Cloning of rides at Disney Theme Parks??

[Bob O]

What do you think of disney cloning rides at their theme parks??? Another Voice has a post about DCA and the addition of TOT to the park. I dont like the way disney is going with all the cloning of rides. I think its obviuosly being done to save money and with the reductions to imagineering maybe they dont have the creative team anymore in place to create rides for new parks. I think DL and WDW should be separate entities with separate attractions,escpecially E Ticket rides. Im going to DL later this year because i have never been their but im doubtful i would go in the future if they are going to make the park a best of wdw type park. I like the idea that the Indiana Jones ride is only there and gives you something to look forward too, but with all the copy cats between the parks like muppets/bug's life star tours etc i think that is a negative.
What are your thoughts of the cloning of the theme park experience??? Are they becoming more like Six Flags where almost every park has a boom-er-rang type coaster as a example.

[Peter Pirate]

As usual, I disagree. The cloning doesn't bug me at all. I may never get to DL - Been to CA twice but didn't make it to DL. I doubt I'll ever get to TDL or TDS and, again, if I do make it to Japan I don't believe a crowded theme park will be on my 'must do' list. So I'm all for spreading the wealth. If Disney were to give us (WDW) Indy or Saorin' it would in no way diminish my enjoyment of the ride (knowing it was a clone).

I will agree that I'd like to see Disney use more imagination (as in a great dark ride), but they have given us Soarin' recently & will be giving us Space shortly, so they're still imagineering...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[All Aboard]

Nope, doesn't bother me either. If Disney cloned Indy & Journey to the Center of the Earth and put them in Central Florida I'd be thrilled to no end.

In fact, if they dragged the cursor completely over Tokyo DisneySeas, clicked on "copy" then moved the cursor over to a nice choice spot within WDW and clicked "paste"... I'd jump for joy.

[Eeyore2U]

From all I here I hope the clone Soarin.

If it works there, why wouldn't it work here??

[raidermatt]

BobO- Good idea bringing the topic to this board. It'll be interesting to get the opinion of others who still love a lot about Disney, but are not happy with current management.

My 2 cents. I'm fine with it, and here's why:

1- MK is essentially a clone of DL, and I doubt anyone would want every ride that was at DL first pulled out of MK. I know there are some differences, but for the most part, the park is a clone, and a wonderful one at that. Sure it was cheaper than coming up with a whole new park, but it doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

2- Many Disney visitors can't get to both WDW and DLResort on a regular basis, and sometimes not at all. Never mind Japan or Paris. It would be a shame if attractions like ToT, the three Mountains, Peter Pan, Dumbo, Star Tours, Pirates, Small World, the Railroad, Main Street, Soarin, etc, can never be enjoyed by hardcore Disney fans who just can't get to the other coast. Or even occasional visitors who may only visit once in a great while.


That said, I don't want to see just any old ride copied. And for rides with somewhat marginal appeal, like CBJ, I like having it in at least one instead of none. But if its a hit, send it out west, or back east, as the case maybe.

Another way to clone without it looking like a clone is to re-theme the ride. Dinosaur is a very similar ride to Indiana Jones. I think the main difference is in the themeing and effects. I like this concept a lot, as long as there is sufficient effort put into the different aspects. In the case of Dino and Indy, I absolutely think it works.

[Another Voice]

The decision to make the “clone” Magic Kingdom for WDW was in the middle of the last century when the world was very different. In the mid and late sixities when the place was designed, the idea of a family hoping on a jet and flying out for quick trip was limited to only the extremely wealthy. It was never expected that people who went to WDW would ever make it to Disneyland, nor the other way around.

The theory held up through later decades because WDW became a destination, while Disneyland became more a regional park. In other words, people made a special trip to Florida, but very few made a special trip just to see Anaheim.

Times have changed. Along with the rest the nation, a lot of Californians have seen WDW. One of the problems with DCA is that a lot of people have already seen ‘Bugs’ and ‘Muppets’ and ‘Animation’, and no one wants to plop down $43 to see repeats. And in the other side, The Company is trying to make Disneyland a resort and to appeal to vacationers from all over the country. But people who are going to travel to see a Disney theme park likely have already been to WDW. How can Disneyland compete if it offers nothing but a subset of what WDW offers?

Of course, few people on this board care about Disneyland so there’s probably nothing wrong with cloning the rides. It’s simple a matter of convenience. But every time they crank up the old Xerox machine, Disney losses another chance to be creative and to impress. And instead of having two world class resorts in the United States, we get one.

[Amor4Pooh]

I must agree with AV. DCA is a sad piecing together of too many other elements, carny and WDW alike. About the only unique attractions it has can be counted on one hand. I enjoy having AP's to both WDW and DLR, even though (being born and raised a So Cal girl) I am much more the fan of Disneyland. I also must say that although the 100 years celebration attempt at WDW (parades and merchandise, with some historical artifacts borrowed from DL (and other locations) in an exhibit) seems very nice, I am very dissappointed with Disney for not doing anything really special (or unique) at Disneyland-for it being the Original, and the only park Walt ever truly "lived" in. (Besides releasing some "Commemorative Merchandise") And I fully intend to write a letter to Mr. Pressler and Ms. Harris to tell them so.
I just think that the cloning is a symptom of the bigger problems within Disney, and has only become more noticeable in the last decade. Look at Disney Studios Paris. Sounds great, but I wouldn't make the extra trip accross the Atlantic just to see another Disney-MGM clone with many of the same attractions in the other parks. I am only planning the trip because I haven't been to either Paris park, and now it sounds like there will a bit more to do for my time there. I'm sure many others feel the same. And don't even get me started on the pin campaign they've thought up, and the designs they are cloning around the world. About the only way those lovely suits down in corporate ever really know what we think is when we write them a real letter telling them so. Or if we see one of them (like "good old Mikey" at DL, or "everyone's friendly buddy Paul" at WDW) and ask them why things are the way they are.
I recently attended an event at DL where Marty Sklar spoke and we were able to ask him a few questions. It was quite clear he was only the spokesperson, not the person in power to make the choices, even though he has a wonderful job title. He also mentioned the "one scene" which they wanted to add to the major attractions for DL's 50th. Sounded great, but seeing is believing. I would love to see these things happen at DL, so I want my voice to be heard, and every letter counts. If we at least let them know what we expect, maybe they'll at least think about it. No matter what, please write your letters, they can make a difference.

[Bob O]

Of course i agree with Another Voice, just wish i was a wordsmith like he is.
I have no problem with disney using the same ride mechanism more than once but each ride should be its own creation and not just a copy.
Im going to disneyland because i have never been their before but if all they are going to do is import clones from wdw i wont go again.
The rides from Japan arent as bad because not as many americans go their but alot of americans go to Europe and have a chance to see Disneyland Paris but again if its a clone of wdw i wouldnt go their when i do visit Europe.
The ride mechanism from Soarin would be fine IMHO at wdw but the same film, no!!!! How does a CA fit in any theme at wdw???
This just shows the general cheapness of eisner's disney rather than wanting to push forward with new ideas,push forward with new ride technonlgy which was a hallmark of disney pre-eisner.(of course he will do so with other people's money).
When Epcot was built it was totally new and not a clone as is TDS from what ive read, but that wont be done in wdw/dl when disney has to spend their own money.

