Question for the gang

[DC7800]

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.

I wouldn't describe Alladin as really telling a story, at least not in the sense Pirates or Snow White does, but rather that it attempts to give the experience of a single story element - flying on a magic carpet. Which could possibly form the basis for a solid attraction. However, the problem with Alladin is that largely the same experience can already be found in both Tommorrowland and Fantasyland.

As AV has pointed out, the story you are trying to tell should dictate the ride mechanism selected; selecting a "ride" and then trying to decorate it to a (Disney) theme is what brought us Triceratop Spin and the Orange Stinger, among others. Disney "attractions" are themed; the "decorated" ride is one thing that really should have no place in a Disney park.

Further, you can tell the "story" of flying a magic carpet, a starjet, or Dumbo by any number of potential ride mechanisms (and with two other spinners already in the park, you should). Imagine a flying carpet utilizing the overhead track of Peter Pan, or perhaps flying carpets in place of the swinging chairs on an Orange Stinger type ride, or even some type of the Soarin technology. But instead Disney put in a cheap and "off-the-shelf" spinner (right in the middle of Adventureland no less). Disney can do far, far better.

 

[raidermatt]

The quote regarding current Disney philosophy aside ... you failed to see the quandry.

But its only a quandry if we ignore what the philosophy/strategy is and/or should be.

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.

Pete, if this is what you think, I (and others) must have been doing a very bad job of communicationg for the last few years.

Yes, there are a few regulars who frequently make absolute statements about "off the shelf" rides. But most of us say that the ride mech in and of itself isn't the issue. Its the story and show.

What happens is that if you are going for a slam-bang E-ticket attraction, achieving the effects you want is often going to push you to look at new ride mechs, or at least significant modifications to existing ones.

The real issue is the reasoning that is resulting in so many off the shelf choices and fewer unique choices.

The biggest issue brought up about the Magic Carpets is the placement and fit, not the ride mech. Yes, the ride mech, when considered in the big picture is also an issue, but that's just my opinion and again, its not a major problem in and of itself.

Dumbo and rest of the Fantasyland rides are going for story and show. Orange Stinger? Its a decorated spinning swing.

PW went for a story, but the essence of the story was cheap and cheesy. So at best, if the goal is achieved, you've got cheap and cheesy. The ride mech is the least of the issues resulting in that "success".

My question though is why did 'Dinoland' or 'Fliks Fun Faire' or 'Aladdin's Magic Carpets' all get such rough treatment from the purists?

The only reason we still have these conversations is that there are reasons to believe its not just the "purists" that have issues with these. The "general public" may not articulate what the issues are, but that doesn't mean they are going to respond by dropping the additional coin Disney requires.

Much like Walt's DL in the beginning... The public didn't SAY they wanted a park like DL, one that provided a true "Show", and gave them many things to do together. Just like today, if you go to the County Fair, everybody looks about as happy as they would anywhere else. You'd have no clue that there was a true need for anything more.

The public has no obligation to look at the how's and why's, but that doesn't change the fact that they respond to those how's and why's. Those doing the creating, therefore, must look deeper than just looking for smiling faces as well.

The "Magic Happens" slogan was catchy, and its great if the public buys that. But the reality is that it doesn't just happen, and Disney used a bunch of what many around here would term over-analytical purists to create it.

 

[wtg2000]

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?

I didn't say it was fine. I said I had no problem with it, meaning I never complained about it when it opened as I understood the financial logic behind it. They needed to drop a cheap, family friendly ride into the park. That doesn't mean that I like it or am happy that it's the sole attraction that represents the movie.

I also said it could have been more, and it certainly could have. When the movie first came out it was ripe with scenes to be picked for an awesome attraction. Remember the virtual reality demonstration? (I think this made it into Disney Quest but I've never been there). Anyway, instead we got a copy of Dumbo that shows zero imagination.

So my position is that it doesn't bother me because I understand from a business sense why they put it there, but I still lament that they could have made a wonderful attraction from this movie and didn't.

 

[raidermatt]

Being a slow typer and oft-interrupted this morning, my post crossed several others.

With the conversation shifting to Aladdin (God help us), I just want to make a few comments specific to that.

Yes, there are varying degrees of "issues". PW is a big one, the Carpets are a smaller one. They come from the same flawed process, but that does not mean everything has the same result. Much the same as a great process not always achieving great results. Its just more likely to do so.

The Carpets also might not have taken so much grief had they not come at a time when pretty much nothing of worth was being added. They were billed as a major addition to MK, not just a "cute little ride" wedged into the minimal available space.

