Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks

[redshoesrock]

I think IOA is a great example of very good theming within lands, without a cohesive theme.

There's a simple reason for that - IoA is Universal's take on MK. Think about it:

MK - Six themed "lands"
IoA - Six themed "islands"

MK - Uniquely themed entrance (Main Street USA)
IoA - Uniquely themed entrance (Port of Entry)

MK - Dumbo
IoA - Dumbo-type ride (One Fish, Two Fish)

MK - One flume ride (Splash Mountain)
IoA - One flume ride (Ripsaw Falls)

MK - Two adult roller-coasters (Space and Big Thunder)
IoA - Two adult roller-coasters (Hulk and Dragon Challenge)

etc.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Speaking of the "Disneyfication" of existing literature, I think the world owes a big thank you to Disney for saving a lot of valuable things from slipping into obscurity. For a long time (and this was still true when I was younger), people would sneer at Disney for dolling up and toning down classic fairy tales and such. That was when most people, the culture in general, still had independent exposure to the stories in older (and frequently darker) forms. People read fairy tales to their kids growing up. Everyone knew them, it seems.

Now, with literacy so very low, I'm afraid that if Disney hadn't made Snow White, a shocking percentage of the population would not even know the story exists. People buy storybooks to read to their kids because they and their kids saw the Snow White film first.

Very good point. So true. To your point, after seeing the Mary Poppins stage show, my kids hated it for being too dark and the kids too bratty comparing it to the movie, preferring the Disney version. So it can also happen that people prefer the Disney version to the original tone. Softening the stories played well with my kids as they could experience them at a younger age.

 

[RSoxNo1]

There's a simple reason for that - IoA is Universal's take on MK. Think about it:

MK - Six themed "lands"
IoA - Six themed "islands"

MK - Uniquely themed entrance (Main Street USA)
IoA - Uniquely themed entrance (Port of Entry)

MK - Dumbo
IoA - Dumbo-type ride (One Fish, Two Fish)

MK - One flume ride (Splash Mountain)
IoA - One flume ride (Ripsaw Falls)

MK - Two adult roller-coasters (Space and Big Thunder)
IoA - Two adult roller-coasters (Hulk and Dragon Challenge)

etc.

People look at Disney as a solid design plan - however I think your explanation is over simplified.

 

[redshoesrock]

People look at Disney as a solid design plan - however I think your explanation is over simplified.

I have to respectfully disagree. While of course I can't prove it since I wasn't there at the initial planning meetings, I highly suspect that the inspiration for IoA was to make a "Universal-version" of the Magic Kingdom.

 

[AEfx]

I don't really buy the "IOA is based on lit" thing, but it doesn't matter because it's a lot more simple in my opinion:

IOA works because it's a great collection of awesome rides.

They have some really great, large scale attractions. In most cases, the best version of any cloned rides is at IOA. In others, it's the only place to experience them.

Universal may not be as "themed" as Disney, and while theme is an extremely important part of Disney quality, we often forget that this is more important to fans than anyone else. Most people just want great rides. That's what IOA (and USF, which gets ignored quite often but they also have some really great attractions) has.

IOA itself houses the two greatest dark rides in the world. Pretty much undisputed. There isn't a ton of filler, and for many years it feels like Disney has just been adding filler and not centerpieces. With FLE we are finally getting what sounds like it's going to be a wonderful, welcome, and needed expansion at MK (our Fantasyland may very well go from last place to first when all is said and done) but I really hope Disney tries to start pushing the envelope again. They could outdo Universal easily if they tried, but instead we get things like "MILF" and "Toy Story Mania", more uninspired attractions based on Pixar more times than not.

 

[flavious27]

I don't really buy the "IOA is based on lit" thing, but it doesn't matter because it's a lot more simple in my opinion:

IOA works because it's a great collection of awesome rides.

They have some really great, large scale attractions. In most cases, the best version of any cloned rides is at IOA. In others, it's the only place to experience them.

Universal may not be as "themed" as Disney, and while theme is an extremely important part of Disney quality, we often forget that this is more important to fans than anyone else. Most people just want great rides. That's what IOA (and USF, which gets ignored quite often but they also have some really great attractions) has.