[JeffH]

Yeah, right, like I want to have to travel to California, France, Tokyo, Hong Kong to get the whole Disney experience. No, I want everything these other parks develop, duplicated at Walt Disney World so I get to enjoy it too.

[All Aboard]

When Epcot was built it was totally new and not a clone as is TDS from what ive read, Bob O, I'm dying to know. From what was TDS cloned?????

JeffH, ditto.

[d-r]

Originally posted by gcurling
Nope, doesn't bother me either. If Disney cloned Indy & Journey to the Center of the Earth and put them in Central Florida I'd be thrilled to no end.


well, they did a different kind of cloning - they're called "dinosaur" and "test track." So, in a way, we already have them at wdw, just with different dressings. To be honest, I think I'd rather see this kind of "cloning" so that when we go to CA. or make it to Tokyo or Paris it will be a little different (like Phantom Manor to the Haunted Mansion, or the Tokyo Pooh ride, for off the top of the head examples).

I agree with AV about dca, it seemed like a little mgm studios here, a little epcot there, a little animal kingdom here, a little cheap carnival there. I think that tot will help dca a lot, I think that rock n roller coaster would fit well there, too, but I don't think they will (the logic being "we already have a coaster that shoots to a start from a stand still, and a coaster that plays music")

DR

BTW, TDS has clones of test track (journey to center of earth), indiana jones, and the mermaid area looks like well-themed off-the-shelf attractions (kiddie coasters, spinners, tea cups, jumpin jellyfish).

[Another Voice]

At DisneySea, their ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Crystal Skull’ is a clone of Disneyland’s ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye’. The extitors are decorated to different locations (TDS is set in Central America and D/L is set in India), and a few of the major show effects in the ride are different, but the rides are essentially clones.

I don’t really consider using the same ride system – but putting on a completely different show – to be cloning.

And Rock'n Rollercoaster was planned as the first addition to DCA when the place opened last year. It was cut within a month of the park's opening because of the disasterous attendance. It was decided that a 'Tower' clone produced at the same time the attraction was also being built for Tokyo and Paris would be cheaper.

[fklhou]

Are there any plans to clone Indiana Jones at WDW? I for one would love to see this attraction cloned at WDW.

[marty3d]

Add my vote to copying and pasting DisneySea to WDW.

I have no issue with cloning attractions from one park to another (with some minor changes thrown in so that it can still be a "new" experience if you do visit multiple parks) as long as it isn't within the same resort (Dumbo, Aladdin and Triceratops Spin at WDW come to mind - though my 2 1/2 year ols son loved all three!).

[Another Voice]

On the matter of ‘Indiana Jones and The Temple of Whatever’ coming to WDW… It was my memory that the original license deal between Disney and Lucas didn’t allow for any cloning of Indiana Jones rides between any of the Disney parks. George wanted a different experience at each location – the ride at Disneyland, the show at WDW and the traditional thrill ride at Euro Disney.

I don’t know if this deal was changed for DisneySea, or if there’s a separate agreement between the Oriental Land Company and Lucas (since Disney has no ownership or rights to the Tokyo parks), or if changing the ‘Forbidden Eye’ to the ‘Crystal Skull’ is just enough to make the lawyers feel all warm and fuzzy in their reptilian hearts. In any case, the relations between Disney and Lucasfilm are so bad right now I wouldn’t be too optimistic about any new rides at any Disney park.

[HBK]

I really feel copying is ok if done in moderation...although I'm not sure why they can't use the same ride vehicles and change the story (Indy & CTX for example).

Do I want to ride Soarin? Yes. Do I want it in WDW? Selfishly yes....but I don't think in the long run it's good for either property to mirror each other.

If all of the "good" attractions from WDW are imported to CA why would any west coasters head out to Orlando? You regionalize your company in a manner similar to six flags. I wasn't aware Disney was in that business.

[larworth]

I think cloning is a perfectly acceptable practice. If just makes sense for Disney to leverage it’s most popular attractions by making sure they are exposed to the maximum amount of people around the world.

Now, getting the most out of their intellectual property surely doesn’t mean exact carbon copies. Some change in story/theme seems like a good practice. For a small cost it adds an element of novelty for resort hoppers, creates debate (whose is better) which is a good thing, and allows tailoring for local demographics.

You would also like to see them have a practive of making the next incarnation a better experience. The beauty of having actual operating experience is you see what works best. They should take full advantage of their learning curve opportunities.

When a clone is a great fit for an individual park need than invest away. As long as satisfying customers is utmost it should not be a problem. However, the danger comes when what is really in the best interest of the customer starts to take a back seat to the fact that they can stick in a clone for less upfront money and partially meet the need.

Recent trends regarding WDI’s charter all seem headed in the wrong direction (smaller size, more transient staff, more off-the-shelf rides, more value engineering). Should we add an over-reliance on clones to the list?

I know long-term I'd much rather have a portfolio of attractions in my quiver, instead of just a few that now have to be shoehorned into every park.

[Bob O]

gcurling, my mistake!!!! I didnt properly proofread my comment about TDS.
Why doesnt disney do something cutting edge like Unviersal did with Spiderman rather than their version of the attack of the clones???

[All Aboard]

Bob O, I would consider Indy & Journey to the Center of the Earth to be "cutting edge".

Spidey's budget was $200m. In fact, IOA's total budget was enormous. And it shows. But, I think the jury is still out on whether that level of capital investment will pay off in the long run. I hope it does. That would encourage further cutting edge development, whether it be from Universal, Disney or whoever.

[HBK]

Spidey's budget was $200m. In fact, IOA's total budget was enormous. And it shows. But, I think the jury is still out on whether that level of capital investment will pay off in the long run.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Mission Space a $300+ Million budgeted ride? And further, the budget for TDS was "bloated" in Anahiem's eyes, but it's been a wild success according to the reports I've read....heck at least they'll celebrate it's 1 year anniversary.

To make money, you need to spend money. DCA is the proof.

And scoop...
I think Disney's technological response will be Mission:Space...its all speculation now...but I believe M:S may well raise the bar come late next year...
Part of the appeal of Spidey is just about anyone can ride. It's tame enough for the youngsters, but cool enough for the adults.

Mission Space is going to spin you until you get sick. It's more of a niche ride, while spidey covers a more broad audience.

[raidermatt]

Regarding Space, my understanding is that yes, you spin, but you don't realize you are spinning.

