Perspective: are we too hard on new attractions?

[Tony the Tigger]

I see so many discussions here and elsewhere complaining that newer attractions are not so impressive.

And I wonder if we just have such high expectations of WDW that we have a skewed perspective and are sitting there thinking, "go ahead, blow me away."

But were rides like the little snow white dark ride all that mind-blowing? Isn't the seven dwarves mine train significantly more impressive?

The first few times I went to Disney World, I used to joke that they must brainwash us, because there was no reason I should love it so much.

It was not what I expected at all. I grew up in New Jersey and I thought Disney World would be similar to Six Flags, but with pictures of Mickey Mouse painted on the roller coasters. As you all know, it's nothing like that at all.

I was surprised how many rides were sit down shows. I was surprised at the variety of experiences. I was surprised that everything was in a boat LOL. And then I learned about the whole "ride the movies" concepts and began to get it - but it still didn't explain why I was so into it.

So why are many of us missing Snow White and unimpressed or a little less impressed with the mine train, just to stick with that example for a moment...

Yes, I very much appreciate the history, the nostalgia, the things Walt had an actual hand in. So is that it? Did he really have some kind of "magic touch" and know how to go straight to the heart, whereas others might not get how to do that?

Because the mine train, while cool and impressive in some ways, didn't blow me away. But why should it? Neither did snow white. Neither did many of the simpler rides, yet I still developed great affection for them. Will the new rides grow on us? Or are they fundamentally missing something?

Why do I enjoy the Nemo ride but I am underwhelmed with the new little mermaid ride? Because I've seen it before?

And have we learned our lessons from having those unrealistic expectations? Because I still find myself thinking, "go ahead, blow me away" when it comes to the new Star Wars lands.

Thoughts ?

 

[SpecJoe Magic]

I think that the general public is definitely too hard on new attractions. We experience so many amazing technologies in everyday life now that it takes more and more to wow us with each passing year. At the same time, we are emotionally attached to experiences from our childhood that may not be as impressive as some of the new experiences, but we feel tremendous affection for them. That's a difficult conundrum for Disney and other theme park attraction developers.

Using your example, I think most people would agree that Seven Dwarfs Mine Train is objectively better than Snow White's Scary Adventures, but some people would still rather have the classic dark ride attraction simply because of nostalgia.

The truth is that people are harder to please nowadays and do not appreciate the simple things as much anymore. I am reminded of an old 1965 video of people watching Tiki Room at Disneyland and they were swaying and smiling along with the music in a very joyful manner. It was a simpler time and our expectations have grown dramatically since then, which makes it harder to please most people.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The Fantasyland dark rides were not sold as (and did not cost the same as) a marquee attraction.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The Fantasyland dark rides were not sold as (and did not cost the same as) a marquee attraction.

Point made!

 

[ShoalFox]

The fact of the matter is, 7DMT tries hard to be a roller coaster and a dark ride combined, but doesn't pull off either very well. It just isn't that good of a ride, especially considering the ridiculous wait times it has.

Something like new Test Track, however, does blow me away and I do enjoy it better than the original which I grew up with.

Some thrill rides do fail like Disneyland's Rocket Rods. It tried to be a high speed ride on a track meant for slow vehicles (PeopleMover) and ended up ruining the experience due to constant changes in speed. The PeopleMover worked because it wasn't trying to be something bigger than it was like the Rocket Rods tried; it was just a leisurely tour of Tomorrowland.

When it comes to dark rides, SSE is always fantastic even though the current version lacks some of the power previous iterations had. Ellen's Energy Adventure, on the other hand, is a much worse show than the original and doesn't use the UoE pavilion to its full potential to be mind-blowing with special effects like the original did. Journey Into Imagination with Figment fails simply because it's just really annoying, original ride aside. That said, the original ride was a lot more impressive.

Nostalgia does play a hand sometimes, but other times replacements aren't nearly as good as original rides, period.

 

[rreading]

Interesting question.

I think that nostalgia does make a big difference. If it's been there before you, then you accept its shortcomings because they were "working with what was possible" - even though Snow White could have been as immersive as Pirates, it wasn't and that was okay. But if they'd built SW now, we'd probably be seriously underwhelmed.

My 6yo son really loved the 7DMT, and he and my wife both really like VOTLM. So I really do think it's about perspective (and expectations- they are what they are rather than what we hoped them to be). And clearly more and more people are coming to Disney and enjoying it. It makes the parks crowded but fortunately will help fund expansion.

