PDA

View Full Version : DEBATE: What makes a Disney attraction 'successful'?


DisneyKidds
10-21-2002, 11:35 AM
So, what is it folks? What makes a Disney ride/attraction 'successful'? Is it popularity (attendance/lines), is it the quality of the ride mechanism (technology), is it unique identification with Disney (themeing), is it all of the above, none of the above, something entirely different?

How do you define 'success' as it relates to Disney attractions?

Talk amongst yourselves.........................*

*Not so obscure SNL reference.

Fill inthe blank - 'I'm feeling a bit _________' :crazy:.

BRERALEX
10-21-2002, 12:07 PM
sorry for the short answer

what makes a disney ride successful is when its not debated upon here :D

Bob O
10-21-2002, 01:40 PM
To me its the total package!!!! It not based on any specific ride mechanism but how the ride is themed and how the theme is caried out from the beginning to the end. You can have rides as different as TOT/HM/POTC, one is hi-tech and the other's arent but the theme/story is carried out from beginning to end to perfection. Its kind of hard to say what it is exactly but you do know it when you see it/expereince it. To me a great disney ride/attraction is a ride that has the "wow" factor from beginning to end, the theming is excellant and places you right into what ever the ride/attraction is, you are part of that experience.

Luv2Roam
10-21-2002, 02:46 PM
Too me it's the DETAIL that go into the Great Disney attractions, like ToT. When they do something right, they do it right. When it's half done, ya get that carpet ride. ;)

WebmasterCricket
10-21-2002, 02:58 PM
To laugh often and love much, To win the respect of intelligent persons and the affection of children, To earn the approbation of honest citizens, and endure the betrayal of false friends, To appreciate beauty, To find the best in others, To give of oneself, To leave the world a bit better whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition. To have played and laughed with enthusiasm & sung with exultation; To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived - THIS IS TO HAVE SUCCEEDED.

RALPH WALDO EMERSON

DisneyKidds
10-21-2002, 03:09 PM
Mr. J - Love the quote. I actually carry it in my wallet - no kidding. I like to look at it once in a while and share it with others. It provides some lofty, yet attainable goals.

Walt was most defintely successful :). I bet we could adapt it for an attraction ;).

mcdrinkyd
10-21-2002, 03:42 PM
Having read a LOT (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=271825) about this lately, I've come to a few conclusions. For me, anything at WDW is 'magic' if it makes me realize how great things CAN be. Most people (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214067) seem to get goosebumps not from big drops or fast rides but from being stunned that the grass can be a little better, the show can be more breathtaking, the ride can take you a little further away from the mundane. Some rides work great at this, like the Pirates, Splash Mountain, and Small World. Some seem to miss the mark (Alladin, Triceritops spin(IMO)).

The greatest ride I've ever taken was a monorail ride at midnight from the TTC to Epcot to pick up our van, in 1999. My family and I were on the last night of our trip, and my nieces and nephew really wanted to ride in the front cab of the monorail, but this was to be the last monorail of the night, and there was young couple already in the queue. When the CM overheard this, he called another monorail to do an extra trip just for our kids. Needless to say, they were elated. So, we waited another 10 minutes, and our kids sat up front. When we arrived at EPCOT, there was a tram sitting right at the foot of the landing, as the monorail driver had called ahead. To top it off, the back end tram operator let my nieces serenade the driver through the intercom.

A magical time for all, but what made it possible? A) The ride itself was fairly unique. There aren't a lot of monorails in the world, much less ones that let kids ride with the drivers. B) Undoubtably, the service. The CM's bent over backwards to make the experience special. And they were allowed to have fun doing it. So it cost a little bit to run the monorail an extra lap, but the countless thousands that I've spent at WDW will more that cover that. C) The atmoshphere. We had just had a fantastic day, catching Illuminations and FITS, saw a few great shows, and rode a bunch of cool rides. We did this in a safe, family enviroment. We were the last people on a public trasportation terminal at midnight, and we were letting our kids run around the landing without fear that they were going to get mugged or abducted (say that about any other city.) And even after a hundred thousand people or so had gone through the TTC that day, the place was as clean as it had been that morning.

All in all, the entire experience showed me that a higher standard can be met. These same criteria apply to all rides. In the words of Steve Jobs, it was "insanely great."

More E-ticket rides would be great, don't get me wrong. But if I want to ride another roller coaster, I'll go to Six Flags or IOA. Disney has spent a great deal of time and money to make me expect more from an amusment park, and as long as they provide that 'something more', then I'll keep spending my money there.

WebmasterCricket
10-21-2002, 03:46 PM
I think the list IS different for every person.

Some people love the Tiki Birds some hate it. The appearance of success will waver depending on how you view the attraction or what experience you may have during your visit.

mcdrinkyd just gave a perfect example. He made a successful attraction out of a mode of transportation. Some wouldn't even consider the monorail an attraction.

A long time ago, I helped out with a trivia test and one of the questions was "What was the first attraction to close at WDW?"

The answer given was "The preview center". To many, this was an extraordinarily successful attraction, to others, it was a waste of time.


JC

DisneyKidds
10-21-2002, 04:12 PM
Ooops - Sorry JC. I deleted my last post. Since you seem to be commenting on it I will put it back................sorry about that :).

[As previously posted]

Its kind of hard to say what it is exactly but you do know it when you see it/expereince it. To me a great disney ride/attraction is a ride that has the "wow" factor from beginning to end, the theming is excellant and places you right into what ever the ride/attraction is, you are part of that experience.
Bob O - I agree with you. However, wouldn't this make the list of successful attractions different for every person?

PKS44
10-21-2002, 06:29 PM
Storytelling-is it a good story, well told?...all successful Disney rides are...somebody in Disney also appears to have gotten mixed up about this and thinks it has to be a story from a successful movie...somehow the Pirates, the HM, SplashM and SpaceM, succeed without much (as the case of Splash) or any (for the others) identification with any popular movie...

Find a good story, tell it well through the ride-->success.

Paul

DVC-Landbaron
10-21-2002, 07:18 PM
Hmmm… I remember sitting in the Dolphin with Gcurling and Peter Pirate and discussing this very issue a year and a half ago. And after an awful lot of talk we still had no answer. We agreed, for the most part, on rides or attractions that were DEFINITELY Disney. And we agreed on rides that DEFINITELY fell short. And the surprising thing was that we fairly agreed on those that should have WOWed us, the ones that had ALL the right elements, but still… well… just didn’t do it, especially over time!! SO I will ponder it.

In the mean time, just a couple of thoughts on what has already transpired:
Walt was most definitely successfulYeah. For the most part Mr. Kidds you are right, Walt was most definitely successful. But not always!! (Surprised!?!?)

Bob O mirrors my take on the subject. He started his post:To me its the total package!!!! It not based on any specific ride mechanism but how the ride is themed and how the theme is carried out from the beginning to the end. For me it is far easier to say what elements in a Disney attraction don’t matter at all!! And ride mechanism is certainly one of them. BUT! At the same time technology is an intricate part! So where does that leave us? I sure don’t know, but if you’re still following this and have any idea what I mean, or better yet, have an answer, please clue me in!!!

Mr. J. Cricket says:I think the list IS different for every person.And I agree!! It is certainly very subjective, but I really believe that we should be able to come up with a criteria, or standard that should be a good indicator of a Disney “something”.

Some people love the Tiki Birds some hate it. The appearance of success will waver depending on how you view the attraction or what experience you may have during your visit.And here is where I think that a criteria or standard could help. Because I KNOW that some people hate Tiki, but I really think that virtually everyone would admit it is DEFINITELY a Disney attraction!! Just one that they don’t particularly care for!! (I say “virtually” everyone, because I have just finished a similar debate where everyone… Oh well!!) On the other side of the coin, there will be some guilty pleasures! Something that clearly fails as a ‘Disney” attraction, yet you still LOVE anyway!! (a certain ride in Adventureland comes to mind) For me it is that stupid Ice House by Coke!! I HATE it there!! It has no business in EPCOT! NONE!! But, I cannot walk past it! I ALWAYS have to walk though it!! Go figure!
The answer given was "The preview center". To many, this was an extraordinarily successful attraction, to others, it was a waste of time.Ahhhhhh!! The preview Center was GREAT!!!! I loved it!! It was really cool to see the things that were coming. And it even had elements of the 5 year plan, Mr. Kidds!!

Testtrack321
10-21-2002, 10:35 PM
It's the atempt and attatude towards it durring creation. If Pressler (or now Raius, or however you spell his name) hacks the hell out of the budget and they get depressed about the project and want out, then you have it. The'll do a slopy job and everyone will hate it.

It their main focus was doing it cheeply (ToD, JIYI) and quickly, a bad product will come out.

It's those that are nurtured and cared for that succede. Look at a good example. Cranium Comand. This little gem isn't as advertised as Body Wars nor did it get the attention it deserved for awhile. But it's good because the people working on it knew it was a good idea and loved it. They didn't treat it as second rate compared to Body Wars.

Bob O
10-21-2002, 11:04 PM
Testtrack- I agree about Cranium Command, its a gem that isnt that well known but it put together to make a excellant show!!
Disneykids-I would agree that everybody will have their own favorite attraction.
But i think their are some that are mentioned by almost everybody as being a great attraction, be it POTC/TOT/HM as a few examples and i think that is because the attention too detail is their from beginning to end and the story is told in a easily observable manner. And when disney does get it right and out the whole package together no other park kcan match that type of experience and that is why disney is heads and shoulders above the rest, inspite of me!!

SnackyStacky
10-21-2002, 11:58 PM
It seems there's been a morph into two seperate discussions, so I'll try to combine the two discussions into one.

The inital question was what makes a Disney ride "successful". Well, what does successful mean? Does that mean that a lot of people like it?

OR, do we mean it is a "Disney" ride? A ride that would make Walt proud?

Since I think that the original question was in reference to the latter, I'll answer that one.

A ride is successful if:

1.) it has a cohesive, identifiable storyline
2.) it fits into the area where it was built
3.) it fits into the grand scheme of the park in which it was built
4.) the show is carried out from beginning to end
5.) it is innovative (not necessarily new technology, but a new way of using perhaps an older technology or ride format)

For me these 5 criteria can fit anything that I consider a true Disney attraction.

I'll pick a ride from each park that I feel is Disney, and one that I feel isn't true Disney. (And everything is based on a park that is theoretically well-kept and maintained like it SHOULD be)

Magic Kingdom:
Splash Mountain is one of my favorite rides and one that I feel is a true "Disney" experience.
1.) The story line is very clear and apparent. At least it is to me.
2.) I believe that it fits into frontierland, even though marginally. I really think that this would have had a better home in Fantasyland. (I know that the logistics of that would have been nearly if not totally impossible)
3.) I don't think anybody doubts that it fits into the grand scheme of the Magic Kingdom. It belongs there! It's pure magic!
4.) Even on the parts where you could be bored out of your skull, they keep you entertained. Neat plants, and tons of things to look at. All of the effects (lighting, and sound, etc.) are well hidden.
5.) A ride that's been around forever: the log flume. Used in a totally new way.

Small World (I was going to go for the even easier one and use Aladdin, but I figured I'd not rehash that old discussion! :) ) misses the Disney mark, and Walt designed it!

1.) I can loosely feel a storyline, but that's not where I believe it misses the mark.
2.) I don't think this fits into Fantasyland at ALL. I don't think that there's anyplace that it would work anywhere in the Magic Kingdom.
3.) As I said in the last step, I think this ride is a sort of edu-tainment that belongs in World Showcase at Epcot. I don't believe it carries out the Magic Kingdom "feel".
4.) Lighting effects in full view. It looks like the Festival of Lights at Niagara Falls. Cheap, cheezy, and tacky.
5.) I do think that it was innovative. During a time of civil unrest and discrimination, Walt came up with a way of showing his love for all people. (If he was racist or prejudice, he did a damn good job of hiding it...I'm really not sure if that was his intent with this ride, but it's what I took away from it)

Epcot:
For a tried and true successful Epcot attraction, look no further than Spaceship Earth!

1.) The storyline? The development and progression of communication.
2.) One of the problems with labeling something "Future World" is it has to be ever-changing in order to keep up. But when the park was built, this was definitely in the future. One of the last scenes with the families using TVs to translate, and the one that translates? In the 80's that was just the most amazing thought!
3.) It totally fits into the theme of Future World. Because it tries to take a glimpse into the future.
4.) Definitely fits into Epcot. It is both entertaining and educational at the same time.
5.) As far as the 1980's were concerned, this was innovative. Nobody had known how to make a full sphere and not just a dome. Even now, the drainage system is too cool!

Something that misses the mark? Rio de Tiempo.

1.) While the history of Mexico appeared to be the storyline, it was somewhat loose.
2.) Yes, it definitely fits within the Mexican Pavilion.
3.) Yes, definitely fits into World Showcase.
4.) The show is carried out, very well I think. I LOVE the very beginning riding past the pyramid.
5.) THIS is where it misses the mark. There was NOTHING innovative about this ride at all. The boat had been done. No new special effects at all.

MGM:

The Tower of Terror. Whether or not you can get the courage to ride it is one thing, but if you doubt for a moment that it's a Disney ride, take a walk through the queue and use the chicken exit.

1.) Such an awesome storyline! DEFINITELY there, definitely clear.
2.) It sure enough fits into the Sunset Blvd. theme.
3.) Yup, it fits into the Hollywood park!!!
4.) The show is executed with such perfection. The attention to detail is absolutely amazing. As I said, just walk through the queue and use the chicken exit. It's AMAZING to see!!!!
5.) Definitely innovative. I don't think anybody has ridden an elevator that leaves the shaft, or that falls faster than gravity.

Missing the mark? The Muppets 3D.

1.) Was there even a storyline? If there was I don't remember it. In fact I remember one of the characters saying it wasn't a dumb excuse for 3D effects.
2.) Isn't this in the New York area of the park? Was the Muppet theatre supposed to be in New York? It just didn't fit to me.
3.) I don't see how it fits into the park. I don't think it had anything to do with the Hollywood theme.
4.)A great show!!!! It definitely hits the mark here for me. They actually destroy the theater!!!!!
5.) NOTHING innovative here. The 3D technology had been done in Epcot with Honey I Shrunk the audience. The same water and air tricks and whatnot had been used before?

Animal Kingdom:

Hitting the mark is the Kilimanjaro Safaris.

1.) Although it definitely felt tacked on, a storyline was very clear.
2.) DEFINITELY fits into Africa!
3.) DEFINITELY fits into Animal Kingdom.
4.) There is no better show than live animals as far as I'm concerned.
5.) I've been on open-air safaris before. We have one close to Buffalo in Canada. But they don't have climate controlled rocks, and lures to get the animals to come. They have trams, not unique modified trucks.

