DEBATE: What makes a Disney attraction 'successful'?

[SnackyStacky]

Well, if you chose your words carefully, then you really can't get away from the "Disney ride" thing.

Let's suppose that the measure of success is that people enjoy the ride. More people like it than don't. Is that the success you were looking for?

Let's start with the lowest of the low, a church lawn fete. A few rides, and some carnival games. People get off of those rides, and there would be more that enjoyed those rides than didn't. But I think we can agree that if they plopped one of those rides in the middle of a Disney park, it wouldn't get the warmest reception.

Moving up a step, look at Six Flags. Lots of rides there that I "enjoy". But I would never ever spend any kind of money to pay for a hotel, airfare to get there, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't pay $52 to get in! So those success, again, wouldn't work in a Disney park.

Then we look at Disney. People expect MORE from Disney, because Disney expects more from its guests. It expects them to pay premium prices for admission. It expects them to pay for their pricey hotels. It expects them to pay for transportation to get there. (Because let's face it, the locals can't support the World) So if you take either of those first two examples and plop it down in the middle of the Magic Kingdom, I don't think it can nearly be considered a success. Because the fact that they ARE Disney raises the standard. Because Walt raised the standard. (And because Eisner raised the prices)

So if you're talking about success in a Disney park, the measure of success is different from any old amusement park, and I contend that the measure of success is if it lives up to those 5 criteria that I mentioned. Miss even one of those, and it fails as a "Disney" success. That's not to say that people won't enjoy them. Look at all of the failures that I mentioned:

Small World
Rio de Tiempo
Muppets
Primeval Whirl

With the exception of the first two (I'm not entirely sure why Rio de Tiempo sticks around....Small World has the nostalgia factor working in its favor) you could put Muppets and Primeval Whirl into a Six Flags park and they're pretty cool rides! Most people would "enjoy" them. Does that say that they're successful for a Disney attraction? (the original wording of your thread title) I don't personally think so. (And I like Muppets and Whirl!)

 

[DisneyKidds]

Hey, Snacky, have you been taking writing lessons from the Baron? .

I believe your answers to those last two questions I posed would be no and no. For you, 'success' and 'Disney' are one and the same when it comes to attractions in a Disney park. Thanks - got it.

FYI - I don't care what my local community day, Six Flags, Universal, etc. are doing. I am simply trying to ascertain what people believe constitutes a successful attraction as it relates to Disney. Let me put it this way. There are many attractions within Disney which people would not consider 'Disney'. Does this make them failures? I think your answer is yes, but correct me if I am wrong.

 

[BRERALEX]

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?

okay muppets came out in 1990
and honey i shrunk the audience in 94

sorry it was killin me. muppets is like my fav attraction in mgm. to me it fits it shows 3d in relation to movies. and it blows up a threatre in the process. they also use the entire place. alot of people dont even look back to see the chef firing the cannon. and i like how every show they use a live person to be that monster. Its a show and a good show. if it doesnt fit then why would mermaid and hunchback* and beauty and the beast fit any better?


i believe i read all the posts umm did anyone touch on the raeway in tommorrow land yet. packed attraction usually but defintaly not disney. but "looks" successful.

I know i forget it cause i walk right by it like its not there

 

[Testtrack321]

Muppets had lots of new things. They had many FX to show the theater was damaged, arrows, audio-anamatronics in the show, and live action (even before Terminator). It's very complex and still amazes me to this day.

 

[SnackyStacky]

FYI - I don't care what my local community day, Six Flags, Universal, etc. are doing. I am simply trying to ascertain what people believe constitutes a successful attraction as it relates to Disney. Let me put it this way. There are many attractions within Disney which people would not consider 'Disney'. Does this make them failures? I think your answer is yes, but correct me if I am wrong.

It seems to me the topic at hand is what is the measure of success of a Disney ride. NOT a Six Flags or community day ride, but a DISNEY ride.

