DEBATE: The Commerce and Business of WDW, and Walt Himself.

[DisneyKidds]

Go take a look a the jungle-gym at a local park. Lots of children with smiling faces, huh?

Now Mr. Not-So-Undefeated-Raiders-Fan - aren't we being a little too literal here? You know there was more behind this comment, and you know there are more to the smiles on Aladdin than those found on the playground. I fail to see how Dumbo, which is an accepted Disney classis, is any different.

I am pretty sure plush plays a bigger part in park decisions than you believe they do. But since I don't sit in on the discussions, I can't prove it.

You say more than I think, I say less than you think....................the answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind, ooops - wrong thing - the answer, my friend, is somewhere in the middle. Back to those darn shades of gray again .

Its just a question of whether things are bad, or "bleep"ing bad.

Heck, I'll go with 'bleep'ing right now. However, the subtle difference lies in the ability to take corrective action.

 

[raidermatt]

Now Mr. Not-So-Undefeated-Raiders-Fan - aren't we being a little too literal here?

Nope. Happy children are a wonderful, beautiful thing. But its a given that a family attraction must accomplish this. If it doesn't, it can't even exist. If it does, that's nice, but there must be more.

I fail to see how Dumbo, which is an accepted Disney classis, is any different.

Ah, a common comparison. I even made it myself awhile back. Both Dumbo and Aladding are meant to allow you to fly like characters in classic Disney animated films. Cool. Aladdin has even got a little more in the way of movement. Cool.

And on that level, sure, Aladdin is ok. It is not a BAD attraction. Is just that it is a departure from the theme of Adventureland (I know, you disagree here), AND it is a near duplicate of an attraction built nearly 50 years ago (that's not really disputeable, is it?).

Reverse the order and timeframe of Dumbo and Aladdin, and the criticism of Dumbo WOULD be loud.

However, the subtle difference lies in the ability to take corrective action.

I don't know, I'd say that ability has very little to do with it right now. Motivation and intent are the first steps, without which, ability doesn't matter. That's how I'd draw the line between bad and "bleeping"bad. (DISCLAIMER: I'm referring to direction here, not the current state of the still Magical parks.)

The question is, if/when the motivation and intent materializes, how long will it take to re-locate the ability and make it work?

 

[Captain Crook]

Man, I like you guys a lot...But there's a lot of mumbo jumbo going on around here...

 

[raidermatt]

Hmmm.... mumbo, jumbo, both rhyme with Dumbo....

Captain Crook, sounds a lot like Captain Hook....

Captain Hook is in Peter Pan, which is a short walk away from Dumbo....

Hmmm....

More mumbo, jumbo?

Mabye... or maybe there is more to this...

 

[DisneyKidds]

I don't know, I'd say that ability has very little to do with it right now. Motivation and intent are the first steps, without which, ability doesn't matter.

Now for my evening dose of mumbo jumbo.......

I liken the Pre$$ler principle (determine the merchandising goal and design the attraction to fit) to murder in the first. A premeditated, cold, calculated crime committed by a person who does not have the ability to be rehabilitated and should be put behind Disney bars for life. On the other hand, I liken the ride first for popularity (even if cheap), followed closely by motivation for plush sales, to manslaughter. This person may have made a mistake, and should pay for their crime, but he/she has the ability to be rehabilitated and will be eligible for parole, hopefully soon. So, as such, I think the ability to see the err of ones ways and take corrective action is important. The underlying motivation goes to intent, and gives us some insight as to which charge the jury will convict on. Here ends my hocus pocus .

 

[Patch'sD]

What is the TDS's mermaid ride like. I sort of have the same opinion that MK will only see rides geared to the younger family. I kind of think the new addition would be an update of 20K as a tour of Little mermaid underwater sea area. Something that fits with fantasy land and the one of the popular post Walt Disney features. I think that is the commerce of WDW, specific parks for specific tastes. MK and AK where the K will stand for Kids.

 

[raidermatt]

Hogwash! Kids need kids rides...not CAVE technology or nextgen simulators. They need rides which make them laugh and make them feel brave.

Scoop, since when is Disney unable to make family rides that appeal to the WHOLE FAMILY?

Why, all of a sudden, is it necessary to build only thrill rides with height requirements, or "kiddie" rides?

Nobody is saying an attraction that appeals to children should not be built. That WOULD be hogwash. But there is a difference between a new family attraction and another kiddie spinner.