What doesn't hit the mark is Primeval Whirl.

1.) Storyline? Is there supposed to be one? If so I don't see it.
2.) It fits into it's area of a roadside carnival.
3.) It does NOT fit into the Animal Kingdom. Unless roadside carnivals now travel to exotic places.
4.) I don't think that there is any show to this piece. It just lacks. It's a wild mouse coaster. Nothing else.
5.) If the cars spinning on a wild mouse counts as innovative, then I suppose it is innovative. But it seems like such an antiquated ride.

Those are the factors that I think can show if a Disney ride is successful.

BRERALEX
10-22-2002, 12:32 AM
5.) NOTHING innovative here. The 3D technology had been done in Epcot with Honey I Shrunk the audience. The same water and air tricks and whatnot had been used before?

not a big deal but wasnt the muppets first?

i hear what your sayin about muppets missing the mark at mgm but yeah like you said the show is a hit with me too.

DisneyKidds
10-22-2002, 08:44 AM
Ah, Mr. Stacky – good observation. Now, before we move on, does everyone see it? You are right my Snacky friend; it does seem that people are discussing two different questions here. One would be ‘What makes a Disney attraction successful’? The other would be ‘What makes a Disney attraction ‘Disney’? Just want to make sure we are clear. Sometimes those nuances can be difficult for some people to see ;).

So, SS, you have chosen to answer the latter question, and it is a good answer. Thanks for sharing. However, the question of what is ‘Disney’, what makes Disney ‘Disney’, when does ‘Disney’ cease to exists – well, they have been discussed at length just a few ;) times. Not that it isn’t a great discussion to have, but I was going for something else. I know there may be some people contributing now that haven’t had the pleasure :crazy: of one of those lengthy discussions on ‘Disney’. I’m sure there are some around here who would love to oblige and pick that discussion up again. But I was looking for a new avenue to explore with this thread.

I quite deliberately, and very carefully, chose the word ‘successful’. Now, on the surface, some may consider those two question above to be one and the same, that ‘success’ and ‘Disney’ are inextricably linked when it comes to Disney attractions. That is a great point for discussion. Let me pose a few questions in that regard.

Can a Disney attraction that many would agree IS ‘Disney’ end up NOT BEING successful?

Can a Disney attraction that many would agree IS NOT ‘Disney’ end up BEING successful?

If the answer to these questions is no, then ‘success’ and ‘Disney’ are indeed one and the same when it comes to Disney attractions. However, if the answer is yes, then one must have a different answer for what constitutes ‘success’ and what makes something ‘Disney’ when it comes to Disney attractions.

Your thoughts………………….*

………Snack-a-lack-a-ding-dong…………………………………………..
………DVC-one-if-by-Land-baron…............................................ ...............
………BobO-my favorite clown……........................................... .................
………JC-don’t-step-on-my-Cricket……………………………………….
………mc-I-need-a-drinkyd………………………………………………...
………PKS-44-22-hut-hut-hike…………………………………………….
………Luv2-4-6-8-who-do-we-appreciate-Roam………………………….
………Brer-I’ve-got-a-thorn-in-my-a**-Alex………………………………
………Disney-what-do-you-live-for-to-give-everyone-a-headache-Kidds…
………Testing-testing-1-2-3-track………………………………………….
………Anybody else? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?.......................................


* Either an obscure reference to yet another SNL skit, or how a certain Disney Company owned network’s sportscaster might call out members on the Disney discussion field of play ;). And yes, in case you are wondering, I had nothing better to do on the train this morning :crazy:.

WebmasterCricket
10-22-2002, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Can a Disney attraction that many would agree IS NOT ‘Disney’ end up BEING successful?

Shooting gallery in Frontierland.

I wouldn't exactly call that "Disney" and yet someone probably shovels out the quarters hourly. I'm sure it wouldn't still be there if it wasn't successful.

Which brings up another point. Does longevity help define or validate an attractions success?

JC

DisneyKidds
10-22-2002, 09:39 AM
Does longevity help define or validate an attractions success?
Good question, one I was holding back ;).

I, too, was thinking of what I might consider successful and unsuccessful Disney attractions. I'll hold off on that for now, but one I thought of was Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Obviously gone now, and for years prior to closure it didn't exactly pack them in. However, I'm sure there are many that considered this ride 'Disney' and a 'success' at one time. So, was Mr. Toad's a successful Disney attraction? I really don't know :confused:.

The more I think about it I DON'T think longevity is a given for a successful attraction. I'm sure we can all think of attractions that were wonderful, or at least we thought were wonderful, that have closed. Carousel of Progress comes to mind (although it technically isn't closed I guess - but might as well be given how infrequentlyit is open). Of course that begs the question - why did they close? Perhpas it gets back to that personal list of successful attractions :crazy:.

WebmasterCricket
10-22-2002, 09:53 AM
I'll throw out another twist.

The "skyway" (I'm not sure if that was the official name or not) was not "Disney" nor was it exactly successful, but damn if there wasn't always a line at both ends.

I think that attraction (or was it transportation :confused: ) wasn't attractive due to the ride, but the view it provided and possibly the "rest stop".

Does successful mean "busy"?

On a personal note, If I ever meet the person that closed the doors to COP, I'll give them a "Great big beautiful smack upside the head". Fool :mad:

JC

KNWVIKING
10-22-2002, 10:02 AM
I think my answer is pretty simplistic compared to all the others. When I get off a Disney ride- or any other ride for that matter- I ask myself if the ride was worth the wait in line ? Will I wait in line for Splash Mountain-yes. Will I wait for Dumbo or Carpets-no.That doesn't mean Dumbo or Carpets are bad,just not the best way to spend my time,(but I know adults will stand in this line because their kids want to ride Dumbo).

Several of my favorite rides have virtually no "thrills" to them whatsoever. Rides like PotC, JC,TTA,CoP,Spaceship,etc, have a theming & relaxation quality that I have never seen at any other theme park and I prefer them to some break-neck,beat-you-up roller coaster. Of course,you'd get a different opinion if you talked to college aged sons.

SnackyStacky
10-22-2002, 10:41 AM
Well, if you chose your words carefully, then you really can't get away from the "Disney ride" thing.

Let's suppose that the measure of success is that people enjoy the ride. More people like it than don't. Is that the success you were looking for?

Let's start with the lowest of the low, a church lawn fete. A few rides, and some carnival games. People get off of those rides, and there would be more that enjoyed those rides than didn't. But I think we can agree that if they plopped one of those rides in the middle of a Disney park, it wouldn't get the warmest reception.

Moving up a step, look at Six Flags. Lots of rides there that I "enjoy". But I would never ever spend any kind of money to pay for a hotel, airfare to get there, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't pay $52 to get in! So those success, again, wouldn't work in a Disney park.

Then we look at Disney. People expect MORE from Disney, because Disney expects more from its guests. It expects them to pay premium prices for admission. It expects them to pay for their pricey hotels. It expects them to pay for transportation to get there. (Because let's face it, the locals can't support the World) So if you take either of those first two examples and plop it down in the middle of the Magic Kingdom, I don't think it can nearly be considered a success. Because the fact that they ARE Disney raises the standard. Because Walt raised the standard. (And because Eisner raised the prices)

So if you're talking about success in a Disney park, the measure of success is different from any old amusement park, and I contend that the measure of success is if it lives up to those 5 criteria that I mentioned. Miss even one of those, and it fails as a "Disney" success. That's not to say that people won't enjoy them. Look at all of the failures that I mentioned:

Small World
Rio de Tiempo
Muppets
Primeval Whirl

With the exception of the first two (I'm not entirely sure why Rio de Tiempo sticks around....Small World has the nostalgia factor working in its favor) you could put Muppets and Primeval Whirl into a Six Flags park and they're pretty cool rides! Most people would "enjoy" them. Does that say that they're successful for a Disney attraction? (the original wording of your thread title) I don't personally think so. (And I like Muppets and Whirl!)

DisneyKidds
10-22-2002, 11:39 AM
Hey, Snacky, have you been taking writing lessons from the Baron? ;).

I believe your answers to those last two questions I posed would be no and no. For you, 'success' and 'Disney' are one and the same when it comes to attractions in a Disney park. Thanks - got it.

FYI - I don't care what my local community day, Six Flags, Universal, etc. are doing. I am simply trying to ascertain what people believe constitutes a successful attraction as it relates to Disney. Let me put it this way. There are many attractions within Disney which people would not consider 'Disney'. Does this make them failures? I think your answer is yes, but correct me if I am wrong.

BRERALEX
10-22-2002, 11:41 AM
5.) NOTHING innovative here. The 3D technology had been done in Epcot with Honey I Shrunk the audience. The same water and air tricks and whatnot had been used before?


okay muppets came out in 1990
and honey i shrunk the audience in 94

sorry it was killin me. muppets is like my fav attraction in mgm. to me it fits it shows 3d in relation to movies. and it blows up a threatre in the process. they also use the entire place. alot of people dont even look back to see the chef firing the cannon. and i like how every show they use a live person to be that monster. Its a show and a good show. if it doesnt fit then why would mermaid and hunchback* and beauty and the beast fit any better?


i believe i read all the posts umm did anyone touch on the raeway in tommorrow land yet. packed attraction usually but defintaly not disney. but "looks" successful.:jester:

I know i forget it cause i walk right by it like its not there

Testtrack321
10-22-2002, 12:34 PM
Muppets had lots of new things. They had many FX to show the theater was damaged, arrows, audio-anamatronics in the show, and live action (even before Terminator). It's very complex and still amazes me to this day.

SnackyStacky
10-22-2002, 05:56 PM
FYI - I don't care what my local community day, Six Flags, Universal, etc. are doing. I am simply trying to ascertain what people believe constitutes a successful attraction as it relates to Disney. Let me put it this way. There are many attractions within Disney which people would not consider 'Disney'. Does this make them failures? I think your answer is yes, but correct me if I am wrong.

It seems to me the topic at hand is what is the measure of success of a Disney ride. NOT a Six Flags or community day ride, but a DISNEY ride.

Well, I used the latter two examples to show that there has to be some difference in what makes an attraction successful. Because a ride at a Six Flags or community day would more likely than not be considered a Disney failure. And how true this is, otherwise you would have never said "What makes a DISNEY attraction 'successful'. And lo, we have a community day ride plopped in the middle of Adventureland, and one plopped into Animal Kingdom. And most people agree that they are OUT OF PLACE. Not that kids won't or don't, or SHOULDN'T for that matter enjoy them. Just that they don't live up to that seemingly elusive Disney standard.

And yes. I said it flat out. There are rides that some consider Disney that I think completely missed the Disney standard. I cited at least one example. Small World. This ride is tremendously out of place, one of the cheesiest things, and ever so tacky. Who's ever heard of brown burbur carpeting instead of dirt or concrete in a mexican village?!? Does that mean that I think people shouldn't enjoy it, or stop riding it, or that it should get a wrecking ball? Not in the least. It just simply means that I don't believe it to be a "Disney" attraction. And to prove my point even further, at a World's Fair, this is probably one of the NEATEST things. It worked in that setting. But bringing it to a Disney park without some modifications wasn't on target.

As for the bit about the muppets, my apologies. I thought that Honey and Muppets were reversed. I still think it's out of place. I don't think it's entirely a "Disney" attraction. But I STILL love it!

And that is my point. People loving something would be enough if we WERE talking about a Six Flags. But because we're talking about Disney there has to be something more.

BRERALEX
10-22-2002, 07:07 PM
A i sat in class today "Management of Corporate FinancZZZZZZZZzzzzzz" i was mulling over if muppets "fit" and i was seriously mulling over if IASMW fits.

It had never occured to me that IASW maybe didnt fit. SO i started thinkin over every attraction trying to see how maybe HM didnt fit or how even like SM didnt fit.

And i came to the conclusion that IASW might have been better in EPCOT which i couldnt believe.

definatley Disney. Definatly successful imo. It's like dumbo for my family it must be done and even has the title as one of the "first" we do when we get there. but in Fantasyland i dont see it fitting. and thats what i thought in class....................also thinkin.....................Baron most likely will write a great reply to why it does and would change my mind :)

SnackyStacky
10-22-2002, 11:29 PM
My main beef with Small World isn't really even that it's out of place. (Although I think it is....I don't see what it has to do with Fantasy...I completely agree that it would have worked best as a "uniting attraction" between all of the countries in World Showcase)

My main issue is the tacky factor. Like I said before... how many Mexican villages have brown carpeting as ground instead of dirt, or some sort of concrete?

Having said all of that, and even though I hate it, I still go on it EACH and every time because it's a classic. Does that make it successful by the standards to which I measure a Disney attraction? Not in my estimation. And here's where I can say what I said before. Put in a world's fair setting, and it works! It's a success! A unique attraction that lives up to a World's Fair standard. But stick it in a Disney park without making some changes and it falls flat.

DisneyKidds
10-23-2002, 12:08 AM
Ok, let's try this one more time Mr. Stacky.................

I'm tempted to use Baronesque caps and exclamation marks, but I won't. Forget what anyone outside of Disney is doing. It has no bearing on the success or failure of any particular ride within Disney, whether you consider the ride 'Disney' or not. Pretend Disney operates in a bubble. Sure, what others do might have bearing on the success of WDW in general because if Disney doesn't differentiate itself it will be no better than Universal, blah, blah, blah.......Try this one on for size. Even the most un-'Disney' attraction you can find in WDW has something that gives it a Disney differentiation. Take that A word. You may feel the mechanism and quality are no better than what the other guy offers up, but it is still uniquely Disney as no other park can offer a kid the opportunity to be a part of that movie. But I digress. Back to my point, at more of a micro level, just looking at the rides within WDW, what the guy down the street is doing isn't all that relevant to success or failure of a particular ride. Pretend WDW is the only game in town, the only theme park in the world.

Now try this angle. You have identified Small World as a ride that you feel is not 'Disney', it doesn't meet your success traits for being 'Disney', and you feel Walt wouldn't be proud of it (which I have to say I don't get because it was his idea in the first place). So, it is not successful at being 'Disney', but would you say that the ride is a failure? Not a failure at being 'Disney', but a flat out failure? As you say, you go on it every time. It may lack some element you look for in order for it to qualify as 'Disney' under the elusive standard, but is it still successful overall as an attraction within a Disney park? Quit qualifying your statements. You have two choices - success, or failure - no qualifications. Which is it? Come on - give it to me - a one word answer. Let's make it your shortest post ever - just one word ;).

BRERALEX
10-23-2002, 12:12 AM
sorry i got way of the track like i do in every thread

i was sayin IASW doesnt fit to me in MK but is definatly disney.

