Question for the gang

[Peter Pirate]

Last night while putting my 10 year old daughter to bed, she and I had a bit of a discussion about WDW. We were initially talking about 'Mission: Space' as we had just seen an add on TV...Then she asked me about the 'barf bags' as she had heard my wife and I discussing this because it made our local news (Miami). We talked a bit about how tough this attraction can be on some peoples bodies, etc. Well, she laughed and called herself the toughest in our family (which probably is true) because she went on the 'Orange Stinger' at DCA and the rest of us opted out as we generally just don't like that constant spinning (which is obviously different than the constant spinning of 'M:S') and she really enjoyed it. I stated to her that 'Orange Stinger' is probably a bad example of a good ride at a Disney Park as it is just a common ride, one that probably could be found at any fair or carnival... About 20 seconds later she said "Dad, you've never taken me to a fair or carnival and I don't think you ever will, so Disney is the only place I'll ever have the chance to ride this ride...What makes that wrong?"

Well, I thought this was a pretty good question from a 10 year old and I'd never thought of it in this context before.

So my question is (1) "why shouldn't Disney offer ordinary rides, themed up like Disney always does (like 'PW' & 'OS')? Further, why shouldn't they be accepted as just a part of what Disney does?"

And (2) "Should Disney have to be on the cutting edge (or the cutting edge within their financial constraints)?" I'm curious of the opinions of the purists on this, if Disney did give us the ultimate $300M 'M:S' and built the one of a kind laydown, stop & go, 'E:E' that was rumored, and gave us a brand new movie for Epcot's 'Soarin'' would the mediocrity of 'Primevil Whirl' or 'Orange Stinger' then be accepted as another demension or does it always just never fit?

 

[FriendsOfEeyore]

See Pirate.. This is why a disneyized ride is ok in the eye of the general WDW visitor. It seems that sometimes we forget that we are such a small sampling of the WDW enthusiasts that are out there.

In the eyes of your daughter, these rides are great.

So to answer your questions...

1. I think that it is ok for disney to buy off the shelf products as long as imagineering does their job to make the attraction appropriate for it's intended use. (I have yet to ride PW)

2. I think that Disney has a good mix going right now and for the immediate future. All reviews seem to put Phillarmagic in very good standing. Didn't most of us just think that this was going to be another 3d movie? Small projects combined with large scale M:S and Everest are the way to go.

Sometimes, I don't read this particular forum due to all the disney bashing, but I must say that I got a good chuckle out of the fact that airlarry was beaten by M:S. Have we heard from Bob O on M:S? I have not been around for quite awhile.

 

[daannzzz]

While you may not have taken your daughter to any carnival or other park the fact remains that the wave swinger(orange stinger) can be found and ridden at most of these parks and carnivals. Because some people have not experienced them does not mean it is okay for Disney to put it in. What I want from Disney is something I can not go experiance in every state of the country or anywhere else. They set up this standard and expectation and are now trying to lower that standard and from reading numerous boards they must be in heaven as there are loads of people who think it is fine to put in wave swingers, bumper cars and space shots.

 

[FriendsOfEeyore]

daannzzz,

I understand your point of view. But there is also the preception that some of the "carny" or "fair" rides are not as safe as they could be. They are constantly assembeled and disassembled (maybe that actually makes them safer, who knows). But my point is that I will probably not allow my ds (21mo) to ride those rides are the fairs until he is much older (like 15yr, I would prefer to holdout for 30, but I don't think that is going to happen).

I think that disney can make the everyday ride magical. There was something about Mr. Toad's, but it was a truely easy and inexpensive ride to build (my oppionion only, no facts).

Those darn Indy Cars are the Magic Kingdom are always packed. They are nothing more than you will find anywhere else in the country. For some reason, a lot of these simpler rides have a very positive public reaction at WDW. Maybe it is the marketing, I am not sure...(I bet it is the magic)

 

[Peter Pirate]

I understand your point daannzzz, but isn't the goal of Disney pretty much to attempt to be everything to everyone? I mean their Resort strategy always emphasizes keeping folks on site so it would seem necessary to give the guests everything thay can...Including some of the same things others can deliver because, after all, Disney doesn't want to give its guests reasons to go elsewhere, dothey?

 

[daannzzz]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
after all, Disney doesn't want to give its guests reasons to go elsewhere, dothey?

