Some Pet Peeves

As much as I love Disneyland, there are some things about it that just...bug me. They aren't travesties. They aren't even necessarily negatives, objectively speaking. They just bug me. This post is going to be somewhat ranty—a Disneyland Dilettantrum, if you will—but given the nature of most of the pet peeves, consider it a plea for additional creativity.

Seriously Though, What Is The Deal With This Fandom?

At the base of the sprawling magnolia tree out in front of Pirates of the Caribbean is a massive ship's anchor. I am very sorry not to have a photo I can show you, because it's quite striking. It appears to have lain there for quite some time—the tree is slowly enveloping it and the metal is rough with corrosion. Oddly enough, the anchor's rope is still attached, in perfectly fine condition, and if you follow it up through the branches of the tree and then over, you'll find that it originates from...

...Tarzan's Treehouse. Which was, of course, built from the wreckage of a ship.

This is one of those Disneyland details that I find absolutely enthralling—a literal connection between two entirely different attractions in two different lands, whose only real point of similarity is the presence of sailing ships. There is an excellent symbol-logic to it: the one thing these two attractions have in common, the thematic bridge between them, also serves as a physical bridge between them. It's almost mystical, isn't it? One can easily imagine a dream-scenario in which the themed lands are more profoundly separated than they are in fact, with no linking walkways, but the anchor rope remains and serves as the functional bridge between New Orleans Square and Adventureland—a reward for those daring enough to walk a tightrope or swing hand-by-hand underneath. What other surprising connections might or should exist in such a fanciful version of the Happiest Place on Earth?

Are you with me so far? Now for the real question. Why is no one else talking about this stuff?

Space Mountain and Mickey Mouse

 First of all, happy Victoria Day to my faithful commenter Cory Gross!

What exactly defines a Disney-quality theme park experience? There seems to be broad agreement that Disney is the gold standard in theme park design, but what exactly does WDI do that gives its output that little extra edge? Does it even do anything all that differently anymore, or is it just coasting on its reputation? Something that troubles me a bit is the tendency for the mainstream public to judge attractions according to just two factors: 1) how kinetically exciting (fast, bumpy, etc.) is it, and 2) does it feature characters I like? Hence a phrase I have coined which also serves as the title of this post: Space Mountain and Mickey Mouse.

It's easy to be dismissive of this mindset, to brush these people off as ignorant, imperceptive, shallow, or whatever buzzword gives you the maximum sense of superiority over them, but I am coming around to the idea that it's largely not their fault. Nor is it entirely WDI's fault. Or even Upper Management's fault, although as the ones with the lion's share of the power to change it, they need to own it.

The “Space Mountain” half of the equation is easy enough to explain: it's part of the overall cultural emphasis on speed and thrills. You could probably get an entire series of essays out of examining the reasons behind this larger trend, but that's not the kind of sociology project I'm suited for. I'd rather tackle the “Mickey Mouse” portion, which seems to me to be less obvious, and therefore more interesting to speculate about.

I'm starting to think it's actually, at least in part, a generational thing.

Sentimental Paleontology: Twilight Zone Tower of Terror

Well, here we are. The Great California Adventure Mistake of 2017 is live, with reports of a queue stretching all the way to the park's entrance.

Within five minutes of opening.

Every day so far.

Dammit, people. Why are you rewarding them for this? That thing should have opened to the sound of crickets, and not the kind that asks you to recycle your beverage containers.

Dude. This is actually a pin.

Nuts to y'all. I'm going to reminisce about what we lost.

Imagineering Theory: Marvel-ous Developments

So…some pretty infuriating news regarding the Tower of Terror broke at San Diego Comic-Con. So let’s talk about that. We can be rational adults about this, can’t we?

Yeah, I’m pretty pissed about this “Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission SPACE Breakout!” thing. And not just because it represents yet another middle finger to the very concept of area theming in the name of spamming profitable film IP. I’m actually very fond of Guardians of the Galaxy; in fact, it’s the only entry in the MCU that I own on video. But this is…just a really bad idea on multiple levels.

The Disney Renaissance vs. the Pixar Revolution

WARNING: Grumpiness, Next 1,000+ Words.

Yeah...I'm one of those people. The ones who think Pixar movies are great and all, but they really don't belong in our Disney parks...at least not to the extent they have come to dominate the landscape. I could give you all the usual reasons—the movies are Disney-adjacent rather than “true” Disney, the attractions don't really fit the area themes, we often lose better (or at least more original) stuff to make room—but I recently put my finger on another reason the Pixar proliferation bugs me:

This didn't happen with the Disney Renaissance.

Mickey's Toontown vs. “Star Wars Land”

Here we go. This one's not gonna be much fun, but it needs to be said.

So it's official: The Mickey's Toontown area at Disneyland will be demolished to make room for a “Star Wars Land,” in order to capitalize on the upcoming new trilogy of Star Wars films.

To say this decision disappoints me falls far short of reality. To say it enrages me might be overstating the case, but only a little. I think it's a wretched idea, for several reasons which I shall now enumerate, running roughly in order of most personal to least personal.