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

[G8RFAN]

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"?

There were critics that hated Cars. PIXAR's latest drew the ire of many critics some of which when I read them seemed to take personal offense that they made a critic into a villian. But you know who really counts? You and I, the people that buy the movie tickets, DVD's, and marketing offshoots. If you ask them if they could have made any of their films any better, you know what the answer would be. They released what they did because of budget constraints. The storyboards on all of their movies have changed from the initial concepts (artisans call it an evolution) but still, nonetheless, they had evolved. The parallel to MS (taking it back to the off topic subject on hand) is that the end result is still a masterfully crafted attraction albeit wrought with real and perception problems. As I said, once the green side catches on, the lines will come.

 

[G8RFAN]

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?

New paths bring unexpected problems. Part of the problem is that they had to demo an existing classic. You risk bringing instant critics from those who liked Horizons. The whole problem which you touched on is bringing people into the park. MS hasn't done it. Nor did any of the original attractions. If you want to judge their creativity, that's fine. But on one end you say they spent gobs of money on a failure and then complain that the bean counters stiffle creativity. It just seems many times that the complaints come at both ends and sometimes from the same people just to ultimately complain about Disney. I judged the attaction on its own merit and as YoHo said, I am entitled to my subjective view. I don't let corporate history, concept to build history, etc. affect my view on it.

 

[ChrisFL]

I think there's a point that could be made in this M:S discussion and creative people vs. bean counters...

Why DOES the most creative attraction have to also be the most expensive? Can it be done for less money using a different way of going about it?

I would say thats whats missing in potential ways of thinking now vs. 25 years ago. If I were to guess, I'd say that the creative people would say "we want a fully immersive ride experience and capped off with a trip to the planet of Mars" then the bean counters say "you cant have that, its too expensive" and the second half gets chopped off and left with interactive video games instead...

Now when I consider what I've seen of the past projects like when Epcot opened, I think the creative types came up with their blue sky ideas, then the budget didnt allow for it, so they went back and redesigned it to continue to have the same principles, keeping the feeling of the idea intact, but making less impact on story and the overall experience.

So the way it SEEMS to be working now is that they come up with an idea, bean counters say no, it has to be slashed, and they can't work out a happy medium, or won't spend the time/effort to do so.

 

[DC7800]

The whole problem which you touched on is bringing people into the park. MS hasn't done it. Nor did any of the original attractions.

Not true. If those original attractions didn't bring in the crowds, then please explain what did. What made Epcot such a success (revisionist history aside) for Walt Disney World years before the first "thrill ride" made its appearance?

The fact that those originals, after a couple decades of complete neglect, began to grow a bit stale in no way detracts from the original concept. Mission:Space is not likely to endure quite so long, or age nearly so gracefully, as the pavilions Future World opened with back in 1982.

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

Again, for rides which can't "cut it" anymore these attractions remain awfully popular. Out west, Disneyland visitors continue to line up for these attractions (and other park classics) while DCA - with its newer thrills - is almost ignored. Indeed, a new, modern attraction on the same level as Pirates is exactly what WDW needs.

 

[DancingBear]

PIXAR's latest drew the ire of many critics some of which when I read them seemed to take personal offense that they made a critic into a villian.

Not too many of those, given that this movie has the highest Tomatometer reading for 2007.

 

[DancingBear]

New paths bring unexpected problems. Part of the problem is that they had to demo an existing classic. You risk bringing instant critics from those who liked Horizons. The whole problem which you touched on is bringing people into the park. MS hasn't done it. Nor did any of the original attractions. If you want to judge their creativity, that's fine. But on one end you say they spent gobs of money on a failure and then complain that the bean counters stiffle creativity. It just seems many times that the complaints come at both ends and sometimes from the same people just to ultimately complain about Disney. I judged the attaction on its own merit and as YoHo said, I am entitled to my subjective view. I don't let corporate history, concept to build history, etc. affect my view on it.

You like it, fine. But if you want to call it a "masterfully-crafted attraction" you should expect some pushback.

There is no contradiction in saying they spent gobs of money on a failure and that bean counters stifle creativity (which I didn't say anyway). If the bean counters kill the truly immersive creative part of the experience, then the rest of the money spent is wasted. They could have done much better spending much less money on a creative update of Horizons.

I'm not following your arguments. You say in the immediately preceding votes that what counts is not the critics but the public's reaction. Then you defend a ride that is not attracting guests, and act like the public's reaction to getting rid of Horizons is an irrelevant factor. And again, you're saying that the ride's success will come from shutting down the centrifuge technology around which the entire concept was developed. And that's 'cause Disney couldn't possibly have anticipated that folks were gonna puke?