Yes. I do agree that Disney seems to have that attitude and in a desperate way sometimes. I think they do go out of their way to try to be everything to everyone instead of like in the old days when they were doing fantastic things that would please themselves, knowing that it would please a huge amount of the public. No it just feels like they actually say to themselves.."What can we do that will please the most guests with the least amount of development costs and fuss and it will return an investment by the end of the year".
They greatly displeased me with the Orange Stinger and greatly pleased me with the Golden Zephyr. There is a hug difference between these two rides even though most people think they are on par with each other.

 

[KNWVIKING]

For all of DCA's problems, I did actually find the park to be beautiful and clean. Is the Stinger Disney's best effort - no. Is it a fun ride- yes. Would I rather ride it in DCA or at a local carnival or Six Flaggs - DCA hands down.

Everytime certain new rides get bashed as "off the shelf" or cheap, all I can think about is Dumbo & Teacups. Dumbo's a Classic but Alladin is a cheap ME ripoff. I won't argue the point anymore, I'll just never understand the premise for that closed minded thinking.

Six Flaggs is all about the rides. Nothing else attracts guests, not the food, not the bathrooms, not the employees, not talking water fountains, nothing but the rides.

Disney parks are Magical escapes from the real world- and oh yeah- they have rides there too. If Disney parks just had the rides my local Six Flaggs and various shore area boardwalk piers did, I'd still travel the 1000 miles South to experience them in
Disney rather then drive 50 mile north or 30 miles East.

It ain't about the ides.

 

[raidermatt]

QUOTE]but isn't the goal of Disney pretty much to attempt to be everything to everyone? I mean their Resort strategy always emphasizes keeping folks on site so it would seem necessary to give the guests everything thay can...Including some of the same things others can deliver because, after all, Disney doesn't want to give its guests reasons to go elsewhere, dothey?[/QUOTE]
Peter, my friend, if these types of goals had been Disney's primary focus from the beginning, do you honestly think we'd even be discussing Disney as we do today?

Trying to build things by starting with the question "How do we keep guests here for x more hours?" is exactly the thinking that brought us DCA.

Its interesting that you used DCA's Orange Stinger as an example. The park is an undisputed failure with respect to any type of hopes or projections Disney had for it. No matter what our 5 or 10 year olds say, overall, the paying public has said HEdoublehockeysticks NO.

Yes, kids find wonders and magic in the most unexpected places, and that is one of the truly magical things about kids.

But it takes a little more than that to get folks to spend big bucks.

That doesn't mean every ride has to have an innovative cutting edge ride mech. But a park full of Orange Stingers, Maliboomers, Superstar Limos and Mulholland Madnesses is clearly not what the public wants.

Story and Show...

 

[Peter Pirate]

Matt, I think you missed the point of my question.

The quote regarding current Disney philosophy aside (it was only in response to daannzzz) you failed to see the quandry. I'm not saying that simply because our kids like these rides that this is good enough, but clearly, as Viking pointed out, Walt had nothing against the simple, everyday rides either.

Is it your view that a company like Disney should offer no 'off the shelf' type attractions? That everything should be ground breaking and non generic? Because that is what it sounds like. If this is true then what are the younger kids going to appreciate most? POC? HM? ToT? No, I think they still want the 'Carousel' and 'Dumbo'...Which makes me again ask why rides like 'PW' or 'OS' can't be acceptable in the proper format?

Again, forget that DCA is a disaster, I'm only wondering about the use or intermingling of attarctions themselves...

 

[crusader]

There are only so many vehicles and mechanisms to choose from for attractions which is the common denominator for all theme parks.

I've always felt Fantasyland utilized the largest mix off the shelf. A carousel, a skyride, a teacup, a boatride, a dumbo spin, vehicle tracks and even a choo-choo at DL.

These are the training wheels essential to every child. These are the rides that make everybody feel young. That's why that area of the park is the most populated and that's why Disney has to provide them.

The next phase for many of us were the intermediate rides. The more elaborate spinners, the coasters and the flumes.

If you look closely, you'll find all of these at the Magic Kingdom and they do outnumber some of the most innovative attractions of that time.

To me, the reason for this carefully designed and well blended array of attractions is simply to provide every guest with enjoyment. There is something for everyone and that is what entertainment is all about.

 

[Planogirl]

Kids are interesting when it comes to rides. I take my son to the carnivals at the state fair and the Houston rodeo since they are clean and inspected regularly. While they are in no way as magical as MK, my son does love them in their own way. He doesn't compare them to MK or Six Flags but just accepts them as they are.

As for DCA, he didn't dislike it as much as I did but he wanted to get back to that other park almost as soon as we got to DCA. I think that it was mostly the uniqueness of DL. He was drawn to the Indy ride, the much bigger Fantasyland, the Matterhorn and so on. They were unique and the smidgen of magic in that place probably appealed too.