AV- you're right, its not that difficult to get a flight to either resort. But living in Northern California, there is a significant cost and time difference when our family decides whether to go to DLResort or WDW. We have made a committment to the Orlando site through DVC, so from a "me first" perspective, I wouldn't necessarily want to see a lot of cloning. If its in either site, I will see it at least every other year. So give me great and different rides at both resorts, across the board. But since I fall pretty close to the Disney Nut side of the spectrum, I know we are not the "typical" Disney guest. So while I don't think everything should be cloned just to save money, the true hits, like Soarin' should be. Like most, I still think different theming is just about always the best way to go.

The overseas resorts? HIGHLY unlikely I will get the chance to hit those, and if I do, it will be once in a Blue Moon, so clone away. The majority of Americans just don't take many vacations overseas.

[Another Voice]

The projected cost of the “pavilion” version of ‘Space’ was over $200 million (according to rumors). This cost would have included not only the attraction, but an extensive post-show “space station” with exhibits, a restaurant, shops and other minor attractions. But when the final check arrived from Compaq, the “pavilion” was slashed to an “attraction” to bring the project’s cost in line with the sponsorship fees (e.g. so that no Mouse Money would be spent). The funny thing is now a lot of their “value engineering” is causing a lot of problems and the current “small” version of the attraction will probably cost them more than the full pavilion would have cost them before.

And there are plenty of rumors that you may not see yourself spinning on ‘Space’, but your stomach will definitely know it. One of the design brief is rumored to have requested a cabin that is easier to clean on a very frequent basis.

Mr. Matt, you’ve found the central problem with the whole “cloning” issue. Disney wants to have two full resorts, each drawing guests to stay in onsite hotels for multiple days. The problem is that both resorts are ending with exactly the same attractions. Only Disneyland is much smaller and offers much less. Since getting to Orlando or Orange County is equally easy, why would the average vacationer choose to come to Disneyland and see less? And in order to make Disneyland into a “resort”, Disney’s poked their fingers in the eyes of the locals and the second park is dead on arrival.

What’s the brilliant business strategy here? And for everyone gloating that this is only Disneyland’s problem – next time you think about ‘Beastly Kingdom’, just picture ‘Tower of Terror’ at California Adventure. That’s how The Mouse is paying for the ride.

[WDW2002]

Maybe I am odd but I get "excited" when I hear that a ride from WDW is going to be brought to DLR. I will likely only get the chance to visit WDW one time and consider DL "my" disney park and would love to see some of the "better" WDW attraction at DLR. I do not mean to say that I want clones to replace "new" and unique attractions but I am not against clones.

[HBK]

I am not against clones.
How about a park full of em?

I think that's the real problem here....the over reliance of clones to bail out struggling parks.

By cloning TOT is Disney throwing in the towel on it's attempts to turn Anahiem into a tourist destination? Are they changing the purpose of the parks from attracting people from Anahiem to focusing on the local clientel?

It's not a bad strategy (although that really hurts the hotel business)....but they're going to have to make up their minds. Either they're trying to make the WDW vacationeers make a trip to Anahiem or they're trying to bring the WDW experince to the Cali for the western states.

[Bob O]

I would agree with HBK/AV. We are planning a trip to DL because we want to see the original park. But if they are going to just add clones to DL what incentive would i have to return??? If they want DL to be a resort of several days length it has to be unique and not just a best of park. Because all things being equal you would get more bang for your buck at wdw IMHO.
gcurling i dont think the rides mentioned were groundbreaking like spiderman was where several different rides (3d/simulator/moving) were put together as something totally new. Even the Hulk Coaster has a unique launching system that from what ive heard is unlikely to be replicated due to the cost and the separate power plant needed just for the one ride. Im hopefull Mission Space will be new and groundbreaking and wonder what disney is going to do with some supposed military type technology they bought that could be used for virtual reality type rides.
But with the current management im not optimistic as they seem more content to add carny rides with a little theming.

[All Aboard]

Chad, Spidey's a 40" attraction (like Splash, Big Thunder, Test Track, ToT, Dinosaur). The average kid reachs 40" around 3 1/2 years old. Natalie hit 40" at 3 yrs, 3 mos.

[larworth]

As we drift away for the clone discussion, and Greg beats me to the height restriction question.

Didn’t someone (Hill?) infer the ride concept that became Spiderman was originally conceived by WDI, but was another idea that migrated to Universal following that big WDI purge. Regardless, Universal deserves credit for developing the idea into a great attraction and spending the bucks to do it right. Man, it sure would have made a great Villians ride at Disney.

Also, heard another misconception is what IOA really cost. That it was not the enormous number that often gets reported (*). Supposedly, Universal had an early press release saying they were going to spend $2-3B at their resort over the next x years. This included IOA, Citywalk, all the new hotels, and other future projects on the board at the time. One estimate I’ve read pegged IOA around $1B? If we think DCA (sans DD) was in the $0.6B range, this does seem reasonable.

Can’t comment on the cutting edge nature of the TDS rides, but isn’t the whole issue is we’re still using Indy as our Disney reference point (1995). We know WDI is capable of cutting edge, the issue is whether Disney (not OLC, and not a sponsor) is willing to fund it.


(*) I just read another article about the Pooh litigation and it again quotes the $4B revenue number. Easy to see how these things just keep getting recycled. I’d asked before whether this was a realistic sum. AV if you have any insight into the Pooh scene, dig up the “Pooh and the Money Pot” thread and enlighten, please.

[Another Voice]

The ride vehicle at used in Universal’s ‘Spiderman’ is a significant upgrade to the basic “motion-base” vehicle first used by Disney in ‘Indiana Jones’. And Disney’s vehicle was really putting a theater based motion simulator on wheels. They represent an evolution of the concept rather than massive leaps in technology. The real change on Universal’s part was to integrate the ride vehicle with 3D large format animation – a very difficult challenge. Disney had thought of a similar concept, but killed it because they thought it was too expensive (first versions would have been for a Roger Rabbit attraction). The huge number of other show effects in ‘Spiderman’ are also very impressive.

I too have heard that the ‘Island of Adventure’ park cost around $1 billion (with one clone) – about the same cost of the DisneySea park (also with one clone). Universal’s expansion included CityWalk, two hotels, parking structures and infrastructure. Similarly, the expansion at Tokyo Disneyland included the Ikaspria [sp?] entertainment section, four hotels, a very large monorail system and other infrastructure work besides the new park. The California Adventure expansion (with numerous clones and catalog purchases) included the smaller Downtown Disney and the Grand Californian Hotel. The parking structure, roadwork and garden district were all paid for by my taxes (a complete scam).

The attractions at DisneySea don’t represent technological breakthroughs – they’re just really well done, well thought-out attractions. You don’t have to reinvent the film stock every time to make a good movie, and DisneySea took existing ride systems and made better rides. ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ is the Test Track ride system, ‘Stormrider’ is an upgraded ‘Star Tours’ cabin, ‘Aladdin’ is a basic boat & canal ride.

