What would Disney's answer be to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter?

[Disney Padawan]

AV, I had a question for you. You mentioned that "Expedition Everest" was a major mistake, I wondered if you can give us the long version of why you think this, just curious?


(I noticed that you were online, just thought I'd ask again, no big deal.)

 

[Disney Padawan]

Please...NO. What is it about "Cars" that fits into the theme of Future World? Such an attraction would be completely out of place in Epcot. We already have to put up with the abomination known as Mission: Space and other attractions "dumbed down" with cheap makeovers which lack imagination and creativity.

Not everything has to (or should) have a character-connection, Pixar or otherwise. That doesn't mean The Seas with Nemo or Mexico's revamped boat ride aren't interesting, and they might be right at home in the Studios or even Fantasyland - but certainly not Epcot.

The original Epcot Future World attractions were awe-inspiring in their day; Imagine what it would be like to have a park which maintained such a lofty standard. In 1982 Disney was able to create a park of attractions which created a sense of wonder; sedate rides like Journey into Imagination or Horizons were far more "thrilling" than any "thrill ride". Today we mostly get attractions which depend on physical thrills (M:S) or movie characters (Mexico, Seas) to provide amusement. Epcot should be something different - and it used to be.

This thread has had many topics while I've been away but that's good, divesity is often a good thing, which brings me to this post.

It seems that one of the primary reasons rides get "dumbed down" as you say, is because that's what the people want. Technology and society have changed over the past twenty years, in many ways for good and bad. Sadly, people no longer crave education or pursue knowledge the way they used to. (specially while on vacation.) Surveys taken year after year always state the same thing: the majority are looking for thrills, cheap or not. Disney knows this and has abandoned the idea for "edutainment" a long time ago. Sure some of it still remain but their existence is in vain. Rides like WOM or Horizons (a great ride btw) don't seem to appeal to the masses anymore. Plus Disney knows, by adding their characters to their rides, they've helped cement them even more into the public's eye, thus increasing their value. Some may argue that Epcot now has a good balance of rides, while others obviously miss the good ol' days. I think in years time, Disney may totally abandon the "future world" theme and the park will be more character and thrill based, with a small mix of mild rides, all character themed of course. How many years? That really depends on us, not just the individual, but the majority.

 

[ChrisFL]

This thread has had many topics while I've been away but that's good, divesity is often a good thing, which brings me to this post.

It seems that one of the primary reasons rides get "dumbed down" as you say, is because that's what the people want. Technology and society have changed over the past twenty years, in many ways for good and bad. Sadly, people no longer crave education or pursue knowledge the way they used to. (specially while on vacation.) Surveys taken year after year always state the same thing: the majority are looking for thrills, cheap or not. Disney knows this and has abandoned the idea for "edutainment" a long time ago. Sure some of it still remain but their existence is in vain. Rides like WOM or Horizons (a great ride btw) don't seem to appeal to the masses anymore. Plus Disney knows, by adding their characters to their rides, they've helped cement them even more into the public's eye, thus increasing their value. Some may argue that Epcot now has a good balance of rides, while others obviously miss the good ol' days. I think in years time, Disney may totally abandon the "future world" theme and the park will be more character and thrill based, with a small mix of mild rides, all character themed of course. How many years? That really depends on us, not just the individual, but the majority.

In-Park surveys are not always a good thing, as I posted in another thread.

In that thread I made an educated guess that if you asked people in MK a question like "would you like to see a new 60mph thrill ride go beside Main St." I would guess that AT LEAST 30-40% of them would hear half the question and go "Yeah!"

People are on vacation, they often arent thinking 100% about what they want during an in-park survey. IMO what made places like the original Epcot special is that the idea is that people dont always know what they want until you give it to them. Thats the beauty of imagineering...being able to do something that most people cant explain but can appreciate it nonetheless. Thats what i consider Disney's "magic"

In-park surveys cant give you that

 

[Disney Padawan]

In-Park surveys are not always a good thing, as I posted in another thread.

In that thread I made an educated guess that if you asked people in MK a question like "would you like to see a new 60mph thrill ride go beside Main St." I would guess that AT LEAST 30-40% of them would hear half the question and go "Yeah!"