It wasn't a nice add-on to complement other major additions to WDW.... it pretty much WAS the major addition.

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.

Who else's life insurance should he have been borrowing against?

 

[wtg2000]

(Aladdin) wasn't a nice add-on to complement other major additions to WDW.... it pretty much WAS the major addition.

Interesting that Aladdin is currently the centerpiece of a new Disney ad that stresses family gatherings, showing it as a ride you can experience you the whole family. I guess M:S would have been tough to use. "Come hurl with the whole family."

When did Dumbo open? Remember, WDW opened five years after Walt died. Was it a DL original? It's the only WDW attraction I've never ridden! I could imagine at the time there were limited ways to get Dumbo to fly and it was probably a unique attraction. Now, that uniqueness is lost but judging from the lines nobody seems to mind.

 

[wtg2000]

No one really cares that Disney is reusing ride mechanisms

I do. I never got too excited about Body Wars, because even though the theme was different, the experience was similar to Star Tours. Thus, I rarely rode it. I feel the same way about 3-D movies. WDW has three of them and I limit myself to two of them per trip so the experience doesn't get redundant. The same again for 360 movies. True, what you're seeing in China and Canada is different, but part of the experience is the "Wow" factor when all the screens come on, and the concept of having to look all around. Once you been in one the next one is less magical.

It's different in boats rides like Pirates or Small World when they are really a minimal part of the experience. But for Star Tours and Body Wars the simulator is a major part of the experience, as it is with the 360 movies. The same with Soarin' I would imagine. Nobody talks about what they are soarin over, just the concept of hanggliding. Would it be alright to have a Soarin' in all four parks but with different movies?

 

[Another Voice]

Let me shock everyone here by saying that I don't have much of a problem with 'Aladdin'. I didn't much like how it was being trumpted as a big new addition or a sign that the sun was rising and Good Things were breaking out over the world.

But as an attraction it does tell a story in the exact same sense that Dumbo tells a story. It puts the guests in the middle of it by allowing them to experience a significant moment from the films - either flying with the main character. As a way to simulate a flying carpet, the spinner that they choose is perfectly fine (again, it worls for Dumbo). If I were to quibble (like I would ever), I would have thought Disney could have invested more time and effort in coming up with a unique attractions for one of the biggest animated films. And again, things have progressed in 50 years since Dumbo opened at Disneyland and one would have hoped that Disney could have kept up with the times.

But take that same exact ride mech and put land dwelling herivore dinosaurs ---- and where's the story. There's nothing to relate to. There's no memory of a fond character, no "gee, I've always wanted to do this" kind of feeling. Instead of a magic carpet ride you get a carny ride.

Same deal with the Little Mermaid area at DisneySea vs. Flik's at California Adventure. In Tokyo they recreated Areil's undersea kingdom. The attractions themselves are just part of the area and each ride is designed as an experience with one of Areil's friends. The whole area looks like it's underwater (there's even a sleeping whale) - it's a complete themed environment designed to tell a story. The rides are simply mechanisms to help tell the story.

Flik's however, is a carnival created by bugs. You have carnival rdes made out of "junk" that try to be nothing more than carnival rides made out of junk. Yes, some of the rides do have characters, but they don't have the same feel as "flying with Dumbo". The characters are there as decoration.

I want to say again - it's not the ride mech that's the problem; it's how it's used.

 

[Peter Pirate]

It's different with boat rides...

For you maybe, but I know there are people who disagree...In fact in my younger days I probably disagreed (I know I did). I got tired of the same cheesy ride type with the same cheesy cut outs or animatronics...HM was the only one I recall that wasn't looked upon as cheesy. Although I'd better state that cheesy doesn't necessarily equal bad, but it did create a feeling in a younger me of repitition and banal entertainment...You know... story? It's a fairy tale! ... Thankfully I grew to appreciate intracacies instead of just the overview (I learned to stop and smell the roses), but I think there are many folks who would disagree that the boat rides are different.

As for Soarin', I guess I do disagree with most because I wouldn't mind various versions in different settings...There is a lot in the world that this kind of effect can do justice to and I fo one really enjoyed the California scenery although I agree it is secondary to "flying."

 

[wtg2000]

When you guys are talking about story with regards to Aladdin/Dumbo vs. Triceratop Spin I consider it more concept than story. Yes, the idea for Aladdin/Dumbo is that you are flying on a magic carpet or on Dumbo the flying elephant, but there's still no story. As I'm spinning around I see people below waiting to get on, not the cave of wonders or the streets of Agrabah. So it's really that the rides have a concept but there's no story.