Reusing the ride system is not cloning, because that’s not the ride. No one goes on ‘Pirates’ or ‘Small World’ just for the boat. It’s the story line and the show that people are interested in. Cloning is when you take the same exact show and build it in another park. So, ‘Indiana Jones’ and ‘Dinosaur’ are not clones even though they use the exact same ride system and even the same exact track layout. But ‘Big Thunder’ WDW and ‘Big Thunder’ Disneyland are clones even with different tracks.

[raidermatt]

Just a comment or two on the Disneyland as a resort topic (I'll try to be brief...:D )

I've been to Disneyland two times in the last 10 years. I had been a much more frequent visitor before that, and plan to be a more frequent visitor in the future. Regardless, back in 1992, Disneyland could not even be thought of as a resort destination. The thought of taking an entire vacation, even a short 4-5 days and only going to DL never crossed my mind. Last August, we did just that, never leaving the confines of the resort. We spent one day at DCA (yes, that is possible, particularly on a Summer weekend), 2.5 days at DL, and some time in DD, and our hotel, GC.

No, DLResort cannot match WDW. But at least now it clearly is a resort option. DL is still a better park than MK, by most accounts, and GC is a top quality resort that is the equal of the WDW deluxes. The Western States continue to grow, including California, Nevada and Arizona. Florida is a long way away, and its just not realisitic to expect families to make frequent trips from the West Coast (Disney nuts aside). Also, remember that a lot of Japanese tourists visit Hawaii and Calfornia as well as Orlando. DL gives them a viable option for at least 1-2 days longer than it did before.

Also, its my understanding that DD has been very succesful, due in large part to local traffic.

Anaheim is far enough away from Orlando that cloning some rides is not going to kill its attractiveness as a resort.

Again, I don't want to see innovation die at Disney, its just that I'm not yet convinced that is what is happening.

[JeffJewell]

...first, we'll never agree on something like this because the term "cloned ride" can mean anything from DLP's Space Mountain to AK's Triceratops Spin to MK's Pirates of the Caribbean to DCA's Tower of Terror (yes, I'm going to speak of it as though it was already built. The aspects of the ride I'm concerned about aren't going to change between now and then), so "cloned rides," as a generic term, can be all over the map of "good" and "bad."

Second, there seems to be a tendency to forget that "cloning" is just a process, a tool for making rides. That tool can be used well or poorly, for a variety of purposes. Even if we agreed on a precise definition of what "cloning" means and which rides are or are not clones, we would be talking about _results_ of a process and not the process itself. The argument "So-and-so is a cloned ride and it's good, therefore cloning is good" is completely hollow. The Salt Lake City Olympics are likely the safest games ever because of what happened on 9-11, but it does not follow that we should crash planes into buildings to help secure the upcoming Grecian games. You simply can't accurately judge the fitness of a process by inspecting isolated results of that process.

So, we can't meaningfully judge whether "cloning rides" is an appropriate general purpose tool for Disney to use when making rides. We'll just end up talking about which clones Group X likes and which clones Group Y doesn't like, and back to the list-y place, we go.

My concern about cloning (already alluded to by a couple of posters) is that the cloning tool, which undeniably has its place in the Imagineering toolbox, now appears to be the primary weapon with which to fight any given battle. In this life, it is the muscles that you exercise regularly that become strong and comfortable to use. My concern for some years has been that Disney was overusing the Cloning and Buying Off The Shelf muscles while the WDI muscle withered.

And now, the WDI muscle has pretty much dropped off, completely.

We can all go enjoy (or ignore, as is our pleasure) the cloned and shelf-bought rides, without even considering their clone status, at the time. But every time one of those rides goes into a Disney park, Disney becomes less of a creative company.

And that brings us nicely back to the same thing I end up typing every time (which is the main reason I just don't do this much anymore); I'm disappointed in Disney because their focus is no longer creating entertainment, it is creating profit; and that change in focus is readily apparent in their product.

Cloning is bad not because it's a bad tool. Cloning is bad because Disney is using it at the expense of other, more robust tools, and with the sole intention being to make money. If Disney was still flexing its other ride-making muscles, with the driving focus being to make great entertainment, no one would bemoan the occasional clone, of whatever stripe.

Jeff

[Bob O]

I would agree with JeffJewel in that disney is using the cloning of rides to save money with less concern about the guest experience. I think innovation is dying at wdi and has been so for awhile and the overuse of clones/carny rides is a example of it. Disney at one time was known for innovation and pushing the envelope for rides/shows to increase the guest experince but now they care little about that unless a outside sponser can be found to pay for it. They are letting companies such as Universal and even Six Flags push the envelope in creating new rides/attractions for their guests(unless of course somebody else pays for it like mission space).

[raidermatt]

But has Disney always been the "innovator" when it comes to their actual rides? Disneyland itself was a new concept, and therefore much of it was innovative. But most of the rides themselves weren't really state of the art. It has always been the themeing and attention to detail that was the difference, at least in my eyes.

Were Space Mountain or the Matterhorn the biggest, fastest, or even most technolically advanced coasters available? I don't believe so. The Fantasyland dark rides are basically the same old "fun house" rides that can be found in carnivals and county fairs.

The audio-animatronic stuff was pretty innovative, but didn't Disney then just clone it throughout Disneyland?

Its always been about themeing and detail.

Choosing cloning over something brand new and different was never an option until MK opened, and then the decision was to clone the vast majority of it. Next, Epcot came, and it was certainly different, but did it really contain state-of-the-art, innovative rides? Now Disney has 6 parks in the United States alone, not to mention the overseas parks. If they were coming up with 1 new type of ride every 2 years prior to WDW, they would now have to come up with three every year just to keep the same pace per park, and that's only in the U.S. That maybe a nice fantasy for us Disney addicts, but its just not realistic to expect Disney to do this. Ultimately, if a sponser doesn't want to pay for it, the public must, in the form of either higher prices or more frequent trips. If the public is not willing to do that in large enough numbers, a responsible company must act accordingly.

Soarin' Over California certainly fits in the best tradition of Disney attractions. We'll have to see if Space is up to Snuff, but it has the potential.

Disney hasn't slowed there innovations so much as increased the number of outlets they have for those innovations.

[hopemax]

And here's where I recommend the book " Roller Coasters, Flumes and Flying Saucers." It's the story of Ed Morgan and Karl Bacon and Arrow Development (now Arrow Dynamics). It's not exactly the best book in the world, the author basically interviewed them and typed up the dialog. After reading the book, I found a greater appreciation for where the amusement park industry really was and how big of deal Disneyland's rides really were, even though now they are standard fare.

I don't know, is the first steel roller coaster innovative or not? From a few minutes checking a couple coaster websites they point to the Matterhorn as *the* defining point in roller coaster history. It opened up so many new directions. I believe Space Mountain was the first coaster to be controlled by a computer, which must have an impact on safety, capacity, etc. Is biggest and fastest the only thing that counts?