Well, I used the latter two examples to show that there has to be some difference in what makes an attraction successful. Because a ride at a Six Flags or community day would more likely than not be considered a Disney failure. And how true this is, otherwise you would have never said "What makes a DISNEY attraction 'successful'. And lo, we have a community day ride plopped in the middle of Adventureland, and one plopped into Animal Kingdom. And most people agree that they are OUT OF PLACE. Not that kids won't or don't, or SHOULDN'T for that matter enjoy them. Just that they don't live up to that seemingly elusive Disney standard.

And yes. I said it flat out. There are rides that some consider Disney that I think completely missed the Disney standard. I cited at least one example. Small World. This ride is tremendously out of place, one of the cheesiest things, and ever so tacky. Who's ever heard of brown burbur carpeting instead of dirt or concrete in a mexican village?!? Does that mean that I think people shouldn't enjoy it, or stop riding it, or that it should get a wrecking ball? Not in the least. It just simply means that I don't believe it to be a "Disney" attraction. And to prove my point even further, at a World's Fair, this is probably one of the NEATEST things. It worked in that setting. But bringing it to a Disney park without some modifications wasn't on target.

As for the bit about the muppets, my apologies. I thought that Honey and Muppets were reversed. I still think it's out of place. I don't think it's entirely a "Disney" attraction. But I STILL love it!

And that is my point. People loving something would be enough if we WERE talking about a Six Flags. But because we're talking about Disney there has to be something more.

 

[BRERALEX]

A i sat in class today "Management of Corporate FinancZZZZZZZZzzzzzz" i was mulling over if muppets "fit" and i was seriously mulling over if IASMW fits.

It had never occured to me that IASW maybe didnt fit. SO i started thinkin over every attraction trying to see how maybe HM didnt fit or how even like SM didnt fit.

And i came to the conclusion that IASW might have been better in EPCOT which i couldnt believe.

definatley Disney. Definatly successful imo. It's like dumbo for my family it must be done and even has the title as one of the "first" we do when we get there. but in Fantasyland i dont see it fitting. and thats what i thought in class....................also thinkin.....................Baron most likely will write a great reply to why it does and would change my mind

 

[SnackyStacky]

My main beef with Small World isn't really even that it's out of place. (Although I think it is....I don't see what it has to do with Fantasy...I completely agree that it would have worked best as a "uniting attraction" between all of the countries in World Showcase)

My main issue is the tacky factor. Like I said before... how many Mexican villages have brown carpeting as ground instead of dirt, or some sort of concrete?

Having said all of that, and even though I hate it, I still go on it EACH and every time because it's a classic. Does that make it successful by the standards to which I measure a Disney attraction? Not in my estimation. And here's where I can say what I said before. Put in a world's fair setting, and it works! It's a success! 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.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Ok, let's try this one more time Mr. Stacky.................

I'm tempted to use Baronesque caps and exclamation marks, but I won't. 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. Pretend Disney operates in a bubble. Sure, what others do might have bearing on the success of WDW in general because if Disney doesn't differentiate itself it will be no better than Universal, blah, blah, blah.......Try this one on for size. Even the most un-'Disney' attraction you can find in WDW has something that gives it a Disney differentiation. Take that A word. You may feel the mechanism and quality are no better than what the other guy offers up, but it is still uniquely Disney as no other park can offer a kid the opportunity to be a part of that movie. But I digress. Back to my point, at more of a micro level, just looking at the rides within WDW, what the guy down the street is doing isn't all that relevant to success or failure of a particular ride. Pretend WDW is the only game in town, the only theme park in the world.

Now try this angle. You have identified Small World as a ride that you feel is not 'Disney', it doesn't meet your success traits for being 'Disney', and you feel Walt wouldn't be proud of it (which I have to say I don't get because it was his idea in the first place). So, it is not successful at being 'Disney', but would you say that the ride is a failure? Not a failure at being 'Disney', but a flat out failure? As you say, you go on it every time. It may lack some element you look for in order for it to qualify as 'Disney' under the elusive standard, but is it still successful overall as an attraction within a Disney park? Quit qualifying your statements. You have two choices - success, or failure - no qualifications. Which is it? Come on - give it to me - a one word answer. Let's make it your shortest post ever - just one word .

 

[BRERALEX]

sorry i got way of the track like i do in every thread

i was sayin IASW doesnt fit to me in MK but is definatly disney.

