If I were an Imagineer...or Why doesn't Disney do this?

[BigDogDaddy]

I have often wondered why some things are done the way they are instead of another way.

For example:

-Why does it take so long for Disney to create a ride or attraction themed to a popular movie? I don't want to be walk into the park and be blasted with BFG everywhere I look, but I would think they should be able to capitalize quicker than they have. Why doesn't Disney have a team assigned to each movie that is tasked with creating park tie-ins? Possible rides, attractions, etc? It would enhance the visitor experience. Why does it take 5 years after the movie comes out until they have a ride?

-Why isn't there a movie theater in the parks that shows a full length movie during the day? Can you imagine how great it would be to get 1000 people out of the lines and the park and into a theater for 2 hours during the day? Can you imagine sitting in an air conditioned theater for 2 hours during August? They could still sell popcorn and drinks, but it seems like a no brainer way to deal with some crowds. It doesn't even have to be a current movie.

-When they create any video for a ride or attraction, why do they usually only do one version? Why don't they do what the Star Wars attraction did and create 5 or 6 different movies? It would be really neat to not know what movie you see until you get into the seats.

What would you do differently if you were an Imagineer?

 

[Robo]

Yup.

 

[Mikie]

Sadly, I severly lack the imagination to be an Imagineer, but I like to hear others' suggestions. I'm with you on the movie theater - seems great! Many people would love an AC break and for everyone who says "are you NUTS! I can watch movies at home!" there's another who would say "great! A break without really leaving the park".

The only thing I can fathom about why attractions don't come out closer to a movie is possibly a wait and see how popular it is. Surely, if Imagineers were involved during the actual movie making process, they would have some great ideas for things to create and they have the entire movie production time to work on it simultaneously. Obviously, toys take a tiny fraction of the time a new attraction/meet/building would take, but toys are all on the shelves before the movies even hit theaters. . .

 

[cigar95]

Disney does most of the things you mention in your first paragraph. Synergy is big in the corporate offices - hence the merchandise that you see almost immediately. But because of the the the lengthy approval process that runs through the executive office, you have the issue you note in the last sentence. Attractions cost much more than dolls and t-shirts.

As for your third paragraph, the simple answer is that it costs more money, with not enough perceived benefit to justify it. First-time visitors or once-every-five-years visitors are the parks' bread and butter.

 

[Alesia]

1. They want to know that a movie has staying power before they start developing an attraction based on it. Spending a couple of years and millions and millions of dollars developing an attraction based on a movie that turned out to be a flash in the pan is not smart business .

2. It's not a terrible idea, but I doubt there would be much demand for it. Most people aren't going to waste valuable park time in a movie theater. They can go to the movies at home.

3. It's not just a matter of making a movie - the ride vehicles have to be programmed to match up with each video. It's expensive for a simple simulator like Star Tours. When you get into a more complicated system like Soarin', it's very, very, very expensive.

 

[minnie mum]

Sigh. I need to learn how to type faster. Both Cigar and Alesia pretty much nailed what I wanted to say.

 

[bryanb]

It is very risky to spend $50-$200 million on a movie-themed attraction when you don't know if it's going to be a hit.

Universal got really lucky with Waterworld back when they built the spectacular at USH. The movie turned out to be a famous expensive flop, but the live show has continued to play to a packed stadium. Even though most of the audience is probably not familiar with the characters or storyline.

It also takes much longer to design a really good attraction. The park plans are set for 5 and 10 year development schedules.

 

[hakepb]

1. They want to know that a movie has staying power before they start developing an attraction based on it. Spending a couple of years and millions and millions of dollars developing an attraction based on a movie that turned out to be a flash in the pan is not smart business .

2. It's not a terrible idea, but I doubt there would be much demand for it. Most people aren't going to waste valuable park time in a movie theater. They can go to the movies at home.

3. It's not just a matter of making a movie - the ride vehicles have to be programmed to match up with each video. It's expensive for a simple simulator like Star Tours. When you get into a more complicated system like Soarin', it's very, very, very expensive.

For 3... It's not too expensive for 6 Flags which is now offering VIrtual Reality headsets on some coasters (using somewhat standard headsets running a Samsung Galaxy S7 phone app)

http://www.gizmag.com/virtual-reality-coaster/43535/

One of the more interesting applications of the technology from the perspective of the amusement park is that they can refresh a ride simply by changing the virtual reality visuals rather than having to make any changes to the coaster itself. "If in the future if we decide that we would like to bring this type of adventure but maybe tell a different story or immerse you in a different virtual reality world on a different ride, we definitely have that potential," says park president Pete Carmichael.

 

[gorkt]

Paying theme park prices to watch a movie sounds dumb to me. Just go to Disney Springs for free and visit the AMC theater.

I do agree that they are super slow at developing new rides. I can't argue with the quality of what they do produce, but I wish they would get a little faster at it.