The point is that the Orange Stinger is certainly fun but isn't going to draw a lot of people on its own. But it's worth riding if one happens to be standing next to it.

 

[SonicLogic]

My gosh Peter Pirate! You have never taken your 10 year old to the Dade County Fair. Shame on you.

 

[Peter Pirate]

My gosh Peter Pirate! You have never taken your 10 year old to the Dade County Fair?

I thought it was the Miami-Dade County fair. No, no visits planned, either...WDW is only a few more hours north!!!

Thanks crusader, you addressed my concern quite well. PG, you did too but you seem to want to address the big picture in your analysis...And we know where that always leads us...I agree that a park full of 'Orange Stingers' isn't where its at...But when looking at DL and MK it seems obvious that there has always been a mixture (of qualities) to include the whole family. My question though is why did 'Dinoland' or 'Fliks Fun Faire' or 'Aladdin's Magic Carpets' all get such rough treatment from the purists? Is it because of the recent history at that point (i.e no mix, just cheapos)? If so, does the additions of 'ToT' at DCA, 'E:E' at AK and 'M:S' & 'Saorin' ' at Epcot change the acceptance level of the other rides generated for the youger set?

 

[jtbdas]

Peter,

It may be that the purists just do not want to see the change of what has been for the many years. Those that have grown up at places such as WDW and now are returning with their children may want through their eyes to share the experiences that they enjoyed with their kids. I still remember using ride coupons, now my kids use telemetry finger prints to enter the parks.

What I feel as someone who has gone yearly since 1971 is still the same enjoyment and love that I now can share with my children. Change is going to happen, sometimes we don't like to accept the change, but society has created the need for these changes, you can no longer remain idle and expect people to come, you have to go after them.

My last opinion is that if you really love something you will always love it despite the ups and downs that occur over long periods of time. Now may be a time where those downs have come to the forefront, but they will not always be there. In business it is always easier to remember the bad things instead of the good things that WDW and WDL create each and every day of the year.

JMHO

 

[Another Voice]

Because I like to buy a product and not the packaging.

Sure - Disneyland had spinners and a merry-go-round when it. That was 50 years ago when they were figuring out the whole industry. If you look in the attractions put in after that - there's hardly a twrill in sight.

To justify today's efforts using that standard is to say Disney has learned nothing in the in half a century. It's to say that Eisner has moved the company backwards from 'Pirates' and 'Mansion' to 'Flik's Flyers'. Gee, perhaps at long last Mr. Pirate is gaining some insight.

Disney was successful because of what it created, not because of what it sold.

In the "classic" Disney ride, the mechnaism is simply part of the device for telling the story. 'Pirates', 'Small World' and 'Rio de Temipo' all use the same system. No one cares because that's not the reason anyone goes on the ride.

Again - "classic" Disney attractions tell a story. That is their draw, that is their point. The "shoot the chutes" ride had existed for 75 years in amusement parks - but it took Disney to turn it into 'Pirates of the Caribbean'.

The "classic" boardwalk attraction existed only for the momentary phyiscal thrill. It doens't really matter how the rides are decorated, their point is to fling you or spin you or drop you.

No one really cares that Disney is reusing ride mechanisms. But the change is that the mechanics have become more important than the story. Thrills of the stomach instead of thrills for the imagination. Making stories is hard - making someone toss their lunch is much easier (especially if all the company cares about is easy short term profits).

But Disney is more than just Six Flags with cleaner walkways. What Mr. Pirate is asking for is essential that Disney become an "up market brand name" that sells nicer versions of what everyone else is selling. The park may use the Disney® brand name, but it won't be Disney.

Or to coin a cliche - "taking the rides out of the fair doesn't take the fair out of the rides."

It's the same strategy that puts a fancy label on a can of peas so they can charge 50 cents more - but the peas come from the same factory as the "budget" brand on the shelf below.

People go to WDW for unique experiences, not ones that are marginally better than can be found elsewhere. Snow White was not a hit because it was better than all the other animated movies of the time. Disneyland was not successful only becasue it was cleaner and freshly painted compared to all the other amusement parks of the time.

They were successful because they were markedly different. That's the Disney edge - to be unique. Slapping a buch of generic rides and dressing them up fancy doesn't make them unique.

 

[DisneyKidds]

No one really cares that Disney is reusing ride mechanisms.

I'm not so sure about that......................or at least past discussions wouldn't lead anyone to that conclusion.