People are on vacation, they often arent thinking 100% about what they want during an in-park survey. IMO what made places like the original Epcot special is that the idea is that people dont always know what they want until you give it to them. Thats the beauty of imagineering...being able to do something that most people cant explain but can appreciate it nonetheless. Thats what i consider Disney's "magic"

In-park surveys cant give you that

I was reffering to online surveys as opposed to in-park ones, but I have to agree with you. Heck, I think people on vacation don't think at all. (OK maybe just a little, sometimes.)

 

[DancingBear]

Sadly, people no longer crave education or pursue knowledge the way they used to. (specially while on vacation.)

What's your basis for this, and how do you square it with trends like the rise in ecotourism, or "voluntourism"?

 

[Another Voice]

Sadly, people no longer crave education or pursue knowledge the way they used to. (specially while on vacation.)

Utterly wrong.

This is a prime example of “blame the audience”. On hears it all the time in Hollywood – no one went to see Movie X because the timing was wrong, or the weather in the east was bad, or that people were turned off by jumping on Oprah’s couch – it’s all just a bunch of dren.

The real reason is Movie X was bad.

Leave ‘Rio de Tiempo’ in for a quarter century, it’s going to get stale. Make people watch boring movies about oil drilling for twenty minutes, people aren’ going to rush to Universe of Energy.

Just admit that the shows failed, not that suddenly people are stupid and want to remain so (even though this does probably describe a lot of rabid Disney fans).

There is no magic formula to make something popular. Stupid and lazy excuses like “people don’t want education’ are used only by people without the talent to make something good (which is why you’ll hear all the designers of California Adventure use the line so often).

But hey, slapping a store bought roller coaster in a big concrete box is a lot less work than making an attraction that can really amaze and astonish people. And that’s why Disney creates ‘Expedition: Everest’ these days – cheap and easy.

It’s not that people aren’t interested in animals, it’s just that chasing after ‘Little Red’, a short and cheap raft ride, and a jeep ride through a dark warehouse filled with dinosaurs sounds are all bad attractions. Each of these shows failed to make their subjects interesting, exciting and enjoyable for the guests. And that is not the fault of the guests, but the fault of Disney.

 

[Disney Padawan]

Utterly wrong.

This is a prime example of “blame the audience”. On hears it all the time in Hollywood – no one went to see Movie X because the timing was wrong, or the weather in the east was bad, or that people were turned off by jumping on Oprah’s couch – it’s all just a bunch of dren.

The real reason is Movie X was bad.

Leave ‘Rio de Tiempo’ in for a quarter century, it’s going to get stale. Make people watch boring movies about oil drilling for twenty minutes, people aren’ going to rush to Universe of Energy.

Just admit that the shows failed, not that suddenly people are stupid and want to remain so (even though this does probably describe a lot of rabid Disney fans).

There is no magic formula to make something popular. Stupid and lazy excuses like “people don’t want education’ are used only by people without the talent to make something good (which is why you’ll hear all the designers of California Adventure use the line so often).

But hey, slapping a store bought roller coaster in a big concrete box is a lot less work than making an attraction that can really amaze and astonish people. And that’s why Disney creates ‘Expedition: Everest’ these days – cheap and easy.

It’s not that people aren’t interested in animals, it’s just that chasing after ‘Little Red’, a short and cheap raft ride, and a jeep ride through a dark warehouse filled with dinosaurs sounds are all bad attractions. Each of these shows failed to make their subjects interesting, exciting and enjoyable for the guests. And that is not the fault of the guests, but the fault of Disney.

I agree with some of the points you're making but quite frankly I blame both, people and Disney.

Yes, many things after a quarter century will become stale but comparing movies and rides are two different things. If a movie is bad, many won't see it, and it probably will not make enough money to cover production costs, although there are exceptions. (Pirates 3?) If a ride is bad, some may complain, but it will generate so much volume for so many years, that the blind suits at Disney, will see it as a sucess. (MS, Everest?) We are the ones making them a "Sucess." Sure it's "a lot less work" to put a roller coaster in a concrete box or the many other examples you made but no one is stopping Disney from making them. In other words, once a bad attraction is made, hundreds line up to see it, on an everyday basis. Even after years of it's initial release, people still flood to experience it again. Why? Is it because they've paid good money and they might as well see everything? True sometimes, but what about repeat visitors? Is the world really filled with that many "rabid Disney fans?"