 

[revdon64]

Yes, imagine the draw that films like Meet the Robinsons and Chicken Little would have as shows/rides right now. The Fox and the Hound musical? The Rescuers umbrella boat ride? Sure, some of us connect with some of those films but they need a pretty broad appeal before Disney is going to sink millions of dollars into development of a ride or attraction.

 

[MKNJ]

Towards your first point, it is also important to think of the life cycle of these films. If a movie is a big hit there is no need to push it in the parks to grow the film. And, while it might be nice to see the big new movie featured in the parks, it would be so overwhelmed by everything else going on that it would not be very impactful.

However, Frozen is not the big deal that it was even one year ago. Current hiccups aside, the new ride brings Frozen back to the surface and keeps it in the public eye until Frozen 2 can come out. Granted, Frozen 2 won't need much help, but opening the ride now vs. two years ago is better for the brand.

 

[hakepb]

Yes, imagine the draw that films like Meet the Robinsons and Chicken Little would have as shows/rides right now. The Fox and the Hound musical? The Rescuers umbrella boat ride? Sure, some of us connect with some of those films but they need a pretty broad appeal before Disney is going to sink millions of dollars into development of a ride or attraction.

Actually, Meet the Robinsons would be a more appropriate Tommorowland tie-in than Stitch, or at least be vastly superior to a shuttered Wonders of Life pavilion in Future World.

But, yes, not every movie needs a dedicated ride. It would be nice to see a few smaller changes/ updates (like Small World in DL getting a few recent Pixar characters).

I almost think WDW is stuck in a "every new attraction must be the next huuuuge thing" instead of adding a more, cheaper attractions.
(Like why couldn't the Tomorrowland speedway get a simple Cars update)?
Yes, RSR is truly amazing testament to Imagineering in Cars Land...but if you can't go all out on that build, do something?

 

[maxiesmom]

Not every movie needs to be made into a ride. And not every ride needs a movie tie-in.

 

[cigar95]

Not every movie needs to be made into a ride. And not every ride needs a movie tie-in.

I especially like your second half. Perfectly fine to build really good attractions that stand on their own - like most non-Fantasyland attractions were until the 90s or so. (along similar lines, I'm looking forward to Pandora not because it's tied to Avatar, but because I think they're going to come up with something really interesting. The movie tie-in means next to nothing in my eyes.)
It's called trusting your designers, even if it means you don't have a guaranteed, built-in audience on opening day.

 

[BigDogDaddy]

Thanks, I understand everything you all had to say. I guess I'm thinking that when you are storyboarding a movie, you could be thinking of possible rides or attractions then, instead of waiting until it comes out and trying to rekindle the fire. Think of a car ride, it could fit into Toy Story, Wreck-It Ralph, Bolt, etc. It seems that every Disney movie lately has been hitting record box office receipts, Zootopia, Inside Out, etc. I'm not saying that the day a movie opens they should have a ride to go with it, but I would think they should have something in the works sooner.

Spending a day in the parks when it is 90 degrees with 90% humidity, a storm rolling in and I would welcome a chance to get into an air conditioned theater for 2 hours. Not really to see a movie like Meet the Robinsons, but one of the Muppet movies or a Toy Story, yeah I'd be in that line.

I have a friend who produces video for extreme sports and he said that when he plans his videos, he listens to the music and can create multiple videos with the same music score. The music breaks into segments and he selects video that matches that segment. It can be done, especially with the talent that Disney has.

Oh, and I agree that not every movie needs a tie-in, or a ride, and some really good rides can be created from movies that weren't very profitable.

 

[revdon64]

Actually, Meet the Robinsons would be a more appropriate Tommorowland tie-in than Stitch, or at least be vastly superior to a shuttered Wonders of Life pavilion in Future World.

But, yes, not every movie needs a dedicated ride. It would be nice to see a few smaller changes/ updates (like Small World in DL getting a few recent Pixar characters).

I almost think WDW is stuck in a "every new attraction must be the next huuuuge thing" instead of adding a more, cheaper attractions.
(Like why couldn't the Tomorrowland speedway get a simple Cars update)?
Yes, RSR is truly amazing testament to Imagineering in Cars Land...but if you can't go all out on that build, do something?

I'm pretty sure that I read this idea here. What if they did a refurb/overlay on Tomorrowland Speedway and theme it to the Sugar Rush game from Wreck-It-Ralph? It sits right on the border of fantasyland and tomorrowland, and would fit both themes. That's worth considering especially now that Wreck-it-Ralph 2 is a confirmed project.

 

[BigDogDaddy]

Guardians of the Galaxy was by all measures a box office hit. On a $170mil budget, the worldwide gross is said to be $775mil. They had receipts of $768mil by November of 2014, just 3 months after the release.

It was released in August of 2014. Now, 2 years later, we are hearing rumbles of a possible GOTG attraction in Epcot. If the rumors are true, the project will take years to complete and open to the public.

I am not saying that they should have been rolling out something in Sept of 2014, but waiting 6 years just seems like an awfully long time to have a permanent attraction.