Amazon link to the book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965735354/qid=1013557631/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_3_1/103-2981810-8823828)

[JeffJewell]

Soarin' Over California certainly fits in the best tradition of Disney attractions. I'm puzzled by this. Earlier in your post you say "it's always been about theming and detail" (I'm interested to hear your feelings concerning the DCA Tower of Terror project; particularly the theming and details that Disney won't even bother to clone, just so it can be put up more cheaply). Soarin' is an evolutionary and fairly generic ride mech in front of a movie screen; unthemed in and of itself. You see as you walk in that you're about to watch a big movie. I see Soarin', fun ride or not, as an example of some of the worst of Disney's cost cutting practices. They took a cool idea (hanging-coaster style theatre seating over an IMAX screen) and just stopped. From what I've seen and gleaned, there are no themed details at all in the theatre itself (all the better to to one day put in a "new ride" by buying a new IMAX movie), and there is not even a real story... just random shots of California, over which you soar, for no readily apparent reason.

That may be a fun ride, but to my eye, it's completely bereft of traditional Disney Magic.

"Theming and detail" are important to a ride to the extent that they support the story of that ride. Triceratops Spin has gobs of brightly colored paint, but fails to elevate itself from a local parking lot carnival because the "story" is basically that it _is_ a parking lot carnival.

Mission:Space once had a story, but Compaq didn't cough up enough to cover that. When Disney discovered that the theming and detail that told the "take a trip to another planet" story would come out of their own pockets, suddenly those theme and detail elements are cut from the project, taking the story with them. The "story" now is "ride a g-force simulator," which, interestingly enough, is precisely the story that can be told by anyone else who buys a g-force simulator from ETC.

They basically created the "theme" by copying off of the purchase order. What a cost savings _that_ must have been...

You are right that theming and detail make the difference, but to qualify as the "best tradition of Disney," that theming and detail should serve to tell a good story.

Turns out that good stories often cost more than Disney thinks we're worth.

Jeff

[raidermatt]

Hopemax-

I think we are basically looking at it from a guest experience perspective. So the first steel roller coaster would be a big step. I didn't realize the Matterhorn was the first.

The first controlled by a computer wouldn't really be a big deal for guests. Sure, it could improve load times and the such, but we're talking about what makes us go "Wow", and in the case of Space Mountain, as well as the other two Mountains, its the themeing.

[raidermatt]

Jeff- Regarding ToT, I'm witholding judgement until there are more details available. From what I gather from AV and other rumors, the pre-ride elements may or may not be included. The main difference AV references is some of the horizontal movement is gone, but I believe even he admits this is rumor. Its not that I doubt his sincerity, but until I hear for sure what's in and what's out, how can I judge? I can say in advance, that IF elements are removed, without some kind of upgrade in another way, I will be disappointed with the decision.

Soarin'- Admittedly, I only rode it once, and it was as my Fastpass window was ending, so I didn't look much at the queue area. Given the theme of the park, soaring over various places in California makes sense. Perhaps their could have been more theme elements added to the ride itself, and perhaps I will notice this more when I ride it again. But I listed it mainly in response to those criticizing Disney for not adding new rides, but rather cloning. Soarin' is definitely not a clone.

Re: Space- I remember this debate from a few months ago, saying that theming something as a simulator is a cheap way out. My first reaction is to say that there is some merit to that. But I think it worked with Test Track, and it COULD work with Space. Again, I will withold judgement until I have more verified details.

[Another Voice]

The lateral movement in DCA’s ‘Tower’ is definitely out. It’s not a “rumor” anymore. Some claim the “mirror stop” actually improves the show, I’m not so sure. Even the published artwork of the building itself reflect the missing back section of the “hotel”. The details as far as I know are posted in the “DCA Tower – Details” thread here.

The entire ‘Soaring’ attraction is without any themeing and just the barest minimum of décor. It did have some rather elaborate show elements at one point – including an air show preshow and a themed theater for the film – but those were cut away. Today, the queue is nothing but chains, the “preshow” are pictures and placards on the wall of one of three hallways (and some junkyard purchased wing flaps) and even my local multiplex has more themeing in the “Palace Theater” than ‘Soaring’ has.

The end result is that the entire attraction is nothing but the film and slight simulator effect – and judge for yourself who quickly movies become stale theme park attractions. Even at one year old, there is a decline in attendance at ‘Soaring’.

I’ve been getting conflicting information about ‘Space’ (a lot of conflicting information) so I’ve haven’t written anything about it. When I hear something the seems credible I’ll definitely pass it along.

P.S. I’ve heard that the Matterhorn was also the first rollercoaster that allowed multiple trains on the same track at the same time. But to echo JeffJewel’s comments – the ride technology doesn’t matter, it’s the story that makes an attraction.

[Lanshark]

Since chances are I will never make it to DL I would love to see them clone some of DL's rides at WDW.

[King Triton]

I agree, I don't want to see the Muppets and Star Wars at Disneyland. Each park should be different. One exception: I wish Disney would build "Journey Into the Center of the Earth" ride in Orlando. I have a question.....why is it all the best rides are over in Japan?:confused: Why can't we have a Disneysea over here? DCA is a big let down once you compare it with Disneysea. :( It looks like the Imagineers spent very little time designing DCA. How sad.

King Triton:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[JeffJewell]

why is it all the best rides are over in Japan...because the Oriental Land Company (who paid for TDS) felt high quality was worth paying for; that high quality would continue paying dividends for decades into the future.Why can't we have a Disneysea over here? ...because the suits in charge of Disney feel that high quality is _not_ worth paying for; that people will pay for anything as long as it says Disney on the side, and that the future is someone else's problem.It looks like the Imagineers spent very little time designing DCA. ...it's not the time, it's the budget. The same Imagineering Department that came up TDS came up with Dino-Rama, the difference was not how much time they spent on design, it was how much they were allowed to spend on materials.

Jeff

[Another Voice]

Actually Mr. Scoop – the best Disney attractions are Disneyland’s ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ and ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye’.

Just to set the record straight.

[Bob O]

I would agree whole heartedly with JeffJewell's last post!!! Its all about the money.
I havent been too Indiana Jones yet at DL but for my money the best two rides/attarctions would be Tower of Terror and POC!!! They have all elements put together in a great package.

[OnWithTheShow]

Tower is number one in my books

[raidermatt]

AV/Scoop- You're both 1/2 right. If forced to narrow it down to two, Its Splash and Pirates. This is a pure and simple fact, and cannot be disputed.:p

Show, I'm not sure what to say. Tower is great, but not in the top 2. Again, fact, not opinion, so any protests are rejected in advance.:D

[DVC-Landbaron]

Raidermatt And DVC-LandBaron In Total Agreement!!!

AV/Scoop- You're both 1/2 right. If forced to narrow it down to two, Its Splash and Pirates. This is a pure and simple fact, and cannot be disputed.ABSOLUTELY!!! RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!