I didn't mean to sound like the majority is "suddenly stupid" I never even stated that! But since people always flood these attractions, and never boycott the "bad ones," then I think they deserve half of the blame. I know there's no way to tell how many repeated visitors a certain attraction is getting, but these patterns repeat year after year. This is what I meant by "that's what the people want" because it seems that way. True, many don't know any better.

Anyway, I guess I needed to be clearer on my previous post. It's not just People that are at fault but mainly Disney's mindset. I know you've stated that Disney is to blame and not the guests, but I think they deserve blame too. You've even mentioned, on a previous post how, "They proclaim something like Expedition Everest a major wonder. In reality, it's a major mistake." People have to "understand" why this is, why Disney has changed, but many choose not to. Reasons for this vary but If they did, then their expectations will be higher and Disney would have to meet them, better yet, exceed them, right? If "the casual fan" as you've put it, stopped going to "bad attractions" then maybe Disney will have to create something wonderful. Of course, they just seem to lack the talent and will to do so right now. Things may change, one never knows for sure.

In conclusion I just have a question for you AV. You seem very knowledgeable and opinionated about these topics, I'm wondering, what are your favorite rides and why? Just curious, in case you wanted to share.

 

[Another Voice]

but comparing movies and rides are two different things.

A theme park is a theater. Like your local multiplex, it presents lots of different shows. The economic “success” is making sure there are enough shows, enough good shows, and a wide enough variety to draw a paying crowd. And has Disney has painfully learned through bitter experience at California Adventure and Animal Kingdom, it’s a lot tougher to do than it looks.

Even on the individual ride level (in the post-ticket world) some rides are budgeted as “blockbusters”, some as B features. Disney keeps hourly attendance figures to figure out exactly how popular each of these rides are. Disney views each attraction as a major capital investment and they calculate the expect return from increased park attendance and associated merchandise/food/ancillary sales. It doesn’t take a ride to be completely deserted for it to be seen as a flop, it just has to fail its expectations.

That’s how Disney knows that ‘Mission: Space’ has been a huge failure and that ‘Soaring’ has been a rousing success. ‘M:S’ was supposed to be a huge magnet to bring people into Epcot, it failed at that. Lucky for us stockholders, the vastly less expensive ‘Soaring’ is doing the job that ‘Space’ couldn’t achieve.

Now the question is – why are people flocking to ‘Soaring’ and ignoring ‘Space’. For the people involved, it’s a lot easier on the ego to scream that “people were scared by the media hype over the deaths on ‘Space’ than it is to admit the show itself is very, very bad. Never forgot how important ego and inertia are in a corporation. Hollywood – and Disney is nothing now but an extension of the biz – is based on the concept that ever movie could have been a hit if only….

And look how long Disney has let California Adventure rot in the sun rather than say “we built it wrong, let’s fix it”. And here the chief designer for the entire park said that DCA was simply too cool and too hip for Disney guests to understand.


The best attraction in any park all follow the same simple rule. It comes from saying that went around WED Enterprises for years and finally made it into ‘Start Tours’ – “I’ve always want to do this”.

Much like a story can tell us about other people’s lives, thoughts and emotions, much like movies can show us places new or made-up, a theme park attraction is a way we can experience all the things we’ve always wanted to do, but can’t in the real world.

We can wander the corridors of a haunted house, ride a rocketship into space, we can sail with a pirate crew or watch to a heroic president deliver a speech. A good attraction takes an adventure that we think we can only experience in our imagination and makes it feel real.

 

[QueenGoblin]

I think Another Voice has made a really good point here. A Harry Potter world will appeal to people who have not even read the books or seen the movies just because it is so whimsical.

I think Harry Potter has already proven more enduring than Captain Jack. I enjoy Pirates, but I think the franchise is getting a bit thin and it only has 3 movies under its belt. HP has 7 books and 4 movies over 10 years and is still breaking records. It seems to ebb and flow because it gets such huge media attention when the movies come out or a new book is realeased, but I work in a public library and I see a new generation of kids picking the books up every year. I think the demographics are even more key. The hard core Harry Potter generation, the kids who grew up with the books, are entering their late teens and early twenties. They will have kids in the next 5-10 years. So even when Potter-mania eventually levels out, there will be a whole generation of young parents who want to take their kids to Harry Potter's world.