IOA itself houses the two greatest dark rides in the world. Pretty much undisputed. There isn't a ton of filler, and for many years it feels like Disney has just been adding filler and not centerpieces. With FLE we are finally getting what sounds like it's going to be a wonderful, welcome, and needed expansion at MK (our Fantasyland may very well go from last place to first when all is said and done) but I really hope Disney tries to start pushing the envelope again. They could outdo Universal easily if they tried, but instead we get things like "MILF" and "Toy Story Mania", more uninspired attractions based on Pixar more times than not.

I won't dispute that IOA has some good rides, my problem with universal's treatment of IOA is that they waited almost 10 years before adding to the lineup of rides. Where is the draw on going on the same rides, most off the shelve, year after year with nothing new?

 

[Krack]

I won't dispute that IOA has some good rides, my problem with universal's treatment of IOA is that they waited almost 10 years before adding to the lineup of rides. Where is the draw on going on the same rides, most off the shelve, year after year with nothing new?

Sounds like the Magic Kingdom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only new attractions in the last ten years at MK are Monsters Inc Laugh Factory and Stitch's Great Escape. Not really the best track record there.

 

[RandySavage]

Universal may not be as "themed" as Disney, and while theme is an extremely important part of Disney quality, we often forget that this is more important to fans than anyone else. Most people just want great rides. That's what IOA (and USF, which gets ignored quite often but they also have some really great attractions) has.

I'm going to disagree (slightly) and say theme-ing is at least an equal partner to quality&quantity of rides in bringing in the average park-goer. Although the former (theme-ing) may not be play as overt a part in the average park-goer's mind ("where's the beef?"), I think, consciously or subconsciously, it at least equals rides.

The above is based on the only empirical data we have: attendance. The well-themed parks leave the lesser themed ones (even within the Disney roster) in the dust. Like the average park-goer, I'm a ride guy, so I agree with you that parks like the Studios and DAK need more rides, stat, to be worthwhile and fulfilling. But I'm also compelled by their inbetween theme-ing (particularly DAK) as much as by rides. And a well-themed but attraction-lite park (DAK), routinely outdraws IOA and USF by a significant margin. While there are reasons for this in addition to theme-ing, this fact doesn't support the "average people prefer rides over theme-ing" theory. Granted the parks with the fewest rides (DAK, MGM) are the least visited among the 4 WDW parks (and again there are reasons for this in addition to # of rides), so I'm not understating the importance of rides, just saying that theme-ing plays as important a role.

To your point, look at HKDL and its direct competitor, Hong Kong Ocean Park. HKDL is well-themed but very light on rides. Ocean Park is closer to Busch Gardens/Six Flags in its level of execution, but has many more rides and has outdrawn HKDL over the last five years (again, there are other contributing factors). However, HKDL is closing the gap, and by 2013, with its three new areas (and 5 new rides (3 of which are kiddie rides), Disney, while still having significantly fewer overall rides, will likely outdraw Ocean Park. If that happens, it will show that success in theme parks is the one-two punch of rides (attractions) and great theme-ing.

Bottom line: like popcorn movies, theme parks are popular because they provide escapism. The best parks (and most popular) provide a total experience, where the illusion is maintained as strongly as possible. Disney has historically been better at maintaining the illusion (theme-ing) throughout the park than Universal or anyone else. Seeing a giant Potter showbuilding from the Jurassic Park jungle or walking through a medieval castle only to board a modern steel coaster are bubble-bursting design choices - the escapist effect is weakened and people aren't as compelled to return: attendance figures seem to reflect this.

I still think IOA is a top tier park in both attractions and theme-ing. While it makes some sacrifices in theme (e.g., naked coasters), it makes up for that in high-octane rides and lot of its theme-ing is on par with the best of Disney. It also opened with a full day's worth of attractions, which is pretty anomalous.

From its design, I think (wish) IOA should have been a home-run from day one, upping the ante for WDW and WDI. Sadly, it wasn't (for a number of reasons: botched marketing/name, market saturation, subject matter, etc.) and has limped along for a decade, allowing WDW to rest on its laurels. Like most people, I think Potter is fantastic and hopefully heats up park development for both Disney & Universal. Eagerly awaiting the 2010 attendance report.

 

[mydogipluto]

Sounds like the Magic Kingdom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only new attractions in the last ten years at MK are Monsters Inc Laugh Factory and Stitch's Great Escape. Not really the best track record there.