 

[Figments Friend]

I would say one likely reason why more recent Attraction additions have left some a little disappointed is simply because they do not totally immerse you in the experience.
There is some 'disconnection' there....whether it be in the execution of the concept, or the concept itself is not strong enough to pull you into the moment.

All of the BEST Theme Park Attraction do just that...pull you into the moment and with a little imagination, you are on your way to another place.
Think of any of the 'Classic Attractions' we come to associate with the Disney Theme Parks and just about all of them do just that - take you to a place you could not visit otherwise and have a adventure.

There are many Park Fans who prefer more then just tv monitors and projection screens to get us 'in the moment'.
I think over the last decade or so there has been too much emphasis on video screens and projection effects to carry an Attractions' 'story' and it just comes off as a cheap alternative to what could have been.
Some Attractions really need such a system to tell there story ( such as 'Soarin' ) but many others do not.
Pony up the cash and do it right with REAL physical sets and AA figures.
Lay off the imagery on a screen for a bit...i can watch tv screens at home.


Right now, there is likely a 45 minute long line waiting to experience 'Peter Pan's Flight'.
Why do people line up for such a Attraction, which we all know is nothing more then a suspended ride vehicle moving over models..?
They do it because of the sensation and uplifting moment it creates...where you can easily pretend you really are off on a journey to Never Land.
There is that 'suspension of belief' that makes it fun and enticing.

How many recent Attraction additions create that same sense of wonder..?
Plenty of 'Originals' did....but not many 'Newbies' do.
There is a reason why there is this difference - it's all in the approach and attitude towards a project and how that translates into the final Show.

 

[CP_alum08]

I would say 75% is nostalgia and 25% is just "wow factor" overload. Marketing plays a huge factor in the overload. I think the issue most people have with 7DMT Is that Disney hyped the crap out of it and it just didn't live up to most people's expectations. The same, I fear, will be the fate of Avatar but we will have to wait and see.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I would say one likely reason why more recent Attraction additions have left some a little disappointed is simply because they do not totally immerse you in the experience.
There is some 'disconnection' there....whether it be in the execution of the concept, or the concept itself is not strong enough to pull you into the moment.

All of the BEST Theme Park Attraction do just that...pull you into the moment and with a little imagination, you are on your way to another place.
Think of any of the 'Classic Attractions' we come to associate with the Disney Theme Parks and just about all of them do just that - take you to a place you could not visit otherwise and have a adventure.

There are many Park Fans who prefer more then just tv monitors and projection screens to get us 'in the moment'.
I think over the last decade or so there has been too much emphasis on video screens and projection effects to carry an Attractions' 'story' and it just comes off as a cheap alternative what could have been.
Some Attractions really need such a system to tell there story ( such as 'Soarin' ) but many others do not.
Pony up the cash and do it right with REAL physical sets and AA figures.
Lay off the imagery on a screen for a bit.


Right now, there is likely a 45 minute long line waiting to experience 'Peter Pan's Flight'.
Why do people line up for such a Attraction, which we all know is nothing more then a suspended ride vehicle moving over models..?
They do it because of the sensation and uplifting moment it creates...where you can easily pretend you really are off on a journey to Never Land.
There is that 'suspension of belief' that makes it fun and enticing.

How many recent Attraction additions create that same sense of wonder..?
Plenty of 'Originals' did....but not many 'Newbies' do.
There is a reason why there is this difference - it's all in the approach and attitude towards a project.

Agree, especially about Peter Pan, and about screens.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Tangent: would 7DMT be better NOT as a coaster? Maybe just a much bigger, reimagined Snow White dark ride that you go through more slowly in a "car" (mine car?) or even a boat? Or would we then say it's just Pirates with a Snow White overlay?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I would say one likely reason why more recent Attraction additions have left some a little disappointed is simply because they do not totally immerse you in the experience.
There is some 'disconnection' there....whether it be in the execution of the concept, or the concept itself is not strong enough to pull you into the moment.

All of the BEST Theme Park Attraction do just that...pull you into the moment and with a little imagination, you are on your way to another place.
Think of any of the 'Classic Attractions' we come to associate with the Disney Theme Parks and just about all of them do just that - take you to a place you could not visit otherwise and have a adventure.

