you ride a second time.
** Well...what do you suggest they do about it? Turn the parks into one continuous ride?
*** No, it would make the line astronomically ginormous. Presumably there is a limit to how many people can fit in at once, and considering how many people there are...
** That would be nice... It would save you a lot of time usually spent on waiting in lines, and it would be like one huge, insane, disjointed adventure.
** Well, even if you decide to ''think'' of it as though it's real (which I assume is what you meant above unless you can really delude yourself into thinking it's real) you still know it's not real, right? [[MST3K Mantra]]
** [[Acceptable Breaks From Reality]]. Think of it as "Reliving" your adventure.
* Okay, what's with all the hate on California Adventure? I can understand if people were annoyed about it in the beginning with rides like Superstar Limo and crap like that, but it's gotten a hell of a lot better since then. Not to mention they're spending ''$1,000,000,000'' to give the park a 1920's Buena Vista/boardwalk theme. With World Of Color opening and everyone saying how awesome it is, California Adventure has officially redeemed itself.
** I just think that California Adventure should be at the Orlando Disney World, and that Disneyland should have gotten Florida Adventure. All the awesomeness of Florida without having to travel across the country!
*** Unless you live in Florida...
*** [[Take That|What "awesomeness of Florida"?]]
** It's because it was a severe case of being designed by the executives with more dining and shopping locations then actual attractions.
** Long answer short in response: It's not that we dislike California Adventure, it's that the money used to build what is essentially an outdoor mall could have been used to expand and detail existing parts of the Magic Kingdom. West Coast Americans think of Disneyland as part of our cultural heritage, and even if you're 25 years old, you still remember it as something it isn't now. California Adventure is just an excuse to squeeze the Park Hopper fee out of the ticket buying public, and nothing more.
** DCA was built "on the cheap," as they say - lots of off-the-shelf carnival rides, skimpy theming, heavy focus on shops and shops alone, poorly thought-out original attractions, and ideas simply borrowed from other parks without concern for how they would fit into the new park as a whole. In other words, DCA began life as a real-world sort of [[Souvenir Land]]. It needs to be said right now that '''''this is NOT normal for Disney, nor has it ever been.''''' Those responsible for the decision to go the miserly route with DCA's design and construction are no longer part of the company, and from what I understand, the leader of the initial project was very out-of-touch with the guests and genuinely believed that [[Souvenir Land|they only came to the parks to shop.]] He lasted less than 10 years in his position. In the grand Disney tradition of simply moving forward and making the best of everything, the current $1.1 billion overhaul seeks to raise DCA in quality from an above-average amusement park to a genuine Disney theme park. (And it's working!) As for why haters still exist? They really have nothing to go off of, but like most hate groups in the world, they do it solely to feel superior to someone, so they keep on hating despite lacking a valid foundation for their actions.
*** Just to clarify: Paul Pressler didn't actually believe that people go to Disney parks for the shopping. That can be part of the draw for some, since they offer some lines of merchandise not found anywhere else. But Pressler came to the theme park division directly from a stint as President of the Disney Store retail chain and only knew how to relate to guests as shoppers. It was more ''convenient'' for him to treat the park like a giant mall. Ironically, under his "leadership," the merchandise at Disneyland was genericized to the point where people were ''less'' likely to come for the shopping.
** Speaking as a guy living in Rancho Palos Verdes (One of the 'Rich' suburbs of L.A., right up there with Beverly Hills and Bel Aire [If Will Smith is to be believed]), it has done more good than harm. I know people who, because they have a year-round pass to D-Land, go out and spend a day in DCA. Yes, its kind of a glorified shopping mall, but consider this. The Boardwalk area seems lifted from the early 20th century, a piece of living semi-history. Grizzly River Run and Soarin' both give adventures into the wild unknowns of California (My mom INSISTS we go on Soarin', even though she's been a Cali resident for over 30 years, because she loves to see the sights of our state). Finally, there's the Hollywood area. What can I say, its Hollywood for kids. So, we get all the wonders of things such as Pixar and Disney Animated Canon (the Voice Actors) without all the R-rated movies that Hollywood is apt to toss out nowadays. It is, simply put, California for those with kids, or those who can't afford to travel.
