Historical accuracy of Disney Park decor

I find that so interesting (of course, I'm into disney themeing in general). Do other parks go into that kind of detail?

That type of thing interests me too; I'm really into the theming and atmosphere of the Disney Parks. I feel so sorry for people that judge theme parks by how many "rides" they have. I guess Six Flags parks are for people like that.

If the subject of theming at Disney Parks really interests you, you might want to pick up the "Imagineering Field Guide" series. These books take you through each park through the eyes of Imagineers, pointing out props and atmosphere along the way. The books for MK, Epcot and DAK are out, while the one for DHS gets released this spring.

It really is amazing, the difference between even Disney World and Universal Studios. All the excellent theming and attention to detail just gives you the feeling that Disney is trying harder than most parks. I always think that when I'm at say a Six Flags. I'm like "Why couldn't you make this place cooler?" (Other than time/effort)

Still sometimes I just wanna ride a really big roller coaster

After I'd taken my kids to Disney and then we went to the (relatively) local (2 hrs away) amusement park, it was a great way to teach them the difference between a theme park and an amusement park. Wild Adventures (the local park) is an amusement park and is actually a great place for what it is. So is something like Six Flags.

Where you start to find trouble and dissatisfaction (at least on my part) are those parks (that "U" one comes to mind) that try to be theme parks but just don't quite reach the level of detail of Disney. Of course, to their credit, I guess no one could. But I'm not sure I understand why. It's not a very difficult formula.... you build the best that you can and pay strict attention to detail. The hard part, I would imagine, is training the people. You've got to 1) recruit the right people that care about that kind of thing and 2) train them to understand that it's the little things that make a difference.

If y'all haven't heard it yet I'd highly suggest the WDW Radio Show regarding the Wonders of WDW. The very tippy-top wonder was the cast members. I think it was show #95 in late November. Lou had a roundtable discussion with several folks about what it is about CMs that make them such a wonder. And I think they hit the nail on the head that the people that work there want to be there. It's more than just a job... it really is a chance to bring magic to someone's day. That'd be so cool.

Guess I just answered my own question..... it's not so much that it's so difficult to get it right but you gotta have the right people. You can't train this kind of thing... folks have to care and want to make the magic to start off with.

The other thing about that is: Disney gets all kinds of people who want to get into "Show Business." So they'll be underpaid to "pay their dues." But most of the people who are like that will get soaked up by Disney, which I'm sure they see as the best opportunity. I'm sure there are more stories of CMs at WDW going on to careers than their are at say Universal. So if someone's willing to be underpaid to do a good job, they'll probably wind up at Disney.

I'll amend that slightly and say that a lot of Broadway hopefuls start out at other theme parks (Busch Gardens, Six Flags, etc.), and work their way UP to Disney parks. From Disney, the next stop can be Broadway. So, yes, the entertainment at Disney parks is usually a notch above the other theme park chains.

I think attention to detail is the key. Disney employs Imagineers whose role is to create a story behind every attraction so that that attraction becomes more than just a 'ride'.

Take the example of Expedition Everest. Imagineers led by Joe Rohde spent months in Nepal and China in the foothills of the Himalayas, talking to sherpas and Buddhist Monks. They learned about the culture and their belief system, and the legend of the Yeti that still exists. They invent backstories which make an attraction complete. And how much of that story is lost on the average guest? How many guests refer to EE as just a roller coaster? Why would Disney put so much time, effort, money and energy to create just one attraction?

It's this extra mile that Disney is willing to go that sets them apart from not just amusement parks, but other theme parks as well. My wife and I talk about ranking theme parks in a tier type system, and Disney occupies that top tier all by itself. Joy says that Universal's Islands of Adventure is the closest thing to a Disney Park, as far as theming and atmosphere goes, and I take her word for it, never having been there myself. But I'm convinced that other enterprises that come close to Disney are able to do so only because they've taken a cue FROM Disney.

I agree with that, but I wish I understood what type of business mindset allows Disney parks to spend SO much money (e.g. EE) on attraction development.

That backstory must have cost millions to develop before the ride architecture was even drafted. What kind of Board room cost analysis takes into account the bottom line fiscal benefits that come from spending millions to "create a story around the ride," which many people will never even know is there?

Interesting angle. I would love to hear some of the boardroom discussions about development for that very reason. I think there was a time when the board started to lose sight of what made Disney different, but I think nowadays they're starting to get back to it. I can imagine today's boardroom discussions including a lot of quotes from Walt as the business seems to be going back to it's roots of "there oughta be something that a parent can enjoy with their children" (to paraphrase a rather famous quote).

I think they walk a fine line of trying to get rid of non-profitable ideas while trying to keep their roots. I think however that they sometimes lose sight of the fact that "profit centers" are not always obvious. Sometimes spending a little extra has benefits that are hard to see on an income statements.

An interesting component of Disney's attention to detail is that sometimes you forget they don't have to be authentic. So it can be somewhat risky to learn your history lessons from Disney parks. I'm quite sure that sometimes authenticity takes a back seat to "neat."

But, as long as that's a clear truth, is that so bad? I like "neat"

My point is simply that it's dangerous that kids are walking out of there thinking they've learned about history, when they may very well not have. I'm not sure it's entirely clear how accurate or not their stuff is.

Kind of like how I get my news from Stewart and Colbert?

But your point is valid. It's a good opportunity for parents to give the "story around the story." For instance, when you're watching the Hall of Presidents, maybe give a few back stories of what was going on in world affairs during certain presidencies--it would give context to the speeches.

I've definitely heard of parents using Disney trips in their homeschooling lessons. I think there's a lot of opportunity there.