Disney no longer coming up with original ideas for rides

[rteetz]

I agree, its beautiful. It is a wonder. But climate wise it is a little slice of hell! I've been there when the temperatures were frigid in Orlando and when it's been in the 90's and it's really tough to appreciate the beauty of the park when you are so uncomfortable. The cold was a fluke, but they heed to quadruple the amount of fans in the park.

I'll agree with that. However I went in January for the first this past year and it was 45-50 degrees and it was incredibly enjoyable. I've also been in July and just want to sit in an air conditioned room all day.

 

[Astridia]

I'll agree with that. However I went in January for the first this past year and it was 45-50 degrees and it was incredibly enjoyable. I've also been in July and just want to sit in an air conditioned room all day.

When I went during a cold snap, none of the animals were out. It was too cold. Not a fun experience. I wish someone would invent individual climate controlled clothes that weren't the size of space suits! Between weather and crowds, it's really hard to find a great time to visit WDW.

 

[rteetz]

When I went during a cold snap, none of the animals were out. It was too cold. Not a fun experience. I wish someone would invent individual climate controlled clothes that weren't the size of space suits! Between weather and crowds, it's really hard to find a great time to visit WDW.

Coming from snow filled Wisconsin in January to 50-60 degrees in Orlando is great in my opinion. I would agree that there really isn't a slow time at WDW these days.

 

[dwheaton]

I feel like Disney has made some amazing attractions not tied to IP in recent years. The problem is that they've been located in Hong Kong (Mystic Manor, Big Grizzly Mountain) or Tokyo before that. They're getting safer with the U.S. parks.

 

[ParrotBill]

SSE has long been one of our favorites (smell Rome burning) and it isn't based on a movie either. Just wish when it was redone a number of years ago that they hadn't taken out sections where you simply see black drapes. Still that way? Will have to see on next trip

I am glad this one survives somewhat close to it's original form. Lucky for us the theme lends itself to a number of potential sponsors.

We've certainly a big shift at EPCOT, more than the other parks - as EPCOT was supposed to be "Edutainment" and now it's clearly just entertainment looking at the changes that have taken place. I used to love the resource center with handouts extending the knowledge and culture beyond the attractions.

My favorite World Showcase attraction is Impressions de France - because it's unchanged. The change for China's movie was unnecessary. I grudgingly admit the change to O Canada is more entertainment and still keeps the spirit of the original.

Most of all, I miss Horizons and World of Motion. If only they could have added Mission: Space and Test Track instead of replacing the oldies but goodies.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

I remember as a kid the Wonders of Life Pavilion was my favorite part of Epcot. Riding the recumbent bikes while watching your path on a TV was the coolest thing ever. That being said I'm not sure kids today have the same delight at something like that. In simpler times simpler attractions ruled. We only had 4 channels and an Atari 2600 so that was awesome technology. Even then though the second times seeing the movies in the countries just didn't do it for me.

I may be in the minority but I don't really mind the incorporation of IP into the countries. I think the way they put the Cabelleros in Mexico was great and didn't really mess up the cheesiness of the videos that were outdated when it was built. The stories the characters were based on are part of the countries so as long as they do it in context I think it's cool.

I don't think things should never change regardless of how nostalgic I get sometimes. I hate that the level of maintainence has changed but I don't mind Capt Jack being in POTC, I love the silly ending at the end of SSE and while I hate Stitch my niece thinks it's hilarious.

New doesn't always have to mean original but it is nice when it's a mix.

 

[wallrock]

If anyone has had to stand in PP, HM, Pooh, etc. with small children, you'd understand how awesome these new queues really are. My kids thought the queue for Pooh was the greatest thing ever.

You can't use EPCOT as something to compare it with. That park was a completely different animal from it's inception. I'd argue 1984 was it's best year...but I'm an older coot that's been to the parks way too much, as is clearly blinded.....

And AK had Camp Minnie/Mickey, Nemo, Lion King, and Bugs Life tie ins from the get go. And I don't think you'd find anyone stating AK is a powerhouse in any form.

You seem to have a conflict here.

The topic is, to your earlier response, about Disney and not just the Magic Kingdom.

If that's the case, then why exclude Epcot? Last time I checked it's part of Disney. To throw it aside because you think it's a different animal doesn't change the fact that as a Disney park it opened with zero attractions that were derived from films. I'd argue that Epcot represented the true genius of what Disney could pull off.

As far as Animal Kingdom being a powerhouse or not, the crux of the argument is, once again, original attractions not having their theme based on films. The majority of Animal Kingdom at its opening fit that description.

The examples point the common denominator - Disney didn't use films as a support tool to make attractions. Imagineers were left to their own creative resources. Too bad the powers that be have escaped into the ease of using films as their main source of material.