IASW success

raceway(whatever the name) failure

DisneyKidds
10-23-2002, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by BRERALEX
sorry i got way of the track like i do in every thread

i was sayin IASW doesnt fit to me in MK but is definatly disney.

IASW success

raceway(whatever the name) failure
Got'cha, Brer. It is me and Snacky who don't seem to be speaking the same language ;). We'll fix it though :).

DVC-Landbaron
10-23-2002, 01:11 AM
Mr. Kidds! Congratulations!! You made the LandBaron think as he hasn’t thought in a long time. I wrote almost a page and a half before dinner and was going to polish it and send it off! But something held me back. And instead I started to fixate on your two questions. Quite frankly, you confused me. Or at least I didn’t know where I fit! See you explained the “IF” of the questions: If the answer to these questions is no, then ‘success’ and ‘Disney’ are indeed one and the same when it comes to Disney attractions. However, if the answer is yes, then one must have a different answer for what constitutes ‘success’ and what makes something ‘Disney’ when it comes to Disney attractions.You see, I think you’re quite right in your definitions. But you left me out of the mix!!!Can a Disney attraction that many would agree IS ‘Disney’ end up NOT BEING successful? Yes!! Of course!! Can a Disney attraction that many would agree IS NOT ‘Disney’ end up BEING successful? No.

So, where does this put me? I seem to split down the middle!! I know where MY definition is. I’d like to see if you agree! Please tell me!

Thanks!


PS: After I get this out of the way I have got to tackle SS and Small World!! It fits!! (I think) I just have to articulate why? Muppets is a no brainer!! That definitely fits! And I disagree with the Mexico thing, and I’ll also have reasons for that!

See ya!!!

BRERALEX
10-23-2002, 01:12 AM
see i knew it.
and i cant wait for the reply

DVC-Landbaron
10-23-2002, 02:09 AM
I know it’s a mere footnote to the actual thread and I don’t want to spend too much time on it, but my friend SS has given Small World as an example of missing the Disney mark. He said: Small World (I was going to go for the even easier one and use Aladdin, but I figured I'd not rehash that old discussion! :) ) misses the Disney mark, and Walt designed it!
Well, I can see your point. But I think you missed the charm of it. Now, Snow White, Dumbo, Mr. Toad and even the tea cups are so “Disney” they darn near define it. But when we move away from the obvious ‘movie’ tie ins, it gets a little fuzzy. Is Space Mountain Disney? Is the Arcade next to it Disney? (For those keeping score the answers so far are: yes – no. In that order!!) Was that stupid canoe ride Disney? And so on.

Enough preamble!! Let’s get to it!!!
1.) I can loosely feel a storyline, but that's not where I believe it misses the mark. Agreed, but enough of one to fit the criteria!

2.) I don't think this fits into Fantasyland at ALL. I don't think that there's anyplace that it would work anywhere in the Magic Kingdom. I take it that if I can show how it fits in this area, point three becomes moot. Right? Ok, let’s quote three so we can wrap it up in a tidy little package!
3.) As I said in the last step, I think this ride is a sort of edu-tainment that belongs in World Showcase at Epcot. I don't believe it carries out the Magic Kingdom "feel".
OK! I contend that it fits perfectly within the Fantasyland! I believe, or at least what struck me the very first time I saw it, was that the idea was a blend of two concepts. And if I’m right, which is not altogether guaranteed, as it is ALL guess work, then it is no accident at all that Pinocchio is right next door. AND that the Disneyland version has timepiece (clock like gears and stuff) on the front façade.

I believe Walt was going for a blend of a puppet show, a good old fashioned puppet show and the most intricate, busy, mind blowing, colorful, German clock type thing he could possibly build! (there!! How’s that for sentence structure and articulation!! But I think you all know what I’m talking about!) The type of thing Geppetto would build!! Highly mechanical in feel and texture. And at the same time the look and feel of both dolls and puppets, but anyway you slice it a big, huge overblown colorful TOY!!

A toy!! Plain and simple!! Not one that you can hold. Not one that you simply watch. But one that you are inside! One where you are overwhelmed with the sights and sounds. One that no matter how quick you are or how many times you ride the damned thing, there is always something you had never noticed before. Where else would it go, but a place where a toy is the symbol of imagination or if you will Fantasy(land)? Seems to fit perfect to me!!
4.) Lighting effects in full view. It looks like the Festival of Lights at Niagara Falls. Cheap, cheezy, and tacky. Well, as I said in the above, it’s not supposed to look ‘real’ in any sense of the word. It’s supposed to look childlike, simple and busy at the same time. Mechanical, clock like. Exaggerated while representative of real, but not in any way real itself. Cellophane for both rain and fire. Painted doll-like faces. Animals which are caricatures. Etc.

5.) I do think that it was innovative. During a time of civil unrest and discrimination, Walt came up with a way of showing his love for all people. (If he was racist or prejudice, he did a damn good job of hiding it...I'm really not sure if that was his intent with this ride, but it's what I took away from it) Believe me. Even if you discount the ‘being inside a toy’ type thing, the ride mechanism itself was groundbreaking at the time!!

Bed time guys!! The rest tomorrow!! See you at 4:30 central!

Good-Night!

Testtrack321
10-23-2002, 05:01 AM
Ok Landbaron, it's the wee hours of the morning here and I can't fall asleep, so here's a question.

How do we know an attraction is Disney if it fails on Disney soil?

Were the Phantom Boats Disney?

WebmasterCricket
10-23-2002, 09:03 AM
.............. And if I’m right, which is not altogether guaranteed, as it is ALL guess work, then it is no accident at all that Pinocchio is right next door. AND that the Disneyland version has timepiece (clock like gears and stuff) on the front façade.

I believe Walt was going for a blend of a puppet show, a good old fashioned puppet show and the most intricate, busy, mind blowing, colorful, German clock type thing he could possibly build!..............

Ah, a wonderful explanation.

Pepsi+UNICEF+Disney=IASW

The ride wasn't designed to fit in the park structure until the transfer was decided upon through a deal that resembles blackmail.

"Give us the ride we developed and we will credit you the one million $ fee for using our name at the world's fair towards your moving expenses. Oh, yeah, you have to sponsor the exhibit at DL too. What else are you going to do with a boat ride that causes nightmares?"

It looks nothing at all like it did at the world's fair:

I think it was forced to fit because it was pretty much free.

I also think it was force fed into the MK (at DL) because it appeased the public while WDW was being developed.

http://www.justdisney.com/Features/ny64/small_world.jpg

Now do you still think it's a big toy? Perhaps it could be shrunk down and produced under it's correct name, "Blackmail-o-tron"


JC

DisneyKidds
10-23-2002, 09:58 AM
So, where does this put me? I seem to split down the middle!! I know where MY definition is. I’d like to see if you agree! Please tell me!
Boy - how did I know it would be you, Mr. Baron, who would dabble in that gray area between my questions ;).
Mr. Kidds! Congratulations!! You made the LandBaron think as he hasn’t thought in a long time.
I was tempted to say that the bold part has been painfully obvious, but I won't (ooops! I just did) ;) :eek: :p. All kidding aside, despite what you may think, that is all I ever really try and accomplish - to make people think :). And you are welcome.

Now, to answer your question with a question - or two (don't you hate when people do that :crazy: ).

Of those 'Disney' rides that end up NOT BEING successful, what is it about them that makes them unsuccessful? Dare I ask you to lay out your list of what makes an attraction 'Disney'? I know this is perhaps the most difficult thing to do, but perhaps it was in that page and a half you held back.

Obvious, by your answers to my two questions, you do have a different list for what makes an attraction 'Disney', and what makes an attraction successful. I'll go out on a limb and say that the entire list of what makes an attraction 'Disney' will fall within your list for what makes an attraction successful - otherwise your second answer could not have been no. Answer my newest questions and perhaps we will get back to this concept later ;).

SnackyStacky
10-23-2002, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Forget what anyone outside of Disney is doing. It has no bearing on the success or failure of any particular ride within Disney, whether you consider the ride 'Disney' or not. Pretend Disney operates in a bubble.

But I can't, and it does. It doesn't. When Disney started, there was no outside competition. Disneyland was it. It created the theme park experience. And it was the best. It was the Cadillac (or BMW, or Mercedes....insert your top car of choice) of attraction experiences.

But then others began popping up. And they began to put some competition on the market. And that lovely little cross-town rival that you seem to want to ignore is taking away a lot of Disney's loyal guests. Because they're paying the same price (and in some cases getting better discounts, and deals), but they're getting a little more here, and a little more there.

So we can choose to ignore those factors, and live in that proverbial bubble you suggest, just like Eisner and his crew, or you can face up to the fact that like it or not, there is competition and guests are looking at what they're getting and not getting and making choices based on that.

Obvious, by your answers to my two questions, you do have a different list for what makes an attraction 'Disney', and what makes an attraction successful.

I do, but I don't at the same too. The two are not mutually exclusive. I thought I had said this earlier, but I can't seem to find the exact quote, so I must have deleted it, but I had wanted to say that if the measure of success is simply whether or not people enjoy it, then you're right! Very few, if any failures, in any of the parks. Because most people enjoy them. But that's just not enough in a Disney park. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You've got a clean slate my friend. Pretend here that I have NEVER, EVER been to Disney World, and that I LOVE Six Flags. There's one 45 minutes from my house. $10 for gas, and $35 for admission. Tell me why I should spend $77 a night for a hotel(for 2 nights so that I have ONE full day at Disney World), $200 for airfare, and $50 a day to get into a Disney park. Because I can have LOTS of fun, smile, and enjoy my day at Six Flags. Tell me what the measure of "success" of a Disney attraction is. Tell me why I should spend $400 instead of $45. Because, well, that's the real world. That's to whom Disney has to market their rides to, and prove those rides successful enough to get people to spend that kind of money.

Sarangel
10-23-2002, 11:13 AM
[quote]My main beef with Small World isn't really even that it's out of place. (Although I think it is....I don't see what it has to do with Fantasy...[snip]My main issue is the tacky factor. Like I said before... how many Mexican villages have brown carpeting as ground instead of dirt, or some sort of concrete?[/qoute]I've been staying out of this discussion because I don't really have any, but I couldn't pass up this complaint. It took taking the Walk in Walt's footsteps tour at Disneyland before I really understood IASW, and I contend that (blackmail aside) that it fits perfectly with Fantasyland...

The (not so obvious) storyline for IASW is that the children have been confined to the nursury and have decided to create a whole new world of their own - the very definition of fantasy. This should also defend the "tacky factor," since the children had to make do with what they had on hand...

Anyway, that's my $0.02

Sarangel

DisneyKidds
10-23-2002, 11:23 AM
Snacky.............the aswer to that Small World question (you know - one word, success or failure) was...............:confused:.
But I can't, and it does. It doesn't.
Too bad, I disagree, and no kidding. I disgree with the concept that what the guy down the street is doing dictates how successful an attraction within a Disney park is or is not. Let's say that Disney builds the greatest attraction Disney ever built. It is 'Disney' out the wazoo, extremely popular, everyone loves it, no one can knock it, it isn't debated around here, and so on. Are you telling me that this ride (focus on the ride, not on WDW or the Disney Company) is not a success if the guy down the street puts something in that blows this ride away?
So we can choose to ignore those factors, and live in that proverbial bubble you suggest, just like Eisner and his crew, or you can face up to the fact that like it or not, there is competition and guests are looking at what they're getting and not getting and making choices based on that.
I don't need to face up to anything. I know d**n well that Disney doesn't operate in a bubble. I'm not suggesting anyone should manage the parks that way :rolleyes:. I guess EVERY thread has to be about the real world state of the Disney Company, the path required to return to Disney riteousness, and what it takes for Disney theme parks to beat the competition. So much for a simple, hypothetical 'forget what the other guys are doing, what makes Disney attractions (not the Disney Company) succeed or fail' thread :(.

It appears that one of the items on your list for a successful Disney attraction is that it be better than anything the competition has put out there. Let's try this clean slate in order to eliminate that item from the list. NASA solved the whole space/time continuum thing. You are transported back in time to October 1971. No other theme parks exist beside Disney - no Six Flags down the street, no competition, no price differential, etc., etc. What defined a successful attraction back in 1971? Compare a successful Disney ride of 1971 to an unsuccessful Disney ride of 1971. Do you believe there were any successful rides in Disney back then (or today) that didn't meet your requirements for being 'Disney'?

Can a core set of attributes be identified that could have made an attraction successful in both 1971 and 2001? Again, successful as a ride, not as a vehicle to generate more revenue than the next guy.

WebmasterCricket
10-23-2002, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Compare a successful Disney ride of 1971 to an unsuccessful Disney ride of 1971. Do you believe there were any successful rides in Disney back then (or today) that didn't meet your requirements for being 'Disney'?

Successful in '71 and does not meet "Disney" requirements: Tomorrowland Indy Speedway, Star Jets/Astro Orbiter < same waste of space as far as I am concerned

Unsuccessful in '71 and did meet "Disney" requirements: Swan boats??? :) , Flight to the Moon, "If you had wings" < borderline on this one because sponsorship changes kept it alive

I think I got the dates right on these.

Of course these are opinions.

If you stuck "Tommorowland Indy Speedway" at IOA, it would never fly by today's standards. It keeps the kids quiet and has a "nostalgia" value for some.

JC

mkandk
10-23-2002, 12:35 PM
:) :D :)

Maybe a successful Disney attraction has to be appealing to all ages. (not every person, but some people in each age group)

SnackyStacky
10-23-2002, 04:59 PM
Let's try this again. What I said, cleared up once, and reiterated AGAIN is that I used other theme/amusement/entertainment parks to show that different entertainment venues have equally different standards of success. I never used those other parks to compare ride for ride what makes a success, but that WHAT MAKES A RIDE SUCCESFUL (not the ride itself) in one park does not mean that it will be a success if another company utilizes that ride. Read that carefully about 10 times before you say:

I disgree with the concept that what the guy down the street is doing dictates how successful an attraction within a Disney park is or is not.

again, because I NEVER said that, nor was that any kind of implication that I made or intended to make.

If you need an example, here!

So Disney builds a mega-ride. It's awesome, it rocks, it kicks, everyone loves it, (as I said would be enough to consider it a success if our only measure of success is the enjoyment factor), AND it is completely Disney. It reeks of Disney such that you can smell it from the maingate. By my standards, success!

Six Flags builds an uber ride that technologically blows that Disney mega-ride right out of the way. I'm not saying that the Disney ride is now a failure. Just that both have different standards for that success.

