Jungle Cruise Update

[Californian Elitist]

You seem to have forgotten your short-lived anti-Rocketeer phase

That was sarcasm.

It’s best to ignore attention-seeking posts. We’ve spent over a year getting into heated political arguments and we’ve now gotten to a place where we’re discussing the DLR again. Let’s keep it that way.

 

[el_super]

I think Disney has bigger priorities for a while than completely removing their decades old jungle ride.

Not at all. In fact, Disney clearly sees JC as an investment, because they're putting all of this CapEx into redoing the attraction for the foreseeable future.

I think both things are statements are true... For now. But long term? Do these changes not have the ability to turn people away from the Jungle Cruise?

Checking boxes is often a sure fire way to get lousy content. They can’t exactly use the movie since it has not been released, therefore it has not proved itself, and we know it draws from at least the natives scene.

It is weird that they are not adding the IP from the movie, but I think again they are trying to get away from that to appease the fans.

You say this as though the Jungle Cruise turns out empty boats, is not in four of the six Disneylands, was not imitated all over the world and that people still don’t wonder why it was excluded from Disneyland Paris, the reason being the ubiquity of imitations.

There has to be a reason they keep sinking money into these attractions, and if its not to recover the costs, then what could it be?

 

[el_super]

I'm by no means against change. I'm just against change I disagree with. Disneyland has many areas that would be improved with change.

Well yeah... Aren't we all. I think the question is, if you are pre-determined to hate changes due to the underlying issues causing the change, and not the changes themselves, you are setting yourself up to hate almost every change coming down the line in the next few years. So why put yourself through that?

 

[PiratesMansion]

There has to be a reason they keep sinking money into these attractions, and if its not to recover the costs, then what could it be?

Plussing, "plussing," or "remove the problematic element and call it plussing," as the case may be.

It's been going on officially since the 60s, but you could make the argument that it happened even earlier than that with the Motorboat Cruise and what became the Fantasyland Autopia.

Why sink money into attractions? Because updates keep audience interest and for a fraction of the cost of continually doing brand new, ground up investments all the time.

After all, WDW hardly ever plusses anything and you're left with attractions with the same effects they have from when they opened, often not even maintained well. It might just make the attractions seem dated, which might cause them to be removed, which is almost certainly more expensive than if you had just updated the thing when you had the opportunity (see: Pleasure Island, many of the original Epcot pavilions, etc).

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

I think both things are statements are true... For now. But long term? Do these changes not have the ability to turn people away from the Jungle

The biggest change to JC happened in the late 50s when it was decided that the script would take a humorous tone changing the feel of the ride and the role of the skipper entirely. Since then (as we all know) there have been numerous scenes added, like the elephant bathing pool, gorilla camp, etc.

If anything most additions to JC have peaked interest, and even if these adds are a miss, the scripts/set up can be changed to adjust. And given that the JC is now it’s own ecosystem within the park, it’s highly unlikely WDI will tear down the jungle/foliage which is now a de facto part of the berm.

There has to be a reason they keep sinking money into these attractions, and if its not to recover the costs, then what could it be?

Why did Walt add dinosaurs to the DLRR instead of replicating Ford’s Magic Highway? Why did Imagineers of the late 70s add Harold to the Matterhorn when the coaster was already dated by standards of the time? Why did Tony Baxter preserve the town of Rainbow Ridge as an homage to Nature’s Wonderland with BTMRR? Etc.

Respectfully what you see as “sinking money” I see as building on and honoring the legacy past while alluring new audiences in the present (in some cases with more success than others). But it is arguably the key to successful theme park design.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

For now. But long term? Do these changes not have the ability to turn people away from the Jungle Cruise?

And given that the JC is now it’s own ecosystem within the park, it’s highly unlikely WDI will tear down the jungle/foliage which is now a de facto part of the berm.

 

[el_super]

Why sink money into attractions? Because updates keep audience interest and for a fraction of the cost of continually doing brand new, ground up investments all the time.

That really only works if an attraction has unsold capacity though right? Otherwise you spend money convincing people to ride something they physically can't ride.

A case could be made that additions don't have to attract crowds to the park in order to add value and recoup costs, but Disney still has to get something out of it to justify the expense.

 

[el_super]

And given that the JC is now it’s own ecosystem within the park, it’s highly unlikely WDI will tear down the jungle/foliage which is now a de facto part of the berm.

That jungle comes at a pretty high cost though, not just in water but also in maintenance. That means the ridership burden needed to justify keeping it around is higher than other low maintenance attractions.

Why did Walt add dinosaurs to the DLRR instead of replicating Ford’s Magic Highway? Why did Imagineers of the late 70s add Harold to the Matterhorn when the coaster was already dated by standards of the time? Why did Tony Baxter preserve the town of Rainbow Ridge as an homage to Nature’s Wonderland with BTMRR? Etc.

Cost savings, competition, and cost savings.

Respectfully what you see as “sinking money” I see as building on and honoring the legacy past while alluring new audiences in the present (in some cases with more success than others). But it is arguably the key to successful theme park design.

I don't mean to imply that its a waste of money, as it wouldn't be if Disney gets something out of it.

Thats kind of the point: most people don't invest in a new roof, unless there is something wrong with the old one.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Thats kind of the point: most people don't invest in a new roof, unless there is something wrong with the old one.

Except people do invest in new roofs that change up the materials. Roofs are less frequent since they’re not seen as much, but people pour thousands into kitchens and bathrooms and the return on that is little more than TV fantasy.

 

[PiratesMansion]

That really only works if an attraction has unsold capacity though right? Otherwise you spend money convincing people to ride something they physically can't ride.

A case could be made that additions don't have to attract crowds to the park in order to add value and recoup costs, but Disney still has to get something out of it to justify the expense.