There are many Park Fans who prefer more then just tv monitors and projection screens to get us 'in the moment'.
I think over the last decade or so there has been too much emphasis on video screens and projection effects to carry an Attractions' 'story' and it just comes off as a cheap alternative to what could have been.
Some Attractions really need such a system to tell there story ( such as 'Soarin' ) but many others do not.
Pony up the cash and do it right with REAL physical sets and AA figures.
Lay off the imagery on a screen for a bit...i can watch tv screens at home.


Right now, there is likely a 45 minute long line waiting to experience 'Peter Pan's Flight'.
Why do people line up for such a Attraction, which we all know is nothing more then a suspended ride vehicle moving over models..?
They do it because of the sensation and uplifting moment it creates...where you can easily pretend you really are off on a journey to Never Land.
There is that 'suspension of belief' that makes it fun and enticing.

How many recent Attraction additions create that same sense of wonder..?
Plenty of 'Originals' did....but not many 'Newbies' do.
There is a reason why there is this difference - it's all in the approach and attitude towards a project.

There is a lot of very postmodern thinking that is clearly present in current attractions design. The attitude is that it is fake, and that people know it is fake. The result in more tongue-in-cheek and the attention is misplaced on things of little consequence. Details (those items that an expert would recognize as appropriate to a setting) have now been incessantly replaced with self references, ignoring why the original references first came into existence.

 

[Figments Friend]

There is definitely a difference in the execution of today's Attractions compared to ones opened previously, but that is to be expected with changing tastes, different storytelling tools becoming available or affordable, and overall direction and attitude of the Company building them.

I think most people can plainly see the stark contrasts in design and scope between Attractions that still exist that were built in the 60s such as 'The Haunted Mansion', 'Pirates of The Caribbean', those built in the 70s such as 'Space Mountain' and 'The Hall of Presidents', and those built in the 80s and 90s that still exists such as 'Big Thunder Mountain Railroad' and 'Splash Mountain'.

Now compare those decades with what we have seen since then.....
Attractions opened in the 2000s.
Think of a few that might pop into your head.

Ask yourself :
Do ANY of them truly make you feel like you are experiencing something unique and enveloping you in another time and place?
Do ANY of them pull you out of the reality of today and suddenly place you in a exciting, imaginative setting that you want to explore?
Do ANY of them leave you feeling fulfilled on some level ( whether by inspirational or emotional level, thrill level, etc. ) once pulling into the unloading station..?
Put today's Attractions to the test and see how they measure up.
Many fall quite short of those categories.

As for recent WDW Attractions that can well measure up, 'Expedition Everest' comes to mind.
It's mainly for the stunning work done on creating the Asian setting, as the Attraction experience itself is primarily a 'roller coaster' thrill ride.
The same could be said for the classic 'Big Thunder Mountain Railroad', but both of these highly themed Attractions take you to a alternative real setting in another time and place and you have an adventure.
And a thrilling one at that!
These 'work' because of the settings and clever thought put into the design concepts.

But what about today's 'The Little Mermaid' dark ride....?
Or 'Test Track'...?
Toy Story Midway Mania..?

The old school WED Enterprises mentality really knew how to 'take you there'.
Today it seems that knowledge is being forsaken for technological showboating and IP directives from the Marketeers.
Times change, which is enviable, but some things do not. There are design principles and storytelling skills that are utterly timeless.
There is a reason why Classic Attractions still draw in the big wait times.

I don't know about others, but when i visit a Disney Theme Park...i want to be taken somewhere i cannot experience anywhere else.
I don't want to experience a 'book report' Attraction that retells the story from the latest Disney Home Video release.
No...i want to sail with pirates, fly with Peter Pan, and explore ancient ruins on a jungle river.
Instead of watching it pass by as an observer, i want to be right in the middle of the action.

Which is another big difference between Attractions of yore and Attractions of today - YOU were having the adventure just as your hero or heroine did....and were not just sitting there and watching it passively.
YOU were Toad driving recklessly through London.
YOU were Snow White being chased though the dark forest and tempted by the Witch.
YOU were flying to Never Land.

How many of today's more recent Attractions place you in this role, now..?
Are you Ariel on 'The Little Mermaid' dark ride?
No....you are watching her story unfold as a passive viewer.
Are you Nemo looking for your Dad in the big blue..?
No...you are watching him look for him, again, as a passive viewer.

Stuff to think about....

-

 

[rreading]

There is a lot of very postmodern thinking that is clearly present in current attractions design. The attitude is that it is fake, and that people know it is fake. The result in more tongue-in-cheek and the attention is misplaced on things of little consequence. Details (those items that an expert would recognize as appropriate to a setting) have now been incessantly replaced with self references, ignoring why the original references first came into existence.