 

[I M Fearless]

Too bad the powers that be have escaped into the ease of using films as their main source of material.

I don't think it is easier if you want to build an outstanding attraction.

Trying to make an innovative and cohesive attraction within the context of a film is harder in my opinion.

If you only want to make a mediocre attraction based on a film it's not as hard, you can rely on the merits and popularity of the film to carry the attraction and use as "filler"

If you want to make an outstanding attraction in the same league as Pirates or Mansion, having to shoehorn in an IP becomes cumbersome and more of a burden in my opinion.

I dare say incorporating Jack Sparrow into POTC was more difficult for imagineers than building a brand new ride based on the franchise. If you put yourself in the position of building from scratch, I dare say there would be more presence of characters from the movie, and you'd have to wonder what things would never have been thought of or included in the attraction. This is the danger, the existing IP stifles creativity in the whole process, and the ride is limited to what it could potentially have been.

 

[Astridia]

Here's an article on the Rotten Tomatoes website: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tom...933403/1/the_tomatometer_guide_to_disneyland/

 

[DDLand]

I'll throw something into the fire for food for thought. I've been thinking about when Disneyland was first released, and what movie distribution was like. Our perspective is totally different from the people of the 1950s and 60s.

Movies back then were released every several years with no way to watch them during the interim. If you loved Snow White, than it stinks for you because it could be years before you could see it. That's what made Fantasyland special. You could see real life versions of the movie retold. Want to watch Peter Pan? Go to Disneyland and experience that attraction. Have a hankering for Swiss Family Robinson? Head over to the Tree House.

Ironically as distribution has improved, theme parks have doubled down on IP based attractions. This is the difference though. Instead of just wanting to rewatch the movie, they want to live in the movie.

This is likely why many found Little Mermaid underwhelming. People don't go to the theme park to watch the movie anymore. You can do that at home with a few clicks on the computer. People want to have new unique experiences and live in the world.

Look at every attraction Disney and Universal is adding globally and you'll find few attractions just retelling the story. Iron Man, Avatar, HP, etc.

Interesting...

 

[mcjaco]

Movies back then were released every several years with no way to watch them during the interim. If you loved Snow White, than it stinks for you because it could be years before you could see it. That's what made Fantasyland special. You could see real life versions of the movie retold. Want to watch Peter Pan? Go to Disneyland and experience that attraction. Have a hankering for Swiss Family Robinson? Head over to the Tree House.

According to one person here, no you couldn't. DL was entirely non-movie based rides when it opened......(I'm being facetious).

Except there was Peter Pan, Snow White, Dumbo, Mr. Toad, Swiss Family, 20,000 Leagues, etc.

The movie tie rides were as much a part of the parks when they opened as they are now.

As for the argument with EPCOT, I'm sorry you can't include it. From the day it was designed they did not want movie tie ins or Disney Characters in the park. And trust me, if you were there in the very beginning, it was a very strange feeling. Get approached by one of those big headed World Showcase people and....eeeek! The only characters to really hook you were Figment and Dreamfinder. That doesn't work for an entire park.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

As for the argument with EPCOT, I'm sorry you can't include it. From the day it was designed they did not want movie tie ins or Disney Characters in the park. And trust me, if you were there in the very beginning, it was a very strange feeling. Get approached by one of those big headed World Showcase people and....eeeek! The only characters to really hook you were Figment and Dreamfinder. That doesn't work for an entire park.

I agree that there is no "inherent" problem with tie ins on rides. The real problem is that they don't seem to want to build either due to cost...and the guy at the top is the 9th highest paid CEO in the country according to Forbes...

The point? The can spend the money. No economic argument about derivatives or budgeting changes that fundamental fact.

As far as EPCOT goes...it worked fine for 25 years...
But they started worrying about "lowest common denominator"...the kids are bored.
Mostly because the customers started worrying about that.

Now it's a Bibbidi bobbity world... Embarassing

 

[Astridia]

I'll throw something into the fire for food for thought. I've been thinking about when Disneyland was first released, and what movie distribution was like. Our perspective is totally different from the people of the 1950s and 60s.

Movies back then were released every several years with no way to watch them during the interim. If you loved Snow White, than it stinks for you because it could be years before you could see it. That's what made Fantasyland special. You could see real life versions of the movie retold. Want to watch Peter Pan? Go to Disneyland and experience that attraction. Have a hankering for Swiss Family Robinson? Head over to the Tree House.

Ironically as distribution has improved, theme parks have doubled down on IP based attractions. This is the difference though. Instead of just wanting to rewatch the movie, they want to live in the movie.

This is likely why many found Little Mermaid underwhelming. People don't go to the theme park to watch the movie anymore. You can do that at home with a few clicks on the computer. People want to have new unique experiences and live in the world.

Look at every attraction Disney and Universal is adding globally and you'll find few attractions just retelling the story. Iron Man, Avatar, HP, etc.