IASW success

raceway(whatever the name) failure

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
sorry i got way of the track like i do in every thread

i was sayin IASW doesnt fit to me in MK but is definatly disney.

IASW success

raceway(whatever the name) failure

Got'cha, Brer. It is me and Snacky who don't seem to be speaking the same language . We'll fix it though .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds! Congratulations!! You made the LandBaron think as he hasn’t thought in a long time. I wrote almost a page and a half before dinner and was going to polish it and send it off! But something held me back. And instead I started to fixate on your two questions. Quite frankly, you confused me. Or at least I didn’t know where I fit! See you explained the “IF” of the questions:

If the answer to these questions is no, then ‘success’ and ‘Disney’ are indeed one and the same when it comes to Disney attractions. However, if the answer is yes, then one must have a different answer for what constitutes ‘success’ and what makes something ‘Disney’ when it comes to Disney attractions.

You see, I think you’re quite right in your definitions. But you left me out of the mix!!!

Can a Disney attraction that many would agree IS ‘Disney’ end up NOT BEING successful?

Yes!! Of course!!

Can a Disney attraction that many would agree IS NOT ‘Disney’ end up BEING successful?

No.

So, where does this put me? I seem to split down the middle!! I know where MY definition is. I’d like to see if you agree! Please tell me!

Thanks!


PS: After I get this out of the way I have got to tackle SS and Small World!! It fits!! (I think) I just have to articulate why? Muppets is a no brainer!! That definitely fits! And I disagree with the Mexico thing, and I’ll also have reasons for that!

See ya!!!

 

[BRERALEX]

see i knew it.
and i cant wait for the reply

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I know it’s a mere footnote to the actual thread and I don’t want to spend too much time on it, but my friend SS has given Small World as an example of missing the Disney mark. He said:

Small World (I was going to go for the even easier one and use Aladdin, but I figured I'd not rehash that old discussion! ) misses the Disney mark, and Walt designed it!

Well, I can see your point. But I think you missed the charm of it. Now, Snow White, Dumbo, Mr. Toad and even the tea cups are so “Disney” they darn near define it. But when we move away from the obvious ‘movie’ tie ins, it gets a little fuzzy. Is Space Mountain Disney? Is the Arcade next to it Disney? (For those keeping score the answers so far are: yes – no. In that order!!) Was that stupid canoe ride Disney? And so on.

Enough preamble!! Let’s get to it!!!

1.) I can loosely feel a storyline, but that's not where I believe it misses the mark.

Agreed, but enough of one to fit the criteria!

2.) I don't think this fits into Fantasyland at ALL. I don't think that there's anyplace that it would work anywhere in the Magic Kingdom.

I take it that if I can show how it fits in this area, point three becomes moot. Right? Ok, let’s quote three so we can wrap it up in a tidy little package!

3.) As I said in the last step, I think this ride is a sort of edu-tainment that belongs in World Showcase at Epcot. I don't believe it carries out the Magic Kingdom "feel".

OK! I contend that it fits perfectly within the Fantasyland! I believe, or at least what struck me the very first time I saw it, was that the idea was a blend of two concepts. And if I’m right, which is not altogether guaranteed, as it is ALL guess work, then it is no accident at all that Pinocchio is right next door. AND that the Disneyland version has timepiece (clock like gears and stuff) on the front façade.

I believe Walt was going for a blend of a puppet show, a good old fashioned puppet show and the most intricate, busy, mind blowing, colorful, German clock type thing he could possibly build! (there!! How’s that for sentence structure and articulation!! But I think you all know what I’m talking about!) The type of thing Geppetto would build!! Highly mechanical in feel and texture. And at the same time the look and feel of both dolls and puppets, but anyway you slice it a big, huge overblown colorful TOY!!

A toy!! Plain and simple!! Not one that you can hold. Not one that you simply watch. But one that you are inside! One where you are overwhelmed with the sights and sounds. One that no matter how quick you are or how many times you ride the damned thing, there is always something you had never noticed before. Where else would it go, but a place where a toy is the symbol of imagination or if you will Fantasy(land)? Seems to fit perfect to me!!