Interesting idea, but can you give some examples?

I think 7DMT is limited by its scope (and addressing the OP's aside: a slower vehicle with more immersive scenery could have also worked, but it is what it is - and it really is the greatest of the kiddie coasters. Who cares? There are lots of kids who do.)

VOTLM apparently has a nod to 20k, but it's not apparent to most.

Everest/Soarin seem pretty straight up.

But I've never been on TSMM so maybe that's your reference. Just curious.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Interesting idea, but can you give some examples?

I think 7DMT is limited by its scope (and addressing the OP's aside: a slower vehicle with more immersive scenery could have also worked, but it is what it is - and it really is the greatest of the kiddie coasters. Who cares? There are lots of kids who do.)

VOTLM apparently has a nod to 20k, but it's not apparent to most.

Everest/Soarin seem pretty straight up.

But I've never been on TSMM so maybe that's your reference. Just curious.

I'm not sure what you mean as your examples seem to cover as lot of different subjects.

 

[rreading]

There is definitely a difference in the execution of today's Attractions compared to ones opened previously, but that is to be expected with changing tastes, different storytelling tools becoming available or affordable, and overall direction and attitude of the Company building them.

I think most people can plainly see the stark contrasts in design and scope between Attractions that still exist that were built in the 60s such as 'The Haunted Mansion', 'Pirates of The Caribbean', those built in the 70s such as 'Space Mountain' and 'The Hall of Presidents', and those built in the 80s and 90s that still exists such as 'Big Thunder Mountain Railroad' and 'Splash Mountain'.

Now compare those decades with what we have seen since then.....
Attractions opened in the 2000s.
Think of a few that might pop into your head.

Ask yourself :
Do ANY of them truly make you feel like you are experiencing something unique and enveloping you in another time and place?
Do ANY of them pull you out of the reality of today and suddenly place you in a exciting, imaginative setting that you want to explore?
Do ANY of them leave you feeling fulfilled on some level ( whether by inspirational or emotional level, thrill level, etc. ) once pulling into the unloading station..?
Put today's Attractions to the test and see how they measure up.
Many fall quite short of those categories.

As for recent WDW Attractions that can well measure up, 'Expedition Everest' comes to mind.
It's mainly for the stunning work done on creating the Asian setting, as the Attraction experience itself is primarily a 'roller coaster' thrill ride.
The same could be said for the classic 'Big Thunder Mountain Railroad', but both of these highly themed Attractions take you to a alternative real setting in another time and place and you have an adventure.
And a thrilling one at that!
These 'work' because of the settings and clever thought put into the design concepts.

But what about today's 'The Little Mermaid' dark ride....?
Or 'Test Track'...?
Toy Story Midway Mania..?

The old school WED Enterprises mentality really knew how to 'take you there'.
Today it seems that knowledge is being forsaken for technological showboating and IP directives from the Marketeers.
Times change, yes, i know that well....but there is a reason why Classic Attractions still draw in the big wait times.

I really agree with this...but you are also really describing e-tickets. Some could claim that TT is an e-ticket. I'd say it pales in comparison to its cousin in DCA (and I don't find TT worth riding anymore). VOTLM is not considered an e-ticket, but it's environment is almost immersive enough to make it compelling. I'm withholding judgment so far.

Soarin does it for me, fwiw. I think that the preshow does a very good job of creating the anticipation that the show fulfills. We keep coming back for it.

 

[rreading]

I'm not sure what you mean as your examples seem to cover as lot of different subjects.

Where do you see the imagineers going "wink, wink" and it takes away from the scene?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Where do you see the imagineers going "wink, wink" and it takes away from the scene?

The Haunted Mansion interactive queue is probably the most total example.

 

[rreading]

The Haunted Mansion interactive queue is probably the most total example.

Perfect example. I do not prefer HM's updates of the last 10 years.

And yet the Tangled bathrooms (while simply bathrooms and unfortunately visible from the West) feel authentic to the movie.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

There is definitely a difference in the execution of today's Attractions compared to ones opened previously, but that is to be expected with changing tastes, different storytelling tools becoming available or affordable, and overall direction and attitude of the Company building them.

I think most people can plainly see the stark contrasts in design and scope between Attractions that still exist that were built in the 60s such as 'The Haunted Mansion', 'Pirates of The Caribbean', those built in the 70s such as 'Space Mountain' and 'The Hall of Presidents', and those built in the 80s and 90s that still exists such as 'Big Thunder Mountain Railroad' and 'Splash Mountain'.