** You know a lot of criticisms I've seen of California Adventure were also more from the recent stuff - ie, "It's not thrillish enough", "It's not Disney enough", "It's too Disney", "It's too Pixar", "It's like Disneyland overspill", "It violates my [[Nostalgia Filter]]", etc. Some rather weird criticisms, too. (You're expecting Thrill Rides at ''Disneyland''?! A park meant to be friendly for ''families with small children''?!) Not to mention some were more "Half the park is closed", "The park seems like an [[Obvious Beta]] because all the rides wind up closed/refurbished", "half the park's walled off so we have to go to the ''complete'' parts of the park", etc. Personally I actually like it but I didn't see it in 2001; I first went in 2005.
* Regarding the actors dressed as Disney characters, specifically, human characters: why do some of them, like [http://www.awesomeallday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/captain-hook-and-mr-smee-disneyland-costumes.jpg Captain Hook]{{Dead link}}, wear giant mascot heads, while others like [https://web.archive.org/web/20160211062355/http://www.bobafettmp.com/Temp/photos/Disneyland/Disney-4-8-06-Parade-MadHatter-1.jpg the Mad Hatter,] simply wear makeup? Seeing one next to the other is a bit incongruous, not to mention how creepy those giant grinning masks look.
** Likely because of the exaggerated proportions. Hook has a signature look of a long face with a big nose, while the Mad Hatter has a more normal looking face (you can see the Cast Member is wearing a fake nose there anyway). It probably just comes down to what makes the actor look more like the character.
*** The Mad Hatter is actually a special case. He wasn't always a "face character," as they say--[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CNk5peybvlw/Sqm3jq779sI/AAAAAAAABk4/CofkrHfJDqo/s320/disneyland+1963+alice+and+mad+hatter+640.jpg this] was the original costume. Compare to [http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3342815432_45d56004c1.jpg the contemporary version]. (For reference, [https://web.archive.org/web/20131226072543/http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/alicepic/disney-movie/mad-hatter-1.jpg this] is the animated character.) They opted to make the park version of the Mad Hatter look ''less'' like the film version because he doesn't work as a character ''unless he can talk.'' The rapid-fire absurd comic dialogue is more essential to the character than his straight-up appearance.
* Everytime I see [[Mulan]] in the parks, she's always in her kimono. The one she didn't even spend half of the movie wearing. Why not a different outfit? Is she just not recognizable without it?
** Probably just branding. The primary draw of the princesses (don't know how Mulan counts as a princess) is marketed toward girls, and Mulan spends most of her film wearing distinctly non-feminine clothing. The kimono was just about the only thing she ever wore that was feminine, so that's what she's marketed as. It's annoying for me, because seeing an armored Mulan in the China pavilion would be awesome. Especially if they got an actress who could do a martial arts demonstration when she was there.
** A martial arts demonstration would be cool. Minor nitpick: Mulan doesn't wear a kimono. She wears a woman's shenyi known as a quju.
** What parks are these you're going to where you've been seeing Mulan? In all my trips to Disneyland, the only time I ''ever'' saw them acknowledge Mulan's existence was when the movie was newly-released into theatres and they put a float of the ancestors into one of the parades and a small barbie-synopsis of the movie on main-street, (Which is now advertising Disney Princesses. While it does have Mulan, it also puts more emphasis on the "Classic" princesses so the Mulan characters are shoved into the corner) but since 1998, Mulan seems to have been treated as [[Canon Discontinuity]].
*** Mulan shows up in the China pavilion of Epcot, and the only reason for that is probably because there are a lot of complaints that World Showcase is boring for kids and doesn't have enough Disney in it.
*** Mulan appears VERY regularly in Hong Kong Disneyland. Then again...that's probably because it makes total sense to feature the Chinese character in a Chinese city. She's a face character, a doll in Small World, and there's even a statue of Khan in Fantasyland. As for the martial arts complaint, if you ever come over to HK Disney, be sure to catch "The Golden Mickeys" show where Shang sings "I'll Make A Man Out Of You" while she kicks major butt onstage!!