Let's merge my 2 and 3, move all the other ones up, and number 5 would be that people enjoy it. Kidds, your right in that respect. If nobody rides it, it will be a failure regardless of how Disney something is. I concede on that point. So the new order is:

1.) it has a cohesive, identifiable storyline
2.) it fits into the grand scheme of the park, and the land in which it was built
3.) the show is carried out from beginning to end
4.) it is innovative (not necessarily new technology, but a new way of using perhaps an older technology or ride format)
5.) People will ride it

And I'm not bending on Small World. Maybe if they kept it up, I'd be singing a different tune but I really look upon this as an eyesore. The ONLY reason I think this ride sticks around is for the nostalgia factor.

DVC-Landbaron
10-23-2002, 06:13 PM
SS, you have a tough job. Just keeping up with the prolific but circular Mr. Kidds is a full time job!! A fun job, but very time consuming!! So, if you want to disregard this post, I won’t feel slighted! And I noticed that you merged 2 & 3! Thank you, but I wrote this at work today and I’m not about to go into it for the required surgery to match your current list! So do with it what you will!! (Ah! The refined and intellectual discussions of car #3!!)

But I would like to know what you don’t buy about my explaination of Small World?

Missing the mark? The Muppets 3D.So you don’t think it’s a Disney attraction, eh? Again let’s use your own criteria. 1.) Was there even a storyline? If there was I don't remember it. In fact I remember one of the characters saying it wasn't a dumb excuse for 3D effects.
No!! The meaning was that it WAS a dumb excuse for 3D effects!! And that’s why it works. It wouldn’t work for Lucas and it might not work with Pixar. But the Muppets rely on their reputation to pull it off!

Did you ever watch the TV Muppet show or any of the movies (especially the first one)? This is EXACTLY what they do! It is a send up of professional shows. The premise of the TV show and the movies to a certain extent is about the making of a SHOW (TV, movie or an Off, Off, Off-Broadway production). About the back stage stuff, intermingled with mostly botched productions, that allows the audience to see behind the scenes, in a very tongue in cheek manner. It has always been very self effacing. And the story for this one plays on many different levels. It is EXACTLY a device for cheap, blatant 3-D tricks, a typical Muppet fiasco and a Patriotic Review Show all wrapped into one! 2.) Isn't this in the New York area of the park? Was the Muppet theatre supposed to be in New York? It just didn't fit to me. Well, I’ve never been quite sure where this is supposed to be. I’ll grant you it is next door to New York Street… but actually in it? I certainly don’t know!! But if it is, that’s a perfect place for it! Where better to see an Off, Off, Off-Broadway production!!! A Muppet specialty!! 3.) I don't see how it fits into the park. I don't think it had anything to do with the Hollywood theme. It has to do with show business! And a behind the scenes look at it. Farcical. Contrived. Over-the-top! Sure!! But a fun and extravagant look at production, as evidenced from your next criteria. 4.)A great show!!!! It definitely hits the mark here for me. They actually destroy the theater!!!!! I couldn’t agree more!! 5.) NOTHING innovative here. The 3D technology had been done in Epcot with Honey I Shrunk the audience. The same water and air tricks and whatnot had been used before? Not quite! Honey, as mentioned earlier, came after. But even if it had been, is it enough to toss it out? We could same the same for a whole bunch of rides and attractions!! And that leads into the next segment. A close look at you litmus test.

You wrote out a nice list to follow. I like lists, when it comes to judging things. It tries to give at least a semblance of objectivity to a ‘something’. And I think yours works very well. But to me it is only a starting point. And by making it a simple yes or no, I find it confining. Let’s take a closer look.

You said:A ride is successful if:

1.) it has a cohesive, identifiable storyline
2.) it fits into the area where it was built
3.) it fits into the grand scheme of the park in which it was built
4.) the show is carried out from beginning to end
5.) it is innovative (not necessarily new technology, but a new way of using perhaps an older technology or ride format)
OK. It seems fair enough, but does a “Disney” attraction have to have all five in order to qualify?

Take for example Pirates. Now using your checklist we can see that:

1.) it has a cohesive, identifiable storyline. Yes! It most definitely. Probably one of the strongest story lines Disney has ever created!

2.) it fits into the area where it was built. Again, in both theme parks it fits in well, Disneyland’s a bit better I’d say, but the architecture used for Caribbean Plaza and the transition from Adventureland works, in my opinion. And I’d certainly say, conceptually, it’s an ‘adventure’ type attraction!

3.) it fits into the grand scheme of the park in which it was built. This one baffles me (but maybe only for the MK). It seems redundant. If it fits into a Land or Area, doesn’t that inherently make it fit into the park? But, be that as it may, I think Pirates passes this litmus test as well.

4.) the show is carried out from beginning to end. I believe most would say that Pirates meets this criteria (although sometimes around here, I’m totally baffled by the response!! :crazy: ).

5.) it is innovative (not necessarily new technology, but a new way of using perhaps an older technology or ride format). And this is where Pirates breaks down for me. What’s innovative? They had used AA figures before. Sure, there are more of them, but that really isn’t innovative, is it? And the ride mechanism is a clone from the innovative “Small World” technology. So, where’s the innovation? And yet, I don’t think anyone could argue that it is NOT Disney!

I guess I have the same problem with HoP. Again, there are more AA figures, but more doesn’t necessarily equate to innovative. And even Splash Mountain, or for that matter Space Mountain, or Rock & Roller Coaster, or Tough to be a Bug or all of those Circle Visions (and other films) in World Showcase, aren’t necessarily innovative. They just recycle used technology and/or ride mechanisms.

And then there’s the location thing. I see your point with Muppets. Why there, right? But I could make the same argument for a lot of attractions, based on location. Splash Mountain! Why isn’t that ride put in with other fantasy type rides with movie ties? In Fantasyland! I mean what in the world does it have to do with an old ‘west’ mining town, a riverboat, an island on the Mississippi, and a land cohesively themed as an old ‘western’ town? They ‘solved’ the problem by making it a mountain, but they could have easily ‘themed’ it fantasy style or at least a clone of the animation portion of the movie, and put it where all the other ‘film’ attractions are. Couldn’t they? Seems to me that’s where it belongs!!

Or what about Haunted Mansion? Just because they made the façade look like a mansion that kinda fits into a liberty square type building? What’s it got to do with the Liberty Tree, the Liberty Bell, The Hall of Presidents and a land deliberately themed to look as colonial as possible? Do these fit? Sort of, I suppose, if you really stretch a point. And its ‘theme’ is totally different in Disneyland! This alone proves to me at least, that attraction subject material (or plot) doesn’t matter as long as the façade is themed properly and ‘fits’ within the surrounding area (my only point regarding the “A” word ride!!!)!!! And yet, I don’t think anyone would say these attractions are not Disney. (These are just off the top of my head and used because there would be no question that they are ‘Disney’. There are probably others with more apparent problems that I’m just not thinking of at the moment.)

I guess what I’m saying is that I like your criteria. But, I would change it somewhat. I’m not sure how, but I think a weighted scale is in order. Sometimes the SHOW is just soooooo GREAT that your number five or your number 2 & 3 don’t matter at all. We could ride a boat through it, ride a car through it, walk through it or crawl through it and it still reeks of “Disney”! Or they could stick it anywhere, paint the place to match existing and it’s instantly Disney. And then there may be others that require some mighty fine innovation or a perfect location just to get it over the hump!

So SS. What do you think? Are they all weighted the same or is some sort of sliding scale in order?

I had two different ways to go on this. And I wasn’t sure which angle to attack first. So, in the end I decided to do both!! The second, which is actually the first thought to occur to me as I was reading your post, is fairly short. In fact only two questions. Let the smilies act as a post divider!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

A ride is successful if:

1.) it has a cohesive, identifiable storyline
2.) it fits into the area where it was built
3.) it fits into the grand scheme of the park in which it was built
4.) the show is carried out from beginning to end
5.) it is innovative (not necessarily new technology, but a new way of using perhaps an older technology or ride format)But what if it is simply no fun, or at least a lot less that anticipated? Is it still a “Disney” attraction, just because it matches the above (dare I say it) “Standards”?

BRERALEX
10-23-2002, 06:36 PM
Muppets take Manhattan how could i have forgotten!!!!!!!!!!!!
thats how it fits so now im 100% happy with the theming the placement and the show.

if i get to muppets after the preshow has begun i purposely wait to catch the next one. IMO the muppets preshow is the most hilarious ive ever seen. from the construction guys to the repair man (how techinical) to the ricky rat AKA MICKEY MOUSE "gonzo"-iv got donald duck back there!!!!

Splash moutain which could fit into fantasyland seems to fit for me where it is cause IMO it feels like it's on that border between ADVENTUREland and frontierland. They had to place where it is and who's not to say it half in adventureland and thats enough for me for it to fit. We follow BRER rabbit on a silly adventure as he's chased around. by BRER bear and BRER fox so it's all good to me.

yesterday i thought of HM ALOT since it's one of my fav rides and was going to post that it was out of place. but in i started thinking of liberty square and started thinkin of the south and started thinkin of houses and haunted houses and spun it so much i thought to myslef that HM could be in any park in any "land" it's a house thats haunted. they could have put it in Epcot by ... uh uh uh uh GERMANY and said it was a haunted german house. It could be in fantasyland but too scary since fantasyland is more for kiddies it could be put in MGM i mean TOT is almost the same general concept ghosts scaring the beejeezuz(did i spell that right?) out of us but with a different ride.

ok im out the thread too much criteria you know a disney ride not by breakin it down you just know it's a disney ride cause the last day of your trip you wanna go on just one more time cause you feel your missin out. you leave the attraction knowing they put everything they had and more into it. you dont have to think of if it does or doesnt fit. you can tell on the guide map if it fits.

Captain Crook
10-23-2002, 06:37 PM
I have no germain comment to the subject (it's quite ridiculous)...But it's terribly funny to see Landbaron calling DisneyKidds circular!!!:teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

DVC-Landbaron
10-23-2002, 06:41 PM
Thanks for the comment Capt! Really gave me a boost!! (I thought we were friends?) :(

Hey! I know!! Bring back the Pirate!!! :bounce:

Peter Pirate
10-23-2002, 06:49 PM
Oh don't be so sensitive...Uhhh, I get it, just busting the chops of the Cap, huh???

You knows we loves your wordy, roundabout, circular postulations. A true Chicagoan speaketh!!!:)
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

DVC-Landbaron
10-23-2002, 06:54 PM
Welcome the Pirate!! The good guy!* :bounce:











* obscure album jacket reference (slightly altered)

BRERALEX
10-23-2002, 06:55 PM
can we get DISDUCK for a post?

raidermatt
10-23-2002, 07:54 PM
A ride is successful if:

1.) it has a cohesive, identifiable storyline
2.) it fits into the area where it was built
3.) it fits into the grand scheme of the park in which it was built
4.) the show is carried out from beginning to end
5.) it is innovative (not necessarily new technology, but a new way of using perhaps an older technology or ride format)


Just a few adjustments...

A successful Disney attraction consists of:

(In order of importance)

1) People like it, i.e. it is popular.
2) The show is carried out from beginning to end.
3) It has a cohesive, identifiable storyline.
4) It fits into the area where it was built (includes land and park)
5) It is innovative in some way.


Now, before everyone jumps all over number 1, its only there because this is what defines a SUCCESSFUL Disney attraction. Take out successful, and you can take out #1. But in order for any attraction to be successful, people have to like it. Even Walt couldn't get around that.

But while number one is sort of a "lowest common denominator", at least some elements of the remaining 4 items must be present.

Thoughts?

SnackyStacky
10-23-2002, 11:02 PM
When I wrote that list, I was going through, in my head, all of the rides that I thought measured up to the Disney standard and those that I thought didn’t. I tried my best to find a tie between them. So those thoughts were basically my brainstorming and in no particular order.

So, if you want to disregard this post, I won’t feel slighted!

I wouldn’t intentionally ignore an entire post from anyone. Parts of a post, sure! But not the whole thing!!! ;)

But I would like to know what you don’t buy about my explaination of Small World?

I don’t buy your explanation for one very simple reason. I have never been to Disneyland. I want to go, and maybe after seeing the DL version, I would change my mind, but the way it fits at Disney World doesn’t work for me. Those gears aren’t all on the exterior. It’s a medieval tent. And I have never been into that Pinocchio Haus, but I’m assuming it’s next door? That still isn’t enough of a tie in.

I’m not saying that it doesn’t work at Disneyland, but you can’t use that as a prerequisite. In fact, I REALLY want to ride it at Disneyland because it just looks so much more interesting, and just, well, better than the DW version.

As for the Muppets, it still just seems out of place, and somewhat forced to me. But as I said, that doesn’t mean I like it any less. And it also doesn’t mean that others can’t think it isn’t Disney! I’m not saying that at all!

OK. It seems fair enough, but does a “Disney” attraction have to have all five in order to qualify?

As you saw and commented, I adjusted the criteria.

Even with the original 4 on an un-weighted scale (I’ll keep 2 and 3 merged to keep it easier and not so redundant), I still think that Pirates, and Mansion are in keeping with those criteria.

The innovative thing about both Pirates and Mansion were those special effects. Pirates strength however is the storyline. BUT, in the day, real fire inside of a building was unheard of. I think that they did a damn good job of recreating that. And what ride had water cannons to create the bullets falling into the water?! That’s too freekin’ cool!

And Mansion…there are too many effects to get into. And the GREATEST thing about them is that most of them are so SIMPLE and so OLD that people to this day still are trying to guess if they’re holograms or not. As for fitting into Liberty Square, I’ve always wondered about whether or not it fits. But it’s not really IN Liberty Square. It’s rather on the outskirts of it. And even if it were in, the INTERIOR of the ride has nothing to do with the Liberty theme, but the outside most definitely fits in with the other buildings, which I think is pretty clever considering you don’t ride through the exterior. (But it still feels pretty cool thinking that you are….yet another part of the innovation) AND, while we’re talking about fitting in, let me go back to Small World. Mansion was a copy of a Disneyland attraction, but they modified it to fit into Disney World. Since we have no New Orleans Square in DW, they made it work where it would best work.

Anyway, my point is that I was just throwing out something so that we could examine things further instead of “yes it is”-“no it isn’t” debate. So if someone doesn’t like the criteria, suggest a change!

A successful Disney attraction consists of:

(In order of importance)

1) People like it, i.e. it is popular.
2) The show is carried out from beginning to end.
3) It has a cohesive, identifiable storyline.
4) It fits into the area where it was built (includes land and park)
5) It is innovative in some way.

I agree, with the exception of switching 2 and 3 simply because the first thing on the imagineer’s mind when creating an attraction is the story.

DisneyKidds
10-24-2002, 01:39 AM
Catching up, in order.

