Before you say it - I
know, the question might seem ridiculous. There's a castle. There's immersive
themed lands. There's even a fireworks spectacular starring Mickey Mouse. What
are you talking about? Of course Shanghai Disneyland is a
Disneyland! It's a castle park built by Disney, after all. You're
right, of course. Working for Disney in China has given me countless
opportunities to visit the park and I've seen enough there to know it certainly
meets Disney-levels of production quality. So too, the park hosts a wealth of
wonderful attractions. But still, beneath all those bells and whistles, beneath
the glossy veneer and the elaborate sets...
Is it?
I'm
not talking about the attractions or the characters. I'm not even talking about
the individual lands. Instead, I want to focus on the underlying principles of
the park. In other words, it's themes, the very heart of what makes Shanghai
Disneyland tick. First, however, we have to answer another question: what makes
Disneyland a Disneyland? What is so compelling about the place to
the point that it has virtually transcended its status as a theme park?
At
its core, Disneyland isn't a theme park about Disney. Disneyland is about other
things. That might seem confusing, but then Disney as a company has always been
about other things. Let's take a look at the first few Disney movies ever made.
Snow White, the star of the company's first feature, wasn't invented by Walt -
she was cribbed from European folklore and a play Walt saw when he was a child.
Pinocchio, likewise, came from a 19th century Italian story, and Bambi was
originally a novel. Fantasia based itself on famous music of Walt's time and of
ages past. All of these works, then, are derivative - direct adaptations of
previous work. This isn't a surprising development. Even prior to its early
films, Disney was adapting the work of other studios. After all, Mickey Mouse
himself was little more than a derivative of Oswald, a Walt-created character
whose rights belonged to Universal Studios.
Note
that by no means is this a criticism. Media companies and artists have always
depended on adaptation and reinvention, and Disney is no different. It must
find external subjects to present in order to survive. Many people laud Disney
for its storytelling, and Disney itself finds great pride in the stories it
tells. Rightly so, in most cases.
In most cases. |
Yet I don't think storytelling is the key to the company's success. Rather, it is their definitive authorial voice and presentation of their stories that matters. Let's go back to the stories I mentioned earlier. Snow White is a Germanic fairy tale about a princess who ends up living with seven men while hiding out from a witch. Pinocchio is a morality play about a wooden puppet and his cricket conscience. Bambi is a tale of growing up in the woods and learning what it takes to be a leader. On the surface these stories have nothing in common. No matter how well you tell these stories, there will never be a point where they begin to fully resemble each other. If I asked you to tell me what the commonality in all of these tales was based on narratives alone, it wouldn't quite be impossible, but it would be at the very least quite difficult. These stories don't inherently belong together, yet we think of them all as belonging to one group. Why? Because they're all Disney cartoons. The commonality is in the presentation, not the narrative.
Such
purchases are not accidental. Disney clearly knows it's tone and branding are
incredibly important and places great value on them. Presentation and tone
override all the little details in their work, to the point that if I tell you
something is "Disney-fied" you know exactly what I mean. Over
the years, Disney has built its brand on the foundation of tone. The company
has become nearly synonymous with its cornerstones of naiveté and reassurance -
even with childhood in general. In other words, when we think about Disney now,
we don't think about Disney. We think about other things - the stories, the
settings, and the feelings they give us.
Alright, alright! Tone
is important. But so what? What does
that have to do with Shanghai Disneyland or even the original Disneyland?
Why,
it has everything to do with the theme parks! Once you can establish a unifying
tone, you can tell stories about anything and make them seem
like they belong together. That's incredibly important in a theme park setting,
where attractions based on an astronomical number of films reside within a few
feet of each other. It's the reason an Alice in Wonderland ride,
a European mountain, and a submarine voyage can not only exist next to one
another, but also make authorial sense.
Nothing more natural than a tropical voyage next to a Swiss mountain next that's following the White Rabbit! |
Or why you can look
out from Tarzan's Treehouse somewhere in Africa and see both New Orleans and
Big Thunder Mountain Railroad.
Soon you'll even be able to see a galaxy far, far away. |
The different lands themselves have to strike a proper tone within themselves in order to host their attractions, but they also have to strike the proper macro-tone in order to make sense next to one another. This works in Disneyland because Disneyland isn't about Disney. Disneyland is about other things. In order to successfully pull this off, Disneyland has to have a suitable foundation from which to build. But while Disney films find their foundation in strong emotions, the parks can't exactly build a tower of emotion in the middle of the park and call it a day.
