Does Disney need to re-think its ride attractions?

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think the first sentence above captures it and I hope that I didn't come off suggesting otherwise. When I spoke of ordering, I merely wanted to point out that the four WDW parks wouldn't rank 1, 2, 3 and 4 as kids get older. But that is not to suggest that the don't or won't enjoy Disney. (Though some here have suggested that their teens are "done". We haven't experienced that...yet.)

As for what I am "suggesting", I don't recall suggesting anything, but your comment about the HM provides a good segue for that. When the folks at Disney begin to fear "staleness" or irrelevance, I don't think that attraction is what they view as the problem. It is timeless and not linked to an old movie that has lost its relevance. I think what Disney needs to guard against is reliance on movies and characters that are from decades before most of us were born. But rides like the HM are the solution, not the problem. But the problem is that it has been a long time since Disney built a ride like Pirates or the HM. Pooh and Little Mermaid are rides that kids will enjoy when young, but will outgrow*. People don't outgrow PoTC or HM or Space or Splash or TSMM. So that is where the focus needs to be. Technology won't cure irrelevance. Timeless rides will. As will attractions featuring characters from the last 20 years. That is a glaring omission. No Incredibles? No Wall-E? No Up? Frozen in a Norway mash-up? All odd choices.

*This statement is not directed at this audience which is both small and sycophantic. The Disney-obsessed people here are largely immune from staleness and irrelevance. But the rest of the world is more impressionable.

I do think before ranking USO as higher, one should keep in mind that most of their stuff is based on movies and television shows, most of which are not timeless classics. I was surprised that something like Beetlejuice is still running. Then we have ET, Popeye and Dudley Do-right. They have a few other oldies as well. When I read that Disney is stale, I cannot help but think of the antique themes represented the other way. This isn't to say it isn't fun and cool or they those things are stale. But with such energies on making proclamations about Disney, it does seem silly to ignore how USO is set up by the very things you claim will make Disney obsolete.


By saying that only the Disney obsessed guest who is a "sycophant" will appreciate what you claim to be stale, is to underestimate how much such things are enjoyed by a wide range of guests. It also says something when one resorts to a pejorative to state their case.

 

[magicmomms]

My daughter doesn't like the cartoons I did when I was a kid. I liked Little Mermaid, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast. She finds them too scary. All the evil characters are a little TOO evil for her. She likes Frozen, Cars, How to Train Your Dragon, Finding Nemo. She is into meeting the princesses and all b/c that is a cool experience, but she would rather meet Big Hero 6 and Elsa of course (because she has powers).

I still think she will like the rides though- they are fun!

 

[JimmyV]

I do think before ranking USO as higher, one should keep in mind that most of their stuff is based on movies and television shows, most of which are not timeless classics. I was surprised that something like Beetlejuice is still running. Then we have ET, Popeye and Dudley Do-right. They have a few other oldies as well. When I read that Disney is stale, I cannot help but think of the antique themes represented the other way. This isn't to say it isn't fun and cool or they those things are stale. But with such energies on making proclamations about Disney, it does seem silly to ignore how USO is set up by the very things you claim will make Disney obsolete.


By saying that only the Disney obsessed guest who is a "sycophant" will appreciate what you claim to be stale, is to underestimate how much such things are enjoyed by a wide range of guests. It also says something when one resorts to a pejorative to state their case.

I think that you are overlooking the findings of the Disney execs. They, (not me), concluded that nostalgia alone cannot carry the day. Today's world is more of a "what happened 5 minutes ago happened 5 years ago" world. The folks at Disney understand this.

As for a perjorative, sycophant is descriptive, not negative. How could it be? I am an active member here, so what I say about the group I say about myself.

 

[OnSpaceshipEarth]

I don't know if anyone has posited this theory yet, but It seems WDW may be suffering as Disney is currently spending so much on Shanghai/Hong Kong/Paris.

On top of that...they are spending millions on Disney Springs and Avatarland. Put it all together and you can see how there isn't a whole lot left over to spend on new attractions.

I'm not making a defense of all this as what I care about is the American parks. I do hope that they can turn Disneyland Paris around so it won't be a continual money hole for Disney. If they can make that park into a money-maker it will be good for all of us WDW fans.

 

[Jfsag123]

But the kids who saw that when they were little will be having kids themselves in about 5-10 years...

If you're peddling nostalgia, perhaps not such a bad choice.