And you are right! It is a fact!!!

Just for the record, the next paragraph is also 100% correct!! (but I didn't want to quote the whole darn post!!)

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[YoHo]

Haven't read this whole post, but Last year I did a poll on what the members of the DIS thought was the best ride. the results are sitting on a PC at my Old Job in Illinois. I'll scrounge around in the Debate Boards to see If I can find it.

[YoHo]

Alas the post has been lost in the Ether forever.


As I recall, PoC, Haunted Mansion and Splash mountain made the top 5 with Splash Mountain being the most popular. Indiana Jones was high among people who have been to disneyland.

[All Aboard]

Landbaron, I thought your favorite attraction was Cranium Command. :) I remember YoHo's poll, while you didn't really have it #1, it was in your top 5. It was then that I realized just how seriously you took all this stuff.

But, all a youse are only half right. The two greatest Disney attractions are PoC & HM. No question.

[d-r]

Honestly, I don't know if anyone would agree with me, but I would put ToT in front of Disneyland's Indiana Jones.

Disclaimers: I rode ctx before ever riding Indiana Jones, and thought about it while riding it; I've only ridden Indiana Jones 3x; I probably can't be trusted in these sorts of opinions because I like Disneyworld's Pirates better than Disneylands.

In any regard, the top two Disney attractions are actually Breathless and drinking beer around show case, anyway.

DR

[DVC-Landbaron]

Landbaron, I thought your favorite attraction was Cranium Command. I remember YoHo's poll, while you didn't really have it #1, it was in your top 5. It was then that I realized just how seriously you took all this stuff.I'm afraid this is another one that I'll stand alone on. When the poll was taken Cranium Command was still in my head from a conversation with one of my kids. She had done something without thinking and I told her that if she kept it up she'd wind up piloting a chicken!!

Anyway, I cannot defend it. But it has a certain appeal to me that I can't explain. Maybe it was because, as you know, I'm fairly well versed in Disney (probably wrong most of the time, but well versed) and it took me by surprise. I hadn't even heard about it!! (Maybe rightly so!) And only discovered it when we approached the sign. It surprised me.

Upon further reflection it is not a top 5. But I still like it!!!!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[YoHo]

Cranium Command Rules and I agree with Pirates and Mansion. everything else pales in comparison.

(on my trip to disneyland the Mrs. and I went back and forth between the 2 like 4 times. they were the only rides we went on more then twice.

[JeffJewell]

Anyway, I cannot defend it. ...I certainly will.

Cranium Command is a must-do for us, every trip. It's got a great storyline, and is extraordinarily well-written: entertaining, hilarious in places, and leaves a simple and valuable message. The celebrity casting was impeccable, and all gave inspired performances.

Cranium Command is a small scale project, but it reeks of old-style Disney Magic: making the absolute most of what it is, in the name of telling the story.

It's probably not one of my top five, but I'd not argue with anyone who put it on their own list.

Jeff

PS: I honestly don't know when this was added, so I don't even know who I'm giving credit (I'll make the educated guess it was a Wells/Eisner era project, though).

PPS: I re-ditto PoC and HM.

[Bob O]

I would also agree that Cranium Command is a great show. But im afraid that some of the younger generation may not like it as much as us who enjoy the humor that they may not get!!! I hope it stays around for a long time!!!! I always enjoy seeing the show and getting pumped up!!!

[All Aboard]

Cranium Command opened in 1989.

And, yes, it "rules." Sort of. It's fun and entertaining, but doesn't live up to my standard (am I allowed to have one?) for classic Disney attraction.

The casting was absolutely dead-on. For 1989, though. The next generation may not identify George Wendt with "eating" and Bobcat Goldthwait with "going berzerk." So, as a "timeless classic" in the same category with PoC and HM, I just can't put it there.

I know you're asking, "why can't GC just agree with anything?"

[JeffH]

Cheers should be in syndication for quite a while, so George's character should be known for quite a while, and Bobcat plays the part in such a way that he defines himself (no previous knowledge of him is needed), every show (as does Went and Groden as well). Groden has enjoyed more success since that show debuted with his own show recently. But despite that, I think they fit their roles so well that whether you know who they are doesn't really matter.

[Bob O]

I agree the actors played their roles well and were a perfect fit. But as we grow older that younger people who come may not identify with them as much as we do. I hope its not replaced because wdw hasnt done a great job of making better replacements than the original attraction. I would agree its not a timeless classic but still a excellant show!

[YoHo]

Umm, If the Actors are doing there Jobs right, then it won't matter if they are still "relevent"

Personally, If the show only works, because people know who George Wendt is, then the show is worthless.

Since a Number of people here have talked about how good the show is, I can only assume that it is good, and therefore WHO the actors are is completely irrelevent.

Ironically this is the EXACT problem with the current Universe of Energy. Ellen is already largly irrelevent and Bill Nye while he probably has a longer shell life isn't much better.

ELLEN's energy Adventure will die, because nobody remembers who Ellen is.

[Bob O]

Yoho i think it matters to the younger park goers if the people in the show are relevant to them. If they arent familiar with the people some parts like the Satuday Night guys who want to pump you up will fall on deaf ears, with comments like girly man that they arent familiar iwth and may not find it as funny as i do. I liked the energy ride better without Ellen.

[YoHo]

But how many Disney projects use relativly unknown voice or screen acting and still hold relevence? Is the Voice of the little mermaid still relevent. Do you think that first time viewers of Mary Poppins care how relevent Julie Andrews is?

Or the Genie. Do you think most children or tweens care that it was Robin Williams that did that Voice? Or is the fact that he gave such a great performance all that is relevent?


George Wendt Started the SuperFans on SNL. Has the Superfans slang died out as Wendt's career has? Not to my knowledge, but I used to live in Chicago. That's how we all talk. ;)


I don't see how it being live action makes a difference. I stand by my statement The quality performance and script are 100% more important then the actor's reputations. Cranium command won't lose relevence due to the actors.


And yeah, Ellen's Energy Adventure had . . . OTHER issues as well. But it still suffers by trying to draw on her popularity/Noteriety.

[YoHo]

Another Thought. With Cable and Satellite now penetrating like never before and the lovely Comedy Central, We can rest assured that kids will always be exposed to Arnold's cousins and two WIld and Crazy guys.

[All Aboard]

But how many Disney projects use relativly unknown voice or screen acting and still hold relevence? Is the Voice of the little mermaid still relevent. Do you think that first time viewers of Mary Poppins care how relevent Julie Andrews is?

Exactly! Your examples point to instances where it didn't and doesn't matter. To me, it completely matters in Cranium Command.