Now compare those decades with what we have seen since then.....
Attractions opened in the 2000s.
Think of a few that might pop into your head.

Ask yourself :
Do ANY of them truly make you feel like you are experiencing something unique and enveloping you in another time and place?
Do ANY of them pull you out of the reality of today and suddenly place you in a exciting, imaginative setting that you want to explore?
Do ANY of them leave you feeling fulfilled on some level ( whether by inspirational or emotional level, thrill level, etc. ) once pulling into the unloading station..?
Put today's Attractions to the test and see how they measure up.
Many fall quite short of those categories.

As for recent WDW Attractions that can well measure up, 'Expedition Everest' comes to mind.
It's mainly for the stunning work done on creating the Asian setting, as the Attraction experience itself is primarily a 'roller coaster' thrill ride.
The same could be said for the classic 'Big Thunder Mountain Railroad', but both of these highly themed Attractions take you to a alternative real setting in another time and place and you have an adventure.
And a thrilling one at that!
These 'work' because of the settings and clever thought put into the design concepts.

But what about today's 'The Little Mermaid' dark ride....?
Or 'Test Track'...?
Toy Story Midway Mania..?

The old school WED Enterprises mentality really knew how to 'take you there'.
Today it seems that knowledge is being forsaken for technological showboating and IP directives from the Marketeers.
Times change, which is enviable, but some things do not. There are design principles and storytelling skills that are utterly timeless.
There is a reason why Classic Attractions still draw in the big wait times.

I don't know about others, but when i visit a Disney Theme Park...i want to be taken somewhere i cannot experience anywhere else.
I don't want to experience a 'book report' Attraction that retells the story from the latest Disney Home Video release.
No...i want to sail with pirates, fly with Peter Pan, and explore ancient ruins on a jungle river.
Instead of watching it pass by as an observer, i want to be right in the middle of the action.

Which is another big difference between Attractions of yore and Attractions of today - YOU were having the adventure just as your hero or heroine did....and were not just sitting there and watching it passively.
YOU were Toad driving recklessly through London.
YOU were Snow White being chased though the dark forest and tempted by the Witch.
YOU were flying to Never Land.

How many of today's more recent Attractions place you in this role, now..?
Are you Ariel on 'The Little Mermaid' dark ride?
No....you are watching her story unfold as a passive viewer.
Are you Nemo looking for your Dad in the big blue..?
No...you are watching him look for him, again, as a passive viewer.

Stuff to think about....

-

That's a lot to think about, and very well-reasoned. I like your point about being a participant vs an observer of a book report. I think that carries a lot of weight (while acknowledging the initial confusion as to why you didn't see Snow White in the Snow White dark ride when it first opened.)

Newer ones I like and/or are immersive: I like the Nemo ride, probably more because I like the Nemo movie. But now that you mention it, it would be cool if you were either Nemo or "helping" Nemo find his Dad. You're right - old school vs. new in that regard. But I do think it was clever to have the real aquarium as the backdrop.

The Toy Story shooting gallery ride is pretty immersive. I always lose, but it's well done LOL.

Nemo and Mermaid are probably more geared towards children - wouldn't they expect to see the main characters in the ride?

 

[Figments Friend]

I really agree with this...but you are also really describing e-tickets. Some could claim that TT is an e-ticket. I'd say it pales in comparison to its cousin in DCA (and I don't find TT worth riding anymore). VOTLM is not considered an e-ticket, but it's environment is almost immersive enough to make it compelling. I'm withholding judgment so far.

Soarin does it for me, fwiw. I think that the preshow does a very good job of creating the anticipation that the show fulfills. We keep coming back for it.

I find many of the simpler Fantasyland Attractions do a good job of 'placing you'.
'Peter Pan's Flight' was an example i used earlier, and it would probably not be considered a E-ticket, but it creates a wonderful 'place'.

'The Little Mermaid' dark ride does attempt to take you under the sea...but it fails to deliver a compelling and enveloping experience in my opinion.
If the original concept presented by Tony Baxter had been built instead, it would have had a much better effect at creating that sensation of being underwater in a simple, yet cleverly effective way.
A shame that this version was not built.

I agree that for a screen-based Attraction, 'Soarin' delivers for what it is.
It is enjoyable and there are moments when you can pretend you are really flying over those scenic areas.