what set of criteria would not rig the game?
A set that does not, quite frankly, appear designed to overwhelmingly favor an existing pair of attractions. And I'm not saying it should be done simply to their detriment, either. Just that maybe the criteria should be designed irrespective of either bias.
To me, at least, it looks like you watched Nadia, decided she was amazing, and then tailored the criteria to her performance. Setting up a set of criteria that included her age, her charisma, her personality, her relative (to her fellow competitors) lack of resources and training....and then called all that technical requirements.
Those things didn't make her routine harder...they just made what she did more impressive. Technical vs artistic.
The artistic is somewhat subjective. There are people (and, in this case, I LITERALLY am talking about East German Judges) who prefer the more established, better trained, more refined, more "gymnast mill", more robotic performances. And they give them higher scores.
They would not be wrong, either. That's what they liked. I just wouldn't agree with them. And I would say their focus on certain artistic (or geographic) elements was a little heavy handed.
TO ME, your criteria look like they ingrain your preference for story source...and somewhat needlessly (IMHO, evidenced by the fact we reach the same conclusion, through different journies).
And now you say "Well, I know I enjoy what I enjoy and I know WHY". And that's fine. Great.
But now you have a much better idea why people might disagree with your opinion. Or, if you prefer the verbage, have a differing one.
We start with the supposition that you say you agree with, HM and Pirates are the best of the best. SM is a close 3rd.
I'm with you.
I say, ok, given that, what are the criteria that explain this? I present a set of criteria.
You say the criteria rig the game.
Yup, still with you.
but wait, the result has already been stated. HM and Pirates already win and SM is somehow in 3rd. So why does my set of criteria rig a game when we both agree on the winners?
Because, as with many things, it's all about the journey. How we all get there.
The logical discussion here is for you to present an alternate set of criteria that explain the result and then we go from there.
I thought we'd done that, in context.
Remove the nitpick about story source and we'd probably be pretty close. Maybe not 100% there, but close. I don't know, exactly, because you didn't provide a FULL set of criteria...just that one piece.
So...the alternate set of criteria you seem to be pushing for, to mirror the "set of criteria" you provided, would be "not that".
If on the other hand your opinion was that SM was equal rather than a close 3rd, then you might say I've rigged the game, because I've created a scenario where it can't win.
In a more macro point: You've created a scenario where it is almost impossible to topple the existing top 2. By any attraction...past, present, or future. And not based on anything more than source of original material (even if that source is original to the company, just not original to the attraction).
But that's not the argument you and I are having. That is some argument with someone else who believes something different from you and I.
No, it's the same discussion (I don't feel like I'm arguing). I'm just not quite as focused on the conclusion...more on the way we get there.
The analogy however exists entirely within the context of the criteria I've set forth though.
Which is why I've said I don't think it's apt within the context of the criteria you set forth.
But it could be apt, IMHO. It just needed to be turned on it's ear a little.
My bias is that I have a specific view of what makes Disney's best attractions the best. With that as a baseline I made an analogy to explain Splash Mountain.
As the East German judges had a particular view of what constituted (and WHO constituted) a good performance. And that view heavily weighted success to very particular gymnasts or styles of gymnasts.
In this case, it's not like having that bias is egregious, though...because we're discussing theme park ride rankings and not judging anything important, nor does the opinion (yours or mine) have any real effect on anything important.
But you're sort of making my point.
Splash Mountain objectively (technically) fails to meet the complexity requirements for the baseline I've established. So within the context of the baseline, I'm not the east german judge. The subjective performance of each attraction is in my opinion flawless. But the technical aspects are different and so SM is 3rd.
No, within the confines of your analogy you would be the Olympic Committee and the East German Judge..at the same time.
Again, I just can't see story source (or lack of one) being a technical requirement, here. Again, you can base your opinion on whatever you want. I just don't think it's apt..because it's largely a matter of very personal preference. The logic, to me, doesn't hold up.
You've moved the point of bias. For me to be the "East German Judge" there would need to be some Ur-Criteria for what makes the best Disney attractions that we have all agreed to at which point you would say Ah-HA, you are using some criteria outside those established. You've rigged the game you crafty East German you!
But we have no such Ur-Criteria. The analogy exists entirely within my established parameters not yours or Landbaron's or anyone elses.
Actually, that's rather the point.
We don't have Ur-Criteria. So, when "idigesting" (that's not the right word...my own brain fart) someone's opinion, I like to know what the basis is. How they got there. I now know. I know one of
your criteria.
And I have a difference of opinion on the aptness of that piece of criteria. I don't find it a compelling factor when ranking attractions.
