Iger Planning to Kill Imagineering?

[YoHo]

Again - how much of a ride's popularity is because of the show itself, and how much is because "we're already here, let's go on this one". The concept of good enough has a couple of different levels.

Dozens and dozens of better animal parks have rides similar to Kilimanjaroo. There's not a single element in the entire show that truly's unique, nothing that gets people to say "I've never seen that before" or "that's impossible - how did they do that". It lacks the "magic" of real Disney attraction: Kilimanjaroo appears exactly what it is, a bus ride around some cages. But the public expects Disney to present them "dreams made real": haunted houses and rocket trips and flying with a beloved character from childhood. All Kilimanjaroo offers is a really bad episode of the Kraft Brothers ("Com'on Martin - let's go save Li'l Red!!")

'Soarin' - gee, 'Star Tours' was popular for a long time. But it's a walk on now. All rides that are basically movies grow old very fast. Already the ride's popularity is slipping at California Adventure - and it's not like there's a lot of competion in the park either. 'Soaring' lacks a couple elements that would have made it better attraction. There should have been a real show there. At the moment it's a movie theater with a gimmick. They don't even bother to hide the fact that's it's a theater.

But most of all, it lacks the emotional kick in the gut that the best Disney attractions have. It's the "I've always wanted to do this!" antcipation and then delivering on that promise. You feel like you've gone through a haunted house when you exit the Mansion. You mind tells you that it's only an amusement park ride - but the your hair really stand up on end, those special effects are so believable that it's easier to believe in real ghosts...it all just seems so real yet there no way it possibly can be.

Or the 'Indiana Jones' Temple ride. It feels exactly what it would feel like to be in an Indiana Jones movie - the speed, the noise, the confusion, the over-the-top effects ("is that three story high skull really spitting flames at us?"), the phyisical thrashing and the "ohmygod - it's THE BOULDER!" moment that makes everyone scream even after ten years.

To do that takes a lot of skill, a lot of talent, and even more than that in hard work. Disney knows this, they know the was to make a great attration. They just aren't willing to put that effort these days. 'Tower' isn't fully developed enough to be much more than a facny drop ride, 'Soaring' is an IMAX theater with fancy chairs, and if one more movie spits water at me, I'm swearing off 3D films forever.

You'll still ride Heimlich's choo choo train though right.

 

[ChrisFL]

'Tower' isn't fully developed enough to be much more than a facny drop ride,

Sorry, I still really really disagree with that one...what more does it need? It has an entire hotel, a very creepy courtyard with incredible theming to make it look like it hasn't been touched for 70 years, interior lobby with props from the TV shows and authentic items from centuries past. It has a full story which is presented by Rod Serling, who BTW is actually DEAD but they brought him back anyway, a fully themed queue in the boiler room, and a lot of immersion inside the ride.

In fact the only thing that takes away slightly from the entire experience is the view of the park before/during the drop sequence. Then there's the ending, once again fully themed and you still feel like you're in the twilight zone.

I cant imagine what more Disney could have done to make the ride better...yes it's a drop ride, the same way that Space Mountain is just a rollercoaster and Pirates is just a lousy flume ride with 1 or 2 drops.

 

[barreloflaughs]

Pirates packed them in because it was a relaunch/redo.

That might be a bit of an overstatement. Imagine a day 40 years hence when Disney reopens another attraction after a short rehab...oh..let's say, 'Sounds Dangerous' or 'Stich's Great Escape!'. <shudder> How long will the lines be for those?

Certainly Pirates has seen longer lines as a result of the extreme Disney marketing effort and no doubt folks wanted to experience the attraction after it's round of tender loving care and scene changes. But long before it was a Johnny Depp tie-in Pirates was a wonderful, imaginative, spell-binding adventure. The good news is that it still is! Just hoping that the future holds more awe-inspiring attractions....

barrel

 

[barreloflaughs]

It has a full story which is presented by Rod Serling, who BTW is actually DEAD but they brought him back anyway...

Well jeez....if the Imagineers can raise folks the dead why did they settle for Rod Serling? I mean...I like Rod quite a lot and 'The Twilight Zone' was first rate storytelling but...uh.....you' d think they'd have started with Walt, no?

barrel

 

[Keyser]

Dozens and dozens of better animal parks have rides similar to Kilimanjaroo. There's not a single element in the entire show that truly's unique, nothing that gets people to say "I've never seen that before" or "that's impossible - how did they do that". It lacks the "magic" of real Disney attraction: Kilimanjaroo appears exactly what it is, a bus ride around some cages. But the public expects Disney to present them "dreams made real": haunted houses and rocket trips and flying with a beloved character from childhood. All Kilimanjaroo offers is a really bad episode of the Kraft Brothers ("Com'on Martin - let's go save Li'l Red!!")

