Does Disney need to re-think its ride attractions?

[PrincessNelly]

Its funny, I took my sisters to Disney for the first time in October and they both found a number of rides to be "snoozers." However, they really enjoyed the Haunted Mansion, Spaceship Earth, Dinosaur, and Great Movie Ride.
I think as a regular guest, I noticed the poor condition of rides more than they did. Buzz Lightyear needs a refurb badly! Very happy Pirates is getting refurbed.
I do wish Disney had more of a balance between family fun and thrill rides. I think people confuse thrill ride with rollercoaster too often. TOT is thrilling and people still take small children on. I agree that Disney needs to break the habit of boat rides & omnimovers a bit.

 

[JimmyV]

I cringe at the initial suggestion of more digital technology - I have no desire to stand in line and get strapped into a harness to watch a variety of glorified 3D movies.

Agree. I am tired of all rides where something "goes wrong" and you are thrown to and fro and need a chiropractor at the end. This would include Dinosaur, Star Tours, Mission Space, Body Wars (r.i.p.), etc. While I agree that Universal has a huge leg up on WDW in terms of high tech rides, I still see a certain amount of stagnation in design where the rides depend on you wearing glasses and watching some sort of screen. Some of that is fine. But there seems to be too much of it, IMHO, and we are in store for more when Avatar opens up.

I like the oldies because they are just that, oldies.

An interesting point, but one that contradicts all of the reasoning behind the move toward digitization and MM+. The article that came out last week in "Fast Company" explains that Disney execs were fearful that WDW was about one or one-and-a-half generations away from becoming irrelevant, hence the need/desire to add a high tech gloss to the visitor's experience. See below:

In the mid-2000s, however, Disney executives had reason to worry about the future of the business. Disney World, Parks’ crown jewel, seemed to be losing its luster. According to multiple sources, certain key metrics, including guests’ "intent to return," were dropping; around half of first-time attendees signaled they likely would not come back because of long lines, high ticket costs, and other park pain points. Simultaneously, the stunningly fast adoption of social media and smartphones threatened the relevance of the parks. If Disney wanted these more tech-oriented generations to love it as much as their parents, who had grown up with fewer entertainment alternatives, had, it would have to embrace change now. "We were failing to recognize key consumer trends that were starting to influence how people interacted with brands," says one former executive. Inside the company, Disney World became known as a "burning platform." As the former executive explains, "If we miss out on that next generation of guests, suddenly our burning platform is fully on fire—panic mode."

Now that they have introduced their technological savior, I am certain that the next defensive maneuver will be to move away from "the oldies". (Not necessarily retire them, but move away from those style of rides as the models for new ones). On the one hand, what the are building at Avatarland (and ETWB) would support this. On the other hand, what they built with Under The Sea-Journey of the Little Mermaid contradicts this. And the Mine Train probably lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I think Universal and Disney know not to compete with each other's strengths.
I see Uni and WDW as six great parks (7 if you count SW) and the whole thing is an "Orlando" vacation.
So there is no point in Disney trying to build crazy thrill rides or Uni to build more rides without a height requirement.

 

[Grumpy4196]

Personally I like the mix they have now. There are a few thrill rides but the majority is something entire families can ride together. Also I like the fact that my grandchildren can experience the same rides that I have enjoyed for all these years. That being said the rides do need to be maintained properly.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

There should be a mix of the older rides and the newer types, and I think that Disney has done this pretty well so far. Personally, though I like the rides that use screen projections (as opposed to animatronics), I can only take so much of them before I start getting ill.

 

[Kbee]

I don't think they need thrill rides but IMO there has been a lack of new wow factors for awhile. I love the classics, and HM is my favorite but there is nothing to get real excited about doing/seeing anymore (and I don't mean thrill rides like monster coasters). I love WDW but lack of any new exciting attractions coupled with the very high price is a good reason for me to not visit often.

I'm excited about Avatar, I'm not a fan of the movie but I think Disney can do amazing things with the land. I just hope they do.