This is only speculation, but I'd venture to guess that if I wasn't familiar with the SNL Hans and Franz sketches, hadn't watched Norm every Thursday night through the 1980's and hadn't suffered through a couple of Police Academy movies, I wouldn't "get" most of the stuff in Cranium Command. Nor would it be anywhere near as funny to me. Perhaps I'm wrong. But, if I'm right, it will continue to lose its luster and won't be able to stand the test of time.

It's nice and all, I'm just arguing that it can't be mentioned in the same breath as PoC, HM, or Splash.


Oh, and one more thing. I don't like the fact that it relies on personas created outside of Disney for it's impact. That's what I don't like about Rock n Roller, Star Tours or yes, even Tower of Terror. I really wish ToT was done without the Twilight Zone storyline. I think it could have worked generically and I would have much preferred it.

[hopemax]

I didn't know who Hans & Franz were nor Charles Grodin were when I saw Cranium Command the first time, but that didn't affect my enjoyment of Cranium Command any. Hans & Franz seem like Arnold Schwartzenegger types and I suppose if he fades then it could become a problem but I think Arnie is one of those people who future people will remember the same way people of mine can recognize Jimmie Stewart or Fred & Ginger; some people just stick.

Cranium Command is one of the better "famous people" castings, IMO (I normally hate them). Younger generations may not get George Wendt/Norm but I think it works that a fat guy would be manning the stomach operations. And you don't need to get Bobcat's shtick to think a crazy guy manning the adrenal gland is funny either.

[King Triton]

Thanks Jeff. I wish the Disney suits over here will realize high quality is the best way to go. The irony is high qualify will pay big dividends in the long run. If you can't build it right, then don't build it at all. Check out this website to see the cool rides over in DisneySea www.barrybedford.com. The difference between DCA and DisneySea is like night and day. You're right....it's all about the budget. But you get what you pay for. I think if Walt were alive today, he would have scrapped DCA and built DisneySea over here. What do you think?

King Triton

[YoHo]

Normally I would agree with the "Outside Disney" Theory except for 2 things. In the Disney/MGM Studios, they Celebrate movies, not Disney. Having Twilight zone and Star Wars is the Entire point. In fact Its Eisners Lets use the Studio's to promote every crappy show or movie we make plans that have me worried about that park. The best parts of the Studios have nothing to do with Disney and that's the way it should be IN THAT PARK.

As for cranium command, I agree with hopemax, yes, many of those actors are associated with the shtick they potray, BUT, they do it so well that they trancend there previous characters.

Plus, to me its different when its schtick as opposed to say mimicing an entire film or T.V. Show.

Seinfeld Presents Cranium command wouldn't work for me as an example.


I agree Cranium COmmand is no Pirates or HM, but then very few other rides come close. Indy does to a certain extent Jungle cruise does. Small world Love it or hate it is close. The old JII did.

Still, just cause it ain't number one doesn't make it bad.

[airlarry!]

Baron, your initial analysis was correct. Cranium Command is a hidden jewel at Epcot, and is still Cranium Command one of my top five attractions at WDW. Okay, if not everyone's top five attraction, it should still be the #1 show at WDW. Splash & POC are still my top two...hasn't changed since Yoho!'s last poll.

I believe Cranium was made by the same guys as Atlantis & B&B, Wise & Troubadour. Isn't that right? They made the little show, (and the pre-show for anyone that hasn't seen it -- NOT TO BE MISSED!), and someone saw it and scooped them up for directorial assignments.

I believe that is how the story goes. I'm sorry that more people don't know about this one...it largely goes unlooked by the non-Disney regular crowd.

[Peter Pirate]

I love Crainium Command! So does my wife. Our 12 year old daughter though, thinks it's only mildly amusing...The show is passe & doomed, IMO. No matter how good the casting was, they'll need to recast with more relevent actors in the near future...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bob O]

I would agree with gcurling post, in its entirety!!! Excellant points!!! What do you think disney would do if lets say the members of Aerosmith were all caught doing drugs or one of them was the cause of a fatal accident?? Disney is very worried about their image and that wouldnt benefit them if this happened would it??? When you use outside persona's you can never know what it could lead to. You can control a cartoon charachter also easier.

[All Aboard]

The best parts of the Studios have nothing to do with Disney and that's the way it should be IN THAT PARK. Well YoHo, you've identified my chief problem with the Studios. It's that Disney had to go outside of "Disney" in order to react and compete with the guys down the street. I suppose that's what they wanted, but why? Most of Epcot has nothing to do with Disney either, but it doesn't rely on content created by other entertainment companies.

[YoHo]

Because Disney is not and Never was the only studio in Hollywood. a themepark based on the Glory days of Hollywood would be really lame if it only delt with one company. This is in fact one of my biggest problems with Universal.

That and the Fact that Universal Studios Florida Does NOT have the same theme as Disney/MGM studios although Mikey has done his best to change that.

Combined with the fact that Disney did not venture into every Genre in the old days.

The Studios used to be so nice. It was old hollywood. it had excellent SHOW, it was fun. NOW half of it is an undisguised promotional vehicle for Disney produced media. I'd tolerate the kids stuff, except that I don't see what any of it has to do with the actual SHOW trying to be presented. The studios is a Theme gone wrong and is my greatest example of how Eisner has ruined the Parks. I don't agree with all of Landbaron's complaints with this park. It actually would take very little in the way of changes for me to regain my faith here.

[YoHo]

Update Darn you

[All Aboard]

I'll shoot my point from this direction:

If Disney decided they wanted to do a studios theme park (and they only did it to beat Universal to the punch) and they knew that in order to recapture the glory days of Hollywood they would have to include attractions based on films outside their library. Thennnn..... maybe they should not have built this park in the first place.

Intrestingly, the reason you dislike Universal Studios is the reason I kind of like it. It's more pure. It's a theme park by Universal about Universal.

I'd try to draw an anology using some other company. But, honestly, I can't think of one stronger than:

It's like Disney building a theme park and then using a bunch of other companies' movies in it to make it work.

[YoHo]

Here's a question. Is the Magic Kingdom/Disneyland a themepark about Disney?

If you answer yes, then the Studio's should never have been built, because it is redundent.
If you answer no, then a Park about Old Hollywood that is not Disney Specific makes complete sense. The only Difference is that unlike the old west or Grand Adventure, or the future or even the future that never was, Old Hollywood was populated by studios that have copyrights and trademarks.

Personally, Universal certainly has more homegrown property to use. At the same time, they clearly have a different theme. (That being the Theme of Universal Studios) as opposed to the Theme of Old Hollywood.

Things Disney could add to make The Studios more in Line with its SHOW, yet satisfy gcurling would be.
Walts original House somewhere.
More street Performers.

Things YoHo would like to see that may or may not meet the All Disney Standard.

Some Old time radio fun.
More low ticket rides Think Superstar limo, but not crappy.

[All Aboard]

I guess I'm still not quite making my point, or we just plain disagree.

A theme park about Old Hollywood is a fine idea.

HOWEVER...