Boy, I'd still have to disagree here. I think Kilimanjaro is very well done, and my wife and I did say "I've never seen that before" and "how did they do that" - it feels much more like you're riding among the animals rather than by cages, and I felt like I'd been in Africa. It's far better than any zoo or drive-through animal exhibit I've seen. (I admit I haven't been to the Wild Animal Park in San Diego, which I have heard might be as good). OK, a real safari would be better, I'm sure, but I would still argue that most Disney visitors view a real safari vacation at a level similar to a lot of the "impossible" things you cite.

If you're going to criticize poorly done things in Animal Kingdom, there are much easier pickings, starting with all the other animal exhibits, which feel just like any good zoo. I would argue, though, that the Dinosaur ride at AK was also well-done, and from what I saw of EE in Rohde's presentation, it seemed well done (though I understand you and others don't think so).

You feel like you've gone through a haunted house when you exit the Mansion. You mind tells you that it's only an amusement park ride - but the your hair really stand up on end, those special effects are so believable that it's easier to believe in real ghosts...it all just seems so real yet there no way it possibly can be.

Again, I'd totally disagree - I found HM to be great until the point where you actually start riding through scenes in the buggies. While some of the ghost effects were OK, most of them reminded me of cheap effects I'd find at a traveling carnival - far from "so believable that it's easier to believe in real ghosts". Tower of terror was far more immersive and realistic. I got off of that ride with a feeling like I'd just been to a haunted hotel (shortly broken thereafter by walking out through a gift shop, but that's another issue).

I'm completely with you on "Soarin" - it's a very fun ride, and it's nice to have big rides that a whole family can enjoy, but there's no show - certainly not what should be a Disney standard.

Really, though, there are plenty of rides I find held up as "great" examples that I find rather poor (Pirates would be included here). I think a lot of this is that I find many animatronics (especially humans) to be so unrealistic that I find it impossible to find such rides "immersive" - they remind me of the band that plays at Chuck E. Cheese or something. A good story/show can overcome some of these problems, but I often don't even find stories on those rides particularly compelling, either. I think technology has a lot to do with it - with improvements in robotics and computer-generated effects, it can take more to get one to suspend disbelief.

 

[dbm20th]

Really, though, there are plenty of rides I find held up as "great" examples that I find rather poor (Pirates would be included here). I think a lot of this is that I find many animatronics (especially humans) to be so unrealistic that I find it impossible to find such rides "immersive" - they remind me of the band that plays at Chuck E. Cheese or something.

Cry Havoc! And let slip the dog's of war. Keyser, you really stuck your head in the dragons mouth with this one...

 

[raidermatt]

Really, though, there are plenty of rides I find held up as "great" examples that I find rather poor (Pirates would be included here).

Nobody can be "wrong" of course when it comes to liking or disliking a ride. But it is important to set aside our personal preferences and look at the big picture when evaluating a rides's overall significance and popularity.

Pirates and HM are nearly 40 years old. While they are sometimes walk-ons, they are frequently not. And, as has been pointed out, their load speed has to be factored into any evaluation of their current popularity.

Whether you or I like them or not is irrelevant. They are two of the most popular attractions ever created, and they remain significant draws today. If you want to understand how great attractions are created, you have to start with these.

 

[dbm20th]

Dozens and dozens of better animal parks have rides similar to Kilimanjaroo..

Dozens and dozens? Really?? That's just plain silly

You feel like you've gone through a haunted house when you exit the Mansion. You mind tells you that it's only an amusement park ride - but the your hair really stand up on end, those special effects are so believable that it's easier to believe in real ghosts...it all just seems so real yet there no way it possibly can be.

Exactly which part? The heads popping up behind the tombstones? The door knockers moving? Or is it the incredbily inventive Pepper's Ghost effect, the goes back nearly 100 years before HM? None of these campy effects ever made me believe in real ghosts. Let's pull the exaggeration level down just a bit...

'Tower' isn't fully developed enough to be much more than a facny drop ride

That may be true of the Cali version, but if you are referring to MGM, that's just hogwash.

 

[YoHo]

Just to dispell a little misinformation in this thread. I regularly get brochures for adventure vacations. South and Central America, Asia, Africa, Australia, the South Seas. These vacation packages are at worst as expensive as a WDW vacation not more. So, if Joe Six-pack really thinks that the Safari ride is the most cost effective way to get the Safari experience, then he probably ought to turn the vacation planning video off and experience the rest of the world.

