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 wont feel slighted! And I noticed that you merged 2 & 3! Thank you, but I wrote this at work today and Im 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 dont buy about my explaination of Small World?
Missing the mark? The Muppets 3D.
So you dont think its a Disney attraction, eh? Again lets 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 thats why it works. It wouldnt 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, Ive never been quite sure where this is supposed to be. Ill grant you it is next door to New York Street
but actually in it? I certainly dont know!! But if it is, thats 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 couldnt 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. Lets 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,
Disneylands a bit better Id say, but the architecture used for Caribbean Plaza and the transition from Adventureland works, in my opinion. And Id certainly say, conceptually, its 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, doesnt 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, Im totally baffled by the response!!
).
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. Whats innovative? They had used AA figures before. Sure, there are more of them, but that really isnt innovative, is it? And the ride mechanism is a clone from the innovative Small World technology. So, wheres the innovation? And yet, I dont 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 doesnt 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, arent necessarily innovative. They just recycle used technology and/or ride mechanisms.
And then theres 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 isnt 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. Couldnt they? Seems to me thats 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? Whats 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) doesnt 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 dont 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 Im just not thinking of at the moment.)
I guess what Im saying is that I like your criteria. But, I would change it somewhat. Im 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 dont 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 its 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 wasnt 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!
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?