Interesting...

Great points. But I also think the discussion should be about ride quality and capital investment as opposed to what the attraction is based on. I agree that Little Mermaid is underwhelming, but compare that to Radiator Springs Racers. Both are based on IP. I believe it's more about the amount of money Disney is willing to invest in attractions.

I also think it depends on ride vehicles. When you look at dark rides in general, most people would agree that Pan is their favorite. But that's because you are flying over the action. I wonder if Pan would be as popular if the ride vehicle were the same as other dark rides.

Someone mentioned that attractions based on IP are more difficult to create than an attractions built from the imagination. That may be true in some situations. I'll bet Pandora is a lot more difficult to create than any of the Harry Potter themed areas at Universal. JK Rowling packed her books full of details that could be recreated in theme parks. I just think it depends upon the IP.

 

[rteetz]

According to one person here, no you couldn't. DL was entirely non-movie based rides when it opened......(I'm being facetious).

Except there was Peter Pan, Snow White, Dumbo, Mr. Toad, Swiss Family, 20,000 Leagues, etc.

The movie tie rides were as much a part of the parks when they opened as they are now.

As for the argument with EPCOT, I'm sorry you can't include it. From the day it was designed they did not want movie tie ins or Disney Characters in the park. And trust me, if you were there in the very beginning, it was a very strange feeling. Get approached by one of those big headed World Showcase people and....eeeek! The only characters to really hook you were Figment and Dreamfinder. That doesn't work for an entire park.

Wasn't 20,000 leagues just the submarine voyage first and then once the movie came out it got the movie tie in? Fantasyland was where and mainly still are the movie tie ins. Like ddland said the movies were less frequent and the rides were a good way to experience them.

 

[rteetz]

Great points. But I also think the discussion should be about ride quality and capital investment as opposed to what the attraction is based on. I agree that Little Mermaid is underwhelming, but compare that to Radiator Springs Racers. Both are based on IP. I believe it's more about the amount of money Disney is willing to invest in attractions.

I also think it depends on ride vehicles. When you look at dark rides in general, most people would agree that Pan is their favorite. But that's because you are flying over the action. I wonder if Pan would be as popular if the ride vehicle were the same as other dark rides.

Someone mentioned that attractions based on IP are more difficult to create than an attractions built from the imagination. That may be true in some situations. I'll bet Pandora is a lot more difficult to create than any of the Harry Potter themed areas at Universal. JK Rowling packed her books full of details that could be recreated in theme parks. I just think it depends upon the IP.

Very true. Ratatouille is a new trackless ride that is very good as well. IP tie ins can be done right. I'm also very excited for what pandora can bring. From what I keep hearing these mountains they are building will be like nothing they have done before.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

This is likely why many found Little Mermaid underwhelming. People don't go to the theme park to watch the movie anymore. You can do that at home with a few clicks on the computer. People want to have new unique experiences and live in the world.

Underwhelming for who? As an adult I can see it but that's not the target audience for the ride. My nieces and our little one love it and want to ride it over and over. Everything can't be thrilling and overly immersive when you have a huge part of your target audience under 10 and even more under 30".

 

[rteetz]

Underwhelming for who? As an adult I can see it but that's not the target audience for the ride. My nieces and our little one love it and want to ride it over and over. Everything can't be thrilling and overly immersive when you have a huge part of your target audience under 10 and even more under 30".

The ride could've been done better. It's a good ride but some of the effects they just added in the last refurb should have been done from the get go. It's not supposed to be thrilling it's an omnimover.

 

[mcjaco]

Wasn't 20,000 leagues just the submarine voyage first and then once the movie came out it got the movie tie in? Fantasyland was where and mainly still are the movie tie ins. Like ddland said the movies were less frequent and the rides were a good way to experience them.

Yes on the Sub ride. But this again proves the movie tie in's have been going on since the beginning.

I don't have a problem with movie tie ins. It's why I go to Disney. I love their IPs. The other stuff is fluff...which is also awesome. Even when it's bad.

I can't imagine working with Cameron on a Pandora theme.....must be a total PITA. Much like Rowling was/is with Potterland.

 

[mcjaco]

Underwhelming for who? As an adult I can see it but that's not the target audience for the ride. My nieces and our little one love it and want to ride it over and over. Everything can't be thrilling and overly immersive when you have a huge part of your target audience under 10 and even more under 30".

My kids made us ride it seven times in a row one night. They couldn't get enough of it.

You guys have to start thinking of the target demographic of these rides before you chastise people.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

The ride could've been done better. It's a good ride but some of the effects they just added in the last refurb should have been done from the get go. It's not supposed to be thrilling it's an omnimover.

As an adult I agree. From the eyes of a 2, 4, 5 and 7 yr old it's amazing.