My opinion of the show did not really change much after a live viewing. I like World of Color, but it's telling that if I told you about my favorite parts I would only be able to point out the cool effects that stuck out, such as this sequence that suggested diving under the sea or another one in which the water collapses on itself and leaves a figment of color hanging in the air, which is beautifully choreographed. I can't really say that I was jonesing another dose of classic Disney film sequences on mist screens though. Fantasmic! has that covered and over-reliance on the technique can make you want to pull your hair out.
World of Color takes this concept and runs for ze hills. People are already reciting along with the show, despite the fact that the thing has only been playing to the masses for two days. We expect this on the Haunted Mansion, but a brand new show? A group next to me was even reciting the whole exchange between Buzz and Woody about whether or not Buzz could fly, which is straight out of the first Toy Story movie. We all know this material and we've seen it a million times. I'm sure it took a little longer for some guests to realize that memorizing and reciting, "Is this haunted room actually stretching?" would delight fellow parkgoers, because Lord knows the Waltons from Nebraska spent good money to hear Ashley from Anaheim play the role formally belonging to Paul Frees.1. Pick a bunch of random Disney movies.
2. Mash them all up.
There's nothing inherently wrong with character-driven or movie-based attractions and shows. People clearly go to Disney theme parks to see their favorite characters and movies come to life. Believe it or not, I like to do that as well. Indiana Jones and Star Tours are two film-based synergistic attractions that are among my favorites.
Why is there a fear of originals among the powers that be at Disney, especially at the park that started it all? Are they afraid that original attractions won't attract enough visitors to make such an investment worthwhile? Are original attractions too risky? Do character-driven attractions represent fail-safe investments so that even if the underlying attraction is poor, people will still enjoy seeing their favorite characters?
Expedition Everest, a rare specimen, proves that originals remain in demand, even if the Yeti doesn't work. Though California Adventure was lambasted for its poor theme and lackluster atmosphere, its standout attraction was in fact an original, though flawed, attraction called Soarin' Over California. Perhaps the initial failure of DCA led to the mistaken belief that originals are not what guests want to wait in line two hours for.
Whatever is actually going on here, I hope that originals make a strong comeback. They came back in a big way at Tokyo DisneySea, which represents a good balance between characters and originals. Closer to home, Tomorrowland, with its numerous areas in dire need of attention, presents a perfect opportunity to make right those mistakes made over a decade ago. So, too, does the mythical Anaheim third gate, currently a small piece of land that could someday make a big impact.
Lion king in mickey-shaped bubbles - dreamagicjp