Stop being silly over PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN

[YoHo]

If they are going to replace an older ride, for the love of everything holy, put some effort into it and make it a good ride. Is that too much to ask for?

Apparently yes, it is too much to ask of Disney.

 

[MJMcBride]

http://www.barrybedford.com/tokyodisney/index.html

Very cool. I agree this should be the Pooh ride.

 

[MJMcBride]

Apparently yes, it is too much to ask of Disney.

Now thats a little cynical. Disney has done some nice things in the recent past.

 

[YoHo]

Now thats a little cynical. Disney has done some nice things in the recent past.

Now there's a can of worms.

Any nice things like Soarin they've done are countered by Dinoland, Aladdin, DL pooh and DCA in general. The "nice" things are the exception instead of the rule now.

 

[raidermatt]

I think the goal was always about maximizing revenue. I think Walt and gang thought maximizing revenue = maximizing guest enjoyment.

I agree the new figures are about cross marketing first. But they probably want to add the figures from the movies for the kids who love the films.

Things are rarely absolute. The overall point is that maximizing revenue per square foot took a back seat to the "Show" in the past. The belief was that focusing on the actual product would lead to greater profitability in the long run.

Of course "revenue per square foot" is not the only factor in all decisions made today. But things like that take a much more prominent role today, and that explains why Disney has made various decisions over Eisner's reign and beyond. In this particular case, its why (A) Toad, a reasonably popular ride, was replaced instead of a new show building being built, and (B) the Pooh in MK is pathetic when compared to Tokyo's version. Never mind that DL's Pooh, which came next, is even weaker than the MK version.

The priorities have changed significantly, resulting in a lesser product than would have otherwise been offered. THAT is the point.

And in that environment, it is difficult, and I would say highly illogical (no, I'm not Vulcan) to sit back and "trust" that upcoming changes are going to be up to true Disney standards.

 

[MJMcBride]

Now there's a can of worms.

Any nice things like Soarin they've done are countered by Dinoland, Aladdin, DL pooh and DCA in general. The "nice" things are the exception instead of the rule now.

I'm not sure if I would say nice things are the exception to the rule. I will agree that the clunkers are more common than they used to be. Although, I'm not so down on Dinoland and Aladdin is what it is, a kiddie ride. I've never been out West.

I must say some of you guys sound like parents who say "back in my day, rock n' roll was real music" or "there's been no good songs since 1968". Sure there have, just not as many and there is more crap.

I still think Kilimanajaroo is a good attraction, but lets not start that fight again....

 

[Sylvester McBean]

The priorities have changed significantly, resulting in a lesser product than would have otherwise been offered. THAT is the point.

And in that environment, it is difficult, and I would say highly illogical (no, I'm not Vulcan) to sit back and "trust" that upcoming changes are going to be up to true Disney standards.

couldn't agree more. EE has actually restored a small percentage in my faith to what Disney can produce, but that's buried under amazement of the failures.

 

[YoHo]

I'm not sure if I would say nice things are the exception to the rule. I will agree that the clunkers are more common than they used to be. Although, I'm not so down on Dinoland and Aladdin is what it is, a kiddie ride. I've never been out West.

I must say some of you guys sound like parents who say "back in my day, rock n' roll was real music" or "there's been no good songs since 1968". Sure there have, just not as many and there is more crap.

I still think Kilimanajaroo is a good attraction, but lets not start that fight again....

Aladdin is in a terrible location that actually ruins Adventurland, Dinoland is offensive to everything Walt stood for since it was those carny games and cheap rides that offended him about amusment parks.

 

[MJMcBride]

Aladdin is in a terrible location that actually ruins Adventurland, Dinoland is offensive to everything Walt stood for since it was those carny games and cheap rides that offended him about amusment parks.

So, you're talking about the Hester and Chester thing, not the whole Dinoland area?

 

[dbm20th]

In Florida....