** Mulan appears in Disney's California Adventure in her more "princess-y" attire (and maybe at Disneyland park? It's been a while since this troper met the Princesses...) but in Parc Disney and on some Disney cruise lines, Mulan does, in fact, appear as [http://img.scoop.it/a5SbXetBIYiw4iy9tMVLLjl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBVaiQDB_Rd1H6kmuBWtceBJ Ping]. Sometimes you can also find [http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110620130948/disney/images/4/40/Fa_Mulan_Li_Shang.jpg Shang], or even [http://images.wikia.com/disney/images/9/96/Shan_Yu_DLP.jpg Shan Yu].
**** On second thought...this Hong Kong Disneyland Annual Pass holder realizes she has yet to see Princess Jasmine in the Park. Our princesses are usually Aurora, Snow White, Cinderella, Belle, Mulan, and even Rapunzel the last time she was there (early July 2011).
* How come there isn't a Ghibli themed part of one of the parks?
** Several reasons I would imagine. '''1)''' Studio Ghibli is completely independent from Disney - they'd have to get permission from it. '''2)''' Studio Ghibli could probably sponsor it; however they probably aren't in the financial state to do so. '''3)''' Space. Probably in Florida, since they have a lot of breathing room but in California? There's really not a lot of room. '''4)''' The omnipresent [[Unpleasable Fanbase]].
* Does anyone else wonder if the people managing the Theme parks have something against a couple Disney films? I notice that Disneyland isn't very nice to [[Mulan]], since she's barely acknowledged at all. They clearly have something against many of their live-action films that aren't ''[[Mary Poppins]]''. Maybe they think the kids wouldn't recognize them, and the [[Periphery Demographic]] of the costumed characters (eg, people who don't like to meet them but like to see how the costumes were designed) isn't large enough to have people from less-popular Disney movies walking around? It would explain some absences, in addition to the fact that nobody probably wants to walk around dressed like [[The Reluctant Dragon]] or [[The Princess and the Frog|Louis]]. But why the [[Mulan]] hate? I've been there in 2010 and 2011, and it seems almost like it's been put into [[Canon Discontinuity]]. Heck, they even put Rapunzel's hair in the park and added Tiana to the Fantasmic show.
** This Troper is convinced that the characters have become nothing more than walking advertisements for their popular/newer movies. If they can't make money off of it, why bother trying, right? *facepalm* For the record, This Troper is a huge fan of [[The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney film)|The Hunchback of Notre Dame]] and has been terribly embittered by the lack of characters from that movie.
** Agreed. This troper has yet to find or see ''anything'' Hunchback related in any of the stores at Disneyworld in the past few years, and it's probably been much longer. I heard the beginning of a cover of Topsy Turvy playing on the loudspeakers while walking to watch Fantasmic. It was cut off ten seconds after it began and replaced by Under the Sea. Do they even ''have'' an Esmerelda face character?
** I'm not sure if he still is, but I remember that Clopin was a face character at one point.
** Not a long time ago I saw Esmerelda and Clopin as face characters in Paris. However, they are very rare, and they only appeared on the transition between one event and the other.
** You're aware that everything they do costs money? Money for the costumes, money for the actors, things for the actors to do, scheduling, training...If there isn't a profit being turned so an obscure character can be met, why should they be there? When a character like The Mad Hatter is more popular than a character like Eilonwy, why should The Hatter be cut so Eilonwy should be there? For the one child a year that will notice them? Nice, yes, but it's also depriving many more children of a much more popular and useful character.
* What's with all the attractions that are based off franchises not owned by Disney, like [[Indiana Jones]] and [[Star Wars]]? They never had anything to do with that company throughout their respective histories. Sure some of the rides at the parks were original creations not derived from the studio's history, but I would never compare [[Star Wars]] to something related to Disney.
