WHat Makes a Disney Attraction, a Disney attraction?

[YoHo]

SO this is an interesting question that I was pondering in my thoughtful place last night and just as I thought I had it figured out, Landbaron Shocks me by declaring Dumbo to Not be a DIsney ride. It took me about an hour to recover, now I'm ready to delve head first into the subject.

Please note that while it may devolve into an argument over this ride or that, my intentions are to avoid such a discussion, but the mere act of using examples garuntees that this will happen. So be it.


SO Here we go. What makes a Disney Attraction?

HEre are the ingredients in order from most important to least important.

Story
Quality
Thrill
Technology


Story A Disney attraction tells a story. A story can be told in any number of ways. There's the obvious as shown in Snow White or Peter Pan to the Theme such as mainstreet USA which in Disneyland tells the story of smalltown Missouri at the turn of the century. Mainstreet USA tells a Story. Even Dumbo tells a story. It tells a story using imagination as only a child can. Flying on Dumbo's back.
Every aspect of a Disney Attraction that follows is there to support the story.


Quality I don't have Landbaron's sources or memory to Quote Walt Directly, but it should come as no surprise that Quality was quite important. Quality can mean $5000 Chandeliers, it can also mean making sure the ride vehicles run 200 hours between maintainence instead of 100.




Thrill I know what your thinking, Where's the Thrill in Peter Pan's flight. Ah, but you seee thrill is such a nebulous term. Is there not a Thrill in watching MSEP or SpectroMagic? The other side of it is when you do build a "Thrill" ride, its with a nod and a Wink. The thrill is in the storytelling and IF its a looping coaster, then that looping is part of telling the story.

Technology Last but hardly least is Technology. I know some of you are shaking your head that I picked this last. What about the ground breaking Animatronics? you sputter, What about the EMV?

To you I say irrelevent. Technology is a tool and you use the right tool for the right Job. Now Walt was a Technologist, no doubt. But Mainstreet USA is no bastion of Technology and it is as emersive as Indy or spiderman or any other attraction. Remember, Quality, Thrill and Technology are dedicated to telling the story. If you can tell the story using 19th century technology better then using 21st century technology, then so be it. My Example here is Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin. This has all the indications of approaching the popularity of Dumbo and yet, all it is is a simple Darkride Mech with controllable cars and a Lasertag gun attached. The Theme and Story are represented primarily with 2D-cutouts in Balcklit rooms!


So I put it to you that everything in every park should tell a story. If it tells a story and does it well, emerses you in it, then its a Disney Attraction, even if its a spinner.


I've tried to limit my examples to avoid too many arguments on that front though I'll make some comments if it seems reasonable to do so. I'm more interested in other's take on my theory.

 

[Mousekateer55]

I think you also have to take into account theming. I mean look at the rides on Paridise Pier. They are rides, but they are not quality rides because you can find almost exact copies of the rides someplace else. Pirates of the Carribbean is a great example of this. The ride is just a plain water ride with great theming. Very few people go on the ride just because it is a water ride, but rather to see the theming. Or take Tower of Terror. It could have looked like the Maliboomer.

 

[toefungus]

You forgot that touch of Disney magic! But everything else you covered was good. I think the most important part of an attraction is the story. If there's no story to the attraction, it's not going to make it.

 

[YoHo]

Now see, to me, I don't consider Themeing to be seperate from Story. The theme is the story.


and now your dragging me in, because I have some opnions about Paradise peir. First of all, I think its very hard to tell a story about a place, event or time when the protagonist of the story is close to people's hearts and minds. This isn't about what goes into a disney Attraction, but how a Disney attraction is chosen. It was a bad choice to Try to bring back memories of Santa Cruz boardwalk, or Coney Island, when the Santa Cruz Board walk is a couple hours away. tht concept would play better in florida.

And here's my first bit of controversy. I think Paradise peir could have been a great Disney Park and Attraction if they had done two things.

1: Move it to florida where the combinations of Distance and International tourists craving a bit of americana would eat it up.