New at Magic Kingdom last 10 years
2001 - Magic Carpets of Aladdin
2003 - Mickey's Philharmagic
2004 - Stitch's Great Escape
2007 - Monster Inc Laugh Factory

and 1999 - Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh


Not to mention all the additions to the other parks in last 10yrs (plus slightly) -
1998 - AK opens
1999 - Rock ‘n Roller Coaster – Starring Aerosmith
2001 - Walt Disney: One Man's Dream
2001 - Who Wants To Be A Millionaire – Play It!
2001 - Playhouse Disney – Live on Stage
2003 - Mission: SPACE
2004 - Turtle Talk with Crush!
2005 - Soarin
2005 - Lights, Motors, Action! Extreme Stunt Show
2005 - Crush ‘n’ Gusher
2006 - Expedition Everest
2008 - Toy Story Mania!
2009 - The American Idol Experience


Not a bad 10yrs. Could be better but a lot of $$ spent in a time when a lot of corporations were not spending. Don't want to get political but the 00's were a tough time with 9/11, the wars, the economy, etc.

 

[lazyboy97o]

One thing I think a lot of people want to ignore about Islands of Adventure is how much it is supposed to work. It is built almost entirely around well known franchises and intellectual property with mostly big attractions. It had all of today's "keys" to theme park success and yet it never really had it until now. Until the Wizarding World of Harry Potter the most popular section was Merlin Wood of the Lost Continent with Dueling Dragons at the top of the "must do" list, which has no been relegated to 5 minute waits.

Where both Universal parks really fall short is in the offering of smaller experiences that help to populate and flesh out the various areas. Both parks need more attractions like Triceratops Encounter and The Cat in the Hat.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I don't really buy the "IOA is based on lit" thing, but it doesn't matter because it's a lot more simple in my opinion:

IOA works because it's a great collection of awesome rides.

They have some really great, large scale attractions. In most cases, the best version of any cloned rides is at IOA. In others, it's the only place to experience them.

Universal may not be as "themed" as Disney, and while theme is an extremely important part of Disney quality, we often forget that this is more important to fans than anyone else. Most people just want great rides. That's what IOA (and USF, which gets ignored quite often but they also have some really great attractions) has.

IOA itself houses the two greatest dark rides in the world. Pretty much undisputed. There isn't a ton of filler, and for many years it feels like Disney has just been adding filler and not centerpieces. With FLE we are finally getting what sounds like it's going to be a wonderful, welcome, and needed expansion at MK (our Fantasyland may very well go from last place to first when all is said and done) but I really hope Disney tries to start pushing the envelope again. They could outdo Universal easily if they tried, but instead we get things like "MILF" and "Toy Story Mania", more uninspired attractions based on Pixar more times than not.

Islands of Adventure has the two best rides in Orlando, but it also has uninspired rides as well. Dueling Dragons and The Hulk are out of place in a themed environment like that. Sure, it's not as bad as Six Flags but they feel out of place to me.

The park does survive on its attraction lineup, but that can only take it so far, DCA is a prime example of this. It has a solid attraction lineup, but the entire concept was uninspiring and poorly executed.

This is why Harry Potter was so well received. It added the best ride on the planet, and from the second you entire that land you are fully immersed in the environment. The only time you're really taken out of that environment is when you're actually on Dragon Challenge.

I'm going to disagree (slightly) and say theme-ing is at least an equal partner to quality&quantity of rides in bringing in the average park-goer. Although the former (theme-ing) may not be play as overt a part in the average park-goer's mind ("where's the beef?"), I think, consciously or subconsciously, it at least equals rides.

The above is based on the only empirical data we have: attendance. The well-themed parks leave the lesser themed ones (even within the Disney roster) in the dust. Like the average park-goer, I'm a ride guy, so I agree with you that parks like the Studios and DAK need more rides, stat, to be worthwhile and fulfilling. But I'm also compelled by their inbetween theme-ing (particularly DAK) as much as by rides. And a well-themed but attraction-lite park (DAK), routinely outdraws IOA and USF by a significant margin. While there are reasons for this in addition to theme-ing, this fact doesn't support the "average people prefer rides over theme-ing" theory. Granted the parks with the fewest rides (DAK, MGM) are the least visited among the 4 WDW parks (and again there are reasons for this in addition to # of rides), so I'm not understating the importance of rides, just saying that theme-ing plays as important a role.