JC............
Successful in '71 and does not meet "Disney" requirements: Tomorrowland Indy Speedway, Star Jets/Astro Orbiter < same waste of space as far as I am concerned

Unsuccessful in '71 and did meet "Disney" requirements: Swan boats??? , Flight to the Moon, "If you had wings" < borderline on this one because sponsorship changes kept it alive
Good answers, but I want more ;). What makes these rides successful/unsuccessful? Is it simply attendance?

SS............

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Forget what anyone outside of Disney is doing. It has no bearing on the success or failure of any particular ride within Disney, whether you consider the ride 'Disney' or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I can't, and it does.
Hmmmm....to me this reads 'What parks outside of Disney are doing does have a bearing on the success or failure of any particular ride within Disney'. Yet you say you never, oops - I mean NEVER, said........
what the guy down the street is doing dictates how successful an attraction within a Disney park is or is not.
I don't know, maybe it is just that beautiful mind of mine getting in the way again ;) :crazy:. Anywho......................moving along......
If nobody rides it, it will be a failure regardless of how Disney something is. I concede on that point.
As much as you guys want to paint me as the 'if they ride it it must be a success' man (which is not what I have ever said), let me be the one to suggest that perhaps you shouldn't concede that point. Does low traffic equal a failure? I don't know...........

As for Small World, Mr. S, I don't want you to bend, I just want a one word answer - but I think I've gotten it - failure.
And the GREATEST thing about them is that most of them are so SIMPLE and so OLD that people to this day still are trying to guess if they’re holograms or not.
Is it possible that *gasp* SIMPLE and OLD can still work today? Say it ain't so ;).

Cap'n - is it the topic, or the positions on the topic, that you find so rediculous? Maybe the Pirate knows.

Boy, I sure do miss that Duck.............................

SnackyStacky
10-24-2002, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Snackystacky:
What I said, cleared up once, and reiterated AGAIN is

Check it out my friend:

What I said.....
Originally posted by Snackystacky:
So if you're talking about success in a Disney park, the measure of success is different from any old amusement park,

cleared up once.....

Originally posted by Snackystacky:
Well, I used the latter two examples to show that there has to be some difference in what makes an attraction successful.

and reiterated AGAIN....

Originally posted by Snackystacky:
A unique attraction that lives up to a World's Fair standard. But stick it in a Disney park without making some changes and it falls flat.


SO! Basically what we have is:

Originally posted by SnackyStacky:
Let's try this again. What I said, cleared up once, and reiterated AGAIN is that I used other theme/amusement/entertainment parks to show that different entertainment venues have equally different standards of success. I never used those other parks to compare ride for ride what makes a success, but that WHAT MAKES A RIDE SUCCESFUL (not the ride itself) in one park does not mean that it will be a success if another company utilizes that ride. Read that carefully about 10 times before you say:


I disgree with the concept that what the guy down the street is doing dictates how successful an attraction within a Disney park is or is not.



again, because I NEVER said that, nor was that any kind of implication that I made or intended to make.



I take a moment to bring up what almost became a lawsuit with the recent revival on Broadway of Jesus Christ Superstar. The marketing department almost was sued (it may have been....I'm not sure whatever happened to it) because they used pull quotes COMPLETELY out of context. The reviews trashed the production to bits. But LO! On the marquis were pull quotes like:

"A smashing production!"

When the full quote was something to the effect of:

"This is what happens when a smashing production goes totally awry."

So when you took THIS:

Originally posted by Snackystacky:
it does.

it was in reference to the bold portion of your statement.

Originally posted by DisneyKidds:
It has no bearing on the success or failure of any particular ride within Disney, whether you consider the ride 'Disney' or not.

Maybe I should have made that clearer but I thought that since I said it THREE times, I didn't need to make it clear what I was referencing. And just you know where I'm coming from having cleared up what I was talking about, it was those outside influences that were the driving force behind Walt deciding that his rides had to be better than that. I think it is mutually agreed that Disney rides are better than anything, anywhere. From that point, we move on to attempt to define the success of a "Disney" attraction.


Furthermore, WHERE, in God's NAME does this:

Originally posted by DisneyKidds:
It appears that one of the items on your list for a successful Disney attraction is that it be better than anything the competition has put out there.

come from this:

Originally posted by SnackyStacky:
1.) it has a cohesive, identifiable storyline
2.) it fits into the area where it was built
3.) it fits into the grand scheme of the park in which it was built
4.) the show is carried out from beginning to end
5.) it is innovative (not necessarily new technology, but a new way of using perhaps an older technology or ride format)

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Those are the 5 to which you made reference, which have since been tweaked! Here's the new 5 for those keeping score:

Originally posted by raidermatt:
1) People like it, i.e. it is popular.
2) The show is carried out from beginning to end.
3) It has a cohesive, identifiable storyline.
4) It fits into the area where it was built (includes land and park)
5) It is innovative in some way.

Where from the new or the old 5 do you get that I said Disney rides have to be better than the competition?!?

Lastly:

Originally posted by DisneyKidds:
(which is not what I have ever said),

Your silence speaks volumes. Nowhere have you offered ANY kind of suggestion to the discussion. You've simply said that I'm wrong. So I asked you. I asked you to paint the picture of what makes an attraction successful, and you haven't.


Kidds, you got some 'splainin to do!

WebmasterCricket
10-24-2002, 12:32 PM
Good answers, but I want more :) . What makes these rides successful/unsuccessful? Is it simply attendance?

Ok, you asked, now you get a story:

“Picture it” many years ago on a Sunday night. I remember lying down on our living room floor with the faded green textured carpet, my elbows burning from the abrasions caused from the weight of my head pressing them into the long outdated floor covering. Way too many people from the family are over, jam packed in the room, which at any other time would seem cavernous. The television was hot enough to lower the house thermostat a degree or so. It was spilling out its wonderful radiation on all of us, probably with some commercial for "grub killer" or possibly a blurb for the upcoming new episode of “Love Boat” followed by “Fantasy Island”. My memory isn’t that good, but I think “Charro” may have been a guest star on one of them ;)

There she was, the ideal girl, forever to be my dream girl flying around a drawing of a castle sprinkling some sort of dust like substance. “The Wonderful World Of Disney” was on in COLOR.

From Professor Ludwig Von Drake to Goofy in some sporting event to Donald in a snowball fight with his nephews, there was no better time on that carpet. “Charlie the Lonesome Cougar” may have been on that night but it really didn’t matter because it was “Magic Time” and it was all good.


…Fast forward to 10 years ago…

I pulled into my parking space in “Goofy” row 56 (or was it 36…whatever!) I don’t know why, but that blew me away to be parked in a row named after “Goofy”. I could have gone home happy right then…and it just got better from there.

Now, to answer your original question “What makes a Disney attraction 'successful'?”

I do.

You do.

My life and my memories do.

Some attractions may be more successful than others, but nothing can compare to the package deal at the Disney parks no matter how hard they try, because they can’t compete with the spirit that lives in many of us and the magical feeling that is squeezed out of us while in a Disney park. That magical feeling can make an attraction more successful than the same attraction without it.

Heck, I think the parking lot was successful by these standards:


1) People like it, i.e. it is popular.

As opposed to parking out on the expressway, sure they like it. In fact many people prefer to drive and park at the parks rather than take the bus system (which I have an absolutely perfect solution for if anyone is interested.)

2) The show is carried out from beginning to end.

Parking lot when you enter, parking lot when you leave. What a show!

3) It has a cohesive, identifiable storyline.

Um, “Come park here, we have space”? Is that a story line?

4) It fits into the area where it was built (includes land and park)

Does a parking lot, fit in a…parking lot? Sure it does!

5) It is innovative in some way.

I’m sure it was with its layout and tram system, but I’m no parking expert.

JC

DisneyKidds
10-24-2002, 12:53 PM
Ok, you asked, now you get a story:
Ooh, I love stories :).
Some attractions may be more successful than others, but nothing can compare to the package deal at the Disney parks no matter how hard they try, because they can’t compete with the spirit that lives in many of us and the magical feeling that is squeezed out of us while in a Disney park. That magical feeling can make an attraction more successful than the same attraction without it.
Thanks for the answer. We can make all the lists in the world, say that a ride must do this and must have that, but when you boil it all down it really does come to this. Success will be measured differently by each and every person, and it wil be largely dependant upon their memories and experiences.

DisneyKidds
10-24-2002, 01:30 PM
Snacky, Snacky, Snacky. Where did it all go wrong...................:crazy:?

Oh,wait, here it is............
Originally posted by DisneyKidds:
It has no bearing on the success or failure of any particular ride within Disney, whether you consider the ride 'Disney' or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe I should have made that clearer.
As you had pointed out early on, there were really two different angles going. Your focus has continued to be the 'Disney' aspect, I keep asking about success (and if it is possible) outside of considering the 'Disney'/'make Walt proud' angle. I tried to reel you back into that but I was unsuccessful. So fine, I've got you, and I think I said once before, success and 'Disney' are joined at the hip for any Disney attraction for you.

As for this........
It appears that one of the items on your list for a successful Disney attraction is that it be better than anything the competition has put out there.
..........I'd say it comes from your unwritten list, not the 5 criteria you have laid out. Why do I say that? Well, it seems pretty clear from your posts that what constitutes a success in any other theme park would not be a success in a Disney park. Furthermore, you pretty clearly stated that Disney had to be better in order to justify the incremental cost. Not that I completely disagree, but that is the basis for my statement, and I'm sticking to it ;).
Your silence speaks volumes. Nowhere have you offered ANY kind of suggestion to the discussion. You've simply said that I'm wrong. So I asked you. I asked you to paint the picture of what makes an attraction successful, and you haven't.
First things first on this one. I never said you are wrong about anything, especially given that we have been talking about two different things. You say that what the competition does has bearing on what makes an attraction 'Disney'. I'd agree with that. You apparently didn't say that what the competiton does has any bearing on what makes an attraction in a Disney park a success. Since we agree on that I can't say you are necessarily wrong about the opinions you have presented.

As for that painting....well, my canvas is on the easel - the painting just isn't finished yet. As for no suggestions - take a look at who started this thread ;). Look at it this way, I'm just moderating my thread for a while. However, do you think I've asked as many questions as I have just for the sake of asking ;).

raidermatt
10-24-2002, 01:41 PM
Heck, I think the parking lot was successful by these standards:

Uhhh, no.


You are right in that there's no way to completely and objectively describe what makes a Disney attraction, and what makes it a successful Disney attraction.

Nonetheless, there are people who have to try to figure out what the guests will like, and what fits the Disney standard. Attractions have never been made because the creator just had a feeling about it... Maybe that started the idea, but to bring it to fruition, there are certain elements that are required.

Sure, the answers to the things on the list are subjective. There are many people who don't like Disney at all. Never did, never will. But the goal of those who create Disney attractions is to hit the mark on certain elements for as many Disney guests as they can. That may not be what is going through their mind as they create, but the elements still must be present in the end result.

I'm sure there are those that think a parking lot fits the items on the list. But they also aren't Disney guests, nor would they ever be employed by Disney. (Even today's Disney).

A list of elements may not completely explain an attraction's success, but its still a worthwhile exercise. If Walt could describe many of the basic elements in an analytical way, you can be sure those who worked for him did.

DisneyKidds
10-24-2002, 02:09 PM
the goal of those who create Disney attractions is to hit the mark on certain elements for as many Disney guests as they can.
Good, and true, observation Mr. I-hope-the-Raiders-don't-lose-three-in-a-row-fan ;). A question though. How far can this thinking be taken? Does that mark have to be something that has the ability to appeal to all guests? Is it ok to go after a specific subset of guests? Has Disney always done this?
A list of elements may not completely explain an attraction's success, but its still a worthwhile exercise.
Most certainly is a worthwhile exercise - this thread wouldn't exist if it weren't ;). I hope you don't think I implied that is wasn't a worthwhile exercise. I do believe that, as we make out these lists, we have to keep in mind that each and every list will contain different items, and that lists are only one way to look at this stuff.

WebmasterCricket
10-24-2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by raidermatt
...Nonetheless, there are people who have to try to figure out what the guests will like...

You are correct. It's a shame they don't do it though.

We might do that here at the DIS, they might think they are doing it, but they fall short in achieving that goal. Everyone knows, you tailor a survey to give you the answer you want, when it's the question that should be surveyed. (This brings me back to my ingenious bus solution, which I'll save for another day)

CM with I-paq survey "Do you want more character interaction?"

Unknowing Guest "Yeah!"

-or-

Survey CM "Could you find your way here to your EPCOT Resort using the road signs that say EPCOT Resort area?"

Me "I've been here before, so I didn't need the road signs"

CM "So you would say, "Yes, I could find my way to my resort using the road signs""

Me "Um, no that's not what I'm saying"

CM "So you would say "No, I couldn't find my way using the road signs"

Me "No, I'm saying your survey methodology stinks, and always has"


Except I didn't say "stinks" ;)

*Insert CM laughter here*

...and what fits the Disney standard.

Last time I checked my watch, Walt's dead. His head may be floating around this board somewhere, but he is most certainly, dead. There is no Disney standard. There may be a Disney corporate standard, but it's nothing like the "Geisel" standard that existed at Universal from his widow or the original "Walt Disney" stamp of approval. It's all "probably's" "maybee's" and "I think's" now by definition.


JC

SnackyStacky
10-24-2002, 04:00 PM
Kidds....

Posted by DisneyKidds
I'd say it comes from your unwritten list, not the 5 criteria you have laid out

WHAT unwritten list? I clearly stated that:

Originally posted by Snackystacky
When I wrote that list, I was going through, in my head, all of the rides that I thought measured up to the Disney standard and those that I thought didn’t. I tried my best to find a tie between them. So those thoughts were basically my brainstorming and in no particular order.

So let's not try and have me say things that I never said.

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I never said you are wrong

My bad. Poor choice of words. You said that you disagree with my statements. To which I say:

Your silence speaks volumes. Nowhere have you offered ANY kind of suggestion to the discussion. You've simply said that *you disagree*. So I asked you. I asked you to paint the picture of what makes an attraction successful, and you haven't.

Forgive my changing a quote, but I covered that a moment ago.

we have been talking about two different things
But see, WE HAVEN'T!!!!!!! I've said that. I even thought you GOT it based on:

So fine, I've got you, and I think I said once before, success and 'Disney' are joined at the hip for any Disney attraction for you.


I'm not going to reiterate EVERY SINGLE QUOTE like I did last time to make my point that I'm not talking about something different. I'm saying the success of a ride, "as it relates to Disney" is based on the criteria that I laid, and 4 of those 5 are some way to determine if something is "Disney". Which fits in perfectly because people can answer to those criteria for themselves.