2: done a better job of telling the story's time period. I mean the Maliboomer just doesn't fit does it?


Pradise pier should have been a mainstreet USA with rides. The rides at paradise peir while nothing thematically special in and of themselves help tell the story that the pier trys to tell.


As for that Disney Magic, that Touch of Pixie Dust. I am merely suggesting the ingriedents in Walt's Cauldron. The Ingredients to Walt's magic. It really can be done b anyone with the heart to do it.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

I think YoHo hit it right on the head. These are the areas which make a Disney attraction, Disney.

 

[TDisneyC]

It's all about atmosphere. Atmosphere is created when creative minds come together to produce a beautifully themed ride. The ride must contain a story. It must vortex you into a new world. It's like your on an adventure. Steel rides are not for disney. They are made primarily for thrills. I think you can still create a very thrilling ride without letting go of that element of atmosphere. Just imagine yourself on say a HUGE rollercoaster in Valleyfair, your on a rollercoaster and that's all. Now imagine yourself on a space moutain, thunder moutain or rock n rollercoaster, they all have a story to tell.
Jo inkbounc

 

[larworth]

Emmersive is the best word for me. It's theming and attention to detail so that you really believe you are there. It's why Disney does dark rides. This way they can control the environment (the sensory experiences, mainly lighting), and you can be completely cut-off from the outside world.

Instead of thrill I might pick novelty. It is presenting something is a unique way, or some effect I've never experienced, or the anticipation of what is waiting ahead. I agree that you don't need cutting edge technology to do this.

Gee, I always considered the Matterhorn, Space Mtn as steel rides. I think any ride technology is a candidate. The key is taking the experience that I can get anywhere else and making it emmersive and novel. That is why I don't have a concept problem with RnR. To me it is a less ambitious version of Space Mtn.

I would agree that current coaster technology does present some challenges. It can be difficult to tell much of a story when you are whizzing along at 70 MPH in an inverted corkscrew. Also time is money. It ain't cheap to make an emmersive environment. The faster I travel the more ground I cover and the more emmersion I need to build. Hey RnR isn't too short because it was way too expensive to put in more coaster track.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well YoHo. A very good topic. And you've almost got. Almost, but not quite. First let's cover all the items that I agree with.

Here are the ingredients in order from most important to least important:
Story
Quality
Thrill
Technology

I agree wholeheartedly. These items should definitely be included in a Disney attraction.

Now, with that said I do have two issues. And it's really a matter of semantics and a little nit-picky, but bear with me. If we can clearly define our terms so that apples really are apples, I think we may come to understand each other a little more easily.

The first issue is 'Story". Now in subsequent posts and in dialogue with others you stated that "Story" and "Theme" are one in the same. I STRONGLY disagree. I think you need a separate category for both "Story" and "Theme". Let me give you an example, and it's one of those "rides" (attractions) that probably spurred you to post this. I offer you Dumbo and the Tea Cups. Both are nothing but "spinners". Both are thrilling (to a point). Both are themed. But do they really tell a story? Do they take you on a journey from point "A" to point "B"? Or do they rely on a movie tie in, simply to further theme, in order to make some sort of "story" connection, no matter how vague? You could replace the Dumbo vehicle with any Disney invented character or devise that flies. They could have been the Absent Minded Professor's car, or Mary Poppin's umbrella, etc. The Tea Cups could be and other "wild" type device from another movie. Herbie the love bug for instance. And these elements can be interchanged (just look at the new Aladdin) without losing story, because the "story" was never there in the first place. But theme was.

Kiddyland has helicopters that spin and go up and down like Dumbo does. If they pipe in some Wagner and slap a sign up that changes the name from "Helicopters" to "The Apocalypse Now Adventure", does that create a good "story"? NO!! But it does a heck of a lot for theme.