To your point, look at HKDL and its direct competitor, Hong Kong Ocean Park. HKDL is well-themed but very light on rides. Ocean Park is closer to Busch Gardens/Six Flags in its level of execution, but has many more rides and has outdrawn HKDL over the last five years (again, there are other contributing factors). However, HKDL is closing the gap, and by 2013, with its three new areas (and 5 new rides (3 of which are kiddie rides), Disney, while still having significantly fewer overall rides, will likely outdraw Ocean Park. If that happens, it will show that success in theme parks is the one-two punch of rides (attractions) and great theme-ing.

Bottom line: like popcorn movies, theme parks are popular because they provide escapism. The best parks (and most popular) provide a total experience, where the illusion is maintained as strongly as possible. Disney has historically been better at maintaining the illusion (theme-ing) throughout the park than Universal or anyone else. Seeing a giant Potter showbuilding from the Jurassic Park jungle or walking through a medieval castle only to board a modern steel coaster are bubble-bursting design choices - the escapist effect is weakened and people aren't as compelled to return: attendance figures seem to reflect this.

I still think IOA is a top tier park in both attractions and theme-ing. While it makes some sacrifices in theme (e.g., naked coasters), it makes up for that in high-octane rides and lot of its theme-ing is on par with the best of Disney. It also opened with a full day's worth of attractions, which is pretty anomalous.

From its design, I think (wish) IOA should have been a home-run from day one, upping the ante for WDW and WDI. Sadly, it wasn't (for a number of reasons: botched marketing/name, market saturation, subject matter, etc.) and has limped along for a decade, allowing WDW to rest on its laurels. Like most people, I think Potter is fantastic and hopefully heats up park development for both Disney & Universal. Eagerly awaiting the 2010 attendance report.

I pretty much agree with everything here. It's important to stress this last paragraph though as several people failed to realize what Islands of Adventure was based on the marketing campaign. It also opened at a time when the widespread usage of the internet was not at the same level it's at now so the fact that they were similarly vague about the opening of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter was not an issue.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

One thing I think a lot of people want to ignore about Islands of Adventure is how much it is supposed to work. It is built almost entirely around well known franchises and intellectual property with mostly big attractions. It had all of today's "keys" to theme park success and yet it never really had it until now. Until the Wizarding World of Harry Potter the most popular section was Merlin Wood of the Lost Continent with Dueling Dragons at the top of the "must do" list, which has no been relegated to 5 minute waits.

Where both Universal parks really fall short is in the offering of smaller experiences that help to populate and flesh out the various areas. Both parks need more attractions like Triceratops Encounter and The Cat in the Hat.

To me, the power of "seamless" experiences and continuity of detail is underestimated. They build the rides but fall short on suspending the disbelief. HP is the firs thing the've done that quenches the guest's thirst in a way that drills deep and suspends the spell. The fire and ice coasters are a waste with all of this detail and theming only to get on an Iron Ride. Perfect example of not getting it. Triceratops is rich and seamless.

 

[lazyboy97o]

To me, the power of "seamless" experiences and continuity of detail is underestimated. They build the rides but fall short on suspending the disbelief. HP is the firs thing the've done that quenches the guest's thirst in a way that drills deep and suspends the spell. The fire and ice coasters are a waste with all of this detail and theming only to get on an Iron Ride. Perfect example of not getting it. Triceratops is rich and seamless.

I completely agree. I think Jurassic Park would have been much better if the first thing encountered is the Discovery Center, just as is described in the book and shown in the film. It would not be much of a marvel, and might even have been closed by now, but an introduction like the ride-through tour shown in the film would, I think, do a lot to make the island far more real.

The attraction first model though seems to have been embraced in today's world, even though I cannot think of one place where it has been received as expected. Even with discussions about marvel entering the Disney parks, many just say they do not care so long as the attraction is solid and well themed (whatever that actually that means to each particular person; fans tending to like "inside" references and architectural ornamentation). Yet despite all of this talk about just wanting good attractions, people do not what they say they will.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I completely agree. I think Jurassic Park would have been much better if the first thing encountered is the Discovery Center, just as is described in the book and shown in the film. It would not be much of a marvel, and might even have been closed by now, but an introduction like the ride-through tour shown in the film would, I think, do a lot to make the island far more real.

The attraction first model though seems to have been embraced in today's world, even though I cannot think of one place where it has been received as expected. Even with discussions about marvel entering the Disney parks, many just say they do not care so long as the attraction is solid and well themed (whatever that actually that means to each particular person; fans tending to like "inside" references and architectural ornamentation). Yet despite all of this talk about just wanting good attractions, people do not what they say they will.