Yes, you're right, it IS stupid for Disney to do overlays on Space Mountain!

But seriously, Disney has been doing this for decades. You speak as if this is some unfathomable thing.

It's pretty much always going to be cheaper to upgrade an older attraction vs. build a brand new one. And unless they reuse Jungle Cruise's infrastructure it'd be a huge job to do something different there, and since it is a park original, you'd get quite a lot of pushback. Pushback that I'm not sure even modern Disney's ready to deal with.

And something tends to happen when attractions have been around for a long time. Once an attraction has been around for 50 years or so, it starts to become untouchable. And that's not just at Disney, that's at every park that's been around for awhile. If a ride can make it to 50, it's likely going to stick around. Now, some more than others. I don't know that the subs will make it to their 100th anniversary, for example. But Jungle Cruise is iconic in a way that even the subs, I'd argue, are not.

People may not come to the park just to ride Jungle Cruise anymore. It may not be one of the most popular experiences. But it's one of those things that makes Disneyland Disneyland. Because of that, they can't just gut the thing. Even the company knows that. "Maybe later they'll do it," you say. Sure, maybe. But we're not there yet, are we?

 

[mickEblu]

In the Elephant Graveyard, in the shadows of Stromboli’s wagon on a cold rainy night, nestled under Ursulas pancakes and upper torso, where the sun doesn’t shine and the flowers don’t grow, that is where you will find @el_super

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

One of many who have ruined this forum.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

Once an attraction has been around for 50 years or so, it starts to become untouchable.

This exactly. Could you imagine the doing away with IASW, or PotC, HM, or in this case JC entirely? they’d alienate the majority of the fanbase, and such a decision would be an extremely pathetic business move. The only reason attractions like the subs or autopia are constantly on the choppong block, is because they’re not as memorable as the others, and maintenance is extremely tedious. They would’ve been gone long ago, had it not been for management being afraid to do away with both due to their size and the amount of CapEx they’d have to spend on demolition, resulting in very little financial return.

JC has the iconic jokes and cheesy gags, IASW has the world’s most famous song ever written, PotC is a pop culture giant, with its own score in ride and movie, and the same can be said for HM (minus its popularity in cinema). They’re staples for a reason, and up to this year, Splash was on a trajectory to follow suit along with the other mountains. Unfortunately it’s deep rooted SotS ties are impossible to fix without doing away with them entirely, hence a re-theme.

 

[aliceismad]

I think it's funny that people are riled up about adding the hint of a backstory to Jungle Cruise, especially when that backstory is original (not IP-based) and ties into the much beloved S.E.A. and Mystic Manor, etc.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

I think it's funny that people are riled up about adding the hint of a backstory to Jungle Cruise, especially when that backstory is original (not IP-based) and ties into the much beloved S.E.A. and Mystic Manor, etc.

I don't think I'd describe S.E.A. as beloved on this side of the forums.

 

[TP2000]

I think it's funny that people are riled up about adding the hint of a backstory to Jungle Cruise, especially when that backstory is original (not IP-based) and ties into the much beloved S.E.A. and Mystic Manor, etc.

We don't care about Joe Rohde, his distended earlobe, or any contrived backstories he and his WDI groupies may have made up in the Four Seasons Bali lobby bar drinking on an expense account in 2004.

This is the Disneyland side of the forums. We just don't get into that here. Especially when it's a ride Walt built and refined himself.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I think it's funny that people are riled up about adding the hint of a backstory to Jungle Cruise, especially when that backstory is original (not IP-based) and ties into the much beloved S.E.A. and Mystic Manor, etc.

I don’t know what S.E.A. is and Mystic Manor isn’t a Disneyland attraction.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think it's funny that people are riled up about adding the hint of a backstory to Jungle Cruise, especially when that backstory is original (not IP-based) and ties into the much beloved S.E.A. and Mystic Manor, etc.

For awhile now SEA has been an example of trying too hard.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

We don't care about Joe Rohde, his distended earlobe, or any contrived backstories he and his WDI groupies may have made up in the Four Seasons Bali lobby bar drinking on an expense account in 2004.

This is the Disneyland side of the forums. We just don't get into that here. Especially when it's a ride Walt built and refined himself.

Walt just didn't have a great understanding of Immersion and Storytelling and he was limited by the technology and sexism of the time. Now with these new digital women, Disney Imagineering can finally fulfill Walt's Original Vision and bring the Jungle Cruise into the 21st Century for modern more sophisticated audiences.

 

[SuddenStorm]

We don't care about Joe Rohde, his distended earlobe, or any contrived backstories he and his WDI groupies may have made up in the Four Seasons Bali lobby bar drinking on an expense account in 2004.

This is the Disneyland side of the forums. We just don't get into that here. Especially when it's a ride Walt built and refined himself.

It's not just Walt. The scenes they're replacing were designed by Marc Davis, and many of those figures were sculpted by Blaine Gibson.

Disneyland only has so many places left that are basically exactly as they were in the golden age of Disneyland. The Matterhorn is the same in name only, the experience is so vastly different then it was in Walt's time. Same with the ROA, Pirates, Fantasyland, Main Street, the Castle. The treehouse. The Monorail. The Submarines. It's a Small World. The Railroad. Very little that existed in Walt's time is still there- and what is still there is vastly different then what actually existed in the '60s.

But for the most part, the major show scenes in the Jungle Cruise are exactly the same. If you look at pictures of the Jungle Cruise in the '60s and the Jungle Cruise today- it's practically identical.

Here's the trapped safari in 1964-

And here it is in 2006-

WDI needs to be very careful when they change stuff that goes back to the earliest days of Disneyland. And this Alberta Falls nonsense makes me feel like they don't quite get the Jungle Cruise.