Innovative family rides

[Douglas Dubh]

On the "Expedition: Everest is Official" thread, Raidermatt said, "I might not feel so strongly about this if the new innovative family rides were coming as well...but they haven't been, and we haven't heard a peep that anything is in the works."

This got me thinking. How many innovative family rides have there been in the last 10 to 20 years? I would think Killamanjaro Safari would probably qualify, but what else? By the way Matt used it, I would think the term would not include any ride with height restrictions, so TOT and Indy and even Soarin' are out. And 3D movies obviously wouldn't count. Roger Rabbit might, but would Great Movie Ride? Am I overlooking any?

 

[KNWVIKING]

What would the new Philharmagic -or whatever it's called- be classified as ? More show then ride ? I think Tough to be a Bug is a family attraction, but again,maybe not considered a ride. Is there a height limit on Kali ?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Philarmonic and Bugs are definitely movies, not rides. Kali has a height restriction. Tokyo's Pooh is probably an innovative, family ride, but I'm not sure any of the DisneySea rides are.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

As much as I love Its Tough to Be a Bug it isnt really a family attraction. It is far too terrifying to most smaller children.

 

[YoHo]

Lets say family attraction instead of Ride.

First of all, all those 3D movies are variations on a theme. So, I suppose Honey I shrunk the Audience is the innovation.

Horizons was fairly innovative. Roger Rabbit, Buzz and Pooh (Flordia and Tokyo) have innovations, but they aren't leaps the way Pirates was.

I would have to say the Safari ride comes closet and that isn't all that innovative, but I won't even get into my minor quibbles with that ride.

 

[crusader]

Good question. It seems everytime a ride with any level of intensity is introduced this topic inevitably surfaces. My interpretation is that it would be an attraction big on show and effects which wows every type of audience. Height restrictions are irrelevant - something along the lines of the Haunted Mansion of the 21st century - built in accordance with the philosophy of Walt unveiling unprecedented technology of tomorrow.

 

[KNWVIKING]

"As much as I love Its Tough to Be a Bug it isnt really a family attraction. It is far too terrifying to most smaller children."

I don't totally agree with this statement. When my DS was 3 or 4, the first time he got on a Dumbo type ride he started crying and then started climbing out of the "spaceship". Kids get scared the first time they try new things. Now I agree that the some portions of Bug get intense, but is quickly followed by a funny part. I've done Bug probably 40 times- we love watching people's reaction when the "Bugs" exit at the end of the show- and have seen/heard the kids scream,cry and then laugh all in about 10 seconds. As we exit, we always hear the little guys give it great reviews,can't wait to do it again.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Roger Rabbit, Buzz and Pooh (Flordia and Tokyo) have innovations, but they aren't leaps the way Pirates was.

I don't think I'd consider Florida's Pooh innovative. It's a nice dark ride, but I don't know that making the car seem to bounce or sway a little is all that innovative. Same with Buzz - the interactiveness is nice, but is it truly innovative? Did any other parks do this before, or is this a Disney first?

 

[wdwguide]

"Same with Buzz - the interactiveness is nice, but is it truly innovative? Did any other parks do this before, or is this a Disney first?"

Silver Dollar City has had an interactive ride called The Great Shoot-Out for ages.

 

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by Douglas Dubh
I don't think I'd consider Florida's Pooh innovative. It's a nice dark ride, but I don't know that making the car seem to bounce or sway a little is all that innovative. Same with Buzz - the interactiveness is nice, but is it truly innovative? Did any other parks do this before, or is this a Disney first?

By that rationale, the only innovative rides Disney has ever done are POC, HM, the Monorail and the W.E.D. Way people mover. Maybe you could count COP, but that's not really a ride. I think the focus of your question is too narrow. TGMR used innovative live action and animatronic interaction and storytelling, but the ride concept was nothing new. Spaceship Earth was built inside a Geodesic Sphere, but it is just a dark ride. Even Horizons, that allowed guest participation in the ride experience is a variation on other dark rides.