Case in point - Aladdin's Magic Carpets. This ride was lambasted as evidence of the dumbing down and downfall of Disney. It was a cheap, off the shelf, been there, done that spinner. However, if you apply what you say now this should never have been the criticism.

Again - "classic" Disney attractions tell a story. That is their draw, that is their point.

Aladdin tells a story, and certainly no less story than Dumbo. You get to fly the carpet and be a part of the movie. The ride mechanism is not unique, but the story it tells, the opportunity it gives to be a part of a classic Disney film - that most certainly is unique, but nobody seemed to care about that when it opened.

Triceratops Spin - sure, I'll give you that that is just "dressed up fancy" and not very unique. But the same can't be said about Aladdin.

So yes, there most certainly is a place for rides like Aladdin - but Disney must be careful in how they do them. Aladdin good, Triceratops bad - a good example of the right way and the wrong way to implement rides that most certainly should be part of the Disney landscape.

Sorry, I ain't buying the "Dumbo was the best Walt could do back in the day and Disney should know better by now" argument. That is just rediculous.

 

[wtg2000]

Aladdin tells a story

I don't feel Aladdin tells a story at all. You get on, you spin around a few times and get off. There's no sense at all of being in the movie. When Aladdin the movie first came out I envisioned getting on a magic carpet (somehow a reverse of Peter Pan's flight with the mechanism pushing you up in the air rather than suspending you) and flying through the streets of Agrabah or out of the cave of wonders. Imagine the amazing ride they could have made from that movie. Instead, we get a routine spinner than tells no story.

I understand that not everything can be an E-ticket, and that simple rides for kids are part of the equation, thus I have no problem with Aladdin being there. But if the aim is low then my expectations are going to be low as well.

Funny, Tokyo DisneySea has a land called Mermaid Lagoon - it's indoors and contains all the off-the-shelf kiddie rides, but it's so amazing that I never once even noticed the rides but instead was blown away by the theming and the feeling of being under the sea.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Gee, at long last maybe Mr. Pirate is gaining some insight.

What Mr. Pirate is asking for is essential that Disney become an "up market brand name"...

Man. I just had a complete physical yesterday and today I get that same feeling all over again.

WTG2000, good point about Mermaid Lagoon and this is what I was looking for. So it seems ok for Disney, in its mix, to use ordinary ride mechanisims as long as (1) it's not advertised as more and (2) It's dressed up in real Disney style...And maybe (3) As long as this isn't all thats being given?

Kidds, you made me take notice as well. While I never seperated Dumbo, Aladdin & TS I find I agree with you. Dumbo is the classic. I agree that the feel of Aladdin tells the story but TS drops the ball...Primarily because there just isn't enough of a basis in the whole Dinoland concept. It's not that the rides are the main sticking point but there is really no well loved or properly conceived concept in this particular situation.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"People go to WDW for unique experiences, not ones that are marginally better than can be found elsewhere. Snow White was not a hit because it was better than all the other animated movies of the time. Disneyland was not successful only becasue it was cleaner and freshly painted compared to all the other amusement parks of the time.

They were successful because they were markedly different. That's the Disney edge - to be unique."***

IMO, back in Walts day, the bar was so low that DL just astounded people. It was totally new and unique. Fast forward 50 years. The competition was taking some very good notes. The saw the money Disney was making and they wanted some of it. Quality theme parks don't just have the Disney sticker anymore. The days of Disney being so far ahead of the competition are over. The bar is very high now. But Disney has still remained the standard bearer in theme parks.

Now, back to Aladin Carpets: If the MK had a 3 acre, unused lot availible and all they did was stick Aladins Carpet there, I'd more then just a little annoyed. But basically the squeezed in a cute ride - which has appeared very popular every time I've been there- in a place that to my knowledge never had anything. I think it is themed very well for what it is. I don't look at Aladin's as Disney lowering their standards or taking the cheap way out. At a time when cash wasn't availible for an E ride, much less a place to put one in MK, Disney gave us a very acceptable,fun ride.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I understand that not everything can be an E-ticket, and that simple rides for kids are part of the equation, thus I have no problem with Aladdin being there.

Imagine the amazing ride they could have made from that movie. Instead, we get a routine spinner than tells no story.

It is the logic here, that you could make both statements in the same post, that I just don't get. On one hand you say Aladdin is fine and you are ok with it....................and then you say it should have been more. Which is it?

Yes, for Aladdin they decided to put in a "spinner" for the toddler set. You say that is ok, but you can't let it be. The Aladdin ride may not tell the story YOU wanted it to tell, but it does allow young children to live part of the movie. What are your thoughts on Dumbo? Aladdin tells no less story than Dumbo does.