Second, and this one is clearly semantics, is "thrill". I think a better word would be "thrill/unique experience". It can be an either or proposition or a combination. If it is a combination we are nearing "E" ticket territory. And as you described it later, this is clearly what you meant, but I find the term 'thrill' to be a little misleading and easily confused. I hope we agree. I'll presume that we do and continue anyway…

So, we agree (other than some minor point of verbiage) on the basic premise. So why doesn't the good OLD LandBaron just say ditto and be on his way?

Because everything in life is not merely black and white. We live in shades of gray. And that goes for Disney rides, too. Which is why, "back in the day", good old Walt invented tickets!! "A" thru "E"! Our Declaration of Independence says that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Unfortunately the same thing cannot be said about rides at Disney. To some went the prestige and honor of "E" ticket status. Others were destined to be unused, the only tickets left in the shoebox in the basement, chronicling vacations of years gone by. These tickets of course are the "A"s and "B"s of the (WD)World.

I never had a problem with the replacement of MR. Toad, a "C" ticket I believe, with the new Winnie the Pooh ride. To me it was a "C" for a "C". (Hey, not every ride can be a e-ticket!) I was a little disappointed that Disney did not take the opportunity to upgrade it into an E-Ticket, given the technology that Tokyo had and the fact that Fantasyland was a little sparse of the really "BIG" attractions since 20K closed. And that blatant "plush" shop…!!! Well, that's another story, but in the big picture Pooh didn't bother me at all. "C" for "C".

Well, all very nice DVC, but what's that got to do with anything???!!! A good question. It has to do with that list of Disney elements that we (semi) agreed on. Quite simply, it doesn't have to have all the elements to make it a "Disney" attraction. If it does has all the elements and they're all done well, we are talking about an E-Ticket attraction!! There could be no debate! However, if it is lacking one or more of those elements, it still may be a Disney attraction. The question is what "ticket" letter should be assigned to it? What area of gray does it fall? Outside of Disney's parameter's altogether? Or somewhere in-between? I think this is what we need to define.

In my mind Disney, with the opening of EPCOT, really upped the anti quite a bit. They created, although not officially, an "F" ticket. I think Bicker gave me this idea some time ago. And I think it fits. So where on the ticket scale do you put R&RC? An 'F" or perhaps an "E"? To me I think it is definitely a "Disney" attraction. But it doesn't quite live up to that high water mark of some of the other attractions that clearly warrant "E" or "F" status. To me, purely subjective of course, it is a "D" ticket. Still very, very good. Up there with the other "D" tickets, Peter Pan, Mickey Mouse Review, etc. But it lacks a little (and just a 'little') something in theme and in story. And it is definitely not unique, though it is thrilling, but no more thrilling than any Six Flags coaster.

I have always held that Disney does NOT need to, nor should it, create an E-Ticket ride every time!! NO!! They need to mix it up. They need some spinners (albeit with great theme). You will NEVER hear me complain about them ADDING (not replacing) an Alladin ride. It's a gift. Shut up and accept it. It's an extra!!! And it is what it is. A "B" ticket. But a "B" ticket where NOTHING was before!!

When I start to complain is when they replace an F-Ticket, with a C-Ticket and call it square (Imagination anyone?). Or build a "D" ticket ride (only in my opinion, I realize) and try to pass it off as the greatest E-Ticket ride Disney has every come up with!

I don't know. YoHo, are we still on the same page?

 

[JeffJewell]

...I've avoided this thread because, to a great extent, I've agreed with what everyone has said. But a dissertation I wrote for another thread and LandBaron's quote juxtaposed themselves in my mind, so here I go.

I have always held that Disney does NOT need to, nor should it, create an E-Ticket ride every time!!

It was that word "create" that jumped out at me.

What makes a Disney ride? Well, Disney makes a Disney ride. The more of the ride made by Disney, the more of a Disney ride it is.

I think Tower of Terror is a good Disney ride. Imagineering developed and built the ride system, and designed and implemented the theming. Even though I personally think it's a wuss little ride, I have to give credit for the creativity, innovation, and attention to detail.