Plus JK Rowling has not ruled out the possibility of revisiting her world with a new series or companion titles. I cannot imagine it would be as successful as the Potter series, but who knows?

So if done right, I still think it will be a huge hit for Universal and could prove to be a very popular attraction for at least 20 years, probably more. And at that point, maybe someone will want to remake the movies. (And Disney is not above trying to make everything old seem new again...hence the "vault," the sequels, and a new mickey mouse show for each generation. That is largely just their marketing, which is genius.) But I still don't think HP would have been a good fit for Disney, just some healthy competition.

There are two ways that fictional characters work.

The first is where the character is so appealing, so interesting that people become interested in the creation as if they were a real person. King Arthur and Sherlock Holmes are the classic examples. Coming up with characters like that is extremely difficult – most tend to loose their appeal very shortly. I’d put Captain Jack Sparrow is one of these. The appeal of the character was strong enough to carry through two and a half movies, but now the character is fading from popular culture with the rest of the series.

The other kind of character is one that let’s an audience explore a new and interesting world. The characters and the plot serve just to structure the exploration of the world. No one really cares about any of the characters in Jurassic Park, no one cares about the backstory of the park, no one cares about DNA engineering – but everyone wants to be chased by dinosaurs.

A lot (if not most) of the appeal of ‘Harry Potter’ was that the books and films have created a wonderful world that people would like to visit. I’m not much interested in the coming-of-age story of a boy wizard, but I would sure like to wander through a world where magic works, wizards teach school and my mail is delivered by an owl.

 

[Disney Padawan]

Now the question is – why are people flocking to ‘Soaring’ and ignoring ‘Space’. For the people involved, it’s a lot easier on the ego to scream that “people were scared by the media hype over the deaths on ‘Space’ than it is to admit the show itself is very, very bad. Never forgot how important ego and inertia are in a corporation. Hollywood – and Disney is nothing now but an extension of the biz – is based on the concept that ever movie could have been a hit if only….

And look how long Disney has let California Adventure rot in the sun rather than say “we built it wrong, let’s fix it”. And here the chief designer for the entire park said that DCA was simply too cool and too hip for Disney guests to understand.

I knew that "Soarin" was the most popular ride at Epcot but I thought MS was always packed too, just like TT. I had no idea their attendance was so poor? This is why I used it as an example in my earlier post.

As for your second paragraph here, I agree. In fact, I hate that kind of attitude, I see it in my place of work on a daily basis. I wonder if AK's attendance would equal DCA if it was located in another part of orlando. I believe it holds its attendance spot mainly because of their location. Most people do see all 4 major parks, many start with AK because it's their least favorite. As for DCA, they should just swallow their pride and fix it, if it's that bad. I really can't judge it because I've never been there but I have heard the complaints, plus their attendance speaks for itself.

By the way, thanks for sharing what I believe, were some of your favorite rides, the classics never die.

 

[G8RFAN]

IMHO, I think MS is far superior to Soarin in execution. It's just that its reputation of making people queasy for half the day is by far it's biggest detriment. The storyline is plausible and the details that you see in the queue are truely amazing if you take the time to study it. The building facade itself is incredibly complex. The lines are starting to grow, and once the word gets out that the Green (non-spinning side) is still a remarkable show with little wait, they are going to have to turn off the centrifuge on another bank of ride modules. Personally, I'm a thrill junkie, so I can ride MS all day.

I am going to throw out there my hypothesis on "educational rides". We are not dumb down as a population. Where once we had just PBS's Nova, we now have the various channels of Discovery, TLC, and History Channel. We see a shift in how some of these shows are presented, as the traditional documentaries are giving way to high tech CG or reality based format. I think Disney has to compete with that and has chosen the path of least resistance. The question begs, would you rather produce a move that is this summer's biggest blockbuster or the golden palm at Cannes? I know thay are not mutually exclusive, but more often than not they are.

 

[YoHo]

Mission: Space is a farce. The original show was totally dropped, the post ride pavilion was dropped It's terrible. It's a mark of how horrible Disney's cost cutting has gotten. The fact that it has killed people just adds injury to insult.

