It is also in the "how" they execute the movies - for just one example, the Swiss Family Robinson treehouse was based on a Disney movie, it felt organic and you lived the adventure and I loved it for years. Tarzan's Treehouse - um, well, not so much.
Disney used to be MUCH more in-tune with the aspirational element of experience-building.
Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse vs. Tarzan's Treehouse is a great case-study in this. I understand the impulse to create greater differentiation between the original Treehouse experience and the new one, but shoving awkward fiberglass character sculptures into the Treehouse undercut a core principal of what made it work in the first place. The experience became about you exploring the Treehouse - it's tenants were practically incidental beyond the fact that they were the ones who purportedly build this enormous, magical Treehouse that's incredible to behold outside and in. In its own trick, the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse managed to feel more lived-in than Tarzan's Treehouse ever has - it always felt as if the Family was off in the Jungle and might return at any time. Meanwhile, Tarzan is
there, but he's SUPER fake.
Even Tokyo Disney Sea, for all its accomplishments, managed to make an aspirational misstep with their 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea attraction. They park that big, beautiful Nautilus out front, but when you get to the load they pop you into this puny, clunky sub pod you've never seen before and never dreamed about. I completely understand why - their ride is completely different from what we had at the MK in a hundred ways for a hundred reasons, but getting to step down into Captain Nemo's legendary mysterious submarine and explore an actual, rich, vivid underwater environment was some serious aspirational erotica. Even if you didn't know the characters, the movie, or even the book, the conceit was incredibly alluring. Never mind that the execution wasn't always completely on point - and it was ambitious as all get-out. Tokyo's 20K solves the problems of maintaining the show and slow loading processes, but it does so at the expense of the aspirational qualities that would otherwise be inherent in such an experience. For as many people as there are that deeply loved MK's 20K, you hear far, far fewer singing the praises of the Tokyo interpretation. It's a nice enough ride, but the wish-fulfillment is neutered in the name of operations.
What are the aspirational elements inherent in Peter Pan? Taking flight with Neverland as your destination - perfect! That it does it with black velvet, some fiber optics, and aluminum foil is immaterial. It taps into the aspiration of the guests and delivers the appropriate sensations like gangbusters, and the long lines reflect that. Compare that to, say, The Little Mermaid - how many people say their favorite part is the backwards descent under the water? Once you've done that it's like the ride forgets why you'd
want to go under the sea with Ariel and what you'd actually want to do there. Peter Pan tracks along the basic events of the movie without ever putting telling someone else's story ahead of creating an experience for you. Mermaid spends most of its time making everything about you being a mere camera perceiving a fractured version of Ariel's big adventure, rather than putting you in the drivers seat on your own adventure
with her.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - for all of Disney's talk about
story, and everything in the parks having a
story, somewhere along the way they misconstrued that to mean that Themed Design is a Storytelling medium . . . and it really isn't. It's an Experiential one. The
story is meant to explain what it is you're
experiencing - your
experience is not meant to be hewed in by the process of being
told a linear
story. For the most part, if you're being tasked with following someone else's story then they got it wrong. The
story is supposed to be happening TO you, not merely in
front of you.