J Cricket said exactly what I was trying to say:

That magical feeling can make an attraction more successful than the same attraction without it.

And what creates that magical feeling that IS (in my opinion) linked DIRECTLY to how "Disney" something is.

And let me SHOW you now why I think that my criteria work.

I'm gonna regret this for a long time to come during these discussions, but I have to bring up Aladdin once again.

You consider Aladdin a success. I do not. Do you think it meets the latest 5 criteria? If you do, that's fine, and point for further discussion, but I DON'T. And that's the beauty of those criteria. Because we can debate each attraction on those points, but they're a good starting point FOR further debate.

To wrap up this post, I would LOVE to continue. As long as it can be mutually agreed upon that you will not extract things and say that I said it!!! Basically, DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!!

DisneyKidds
10-24-2002, 04:48 PM
Mr. Snacky, let's strike up the band one more time ( I think were getting close) :crazy:

There really are two things that I am monitoring, one of which you really have nothing to do with and happens to be what I am more focused on - and that's is fine. I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'. Maybe it can't. You aren't playing along with that because you have stated that 'Disney' and success go hand in hand and they can't be seperated. Your answer, a good one that I greatly appreciate, doesn't make me completely abandon the other ideas I am keeping my eye on as the group provides input. Can we leave it at that? Deal?

As for putting words in your mouth.....................Let's see if you are willing to formally take ownership.
What constitutes a success in any other theme park would not be a success in a Disney park. Disney has to be better in order to justify the incremental cost.
Would you agree of disagree with these statements? We can play the quote thing all night if you like - I can go dig out the relevant quotes if you insist. You know, things like Six Flags successes not working in a Disney park, people expecting more of Disney because Disney expects more of their guests (in the form of spending money on airfare, rooms, $50+ tickets), Walt raising the standard, Eisner raising the prices, etc. The last thing I want to do is put words in anyone's mouth. (pssst, Snacky - come a little closer - if I extract something from your post, guess what - you said it ;).) If you want to show how I have taken these concepts out of context that is another story, go ahead - however, they seem pretty straight forward.

WebmasterCricket
10-24-2002, 05:03 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What constitutes a success in any other theme park would not be a success in a Disney park. Disney has to be better in order to justify the incremental cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not sure where this quote came from, sorry, but I can't agree with it.

I don't think something has to be better at Disney to make it a success.

E.g. Cinderella's Golden Carousel

I'd have to say it's a success but not any better than many of the other carousels I've been on. Once again, it comes back to the Disney experience as a whole and not necessarily the specific attraction experience that can make or break its success.


JC

raidermatt
10-24-2002, 05:19 PM
Mr. Cricket, the question is about what makes a Disney attraction successful. I did not mean to imply that Disney is or isn't as good at doing this as it once was. We have several other threads currently going that address that subject in various ways.

The question is how do we judge, not necessarily what are the results of those judgements. That's the only point I originally addressed.

You're right that Disney clearly has some flaws in its survey methodology, but what does that have to do with judging how good an attraction is, regardless of when it was built?


Now, DK-

How far can this thinking be taken? Does that mark have to be something that has the ability to appeal to all guests? Is it ok to go after a specific subset of guests? Has Disney always done this?
We have to start with the understanding that no attraction will ever appeal to all guests.
That said, is it ok to go after a specific subset of guests, and has Disney always done this?
To me, here is where your term of "shades of gray" becomes very pertinent. Or perhaps "to what degree" is more accurate.

The short answer is yes, because if the other concepts are met (show, story, etc), the attraction will generally have a wide appeal, even if the main target is a specific group, such as children or thrill-seekers.

The problem with making "going after" specific groups a core goal is that its very easy to forget those other critical elements. For example, if you target "thrill seekers", its easy to only provide things that satisfy that particular part of your target. An extreme example of this would be if Disney just plopped down a roller coaster in the middle of, say, AK. (Not the Forbidden Mountain concept, just a state of the art, exposed coaster).

It would satisfy that target, but not necessarily be a successful DISNEY attraction.

So, I will say that yes, to a certain extent, Disney has had specific groups in mind with some attractions all along. However, recently, they have been slipping in keeping their core concepts of family entertainment and "the show" in mind. They do seem to be focusing more and more on going after target markets, and providing things that they feel will satisfy more narrow goals.

WebmasterCricket
10-24-2002, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by raidermatt
The question is how do we judge, not necessarily what are the results of those judgements. That's the only point I originally addressed.


But you can't seperate the two. I'm saying that if you have a criteria, you need to test that criteria (that's what I've been trying to do, because I don't think there can be a set criteria of "success"). Since you can't get everyone to agree on what a "success" is, ANY criteria is moot.

If we could answer the first question posed below, we would all be geniuses. (is that the plural for genius?)

Title of thread:

What makes a Disney attraction 'successful'?

First post of thread "question":

How do you define 'success' as it relates to Disney attractions?

These are 2 different things, I'm trying to address both of them.

Mr. Cricket, the question is about what makes a Disney attraction successful. I did not mean to imply that Disney is or isn't as good at doing this as it once was. We have several other threads currently going that address that subject in various ways.


Did I say that? Where? Was it the "Walt's dead" thing?


You're right that Disney clearly has some flaws in its survey methodology, but what does that have to do with judging how good an attraction is, regardless of when it was built?


It's not so much to do with the "judging" question as the "defining" question. But you are right, it's sort of a tangent, which this thread doesn't need another of.

JC

DVC-Landbaron
10-24-2002, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'. Define success.

WebmasterCricket
10-24-2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Define success.

THAT'S THE STUFF BABY!

Sorry about the "baby" thing

JC

raidermatt
10-24-2002, 06:58 PM
But you can't seperate the two. I'm saying that if you have a criteria, you need to test that criteria (that's what I've been trying to do, because I don't think there can be a set criteria of "success"). Since you can't get everyone to agree on what a "success" is, ANY criteria is moot.


If you view the criteria through the eyes of anything that resembles a Disney fan (as opposed to someone who could possibly argue that a parking lot fits the criteria), you can at least get a starting point. It won't cover everything for all people, but it certainly is not moot.

You may not want to think about tangible criteria for Disney attractions, but it is most certainly though of by the designers.

As for this exchange:
I said:
Mr. Cricket, the question is about what makes a Disney attraction successful. I did not mean to imply that Disney is or isn't as good at doing this as it once was. We have several other threads currently going that address that subject in various ways.

You replied:
Did I say that? Where? Was it the "Walt's dead" thing?

No, it was this comment you made:
You are correct. It's a shame they don't do it though.
I had said that there were people who tried to figure out what people wanted (in reference to Disney attractions). You said they don't do it and its a shame. I assumed you felt that at least they did at one time. Because if you mean its a shame the don't do it, AND they never did, it would mean you must not be too big a fan of any Disney attractions, which would make your presence here a little confusing....(especially with a name like J. Cricket ;) )

raidermatt
10-24-2002, 07:26 PM
I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'

Define success.


Ahhhhh..... I want to make some comments on this, but will wait for the addressee to get the first crack... (must stop typing....be strong....)

SnackyStacky
10-24-2002, 09:41 PM
(pssst, Snacky - come a little closer - if I extract something from your post, guess what - you said it .)

Ah, but you see, I've cited at least two examples where I in fact HAVEN'T said what you said I did. I brought up quotes to substantiate that. That's simply not playing fair.

We can play the quote thing all night if you like Please do. Just make sure that a quote is responded to in context, and that what you're responding to IS in fact in the quote.

I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'. Maybe it can't.

Look carefully at that statement. The title of this thread. The sentence that you've said over and over and over again.

I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'. Maybe it can't.

Try it. Seperate it. Take out the Disney and what's left? You're trying to gauge the success for a ride. It works both on a metophorical and literal level.

What constitutes a success in any other theme park would not be a success in a Disney park. Disney has to be better in order to justify the incremental cost.


Would you agree of disagree with these statements?

That depends. If it lives up to those 5 criteria I suggested, then yes, it would be a success. With the exception of Universal's Rides, for the most part I would agree that a ride would fail at Disney World. DON'T take that to mean that we have to enter that into the equation as to what makes a Disney ride successful. I'm just saying that now that the competition is growing fiercer, there are rides that I think live up to the Disney standard.

Cricket:

E.g. Cinderella's Golden Carousel
in my opinion is a failure.

1) People like it, i.e. it is popular. - I don't personally, but we'll say they do
2) The show is carried out from beginning to end. - I suppose it is. I don't see too much of a show though. Just a plain carousel.
3) It has a cohesive, identifiable storyline. - Does it? Seems like a carousel to me, and I think to try and put one on it is forced.
4) It fits into the area where it was built (includes land and park) - it does indeed fit into the scheme of Fantasyland and the Magic Kingdom.
5) It is innovative in some way. - not in the very least

But at least those 5 points give us a starting place to determine where one thinks it succeeds and the other thinks it fails. I'm not saying the list is final, or fact, but it's a starting place.

Originally posted by raidermatt
The question is how do we judge, not necessarily what are the results of those judgements. That's the only point I originally addressed.

But you can't seperate the two. I'm saying that if you have a criteria, you need to test that criteria (that's what I've been trying to do, because I don't think there can be a set criteria of "success"). Since you can't get everyone to agree on what a "success" is, ANY criteria is moot.

You HAVE to seperate the two. As I said above, because everyone can't agree on success, you have to narrow "success" down to find out where one person thinks that something is a success and where one person thinks that same something is a failure.

DisneyKidds
10-25-2002, 10:30 AM
To provide a unique Disney element or attention to detail; to make guests laugh/cry/feel exhilarated/feel nostalgic/feel patriotic/feel proud often & much; to win the respect of intelligent people or the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics for those Magical elements it offers and endure the harsh criticisms for ways in which it could be better; to bring out the best in guests; to leave the World a bit better, whether by an excited child, a carefree adult, a closer family, a unique experience, a better understanding of our world, a renewed spirit or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has had an element of Disney Magic added to their vacation because it has existed. This is to have succeeded.

Thanks to Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson for the elegant passage this was based on, and to Mr. J. Cricket for reminding me it was in my wallet.

So, you won’t let me coach from the sidelines any longer and you are going to make me get into the game. I was rather enjoying my mediation role, but the time has come for me to take the field. Time to stop asking and start answering. Well, there you have it – my poetic definition of a successful Disney attraction. It is quite a list, but at the same time it is so very simple. For those who prefer a more traditional ‘list’, let me break it down;

1. To provide a unique Disney element or attention to detail. This is rather self explanatory. An attraction should have something that makes it unique to Disney. This can be a lot of things for a lot of people. (In no particular order of importance) A movie or character tie in; use of unique Disney storytelling techniques; over the top immersive themeing, easily overlooked attention to little detail. We could list a hundred things, because there are probably that many that can provide a unique Disney element.

2. To make guests laugh/cry/feel exhilarated/feel nostalgic/feel patriotic/feel proud often & much. In essence, an attraction should evoke some kind of emotional response in the guest. Not every ride for every guest, but for the intended audience. Face it, a 4 year old will cry for all the wrong reasons if they went on Extraterrorestial (I’m thinking of American Adventure tear in your eye type crying as the right kind), and many adults are bored to death by Dumbo.

3. To win the respect of intelligent people or the affection of children. Again, pretty self explanatory. Why both? Well, it is important that adults appreciate what is there. However, sometimes kids can see things in a unique way, and see things that an adult just can’t.

4. To earn the appreciation of honest critics for those Magical elements it offers and endure the harsh criticisms for ways in which it could be better. Ok, someone will probably say that this is fraught with CYA. Look a little closer though, as no attraction will be perfect in the eyes of all people. You see, many attractions accomplish many different things, and few accomplish all things. As the saying goes – you can keep all of the people happy some of the time, and you can keep some of the people happy all of the time, but you can’t keep all of the people happy all of the time. This isn’t just lip service – it is true. And no, it isn’t just about happiness. In this regard happiness = pure Disney joy. So, while there might be aspects of a ride that don’t make some people happy (ie bring them pure Disney joy), if they are an honest critic they will be able to look past that and see the things that keep other people happy (ie – bring them pure Disney joy). As for enduring the criticism – most rides will have some, but if they can withstand the test of time, still bring forth the Magic for those who see it as time passes despite those areas where it can be criticized, they will endure.

5. To bring out the best in guests. There is nothing better than pure joy. In and of itself, pure joy might not make a Disney success, but combined with the other elements…..that is Magic.

6. To leave the World a bit better, whether by an excited child, a carefree adult, a closer family, a unique experience, a better understanding of our world, a renewed spirit or a redeemed social condition. Ok, this one is a mouthful, but it is also rather simple. Perhaps the very things Walt fought so hard to provide. Disney attractions should excite, bring us together, educate, make us think, make us understand another peoples, give us something we can’t get elsewhere, help us to escape the workaday world, refresh us (at the same time as it exhausts us ;)), and make us all just a little bit happier, a little bit better – and have that stay with us (focus on this my friends, as a visit to Six Flags just doesn’t do it).

7. To know even one life has had an element of Disney Magic added to their vacation because it has existed. Yes, it is just as much about the person standing next to us as it is about you or me. That person may be elderly or young. That person may be from another country. That person may be from a different background. That person will have a different view on good or bad, successful or unsuccessful. And they have to do more than smile – Disney is about so much more than that. But if even just one person takes away a true Disney experience, a real Disney moment, a lasting Disney memory, then that ride is a success. Try this formula on for size. Ride for you is a failure (in relation to all those things I mention) + ride for the person next to you is a success (in relation to all those things I mention) = Disney Success.

Disney is many things to many people. If we fail to recognize that, if we try to say that Disney is only the things we say it is for us, we have stepped over the line and taken an element of imagination and delight, pure, bona fide, Disney delight, out of the hands of the person standing next to us. Would Walt approve of that? I really don’t believe so. I cringe at even putting my thoughts to writing as I could even be guilty of overstepping the line – but I truly endeavor to keep an open mind.

In conclusion, I admit that there are probably few true Disney failures. For you or I there may be many. But in general, on the whole, there are probably not many. I will also admit that in my framework, success and ‘Disney’ seem to go hand in hand for a Disney attraction. Does that mean that an attraction that doesn’t do all of the things I mention above is destined to be a failure? No. Here is where I will throw a bone for the Stacky guy to snack-y on. If it doesn’t do all the things I mentioned it can still be successful (read: popular - and notice that popularity was nowhere in my list), but it would be just as successful if it were in Disney, or if it were in the park that belongs to the guy down the street. You could take most, make that all, attractions in Disney and put them in a competitor’s park and they would be successful. You could take very few rides from a competitor’s park and put them in Disney and have them be a Disney success, even though they may succeed in generating a line.