Don't you dare... |
They have to do things the hard way instead. The parks have to build environments that evoke emotion, are tonally consistent enough with their neighbors to support the park as a whole, and are still different enough to stand on their own. On top of that, the environments cannot take for granted that guests have ever seen a Disney movie, so they cannot just toss in Disney IPs and music in every land and call it a day.
Disneyland
solves this problem by rooting itself in shared cultural knowledge and
Americana whenever possible. In doing so, the park tries to first present
imagery and archetypes that guests have some emotional connection to already,
opening the door to more emotional experiences in each attraction and
experience the lands have to offer. Just look at Sleeping Beauty Castle, the
very icon of Disneyland itself. Though the landmark takes its name from a
Disney film, the castle is very much a stereotypical fantasy castle. Likewise,
Frontierland prominently features stereotypical buildings of the Old West -
Adventureland, palm trees and tiki elements.
True,
these elements are present to support their own lands, but they also serve
Disneyland as a whole by offering a taste of familiarity and comfort. In doing
so, they help Disneyland to at last reach the feelings of reassurance and
naiveté that the movies achieve with ink and paint. Big Thunder Mountain is
never going to make logical sense when viewed from Tarzan's Treehouse, but
thanks to the tonal and thematic consistencies it does make emotional sense. At
the end of the day, these themes and emotions are what the average guest is
supposed to feel as they walk down Main Street one final to exit the
park. Disneyland does a masterful job of crafting this tone through its music,
architecture, and cast members, and I'd argue that its a great foundation for a
theme park to have. While park and attraction design have changed greatly since
Disneyland originally opened, this tone is generally acknowledged and
respected, not only in California, but in all castle parks built to date. It's
a huge part of the signature Disneyland charm.
And then there's Shanghai Disneyland. Let's
listen to our friend Bob explain the company's goals for the park.
When Shanghai Disneyland opened in 2016, it was a vast departure from castle parks past. It had lands and attractions that were one of a kind, and deeply detailed thematic work across the board. There's no denying that it was in many ways a technical marvel and was all around a truly impressive sight. It's taken a while for the dust to settle since opening, and though there's been a lot of good to come out of the park, it's now easier to see its flaws as well. Unfortunately, there's a pretty glaring one. As we've established, Disney films succeed because they aren't about Disney. Disneyland succeeds because it's not about Disney. Shanghai Disneyland, on the other hand, is a park that is at its core very much about Disney.
I'm
not sure what factors contributed to this shift in focus. It could be the
choice to move towards immersive thematic detail. It could be the change in
target audience. It could even be as simple as marketing - Bob Iger makes
it clear the move was very much intentional. After a certain point,
however, the why doesn't matter so much compared to the how.
Shanghai Disneyland feels like an immersive theme park, but it is (in my
opinion) missing the spark that is a crucial part to the Disneyland formula.
How, exactly, has Shanghai Disneyland changed up the formula? In many ways, as
it turns out.
The
tonal dissonance is first apparent, as Iger says, in Mickey Avenue - in
Shanghai, a replacement for Main Street USA. A sort of hybrid of Toontown and
Main Street, the area thrives on Disney history and references to past work.
There is a focus on Mickey himself, a clear attempt to try to find a cultural
touchstone for Chinese visitors to latch onto, though it doesn't help that most
flavor text is in English (despite Iger's claims to the contrary). Music loops
here utilize big band versions of recent Disney film songs such as "Do You
Want to Build a Snowman?" - again trying to use Disney IPs to create a
sense of familiarity. While China is a growing market for Disney, there is
likely not enough familiarity throughout the country for many potential visitors
to get the references. That isn't the biggest issue here, however. The idea of
Mickey Avenue is sound in theory ("You're in a Disney park!"), but in
reality it completely misses the entire point of Main Street. The land is there
to serve as entrance and exit, as overture and coda to the guest experience.
It's a warm comfort there to codify your thematic experience and make you
feel like you truly experienced something magical. Iger is correct in asserting
that Main Street is inappropriate for China, but the natural counterpart here
is an old Chinese city or village. The entrance needs to be something ordinary
in order to sell the extraordinary you will encounter on the rest of your
journey. Mickey Avenue, despite its efforts, cannot offer this thematic catharsis,
because it is already so different from what Chinese guests are used to.
