To some, probably. But I personally like it. It's not perfect, but I'm glad that they finally did a Little Mermaid ride.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Book report attractions - what's the deal?
- Thread starter mharrington
- Start date
To some, probably. But I personally like it. It's not perfect, but I'm glad that they finally did a Little Mermaid ride.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
How is it not a 'book report'? Where does it expand upon the film?
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
EnergyKing
Well-Known Member
They already did a Little Mermaid attraction a million years ago (MGM/DHS/whatever). There was no need to do virtually the same story except with slow moving vehicles. Now, if it were some other kind of attraction, maybe a scary ride centered around Ursula (think SWA underwater) I can see the purpose. But it's not only a lesser ride but a seemingly pointless one. There was no need to build it. The story already existed elsewhere in WDW.
Phineas
Well-Known Member
There's that, and if you look at the concept art of what the Imagineers originally had in mind, and compare it to what we actually got-it's just so disappointing. And the book report isn't even a coherent one:
"Eric Kisses Ariel. Ursula is therefore struck by lightning and defeated." What.
This isn't the image I've seen before, but it gives you an idea-you would actually play a more active role in the experience originally. Ursula was menacing.
The Little Mermaid is one of Disney's very best, and really deserved better than this.
For your information, the Studios attraction is a live stage show, and one that should be replaced and probably will be soon. Like I said, the dark ride is not perfect, but it's better than nothing at all. In all honesty, none of the dark rides are perfect.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
What I don't like about Little Mermaid is that you're just watching scenes from the film. You don't feel like you are a part of the story, or experiencing the story first hand.
Peter Pan on the other hand, lets you experience that world. You are flying over London. You're not just passively watching.
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride puts you in the action. You get hit by a train and sent to hell. Again, you're not just passively watching a scene from the movie play out.
For me there should be a feeling of interaction between the guests and the attraction. In Snow White it's the witch offering you an apple. In Pooh it's bouncing along with Tigger.
A book report attraction like Mermaid just shows you the highlights. A better attraction includes highlights from the film it is based on, while offering a different perspective or putting you into the action.
Peter Pan on the other hand, lets you experience that world. You are flying over London. You're not just passively watching.
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride puts you in the action. You get hit by a train and sent to hell. Again, you're not just passively watching a scene from the movie play out.
For me there should be a feeling of interaction between the guests and the attraction. In Snow White it's the witch offering you an apple. In Pooh it's bouncing along with Tigger.
A book report attraction like Mermaid just shows you the highlights. A better attraction includes highlights from the film it is based on, while offering a different perspective or putting you into the action.
righttrack
Well-Known Member
Remember the old Lion King attraction where Philharmagic is? That was really a reader's digest version of The Lion King.
Roakor
Well-Known Member
I agree that the change in the rides, from the point of view of the main character to a 3rd person point of view, does make it feel like they "dumbed it down". I preferred the original way. However one thing you have to consider, and most seem to forget, is these rides and attractions are suppose to be more for small children, not adults. Since I haven't heard too many kids complaining about them, in fact most seem to be very happy with them, then I must concede that Disney is not doing anything wrong here.
WondersOfLife
Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
Really? Honestly, the mermaid ride is fine. The Nemo ride is fine. But Mermaid is a step above nemo.. With less annoying repeats, songs work better on a loop than one repeated line over and over again, it gives you a headache. On top of that, Little Mermaid uses animatronics instead of screens. Which also can keep your attention much longer.
French Quarter
Well-Known Member
Who told you that?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That is not forgotten. It is just a lie pushed by those who don't really like themed entertainment.
EnergyKing
Well-Known Member
To be honest, me and my gf were pretty bombed off margaritas when we rode Nemo. I guess it enhanced the experience.
But yea, both rides are pretty bad.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
People went nuts when I said that on another thread. Or maybe they already were nuts.
I agree with you.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
And you're both wrong.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
And you still don't have the authority to state that as anything other than your own opinion.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Why do you want to be a disturbed individual overly interested in children's entertainment? A small amount of paying attention or study can show the concept of Disney's parks being developed for you then children to be patently false.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with the fact that I enjoy a park designed with kids/families in mind.
You seem to have to justify it. So, is that your psychological hang up - you think if you admit it's mainly for kids or a certain ride is mainly for kids, that makes you "a disturbed individual" for enjoying it? Is that why there's such a reaction when anyone says that?
Because that's not what it makes me. I'm just a fan who never went to WDW until my 29th birthday and couldn't believe how much I enjoyed it. And I keep going back.
But I think it's healthy to keep in mind that, while anyone can ride Winnie the Pooh (clearly by the way it was built) it was primarily aimed at children but built so their parents could accompany them and would find something worthy in it as well.
Now, I enjoy that ride, but I have a different set of expectations on that ride vs. Tower, which was clearly aimed a little higher. I can't apply critiques of continuity, storyline, realism to Pooh (or Pirates, to acknowledge the other thread) to the same degree I would ToT.
Because I have realistic expectations of a theme park and am not obsessed.
Your struggle is not real.
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
Yes.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They're low expectations. That shouldn't be a point of pride. Kids consume a lot of garbage and their not at all known for their choices of quality storytelling.
An adult can't just go hang out alone at Chick E. Cheese or a Legoland Fiscovery Center. It would be considered weird if an adult spent time watching watching stuff like Disney Junior without kids. It would be creepy and weird and isn't something one would proudly aspire towards.
Being appropriate for kids to enjoy doesn't make somethings for kids. The subjects and content are show how the parks were not designed for kids. No parks designed for kids turn into the sort of experiential spaces found within Disney's parks.