Disney used to understand that difference. That understanding is why we didn't see a new spinner for 30 years. The loss of that understanding is why we were given two within a year.

Yes, I've already said that a much better job was done with Aladdin than Triceratops Spin. And maybe if Aladdin were an example of Disney's worst current work, it would be a little harder to be critical. But, sadly, its far from the worst...

 

[DisneyKidds]

Disney used to understand that difference. That understanding is why we didn't see a new spinner for 30 years. The loss of that understanding is why we were given two within a year.

So I guess all those attractions that many people want to see will appeal to the WHOLE FAMILY? M:S - don't think so. Forbidden Mountain (if it happens) - don't think so. Does RnR appeal to the whole family? How about ToT? Test Track? That would be no, no and no. These are some of the more recent additions. Buliding a park, building attractions that appeal to the WHOLE FAMILY doesn't mean that EVERY ride has to be shared by the entire family. There needs to be a mix bigger/thrill rides, intermediate rides that everyone enjoys at the same time, and kids rides. Something for everyone. That is what creates a park that the WHOLE FAMILY can enjoy together. That is why WDW included rides like Dumbo in the first place. I don't see anyone knocking RnR or ToT because they only appeal to those taller than 48 inches, so why should we knock Aladdin because it appeals primarily to those shorter than 40 inches? Maybe, just maybe, there was a need for more rides geared toward the kiddies. Certainly when you look at the AK mix it was needed, not that it couldn't use some other rides (and not that TS couldn't have been done better). When you look at the MK, it could use another kiddie ride as much as anything else. When it comes to these spinners you had better stick to your 'doesn't fit in the land' theme, as it works better (even though I don't necessarily agree). OK, so Disney has been looking to be cheap as of late and these kid additions happen to be cheap. So what - other, bigger things are in the works. BTW - the WHOLE FAMILY is much more likely to enjoy Aladdin together than many, many other rides.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I don't mean this to be argumentative... I've seen a couple folks mention it, I just don't see it, myself, and I'm looking for insight.

What is it about the Aladdin spinner that is done so much better than Triceratops Spin?

The differences I see in the decoration of the two ride mechs are minor and a preference for one or the other subjective... I certainly don't see what folks are talking about on that end. And although I'm on record as declaring "parking lot carnival" is a pretty lazy excuse for a Disney theme, DinoRama does have some semblance of a theme that connects it to Dinosaur and grounds it in Dinoland. I can't see that any attempt was made to thematically "locate" Aladdin within Adventureland or have it "fit" with anything already there... so I don't see that Aladdin is superior in that way, either.

Is Aladdin the ride "better" just because Aladdin the character is more distinctly recognizable? Because plush sales are less odious than carnival games?

I don't see what people are talking about on this.

-WFH

 

[raidermatt]

So I guess all those attractions that many people want to see will appeal to the WHOLE FAMILY? M:S - don't think so. Forbidden Mountain (if it happens) - don't think so. Does RnR appeal to the whole family? How about ToT? Test Track? That would be no, no and no.

YES! You've got it. The fact that virtually every major attraction added over the last 7 years is a thrill ride with a height requirement IS an issue.

You're also right about balance. Very few of us will say that no attractions should have a height requirement (certainly I won't.)

This was discussed ad nauseum in another thread a few months ago, but I'll go ahead and ask the question again... Where is the balance when it comes to new attractions?

Epcot is probably the easiest example of this problem. A new "no height requirement" attraction has not been added for years. I believe Maelstrom was the last. The park has been largely neglected, with the exception of Test Track. Attendance has plummeted, but TT has long lines. Management's interpretation? Guests don't want family rides, they want thrill rides with height requirements. Bring on M:S. Maybe soarin', and something called Time Racers (only rumored, of course).

Now, if these attractions are done extremely well, like Splash, and ToT, or at least reasonably well, like TT and RnRC, then a case can be made that they do have a place. PROVIDED THE BALANCE REMAINS.

So I ask you, where is that balance? Where is the new equivalent to Spaceship Earth, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and even the Energy Adventure?

Those "intermediate" attractions are not being built, when they were one of the biggest factors in making Disney families' first choice.

Maybe, just maybe, there was a need for more rides geared toward the kiddies.

In MK? Come now...

When you look at the MK, it could use another kiddie ride as much as anything else.

Just stop and think about this for a second. AK was getting DR and a parade, so lets take it out of the equation. Of the three remaining parks, do you really think that the greatest need was for a kiddie ride? And even if that's all the budget would allow, was the greatest need in MK, and not Epcot or MGM?