Pick away, my friendly vultures, but you can’t change the truth.

SnackyStacky
10-25-2002, 11:40 AM
Kidds,

You have confused me more than ANYTHING.

To provide a unique Disney element or attention to detail.

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

I said this and you said that we were talking about two different things. Remember?

First things first on this one. I never said you are wrong about anything, especially given that we have been talking about two different things.

Two different things meaning what makes a ride Disney and what makes a Disney ride successful. I contended those two things were inextricably linked, and you disagreed! But you actually did agree?!?! HUH!?! I really am legitimately confused.

But anyway, onto my opinions of your list. Since I covered, and agreed with MANY times over #1, I'll move on.

2. To make guests laugh/cry/feel exhilarated/feel nostalgic/feel patriotic/feel proud often & much. In essence, an attraction should evoke some kind of emotional response in the guest. Not every ride for every guest, but for the intended audience. Face it, a 4 year old will cry for all the wrong reasons if they went on Extraterrorestial (I’m thinking of American Adventure tear in your eye type crying as the right kind), and many adults are bored to death by Dumbo.

I think this goes with #1 on my list. It's basically the same thing. Whether or not people like it. I think the end goal of any ride is to elicit some sort of response in people, and how WELL people give that response will determine how popular it is. So, more or less, I agree, I would just word it different.

3. To win the respect of intelligent people or the affection of children. Again, pretty self explanatory. Why both? Well, it is important that adults appreciate what is there. However, sometimes kids can see things in a unique way, and see things that an adult just can’t.

TOTALLY disagree here. With the entire premise. I agree that kids can see things in a way that adults can't, but there's too much qualification there. I don't think that any ride needs to "win" anybody's respect. That's a little too lofty, and a little too philosophical for my tastes. Even though it is a Disney ride, it is after all, just a ride.

4. To earn the appreciation of honest critics for those Magical elements it offers and endure the harsh criticisms for ways in which it could be better. Ok, someone will probably say that this is fraught with CYA. Look a little closer though, as no attraction will be perfect in the eyes of all people. You see, many attractions accomplish many different things, and few accomplish all things. As the saying goes – you can keep all of the people happy some of the time, and you can keep some of the people happy all of the time, but you can’t keep all of the people happy all of the time. This isn’t just lip service – it is true. And no, it isn’t just about happiness. In this regard happiness = pure Disney joy. So, while there might be aspects of a ride that don’t make some people happy (ie bring them pure Disney joy), if they are an honest critic they will be able to look past that and see the things that keep other people happy (ie – bring them pure Disney joy). As for enduring the criticism – most rides will have some, but if they can withstand the test of time, still bring forth the Magic for those who see it as time passes despite those areas where it can be criticized, they will endure.

Based on your explanation, it sounds to me just like a re-statement of number 1 in a different way. "bring them pure Disney joy" - what brings that Disney joy? That Disney element. So okay, I agree with it.

5. To bring out the best in guests. There is nothing better than pure joy. In and of itself, pure joy might not make a Disney success, but combined with the other elements…..that is Magic

Pure joy? As in the same joy that you were talking about in number 4? Again I agree, but I agreed when you said it in number 1, and number 4!

6. To leave the World a bit better, whether by an excited child, a carefree adult, a closer family, a unique experience, a better understanding of our world, a renewed spirit or a redeemed social condition. Ok, this one is a mouthful, but it is also rather simple. Perhaps the very things Walt fought so hard to provide. Disney attractions should excite, bring us together, educate, make us think, make us understand another peoples, give us something we can’t get elsewhere, help us to escape the workaday world, refresh us (at the same time as it exhausts us ), and make us all just a little bit happier, a little bit better – and have that stay with us (focus on this my friends, as a visit to Six Flags just doesn’t do it).

Six Flags certainly does do it. It leaves a child happier, and adult a little bit more carefree....don't believe me? Talk to coaster enthusiats that get that exileration, that liberation on a coaster. SO, since you said Six Flags doesn't do it, I'm assuming you're re-referencing the Disney Magic. I agreed about 4 times now!!!!!!!!

7. To know even one life has had an element of Disney Magic added to their vacation because it has existed. Yes, it is just as much about the person standing next to us as it is about you or me. That person may be elderly or young. That person may be from another country. That person may be from a different background. That person will have a different view on good or bad, successful or unsuccessful. And they have to do more than smile – Disney is about so much more than that. But if even just one person takes away a true Disney experience, a real Disney moment, a lasting Disney memory, then that ride is a success. Try this formula on for size. Ride for you is a failure (in relation to all those things I mention) + ride for the person next to you is a success (in relation to all those things I mention) = Disney Success.

YOU SAID THAT ALREADY!

I agree with the premise of your list, as the basis for it seems to be Disney Magic. But now you're left with where we were at the beginning of this thread. Define Disney Magic. Which I think is what I was trying to do since we apparently we now agree that Disney Magic most definitely has a link to the success of a Disney attraction.

Pick away, my friendly vultures, but you can’t change the truth.

"But what is truth? Not easy to define! We both have truths. Are yours the same as mine?"
- Pontius Pilate, fr. Jesus Christ Superstar

The next part of the quote is "CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM!" but we won't go that far since this is only a friendly debate. :crazy:

BRERALEX
10-25-2002, 12:20 PM
i think at this point you guys are just debating to argue. to see who can better up the other.

:o

BRERALEX
10-25-2002, 12:29 PM
KUMBA YA MY LORD KUMBA YA. KUMBA YA MY LORD KUMBA YA. LORD KUMBA YA

DisneyKidds
10-25-2002, 01:03 PM
SS...........
I contended those two things were inextricably linked, and you disagreed!
Well, well - who's putting words in mouths now ;). Go back and read. I never disagreed with anything.
Now, on the surface, some may consider those two question above to be one and the same, that ‘success’ and ‘Disney’ are inextricably linked when it comes to Disney attractions. That is a great point for discussion. Let me pose a few questions in that regard.
See what I said? In the end, I listened to opinions on both questions. I focused more on one, tried to guide you toward one, because I already knew how I felt about the other. I probed. I asked more questions. All this as I was formulating my response. That is far from disagreeing ;).
I don't think that any ride needs to "win" anybody's respect. That's a little too lofty, and a little too philosophical for my tastes. Even though it is a Disney ride, it is after all, just a ride.
Now, now Mr. S - I was just trying to stick with the Emerson passage a little bit ;). Respect may be a strong word but it keeps with the theme of the passage. I realize we aren't talking about world peace :rolleyes:. Notice in my explanation I use the word 'appreciate' as it relates to adults. Fact of the matter is, many adults might not appreciate the rides that the kids get the most Magic from. So to say a ride is not successful because an adult doesn't like it, or appreciate it, or respect it, is totally wrong. That was my point.
there's too much qualification
What 'qualification' are you talking about? My only 'qualification' is that kids and/or adults find Disney Magic in it. Please explain where the over-abundance of qualification exists.
and have that stay with us
Boy, I bolded it and told you that is where the focus should be and you still missed the point. Sure, Six Flags does some of those things. However, how many people talk or think about the Six Flags experience X months later? How any people plan a Six Flags vacation a year and a half in advance. How many people are banking their head against a wall on a Six Flags internet bulletin board? :crazy: We go to places like Hershey and Six Flags. Yeah, it is fun while we are there. Yeah, it is a break and we feel carefree while we are there. However, once we leave the parking lot the experience is pretty much gone. Sure, some people may also feel that way about Disney, but would you say it is the majority? I don't think so, otherwise Disney would never have become what it was/is. At Six Flags there is not much there to teach you about anything, to make you think, to make you understand something new (other than the color of barf after eating blue cotton candy ;)). Just my opinion, of course.
I agreed when you said it in number 1, and number 4!
You can interpret my items and agree with whatever you like, but I didn't 'say it' in 1 and 4. Sure, in number 4's explanation I threw in 'joy' just to make the point that simple happiness wasn't the barometer (so people didn't jump all over me ;)), but that wasn't the gist of number 4.

As to number 7 - the Magic itself is not the point. The point is who gets the Magic. The power of one, if you will.
"But what is truth? Not easy to define! We both have truths. Are yours the same as mine?"
Who's getting philosophical now ;). I think there are some simple truths that even Pilate and Je.......I mean you and I could agree upon. Tell me what you think:

1. All people are different.
2. Different people can find different Disney Magic in different things.
3. Not everyone will be able to necessarily see the same Disney Magic that someone else does, or see it in the same way.
4. Everyone is deserving of Disney Magic.
5. No one ride can be all things to all people.
6. Disney is the best theme park destination in the world.

PS - if you read my post to the end you would see that I flipped you the break and agree with much of what you said. But if you want to continue to quibble.......................I'll see you in a few hours ;).

PSS - a few relevant quotes...........Sorry Alex, SS wants to play this game ;).

SS in response to the 'Disney ride thing' (that would be SS defining what makes a 'Disney' ride).......
Let's start with the lowest of the low, a church lawn fete. A few rides, and some carnival games. People get off of those rides, and there would be more that enjoyed those rides than didn't. But I think we can agree that if they plopped one of those rides in the middle of a Disney park, it wouldn't get the warmest reception.
Why? I assume it must be because that Disney should be better than that. Is that what you were getting at Mr. SS?
SS on the same subject.............
Moving up a step, look at Six Flags. Lots of rides there that I "enjoy". But I would never ever spend any kind of money to pay for a hotel, airfare to get there, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't pay $52 to get in! So those success, again, wouldn't work in a Disney park.
Mr. SS continues.........
Then we look at Disney. People expect MORE from Disney, because Disney expects more from its guests. It expects them to pay premium prices for admission. It expects them to pay for their pricey hotels. It expects them to pay for transportation to get there (Because let's face it, the locals can't support the World). So if you take either of those first two examples and plop it down in the middle of the Magic Kingdom, I don't think it can nearly be considered a success. Because the fact that they ARE Disney raises the standard. Because Walt raised the standard. (And because Eisner raised the prices)
So, Six Flags rides wouldn't be a Disney success because people expect MORE. What does MORE mean? I assumed it meant Disney had to be better. Was I wrong in that assumption?

Then I said.............
It appears that one of the items on your (unwritten) list for a successful Disney attraction is that it be better than anything the competition has put out there.
.......and you vehemently disagreed with that, or with the notion that you said it.

Fine, you didn't say it. Can we drop this one now ;)?

WEDWAY100
10-25-2002, 01:32 PM
I am really tired of reading this thread. Snacky, DK, Baron von DVC, you guys (and/or gals) have it all wrong. You are wrong, wrong, wrong!

Here are the true criteria that make a Disney attraction successful:

1. It is cheap.
2. Guests will want to buy a lot of cheap crap at very high prices after they ride it.
3. It is cheap.
4. It can be opened later than the rest of the park with ease.
5. It can be closed earlier than the rest of the park with ease.
6. It stands out in its’ environment so that guests can see it.
7. If people don’t like it, characters and landscaping can be placed around it to hide the fact that it is cheap.
8. It was designed by an outside vendor so Disney can get rid of that pesky Imagineering division.
9. It has cross promotion with low rated ABC television show.
10. It has yellow caution tape and big warning signs all over it so no one can sue.
11. It can be used to market DVC.
12. It has a place where you can donate money to the Disney executive of choice.

I personally think that Disney is doing an admirable job of sticking to this philosophy. This "standard" if you will.

Why don’t you guys just lay off this stuff. You obviously don’t get it.

DisneyKidds
10-25-2002, 01:36 PM
I am really tired of reading this thread.
Sorry WED. Let me just run over to where you are and make myself stop twisting your arm to read this thread. Oh, wait, I'm not there ;) :crazy:.

WEDWAY100
10-25-2002, 01:48 PM
DK,

It's just self-inflicted torture. ;)

raidermatt
10-25-2002, 01:48 PM
Hey DK, are you in HR (Human Resources)?

That list has "tochy feely" all over it! (No, not THAT kind of touchy feely...);)

DisneyKidds
10-25-2002, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by WEDWAY100
DK,

It's just self-inflicted torture. ;)
You mean you didn't know we are all masochists? :eek:.

DisneyKidds
10-25-2002, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by raidermatt
Hey DK, are you in HR (Human Resources)?

That list has "tochy feely" all over it! (No, not THAT kind of touchy feely...);)
No Matt, I just didn't feel like sleeping on the train this morning and had a lot of time on my hands. Guess what, writing this stuff sure make that hour and fifteen go by pretty quick ;). I am a people person though, or at least that is what the guys in the assylum seem to think...............:eek:.

BRERALEX
10-25-2002, 02:23 PM
2. Guests will want to buy a lot of cheap crap

well that doesnt meet MY criteria ok. :jester:

i was looking for "the ride exits into a shop." but your almost there :) are you followin me? come here let me show you. cause you obviously dont get it!!! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

BRERALEX
10-25-2002, 02:53 PM
2. Guests will want to buy a lot of cheap crap

well that doesnt meet MY criteria ok. :jester:

i was looking for "the ride exits into a shop." but your almost there :) are you followin me? come here let me show you. cause you obviously dont get it!!! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

SnackyStacky
10-25-2002, 05:26 PM
Well, well - who's putting words in mouths now ;). Go back and read. I never disagreed with anything.

You're right. My bad. I was remembering something before I fished through and picked it up. See that? I ADMIT when I do it!

What 'qualification' are you talking about?

The qualification that "intelligent" should respect it. I didn't want to say this before because it sounds offensive, but there are, quite frankly, a LOT of stupid people at Walt Disney World. Look at some of the management team alone. Point is, EVERYONE should be able to "respect" it. I still think that the whole point is moot. I know you were trying to keep with Emerson, but get past the quote and let's attempt to define something that works for these rides.

Boy, I bolded it and told you that is where the focus should be and you still missed the point. Sure, Six Flags does some of those things. However, how many people talk or think about the Six Flags experience X months later?

To which I say:

SO, since you said Six Flags doesn't do it, I'm assuming you're re-referencing the Disney Magic. I agreed about 4 times now!!!!!!!!

Because that's the difference between Six Flags and Disney World. The Disney Magic.

You can interpret my items and agree with whatever you like,

No need to interpret, you said it flat out.

4. To earn the appreciation of honest critics for those Magical elements it offers

YOU keep talking about Disney Magic. I'm not interpreting anything.

As to number 7 - the Magic itself is not the point. The point is who gets the Magic. The power of one, if you will

Okay, so I don't get the magic of Aladdin. You do. How does that leave it as a success in your eyes? It still only fits to your requirements. So I can agree that others think it's a success. It is still, to me a failure. So articulate it however you'd like, I think that that item on your list is flawed.