I think Rock and Roller coaster is a bad Disney ride. The ride was bought from a third party, the "theme" involved licensing a rock band who (to my knowledge) had nothing to do with Disney in the past, and the Imagineers were left with only some neon and paint to make the theme. Even though I personally enjoy this ride, I have to speak up about the lack of creativity, innovation, and attention to detail.

Rock 'n' Roller Coaster could be picked up whole and dropped into any other amusement park in the US, and it would not seem out of place. It's not Disney, it's just like everything else, whether or not it's fun to ride.

Disney rides are a sum of all the things everyone has mentioned on this thread. Not every Disney ride has to have the same combination of factors in the same ratio to be "Disney." That said, buying a ride from one company and renting faces for "theme" from another company might make a fun ride, but it doesn't make a Disney ride.

Jeff

PS - The reason I think this is an important distinction is that _creating_ the ride puts a company in a position of control and leadership. It requires an investment in your own people and systems, an investment that will pay off both on this ride and on future rides and concepts created with those systems and teams. The company becomes more capable and more creative.

_Buying_ that same ride, on the other hand, puts a company at the same creative level as every other company buying rides. All the investment in people and systems goes somewhere outside your company. The company becomes less creative for want of a chance to flex those muscles, and, if budget cuts were made since that group wasn't being used for this job, your company becomes less capable in and of itself.

 

[YoHo]

I don't really have the time needed to reply in full. Needless to say Landbaron, I think we're on the same page, but different paragraphs. You, like Mouskateer55 miss the forest for the trees. Walt Disney World Tells a story. Magic kingdom tells a story, Fantasyland tells a story and Dumbo, unpresuming little dumbo the spinner helps tell that story.That Story is the fantasy of the dumbo movie. Yes Dumbo is geared at younger riders, but Dumbo for all its simplicity tells a story and tells it well.

So, I understand your point, but I consider everything in Walt Disney World from the lowliest Petunia to Pirates of the Caribbean to be telling a story.

MGM-Grand in Vegas has themeing. Disneyworld Tells a story.

 

[larworth]

We all agreed that story was at the top of the list. However, when I think about it I wonder what percentage of people would be able to write a couple sentences articulating what the story they have just experienced is all about on many rides.

If they rode Dumbo pretty much all they could say is that an elephant flies. Of course, so many people already knew the story that not much else was needed to let the rider imagine away.

What would most people write after exiting the Haunted Mansion. Would they articulate a cohesive story or would they just describe a bunch of different scenes?

Space Mountain is a classic e ticket. Is there a story here? I have to admit if there is I couldn't write it (other than I get to pretend I'm a space traveler).

Theming is the minimum prerequisite. If we can expand story to mean transporting someone to a different time or place than we can include my emersive comment.

 

[YoHo]

Jeff, 100% disagree with your theory that a purchased Ride Mech does not make a Disney attraction, HOWEVER I agree that in The recent past, Disney has not made good use of its creative talents on these rides. As for the group choice, I suppose you would then prefer A Brittany Spears RNRC? AeroSmith has had plenty of connections to Disney. The most recent previous to the RNRC being Armeggedon.

Lets look at Aladdin. I don't remember if Disney Built the story aspects or not, but they certainly Had an attraction built that helps tell the story that the Agrabah market area of adventurland tells. Or are you suggesting that E-tickets need to be Disney built? After all, to my knowledge Disney Designed, but didn't build the other coasters

 

[JeffJewell]

100% disagree with your theory that a purchased Ride Mech does not make a Disney attraction

I don't think that was precisely what I said. I did imply that purchasing a ride mech makes a ride _less_ Disney than if they created it, all else being equal. Again, if you factor in the investment in your own company versus investment in someone else's company, I still think that mine is a very fair assessment.

are you suggesting that E-tickets need to be Disney built

I'm suggesting that, in general, the more of any given ride created in house, the better, in both the sense of the quality and detail of that ride, and the sense of long term capability of the company.

