Mission Space Interior Photo

[crusader]

Space Mountain succeeded because Disney took what even at the time was a tame coaster experience and dressed it up like no one had ever seen before. The thrills came from the environment, not the towering 2-story drops or the screaming 28mph top speed.

Call it want you want. The thrill came from it being a "coaster in the dark". The open air atmosphere and the glorified planetarium skyline were not the main attraction but they do add that "something more" WDW tries to emphasize. If there were no dressing on it at all people would still flock to it in droves, because it is one of the few attractions with any type of speed at the Magic Kingdom. (even if it is only 28 mph)

The dressing-up job shows all the signs of being a video-game. Both the focus and the dressing-up of Mission:Space target an audience of teenage males, not because of a successful tradition within the Company, but because it would make a good advertising campaign against IOA.

This implies WDW is recognizing its competition and attempting to respond to it - something they have had the privilege of avoiding for decades. M:S will not be enough for a teenage male to spend his money on. There must be another reason for the investment - space and speed are attractive to alot of people and will certainly boost Epcot's ratings.

 

[raidermatt]

If there were no dressing on it at all people would still flock to it in droves, because it is one of the few attractions with any type of speed at the Magic Kingdom. (even if it is only 28 mph)

Wow. I can only say that it is my VERY strong opinion that you are wrong on this, but as this is your position, we clearly won't make any further progress on this topic.

This implies WDW is recognizing its competition and attempting to respond to it - something they have had the privilege of avoiding for decades.

No, they have made the DECISION not to respond to teen-driven competition. They chose instead to invest in whole-family entertainement, with some minor thrills and a few kiddie rides thown in. The result was unquestioned leadership with more profitable demographics. Now, they are largely ignoring the desire of this more profitable demographic to have new and innovative attractions, and are instead focusing on a less profitable demographic which has more competition.

 

[pheneix]

>>>This implies WDW is recognizing its competition and attempting to respond to it - something they have had the privilege of avoiding for decades.<<<

Tell that to Jay Stein...

 

[curtisl]

The thrill came from it being a "coaster in the dark". The open air atmosphere and the glorified planetarium skyline were not the main attraction but they do add that "something more" WDW tries to emphasize. If there were no dressing on it at all people would still flock to it in droves, because it is one of the few attractions with any type of speed at the Magic Kingdom. (even if it is only 28 mph)

I personally hate rollercoasters and "extreme" rides. Unless I'm in a rare death-defying mood, I avoid traditional coasters and drop rides because just the sight of them makes me shake in my shoes. However, I will ride Tot, Space Mountain and all of the other Disney coaster type rides because of their great theming and toned down thrills. I don't feel like I'm going to die when I ride them and the show is great. I could do without the nausia afterward though. I'm getting too old for this, but the experience tends to make up for it. RnR kind of sucks in the story dept though. Test Track isn't too bad, but I feel cheated out of never getting to see WoM, Horizons and the original Journey. I still can't justify the wholesale destruction of attractions that still have life that can be breathed into them.

 

[crusader]

Now, they are largely ignoring the desire of this more profitable demographic to have new and innovative attractions, and are instead focusing on a less profitable demographic which has more competition.

I am a bit confused here - are you then agreeing that they ARE implementing changes in an attempt to compete or not?

Thrill rides are going to be the order of the day as long as IOA continues to build up its market appeal. However, if I want thrill rides I could get a season pass for Great Adventure as opposed to my Annual Pass for Disney.

There will always be a diverse level of attraction seekers at every entertainment venue. The reality is WDW has plenty of room to expand in the thrill arena. The challenge they seem to repeatedly face is complementing this with a themeing element which is much more expensive to build.

Great Adventure is an amusement park which must push the envelope a bit in order to keep up with technology. Nitro is a good example of this but lets be honest, that park needs a face lift before anyone should spend their money on a season pass!

 

[tfc3rid]

Agreed on GA.

I haven't been there in years and would never consider getting a season pass.

 

[raidermatt]

I am a bit confused here - are you then agreeing that they ARE implementing changes in an attempt to compete or not?