Who's getting philosophical now ;).

An attempt at a joke to prove that you can't call ANYTHING within the confines of this discussion a truth.

1. All people are different.

Quite obviously, agreed.

2. Different people can find different Disney Magic in different things.

Agreed

3. Not everyone will be able to necessarily see the same Disney Magic that someone else does, or see it in the same way.

Agreed.

4. Everyone is deserving of Disney Magic.

When they first enter the park, yes. Some people aren't quite so deserving later on, but that's just a crude attempt at a joke.

Agreed.

5. No one ride can be all things to all people.

Agreed.

6. Disney is the best theme park destination in the world.

I could start a whole nother thread on this, but for sake of discussion, I'll cautiously agree.

Trouble now is trying to get a list to determine where someone thinks something succeeds, and where someone else thinks something fails, because like you said, and like I agreed with, there will be people who will have two completely different opinions on the success of a ride. So, attempt in the best possible vein what makes an attraction Disney, and see within that list of criteria where those opinions differ. If they all agree with those criteria, the criteria is flawed since the end opinion was different to begin with. Once again, I'm not saying that my list is perfect either. I'm just trying with you and everyone else to determine the factors that something lives up to to make it Disney.

you vehemently disagreed with that, or with the notion that you said it.

What I disagreed with is that I had an "unwritten list". I have NOTHING of the sort. My list were the 5 you saw, and that was it. That was my disagreement.

Fine, you didn't say it. Can we drop this one now ;)?

Fine by me!

DisneyKidds
10-26-2002, 01:26 AM
Ok my Snacky friend – I can still call you friend, right? All those CAPS and !! with nary a winkie ;) or smilie :) to be found – one could think you were getting sore. I hope not. Well, I was going to say that I could let your last post go, but you are just too much fun (and I have time on my hands on the train). So…………
but there are, quite frankly, a LOT of stupid people at Walt Disney World.
………and on Walt Disney World bulletin boards too ;) :p (wait – since I am sensing you haven’t been reading my winkies and smilies let me add a few more) :crazy: :eek: ;) ;) ;) :p (and point out that they indicate I am joking. The more I wink and smile, the more I am joking – are we clear? You gotta admit – you set that one up toooooooo well. Come on, admit it ;).)

Let me just say this – if “intelligent” is the word you keyed on in that whole item you missed the point. Mooooooving right along……….
To which I say:
quote:
SO, since you said Six Flags doesn't do it, I'm assuming you're re-referencing the Disney Magic. I agreed about 4 times now!!!!!!!!
I have to say Mr. S, you are the only one who has ever, in back to back sentences, disagreed with me and then used more exclamation marks than the Baron to emphatically point out that you agree with me – but I let it go before. However, if you so clearly got what I was saying, why the heck did you preface your agreement with my point with a disagreement regarding something you knew I wasn’t saying? I’m starting to think you are just looking for a reason to disagree with me :eek:. Snacky, you got some splainin to do ;)
YOU keep talking about Disney Magic. I'm not interpreting anything.
Hmmm…let me count how times that I said ‘Magic’ up until #4 in my list. Hmmm…that would be…..let me see……I’ll have it tallied in a moment…….(waiting for the auditors from Coopers & Lybrand to certify the results)…….the totals are in and that would be…….ONCE!!!!!!!!!! Oh, wait, you saw it more than once? Oh, that must have been your interpretation ;).
Okay, so I don't get the magic of Aladdin.
Who said anything about that A word that I swore I wouldn’t talk about ;). It sure wasn’t me :p.
An attempt at a joke to prove that you can't call ANYTHING within the confines of this discussion a truth.
Yeah, I got that. Believe it or not – I do get your humor. Sorry you don’t get mine – like jokingly turning your ‘philosophical’ line around on you. (Should I explain those winkies again?).
What I disagreed with is that I had an "unwritten list". I have NOTHING of the sort.
Weeeelllllll………as you are not disagreeing with having said that Disney should be, actually has a responsibility to be, better than the lawn fete or Six Flags, and I don’t see that item on your list of 5……………………wait, I just got out my decoder glasses – it was there on the list all along. It was just in invisible ink ;). Really, I'll move on now - you just make it sooooo hard ;).

Ok - on to something real. You stated earlier that you see the carousel as a failure, specifically as to the fact that it doesn't fit the storyline or theme I believe. If you look at the planning and implementation of Fantasyland it is actually a very good fit. You enter Fanstasyland through Cinderella's Castle. As you walk through the castle you pass those incredible murals made of mosaic tile that depict scenes from the movie. As you come out of the castle on the Fantasyland side the first thing you see is Cinderella's Golden Carousel. It ties Fantasyland to the castle and provides a wonderful transition. Very 'Disney', IMHO.

Hey, let's talk about more things like this - it is a bit more fun :).

SnackyStacky
10-26-2002, 02:31 PM
Let me preface this ENTIRE post with this statement.

I hate AOL. I'm getting it for free, so beggars can't be choosers. But it REALLY is not letting me dig through older posts, and get the codes for the right smiley faces, and it is REALLY aggravating. I'm not going to fight AOL today, so I can't quote anything beyond the few that appear at the bottom of the reply screen. Hope it also explains lack of smilies.

Ok my Snacky friend – I can still call you friend, right? All those CAPS and !! with nary a winkie or smilie to be found – one could think you were getting sore. I hope not. Well, I was going to say that I could let your last post go, but you are just too much fun (and I have time on my hands on the train). So…………

I get a little heated and fierce when it comes to my beliefs and opinions. Not sore at all. I'll keep up as long as you will. See above for referencing the lack of smilies.

An attempt at a joke
Was the focus of that statement. I wasn't sure if the joke had gotten across. Sometimes my jokes tend to be obscure, thus labeling it an "attempt".

Let me just say this – if “intelligent” is the word you keyed on in that whole item you missed the point. Mooooooving right along……….
Nope, as I said, I disagreed with the whole premise of that entire item. "intelligent people" was just the icing on the cake.

I have to say Mr. S, you are the only one who has ever, in back to back sentences, disagreed with me and then used more exclamation marks than the Baron to emphatically point out that you agree with me – but I let it go before.

Let me try again:

6. To leave the World a bit better, whether by an excited child, a carefree adult, a closer family, a unique experience, a better understanding of our world, a renewed spirit or a redeemed social condition. Ok, this one is a mouthful, but it is also rather simple. Perhaps the very things Walt fought so hard to provide. Disney attractions should excite, bring us together, educate, make us think, make us understand another peoples, give us something we can’t get elsewhere, help us to escape the workaday world, refresh us (at the same time as it exhausts us ), and make us all just a little bit happier, a little bit better – and have that stay with us (focus on this my friends, as a visit to Six Flags just doesn’t do it).

Let me break it down and respond element by element exactly what my response is to your #6 item:

6. To leave the World a bit better, whether by an excited child, a carefree adult, a closer family, a unique experience, a better understanding of our world, a renewed spirit or a redeemed social condition.

This is the end goal of ANY ride. To elicit some response from the rider, and many of those you listed (not all, but many) can happen at any entertainment/amusement/theme venue. ESPECIALLY if you have a community day, for the purpose of bringing people together. The rides play a significant role in that.

BUT, it seemed to me that you agreed with that, so you went on to refine that point even more:

Ok, this one is a mouthful, but it is also rather simple. Perhaps the very things Walt fought so hard to provide.

"The things Walt fought so hard to provide." Well, yes, he did, but he had more of a purpose than that because that can happen anywhere, so you refined even further...

Disney attractions should excite, bring us together, educate, make us think, make us understand another peoples, give us something we can’t get elsewhere, help us to escape the workaday world, refresh us (at the same time as it exhausts us ), and make us all just a little bit happier, a little bit better –

A start at an attempt to create a working definition of how to determine if something is Disney, BUT the cream on the cake....

and have that stay with us (focus on this my friends, as a visit to Six Flags just doesn’t do it).

AHA! The very essence of Disney. SO, if this isn't saying that a big part of how successful the ride is, is based on whether or not it is "Disney", please explain to me EXACTLY what you are saying. I had already said this, and continue to attempt to break down exactly what makes something Disney, since we seem to agree that that plays a vital role in the success of something. I was agreeing with what seemed to be the premise of your entire statement which I have broken down. I hope I've explained my agreement which has been consistent.

Weeeelllllll………as you are not disagreeing with having said that Disney should be, actually has a responsibility to be, better than the lawn fete or Six Flags, and I don’t see that item on your list of 5……………………wait, I just got out my decoder glasses – it was there on the list all along. It was just in invisible ink .

That item ISN'T on my list of 5 because the list is trying to determine that factor. That's like trying to determine a list as to how to describe "cold" (an almost impossibility) and putting down:
1.) The item is cold
It doesn't work. You can't use what you're trying to define in your definition!

Who said anything about that A word that I swore I wouldn’t talk about . It sure wasn’t me .

I'm not trying to argue the validity or success of Aladdin. It's just a GREAT place to try and get a list of defining success since we need a list that will fit your opinion that it's successful, and my opinion that it's not.

According to your items, I SHOULD see it as a success because others can see it as a success even though I don't. Based on your explanation of number 7:

As to number 7 - the Magic itself is not the point. The point is who gets the Magic. The power of one, if you will

I don't agree. So one person sees the Disney magic in something and nobody else does. Doesn't that leave it as a failure since if nobody rides it, it is probably a failure?

1.) Popularity
2.) Story
3.) Show from beginning to end
4.) It fits
5.) Innovation

While I've got that list in my head and since I brought up Aladdin, I agree with what Baron said. Some sort of sliding scale needs to be accounted for. Because regardless of whether or not Aladdin works, it's just not innovative, but that needs to be taken into account to allow for Kidds to think it's a success.

I take again this moment to say that the list isn't final, fact, or truth either! Just an attempt!

Ok - on to something real. You stated earlier that you see the carousel as a failure, specifically as to the fact that it doesn't fit the storyline or theme I believe. If you look at the planning and implementation of Fantasyland it is actually a very good fit. You enter Fanstasyland through Cinderella's Castle. As you walk through the castle you pass those incredible murals made of mosaic tile that depict scenes from the movie. As you come out of the castle on the Fantasyland side the first thing you see is Cinderella's Golden Carousel. It ties Fantasyland to the castle and provides a wonderful transition. Very 'Disney', IMHO.

I can't dig back to find exactly what I said, but I since I know me pretty well, I THINK what I most had a problem with was the innovation factor. I think I said that perhaps there was a storyline but if there is, it's somewhat stretched. I also believe I said that it did fit into the theme of Fantasyland as well as the Magic Kingdom. My biggest issue was the innovation factor.

DVC-Landbaron
10-26-2002, 04:04 PM
Draft Copy

Sliding scale example. Submitted only to get the ball rolling.

You list a topic. Say ‘AGE’.

You give it a weight. It is understood that just to make it on the list it has to be important. So it is assumed to have a weight of: 1. If it is mort important than other criteria you give it a two (2).

Then you times the rating you give the subject by the weight. And move on to the next item. This time let’s try “STORY”. And again you have to weigh the item and then give it a rating. So, let’s see if I’m making any sense or you’re following me.

So since it’s my scale I’ll make up my own numbers. (We will have to reach a consensus eventiually, but for now, in this example, just go with it a minute)!!!

I’ll give “AGE” (can all ages enjoy it) a weight of one. But “Story” (for Disney) needs a weight of two!

So for Pirates I (again, my example) will give pirates a 9 for all ages (I suppose somewhere there might be a kid who might be a little scared). And for story, since I think that Pirates pretty much defines a Disney story, I’ll rate it as a ten!!

So for age that’s a 9 * 1 for a total ‘weighted rating’ of 9. And a 10 * 2 for a total ‘weighted rating’ of 20 for the story aspect.

Next you add the weighted ratings for a total (29) AND the weights for a total (3) and divide the ratings by the weights. This leaves you with a score of 9.67!!

For Aladdin I gave the age bit a 3 and the story bit a 7. For a weighted rating of 5.67.

It’d look like this:

Pirates
Item . . Weight . .Rating . . . Weighted Rating
Age . . . . . 1 . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 9
Story . . . . 2 . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . 20
Total . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Weighted Rating . . . . . . . . . . .29/3 or 9.67

Aladdin
Item . . Weight . .Rating . . . Weighted Rating
Age . . . . . 1 . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . 3
Story . . . . 2 . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 14
Total . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Weighted Rating . . . . . . . . . . .17/3 or 5.67

I also thought that the following might work. Criteria (weight)
Ages (1)
Story (2)
Theme (2)
Theme in area (2)
Overall Concept (2)
Ride mechanism (1)
Innovation (1)
Fun factor (1)

Just submitting as a draft for all to work on.

DisneyKidds
10-27-2002, 06:41 AM
Baron :wave:. I can accept your concept. I can accept your importance factors. The problem comes in when assigning a rating which to multiply the importance factor by. Way too subjective. A 3 rated Story or Theme to you might be an 8 to someone else. You are rating the attraction as viewed through your eyes. Likewise, while you rate an attraction as a 9, others might see it as a 2. As for Age, how do you objectively determine what is a 3 and what is a 9?

Keep working ;).

SnackyStacky
10-27-2002, 09:21 AM
How about we assign it a passing/failing grade based on how many of the criteria we think something passes.

Kidds, re: Aladdin, just answer yes or no to these questions: (Just yes or no, no need for explanation)

1.) Do people like it?
2.) Is there a story?
3.)Is there a show from beginning to end?
4.) Does it fit within land and park?
5.) Is it innovative.

My responses:

1.) yes
2.) no
3.) yes
4.) no
5.) no

That's 2 yesses to 3 no's, so by my standards it's a failure.

I'm asking this to determine if a system like that could work. More yesses is a success, more no's is a failure.

Might that work?

DisneyKidds
10-27-2002, 10:07 AM
Might that work?
The only way I see that working is if you were polling a representative or balanced group. If you ask your question of the people who frequent this board you will come up failure for Aladdin no doubt. However, you would likely get a different answer if you sample group were different. Ask a group of 3 year olds and you will undoubtedly come up with success for Aladdin. How would you like to construct your focus group? Should there even be a focus group? I think management by focus group has led to many a mistake.

Ask yourself this. If Aladdin (and I only say it because you are MAKING me talk about it ;)) meets all of your 5 criteria as judged by a 3 year old and meets none of the 5 as judged by a 43 year old, is the ride a success or a failure?

SnackyStacky
10-27-2002, 10:51 AM
I will have more time to talk about it later, but I just want to say that we need to disuss Aladdin. Not it's merits, but like I said before it's a good starting point because it's known that we have two differing opinions about it and a good gauge to figure out how to determine success.

More later!