• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

My opinion of the biggest problem Disney parks has to face

tomast

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Hi everyone,
I want to share my short opinion of what is the biggest problem Disney parks has to face, but not only Disney´s also Universal Studios.

I have read tons of post and comments where the writer describes how Disney is lossing its magic and how universal is a "Screen" park and how Disney may start to copy that in someway. And I think those are kind of true but not because they are doing things wrong or that they are not working hard enough or that they are cheap. I think these feelings come from a huge change in our perspective of Disney´s attractions.

What I mean is that we use to go 10 years ago to disney (lets not talk about 20 or 30 years ago) and everything there was incredible amazing and totaly out of our reech. Every atraction has its "How does they do that?? how is that possible??" that kicks the limits of what can be expected, of what could be done. I mean who could imagine on 1963 to have speaking robotic parrots in their home?? and that year was when The Enchanted Tiki Room first opened. Or to think about VR games or a hole building with arcades like Disney Quest who opens on 1998 (playstation 2 was launched on 2000, the xbox on 2001)

But 11 years ago the Iphone was release. Not limiting to that device but using that date as a confirmation of the tendency in tenchological improvement for mass-consuming. Somehow in this 11 years we saw many many new features and ideas and technologys that have come to our hands faster than ever.

This have two consequences:
1) Disney has been sleeping a while, and this last decade the world change a lot and every day it changes faster while disney parks stays the same.
2) Nowadays is really hard to get that "How does they do that?" When in our pockets we have a cellphone capable of doing almost everything. We have 3D TVs and Google Cardboard/ oculus rift. We can also buy a home projector and buy some Ghosts at AtmosFX or videomappingsoftware.
How does mickey does not speak already? (or no more) We have SIRI in our pockets that can speek with us interactively without any problem!

The challange Disney have infront of them now is how they manage to use this tecnology to make a unique experience. A clear example of using the tecnology wrong is universal studios orlando "Fast and Furious" ride. Its like watching the TV from the window outside your house. Yes we know, we have flat screen and projectors with 3D capabilities ... what else can you show us??

(This is why Thrill rides are nowadays "favorites", you cant have a rollercoaster in your home.)

But Hey! I know Disney has the ability to make wonderfull dark rides. I know they can think of a clever way of using the tecnology and make something Wow! its time for them to make it. (I am pretty confidente SWGE is going to be that or maybe the SW resort)

What do you think about it??
 

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
A Disney ride should never be too “screeny” and should always be a physical experience.

As great as FOP is, I worry about re-rideability and it being too screeny.

Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Splash Mountain, etc don’t get old because they are not reliant on cutting edge technology, screens, and computers. We are exposed to that so much, we are hard to impress.
 

Darth Figment

Well-Known Member
I hate the screen rides, i will ride something with alot AA's in it 20 times , while the screen ride with 3 or 4 AA's once maybe twice . Can you imagine HM just a screen ride .
Please Disney, dont go the way of flat screen rides . ( mickeys runaway railroad, ratatouille, flat screen rides for the most part)
 

TwilightZone

Well-Known Member
I think it depends on the ride.
Star tours, soarin over california, flight of passage, and nemo subs are good screen rides. They immerse enough to make you feel you're there. MMRR looks like it will be this way too.
Midway Mania, seas with nemo, and navi river journey are terrible screen rides. They don't immerse you enough to make you feel like you're there, no matter how good the ride is.
 

JohnyKaz2078

Well-Known Member
Midway Mania, seas with nemo, and navi river journey are terrible screen rides. They don't immerse you enough to make you feel like you're there, no matter how good the ride is.

Nah, they aren't terrible. They're just not that good like the others you mentioned.

TSM is a bunch of screens but it's quite fun and if it weren't for the huge wait times (last time I visited in October last year it reached 130 minutes) I would ride it again.

The Seas with Nemo is just a mediocre dark ride (without many screens) that was built as a way to inject a popular IP in a crumbling pavilion and as a way to make Epcot more kid-friendly. Not a fan though.