I mean, I love Disney, but Kilimanjaro Safari is not anything like something out of my reach and beyond my dreams.


Now, let the foolish mocking of Disney's greatest attractions continue. I hate to intrupt a good head of steam.

 

[yalegracey]

While some of the ghost effects were OK, most of them reminded me of cheap effects I'd find at a traveling carnival

Such as?

 

[raidermatt]

Dozens and dozens? Really?? That's just plain silly

Not as silly as quibbling over how large the number is. The point holds regardless of the exact number.

Exactly which part? The heads popping up behind the tombstones? The door knockers moving? Or is it the incredbily inventive Pepper's Ghost effect, the goes back nearly 100 years before HM? None of these campy effects ever made me believe in real ghosts. Let's pull the exaggeration level down just a bit...

So people just love campy effects? So much so that by using some you can create one of the most popular attractions ever built?

Obviously there's more going on here than just what you see as some campy effects. AV offered an explanation for the ride's nearly unprecedented popularity and longevity. Perhaps you have an alternative explanation?

 

[Another Voice]

Or is it the incredbily inventive Pepper's Ghost effect, the goes back nearly 100 years before HM?

Fireworks go back thousands of years. You must hate Wishes. Theatrical movies are more than a hundred years old – you should really despise Dead’s Man Chest, that thing will NEVER be popular. How could anyone watch such an ancient artform like “movies”.

Only the talentless blame the tools they have to work with, only hacks think “new” is the same as “good”.

It doesn’t matter how old the technology is, it’s how it’s used. I’ll gladly compare the “fuddy-duddy” effects from the Mansion against anyother. Besides, doesn’t ‘Tower of Terror’ use the old, rotten Pepper’s Ghost trick too?

Oh – aren’t rollercoasters more than a hundred years old too. I guess ‘Everest’ isn’t good either.

OK, a real safari would be better, I'm sure, but I would still argue that most Disney visitors view a real safari vacation at a level similar to a lot of the "impossible" things you cite.

Again – the real Disney makes attractions from adventures that are impossible in the real world. What you described is merely impractical for a lot of people. That’s a different, and lower, level of wish fulfillment. That’s what Vegas is for – gee, can’t get away to Europe, come the ‘Paris’ casino! The only emotional thrill you get out of it is that for a few moments you can forget you’re too poor to go to the real Paris.

It’s not the same as “I’ve always wanted to fly off to Neverland”.

I think a lot of this is that I find many animatronics (especially humans) to be so unrealistic…

The biggest tragedy of the Eisner era is the way the parks were allowed to rot. Outdate electronics is not the fault of the show; it’s the fault of the people putting on the show. No one is complaining that the new figures of Jack Sparrow came from Chuck E. Cheese.


Again – there is a reason why some attractions are still hugely popular after fifty years, while others don’t even last five. It has nothing to do with what’s “popular” or what’s “kEwL” or what “cutting edge” technology is used. It’s good old fashioned storytelling.

 

[dbm20th]

Not as silly as quibbling over how large the number is. The point holds regardless of the exact number.

No one is quiblbling. I am simply questioning the accuracy of what he is basing this opinion on. He acts as though KS is something we can see at the local town fair. That's not true.

So people just love campy effects? So much so that by using some you can create one of the most popular attractions ever built?

Again, my point is lost on you, and I apologize for that. AV is injecting his opinion, his subjective and personal view of HM as why it is vastly superior to newer rides, like ToT. I don't agree. I don't get any of the feeling he says here when I am on HM, a ride I truly love. It is great fun. It's got great music and I always ride it. But it does NOT make me feel like I just left a haunted mansion. In fact, it makes me feel like someone is making fun of haunted mansions.

He also tries to call ToT a glorified drop ride and KS a run-of-the mill zoo attraction. He backs this opinion by referencing HM, a ride that also used old techniques as well. This is NOT a bash on HM. It is NOT an attempt to make these newer rides better than HM. It is simply poining out that the logic doesn't follow.

Obviously there's more going on here than just what you see as some campy effects.

And there is a lot more going on in ToT then FreeFall. Just like HM, it used older techniques, like the drop, and injected terrific themeing and story as well as a brand new ride mechanism. Brilliant, no matter what the purists want to believe.

 

[YoHo]

AV is not giving an opinion when he says that Pirates and HM are more popular then Tower (at either place).

That's a fact, HM and Pirates are the 2 most popular attractions in both WDW and DL. That isn't up for debate. Why is that?