Clearly Aladdin was not placed with "kiddie-needs" in mind. And even Pressler knows that a ride like Aladdin by itself wouldn't draw many people through the gates anyway. So, it gets placed where it will generate more plush sales, somewhere that already has high foot traffic, and can be directly tied to revenue generation.

Even if you won't admit that plush sales was the main driver, you must at least admit that placing a kiddie ride in the park with the greatest kiddie appeal over the park that is receiving growing criticism for its lack of kid-friendly stuff is inept at best.

BTW - the WHOLE FAMILY is much more likely to enjoy Aladdin together than many, many other rides.

You're right, but why is that? Because new rides are not being built with the whole family in mind.

 

[raidermatt]

Mr. Head- Scoop summed up what I believe are most of the reasons why some of us see Aladdin as a better attraction than TS.

Before I even saw TS, I was asking myself who ever thought Triceratops could fly.

I can see your point about fitting better within its land, as TS does fit within DR better than Aladdin does within Adventureland. But as you pointed out, that's only because DR is a cheap roadside carnival, so I can't really give TS a lot of credit for living up to that billing.

It would be sort of like giving a dirty bathroom credit for being consistent with a whole park being dirty...

Oh, and DK, one other thing...

When it comes to these spinners you had better stick to your 'doesn't fit in the land' theme, as it works better (even though I don't necessarily agree).

I will certainly stick to it as one of the reasons Aladdin doesn't fit... but I guess I'll just have to wait until they plop down a flourescent pink spinner in Frontierland before you'll get on board.

 

[raidermatt]

In the end, the idea that "Disney used to understand the difference" is so fraught with personal preferences and is so lacking in any type of baseline, that its pretty clearly just code words for "I liked Haunted Mansion better than the Great Movie Ride"...

I'm beginning to understand why the Baron shows some frustration with you at times...

How you can turn a "family ride philosophy over a kiddie ride philosophy" into a purely personal preference is truly beyond me.

As I said to DK, a purely kiddie ride has its place here and there, just as a thrill ride does. But only if there is balance with true family attractions. (That's a proven business model for Disney parks...)

Your argument acts as if Disney had this large piece of real estate in Adventureland and decided to plop down a spinner instead of something grander. While that happened with DinoRama in my opinion, that is simply not the case here.

It it wasn't Disney's decision not to put in something "grander" (or more original), whose was it? If they made the decision with DR, they made it with Adventureland.

WDW execs heard the guests concerns that Adventureland didn't have much appeal to young children and added an attraction which does in a goal of steering more traffic out of the already crowded Fantasyland.

So if guests say Fantasyland doesn't have much appeal to adults, the answer would be to throw in a 48" height requirement coaster?
Finding out what your guests think is only part of the equation. Figureing out how to address what they want, while keeping in mind your overall mission is key, and its what was missed this time.

Many have talked themselves into the idea that every new WDW attraction has to be a groundbreaking immersive Tower of Terror level deal. That's commercially and creatively absurd.

Yes, it would be absurd. But its exactly this all or nothing kind of thinking that is the problem. It either has a height requirement, or its a kiddie ride. You may disagree, but I still believe its possible to create attractions that appeal to kiddies without boring adults, and appeal to adults without scaring the kiddies.

Alladin's Magical Carpets was never intended as a feature ride or an E ticket or whatever. It is what it is. A nice addition to an area of MK which really needed something fun for young kids.

And I maintain this could have been better accomplished with just a little more effort, and without breaking the bank.

For me, Test Track is an amazing attraction. For you maybe not. But, the important point is that while you don't think it demonstrates "the difference" I do.

How can you make a statement like this, then accuse me of using personal preference as a justification?

Forget what you or I prefer personally. Do you really believe that the average Disney guest would prefer to be transported to a GM test facility, instead of into some kind of adventure-type scenario (think Indiana Jones, James Bond, or whatever an Imagineer could dream up)?

 

[raidermatt]

...but even that aside...what specifically could have been accomplished in this part of Adventureland with "a little more effort"?

Details, please.

Scoop, if I had the ability provide details of such potential creations, I would have been laid off from Imagineering long ago...

Truly, I don't know. There's a reason I'm not in a creative field. However, I do know that there are some VERY creative people out there who ARE capable of doing such things.

Question: How many Imagineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Answer: Why does it have to be a lightbulb?

I stole that from a book on Imagineering that I have, but I think its very relevant.