NRJ isn't exactly a screen ride. It has some screens but the average guest wouldn't be bothered. It is obviously worse than FOP and many other rides that combine screens and physical (Peter Pan and POC in Shanghai, Gringotts and Spiderman in USO etc.) but it isn't terrible.
 
Last edited:

BasiltheBatLord

Well-Known Member
I think people sometimes discount the fact that it's natural for there to be future reactions to current trends. I think it's entirely possible that a future generation of Imagineers will share many of our complaints about screens and therefore opt to use physical sets and figures more in new attractions (assuming management allows that, since maintenance of physical elements is more expensive). I think that applies for a lot of current concerns about the parks.
 

marni1971

WDW History nut
Premium Member
I think -IMHO- in four years or so this discussion could be more relevant. Concentrating primarily on your worry about competition, Universal will have a third park very possibly open, and there is a realisation / admittance within Comcast Towers / Creative that the screens issue is a) very real and b) detrimental. This began to (finally) sink in during Fallon development, but by then it was too late to cancel that and F&F. The indifference from the general public, particularly to the latter, only cemented the opinion that "screenz is bad".

Screens will never be stopped to be used. I’d expect to see them more than 20/30 years ago. They offer so many advantages and the technology will only continue to progress. But I don’t think we will continue to see a plethora of "screen based” attractions at the expense of “physical”. I know of several attractions that Creative have developed that have minimal use of screens.

Falcon will primarily have screens. It’s the only way to do it. Escape will follow the Transformers model of having screens supplemented by physical sets to create an environment otherwise too costly and/or improbable to create. Rat will of course. UK might not. But they also have to learn (from River Journey in particular) that physical sets with screens embedded doesn’t get an automatic pass.

You have to perhaps travel back to the likes of Horizons where screens and projections supplemented physical sets - the perfect mix of media. And consider to what extent screens are actually screens. Do the projected clouds on the PotC cyc make it a screen? The silhouette projections of Splash? These are a perfect example of a complete mix of every media available making an attraction better, an addition not a distraction.
 
Last edited:

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Rides need to be fun and unique, repeat the same ride style and you invite comparison. I firmly believe that the problem isn’t screens but sameness that is affecting parks:

At Universal- I vastly prefer Spider-man to Transformers, it is very obvious these are the same ride and every time I ride Transformers the thought of why I’m riding this ride when I could do another ride (whether it’s one of the Studios unique rides or Spider-man.) Samething for every theatre 4-d that isn’t Minion Mayhem, F&F.

Disney doesn’t suffer this as much, other then each park having a 4-D theatre, NRJ fails in comparison to Pirates in taking you on a slow moving boat ride to a Fantasy environment.

Don’t rely on the same tricks, vary the experience and you get praise. Gringots succeeds where Transformers fails because it uses roller coaster elements, does not use the big drop moment as the climax. No one complains about the Hogwatts express or FOP because the vehicle is unique. Everest has a backwards portion, Space is in the dark which makes each different enough then BTMRR to each feel very different despite all three being Runaway Mine Train style coasters.
 
Last edited:

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
I hate the screen rides, i will ride something with alot AA's in it 20 times , while the screen ride with 3 or 4 AA's once maybe twice . Can you imagine HM just a screen ride .
Please Disney, dont go the way of flat screen rides . ( mickeys runaway railroad, ratatouille, flat screen rides for the most part)

No, I can't imagine HM as a screen ride, but I also can't imagine Flight of Passage as a ride with AA's and physical sets. Screens should just be another tool in the Imagineering toolbox and used where appropriate. The key is to have a balance. I love Universal, and don't really hate any of the screen based rides, but I think there just to many of them at this point.
 

marni1971

WDW History nut
Premium Member
I am aware of the physical differences between the rides, but I think most guest would tell you they are basically the same ride.
Its not obviously the same ride. There’s a difference between obviously and basically.