Also, the concept behind the Dino spinner is that you are at a tacky roadside attraction and this is just the type of ride they would have. So that's the concept. It doesn't matter if a triceratop doesn't fly. It's not supposed to.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I think you're right...It seems we're having a problem with semantics here...But still the difference between the concept (as it were) between Aladdin & TS is that Aladdin is based upon something we all know and can obstensibly identify with...TS isn't...Wouldn't you agree?

 

[SonicLogic]

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

I moved out of Dade county back in 1983, so they may have changed the name. My son was 9 years old and my daughter was 8 when I first took them to the Dade County Fair. Those fair rides were very expensive and back in those days I wasn't earning a very big salary. So, I decided to use a little psychology on my children. As we walked down the midway, I asked them which was the first ride they wanted to try. They picked this thing (I think it was called "The Caterpillar") that had a bunch of cars on a track that ran in a circle. The track undulated in a serpentine manner as the cars ran faster and faster around the track. Once at top speed, a canvas cover would fold over the entire passenger area and envelop the riders in total darkness

I paid for two tickets and put them on the ride. Within less than 30 seconds I could hear their screams, "DAD, STOP THIS THING". I nodded to the operator to shut the ride down. I collected up my children and as we walked down the midway, I would stop at each ride and say, "Would you like to ride this one?" The reply answer was always, "NO!". We went over to look at the animals and the petting zoo. I saved a lot of money that day.

 

[wtg2000]

But still the difference between the concept (as it were) between Aladdin & TS is that Aladdin is based upon something we all know and can obstensibly identify with...TS isn't...Wouldn't you agree?

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm looking at it in a different light I think.

TS isn't pretending to be an authentic experience. It is part of a tacky, cheesy, roadside attraction that has silly flying dinos. Thus, it fits.

If you look at Aladdin's FCs as a recreation of the movie then I think it really fails. Imagine, I'm walking through a cool recreation of the south seas that has a very "authentic" (at least in theme park terms) looking and feeling tree house, jungle cruise and fortress where I embark on a trip to the Caribbean (ok, so it's not in the south seas). Then, I see an incongrous, yet colourful reference to camels and flying carpets right out of Arabia. But there's no show around it. It's just stuck there. At least TS has a show around it - the idea of a tacky roadside carnival. And Dumbo fits into the Fantasyland concept of rides based on Disney animated films and such. But Aladdin misfires because of its, again, incongruous locale, its being a repeat of Dumbo, and the fact that it has no show - other than the "conceptual" positive of being a flying carpet.

So, in a reverse way, I think TS is okay as it fits into the theme and show, whereas Aladdin is out of touch with its surroundings and provides no show.

 

[crusader]

The biggest issue brought up about the Magic Carpets is the placement and fit, not the ride mech. Yes, the ride mech, when considered in the big picture is also an issue, but that's just my opinion and again, its not a major problem in and of itself.

It's not just in the "big picture", Matt. Placement and fit dictate the ride mechanism. In other words, size matters - particularly when you are dealing with a mature park.

Whenever I hear the swan song of the glory days I immediately think of Snow White's Scary Adventures. This is a testament to how an attraction of the past didn't meet the standard.

I've always considered it to be a stark reminder of how an attraction was installed to complete a park with very little investment.

So as far back as time, Disney rides were poorly themed. We accept this because we understand how things get balanced in a project, and are completely satisfied with the overall product.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"So, in a reverse way, I think TS is okay as it fits into the theme and show, whereas Aladdin is out of touch with its surroundings and provides no show."***

I don't know that it's out of touch with Adventureland. I don't know how to explain it, but to me AL is a sort of attraction hodgepodge. You go from Treehouse to JC, throw in Tiki room, now AFC. I don't think I'd walk into AL for the first time, see AFC and say "what the hecks that doing here !!". I think Fantasyland would have been the best setting, but then Disney would have been condemed for trying to compete with IOA: Dueling Dragons vs Dueling Spinners. I bet they could rewire one to make it go the opposite direction.

 

[wtg2000]

I bet they could rewire one to make it go the opposite direction.

Now that's the best idea I've ever heard! Why do these things always go counterclockwise like car racing or speed skating? Or how about backwards? That might be cool.

I like the dueling spinners idea, make it look like you're going to crash into each other. That would give the kiddies a thrill.

So many good ideas missed!