In this case, Scoop, I would pose your question to some of those creative minds I have (or should have) and see what they come up with.

If the best they could come up with is a souped up Dumbo, then I'd thank them and go find some new Imagineers...


(That's assuming that the reason for wanting an attraction in that area truly is to enhance the guest experience. I still believe there are other factors involved, but for the sake of arguement, I'm ignoring that in the context of your question.)


PS- I will give your question some more thought, though, and see what I can come up with. I honestly haven't up until now.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Before I even saw TS, I was asking myself who ever thought Triceratops could fly.

But the theme is not "I'm back in time, flying on a Triceratops," it's "My parents visited the Dino Institute and all I got was this lousy Dino-painted spinner ride in the parking lot carnival across the street."

I can see your point about fitting better within its land, as TS does fit within DR better than Aladdin does within Adventureland. But as you pointed out, that's only because DR is a cheap roadside carnival, so I can't really give TS a lot of credit for living up to that billing.

I think we're just barely missing, here... I'm talking about DinoRama's overall theme within Dinoland and TS's role in that theme.

Pretty much all of Dinoland fits together... the Dino Institute is the centerpiece, the Dig Site is where the work happens, Restaurantasaurus is where the workers eat, and Chester and Hester's is the tourist trap with the carnival in their back parking lot. No "actual" time travel on the Whirl, no "real" dinosaurs on the Spin... just plywood and fiberglass to remind you of the "real" dinos and "actual" time travel across the street.

Yes, I think that particular theme was chosen exclusively so Disney could low-ball the rides themselves, and no, I don't think it's a good theme in any "Disney" sense, but still don't see how folks think it's less of a theme than "there was a flying carpet in the Aladdin movie."

Up until just now, I had forgotten about the spitting camels. The spitting camels do actually represent a nominal hardware upgrade over TS... but again, I don't see how that feature contributes to a backstory (did camels spit at the flying carpet in the movie? I would have thought I'd have remembered such tremendous camels rather vividly...).

-WFH

 

[raidermatt]

I'm talking about DinoRama's overall theme within Dinoland and TS's role in that theme.

Ok, yes, the area does fit, and there is flow to Dinoland.

Certainly consistency of theme with the surrounding area is important, but in this case, I don't think that's enough for me to say TS was done better than Aladdin.

TS was asked to be a lame spinner in a cheap area, and it comes through. DR as a whole was asked to be a cheap/tacky area in an otherwise "un-cheap" land, and it also comes through.

Aladdin's decor and positioning make it stick out like a sore thumb. But flying on a magic carpet is an adventure. Its sort of like with TS they took out the adventure, and what additional mechanical upgrades they could, in order to make TS fit in DR. Sort of a dumbing down of an already simplistic attraction.

While that did make it a better fit than Aladdin, I still just can't say that makes it better.

Its a fine line I'm having trouble articulating, as you can probably tell...

 

[DisneyKidds]

You're also right about balance...........Those "intermediate" attractions are not being built, when they were one of the biggest factors in making Disney families' first choice.

More agreement with the man from Oakland. Matt, just like the middle child, just like the middle class, the middle ground attractions are forgotten. I suppose with Philharmagic coming up we will get a good all in the family attraction. While the scale may be balanced between the height restricted rides and the kiddie rides, the way things are stacked is cockeyed. Hopefully we will get more things spaced a bit more evenly over the scale. However, in the interim, the kiddie rides are effective additions.

was the greatest need in MK, and not Epcot or MGM?

I don't know. Perhaps given the need for help that Epcot and/or MGM has, a cheap kiddie ride was best placed in the MK as it helps round out a land that could benefit from such a ride. The amount of money spent on Aladdin may not have provided any significant impact to Epcot or MGM. I'll give you that Disney went for cheap easy pickings with Aladdin, and were able to accomplish a lot with a little, and a lot more than they would have accomplished in Epcot or MGM with the same investment.

plop down a flourescent pink spinner in Frontierland

I just figured out why our good friend Baron was silent for a day or so. He was giving correspondence classes in inappropriate exaggeration. I take it you got an A+.

So if guests say Fantasyland doesn't have much appeal to adults, the answer would be to throw in a 48" height requirement coaster?

I can imagine how this might be a reality but for how much of a tightwad Ei$ner and crew have been. That 20,000 Leagues space is still waiting, and who knows what we will get there. It is just as likely a height restricted ride as anything else - and that would be fine with me.