DEBATE: What makes a Disney attraction 'successful'?

[mkandk]

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

 

[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.

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]

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!! ).

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!

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]

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]

I have no germain comment to the subject (it's quite ridiculous)...But it's terribly funny to see Landbaron calling DisneyKidds circular!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Thanks for the comment Capt! Really gave me a boost!! (I thought we were friends?)

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

 

[Peter Pirate]

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!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Welcome the Pirate!! The good guy!*











* obscure album jacket reference (slightly altered)

 

[BRERALEX]

can we get DISDUCK for a post?

 

[raidermatt]

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]

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]

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 . 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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

Snacky, Snacky, Snacky. Where did it all go wrong...................?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!!