Sorry. Yes, they are now attempting to compete in the thrill market moreso than ever before.

My point is that the demographic they are going after is a less profitable one than the demographic in which they have been a leader, and are now virtually ignoring. Further, there is already a high level of competition in the "thrill" department, which further decreases profitability.

Bad decision.

I'm not saying zero thrills, but it should be the exception in new significant attractions, not the rule.

 

[crusader]

I'm not saying zero thrills, but it should be the exception in new significant attractions, not the rule.

raidermatt - I am going to offer a compromise here and say 50/50 to balancing thrill vs non-thrill on new attractions. There really has to be more for the thrillseekers at these parks. If this is a vacation for the whole family then it must offer something for everyone or why pay the money?

Eventually, the "omni-mover" type attraction becomes quite boring to alot of people who will ride it once during their stay and not repeat it. It is the ToT and RnR and the "mountains" that everyone is getting in line for to ride over and over again - and if you look closely, you'll see it is not just the male teens.

A family will drop thousands on a WDW vacation, and it is painfully difficult to reconcile this expense if the most poignent part of the trip for your kids was swimming in the resort pool.

 

[raidermatt]

Eventually, the "omni-mover" type attraction becomes quite boring to alot of people who will ride it once during their stay and not repeat it.

If the best they could do is as boring as your description, then YES, I could easily understand investing very little in these type of attactions.

But I still haven't been able to communicate what I'm really getting at.

I'm not talking about a Pirates or SE clone. What I'm talking about hasn't been built.

Why?

Because Disney stopped trying. Pirates was not a "ride it once and never go on it again" type of attraction. For years it generated HUGE lines at DL, and sometimes still does.

But just as a kick-rump roller coaster from 1967 isn't going to pack folks in, neither is a kick-rump Pirates type ride from 1967. What I want to see in the mix is the type of family-inclusive attraction that elicits the kind of reaction in 2003 that Pirates did in 1967.

What is that? I don't know exactly. Just as very few could envision something like Pirates before 1967, I suspect very few can envision what the 2003 Pirates would look like. Maybe it would be of the same omnimover or floating system, but maybe not. Mabye CAVE technology (admittedly I know little about this). Maybe modern AA. Maybe 3D projected effects. Maybe modern THX sound. Maybe modern pyrotechnics. Music. Story. Energy. Fantasy, reality....I just don't know.

But what I DO know is that people can be entertained without flips and drops. But to really WOW them, it does take a lot of creativity, commitment, and innovation.

THAT'S what I'm talking about. Just like movies, no attraction can be everything to everyone, but this would be the kind of thing that comes about as close as you can get.

I can understand why its hard to get a handle on what I mean, because Disney hasn't done this much lately when it comes to attractions. Kilamanjaro Safaris is a nice attempt. Buzz has some of the right ideas, but lacks scope and detail. The 3D movies could qualify, but they've been in the parks 20 years now. When it come to shows, Illuminations has the right idea, as does Fantasmic!.

 

[Testtrack321]

I'd have to say that was probably the best post this entire thread. I agree totaly, Disney can do a family ride that's high tech and entertains all, but they haven't tried. But I'm not saying that there is no room for thrill, no matter how it's done, rides in Disney. I think there is, but it needs to complement not replace the family style rides.

 

[All Aboard]

Crusader, how do you explain the extreme popularity of WDW during the days BEFORE thrill attractions?

 

[crusader]

What I want to see in the mix is the type of family-inclusive attraction that elicits the kind of reaction in 2003 that Pirates did in 1967.

I agree. For some of us it could be argued that the Tower of Terror accomplishes this. For those who cannot enjoy this attraction, there really is nothing comparable.

 

[crusader]

Crusader, how do you explain the extreme popularity of WDW during the days BEFORE thrill attractions?

How far back in time are we talking?

For decades WDW remained popular for a number of reasons brought on by the Disney corporate empire:

1) It introduced the concept of the "theme" park vs amusement park.