It's going to be hard for me to adequately address your point about Aladdin, I'm another one that, to a certain extent, doesn't like your definition of "story" as it pertains to Disney rides. I agree with LandBaron, the Dumbo ride is themed, but does not have any meaningful story.

It sounds to me that you are describing as "story" something I've referred to as "character recognition." Kids line up for Dumbo rather than Astro Orbiter because they recognize the Dumbo character, not because "elephant flies in circle" is inherently superior to "rocket flies in circle" as a story.

In the same sense, I'm not sure what story you're refering to when you say "the story that the Agrabah market area of adventurland tells." I mean, to me that area tells the story of how ME will put price tags on Cast Members if they stand in one place too long, but I suspect that's not what you mean... I must give you a point for seeming to realize that the important aspect of the Adventureland changes were the Agrabah _Market_ makeovers.

Okay, enough smart mouth for this post. I don't want to seem like I'm quibbling over particular details on particular rides, I'm concerned with the trend to create less and buy more. On the whole, I feel that trend can only result in rides that are less "Disney."

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Walt Disney World Tells a story. Magic kingdom tells a story, Fantasyland tells a story and Dumbo, unpresuming little dumbo the spinner helps tell that story. That Story is the fantasy of the dumbo movie.

And

So, I understand your point, but I consider everything in Walt Disney World from the lowliest Petunia to Pirates of the Caribbean to be telling a story.

I have two MAJOR problems with this. I kind of agree with the last statement, but on a higher level. I think that it can be analogous to an insurance policy that covers the whole park. It presupposes that ANY loosely connected Disney inference can be acceptable 'theme' (not necessarily 'story'), if for no particular reason other than, by any stretch of the imagination, it can be tied to Disney. That is fine for making it a Disney ride in the first place. I can agree if you are saying, "If Disney touched it at all, no matter how loosely or inconsequential, it belongs in the parks"? But to further project that it inherently has an inbred story based on that statement, to me at least, doesn't make sense. Sorry. I can't make that leap.

I need to ask a question about the second problem I have before we continue. Is this true of MK only or ALL Disney parks. If it does mean all parks, then quite frankly, I don't see how the Studios can be considered a Disney park at all (and EPCOT is swiftly loosing its 'Disney' status as well). The Studios seem to me to be very disconnected from place to place. Other than that loose "feel" of a studio, at times, there is no connecting thread. I know this is subjective, but we touched on this before in the "hat" thread. If "theme" and "story" are indeed that important, PARK WIDE, then I really don't get that hat!!!!

I really have to throw in with larworth. You may argue (and have argued) that on some esoteric level Dumbo has a story. But I think the real test is the ability for an average guest to paraphrase that story. No paraphrase; no story. But again, that does not preclude its inclusion on the list of Disney rides. It merely lowers the ticket value. Hence, Dumbo = "B" ticket.

I hesitate to get involved with this. And I won't get into the entire topic of "Disney Built" other than to say I basically agree, however, again, it doesn't have to be EVERY time, just most of the time. And R&RC is THE perfect example. But there was one little thing that really caught me eye.

After all, to my knowledge Disney Designed, but didn't build the other coasters

Well, not quite. The reason that Walt was so reluctant to put a roller coaster in Disneyland was because he didn't like the look of them. It reminded him of everything that he hated about amusement parks (Hmmm, wonder what he would think about DCA?). But that didn't mean he didn't like them. And with the Matterhorn idea he felt comfortable that he could cover the tracks enough to hide that "cheap" look he despised. (Ei$ner's idea was to fill it with neon. Another big difference in philosophy!) Anyway, Walt wasn't satisfied with that and he had his team (I can't recall if it was WedWay by then or not) DESIGN new concepts in steel roller coasters. I can't remember all the details, maybe someone can help out, but it was a totally new and innovative rail system(?) ride mechanism(?) that came from that enterprise. Once again, Disney out did itself!! And at the same time controlled its destiny AND added a couple patents to their coffers.