 

[raidermatt]

Vike, I think the point about Bugs is that many young children are frightened by it, moreso than Muppets or Honey. Of course there are exceptions. I wouldn't go so far as to say it wasn't a family attraction, but it is exclusive....just not by using a height restriction.

The same point has been made about HM and even Pirates.

Overall, the 3d (or 4d, whatever) movies are good family attractions, and could be considered innovative in terms of theme park attractions. But now that every park will have one (The DLR parks have clones of WDW's...DCA even has two of them)... there's not a lot to hang hats on with them anymore.

KS is a good family attraction, though again, not really innovative. But not everything has to be a cutting edge technological leap...that is a rarity and we realistically can't expect that to come along every couple of years.

The point I'd like to make about KS is that despite the faults many see in it, it appears to be one of the most popular attractions in AK, maybe even the most popular. It seems to be a big reason why people who might otherwise just skip AK at least come for the morning.

So it appears that a ride can be a big-time drawing card for a park without having a physical thrill element.

Buzz has some innovative elements, and is very popular. Its not really a "drawing card" attraction, but it is also not a "ride it if we walk by it" attraction. I suspect that had more effort been made on the "show", using more elaborate effects and a more immersive story, this could have been a true knockout type attraction.

The Great Movie Ride is a nice family attraction, but when did that open? Also, as with Buzz, it could have been made more "thrilling" or "exciting" without adding physical exclusiveness.

We've also heard from some of the insiders on this board that Disney is in fact becoming more and more convinced that the physical thrill element IS necessary in a "drawing-card" type attraction.

So we've got just about all recent MAJOR additions being height-restricted, like RnRC and TT. Upcoming major additions are height-restricted, like M:S, Everest, and another ToT in DCA. Rumored additions are height-restricted, like Time Racers (which would replace what is still a very popular family attraction), a Soarin' clone and a Rainforest Coaster. And our insiders tell us that Disney in fact DOES think the day of the family ride being a major drawing card maybe over.

When I look at all of those things, I become concerned about the direction Disney is taking. Physical thrill attractions do have their place, but I think Disney is becoming enamored with them and is missing tremendous opportunities.

I know this isn't as much of a "hot-button" with many, but we all have our areas of emphasis, and I do see this as detrimental to the overall long-term health of the theme park operation.

 

[YoHo]

Just to back up, The Jungle Cruise has Live cast members interacting with Animatronics. AND, Universe of energy pioneered the use of the moving theater which is the same technology used in TGMR. So I would suggest that the Great Movie ride has exactly nothing innovative about it.

It seems that the last set of real innovation in this feild came about with Epcot. And people loved Epcot. of course those rides were not of the same scope as Pirates or Haunted. Mainly, due to theme.

 

[KNWVIKING]

With everything being a money issue these days with Disney, I wonder if a top notch family ride cost more or less then a top notch thrill ride ? My gut says the thrill would cost more so in a sense Disney isn't looking for the cheap way out for once. I think they truely believe the parks need to be edgier.

 

[KNWVIKING]

"Just to back up, The Jungle Cruise has Live cast members interacting with Animatronics. AND, Universe of energy pioneered the use of the moving theater which is the same technology used in TGMR. So I would suggest that the Great Movie ride has exactly nothing innovative about it."

I wouldn't say a new ride isn't innovative because it used something as broad based as people,animatronics and movies. That's kind of like saying there are no innovative roller coasters because they all use track.

 

[raidermatt]

Vike, I think the counter to that is that a physical thrill element can substitute for the creative and technological effort needed in the themeing and story.

Look at RnRC. The florescent neon highway signs look good when whizzing by at 50 MPH, but if it were a slower moving attraction, with more emphasis on story, it would require much more in the way of effects. Perhaps more importantly, it would require a much bigger committment creatively, which can carry a significant cost. Instead, they were able to invest much less, and purchase an essentially "off-the-shelf" coaster. Its difficult to speculate on what the end cost would be, but I'm guessing the "family" route wouldn't be much less expensive, and possibly more expensive.