 

[Xennia]

After our most recent visit (3 as a family, 6 for me personally) I'm wondering if Disney needs to seriously re-think its ride attractions to both amp up the "wow" factor as well as better manage queues and capacity.

I'm not sure if its the hold of nostalgia or corporate cost containment, but too many of the ride attractions seem to feel really dated. The themes and sets are great, but the dependence on fairly static electromechanical props seems fairly low tech anymore. I'd like to see much more use of digital technology, especially 4k (or higher) video projection which would allow more frequent updates to content as well as variability in ride experience.

It'd also be interesting to see fewer, but longer rides that told a more coherent story. In theory, longer rides utilizing Haunted Mansion-style continuous boarding could handle large crowds and cut queuing. If you are forced to make choices via Fastpasses anyway, having fewer, longer rides seems like a decent tradeoff especially if continuous boarding would cut queue times or at least keep them moving.

Thrill rides may be hard to adapt to this, since physics and scale may be problematic combinations but perhaps a longer ride could have "thrill" segments or add slow/dark ride components to thrill rides to extend their ride times.

Maybe I've just been too often and the magic has worn off. Some of it also seems like the vision of the future which used to seem to dominate Tomorrowland and Epcot has been replaced by a cartoon future or replaced completely by just a thrill-ride centric mindset.

I think some rides do need updating. I will get grief for this but I will stand by my opinion, I think Soarin needs to be updated. The screen the film is very shakey. I find it underwhelming. That type of film being stretched across the screen needs to be updated often. I remember when back to the future at universal studios had a very similar ride and they too let it slack and it was awful to watch. It baffles me be love this ride. Concept great. Film, nope.

Epcot needs a few upgrades and reimagine some of the current rides just a bit. Make more in the future.

I do agree the lines needs to be handled better, not sure how.

 

[mobocracy]

I'd clarify that I don't think they need to have more thrill rides per se, at least where thrill ride is largely defined as a high-G force rollercoaster type ride.

While I love the classics, too (hey, we rode Small World with a 10 yo boy who didn't complain before, during or after), they're only classics if you have a long park history (I went first in '78) or as a kid were steeped in Disney characters and lore. To a lot of younger people they are slow, boring and the cultural references aren't there for them at all.

Now, I think a few of the rides have such majesty and excellence in set decoration and theme execution that even cynics can be somewhat wowed. But some of the animatronics appear clunky and not really any more advanced than a high end department store Christmas display -- the only one I walked away from still impressed was Epcot's American Experience.

I think Disney will have a real problem in front of them in 10-15 years from both people with travel dollars to spend who have no grounding in Disney lore and whose experiences of the rides are boring relative to the digital media they are so used to. Why spend the money Disney demands for an unfamiliar thematic experience with "historical" attractions? These people will be thinking "if I want to get spun in circles at 2.5G or ride a coaster, I'll drive to my regional theme park for a day" and "if I want an immersive, narrative experience, I'll pop on my 3D goggles and turn up the Playstation 6".

I also think that the general ride capacity is a huge problem. The rides and park were, in my estimation, designed with much smaller crowds in mind. I would wager that WDW on property resort capacity NOW is probably a majority percentage of all Orlando hotel capacity in 1971. The parks are drawing huge numbers.

Disney's solutions seem weak to this. Fastpass -- merely a band-aid and IMHO the advance scheduling only adds to vacation anxiety and hyperscheduling, something I do not want on a vacation. Add more rides -- limited by geography and the inability to make room by removing older rides regarded as classic. This leads to the problem of new rides being short by virtue of space and by the need to cycle through lots of passengers.

I think they need to make more LONG rides -- how about a half-hour ride? -- that would be able to absorb a big crowd and couple it with continuous loading and unloading to keep lines moving. I think digital technology is important for this because it helps defray some of the cost of relying exclusively on elaborate settings and expansive, interior vistas. These shouldn't be eliminated in favor of digital, but enhanced by digital. Plus I think that digital will be an expectation for people in 10-20 years.