 

[dbm20th]

Fireworks go back thousands of years. You must hate Wishes. Theatrical movies are more than a hundred years old – you should really despise Dead’s Man Chest, that thing will NEVER be popular. How could anyone watch such an ancient artform like “movies”.

Only the talentless blame the tools they have to work with, only hacks think “new” is the same as “good”.

It doesn’t matter how old the technology is, it’s how it’s used. I’ll gladly compare the “fuddy-duddy” effects from the Mansion against anyother. Besides, doesn’t ‘Tower of Terror’ use the old, rotten Pepper’s Ghost trick too?

Oh – aren’t rollercoasters more than a hundred years old too. I guess ‘Everest’ isn’t good either.

We are in perfect agreement! That is my point. These things ARE better than the average. Just like HM was. You don't think so, well that's your opinion. But I have NEVER been on a drop ride like ToT. What I was doing was using the same spinning technique on HM that you use on ToT or whatever. Perhaps I did not make that clear. My bad!

 

[Keyser]

Cry Havoc! And let slip the dog's of war. Keyser, you really stuck your head in the dragons mouth with this one...

I see that now...

Nobody can be "wrong" of course when it comes to liking or disliking a ride. But it is important to set aside our personal preferences and look at the big picture when evaluating a rides's overall significance and popularity.

Pirates and HM are nearly 40 years old. While they are sometimes walk-ons, they are frequently not. And, as has been pointed out, their load speed has to be factored into any evaluation of their current popularity.

Whether you or I like them or not is irrelevant. They are two of the most popular attractions ever created, and they remain significant draws today. If you want to understand how great attractions are created, you have to start with these.

I don't disagree. I'm not saying that these rides that are popular should be done away with or anything, and I don't mean to "mock" them.

Let me give an analogy between theme park rides and roller coasters (I should know better - analogies always stretch to the point of breaking...). Coney Island’s Cyclone has to be considered one of the greatest roller coasters ever. It has incredible longevity and still draws a crowd. Lots of people still love it and ride it. If you’re going to build a roller coaster, it’s a good idea to understand why the Cyclone has been so successful. Not everyone likes it, though. As technology has progressed, the expectations for roller coasters have increased a lot, and as a result some view the Cyclone as being rather poor – many find it dated and rough. At the same time, you’d be very hard pressed to pick one of the new roller coasters that will still be popular 80 years from now. On each of them you can probably pick out a few things that make it not as good as the Cyclone. That doesn’t mean that these newer roller coasters weren’t well designed, or shouldn’t have been built. In fact, it doesn’t mean that some of them aren’t arguably better roller coasters than the Cyclone.

While some of the ghost effects were OK, most of them reminded me of cheap effects I'd find at a traveling carnival

Such as?

It’s been a few years now (I didn’t ride HM, or Pirates, last time I went to WDW), but the part that sticks out the most was a graveyard scene – it was more cartoonish than anything else. Some of the ghost effects I thought were also pretty weak (again, no better than a mirror effect I’d see at a carnival), while some of the other ghost effects were good. In fact, I thought the intro to the ride was excellent, but all sense of immersion into the haunted environment was broken by the “campy” effects. I really don’t mean to criticize the ride itself – it’s fine, and I’m glad so many people like it. But, it’s odd to me to consider that ride a paragon of immersion while denigrating Tower of Terror, which I personally found to have done a much better job in giving a feeling of being in a haunted building.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

At least no one is in this thread defending Primeval Whirl...

It has nothing to do with what’s “popular” or what’s “kEwL” or what “cutting edge” technology is used. It’s good old fashioned storytelling.

I would agree with you on the storytelling. I like KS, I think it's a decent ride and you can see animals you don't see everyday (blah blah) but the "story" is weak. After riding through the "savannah" and seeing some pretty neat animals (when they're not sleeping) the ride turns over to that hoaky poaching storyline. I totally lose interest. It feels more like a contrived fill-in or obligatory story-line after having people see the "kEwL" (lack of) animal enclosures.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from and my interpretation of AV's posts: it seems that the rides that WDI develops of late seem to be more about a "ride technology" than a story. It's all about showcasing some new technology and then they fill in a story around it. They've done a better job on some rides than others. Some have better stories and elements surrounding them like ToT. I really like this ride - I think the "story" is good. But it still feels like the story was developed around the ride technology and not vice-versa.... The same could be said for RnR, E:E (still waiting to ride and judge this one), KS, Soarin', M:S, etc. I really like all those rides (still waiting to judge E:E) but I see a big difference between those and the likes of Pirates, Splash, JC, Spaceship Earth, HM, etc. First and foremost on those was the "story". Second to the development of a good story told by great sets, immersion, etc., on those rides was "how do we get the guests into/through the story...." At least that's how they appear to me.