Mission Space
Expedition Everest
Soarin
Lights Motors Action
One Man's Dream
Wishes
Animal Kingdom Lodge
Primeaval Whirl


These are things built since 2000. If we go back just one more year to 1999, we would include Test Track, Rock n' Rollercoaster, and Illuminations: Reflections of Earth (and the Disney Wonder, but that's a bit off topic). Go back only a few more months and we can include the Safaris, Dinosaur, Tough to Be a Bug, Buzz Lightyear, Fantasmic, and Festival of the Lion King.(and the Disney Magic)

I don't know how you define "recently" or how one's tastes may guide them, but these are all terrific attractions, IMHO, and the popularity of WDW speaks to that as well.

Just to put a finer point on this, I just named....

9 rides (including an open-air safari, and 2 roller coasters)
1 amazing hotel
2 fireworks shows
1 stunt show
2 Broadway style shows (including Fantasmic which is much bigger than that)
1 3D interactive movie located inside a 200 foot oil rig made to look like a tree
1 beutiful tribute to Walt Disney
2 Cruise Ships

 

[raidermatt]

I don't know how you define "recently" or how one's tastes may guide them, but these are all terrific attractions, IMHO, and the popularity of WDW speaks to that as well.

It all depends on what you consider "Disney".

I must say some of you guys sound like parents who say "back in my day, rock n' roll was real music" or "there's been no good songs since 1968". Sure there have, just not as many and there is more crap.

That first part is rather dismissive and doesn't accurately reflect most of what is said, but you are right that in the end, the average of what is produced is lower.

The overriding point, however, is that the reason that is happening is because of very significant changes in priorities, and that is what the complaints are really about.

Even under the "best" of regimes, not everything produced will be a winner, just as under the "worst" of regimes, not everything will be a loser. Becuase of that, focusing on what each of us thinks of each individual product isn't very productive when trying to understand the overall direction of the company.

The point is that the direction took a turn for the worse a long time ago, and that is a problem, period. Pointing out that "yeah, but attraction X is good" doesn't change that at all.

 

[dbm20th]

...Becuase of that, focusing on what each of us thinks of each individual product isn't very productive when trying to understand the overall direction of the company.

...Pointing out that "yeah, but attraction X is good" doesn't change that at all.

Well, I pointed out 19 different things there. All of which are part of the WDW experience. If you want to dismiss them because you don't like them, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect how you feel. But the above quotes are clearly not an accurate description of what I did. I didn't talk about "individual attractions", in fact I left out only a few things that have been built in that time frame. Among those things I left out were the infamous Pooh, the Bear in the Big Blue House, and Pop Century. All of which I could have easily added and many would have agreed they were positives.

IMHO, the additions to WDW in that time frame have been positive, and I don't think it is fair to limit that to rides. The good outweighs the bad. There have been other time frames when this ratio was evem more positive, but that is always bound to happen. Now, with Lasseter on board, I am hopeful we turn a corner to creative possibilities not yet explored at WDW.

 

[raidermatt]

So as long as its not a negative, its "Disney"?

Yes, you named a bunch of things that are nice, but they don't measure up to what we would expect from a company like Disney with the resources it has.

Yes, Soarin' is a great ride, but they neglected to put any kind of story around the attraction.

Mission Space could have explored the wonders of space using a flight simulator to put you into those wonders and instead they used a simulator to make you feel like you're on a simulator. (Same with Test Track, by the way).

AKL is the same hotel they've built before but with different decorations and animal views.

Primeval Whirl? You're kidding about this one, right?

Again, it depends on what your standard is. If you choose to hold Disney to the standard they once set themselves, many, if not all of these things fall short. The reason they fall short, is that that Disney no longer holds itself to the same standard it once did.

But if looking at something and just saying that if its a "positive" its good enough, then yes, all is well.

 

[YoHo]

Primeval Whirl is a good attraction?
are you kidding me? I didn't know there were people that unapologetically liked this ride?
Jeeze. no wonder you don't understand.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Light Action Motorcars doing terrible?