Unfortunately doing something like this will require major overhauls of the parks and removal of some classics to make room.

 

[TT77]

Well it can't be all things to all people, you'll never win over people who would rather stay home and play video games because it's cheaper, but they keep building Vacation clubs with 40 year leases because there are quite a lot of people who want to come back time and a again and experience the Disney brand of entertainment and characters, which now includes Star Wars, Pixar, Marvel, and Avatar, plus some of the longest lines are to meet the Disney characters and those "classic rides" like Peter Pan

Plus they tried the long form attractions with the first version of Epcot and the 2 hour backstage tour at the original Studio, but people didn't seem to like them very much. I think having a large variety of short attractions like the Magic Kingdom can simply accommodate a larger variety of guests, having a high capacity, long form, ride is only works if you can find a subject that appeals to everyone, that was the problem with early Epcot, it had 7 giant attractions about science and technology which didn't appeal to a very large cross section of their guests

 

[Ambear]

I'd like to see more rides like splash mountain. It has that great storytelling with animatronics and fun songs. It's not just your average omnimover. It's got a great length so you don't feel like an hour was wasted for a minute ride. And the thrill is enough to excite an adult and not be too scary for a child. Maelstrom was kinda like this with the cool mythology and little backwards drop. It was just a little too short. But the line was never bad so I guess it didn't matter as much.

I'm just hoping new rides try to be unique and less like little mermaid and Nemo... Universal is guilty too with transformers. I was not expecting a spiderman clone...

 

[jec6613]

I also think that the general ride capacity is a huge problem. The rides and park were, in my estimation, designed with much smaller crowds in mind. I would wager that WDW on property resort capacity NOW is probably a majority percentage of all Orlando hotel capacity in 1971. The parks are drawing huge numbers.

WDW's current hotel capacity in Disney-owned hotels is 40% of New York City's hotel capacity, and 110% of the 1983 total Orlando metro area hotel capacity (rounded to the nearest 10%, exact numbers are tricky to come by).

Yes, you read that right, there were 35,459 hotel rooms in the entire Orlando area a year after EPCOT Center opened, and there are now a bit over 38,000 hotel rooms owned by Disney itself.

 

[JimmyV]

While I love the classics, too (hey, we rode Small World with a 10 yo boy who didn't complain before, during or after), they're only classics if you have a long park history (I went first in '78) or as a kid were steeped in Disney characters and lore. To a lot of younger people they are slow, boring and the cultural references aren't there for them at all.

I agree with this and think that a lot of the "I love the old time stuff" folks are losing sight of what the future holds. It is impossible for someone who is 40 years old to put themselves into the minds of a 12 year old. If you are 40 and first went to WDW in 1985 when you were 10, you fell in love with a place that was state of the art and unchallenged in the medium. If you are 12 years old today, this isn't true. If you take 1,000 kids age 12 who have never been to Orlando and take them to all 7 Orlando parks, each for a day, and ask the kids to rank them in order of preference, Disney would not fare as well as many here seem to think. The influence that we as parents have over our kids cannot be overstated. Lots of people here proclaim that they don't go to Universal. Well guess what? That means that the kids don't go there either. But take away that parental influence and study these kids as a "control" group and you will likely find that kids prefer Spiderman to Small World. By a lot. Funny thing is that for all the "WDW shouldn't change" attitude expressed here, the suits at Disney don't share it. Thankfully, they understand that Small World and Dumbo, standing alone, cannot carry WDW for the next 50 years. That really is the whole point of the article I cited to earlier.

I agree that Splash Mountain is pretty much the "perfect" attraction. And Tower of Terror. Great theming, great "length" and the right amount of thrills. Obviously the older, slower rides are more fitting for the "under the height requirement" kids. But that is not a market they need to sell to. They come along because their parents take them. The parents are who they need to sell to. And that market gets captured (emotionally) when they are 12 to 25.