(note, the point is not to knock RnRC as an attraction, but just to illustrate the differences in resources required)

Also, another important point is risk. If you build a physical thrill ride, you know you're going to have a certain level of success with some markets. Even if you skimp creatively, or simply fail creatively, the attraction will still have an audience.

If you go for a "family" attraction that doesn't really exist elsewhere, its a bigger unknown. If you fail creatively, you might end up with nothing more than something people ride to get out of the sun. Now, the old Disney, being a truly creative company dedicated to its mission, would take this risk, confident in its creative ability and committed to making it succeed.

Today's Disney is less confident, and more committed to tapping market segments than to a core creative mission.

This makes a $150 million physical thrill attration a safer alternative than a $150 million non-physical thrill attraction.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

I still think this argument is circular. If Haunted Mansion or Pirates were built today and were the only copies of that attraction that existed you all would not consider them innovative family attractions. They would be boring, same old same old dark rides. I strongly believe it is only the memories of being wowed as a child (or even and adult) for the first time that makes these attractions so dear to you.

 

[KNWVIKING]

I agree that Everest is virtually a risk free short term boost to AK. But due to earlier financial disasters, Disney probably isn't in a position to risk 150 mil on a possible future classic. For the time being I think they need to get the most bang for their buck and something like an Everest would probably do that better then another JC or POC. They do need to look beyond the thrill market ASAP but for now I'm willing to agree with Disney that Everest is a good move.

"If you fail creatively, you might end up with nothing more than something people ride to get out of the sun. "

Funny, while I love the technology and attention to detail that went into POC, on a hot,sunny day, this is my motivation to go on it.

 

[YoHo]

Except, that if Haunted or Pirates were first built today, then they would be innovative, because no other attraction previosu to them used Audio animatronics and those ride mechanisms in such a complex way.

Or, are you suggesting that the many similar rides which Disney built afterwards that used the same concepts that they first developed with pirates and Haunted were still built. If that's the case, then your argument falls apart, simply, becuas eDisney still would have made the innovation.

Of corse, Pirates and haunted don't succeed simply, because they took it all to the next level. They are also imersive and fun and have excellent storys. And they do these things better then any other attraction, even any other Disney attraction (with the possible exception of Splash)

In Short, Pirates and Haunted are Beauty and The Beast amid a Sea of Aladdin, Little Mermaid and Lion King. Yes, all those are absolutly excellent films, but BatB got that Oscar nom and did everything even better.

 

[Sarangel]

If you go for a "family" attraction that doesn't really exist elsewhere, its a bigger unknown. If you fail creatively, you might end up with nothing more than something people ride to get out of the sun.

Or, worse, you end up with Superstar Limo, which couldn't even drag people in out of the sun.

Of course this whole debate & one of the major problems with today's Disney® is that they've somehow lost the ability to tell compelling stories in their rides and movies.

Sarangel

 

[raidermatt]

Show, if all else were equal, meaning all other rides existed as they do today, then to a certain extent, you would be right. Pirates and HM wouldn't be held in the same regard. They wouldn't be nearly as innovative, and they would utilize 45 year old technology.

They would still be good, popular attractions, because they are well done, interesting, grand in scale and scope, and just plain fun.

Of course they wouldn't be the "flagship" type attractions that they were back in the late '60s, but that's the whole point. If they had never existed, and were built today using today's technology in ways that nobody else has done, then they WOULD be cornerstone, drawing-card type attractions.

If rides with limited effort to update and innovate like Buzz and Pooh can be hits, imagine what COULD be done...

Sort of like the difference between releasing a PG-13 Pirate movie today using 1960's technology, and releasing it today using modern technology.

All else being equal, which has more potential?