I don't want to go to space camp, I want to go to space. Even Mission to Mars reflected an understanding of that concept.

 

[YoHo]

Not true. If those original attractions didn't bring in the crowds, then please explain what did. What made Epcot such a success (revisionist history aside) for Walt Disney World years before the first "thrill ride" made its appearance?

Exactly, those ORIGNAL Epcot attractions brought in Millions upon millions of people. Epcot was ridiculously popular.

 

[G8RFAN]

Not true. If those original attractions didn't bring in the crowds, then please explain what did. What made Epcot such a success (revisionist history aside) for Walt Disney World years before the first "thrill ride" made its appearance?

The fact that those originals, after a couple decades of complete neglect, began to grow a bit stale in no way detracts from the original concept. Mission:Space is not likely to endure quite so long, or age nearly so gracefully, as the pavilions Future World opened with back in 1982.

Sorry, the context I meant was those attractions in terms of today. Now that I read it, it could be read as original draw. Could they have taken the original concepts and modernize them? Sure. Would that have created criticism that they were not imaginative? Maybe. The early sucess of EPCOT is all relative to the scale of the resort area at the time. The lodging infrastructure has grown tremendously. They have like so many other companies during high growth painted themselves into a problematic corner. I don't have the crystal ball to say they shouldn't have done it as who knows what would ahve happened to the parks division if they had not. All I know is that they now have to keep the resorts and parks utilized at levels never pressured before. But back MS, hindsight is 20/20 and you can shake a finger at them and say "see I told you so, this MS project was a complete farce". Hard to disagree looking at the lines, the bad press, and their legal issues; however, I've riden the ride many times now looking for defects in concept and delivery, and I just can't find any other than the spinning aftereffects for some. If it fails, too bad, as it is a beautiful building and the attention details excellent.

Again, for rides which can't "cut it" anymore these attractions remain awfully popular. Out west, Disneyland visitors continue to line up for these attractions (and other park classics) while DCA - with its newer thrills - is almost ignored. Indeed, a new, modern attraction on the same level as Pirates is exactly what WDW needs.

The remaining classics endure because they have become the theme parks' signature. We are less critical of them out of respect for what they once stood for. Look at all the backlash when they "improved" on PotC. The lines at Small World still are incredibly long, yet many people jokingly find the ride's theme song annoying. Guess what ride DS wanted to ride the most at DL? Casey Jr. One of the enduring originals. Nothing really special about it except the Dumbo connection and it's a train. I think something like that would be perfect in the now Pooh play area. So I do see the "magic" of the attractions from the past, but the impression I get from some was that it was perfect before and it wasn't. Are there really no lines at California Screamin'? I didn't get that sense when I was there 1 1/2 years ago.

 

[G8RFAN]

Not too many of those, given that this movie has the highest Tomatometer reading for 2007.

We loved it. Saw it at the AMC at DTD during opening week. Movie critics for the rags in South Florida and Orlando (Sentinel) gave it a bad review. Cars as I recall had similar reviews from the same papers. DS has all the cars. We have his playroom decorated and themed with it. His bathroom looks like a Nemo fish tank. As I said, sometimes the critics can have it all wrong from the general population. I may be in the the minority regarding MS, but I truly believe that making a non spinning side is going to eventually draw bunches of people. Many will then try the orange side once they experience the green. Curious how many of its critics have riden it.

 

[Disney Padawan]

Anything that fails can be made succesful, that being said, no matter how you slice that pie, MS is a failure.

Disney needs to swallow its pride, spend some money and fix their issues.

 

[Barbers2005]

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.

If "the casual fan" as you've put it, stopped going to "bad attractions" then maybe Disney will have to create something wonderful.

You have to keep in mind that "bad" is relative. The average visitor to WDW isn't a superfan who goes time and time again and can compare the parks to what they were 15-20 years ago, lamenting the paradigm shift in WDW management. The average visitor lives nowhere near a Disney park and spends their summers going to Six Flags or Cedar Point- compared to those even the worst ride at WDW looks pretty good. Sure, I know that M:S isn't as well themed and immersive as HM and that Kali is just a gussied up raft ride, but that won't stop me from riding them b/c they're still light years ahead of Hershey Park and Darien Lake. Realistically speaking, people aren't going to stop riding anything disney puts out when all they've got at home is tilt-a-whirls and mega coasters.

 

[trstno1]

Wow - I came to check ideas about Disney's response to the Harry Potter park, and instead I read 2 pages of debate about the success, or lack thereof, of Mission Space.

Is it worth reading the first 8 pages of this thread?