Another "kid who saw that" with kids now! I am 31, and so was 5 when The Little Mermaid came out. It is absolutely nostalgic for me to see my kids loving something that meant so much to me as a child. I think this is where Disney keeps the edge. Generations of Disney kids grow up and pass that down to their children, who pass it down to theirs and so on. Universal, at this point, doesn't really have the same kind of emotional draw. I was taken on two trips to Disney parks as a kid - once to Disneyland and once to WDW. On both of those trips, I was also taken to Universal studios. I connected more strongly with the Disney parks on both counts, and have more memories of them. Why? Because I had already been introduced to the stories and characters via my mother and grandmother, who had wanted to share the movies they had loved when they were children with me. Now I'm doing it with my kids and I think it's highly likely they'll do it with theirs. It doesn't matter what type of system the ride is - if I hear a few notes of the music from Peter Pan, The Little Mermaid, Pinocchio, etc, I'm already swept away.

Up to this point, I don't think Universal has any properties that inspire that same level of deep connection. However, I'm wondering what it may look like a couple of generations from now with their acquisition and incorporation of Harry Potter. I don't care about HP one bit, but I know lots of folks who do and they care very deeply. I think it has the potential to be something that people want to share with their kids and their kids' kids, and if they do, it might start driving folks to visit the Universal parks for similar reasons to why a lot of us visit the Disney parks.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

little kids can't ride anything at Universal And nostalgia on some level.

This is far from true.
Second, US's child swap is far superior to Disney's, and has been for a very long time. Those waiting with the child can walk through the queue, and the second group doesn't have to wait in the fastpass line to ride- they basically just walk right on the ride, unlike Soarin'- which is often a 45+min swap.
Third, just like WDW, more options open up when the child hits 36, 40, and 42 inches.
36" is about 2.5 years old, 40' is about 4 years old, and 42" is 4.5-5.5 years old. Once a child reaches 48", there's only a few things they are too short to ride at US. Boys hit 48" about their 7th birthday.

So I guess it depends how you define "little kids'.

 

[mom2rtk]

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 absolutely can agree with this.

Disney does not need a bunch of crazy thrill rides. But they do need MORE rides. Attendance has grown every year and ride capacity needs to keep up with that.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is far from true.
Second, US's child swap is far superior to Disney's, and has been for a very long time. Those waiting with the child can walk through the queue, and the second group doesn't have to wait in the fastpass line to ride- they basically just walk right on the ride, unlike Soarin'- which is often a 45+min swap.
Third, just like WDW, more options open up when the child hits 36, 40, and 42 inches.
36" is about 2.5 years old, 40' is about 4 years old, and 42" is 4.5-5.5 years old. Once a child reaches 48", there's only a few things they are too short to ride at US. Boys hit 48" about their 7th birthday.

So I guess it depends how you define "little kids'.

That was quite useful. Though for Forbidden Journey (I think that is the name), my child was upset with the waiting area as were a few others. Quite dark and intimidating if not scary for little ones. She wanted OUT!

On the flip side, it was quite convenient to switch out with other members of my party right when they got off the ride.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I absolutely can agree with this.

Disney does not need a bunch of crazy thrill rides. But they do need MORE rides. Attendance has grown every year and ride capacity needs to keep up with that.

I cannot argue with this. DHS is particularly lacking. Though I do love my Tower of Terror.

 

[ArwenMarie]

This is far from true.
Second, US's child swap is far superior to Disney's, and has been for a very long time. Those waiting with the child can walk through the queue, and the second group doesn't have to wait in the fastpass line to ride- they basically just walk right on the ride, unlike Soarin'- which is often a 45+min swap.
Third, just like WDW, more options open up when the child hits 36, 40, and 42 inches.
36" is about 2.5 years old, 40' is about 4 years old, and 42" is 4.5-5.5 years old. Once a child reaches 48", there's only a few things they are too short to ride at US. Boys hit 48" about their 7th birthday.

So I guess it depends how you define "little kids'.

I'd say 10 and unders if you want a general definition.

We've been to Universal a lot and it's great, but Disney has more rides and entertainment for little kids. I think even Universal would agree with that.

 

[ArwenMarie]

Another "kid who saw that" with kids now! I am 31, and so was 5 when The Little Mermaid came out. It is absolutely nostalgic for me to see my kids loving something that meant so much to me as a child. I think this is where Disney keeps the edge. Generations of Disney kids grow up and pass that down to their children, who pass it down to theirs and so on. Universal, at this point, doesn't really have the same kind of emotional draw. I was taken on two trips to Disney parks as a kid - once to Disneyland and once to WDW. On both of those trips, I was also taken to Universal studios. I connected more strongly with the Disney parks on both counts, and have more memories of them. Why? Because I had already been introduced to the stories and characters via my mother and grandmother, who had wanted to share the movies they had loved when they were children with me. Now I'm doing it with my kids and I think it's highly likely they'll do it with theirs. It doesn't matter what type of system the ride is - if I hear a few notes of the music from Peter Pan, The Little Mermaid, Pinocchio, etc, I'm already swept away.