They use the same ride system. They have projection screens. That’s where the similarities end. I speak having ridden with average guest first timers. “Like Spider-Man but different" seemed to fit.
 
Last edited:

Damon7777

Well-Known Member
Star tours, soarin over california, flight of passage, and nemo subs are good screen rides.......

.......Midway Mania, seas with nemo, and navi river journey are terrible screen rides.

Nemo Subs and Navi River are not screen based rides.....they merely have moments of screen time. They rely on full 3 dimentional sets far more.

And Seas with Nemo is nowhere near a fully realized screen ride....there are tangible, corporal sets all over it.
 

King Raccoon 77

I have never been in a bar in Milwaukee !
Premium Member
images(24) (1).jpg
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Screens should just be another tool in the Imagineering toolbox and used where appropriate. The key is to have a balance.
Exactly. When screens and projections are used as part of a pallete of techniques, its OK. Part of the problem with screens is that no matter how good, its never as immersive as something physical. Just like it is more believable in star wars to have puppet yoda than CG yoda. Projections have always been a part of Disney as far back as I can remember. But like anything, if you keep doing the same thing, it just won't have the same effect over time.

While the overuse of screen based attractions is a problem. In my eyes, thematic integrity is a bigger problem for Disney. You have 2 parks that have no real identity aside from just being a mix of things. Hodge podge is not a theme. Maybe they have a grand Re-theming for epcot and the studios to bring back their unique identities. Of course I doubt it though. Disney was built on the "every last detail" mentality. Now, not so much. Things like Frozen in Norway, the Guardians in energy, or even the Haunted mansion interactive queue, it's all in the details. But that just might be me.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Both rides have the same ride vehicle
Both rides ratchet up the tension by placing you in positions where the bad guys nearly kill you
Both rides use the same effects (3-d screens, wind, Splash, simulator movements)
Both rides climax in a drop sequence

I’m aware they have a different layout, and one has a hidden 2 elevators but they are the same and regular guests frequently compare the two. Guests also compare F&F and Kong. They are alike enough to be compared directly, even though they aren’t twins. It’s like when Dueling Dragons was around, while the rides were different they were alike enough to be compared directly as they were more alike then different.
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I am aware of the physical differences between the rides, but I think most guest would tell you they are basically the same ride.
Its not obviously the same ride. There’s a difference between obviously and basically.

They use the same ride system. They have projection screens. That’s where the similarities end. I speak having ridden with average guest first timers. “Like Spider-Man but different" seemed to fit.
For the first time you are the one grasping a straws here, or perhaps there is a difference between the meanings in GB then here. What @danlb_2000 stated is true. If the public is saying it is basically the same ride, that is what they are obviously seeing. You probably have plans that show the differences in the mechanics of the ride. But the story is different to a small degree, the gags are basically the same, the outcome is the same, the characters are different and the general public is totally unaware of what the mechanical differences are. So when they say "it's like Spider-Man but different" it is the differences that I just pointed out that they are referring too. However, just the mere idea that they will compare it to a specific ride means that there are enough obvious similarities to be recognized. I know I did and I will confess to not having a clue as to the mechanical differences. I still got the blast of heat in my face at one of the scenes on both of them along with the same basic story line and the same basic feeling of deja vu.
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I don’t think so. The OP said:

Which they are not.
You're being a little to literal with words, Martin. Perhaps it is possible that it would have been better understood if they had said it is obviously the same basic story. Like you, sometimes we leave out crucial words that would make the point clearer for others to understand.
 

marni1971

WDW History nut
Premium Member
You're being a little to literal with words, Martin. Perhaps it is possible that it would have been better understood if they had said it is obviously the same basic story. Like you, sometimes we leave out crucial words that would make the point clearer for others to understand.
This very topic has been discussed numerous times. I’ve said my humble opinion before. As I’ve just done again.

As for what the OP said, you’ll have to ask them. I’m not changing their wording. Just quoting them.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom