Senior Imagineer Tony Baxter has been in the Internet Disney news a lot lately. MousePlanet's David Koenig recently had an interesting quote from Tony about replacing older attractions with new ones: “What you try to do is understand what was special about the attraction. Sometimes there's not much, like the Motor Boats, other than a place where you go to make out or to be away from your parents. But you try to capture that in what you replace it with, and make sure the new attraction has all that.” So, the rather trippy journey of Adventure Through Inner Space is replaced by the slightly surreal journey of Star Tours. Or, as Baxter said, “Star Tours is an adventure through outer space that takes people somewhere they dreamed they'd never get to go. Monsanto did that in a psychedelic way that was perfect for my generation, growing up in the '60s.”
Not that Star Tours is a bad attraction, but this concept of Tony's strikes me as being horribly wrong. If you're stuck trying to keep the essence of what came before when you create a new attraction, you're limiting yourself - and the park. Stick with this principle, and Disneyland won't be able to grow and change, and it will stifle the ability to make big new innovations. Sure, you might be able to make small improvements - for example, changing the PeopleMover into the Rocket Rods - but being stuck with having to put some kind of transit-ride in that spot limits what you can come up with. Perhaps there's a better, more innovative non-transit ride that could go there instead. But sticking to this “essence” principle rules it out.
(Also, of course, the budget limitations that WDI has been forced to swallow haven't helped innovation much lately either.)
This “essence” philosophy might explain why Tony Baxter seems to be losing influence at Disney (see Al Lutz's recent update on MiceAge for a recent example of this). I'm sure there are senior executives at WDI, at the Resorts and in the Disney Corporate HQ who don't get this “essence” thing - that is, assuming in the first place that they even get why Disney theme parks are different from everything else out there. These execs probably see Tony as being stubborn towards “synergistic” changes (like putting Pooh in Critter Country or Dumbo-like Flying Carpets in WDW's Adventureland -yuck!) or just plain uncooperative. And, politically, that's very bad - and perhaps why less imaginative but more cooperative people are moved up the corporate ladder past him.
(And, personally, I'm bothered by all the homages to the past and other in-jokes that Tony and his teams have added - especially in the Disneyland's “New Tomorrowland”. For example, the new Moonliner, the references to Horizons and Carousel of Progress in Innoventions, and especially the “Inner Space” parody telephones on Innoventions upper outside balcony. Granted, these are mostly small things cost-wise, but what a waste! A select few people get the reference, but millions don't. I'm certain they could have instead created small things that everyone - not just Disneyland geeks - could enjoy.)
Yet through all this I think I can see the appeal of keeping the essence of old attractions when creating the new ones: if Disneyland “works” as whole before a change - in that it has the right feel and appeal to the millions of paying visitors - then keeping the essence of one attraction location the same should keep the essence and feel of the entire park the same as well. In other words, the idea is that you're not risking breaking the entire system by substituting one piece with a new but highly compatible replacement. Unfortunately, times, technology and most importantly attitudes change, and you have to keep up with those changes. I mean, if you took a 1950's Chevrolet sedan and keep upgrading the engine, the seats, the fenders, etc. for 50 years but tried to keep the “feel” of a 50's sedan, you wouldn't have a modern car that could compete with the today's new vehicles. And the same goes for a theme park.
So while I think his “essence philosophy” is wrong, Tony is actually pretty close to being right. I think that both Tony and I (and millions of Disneyland fans, for that matter) would agree that we'd like to keep the feel and appeal of Disneyland the same as it has always been. But rather than replacing older rides with similar new ones, what really is needed is to create new attractions that fit the current “flavor” of the land - that is, attractions that fit today's visitors' interpretation of a land's “theme”. In my definition, “theming” is more than just emphasis on the small details, but making the entire land create a mood, an atmosphere, even an emotion.
Or to put this in an academic way, it's how the excellent book Built to Last explains why some companies (including Disney, by the way) have managed to stay great for decades. You figure out what the “core values” are for the company, and then be prepared to change everything else as times and business conditions change. In this way, you stay current and competitive, but still stand for the same key things that made you a success in the past. And I think the same can go for theme parks too. If you keep within the “core values” for a land (for example, “technology” and “the promise of a better tomorrow” for Tomorrowland, “Patriotism” and “Nostaglia” for Main Street, “Exploration”, “Adventure” and “Exoticness” for Adventureland), you can change or add just about anything and still successfully keep the feel of that land.
And thus old attractions can be replaced by great new attractions without having to be “pin-compatible” - it just takes some imagination, a decent budget, and above all, a real understanding of the “core value” theme of that land.