Again - that's only my opinion.

 

[ChrisFL]

At least no one is in this thread defending Primeval Whirl...

I would agree with you on the storytelling. I like KS, I think it's a decent ride and you can see animals you don't see everyday (blah blah) but the "story" is weak. After riding through the "savannah" and seeing some pretty neat animals (when they're not sleeping) the ride turns over to that hoaky poaching storyline. I totally lose interest. It feels more like a contrived fill-in or obligatory story-line after having people see the "kEwL" (lack of) animal enclosures.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from and my interpretation of AV's posts: it seems that the rides that WDI develops of late seem to be more about a "ride technology" than a story. It's all about showcasing some new technology and then they fill in a story around it. They've done a better job on some rides than others. Some have better stories and elements surrounding them like ToT. I really like this ride - I think the "story" is good. But it still feels like the story was developed around the ride technology and not vice-versa.... The same could be said for RnR, E:E (still waiting to ride and judge this one), KS, Soarin', M:S, etc. I really like all those rides (still waiting to judge E:E) but I see a big difference between those and the likes of Pirates, Splash, JC, Spaceship Earth, HM, etc. First and foremost on those was the "story". Second to the development of a good story told by great sets, immersion, etc., on those rides was "how do we get the guests into/through the story...." At least that's how they appear to me.

Again - that's only my opinion.

I see what you're saying and I dont disagree with you, however another viewpoint could be that we don't always get the reason why we're as guests entering rides, like splash mountain, IIRC Brer rabbit never talks to us about why we're there, we're just put on a boat and get pushed through the story.

The other rides mentioned, we're given the story, like RnRC, we know exactly why we're there and what we're supposed to do...drive a caddy really fast through L.A.

 

[Keyser]

Quoting and snipping a bit out of order:

It doesn’t matter how old the technology is, it’s how it’s used.

The biggest tragedy of the Eisner era is the way the parks were allowed to rot. Outdate electronics is not the fault of the show; it’s the fault of the people putting on the show. No one is complaining that the new figures of Jack Sparrow came from Chuck E. Cheese.

OK, I agree for the most part. But, I think you'd agree that the technology has to be sufficient to achieve the desired effect, and "sufficient" can also change over time (one type of the "rot" you mention). A good analogy might be movies. The effects in 1950s Sci-Fi movies were evidently pretty effective at the time. Nowadays, a much higher level is called for. Even if the story in one of those old movies is great, the poor effects in an old movie can take away from someone enjoying it today. Some people are able to look past that and see the story, but it's tougher. Many of the poor animatronics take away from attractions for me, and the "campy" effects in HM also do so for me. I'm glad to hear that the Pirates updates are using better animatronics - that should help.

That's very different from saying that just using cool new effects is enough to overcome a bad story (beyond short term), and I haven't heard anyone argue as such.

I think the point where we disagree is in whether there's a good story conveyed in some of the more recent rides.

 

[YoHo]

Quoting and snipping a bit out of order:

OK, I agree for the most part. But, I think you'd agree that the technology has to be sufficient to achieve the desired effect, and "sufficient" can also change over time (one type of the "rot" you mention). A good analogy might be movies. The effects in 1950s Sci-Fi movies were evidently pretty effective at the time. Nowadays, a much higher level is called for. Even if the story in one of those old movies is great, the poor effects in an old movie can take away from someone enjoying it today. Some people are able to look past that and see the story, but it's tougher. Many of the poor animatronics take away from attractions for me, and the "campy" effects in HM also do so for me. I'm glad to hear that the Pirates updates are using better animatronics - that should help.

That's very different from saying that just using cool new effects is enough to overcome a bad story (beyond short term), and I haven't heard anyone argue as such.

I think the point where we disagree is in whether there's a good story conveyed in some of the more recent rides.

Star Wars (and the rest of the initial trilogy), even with it's relativly primative Special FX has yet to be topped in terms of popularity and immersivness, because of how great the story was. In fact, the prequels take the opposite route and fail utterly.

As for current attractions.
As was said many pages ago, there is a distinct and important difference between Plot and Story. RnRC has a plot (A weak one) there is no story.

There are tons of books that detail how Disney went about making attractions like Pirates and those books stand in sharp contrast to the modern Imagineering method as was pointed out a couple posts ago.

Even Splash Mountain was a flume ride first.

Indy was the last ride where they took a story and built a mechanism for it.

I suppose I should say CTX/Dinosaur as well, but that ride is such a pile of bantha poodoo compared to Indy that I have troble equating the 2.