Life isn't fair. What is our goal here? We're talking about what makes the best Disney attractions. There must be a set of criteria and ipso facto there must be some attractions that don't measure up. To bad, so sad.
Except...
It's not about there being some attractions that don't measure up. I have no issue with that.
It's about not creating a set of criteria that favors a particular (relatively minor, for many people) detail of the attraction.
What then is part of the planning prior to execution (planning is the wrong word, but I'm brain farting)
is the phrase "We need an attraction for this part of the park" all that can compromise the pre-execution phase?
"I want an attraction about pirates" implies an original story does it not? Versus: "I want a Snow White attraction." It can't all be part of execution.
Why not? Why would you not consider it all part of the execution? It's all a part of the artistry of the ride/show/attraction, right?
It's the choreography of the attraction...all part of the process.
Splash Mountain's choice of theme was made on a drawing board in Imagineering before anything was executed. Iger's dictate about synergistic attractions is not about execution.
No to the first (not the fact that SM choice was mad...just the point that THAT wasn't part of the execution). Planning is part of executing. It's part of the creation of the ride. You have to plan (or, rather, you should...I wonder in terms of some recent creations) before you can build. You have to build before the show can go on.
Yes to the second. It's about greed, and capitalizing (ie: riding the horse til it's dead) on IP's they've already spent money on.
And that is why Walt Disney built Fantasyland.
And there, sir, is I think where the issue arises. That one sentence might get to the heart of the matter better than the previous pages of text we've generated:
I think that statement is where the bias is getting in. Because maybe it's not the story source that's the issue for you, it's the fact that Disney isn't adhering to keeping it's cross-media attractions all in one place..the place Walt intended.
Walt is gone. And this isn't about WWWD. It's about what's actually been built. And what might be built in the future.
But, and this is critical,
Disneyland and Disney World exceeded all expectation in part, because Walt knew what the people wanted before they themselves did. Pirates of the Caribbean was so famous that people visiting WDW asked about it and then they built one there.
and perhaps this gets back to more the core point of this thread.
See, I agree. And were we now still discussing Eisner/Iger's effect on the company, I'd be right there with you.
But we're not.
Or, at least, I'm not. I suspect that's rather the point. And I have since we started.
Disneyland and Disney World weren't built so people could come see Disney characters and IP. At least not exclusively and not primarily. They were built to showcase the stories (and the SHOW) that Walt wanted to present.
the Disney IP was a mere carrot to pull them in. That is a FACT. That is why Fantasyland is one small part of Disneyland.
No, but...we're dealing in reality. Not intent. Not WWWD.
And the fact is, today...there are people who go there (WDW/DLR) looking for that stuff. That muti-faceted, real world connection to the Disney material. You might not be one of them. I might not be either. But they're there.
That's reality.
Which is why I think the story source criteria is, in itself, an introduction of bias. It rigs the game to favor specific attractions and ignores that Disney needs to build those attractions to keep at least some subset of folks coming through the gates.
You're one of those people that thinks children shouldn't be graded in School aren't you.
Believe it or not, I think they should be graded more, and probably more harshly than they are. Seriously. But that's another thread on another board.
BUT, having said that, I think they should be tested on a relatively even landscape, absent biases that favor white suburban males. But we can talk about standardized test bias in that other thread on that other board, too.
If you want to say that we cannot form an objective criteria for what makes up the best Disney attraction. That literally it's all subjective and all opinions are equally valid, well then we don't have much to talk about, because that isn't the way the world works.
I'm not looking for perfectly objective....because you can't objectively quantify things like "fun" and "enjoyment". And those have to be factors in all this. And so does the overall artistry of the attraction. Not just what it does, but HOW it does it. Certainly there's no mathematic formula that says "number of drops+number of animatronics+200 decorations/sq rt of pi to the power of hourly ride capacity = successfulness of attraction". I get that.
But I think there is a wide berth between perfectly objective and subjective to the point of extreme bias. Something a little more in the middle of those two points, IMHO, would serve the discussion better...because I think you'd find a more common jumping off point. Now, maybe you're not interested in a more common jumping off point. Fair enough.
It wasn't mere chance that Walt was as successful as he was, he made demands and set expectations and those demands and expectations, codified are what made Disney successful and what made the parks successful. My intention is to try and distill those demands and expectations into a set of characteristics. I may be wrong, but I'm not trying to set a subjective standard, but establish an objective one.
But that's rather the point: Story source seems to be a pretty subjective preference to include in a set of standards that would even begin to approach objective. I don't see anything that would indicate Walt felt they were inherently "better" (as in, a better experience/attraction/show). I see his insistence they build more of them..but I think the motivation behind why is a little deeper than because he thought they were inherently "better".