4.) Lighting effects in full view. It looks like the Festival of Lights at Niagara Falls. Cheap, cheezy, and tacky.

Well, as I said in the above, it’s not supposed to look ‘real’ in any sense of the word. It’s supposed to look childlike, simple and busy at the same time. Mechanical, clock like. Exaggerated while representative of real, but not in any way real itself. Cellophane for both rain and fire. Painted doll-like faces. Animals which are caricatures. Etc.

5.) I do think that it was innovative. During a time of civil unrest and discrimination, Walt came up with a way of showing his love for all people. (If he was racist or prejudice, he did a damn good job of hiding it...I'm really not sure if that was his intent with this ride, but it's what I took away from it)

Believe me. Even if you discount the ‘being inside a toy’ type thing, the ride mechanism itself was groundbreaking at the time!!

Bed time guys!! The rest tomorrow!! See you at 4:30 central!

Good-Night!

 

[Testtrack321]

Ok Landbaron, it's the wee hours of the morning here and I can't fall asleep, so here's a question.

How do we know an attraction is Disney if it fails on Disney soil?

Were the Phantom Boats Disney?

 

[Cricket2]

.............. And if I’m right, which is not altogether guaranteed, as it is ALL guess work, then it is no accident at all that Pinocchio is right next door. AND that the Disneyland version has timepiece (clock like gears and stuff) on the front façade.

I believe Walt was going for a blend of a puppet show, a good old fashioned puppet show and the most intricate, busy, mind blowing, colorful, German clock type thing he could possibly build!..............

Ah, a wonderful explanation.

Pepsi+UNICEF+Disney=IASW

The ride wasn't designed to fit in the park structure until the transfer was decided upon through a deal that resembles blackmail.

"Give us the ride we developed and we will credit you the one million $ fee for using our name at the world's fair towards your moving expenses. Oh, yeah, you have to sponsor the exhibit at DL too. What else are you going to do with a boat ride that causes nightmares?"

It looks nothing at all like it did at the world's fair:

I think it was forced to fit because it was pretty much free.

I also think it was force fed into the MK (at DL) because it appeased the public while WDW was being developed.

Now do you still think it's a big toy? Perhaps it could be shrunk down and produced under it's correct name, "Blackmail-o-tron"


JC

 

[DisneyKidds]

So, where does this put me? I seem to split down the middle!! I know where MY definition is. I’d like to see if you agree! Please tell me!

Boy - how did I know it would be you, Mr. Baron, who would dabble in that gray area between my questions .

Mr. Kidds! Congratulations!! You made the LandBaron think as he hasn’t thought in a long time.

I was tempted to say that the bold part has been painfully obvious, but I won't (ooops! I just did) . All kidding aside, despite what you may think, that is all I ever really try and accomplish - to make people think . And you are welcome.

Now, to answer your question with a question - or two (don't you hate when people do that ).

Of those 'Disney' rides that end up NOT BEING successful, what is it about them that makes them unsuccessful? Dare I ask you to lay out your list of what makes an attraction 'Disney'? I know this is perhaps the most difficult thing to do, but perhaps it was in that page and a half you held back.

Obvious, by your answers to my two questions, you do have a different list for what makes an attraction 'Disney', and what makes an attraction successful. I'll go out on a limb and say that the entire list of what makes an attraction 'Disney' will fall within your list for what makes an attraction successful - otherwise your second answer could not have been no. Answer my newest questions and perhaps we will get back to this concept later .

 

[SnackyStacky]

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. Pretend Disney operates in a bubble.

But I can't, and it does. It doesn't. When Disney started, there was no outside competition. Disneyland was it. It created the theme park experience. And it was the best. It was the Cadillac (or BMW, or Mercedes....insert your top car of choice) of attraction experiences.

But then others began popping up. And they began to put some competition on the market. And that lovely little cross-town rival that you seem to want to ignore is taking away a lot of Disney's loyal guests. Because they're paying the same price (and in some cases getting better discounts, and deals), but they're getting a little more here, and a little more there.

So we can choose to ignore those factors, and live in that proverbial bubble you suggest, just like Eisner and his crew, or you can face up to the fact that like it or not, there is competition and guests are looking at what they're getting and not getting and making choices based on that.