Other
opportunities for building on a foundation familiar to its Chinese audience
also go astray. Tomorrowland here shapes most of its identity around TRON,
once again a Disney IP that - while fairly well received when TRON:
Legacy came out - is not a cultural touchstone in any way, shape, or
form. The adjacent (and soon to open) Toy Story Land also bases its entire
identity around a Disney-Pixar IP, albeit one more successful than TRON.
The eastern side of the park does slightly better. Adventure Isle, likely the
strongest land in the park, bases its theme off of a hidden civilization with
Chinese trappings, while Treasure Cove, a pirate-themed land, bases itself off
of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, one that is still
incredibly popular in China (though even with that it's a stretch to say that
Caribbean architecture has been absorbed into Chinese culture the same way it
has been into American culture). True, the traditional Wandering Moon Teahouse
provides some sense of familiarity to Chinese visitors, but this is one
building in the entire park. One building against the cornerstones of the
surrounding lands does not a balance make. (Note: Disneytown, referenced by
Iger as being specifically Chinese, does its job well but is not actually
located in the park, and is not much different from your average Shanghai
mall.)
Unless I'm crazy, Wandering Moon Teahouse is also supposed to be present in this model, but is seemingly absent. Disney iconography, meanwhile, is present and accounted for. |
The biggest offender, however, is the Shanghai castle. Here, the castle - hyped as the largest yet - represents not one princess, but all of them. In choosing to represent the entire princess line, Shanghai's castle strives to be the definitive castle above all others. This is a stark departure from previous castles that intentionally choose one story to represent, because with those other castles, there is a secondary implication. While the castle may belong to one princess, it also encapsulates fantasy as a concept. Though ownership belongs to one, it is inclusionary of all. It has to be; otherwise characters as disparate as Mr. Toad and Dumbo have no right existing in the castle grounds. More than that, the castle's sense of inclusion also serves as a handy metaphor for Disneyland itself - owned by Disney, but belonging to all. In contrast, the fact that the Shanghai castle is made to represent all the princesses makes it feel exclusionary. No other fantasy belongs in the castle - only princesses. Indeed, Shanghai's castle does not even have castle grounds, and all attractions contained within are princess themed. Other Fantasyland attractions are relegated to the other side of some waterways.
While
this can be seen as just another example of Disney replacing archetypal
iconography with its own, I think it's a bit more egregious than that. Gone is
the Disney castle that serves as a fantasy archetype, inviting you in and
stirring memories of a childhood gone by. Here to stay is the Disney castle
that represents Disney alone - archetypes and all other fantasy be damned.
There's something else as well. By making its castle - the very symbol of the
park - exclusionary, Shanghai Disneyland suggests that those values speak for
not just the castle but the park as a whole. If I were a bit more cynical, I
would almost say this were intentional.
For
the record, I don't think changing up the formula is necessarily a bad thing.
IPs, when used correctly, can enhance a park and add to its underlying themes.
However, I feel the shift towards focusing a park entirely around Disney
franchises to the point that franchise is the theme tips the
scale far too much in an uncomfortable direction. There's a million ways to
build a park that don't revolve entirely around IPs, and Disney's proven that
time and again. I have faith that if Disney wanted to build a park based around
Chinese culture and themes important to the culture, it could. In my mind at
least, it would have been the right call.
I
am not Chinese, and attendance is currently doing well. Perhaps I am wrong
about the long term prospects for Shanghai Disneyland, but I do know this.
Disneyland in Anaheim is now over 60 years old. In that time, the park -
originally based largely around Americana and American culture - has become so
successful that is has now become Americana in and of itself. It has
transcended its medium, and it could not do so without the feelings it creates
in its guests. Where will Shanghai Disneyland be 60 years down the road? I
can't say, but I can say that leaving the park here feels vastly different than
leaving any other castle park, and not necessarily in a good way. Shanghai
Disneyland is certainly a Disneyland in name, but if it is to be one in spirit,
it needs to find something else to use as its core. Franchises get old.
Franchises die. But themes? Emotions? Experiences? These are forever, and if
Shanghai Disneyland wants to last that long, it needs to find its spark.
(Header Image: Source)
(Header Image: Source)