 

[Mr.MouseFan]

I think another thing that makes a Disney attraction is the fact that most of them bring us back to our childhoods...a time when magic was real. When you ride a Disney ride, you become a kid again and the magic takes over. That to me is a Disney ride.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Nice topic Yoho. It should help us gain further knowledge of one anothers opinions.

I think the only real important element of a Disney attraction is quality. Without it we have jiyi, or to blame one on Walt's generation, the Tomorrowland Speedway.
Rides with no ability to really grab you.

I think any quality ride or attraction can become a Disney attraction by sheer proximity. Point in case RnR. A great, fun, relatively inexpensive ride. JJ thinks it could be plunked down anywhere and is correct, but in logistics only, for if RnR were plunked down in Six Flags Hoboken it would then be a Six Flags ride. By being chosen by Disney it was given better themeing than others would give it (yes, I think the 'cheap' alley & Aerosmith tie in is clever) but more importantly location...It landed in a Disney theme Park, with Disney CM's and Disney quality surrounding it (everything from cleanliness to friendliness) goes into making the attraction what it is.

IMO the attraction is only a spoke in the wheel, without the overall quality of the entire package the attraction is just an attraction. Look at IOA. They have some great attractions. Spiderman, particularily comes to mind, but it's an IOA attraction and therefore due to its location (at IOA) the experience suffers. IOA would have to build multitudes of spectacular rides to make headway against the things that are truely Disney. But in the end they will still be inferior because they can't match the legacy of overall quality Walt has instilled at Disney. Eisner lovers, Eisner haters can all agree that the quality, feeling & attitude of the Disney CM alone makes Disney stand out head & shoulders above the rest. Then throw in the Disney attention to cleanliness & efficiency and you've got an unbeatable package that still works all these years after Walt's death - even if some feel it is diminishing.

Further, I think Walt's ideas back up my theory. He gave us a bunch of relatively simple attractions and many really corny ones. Yes he pioneered many innovations like animatronics but in general the aspect of the show that was most imortant to him was the quality of the overall presentation, which is why CM's were born. Walt knew which ideals would make Disneyland stand out, and quality is the name of the game!

Therefore, I belive Disney must only offer us QUALITY attractions( which includes themeing IMO) as long as the rest of the Mouse House is in order...

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I think the only real important element of a Disney attraction is quality.

Capt… I'm sorry!! Peter, my favorite Pirate. You're wrong again! Are you spending too much time in the sun?

Let's really examine what you are saying. You take a roller coaster. An off the shelf roller coaster because you disagree with JJ that it needs to be "Disney" designed. And you erect that roller coaster with as much quality as is humanly possible. You use the best steel, purchase the finest wheels, integrate it with a state-of-the-art computer ride guidance system and hire the best workmen and engineers to put it all together. Quite a bit of quality there!! Never mind that the structure is visible throughout most of the park (ala Six Flags), and never mind that the 'ride' (it is no longer an attraction) tells no story and finally, never mind that this same experience (thrill-wise) can be had coast to coast in every two bit amusement park. Staff it with 'quality' CMs, keep it impeccably clean and maintain the 'ride' with as much 'quality' as you can. And now what have you got? A Disney 'attraction'? Or some ride that could be in Anywhere USA, but just happens to reside in WDW?

What happened to Story? No matter, we've got 'Quality'!! What happened to at least some theme? No matter!! We keep it staffed with 'quality CMs and have you noticed there's not a scrap of paper or garbage any where in sight?

I don't know, Peter. Do we go to the same WDW. You know, the one in Florida? In the middle of the state. Straight north of you I think. If you haven't been there, you should really try it. Because if you're satisfied with just 'QUALITY' and none of the other elements that we've discussed, this place will simply BLOW YOU AWAY!!!!!

You can find the directions to the wonderful amusement park in my post header!!!