If Disney's gonna be the one to do it, and they MUST use:

Indiana Jones
Star Wars
Muppets
Aerosmith
Casablanca
Twilight Zone
Footlight Whatever
Public Enemy
Alien
Wizard of Oz
etc.
etc.
etc.

THEN

maybe Disney shouldn't do that park.

It's kinda like Nike World featuring attractions based on Adidas and Reebok. Disney-MGM Studios was a reactionary effort to snag some of Universal's market share. And in doing so, they had to rely on previously created content... content from outside. Isn't Disney in the business of creating content?

[YoHo]

I understand your point, BUT the question isn't should Disney have built the park to fend off Universal. Its Should Disney build a Disney Park that celebrates these things even if they have to use other's content, because
1: Disney is the best at making these parks
2: It rounds out the Disney World Expireance

gcurling, are you sure Eisner hasn't jacked your username? this is the exact kind of thinking that put the BAH right in front of Mann's. (not Judging the BAH itself)

I don't think the source of the content is really relevent as long as its appropriate. The content being create dis the rides. in the Case of the Studios, MGM and Lucas (Sort of) are the Equivelent of the Bros. Grimm

[DVC-Landbaron]

Gcurling!! I agree absolutely!!

It should have been a HUGE pavilion at EPCOT (as it was first conceived). It was poorly thought out in the first place and has lost direction ever since!!!

[d-r]

Man gcurling, it must drive you nuts that star tours and Indiana Jones are in the disneyland park...

[YoHo]

Drat, I thought I might get Landbaron to Waver on this one.


Personally, I don't see this fitting in at Epcot, so I'm glad it isn't there.

I like its original theme.
I have zero problems with using outside content prefer it in fact.
I don't think that the Studio ever did match up with Universal well in theme. I think it had a better theme.
I like the theme of the studios better.

[All Aboard]

d-r, but I fall into the trap of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." And that's why much earlier in this thread I said I'd like to see Indy come to WDW.

If I had a choice, I'd much rather see the same level of immersive theming using the same ride system but have it based on a Disney film. And, no, Dinosaur does NOT count. But, if the only way I'm gonna get it is for it to be an Indy clone... so be it. BUT, DON'T put it in the Magic Kingdom or Epcot.

Landbaron, I never liked the idea of the movie pavillion between Imagination and Land. All of the other pavillions focus on broad, general concepts: Imagination, Sea, Land, Communication, Energy, Transporation, Health and Space. Even though Transporation is currently one specific kind of transportation, "Movies" is too specific and doesn't fit Future World to me.

[All Aboard]

YoHo, I do see your perspective. And, yes, alot of great content out there and Disney did some good things with it at the Studios.

But, Disney-MGM Studios still begs the question from many guests "What does Star Wars have to do with Disney?" "IS that a Disney movie?" I just don't think Disney really should have planted the seed for those questions. Disney-MGM Studios (to me) is an example of following, not leading.

As far as I know, Jacob and Wilhelm never put a face on Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty or Snow White. And, those fairy tales are super short 5 page stories written 200 years ago. Walt took those tales and turned them into fascinating stories. Those three ladies have become synonomous with Disney. I can't imagine that ever happening with Star Wars or Aerosmith.

[hopemax]

MGM used to be my favoite park, now it's my least favorite. I liked that the Studios didn't rely completely on the Disney vault. The Disney that I like best is the Disney that recognized that the world does not revolve around Disney. That other people and other groups were capable of accomplishing worthwhile things too. The Monsanto parts of DL's Tomorrowland, Carousel of Progress, Epcot. I really appreciated that Disney would be even willing to showcase someone else's work. To recognize that Disney was only one cog in what makes Hollywood a fun place to be. I have far more respect for the one who says, "I may be great, but so were X, Y, Z; lets celebrate all of us" then the one that says "Hey, look at me! Aren't I so cool." and scoffs at everyone else. Now this need that just about everything be based on a Disney® product, comes off as extremely egotistical and in-your-face self-promotion. It turns me off big time.

[YoHo]

True.

In the case of Star Wars, I suspect that it was simply a matter of being at the right place at the right time. Obvioulsy this is the ride that started the trend. I think at the Time George wanted to put that ride in and Saying no to a Star Wars ride seems pretty stupid.


I do understand your point about content. It is a slippery slope. I think part of my problem is that the attempts that were made to fix that have fallen flat. Of course Muppets might as well have been a Disney brand when that was built.

I won't argue that the Studios was an example of following either it is true.

I guess the heart of the problem is that I liked the Studios the way it was in 1990 or even 1996. I feel like a lot has changed that has hurt the SHOW of this park.

It never really occured to me to care where the content came from until today.

[YoHo]

There, you see, hopemax understands.

[hopemax]

:)

BTW the ® can be made by holding down the Alt while typing 0174

[YoHo]

Did this work

0174

[YoHo]

No it didn't :(

need more explicit directions for making trademark symbols

I=bad at the Internet :)

[JeffJewell]

...you wouldn't happen to be using a Macintosh®, would you?

Jeff

[hopemax]

no, no tags. Just typing. Like to make a capital S you hold down shift and hit S. Hold down Alt hit 0174 on the numerical key pad.

[YoHo]

®


AHH, you need to use the number pad. I tried it without the tags first using the regular number keys. That is why I failed.

®®®

[YoHo]

Ei$ner®


Heh heh heh

[YoHo]

Okay, am I the only ones having problems with the boards updating?

[All Aboard]

Updating is very slow

°oº ®

Æsop's Fables

™ œ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ § ©

[YoHo]

Even better Ei$ner©

Now I can sue Landbaron if he doesn't pay me every time he uses it. :crazy:

[raidermatt]

It's like Disney building a theme park and then using a bunch of other companies' movies in it to make it work.

I take the other side, that a theme park based on Hollywood's past cannot ignore every other studio.

But, I'm curious how you feel about the Disney Channel showing non-Disney movies, such as Back to the Future II, which was on last night.

[YoHo]

I was thinking about this all last night.

1: When the muppet show was built, Disney was distributing their movies and there was and still seems to be at least a faint wish to buy the property. that makes Muppetvision good snese and not completely an outside property. So I'll ignore it for now.


2: The Great Movie ride would be lame with only Disney productions and in maany cases uses broad genera themes as apposed to specific movies. Obviously Alien and the like are there, but again, this ride may be allowed a reprieve.

3: Could any of you honestly say Disney could have done better without using Lucas property on Star Wars and Indiana Jones? This was brilliant and Lucas didn't have a distributor for rides based on his works. makes sense.

4: this leaves us with Twilight zone. This one, Disney could have done without the Property, but I think making it twilghtzone adds something.


My point is not to defend whether or not the park should have been opened. Although with Lucas, DL had it first which may negate those rides. but to show that Disney made better rides (it would seem) by Utilizing other properties. To me, Better SHOW is more important then Not Invented Here. (a policy that has been detrimental in some ways to a large microprocessor concern out west. :))