"Don't go east, that's for sure," they are told. "They hate you there. I wouldn't go west either if I were you."
Such is the plight of Disneyland purists.
Most Disney web sites, forums and blogs are so sweet, so saccharine, that it makes you want to puke. There are few places to go for the real, honest-to-God Disneyland discussion and criticism that purists crave. Most of these sites are nothing more than shills, defenders of any mediocre product that Disney puts out as they take in ad revenue from any of the 500 advertisements on their site.
Should one proclaim their disdain for any decisions the Walt Disney Company makes in regards to Disneyland they will invariably hear, "Why are you so negative all the time? Wow, you must live a real unhappy life!" Sorry, I just think Jack Sparrow doesn't belong in Pirates of the Caribbean! I didn't know my opinion of it was to become a reflection of my very existence.
When discussions become heated, posters are warned. When threads go off-topic, they are closed. Let the conversation go where it may, I say.
The result is that Disneyland purists are greatly misunderstood creatures. In an attempt to clear up any misconceptions I will explain some of the things that purists believe and why they feel the way they do. In this article you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll roll your eyes, and maybe even learn to love.
Disneyland purists want the very best Disneyland experience possible: If Disney is going to charge top dollar for the privilege of entering their parks, then guests should receive the highest quality experience possible. To read about a company that boasts about changing light bulbs when they reach eighty percent of their life expectancy, and then seeing every fifth bulb on Main Street burnt out on your vacation, you might feel a bit ripped off.Red Sky Disney represents an attempt to give purists and Disney critics an opportunity to critique flaws, praise triumphs and vent about the park they love, without being told to watch their tone because the husband of one of the posters on the forum happened to plant the flowers on the incredibly tacky "What Will You Celebrate?" Mickey flower head even though you're criticizing the original design, not his ability to dig a hole and put a flower in it.
In the past, maintenance at the various Disney-owned and operated theme parks has been so bad that people rejoice when maintenance is actually performed. Some have said that the best part of the Pirates of the Caribbean "plussing" is how great the attraction looked after years of neglect.
Wait a second, it's always supposed to look great! You mean that Disneyland guests only get to see Pirates in the best condition when they decide to add a couple new animatronics to it? It reminds me of the Chris Rock routine where he exclaims, "'I take care of my kids!' You're supposed to! What do you want, a cookie?!"
"Disneyland finally fixed everything wrong with Indiana Jones after all these years! Kudos to you, Disney!" There was never supposed to be anything wrong with Indiana Jones! They want to heap praise upon Disney for simply doing what they are supposed to do in the first place.
I give Kennywood a pass for skimping on the paint once in a while, not Disney.
Purists want change: ...to be relevant and high-quality. Changing a part of Disneyland for the sake of change in a misguided attempt to freshen up a park that doesn't always need freshening up is the wrong way to go. Don't fix what isn't broken such as Pirates of the Caribbean and the Disney Gallery. Fix what is broken such as the second level of Starcade, the People Mover track, Innoventions, the Rivers of America, the Motor Boat lagoon, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and Tomorrowland in general. I'm indifferent to Pixie Hollow, but why couldn't it have gone into the Motorboat Lagoon area instead of the already established Ariel's Grotto?
If a classic attraction is going to be altered, the alterations should build upon the original intent of the attraction, like the recent Haunted Mansion additions, not shoehorn in the flavor of the month like adding Jack Sparrow to Pirates of the Caribbean or to push plush by adding Disney characters to it's a small world.
The same goes for bringing back classic attractions. The Sleeping Beauty Castle walk-through is a great restoration that actually revives the original vision of the attraction. Nemo, on the other hand, doesn't make sense in Tomorrowland. Would kids and families have rejected a re-imagining of the basic Submarine Voyage concept with updated effects and show scenes? I don't think so. Synergy can be a good thing, but it isn't the end-all be-all. Let's make the world of Jules Verne as happening as the world of Hannah Montana!
"It's good enough for kids" isn't good enough: Walt Disney said, "Adults are interested if you don't play down to the little 2 or 3 year olds or talk down. I don't believe in talking down to children. I don't believe in talking down to any certain segment. I like to kind of just talk in a general way to the audience. Children are always reaching."Far too often I see Disney fans saying, "Well, at least my kids liked it..." If that's the case, then Disney failed. Cheapening out, cutting corners and delivering a sub-par product doesn't make for good entertainment for any age group.
Children are often taught to accept any entertainment thrown in front of them. They should instead be encouraged to think critically about what they just experienced. It's no wonder so many kids grow up to be so stupid. We already treat them as if they were by default!
If you're as irrationally angry as I am, if you think John Lasseter might just not be the second coming of Walt Disney, and you're sick of pin traders, give the Red Sky Forums a try, because the sky isn't always blue in the world of Disney fandom.