 

[Peter Pirate]

LandBaron, certainly a huge Coaster as you described wouldn't be right (even if it were totally first class). You looked big when I really was aiming small. But I'll bet the imagineers will build a big, huge first class coaster someday and it won't be any more out of place than other attractions seem...

I also meant to infer that story, theming (show) are simply inherent in anything Disney is going to do. Quality is a big, catch all word which would certainly include theming & story to a certain degree. I don't know where I fall on the Dumbo debate you & Yoho have been having. I guess I don't see a story per se but I see the fit & I do with the new Aladdin ride as well.

My point is that (almost) anything Disney has done and will do will be done in a Disney manner insuring that it will be a Disney attraction in my eyes. The thing that makes the Parks special to me is not the attractions themselves (although they are a big part of it) but the over all ambiance and feeling I get from being at a Disney Park. I don't get that feeling at IOA or SeaWorld, although I like them both, but they do not have that magnet that pulls me back.

So what I'm saying is that any quality attraction Disney puts forth WILL become a Disney attaction (example: Once again RnR. Is Aerosmith a Disney icon? Well, they weren't but they are now. My kids were exposed to Aerosmith at RnR and now listen to their music and equate Aerosmith with Disney. Do I? No, of course not, but the next generation of Disney goers, the young people, do).

Perhaps I'm not disagreeing as much as I thought, just using a different term or interpretation, and that's a good thing. But I believe if Disney just gives us quality products, the rest is inherent (thanks to Walt).

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK! I think I understand. What you're really saying is that Disney = Quality. And that this "Quality" has five aspects to it. Individually these elements do not necessarily turn an ordinary ride into a Disney Attraction. But working in combination or collectively the sum of the parts equal magic!!!

So with your heading of QUALITY the following would apply:

Disney "Quality" (Touch, Magic, Pixie Dust)
1- Quality
2- Theme
3- Story
4- Thrill/Unique Experience
5- Technology

If we can agree on the above we can move on.

Imagination, in my opinion, is simply a bad ride. It had aspirations of that coveted "E" or "F" ticket status and fell miserably short of the mark. To me it is simply a failure. No sense ranking it. In my mind, no letter ticket can or should be associated with this ride.

However, R&RC is a success (as most Disney attractions are). It pleases the crowds (yours truly included) and it covers most of the five aspects. But in my mind the question arises, how well. On what level does it succeed? Peter Pan covers most of the five aspects as well, but not quite up to the standards of say Pirates or Haunted Mansion. It falls short on a couple. Not by much, just not quite there on a few. And Walt (or at least the keepers of the flame at the time) agreed. It was a "D" ticket. So my question to you is: What ticket letter does R&RC deserve? Use "A" through "F". Make it "G" if that's what you think it needs. But be honest. Is it REALLY and "E" ticket. Did they hit a home run with all five facets of the above criteria, as a Splash Mountain did? Or did it fall short in some areas? I think it did indeed fall short. I would give it a "D" ticket status. How about you?

 

[JeffJewell]

My point is that (almost) anything Disney has done and will do will be done in a Disney manner insuring that it will be a Disney attraction in my eyes.

I also meant to infer that story, theming (show) are simply inherent in anything Disney is going to do.

You and I seem to view Disney's past ten years of business decisions (and their implications) too differently to have any meaningful conversation.

I don't mean this to be a swipe at you, but if you honestly believe the two quotes above, I just can't find the common ground from which to start a discussion (This situation reminds me of one of my favorite jokes: I told my girlfriend "You just don't understand me," and she said "Quoi?").

I mean, to read those quotes it sounds like anything they might cough up in a Disney park is a "Disney" attraction. While on the surface that's a tautology, in the context of the thread, it seems to me like you missed the real question.

Let's go at it the other way, for the sake of argument: In your first quote above, you used the words "(almost) anything Disney has done." Why the "almost?" What attractions made you use that qualifier, and why? It sounds like you're suggesting there are a couple rides in Disney parks that you do _not_ consider "Disney" rides, even though they're on property. What is it about those rides that disqualifies them?

Jeff