Anyway, to quote Matt

If you choose to hold Disney to the standard they once set themselves

If you understood the standard they used to set for themselves, you'd understand my disappointment.

 

[tony609]

nods are one thing. a sign or a placard outside the attraction. when Fedex was sponsoring space mountain there was the the fedex box in the post-ride exit. those repetitive announcements in dinosaur chap my crack. you're supposed to be heading back in time, but are reminded over and over again that it's sponsored 'by a generous grant from mcdonald's'. bad theater, the immersion is ruined.

Don't know if its been mentioned..how about that horrible KODAK film at the Imagination Institute for "Honey I Shrunk the Audience"

I hate that film.....lol

 

[YoHo]

Is it the same as the old one form Imagination called Makin Memories? Cause I love that song and we'd be in a fight.

 

[dbm20th]

So as long as its not a negative, its "Disney"?

Yes, you named a bunch of things that are nice, but they don't measure up to what we would expect from a company like Disney with the resources it has.

Yes, Soarin' is a great ride, but they neglected to put any kind of story around the attraction.

Mission Space could have explored the wonders of space using a flight simulator to put you into those wonders and instead they used a simulator to make you feel like you're on a simulator. (Same with Test Track, by the way).

AKL is the same hotel they've built before but with different decorations and animal views.

Primeval Whirl? You're kidding about this one, right?

Again, it depends on what your standard is. If you choose to hold Disney to the standard they once set themselves, many, if not all of these things fall short. The reason they fall short, is that that Disney no longer holds itself to the same standard it once did.

But if looking at something and just saying that if its a "positive" its good enough, then yes, all is well.

With the exception of maybe Primeaval Whirl, I don't agree with your assessment on any of these, which is the root of this entire debate. SO as Sarangel says, I agree to disagree and will move on.

 

[MJMcBride]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Primevial Whirl just a carnival ride with fancy painting. And isn't that exactly what The Teacups, Carousel and Dumbo are in Fantasyland built by Walt.

I understand that its not Tower Of Terror but I figured it was a just a little ride to increase activities in DAK. You guys seemed offended by it. To me, it is was it is.

 

[DancingBear]

First, at the same time as many of those things were added, many were lost, including the Hunchback Show, Wonders of Life pavillion (with several attractions), the saloon show at MK, Horizons, a big chunk of the Living Seas, working animators at the Studios, etc.

But, having said that, we can (and often do) get into an endless debate about any number of individual attractions. But whether or not you find the results thus far acceptable or not, there were definitely changes occurring at Disney (particularly after EuroDisney opened) which did not bode well for the future of the parks, including:

--The neglect of maintenance particularly at DL
--The reduction in size, responsibilities and authority of WDI (and a corresponding increase in the size, responsibilities and authorities of middle management accounting powerpoint pencil pushers)
--The intentional strategic move to open new parks "small," including AK, Paris Studios, and Hong Kong
--Much stronger emphasis on merchandising at the expense of character and detail (see, e.g., the Main Street shops).
--DCA

A-V and YoHo can add to this I am sure. Whether or not you are satisfied with the way things are right now, if these trends were allowed to continue, it seems clear that the parks and resorts would suffer. That is the reason for concern.

We have some reason for hope--the Ouimet regime and the 50th anniversary definitely has brought improvements to DL, there is finally some admission that DCA doesn't work, Lasseter looks to bring some new life to WDI, and Iger seems to be going along with it a lot more than Eisner did (including dissolution of the strategic planning unit or whatever it was called).

But folks have a legitimate reason for skepticism. Anyone who lived through "Our surveys showed us that Guests wanted Character Caravan instead of Early Entry" has a right to take any current positive indications with a grain of salt.

 

[DancingBear]

To me, it is was it is.

Aye, but it also is what it isn't. And therein lies the rub.