** Those are both [[George Lucas]] franchises. His partnership with Disney began with [[Captain EO]], and continued from there. Star Tours was supposed to be a ride for Disney's [[The Black Hole]], but the movie wasn't that popular, and the price for creating the attraction was too much. So, they turned to Lucas for help, and he let them use [[Star Wars]]. The partnership helps bring in money for both parties involved. In fact, all rides at Disneyland used to be sponsored by some company or another.
** Now they seem to be working on an [[Avatar (film)|Avatar]] (a [[James Cameron]] franchise) land in Animal Kingdom, which seems like they're branching out beyond Lucas.
* Why is it some characters from the movies ''don't'' appear at the parks anymore when they have appeared previously? From old videos that I have seen on [[YouTube]], I have seen that the parks have in fact used costumes of [[Fun and Fancy Free|Bongo and Lulubelle]], [[Alice in Wonderland (Disney film)|the March Hare]], [[Winnie the Pooh|Owl]], [[Bedknobs and Broomsticks|King Leonidas]], [[The Great Mouse Detective|Basil and Ratigan]], [[Oliver and Company|Oliver and Dodger]], none of whom have appeared at the parks in recent years. So where are these costumes now?
** Blame [[Popcultural Osmosis]] for that. These characters, and characters from their later 90s films like [[Hercules (1997 film)|Hercules]] and [[The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney film)|Hunchback of Notre Dame]] simply don't MATTER to today's kids and aren't remembered by the current generation of parents, which is really confusing since they have characters from stuff nobody will care about in a few years like [[Little Einsteins]] still walking about. TL;Dr version: They aren't as easy to milk merchandise out of, because Disney tends to forget some of their own Animated Canon stuff in favor of the more well-known [[Disney Princess]] movies and fare, creating a vicious cycle that makes people only remember the Disney movies that are [[Merchandise-Driven|merchandised]]. Maybe in a few years they'll have more of the forgotten [[Disney Animated Canon]] entries like Great Mouse Detective or Hunchback, but I sorta doubt that'll happen. Seems [[Kingdom Hearts]] is really the only way to go for lovers of 90's Disney nostalgia.
** (different troper here) But I've seen some fur characters of The Three Caballeros at the parks, and I think more kids would be familiar with Hercules or Hunchback then that movie. Especially considering that it hasn't been out on DVD for a long time. Also, how exactly did they do costumes of Dodger and Oliver, if they're not anthropomorphic animals?
* On a similar subject, what ''does'' Disney do with the outdated versions of the costumes they've since updated, like [[Peter Pan (Disney film)|Mr. Smee]], [[Winnie the Pooh|Pooh]], and [[DuckTales (1987)|Scrooge McDuck]]?
** The same thing that happens with any old item. They probably put in storage or some sort of archive. Or they reuse the parts for anything else Disney may be working on.
** The costuming department for the parks is HUGE because they keep a lot of the old stuff.
* Since ''[[Kingdom Hearts]]'' is really popular, why doesn't Disney put some characters from it at the Japan pavilion. I know their attempt at Sora failed because they made him a [[Uncanny Valley|mask character]], but they could revive them as face characters - they'd probably be able to make convincing wigs for all the guys with [[Anime Hair]], and meeting and greeting, say, Aqua or Riku would be fun for the [[Periphery Demographic]].
** Kingdom Hearts has a relatively small fanbase in terms of the general public for Disney parks, so introducing Kingdom Hearts characters as a major part would end up causing a lot of confusion among anyone who wasn't a gamer. They still have some Kingdom Hearts merchandise.
* [[The Lion King]] is Disney's highest-grossing animated movie. Why isn't there a ride or anything for it? Rafiki would be a great face/fur character, if they did the costume right. Even just a Pride Rock area would be cool.
** There's the [[Crowning Music of Awesome|awesome]] Festival of the Lion King at Animal Kingdom, and Rafiki shows up around the parks prettty often as a fur character, as does Timon.

----
:<small>Back to ''[[{{ROOTPAGENAME}}]]''</small>
{{reflist}}
[[Category:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
__NOTOC__