 

[kpk89]

This thread has been a very interesting read. It caught my eye because we're in the middle of Potter Mania at our house, and because I have never considered going to Universal or IOA until news of the Wizarding World came out.

I agree that this will be nice competition for Disney, and regret that Disney passed on the opportunity (or was financially unable to grab it). I thought surely that since the HP movies run often on Disney Channel, that there was a deeper connection.

I disagree with those who believe HP will not be a lasting icon. The universal (no pun intended) theme of the saga is the conflict between good and evil. This theme is eternal, and when packaged in such an appealing skin as the magical world, it will be timeless. Whether that translates to an enduring and loved-through-the-generations theme park attraction, I suppose is up to Universal.

And the extra information about Walt, Iger, Eisner, and Jobs et al, was fascinating.

 

[G8RFAN]

Mission: Space is a farce. The original show was totally dropped, the post ride pavilion was dropped It's terrible. It's a mark of how horrible Disney's cost cutting has gotten. The fact that it has killed people just adds injury to insult.

Boy. I never got to ride the original show or see the post ride pavilion like you did. I guess I didn't know what I was missing. I shouldn't be subjected to such inferior product. You are right. It is a farce.

Just like the death on the Body Wars ride, this whole congenital heart defect thing is a cover up (insert "farce" if you want) and the Disney goons are just on some murderous crusade to cut costs at the price of human lives.

 

[YoHo]

Of course I didn't ride some "Original" show, but I can read can't I? I can know the original plans and how they hacked and slashed them from a great attraction about going into space into a simulation of Astronaut training. A simulation of a simulation. It's dumb. I can complain about the post show being a travesty. We can get back into the debate on the causes of death for Mission: Space, but In case you missed it, I downplayed that. That just re-enforces everything.

 

[G8RFAN]

Every concept car, every showpiece architectural plan, every screenplay eventually gets chopped and cut to fit a budget/plan. Artisans are always doomed by the bean counters. It's a fact of life. It could have originally been a real rocket trip to Mars, but it's not and if I had that expectation then of course the "what you see" version is going to suck. The basic concept of a centrifuge driven simulator has not changed and unless you are privy to data or have the scientific knowledge that does indicate that changes made from the original design produces physiological danger that was not present in the original design, it's really just sour grapes. I do agree with the popular opinion that the ride is probably too intense for a good many people including my wife, but then she will not ride space mountain either. In any event, the simulator of a simulator is unique as I have always had issues with every simulator that drops you off to your destination and you litterally walk back into reality with no attempt to transition you back.

 

[YoHo]

Every concept car, every showpiece architectural plan, every screenplay eventually gets chopped and cut to fit a budget/plan.

Oh really? Care to point out where PotC (the attraction) budget was cut? Or HM? Or Spaceship Earth?

Artisans are always doomed by the bean counters. It's a fact of life.

O Really, tell me, how has Pixar been hurt by bean counters Do you have any indication that they've ever had a run in with them?

It could have originally been a real rocket trip to Mars, but it's not and if I had that expectation then of course the "what you see" version is going to suck. The basic concept of a centrifuge driven simulator has not changed

I'm sure everyone gets super excited about a ride mechanism before they get excited about the theme huh? The theme is the only thing that matters. Nobody cares about the mechanism. Disney hacked and slashed the Theme, because they're cheap.

and unless you are privy to data or have the scientific knowledge that does indicate that changes made from the original design produces physiological danger that was not present in the original design, it's really just sour grapes.

Which is why I went out of my way to point out that that was not my point just an additional issue.

I do agree with the popular opinion that the ride is probably too intense for a good many people including my wife, but then she will not ride space mountain either. In any event, the simulator of a simulator is unique as I have always had issues with every simulator that drops you off to your destination and you litterally walk back into reality with no attempt to transition you back.

Nobody day dreams about riding a simulation of astronaut training. Nobody daydreams about Astronaut training. They daydream about going into space. Great attractions are about fulfilling your wildest dreams, not something that anyone with a decently strong hear can do.

If you dislike the transition, that's hardly the fault of the theme is it? It's the fault of the designer. Don't blame them for giving you not enough and then settle for even less, because at least they didn't try and fail.