Obvious, by your answers to my two questions, you do have a different list for what makes an attraction 'Disney', and what makes an attraction successful.

I do, but I don't at the same too. The two are not mutually exclusive. I thought I had said this earlier, but I can't seem to find the exact quote, so I must have deleted it, but I had wanted to say that if the measure of success is simply whether or not people enjoy it, then you're right! Very few, if any failures, in any of the parks. Because most people enjoy them. But that's just not enough in a Disney park. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You've got a clean slate my friend. Pretend here that I have NEVER, EVER been to Disney World, and that I LOVE Six Flags. There's one 45 minutes from my house. $10 for gas, and $35 for admission. Tell me why I should spend $77 a night for a hotel(for 2 nights so that I have ONE full day at Disney World), $200 for airfare, and $50 a day to get into a Disney park. Because I can have LOTS of fun, smile, and enjoy my day at Six Flags. Tell me what the measure of "success" of a Disney attraction is. Tell me why I should spend $400 instead of $45. Because, well, that's the real world. That's to whom Disney has to market their rides to, and prove those rides successful enough to get people to spend that kind of money.

 

[Sarangel]

My main beef with Small World isn't really even that it's out of place. (Although I think it is....I don't see what it has to do with Fantasy...[snip]My main issue is the tacky factor. Like I said before... how many Mexican villages have brown carpeting as ground instead of dirt, or some sort of concrete?[/qoute]I've been staying out of this discussion because I don't really have any, but I couldn't pass up this complaint. It took taking the Walk in Walt's footsteps tour at Disneyland before I really understood IASW, and I contend that (blackmail aside) that it fits perfectly with Fantasyland...

The (not so obvious) storyline for IASW is that the children have been confined to the nursury and have decided to create a whole new world of their own - the very definition of fantasy. This should also defend the "tacky factor," since the children had to make do with what they had on hand...

Anyway, that's my $0.02

Sarangel

 

[DisneyKidds]

Snacky.............the aswer to that Small World question (you know - one word, success or failure) was................

But I can't, and it does. It doesn't.

Too bad, I disagree, and no kidding. 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. Let's say that Disney builds the greatest attraction Disney ever built. It is 'Disney' out the wazoo, extremely popular, everyone loves it, no one can knock it, it isn't debated around here, and so on. Are you telling me that this ride (focus on the ride, not on WDW or the Disney Company) is not a success if the guy down the street puts something in that blows this ride away?

So we can choose to ignore those factors, and live in that proverbial bubble you suggest, just like Eisner and his crew, or you can face up to the fact that like it or not, there is competition and guests are looking at what they're getting and not getting and making choices based on that.

I don't need to face up to anything. I know d**n well that Disney doesn't operate in a bubble. I'm not suggesting anyone should manage the parks that way . I guess EVERY thread has to be about the real world state of the Disney Company, the path required to return to Disney riteousness, and what it takes for Disney theme parks to beat the competition. So much for a simple, hypothetical 'forget what the other guys are doing, what makes Disney attractions (not the Disney Company) succeed or fail' thread .

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. Let's try this clean slate in order to eliminate that item from the list. NASA solved the whole space/time continuum thing. You are transported back in time to October 1971. No other theme parks exist beside Disney - no Six Flags down the street, no competition, no price differential, etc., etc. What defined a successful attraction back in 1971? Compare a successful Disney ride of 1971 to an unsuccessful Disney ride of 1971. Do you believe there were any successful rides in Disney back then (or today) that didn't meet your requirements for being 'Disney'?

Can a core set of attributes be identified that could have made an attraction successful in both 1971 and 2001? Again, successful as a ride, not as a vehicle to generate more revenue than the next guy.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Compare a successful Disney ride of 1971 to an unsuccessful Disney ride of 1971. Do you believe there were any successful rides in Disney back then (or today) that didn't meet your requirements for being 'Disney'?

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

I think I got the dates right on these.

Of course these are opinions.

If you stuck "Tommorowland Indy Speedway" at IOA, it would never fly by today's standards. It keeps the kids quiet and has a "nostalgia" value for some.

JC