2) It unveiled unprecedented technology in this arena and successfully marketed it as "magical".

3) It offered the family a vacation journey to the "wonderful world of disney" .

Coupled with heavy theatre exposure and a virtual monopoly on animation, WDW dominated the times.

This is no longer the situation.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Finally got around to reading Disney's Annual Report (and voting my shares - better late than never). Not that you can put much meaning into the flowery, rah!rah! language that populates most annual reports, but I did note this regarding Mission:Space. And I quote.................

"Guests will experience..................., all through the magic of virtual reality. In consultation with......................., Imagineers developed Mission:Space with with next generation technology featuring high-resolution computer-generated imagery combined with advanced audio and optics and a proprietary ride system."

Now, I think we have all gotten a sense of what the "proprietary ride system" is all about, and even seen a pic of the inside seating area for the ride. However, is that likely to be the portion of the attraction where the 'high-resolution computer-generated imagery combined with advanced audio and optics' will be? What will that 'imagery' be?

Again, I know that you can't read a heck of a lot into annual reports. However, a company can't make baseless claims in those reports either. Somewhere there has to be this 'imagery' they speak of, and I don't think any of us really know what that will entail right now, do we? Maybe there is hope for some of the stunning imagery many are longing for in this attraction.

 

[Another Voice]

Mr. Disneykidds:
"However, a company can't make baseless claims in those reports either."


Disney Annual Report, page 3:
"...we have projected a 25-35 percent growth in earnings in 2003 and continued strong growth in 2004."

You fib about the big things, you're going to lie about the little ones...

 

[DisneyKidds]

You fib about the big things, you're going to lie about the little ones...

Good point . However, when they don't achieve that growth they can always say it was (insert favorite excuse - war, economy, yada, yada, yada ). Specifics regarding an attraction/ride system that is past the development and procurement stage and well into production are a little harder to back away from, no?

Anywho, you are basically saying there will be no such visual elements that they mention?

 

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by raidermatt
But just as a kick-rump roller coaster from 1967 isn't going to pack folks in, neither is a kick-rump Pirates type ride from 1967. What I want to see in the mix is the type of family-inclusive attraction that elicits the kind of reaction in 2003 that Pirates did in 1967.

What is that? I don't know exactly. Just as very few could envision something like Pirates before 1967, I suspect very few can envision what the 2003 Pirates would look like. Maybe it would be of the same omnimover or floating system, but maybe not. Mabye CAVE technology (admittedly I know little about this). Maybe modern AA. Maybe 3D projected effects. Maybe modern THX sound. Maybe modern pyrotechnics. Music. Story. Energy. Fantasy, reality....I just don't know.

But what I DO know is that people can be entertained without flips and drops. But to really WOW them, it does take a lot of creativity, commitment, and innovation.

I hereby nominate Mr. Raidermatt for President of Imagineering. (And I'm a Bucs fan!)

 

[crusader]

Not that you can put much meaning into the flowery, rah!rah! language that populates most annual reports,

You are so right. These reports are called "glossys" for a reason. The Management Discussion and Analysis section is designed to make you feel good about your investment and to provide hope and promise for the future success of the company. This is not an SEC requirement but does have to be carefully worded to avoid misrepresentation. The projections do tend to lend themselves to subjectivity.

 

[DisneyKidds]

does have to be carefully worded to avoid misrepresentation

Yes, crusader (btw - do you wear a cape?) - perhaps I should have used this language, instead of "baseless claims" . So, do we believe that Disney is 'misrepresenting' the fact that M:S will contain some sort of cutting edge visual effects?

 

[crusader]

Mr. Disneykidds - not a cape, more like a sword and shield.

So, do we believe that Disney is 'misrepresenting' the fact that M:S will contain some sort of cutting edge visual effects?

Personally no. It would be incredibly short sighted to believe that M:S will lack cutting edge visuals. Unless I have missed an insider on this thread I will not be convinced otherwise. WDW needs the publicity a high tech promotional campaign will generate. Looks like they've started the ball rolling.