Up to this point, I don't think Universal has any properties that inspire that same level of deep connection. However, I'm wondering what it may look like a couple of generations from now with their acquisition and incorporation of Harry Potter. I don't care about HP one bit, but I know lots of folks who do and they care very deeply. I think it has the potential to be something that people want to share with their kids and their kids' kids, and if they do, it might start driving folks to visit the Universal parks for similar reasons to why a lot of us visit the Disney parks.

I agree, I do think Harry Potter will be like that in the future. Heck I have huge love for the E.T. ride as well because that was a big movie when I was little

 

[Jfsag123]

I agree, I do think Harry Potter will be like that in the future. Heck I have huge love for the E.T. ride as well because that was a big movie when I was little

That is a memory I do have from my time at Universal as a kid! That ride felt like pure magic.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

Well I looked through those youtibe videos...but I guess it's just something you have to see in person to understand, b/c a lot of 3d is lost on me and the ride parts happen in dark.

To me, the excitement of HP is the level of detail all over: wands, sipping butter beer, and walking into Hogwarts.

Partly US took a few existing rides and re-themed them. The Hippogriff is similar to Goofy's Barnstomer, but better theming. US also re-themed their dragon coaster.

In Forbidden Journey partly your car moves like a ride, and partly it pauses in front of simulator screens (+ minimal motion). The preshow is walking through Hogwarts Castle. It's hard to describe all the fun of the castle rooms.

Hogwarts Express- goes between the two parks. It is part train, part simulated motion. Pretty tame, but the theming is fun.

Escape From Gringotts is the top ride, IMO. It is hard to describe what makes it so great. Partly the pre-ride and exterior are very well executed. The ride also combines simulation with actual motion. I think what makes it so neat is the visual quality. If Gringotts = modern digital IMAX, Soarin' = grainy, non-remastered movie from the 80's. That's not 100% fair, but to me, Soarin' is VERY out of date. I think it is sad that S is one of the BIGGEST rides in Epcot.

Beyond the rides though, there's just no comparing US's magic wands (albeit at almost $50 each) to the Epcot mystery game or the MK card game. The MK card game is boring.

Also, Disney has REDUCED food quality. HUGE mistake, IMO. There are whole threads on this topic, so this space is far too small. Before 2006, Kona Café was more amazing with every visit. The desserts were magical. Now, much of WDW's food is overpriced and nasty.

Not all US food is amazing, but when we compare US food at WDW price points- we find Us food to be better quality. They serve real ice cream in fun flavors, We got outstanding TS sushi -large rainbow roll $15, and real TS risotto for $16!

 

[mickeyluv'r]

One more thing...touring WDW- when I look at the big picture- just seems like such a hassle nowadays.
I get that the planners love planning every detail. More and more I resent what WDW has become.

Sometimes, you just want to be able to sit and eat some food, without the hassle of preplanning, or a complicated eating plan, or a long wait, or being forced to shell out $40 for a big buffet.

I think that's an area where WDW has also finally lost me.

I went along with the original DDP, adding ADR's (but not getting seated on time), and some buffets. I bought TiW and other discount deals. We've done Club level (that was a partial break from the crazy).

But the no show fee on top of all that just puts it all over the top. To me, it is the final insult.

Am I the only one that has been frequently seated well past my ADR time slot? I just find it very insulting and inexcusable to be seated 30-60minutes late when we've made so much effort to pre-plan and arrive on time via WDW's inconsistent transportation system.

 

[WhispyPixie]

I love many of the older rides! I think they need to keep up with them to make sure they are not showing serious wear, but I like the ride theme and length variety.

 

[magicmomms]

Great Posts! Thanks for the HP details- that all does sound very cool. As someone who reads the books- I can see how that kind of immersion would be desirable. You are right on the ADR's. If we show up on time and they don't seat us on time- what was the point? We planned for what? We should get money back if they are so quick to fine when someone doesn't show up on time. But that won't happen. I can't remember where I read it, but I read that WDW was gearing towards the elite/wealthy as their target audience. Think private expensive tours, club level, signature rest...all that. But what I love best is sitting on mainstreet with an ice-cream cone, rushing to go no where and taking my time. If that goes away- I will too. So far we still love going.