 

[magicmomms]

What I like best about Disney is the mix. Some slow ride along and rest rides, shows, interactive movies, thrill rides, kiddie rides, meet the characters...just a mix of everything. I don't like thrill rides much, but I agree they definetly need MORE THRILL RIDES! I can't get people to agree to go to Disney b/c there aren't enough thrill rides. They want to go to Universal.

 

[JimmyV]

I don't like thrill rides much, but I agree they definetly need MORE THRILL RIDES! I can't get people to agree to go to Disney b/c there aren't enough thrill rides. They want to go to Universal.

That's a great point. The "I don't like thrill rides so I don't want Disney to build any" attitude really cuts against the beauty of WDW which is "something for everyone". The wider the audience attracted, the better for us all. Not to mention that if you look at the attractions that people run to at Rope Drop, the more thrilling rides are heaviily represented. That should mean something.

 

[Sarahbelle341]

I like the fact that Disney rides are for the whole family. I think Splash Mountain, Peter Pan, Enchanted Tales with Belle, etc are fabulous experiences that the whole family can enjoy. I think Disney has a lot of characters that no one else can offer and if they expand their character offerings Star Wars, Marvel, Villians, Pixar, Avatar, Frozen, etc with more ride experiences they will continue to prosper in the future.

 

[rainboots]

I love the lack of digital involvement. My kids have enough stimulation with technology, it is nice to show them they don't need a screen in front of them to be wowed. It evokes memories of a simpler time, and I am happy they can be disconnected an have an amazing magical sincere time!

 

[Asellus]

I think one of the things my kids notice is the complete lack of rides representing Disney movies that they love (or little little kid ones like the Magic Carpet ride....) While yes, the older one likes thrill rides, they both would rather see new stuff like the new 7 dwarves ride. (how about the trip to Yzma's secret lab? .....wrong lever)

 

[mickeyluv'r]

I think it will be hard for theme parks to "wow" us with all the technology and information at our fingertips.

Disney has its work cut out for it to keep up with Universal. The new rides Universal has added (in a VERY short time frame) are very "Disney-like" ...

I agree. We've been to Diagon Alley three times. Our admiration has GROWN with each new visit.

The first time, we rushed through Gringotts before the coffee had kicked-in, then rushed off. Our bad. In retrospect, I realize it was our standard Disney approach. [Maybe hard to explain, but we feel WDW encourages guests to rush. It's us, and how we approach WDW, but partly it is a result of the limits Disney has put on guests.]

On our return trips to US, we slowed down. Wow! Disney used to make us feel this way, but it hasn't in a while. At Universal, we feel like we can explore at our own pace, without all the imposed structure. We love it.

I like low crowds, so maybe I shouldn't promote US. I feel like I've stepped into Harry Potter!

US has greatly improved in the last few years, including great food and cleanliness. [I don't know what Disney has done to their food, but it is lacking, especially at the prices they charge.]

The only thing I still see that US needs to improve is that too many of their rides have too much spinning/dropping/had breaking (Mummy). The storytelling is excellent!

 

[mickeyluv'r]

I think Universal and Disney know not to compete with each other's strengths.
I see Uni and WDW as six great parks (7 if you count SW) and the whole thing is an "Orlando" vacation.
So there is no point in Disney trying to build crazy thrill rides or Uni to build more rides without a height requirement.

I'm really thinking Diagon Alley saved WDW's numbers last year. It seemed readily clear to us that many visitors were at US to see HP, with a side trip to WDW - since they were in Orlando. Previously, it was the other way around.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking WDW probably lost a lot of folks who don't get to use onsite-guest perks, and those who hate pre-planning in the past year. Going to WDW, and hearing people complaining is a big turn off. We heard lots of complaints.

 

[Dizduke]

IMO I do not like the digital screen stuff but like things more tactile. Although I do not agree with some of the points of the OP I do agree that there needs to be some serious updating across the board. Way back when the experiences offered at WDW and DL were cutting edge, hence many had been showcased at the Worlds Fair. The technology needs to be updated to make things more impactful.