I remember a project manager on "Mission:Space" saying that we should just do the spinning Capsule part with no pre or post show at all as that's the part the guest likes best. Cut the budget way back. Yeah right.

 

[ScoutN]

I remember a project manager on "Mission:Space" saying that we should just do the spinning Capsule part with no pre or post show at all as that's the part the guest likes best. Cut the budget way back. Yeah right.

I could not imagine anything at Disney without the story they hold. The pre/post shows are what makes that alongside of Test Track and Dinosaur what they are. They are an immersive experience that makes you feel as if you are right there in the facility of the story. The only people I could even fathom to preferring the shows not there are the middle/high school students that run a muck on school trips.

I do not know how familiar you are with Busch Gardens Williamsburg. There is an attraction there call "Darkastle." It used to have a pre-show for the first year or so that it was open but to "increase capacity" it was chopped down, run on a loop, and now you pass through the room with the screen and get on a ride with no real backstory.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I could not imagine anything at Disney without the story they hold. The pre/post shows are what makes that alongside of Test Track and Dinosaur what they are. They are an immersive experience that makes you feel as if you are right there in the facility of the story. The only people I could even fathom to preferring the shows not there are the middle/high school students that run a muck on school trips.

I do not know how familiar you are with Busch Gardens Williamsburg. There is an attraction there call "Darkastle." It used to have a pre-show for the first year or so that it was open but to "increase capacity" it was chopped down, run on a loop, and now you pass through the room with the screen and get on a ride with no real backstory.

I am noticing this trend with Dinosaur and Test Track as well. Dinosaur ushers people into the preshow room and sometimes the show is half over by the time people walk in. The single rider line at Test Track (not sure about the regular rooms because I haven't done those in quite some time) doesn't even try anymore. They leave both doors open and you just walk through. The only save there is that the backup is usually pretty long so you find youself seeing the movie (sometimes more than once).

 

[ParkMan73]

I am noticing this trend with Dinosaur and Test Track as well. Dinosaur ushers people into the preshow room and sometimes the show is half over by the time people walk in. The single rider line at Test Track (not sure about the regular rooms because I haven't done those in quite some time) doesn't even try anymore. They leave both doors open and you just walk through. The only save there is that the backup is usually pretty long so you find youself seeing the movie (sometimes more than once).

I've seen this too.

It leads me to think that there must be all kinds of internal Disney debates between the "people just want rides" crowd and the "people want good theming" crowd.

I imagine it's frustrating when the folks running the rides make those kinds of decisions!

 

[KevinYee]

I could not imagine anything at Disney without the story they hold.

Primeval Whirl, California Screamin', Mulholland Madness qualify.

But that doesn't mean that Disney never did those successfully. Many of the older Disneyland rides (Autopia, Motorboat Cruise, Skyway, PeopleMover) have no real story - they are 'atmosphere' rides (you move around physically).

 

[ScoutN]

Primeval Whirl, California Screamin', Mulholland Madness qualify.

But that doesn't mean that Disney never did those successfully. Many of the older Disneyland rides (Autopia, Motorboat Cruise, Skyway, PeopleMover) have no real story - they are 'atmosphere' rides (you move around physically).

That is going to the extremes of my statement. Plenty of others grasped the concept presented. Take into account all of the aspects that goes into each of those attractions and compare then to their counterparts and non-Disney parks.

I don't follow much in Cali being born and raised on the east coast so I cannot comment on those attractions.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Primeval Whirl, California Screamin', Mulholland Madness qualify.

But that doesn't mean that Disney never did those successfully. Many of the older Disneyland rides (Autopia, Motorboat Cruise, Skyway, PeopleMover) have no real story - they are 'atmosphere' rides (you move around physically).

Let me preface this by saying that I strongly dislike Primeval Whirl and Mulholland Madness.

Primeval Whirl has a backstory, but it's linked to the backstory of all of Dinorama - in my mind that story is overwritten to compensate for a lack of real theming (and more likely a lack of real money).

California Screamin' has little to know backstory, but I'd say that it falls into the atmospheric category that you referenced as well. While it's similar to the static steel coasters over at IOA or Six Flags, It does blend into the environment better than the Universal counterparts.

Mulholland Madness is awful, I'm not optimistic about Goofy's Sky School either. I do think that if there's an insistence on these off the shelf wild mouse coasters at the very least they should be put indoors.