 

[MrInfinity]

I don't think of Disney as a typical theme park. I expect an entirely different experience...the experience that they provide. I have to agree with PPs who are saying NO to such changes. If you are looking for thrills, take a trip to...pretty much any other theme park. I can understand that things need to be in good shape. I can understand updating or adding to keep in step with more recent movies (even though I like the old stuff!). If we are talking Magic Kingdom, IMO, they should be the classic, more simple rides. The animatronics are great for kids. Who is going to MK for a thrill? It is for families of all ages, though IMO especially younger. Sure, add some better tech and more thrills at HS. It even makes more sense in a place like AvatarLand. Tech certainly makes sense in Future World at Epcot. IMO, other than keeping things fresh and in good working order, there is no need to add 4K and screens and whatever else to rides in MK. We have enough (sometimes unwanted) screen time in my life. I try to get away from that on vacation. I don't want more for myself or my kids.

Agreed. Pretty much any kid in college doing graphic design could make an animation of a singing dancing doll, write a score, and post it to youtube. I don't want that at WDW. I want the actual models that someone took the time to craft out of physical materials that move in real 3D space, not on a virtual 3D screen. It's like watching a game on TV vs going to the game. Small World if depicted in 4D screens would not be as attractive nor time-enduring as it is w the little dancing models. That just attracts people to see them moving, for real. Even the simple motions. Kids in the target age ranges are cool w the simple motions. We're building simple moving mechanisms at that age. Disney World w it's moving cars, and things you look at, and family-friendly rides is exactly what makes them #1.

Why on Earth would they want to be more like Six Flags or Universal. That is a huge step down to go after the teen market w the digital stuff when their bread and butter is that more lucrative and higher paying adults on vacation with younger kids crowd. They have this market which the other parks are trying to cut into, not the other way around.

 

[ArwenMarie]

It will be interesting to see what they do with the new Frozen ride...screens or animatronics, especially since they are fast-tracking it (well for Disney anyway)

 

[HCinKC]

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

I completely agree with this. It is the point of Epcot! Something like Ellen should have been updated years ago...and not just the movie. The "ride" needs to go and be replaced with something innovative and exciting. Hopefully they do something exciting with Innoventions West.

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.

I definitely agree that the rides were not built to handle modern crowds. I'm not sure what the answer is, but this problem is popping up more and more in our daily lives as the world's population grows.

As much as I'd love to see old rides stay, I agree that they need updated. I think Disney sometimes makes odd choices, in terms of what they retire and what they add. I'm not sure why so many of the newer movies seem to be missing entirely, be it a ride or even a character m&g. I know Splash is very popular, but it is a great study...it is based on a movie that no one has been able to see for decades and will likely never be able to see again. It doesn't matter. The way they made that ride is obviously a success. At any rate, my solution is a new "land" full of all the old rides!

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)

This is one of the things that I don't get, too. I do love the classics, but I'd also like to see newer references for my kids' sake. They have the room to do it. For instance, why do they need a Nemo ride at Epcot and a Nemo show at AK? Same for Little Mermaid. There are ways to tie in movies, too. Surely Soarin' could somehow be tied to "Up". That is just a random "example" I pulled out of the air just now, but in general, it seems like there are ways to spread the love around more.

...and in a year there will be Frozen and a Soarin' upgade at Epcot, in 2 years there a new night show and Avatar at AK, and with in the next decade Star Wars and Pixar at DHS... how is that "keeping the status quo in their parks" ...I mean honestly what are you people talking about

This is another problem though. Disney takes too darn long to do these things. There is huge buzz around a new SW trilogy that is about to start. At the very least construction on SWLand should be underway, but they haven't even announced specifics. They should have had something with Pixar years ago. I feel like they have been "kicking the can down the road" and now they are behind in the areas where they have the most logical opportunity to do new thrills and high tech stuff. Places where it makes sense, rather than places where it doesn't (MK).

One more thing...touring WDW- when I look at the big picture- just seems like such a hassle nowadays.

I totally agree with this. And think about all of the people who don't realize the new system! I know they send out the emails, it's in the brochures, etc, but I can still see how people miss out. It is confusing if you don't seek out additional information. Even if you do, it still doesn't make sense until you are in the middle of booking those FPs. And ADRs? I had NO idea when I booked our trip. I haven't been in ten years, so I was astonished to learn about 180 days out. And then to learn it's not even like a true reservation...ugh. I think it's great to have the option, but I don't appreciate that it has the potential to make your trip a hassle and/or less enjoyable both with and without it.

 

[Planogirl]

I agree with those that say that Universal and WDW should play up their strengths and coexist peacefully. I think that both are very good at their own specific type of "magic". Universal is more cutting edge and adventurous while WDW is more nostalgic and child-like. Nothing wrong with that, in fact I hope that they keep that distinction.