 

[DancingBear]

You have to keep in mind that "bad" is relative. The average visitor to WDW isn't a superfan who goes time and time again and can compare the parks to what they were 15-20 years ago, lamenting the paradigm shift in WDW management. The average visitor lives nowhere near a Disney park and spends their summers going to Six Flags or Cedar Point- compared to those even the worst ride at WDW looks pretty good. Sure, I know that M:S isn't as well themed and immersive as HM and that Kali is just a gussied up raft ride, but that won't stop me from riding them b/c they're still light years ahead of Hershey Park and Darien Lake. Realistically speaking, people aren't going to stop riding anything disney puts out when all they've got at home is tilt-a-whirls and mega coasters.

But the fact is that a lot of people have, in fact, stopped riding M:S (or have chosen not to ride it in the first place).

 

[Disney Padawan]

You have to keep in mind that "bad" is relative.

I agree, "Bad" is relative, that is why I had it in quotations.

Realistically speaking, people aren't going to stop riding anything disney puts out when all they've got at home is tilt-a-whirls and mega coasters.

This is one of the reasons why Disney is the way it is now.

But the fact is that a lot of people have, in fact, stopped riding M:S (or have chosen not to ride it in the first place).

This and what I've heard from DCA gives me some hope. If we as fans keep it up, Disney may take a step for a better future.

 

[bulah1]

....and here's some of my thoughts on how to update the Beastly Kingdomme idea by converting it into a Narnia land at DAK
http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/06/0...kingdom-part-three-beastly-kingdomme/#respond[/QUOTE]

NARNIA! Now that is a cool idea! I think that has a lot of potential, and could definitely compete with the feel of the Harry Potter at Universal!

I know Star Wars could definitely work too... both very good ideas! Star Wars would make a lot of people happy!

 

[Disney Padawan]

I know Star Wars could definitely work too... both very good ideas! Star Wars would make a lot of people happy!

Narnia doesn't have enough fans yet for it to compete with HP. Star Wars, on the other hand, WILL make a lot of people happy.

 

[bulah1]

Narnia doesn't have enough fans yet for it to compete with HP. Star Wars, on the other hand, WILL make a lot of people happy.

Yeah, I don't really care either way... either one would make me happy!
However, doubt either one would happen anytime soon... and I have a feeling a lot of people hit it on the head about Star Wars being a non-possibility with the Lucas aspect! LOL

But you're probably right about the fan base though as far as ticket sales would go. When are the rest of the Narnia movies coming out? I hope they're working on the next...

 

[EUROPACL]

. When are the rest of the Narnia movies coming out? I hope they're working on the next...

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is coming out in May 2008 and is in production now. I have a strong gut feeling this will be the last of the Narnia movies from Disney ...unless they really knock this one out of the park. The other Narnia books just don't have the following that the The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe do. The first made some pretty decent money Worldwide, unless that trend continues Disney will be looking to throw that money down another hole like The live action Smurfs, Strawberry Shortcake or Carebear Movies.

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER has a release date of just a year later May 2009 (on imdb.com)....as of right now.

 

[Disney Padawan]

The first made some pretty decent money Worldwide, unless that trend continues Disney will be looking to throw that money down another hole like The live action Smurfs, Strawberry Shortcake or Carebear Movies.

Don't forget Jem, The Snorks, and Rainbow Brite are also available.

 

[Another Voice]

But on one end you say they spent gobs of money on a failure and then complain that the bean counters stiffle creativity.

It's not a simple issue that "more money = better; less money=worse".

The most important factor in the success or failure of any project is the skill, talent and passion of the people involved.

'Mission: Space' is a failure becasue the people who made it had no imgination, no respect for the audience, and were attempting nothing beyond "thrill ride". The people who created 'Soarin' had a fraction of the resourses to work with but spent them wisely and used their talent to overcome the limitations put upon them. Guests really don't care how much an attraction costs, they want to have a good time. 'Soaring' delivers that, 'M:S' doesn't and it's reflected in the attendance figures.

A successful production is a matter of getting the proper level of resources to right people.

That's how Disney lost the rights to Harry Potter - they refused to fund their proposal to a sufficent level to build something actually worth seeing. It was 'Mission: Space' all over again, an excerise on seeing how little you can spend and still con people into riding the attraction.

Universal took a different approach. In the end they will probably spend less money than Disney would have, but by a clever combintion of using what they already had and a unique and imaginative approach they have created (at least on paper and if all the rumors are true) a truely stunning experience that will draw millions of people.

Realistically speaking, people aren't going to stop riding anything disney puts out when all they've got at home is tilt-a-whirls and mega coasters.

That thought was the whole design philosohy behind California Adventure and why that entire park is empty and devoid of paying customers.