I mean, like what you like, THAT's subjective, but it doesn't excuse poor imagineering.

 

[G8RFAN]

Oh really? Care to point out where PotC (the attraction) budget was cut? Or HM? Or Spaceship Earth?

PotC or HM? No disrespect, as they are great "classics" but that was then and not now. Those concepts today would not cut it in today's environment. Your whole beef is with the evolution of Disney. At what point did anyone outside of Disney have to scrutinize an attraction's budget back then? Walt had to answer to investors and definitely made choices handcuffed by a budget. As beautiful as Spaceship Earth is, the whole EPCOT concept was impacted by budgets and subjected to slashes and cuts. Nobody had a blank check. Give me a break.

O Really, tell me, how has Pixar been hurt by bean counters Do you have any indication that they've ever had a run in with them?

So you know for a fact that Lasseter and Catmull had a blank check for each production. Why on earth would they have layoffs before the gravy started to roll in? Plus, it is apples and oranges, as PIXAR is small enough and single purpose enough to be run by the creative think tank (or at least they used to be). But don't kid yourself, they still had to make budget decisions.

I'm sure everyone gets super excited about a ride mechanism before they get excited about the theme huh? The theme is the only thing that matters. Nobody cares about the mechanism. Disney hacked and slashed the Theme, because they're cheap.

99% of the people that walk through the gates at WDW don't know and don't care what was on the drawing board. All they see is the attraction as completed and judge from there. You set your own expections based on information that in the practical sense of an attraction is meaningless and no longer applicable. If you want to read a book before the movie comes out, you will be disappointed. As popular as the Harry Potter movies are, you will find the hard core book fans disapproving. You my friend are a hard core book fan.

Which is why I went out of my way to point out that that was not my point just an additional issue.

You brought it up.

Nobody day dreams about riding a simulation of astronaut training. Nobody daydreams about Astronaut training. They daydream about going into space. Great attractions are about fulfilling your wildest dreams, not something that anyone with a decently strong hear can do.

It's space camp for everyone without having to travel to AL! It's neat! Once again you are just being that hard core book fan. If you want to nitpick, where is my pirate ship? DQ's attraction gives me that AND cannons!

If you dislike the transition, that's hardly the fault of the theme is it? It's the fault of the designer. Don't blame them for giving you not enough and then settle for even less, because at least they didn't try and fail.

I read this a couple of times. Maybe I don't understand the role of the designer when it comes to the theme..... You take me to X, I visit the base station and we leave. It's done on 99% of the time and you don't get to ride the ride again to get back home (unless I'm at Rafiki's Planet Watch). I mean come on! We took hydrolators to get here.....

I mean, like what you like, THAT's subjective, but it doesn't excuse poor imagineering.

I understand your contention and sometimes that critical eye is what Disney needs to hear. But to call MS a farce is a bit extreme IMHO. It would have had its issues even if it had built it exactly to it's full blown originaly designed glory.

 

[DancingBear]

So you know for a fact that Lasseter and Catmull had a blank check for each production. Why on earth would they have layoffs before the gravy started to roll in? Plus, it is apples and oranges, as PIXAR is small enough and single purpose enough to be run by the creative think tank (or at least they used to be). But don't kid yourself, they still had to make budget decisions.

He didn't say they didn't have any budget limitations; the point was that their guiding principle was making a great creative product. Isn't it a Lasseter quote that "Quality is a business plan"?

 

[DancingBear]

IMHO, I think MS is far superior to Soarin in execution. It's just that its reputation of making people queasy for half the day is by far it's biggest detriment. The storyline is plausible and the details that you see in the queue are truely amazing if you take the time to study it. The building facade itself is incredibly complex. The lines are starting to grow, and once the word gets out that the Green (non-spinning side) is still a remarkable show with little wait, they are going to have to turn off the centrifuge on another bank of ride modules. Personally, I'm a thrill junkie, so I can ride MS all day.

You may like it, but overall Mission:Space is a failure. It cost a fortune, meant the loss of Horizons (which could have been updated for much less cost), and did not bring folks into the park. The whole ride was conceived around the idea of using centrifuge technology, and now you're saying that it will be a sign of success when they have to turn off another centrifuge? Leaving aside the fatalities, how come Disney didn't realize so many would get sick on this ride?